Yes, unfortunately, there is still racism in America. There will probably always be a degree of racism in America, as there is in virtually every country on earth. It is almost impossible to rid the United States and any other nation of the last bigot. 

Still, two truths are plain. First, there has been enormous progress in improving race relations in the U.S., perhaps most visibly demonstrated by the election of a Black president in 2008 and 2012 and a Black vice president in 2020. 

Second, to the extent progress will continue to be made, it is not likely to occur through diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) bean counting whereby we attempt to ensure exact numerical representation of each racial/ethnic group in every sector of society. Race-based decisions, after all, are by definition racist.

As Heather Mac Donald put it succinctly in Imprimis in a February commentary headlined “Disparate Impact Thinking is Destroying Our Civilization”: 

“The most consequential falsehood in American public policy today is the idea that any racial disparity in any institution is by definition the result of racial discrimination. If a cancer research lab, for example, does not have 13% Black oncologists — the Black share of the national population — it is by definition a racist lab that discriminates against competitively qualified Black oncologists; if an airline company doesn’t have 13% Black pilots, it is by definition a racist airline company that discriminates against competitively qualified Black pilots; and if a prison population contains more than 13% Black prisoners, our law enforcement system is racist.” 

Well, let’s engage in this silly bean counting exercise for a moment and see where it takes us. Have you noticed when watching TV lately that we have “disparate impacts” in television advertising. That is, based on observing TV ads, one would think that Blacks make up roughly half of American society rather than only 13%, because in the post-George Floyd, DEI, “woke” era, this is what TV commercials look like. If you think I am exaggerating, try doing a content analysis of commercials on almost any TV station.

Should we be upset by this? No, not really, because it is not as if it is important that the actors in TV commercials be selected based on merit rather than skin color or political correctness. Surely, though, it makes a difference when, under the DEI regime, merit is secondary in hiring doctors and airline pilots. As I have written previously, when you are about to undergo an open-heart operation or board an airplane, do you want a surgical team or cockpit crew that “looks like America” or, rather, is the very best no matter the coloration? The answer should be obvious.

John Sailor notes in a March 12 commentary in the Wall Street Journal, for example, that the National Institutes of Health has prioritized “diversity statements” in funding neurobiology research grants and other medical research at Cornell University and elsewhere. In 2020, NIH gave 12 universities more than $240 million over nine years for “diversity focused faculty hiring,” i.e. “ideological litmus tests.” 

Mac Donald writes that “the average Medical College Achievement Test (MCAT) score for Black applicants is a standard deviation below the average score of white applicants. Some medical schools have waived the submission of MCAT scores altogether for Black applicants. … Heads of medical schools and chairmen of departments like pediatric surgery are being selected on the basis of identity, not knowledge.”

She writes that what is at stake here is “future medical progress and, ultimately, lives.” 

Similar undermining of meritocracy can be seen in law, the arts and other sectors. There are perverse effects felt here also, including the unfortunate uncertainty over whether minority hires fully have earned their appointments, a stigma they do not deserve. 

Let me stress that I understand and value diversity. I respect, for example, my friend Phyllis Markus, recently recognized as a “Woman of Achievement” for her “multicultural advocacy,” who “has worked tirelessly to foster connections between diverse religions, ethnic and racial groups in St. Louis, all to cultivate a more inclusive society” (Ladue News).

It does a disservice to her and others to reduce this to bean counting. As Bill Ackman, a prominent Harvard alum who has accused the university of antisemitism, has stated: 

“I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean … diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing and more. What I learned however, is that DEI … was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed [based on unequal outcomes].” (The Free Press, Jan. 3). 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) states that a “forthcoming study … demonstrates that colleges [when considering job candidates] penalize … prospective faculty whose [DEI] statements focus on rural diversity, socioeconomic diversity or intellectual diversity rather than race, ethnicity or gender.” 

FIRE points to a hopeful sign, that “MIT is taking a bold step by abolishing these mandatory [diversity] statements. True to its mission, the university chose to prioritize ‘generating, disseminating and preserving knowledge’ above any singular ideology.” (FIRE, May 9).

More institutions need to follow MIT’s lead. The DEI movement not only, in Mac Donald’s words, threatens to “destroy civilization” but also undermines the legacy of Martin Luther King and his commitment to a colorblind society. 

We can do much better, for example, trying to address the academic skills gap that accounts for so many disparate outcomes. 

Bean counting is not the answer.