Silicon Valley leaders are labeling ‘DEI’ as harmful and ‘meritocracy’ as ideal
Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad DEI? Exploring the Rift in Silicon Valley
The acronym DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has become a contentious topic, sparking polarized reactions between advocates and detractors. This divide was starkly illustrated when Alexandr Wang, founder of Scale AI, took to X (formerly Twitter) to propose a shift from DEI to “MEI” — Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence.
“Scale is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one,” Wang proclaimed. “Every decision to bring someone on board is crucial and has never been influenced by current trends or virtue signaling.”
Wang’s statement drew enthusiastic responses on X from notable figures like Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Brian Armstrong. Conversely, on LinkedIn, the reception from the startup community was less favorable. Critics argued that Wang’s emphasis on “meritocracy” overlooks the inherent subjectivity of the term. They pointed out that relying solely on meritocracy ignores systemic barriers that can prevent some groups from showcasing their full potential.
Emily Witko, an HR specialist at Hugging Face, also weighed in, calling Wang’s perspective a “dangerous oversimplification.” She noted that X users were likely drawn to the post because it candidly voiced anti-DEI sentiments, which resonate with those eager to critique DEI initiatives. Witko warned that Wang’s MEI framework could undermine efforts to address underrepresentation in tech, making it easier to dismiss conversations about diversity.
Wang is not alone in his critique of DEI. A growing number of Silicon Valley insiders have argued that DEI initiatives, particularly those intensified during the Black Lives Matter movement, have hindered corporate success. These critics advocate for a return to “meritocratic principles,” believing that such a shift is necessary to restore profitability. Consequently, many tech companies have scaled back recruitment programs that aimed to consider candidates from historically underrepresented backgrounds.
In 2020, numerous organizations pledged to prioritize DEI, emphasizing that it’s not just about token hires but about ensuring qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds are fairly represented. This approach also involves examining disparities in recruitment and addressing the systemic reasons why certain candidates are often overlooked.
What’s happening right now
Despite these efforts, recent data paints a bleak picture for DEI in tech. The HR staffing firm Harnham reported a sharp decline in new female recruits in the U.S. data industry, from 36% in 2022 to just 12% in 2023. Similarly, the proportion of Black, Indigenous, and professionals of color in senior data roles was a mere 38% in 2022. Job listings related to DEI have also seen a significant drop, with a 44% decline in 2023 according to Indeed.
Moreover, a Deloitte survey revealed that over half of the women in AI had left at least one employer due to gender disparities, and 73% had considered leaving the tech industry due to unequal pay and limited career advancement opportunities.
Despite the tech industry’s reputation for being data-driven, the concept of meritocracy remains deeply ingrained, even as research suggests it often leads to biased outcomes. The notion of hiring “the best person for the job” without considering sociological factors can result in homogenous teams, whereas studies consistently show that diverse teams achieve better results. This has led to questions about who Silicon Valley regards as “excellent” and why.
Experts argue that Wang’s MEI concept is not revolutionary but rather a critique of DEI disguised as a call for merit-based hiring. Natalie Sue Johnson, co-founder of DEI consultancy Paradigm, explained to TechCrunch that meritocracy, when overly emphasized, can actually increase bias. “It allows people to believe they are inherently fair without recognizing the effort required to ensure fairness,” she said. Johnson emphasized that systemic barriers must be acknowledged, as the most qualified candidates are often those who have excelled despite such obstacles.
Evaluating candidates solely on faceless, nameless criteria, without considering their unique experiences, is a flawed approach, Johnson added. “There is nuance in assessing a person’s qualifications.”
In a more charitable view, Wang’s proposal for MEI, while flawed, might be an attempt to find a new term that captures fairness without the baggage DEI has acquired. Johnson suggested that Scale AI’s values might align with the essence of DEI, even if Wang doesn’t explicitly recognize it. “Casting a wide net for talent and making fair, unbiased hiring decisions aligns with what DEI aims to achieve,” she said.
However, Wang’s endorsement of meritocracy implies that abilities and merits alone dictate outcomes, a belief that disregards the complexities of systemic inequities.
Wang’s position highlights a broader paradox faced by many leaders and companies: whether to trust in meritocratic ideals alone to foster diversity or to recognize that intentional efforts are necessary to build truly inclusive workplaces. This tension is compounded by reports of Scale AI’s treatment of its annotators, many of whom work under challenging conditions for low pay, suggesting a gap between the company’s stated ideals and its practices.
