A worthwhile idea is straying into cruelty and, possibly, illegality
IT AMOUNTS TO a bonfire of rainbow tape. Donald Trump has declared war on DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion. He is already reshaping American institutions. Companies are abandoning programmes that they had put in place to increase the racial and gender diversity of their workforces (or at least renaming them to avoid Mr Trump’s ire). The whiplash has been most severe inside the federal government. There, Mr Trump’s people, in the form of Elon Musk and his DOGEtenants, are uprooting DEI staff, programmes and contracts with unseemly relish. A reasonable idea for reform is straying into self-defeating cruelty and, possibly, outright illegality.
Insofar as Mr Trump’s moves against DEI are designed to make America more meritocratic, they are welcome. Firms owe their shareholders an open competition for jobs. In recent years they have paid lip service to anti-discrimination laws while intervening to diversify their labour force. Such policies were justified by research by McKinsey, a consultancy, tying diversity to profits. But the methodology has been criticised, the causality unproven and other studies have reached different conclusions. Indeed the policies may backfire by casting suspicion on the merits of minorities and women who are promoted. One of the most flagrant interventions—a rule which required companies listed on Nasdaq to have a diverse board, or explain why they did not—was shot down by an appeals court in December. Since the election, firms including Google, McDonald’s and Target have scrapped policies designed to engineer the composition of their workers and suppliers.
What is extravagant in business often becomes even more wasteful in government. That is why Mr Trump is right to scrap affirmative-action rules in the bureaucracy. Quite how much money might be saved by dismantling diversity initiatives within government services is unclear, but the Veterans Affairs Department alone has suspended 60 workers. The same is true for rules that govern companies tendering for government contracts. Removing them will lower the cost of doing business with the government and thereby boost competition.
Yet the way Mr Trump is enforcing his mandate is dangerous and cruel. He has asked officials to produce reports that shame the worst DEI offenders, including companies. His vague anti-DEI order for firms seems crafted to take on progressive initiatives in the workplace rather than just reverse discrimination. Anti-bias training, affinity groups and identity months may often be associated with corporate mediocrity. But whether a particular company sees them as useful should be for its shareholders, customers and employees to sort out between themselves. It should not be determined by fiat in the White House.
The president’s relationship with the bureaucracy is different. Here Mr Trump has a legitimate role in determining how the administration should work. Yet he is trying to pin everything on DEI. Last week, without any evidence, he blamed a collision between a passenger jet and a military helicopter on diversity hiring. He was exploiting a tragedy in an apparent bid to prove that his sweeping approach was necessary.
Worse, the attack on DEI looks more like a purge of any civil servant whom his DOGEtenants suspect of disloyalty. Some with only minimal connections to past diversity efforts are reportedly being placed on leave. When explaining her boss’s desire to shut down USAID, the main American development agency, the White House press secretary rattled off a list of DEI initiatives as justification. However, whatever the benefits of scrapping DEI, the government cannot simply flout the law. Indiscriminate witch hunts and institution-wrecking are probably illegal. Even if he gets his way, they are certain to backfire.
Credit: The Economist
