Who’s afraid of the Big Bad DEI? The acronym is now almost poisonous – a word that causes almost immediate tension between those that embrace it and those that want it dead.
An ideal example of this division was the response of Alexander Wang, founding father of the startup Scale AI post last week in X. He wrote about moving away from DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) in favor of “MEI” – merit, excellence and intelligence.
“Scale is a meritocracy and we must always remain so,” Wang wrote. “Any time we invite someone to join our mission, it is a big deal, and these decisions have never been influenced by orthodoxy, virtue signaling, or anything else that is out there today.”
X’s commentators – including Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Brian Armstrong – were delighted. However, on LinkedIn, the startup community gave not very enthusiastic answer. These commenters identified that Wang’s post made it seem as if “meritocracy” was the ultimate benchmark for finding qualified job candidates – without taking into account that the concept of meritocracy itself is subjective. In the following days, more and more people shared their thoughts and what Wang’s comments reveal about the current state of DEI technology.
“The post is misleading because those supporting the meritocratic argument ignore the structural reasons why some groups are more likely to outperform others,” Mutale Nkonde, a founder working on AI policy, told TechCrunch. “We all want the best people in the job, and there is data to prove that diverse teams are more effective.”
Emily Witko, human resources specialist at AI startup Hugging Face, told TechCrunch that the post was a “dangerous oversimplification” but that it garnered so much attention on X because it “openly expressed feelings that are not always expressed publicly, and the audience there is hungry to attack DEI.” Wang’s MEI thought “makes it easy to debunk or criticize any conversation about the importance of recognizing underrepresentation in the tech industry,” she continued.
But Wang is not the only Silicon Valley insider to attack DEI in recent months. He joins the chorus of those that consider that DEI programs implemented in corporations over the last few years, which peaked with the Black Lives Matter movement, have caused a decline in corporate profitability and that a return to “meritocratic principles” is overdue. Indeed, much of the tech industry has worked to dismantle recruiting programs that considered candidates who were often omitted from the hiring process under previous recruiting systems.
Wanting to make a difference, many organizations and influencers got here together in 2020 to vow an increased focus on DEI, which – contrary to mainstream discussion – is not simply about hiring someone based on the color of their skin, but goals to make sure Qualified people from all backgrounds – no matter skin, gender or ethnicity – are higher represented and included in recruitment pathways. It’s also about looking at pipeline discrepancies and issues and analyzing the reasoning behind them why some candidates are always missed in the recruitment process.
In 2023, the US data industry saw a surge in the recruitment of latest women drop by two thirds, from 36% in 2022 to simply 12%, in keeping with a report by HR Harnham. Meanwhile, the percentage of Black, Indigenous and professionals of color in vice chairman or higher positions steel to simply 38% in 2022.
According to data from the job site Indeed, DEI-related job openings have also fallen out of favor, declining by 44% in 2023. In the AI industry recently, Deloitte questionnaire women said that greater than half said they had left at least one employer attributable to differential treatment of girls and men, and 73% had considered leaving the tech industry altogether attributable to unequal pay and an inability to advance in their careers.
But for an industry that prides itself on being data-driven, Silicon Valley cannot abandon the idea of meritocracy – despite all data and research showing that such considering is just a belief system and can result in 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 corporations made up of comparable people, when research showed way back that more diverse teams perform higher. Moreover, it only raised suspicions about who the Valley considered perfect and why.
This is what the experts we talked to say this subjectivity revealed other problems with Wang’s writing — mainly that he portrays MEI as a revolutionary idea reasonably than one that Silicon Valley and much of corporate America have long embraced. The acronym “MEI” appears to be a disparaging nod to DEI, intended to drive home the idea that a company must make a choice from hiring diverse candidates and candidates who meet certain “objective” qualifications.
Natalie Sue Johnson, co-founding father of DEI consulting firm Paradigm, told TechCrunch that the research have shown meritocracy is a paradox and that organizations that focus too much on it actually see an increase in bias. “It frees people from thinking that they have to try very hard to make fair decisions,” she continued. “They think meritocracy is something inherent, not something to be achieved.”
As Nkonde mentioned, Johnson noted that Wang’s approach fails to acknowledge that underrepresented groups face systemic barriers that society is still struggling to deal with. Ironically, the most deserving person could also be the one who acquired the skills required for the job despite barriers that may have impacted her education or prevented her from filling her resume with college internships that make an impression in Silicon Valley.
Treating an individual as a candidate without a face or name, without understanding their unique experiences and due to this fact employability, is a mistake, Johnson said. “There are nuances.”
Witko added: “A meritocratic system is based on criteria that reflect the status quo, so it will perpetuate existing inequalities by constantly favoring those who already have an advantage.”
Showing some kindness to Wang, given how virulent the term DEI has grow to be, developing a latest term that still represents the value of fairness for all candidates is not a terrible idea — even if “meritocracy” is misunderstood. His post suggests that Scale AI’s values are aligned with the spirit of diversity, equity and inclusion, even if he doesn’t know it, Johnson said.
“Casting a wide net of talent and making objective hiring decisions that do not disadvantage candidates based on identity is exactly what diversity, equity and inclusion is intended to do,” she explained.
However, once again, Wang challenges this thesis by confirming the misconception that meritocracy will produce results based solely on a person’s skills and merits.
Perhaps this is all a paradox. If you look at the way Scale AI treats its data annotators – many of whom live in third-world countries and survive on low wages – it suggests the company is not interested in disrupting the established order.
Scale AI commentators work on tasks for multiple eight-hour days – without breaks – for a salary of around $10 (in keeping with Verge and NY Mag). It is because of these commenters that Scale AI has built a company price over $13 billion with over $1.6 billion in money in the bank.
When asked to comment on the allegations in the Verge and NY Mag article, a spokesperson identified this blog post, in which she described her job as a note-author as “concert work.” The spokesperson didn’t reply to TechCrunch’s request for clarification regarding Scale AI’s MEI policy.
Johnson said Wang’s position is a perfect example of the trap that many leaders and corporations find themselves in.
She wondered if they could trust that having meritocratic ideals was enough to guide to really meritocratic outcomes and promote diversity?
“Or do they acknowledge that ideals are not enough and that to truly build a more diverse workforce where everyone has equal access to opportunity and can do their job to the best of their ability requires intention?”