DEI to DUI: Cronyism Undermines Hiring Quality, Not Diversity

My article on McDonald’s decision to walk away from DEI provoked a white male to comment:

“DEI IS STUPID. HIRE QUALIFIED PEOPLE!!”

While lacking a certain rhetorical sophistication, the commenter’s reaction provoked me to investigate the assumption that diversity and hiring quality don’t mix. Well…Trump’s administrations, both 45 and 47, clearly dispelled this myth. The real enemies of merit are cronyism and nepotism; plenty of both are on display in Corporate America and our government.

When Republicans declare war on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), they do so with the fervor of a preacher denouncing sin — all while conveniently overlooking their glaring contradictions. They rail against efforts to create opportunities for underrepresented groups, arguing that such initiatives undermine meritocracy. Yet, their hiring practices tell a very different story — a tale where cronyism reigns supreme and qualifications often take a backseat to loyalty. Enter Pete Hegseth, a Trump-era favorite whose record and rise exemplify what I call the “DUI hiring protocol.”

Let’s not mince words. Hegseth’s resume is less about leadership and more about allegiance. He’s a man who once threw axes on live television — and missed. He’s better known for his partisan soundbites than for any substantive achievements. Yet, this same individual is seriously being considered for the position of defense secretary for Trump. It begs the question: If DEI initiatives supposedly sacrifice quality for diversity, what does the appointment of individuals like Hegseth sacrifice?

DEI Versus DUI: A Tale of Two Hiring Standards

DEI initiatives aim to level the playing field, creating opportunities for historically marginalized groups who have long been excluded from corridors of power. Critics argue that this compromises quality, claiming that positions should go to the “most qualified” candidates, regardless of their background. But let’s look closer at who gets hired when DEI is absent.

A 2020 report by the Economic Policy Institute found that nepotism and cronyism disproportionately benefit white men, who are overrepresented in leadership positions despite lacking the credentials often demanded of their non-white, female, or LGBTQ+ peers. For example, white men hold 62% of C-suite positions despite representing only 35% of the population. When DEI initiatives attempt to address this imbalance, opponents cry foul, insisting on the sanctity of “merit.”

Yet, under Trump, merit often seems optional. Consider the appointments of individuals like Betsy DeVos, whose experience in education policy could generously be described as limited, or Ben Carson, a brilliant surgeon but a curious pick to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern where loyalty trumped expertise. Pun intended.

Affirmative Action for White Men

The data doesn’t lie. According to a 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study, job applicants with “white-sounding” names receive 50% more callbacks than those with “Black-sounding” names, even when their qualifications are identical. In practice, this means that white candidates are given the benefit of the doubt in hiring, often advancing based on perceived potential rather than proven performance.

Let’s juxtapose this with the GOP’s opposition to affirmative action, which they frame as “reverse discrimination.” Yet, their outrage seems to evaporate when unqualified white men are elevated to positions of power. DEI doesn’t undermine meritocracy, but it might reveal what they really fear — the quality of whiteness doesn’t necessarily equal the quality of hire.

The Cost of Cronyism

Cronyism isn’t just an ethical lapse; it’s a practical liability. A 2019 study published in the Harvard Business Review found that organizations with more diverse leadership teams are 36% more likely to outperform their peers financially. Diversity fosters innovation, encourages different perspectives, and leads to better decision-making. Conversely, hiring based on loyalty or shared ideology often results in echo chambers, where poor decisions go unchallenged.

Take, for example, the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. From sidelining career public health experts to promoting unproven treatments, the administration’s reliance on unqualified loyalists had deadly consequences. It’s hard to argue that DEI initiatives would have fared worse when the alternative was a revolving door of sycophants.

Optics Versus Outcomes

The optics of diversity are often used to dismiss its outcomes. Critics point to high-profile missteps by DEI hires as evidence that the concept is flawed. Yet, the same scrutiny is rarely applied to the blunders of white men in power. When Pete Hegseth misses the mark — literally and figuratively — it’s framed as an anomaly. When a DEI hire falters, it’s treated as a systemic failure.

Consider the contrast between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Harris, the first woman of color to serve as Vice President, faces relentless scrutiny for every perceived misstep. Meanwhile, Trump’s failings — from incoherent speeches to 30-plus felony convictions — are shrugged off by his base. The double standard isn’t just frustrating; it’s a deliberate tactic to undermine the credibility of diversity and the ideal of hiring quality people in general.

But a more profound truth that I’ve learned from focusing on inclusion in the workplace is even white men fare better with efforts to mitigate cronyism. Efforts to make the workplace more fair and diverse go way beyond race and ethnicity, a fact Trump and his billionaire friends don’t want you to know. As one white male employee said, “I’m tired of being sidelined because I didn’t go to an Ivy League school, come from the right side of the tracks, or work in the right department.”

Reframing the Narrative to Focus on Inclusion

It’s time to flip the script. DEI initiatives are not about lowering standards; they’re about raising them, but we need to focus on inclusion and belonging first. Building a productive team requires challenging entrenched social and business norms and prioritizing competence over connections to create a more equitable and effective workplace. Also, it isn’t a bad idea to make one of the qualifications about the content of one’s character. The real threat to quality isn’t diversity. It’s allowing DUI hiring practices to prioritize loyalty over leadership.

To those who still argue that anything even hinting at DEI, like inclusion-first management, undermines merit, I say this: Look around. The evidence is overwhelming. Organizations that embrace inclusion and diversity thrive, while those that rely on cronyism falter. The choice isn’t between diversity and quality; it’s between progress and stagnation.

As for Pete Hegseth and his ilk, let them serve as cautionary tales. These unqualified “crony” hires will, ultimately, hurt the average working white man the most because everyone pays the price when you trade merit for loyalty. And in a complex and interconnected world, we can’t afford to keep missing the mark.