The English dictionary has just been updated with a new slur: DEI. Adding this word before any noun – like ‘hire’, ‘pick’, ‘appointee’, etc. — is now ipso facto racist. This change comes in the wake of Kamala Harris being undemocratically catapulted to the likely Democrat nominee for president. Subsequently, the leftist political establishment has agreed that it is now verboten to point out that Harris may have been picked for reasons related to her gonads and melanin content.

In an op-ed for The New York Times, contributor Lydia Polgreen asserted that calling someone a “DEI hire” stems from the idea that “Black achievement … is always unearned and conferred without regard to merit.” This claim invites discussion about what it means to see black faces in high spaces, and how opponents of racial and gender preferences should best discuss this issue.

First and foremost, there is a fundamental disconnect between what proponents of race preferences say and what they allow opponents to conclude. The Left denounces as “racist” not just those who advocate the elimination of race-based college admissions, hiring practices, and DEI programs but also those who conclude that any one individual was a beneficiary of these practices.

Kamala Harris, as both vice president and the presumed Democrat presidential nominee, is a prime example of this. Joe Biden promised to pick a woman of color vice president. This condemned him to picking someone who dropped out after polling at 2% in the 2020 Democrat primary. And now, those who question whether or not Harris earned this position on her own merit are being called racist.

What the media has not addressed, though, is that there were no widespread accusations of Barack Obama being a DEI or affirmative action pick. He won a competitive primary through a democratic process. Many of those on the Right even acknowledge that Barack Obama was a stellar candidate whose speaking abilities doomed John McCain and Mitt Romney to failure from the start.

But with Kamala Harris, the various standards that traditionally determined who would represent the Democrat Party were dropped. Aside from the disregard for democratic norms, Harris has virtually secured her party’s nomination without even describing a single one of her policy positions. On her campaign website, there is no page dedicated to outlining her plans for healthcare, taxes, immigration, energy, or any substantive policy issue. What you can find on her website, however, are highlights about the various glass ceilings she has broken.

Donald Trump has also raised the question about whether Harris has recently embraced her black identity for political reasons when he was asked about whether or not she was a “DEI candidate.” This statement brought much consternation from the corporate press. To be fair, it is certainly an exaggeration to say that Kamala Harris has no ties to the black community. She attended an HBCU and rushed Alpha Kappa Alpha, a famous black sorority. But the truth that Trump touched on is how Harris is a chameleon who changes her colors based on what benefits her political career. In fact, The New York Times just published an article that explores the many ways Harris has reinvented herself since the 2020 primary. Astead W. Herndon writes:

Outside of the issue of abortion access, on which the vice president has forged close relationships with the activist left, the Kamala Harris of the 2020 primary — who took great pains to not upset the slices of the party most associated with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren — is no more. Ms. Harris has reversed several policy positions from her time in the 2020 presidential race, making clear that she no longer supports a single-payer, “Medicare for All”-style health insurance system; a fracking ban; or mandatory gun buybacks. [Emphasis added.]

Whether you are a liberal or conservative, one thing should be universally agreed upon: Kamala Harris being elevated to a position of power without having to share her agenda to voters and without having to win a Democrat primary is an extraordinary and unprecedented feat. One need not be racist to think that her identity has played a more important role than her competency when attaining this position.

This recent discussion about “DEI hires” raises important questions about how those who oppose identity-based hiring and admissions practices should discuss these issues. No matter what, criticizing the current race- and gender-based spoils system will attract rebuke, but this fact does not license those on the Right to just say anything and then call their critics “snowflakes” when they object.

Drawing from my own university experience, I’ve come to understand the delicate nature of this matter. Whether or not one feels like they belong in a particular place is a highly emotional issue, and being on the receiving end of accusations of undeserved achievement can do enormous harm to one’s psyche. This is part of why there is such a great push for all criticism of DEI practices to be reduced to the belief that “black achievement … is always unearned and conferred without regard to merit.”

The crux of this issue lies in the word “always.” It’s unreasonable to blanketly state that all achievements by black individuals are unearned. In my chemical engineering cohort, the smartest person in our entire class is a student of African descent. His mastery of difficult material is unparalleled, and to diminish his accomplishments as unearned would be patently absurd. Yet this particular case does not apply to all black students. Just because some black individuals made it into college on their own merit does not mean all black students do. And the same applies to whites who may unjustly benefit from legacy consideration.

Next, let’s consider gender preferences. I have had firsthand experience working with female professors, some of whom were recruited through a program dedicated to hiring members of underrepresented groups. Given that one must already be in the top of their field to get a professorship at a top-tier university, this program works differently than affirmative action, ensuring that candidates are already among the most accomplished in their discipline. Consequently, in not one instance have I ever felt that these female professors were ill-equipped to do their job.

The crucial issue in discussing the potential beneficiaries of race and gender preferences is to avoid totalizing statements and to treat individuals fairly, regardless of their group membership. A significant challenge with current DEI initiatives is that when beneficiaries struggle academically or professionally compared to their peers, it fuels suspicions that all minority hires or admissions are unqualified. This perception, understandably born from visible discrepancies in performance and competency, undermines the very goals of inclusivity that DEI aims to achieve.

To counteract this, it is essential to assess each individual case on its own merits, carefully reviewing the facts before forming potentially inaccurate conclusions about a person’s qualifications. By maintaining the rational-, nuanced-, and evidence-based side of this debate, proponents of race and gender preferences will have no straw men to argue against and will inevitably lose the power of shutting down discourse by calling their detractors racist bigots.

You can reach Caleb at [email protected].