Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad DEI? The acronym has become almost toxic now — a word that creates almost instant tension between those who embrace it and those who want it dead.
A prime example of this dichotomy is the response to Scale AI founder Alexander Wang mail On X last week. He has written about moving away from DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) to instead embrace “MEI” – merit, excellence and intelligence.
“Size is a meritocracy, and it should always be that way,” Wang wrote. “It’s a big deal when we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been influenced by traditional beliefs or virtue signaling or whatever the current situation is.”
X’s commentators — including Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Brian Armstrong — were thrilled. However, on LinkedIn, the startup community gave it an A Less enthusiastic Answer. These commenters pointed out that Wang’s post made it seem as if “merit” is the ultimate criterion for finding qualified candidates for hire — without taking into account that the idea of merit is itself subjective. In the days since this post, more and more people have shared their thoughts and what Wang’s comments reveal about the current state of DEI in tech.
“This post is misleading because people who support the meritocracy ignore the structural reasons why some groups are more likely to outperform others,” Motale Nkonde, a founder who works on AI policy, told TechCrunch. “We all want the best people for the job, and there is data proving that diverse teams are more effective.”
Emily Witko, an HR expert at AI startup Hugging Face, told TechCrunch that the post was a “dangerous oversimplification,” but that it received a lot of attention on To attack DEI.” Wang’s idea at MEI “makes it very easy to refute or criticize any conversations about the importance of acknowledging underrepresentation in tech,” she continued.
But Wang isn’t the only Silicon Valley insider to attack DEI in recent months. He joins the chorus of those who feel that the DEI programs implemented at companies over the past several years, culminating with the Black Lives Matter movement, have caused a decline in corporate profitability — and that a return to “meritocracy principles” is overdue. In fact, much of the technology industry has dismantled hiring programs that took into account candidates who were often overlooked in the hiring process under previous hiring systems.
Seeking to make a difference, in 2020, many organizations and powerful actors came together to promise a greater focus on DEI, which, contrary to mainstream discussion, is not just about hiring someone based on the color of their skin but is about ensuring qualified people of all ages are represented. walks of life – regardless of skin, gender or ethnic background – are better understood and included in employment pathways. It’s also about taking a look at the disparities and pipeline issues, and analyzing the reasons behind them Why some candidates They are constantly overlooked in the hiring process.
In 2023, the US data industry will see new levels of female employment He falls By two-thirds, from 36% in 2022 to just 12%, according to a report by HR recruitment company Harnham. Meanwhile, the percentage of Black, Indigenous, and professionals of color in VP roles or higher stood up By only 38% in 2022.
DEI-related job listings are also falling out of favor, falling by 44% in 2023, according to data from job site Indeed. In the artificial intelligence industry, Deloitte is the latest reconnaissance Of the women, it found that more than half said they had ended up leaving at least one employer because of the way men and women are treated differently, while 73% had considered leaving the tech industry altogether due to unequal pay and an inability to advance in their lives. Professional.
However, for an industry that prides itself on being data-driven, Silicon Valley cannot afford to abandon the idea of meritocracy – after all. Data and research It shows how this thinking is just a belief system that can lead to biased results. The idea of going out and hiring “the best person for the job” without considering any human sociology is how pattern matching happens – teams and companies of similar people, When research showed long ago That more diverse teams perform better. Moreover, it has raised doubts about who considers the valley excellent and why.
The experts we spoke to said This is subjectivity It revealed other problems with Wang’s message — mostly that he presents MEI as a revolutionary idea and not one that Silicon Valley and most corporate America have long embraced. The abbreviation “MEI” appears to be a pejorative reference to DEI, intended to convey the idea that a company must choose between hiring diverse candidates or candidates who meet certain “objective” qualifications.
Natalie Sue Johnson, co-founder of DEI consulting firm Paradigm, told TechCrunch: Research has shown Meritocracy is a paradox, and organizations that place too much emphasis on it actually see an increase in bias. “It frees people from thinking that they have to try hard to be fair in the decision-making process,” she continued. “They believe merit is something inherent, not something to be achieved.”
As Nkonde mentioned, Johnson noted that Wang’s approach does not acknowledge that underrepresented groups face systemic barriers that society is still struggling to address. Ironically, the most admirable person may be the person who has achieved the skill set needed for a job despite barriers that may have influenced his or her educational background or prevented him from filling his CV with the kind of college training that so impresses Silicon Valley.
Treating someone like a faceless candidate, without understanding their unique experiences and therefore their employability, is a mistake, Johnson said. “There is a nuance.”
“The merit system is built on criteria that reflect the status quo and, therefore, will perpetuate existing inequalities by continually favoring those who already have advantages,” Witko added.
To be somewhat charitable toward Wang, given how acidic the term DEI is, developing a new term that still represents the value of fairness to all candidates is not a terrible idea — even if the “merit” is misleading. His post refers to a scale of AI values could Johnson said he aligns with the spirit of diversity, equity and inclusion even if he doesn’t realize it.
“Creating a broad network of talent and making objective hiring decisions that don’t disadvantage candidates based on identity is exactly what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion seeks to do,” she explained.
But again, what Wang undermines is his endorsement of the false belief that meritocracy will lead to results based solely on one’s abilities and merits.
Maybe it’s all a paradox. Looking at the way Scale AI treats its data explainers — many of whom live in third-world countries and are poorly paid — it suggests that the company has little real interest in disrupting the status quo.
Scale AI annotators work on assignments for multiple eight-hour workdays — with no breaks — for pay as low as $10 (Per The Edge and New York Mag). Thanks to these explainers, Scale AI has built a company worth over $13 billion and over $1.6 billion cash in the bank.
When asked to comment on the allegations in the Verge and NY Mag article, a company spokesperson pointed this out This blog post, where human commentators’ jobs were described as “temporary work.” A spokesperson did not address TechCrunch’s request for clarification on Scale AI’s MEI policy.
Johnson said Wang’s post is a great example of the box many leaders and companies find themselves trapped in.
Can they trust, she wondered, that having ideals of meritocracy is enough to achieve truly worthy results and promote diversity?
“Or do they recognize that ideals are not enough, and that truly building a more diverse workforce where everyone has the same access to opportunities and can do their best work requires intention?”