A level playing field is the equality we agree on

How a moderate position on DEI compares to what’s happening now.

(A quick note before resuming: If you like my newsletter, you might also like

United States of Exception

by

Glenn

, which covers U.S. politics, foreign policy, effective altruism, and other shared interests. His post on how Foreign Policy Elites Fail Upwards was the best takedown of the major pathologies in U.S. foreign policy that I’ve read in a long time.)

Picking up where Pt. 1 left off…

III. The sensible middle

Beneath the invective over DEI, I suspect there’s a compromise that most Americans could be chill about. That is, if their tribal elders would stop lying about it, then whipping them into a frenzy to confuse the conversation.

Almost everyone agrees that people should be given an equal opportunity regardless of their race, sex, sexuality, religion, etc. People disagree on what that looks like and what the biggest obstacles are.

Progressives feel that one major obstacle is the legacy of racism (and sexism, etc,) which includes subconscious prejudice and social stigmas. They feel that these biases are not only unjust, but prevent the best and brightest from rising to the top. Progressives see DEI programs as leveling the playing field, either by directly combatting those implicit biases or by correcting for their effects through affirmative action. And they see the ability to contribute new perspectives—to diversify an organization’s viewpoints—as a component of merit in itself, which is as valid to incorporate in an overall assessment of someone’s qualifications as any other performance indicator. More radical progressives favor accelerating this leveling process through the use of hard quotas or diversity statements in hiring, promotion, or admissions decisions.

Conservatives, on the other hand, question the value of diversity for diversity’s sake and insist that merit should be measured in a race (etc.)-blind way. Rather than evidence of deep-seated prejudice, they are likelier to see racial (etc.) imbalances in a workplace as a byproduct of a) choices freely made by different groups, especially the sexes, due to different preferences or values, or b) deeper social inequities (ex: in wealth, education, the criminal justice system, or cultural norms) that lie beyond the control of any employer, even one completely free of subconscious bias.

While some conservatives concede that work to address those deeper inequities may be necessary (ex: through criminal justice or education reforms), they feel that it should not fall on employers to correct for those factors and that trying to do so backfires in ways that create even sharper injustices. In the conservative view, the real obstacle preventing the best and brightest from rising to the top—the real impediment to equal opportunity—is an ideological crusade to deemphasize actual, performance-based merit in service of superficial, aesthetic equality, which conservatives associate with terms like DEI, affirmative action, and “reverse racism.”

Both sides frame their vision of equality in terms of a “level playing field.” And honestly, both sides have kernels of truth. I suspect that in a calmer era, many people might be drawn to a reasonable compromise position, which goes something like this:

The extent to which workplace inequities result from prejudice is debatable, but clearly nonzero. Insofar as they do result from prejudice, we should work to unlearn those biases, including by striving to be mindful of language or behaviors that unfairly hurt or exclude disadvantaged groups, or that create a toxic work environment. That some people will feel annoyed or threatened by the striving is not a good argument against it. And we should ensure that our hiring and promotion processes ensure broad access to opportunities, instead of limiting searches to the usual places or applicants. Where a team’s diversity genuinely benefits its performance, it is good to consider that in hiring and promotion decisions.

At the same time, we shouldn’t expect those efforts to fully equalize outcomes until progress is made on more structural impediments to social equality. Even then, some differences would likely remain as a reflection of groups’s differing choices and preferences. Disparities are not necessarily the result of bias, and it’s both unhelpful and exhausting to reduce all issues to demographic identity until some unreachable, perfect equality is attained.¹ Also, efforts to unlearn biases do not require accepting progressive dogma on broader questions of social justice.

Finally, we should be clear-eyed about the evidence surrounding diversity and team performance, as well as the effectiveness of various strategies for unlearning ingrained bias. These are not values debates, but questions for empirical research. Intuitively, we might expect diversity to improve organizational performance or decisionmaking to some extent in some contexts, without assuming that it does so, or how much it does so, in all contexts. That research is highly relevant to how much value organizations should place on diversity compared to competing priorities.

From 2020 – 2022, this hybrid position would probably have been coded as conservative in elite circles. It criticizes the left-leaning consensus that emerged during BLM summer and sent people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo to brief fame and fortune. Throughout that time, it would have been brave and important to offer this position alongside other gentle pushback to the movement’s excesses.²

But now that Trump has regained power, conservatives are recasting this reasonable centrist position as a radical woke agenda. They’re pretending the American people have rejected it, in an effort to roll back basic anti-discrimination policies that have existed for decades. The result is a more egregious overcorrection than DEI trainings typically were.

IV. The willful confusion

A few weeks back,

Richard Hanania

wrote a note mocking Democrats’ inability to “move beyond woke,” sharing a video taken at the DNC Chair Forum.³ In the video, a moderator asks panelists a simple question: “How many of you feel racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris’ defeat?” Everyone raises their hands. The moderator says “That’s good! You all pass.” People laugh.

And that’s it! That’s the video.

If this is all wokeness were, it would vindicate wokeness entirely. They didn’t say how big of a role racism and misogyny played in why Harris lost; they said it played a role. That it played at least some role should be obvious to any thinking person. Trump questioned whether Harris was even black. He questioned her citizenship. His surrogates made jokes about the White House smelling like curry. Dehumanizing Latino migrants as violent beasts was the centerpiece of his campaign, to the extent that he fabricated a story about these migrants eating people’s dogs, then doubled down on it in a presidential debate. If you don’t see any racism there, you’re covering your eyes.⁴

What Hanania seems to mean when he says “move beyond woke” is “move beyond talking about racism at all.” But talking about racism is something Democrats did for 50 years before “woke” entered the public lexicon. If you had asked Democrats if racism played a role in the 2008 election, they’d also have said yes, despite Barack Hussein Obama winning the election handily. Acknowledging racism’s existence is not a new or radical agenda.⁵

Today’s DEI shouting matches follow this same pattern. The left says four true things, then gets carried away and says one overzealous false thing—so the right pounces on the one as an excuse to dismiss the four. Then the right strawmans a sixth and seventh claim that the left never said in the first place. They give an overbroad label to all seven to try to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and the particular label they choose is never actually the point.

In Trump’s first month, the effect of this willful confusion has been to dismantle policies reflecting the old, moderate consensus on equal opportunity, under the pretense of dismantling the allegedly radical DEI of the Biden era. The purpose is more to fire up the conservative base and distract from other scandals than to fix any serious problem.

V. An example from the military

I follow a military writer called

CDR Salamander

, and nod along with some of his takes. But he also has a series of posts called Diversity Thursday which strike me—as a former Army officer myself, who was trained as an Equal Opportunity Officer as one of my additional duties—as mischaracterizing the nature and exaggerating the prevalence of DEI in the military. I’ve read about 10 of these posts now, and most of them seem oddly angry over things that range from good to frivolous to mildly bad but inconsequential. His most recent installments illustrate the points I make above, and echo the MAGA narrative, so I’ll try to address them as a sort of steelman.

Three weeks ago he wrote:

I even was an active participant in what we now call “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) efforts where people were given special treatment because someone up the chain needed, “to make the metrics work.”… Anyone who said they were not aware of it either were never in a position of authority, are not very aware of their surroundings, or are just plain lying to you.

He goes on to excoriate Marines Corps Commandant Eric Smith for allegedly lying to the New York Times by saying the following:

“As far as DEI, the Marine Corps has not had DEI programs. We have a meritocracy-based system. You can be anything you want to be. If you’re a Sophie Mundell you can be an artillery officer as long as you can sling a 95-pound shell and you meet the physical standards, you meet the academic rigorous standards, you can be anything you want… If you want to apply for an MOS, strap on your pack, grab your rifle and make a run at it.”

As evidence that Smith is lying, CDR Salamander presents the following screenshot of a Talent Management document published under Smith’s tenure:

Yes, the policy includes the words “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” But what does the actual policy say? What did DEI mean, to the military? Some quotes:

• “our talent management system must reinforce a culture where the contribution of every Marine is respected and valued.”

• “our talent management system should create a level playing field, allowing all Marines an equal opportunity to succeed and enabling our most talented to advance.”

• “fostering equity in the force is about equal treatment, access, advancement, and opportunity for all Marines based on their individual skills, abilities, aptitude, performance, and merit. It also means identifying and eliminating structural impediments that limit our Marines from developing their talents into strengths and reaching their full potential.”

• “Once an individual earns the title ‘Marine,” they have made the grade. There are no additional obstacles or barriers to entry”

Does that sound like “giving people special treatment” to make the metrics work? Or does that sound like giving people equal treatment, reflecting the moderate mainstream position of ensuring equal opportunity?

Do Smith’s comments to the reporter sound like lowering standards? Or do they sound like clarifying that there is one single standard for loddy doddy everybody?⁶

This is the semantic disconnect that comes from stretching definitions beyond any coherent meaning. Yes, there existed programs in the military called DEI—but no, they did not do what conservatives say they did. So in context, whether the Marines Corps “had DEI” depends on whose definition you’re using.

What happened here is that Pete Hegseth criticized the military for things he made up in his head (like quotas,⁷ lowering standards to meet quotas, and “cultural Marxism”) and then he called those things DEI. A reporter asked General Smith if he thinks the Marines should stop doing those things it’s not doing, which he also called DEI. So General Smith—answering the question in the terms it was asked—accurately said that the Marines Corps does not have those made-up policies. And then he immediately segues into a description of the actual DEI policies the Marines Corps did have, which amounted to equal opportunity: to allowing women to be anything they want so long as they meet the same rigorous standards as men.⁸

Last Thursday, CDR Salamander had a follow-up post blaming the Navy for hiding its “cultural-Marxist” DEI programs under a new label. What he didn’t say is that many of these policies long predate the label of DEI, or the right’s crusade against woke in the military. He cites getting rid of identity months—but those were first commemorated in 1976 and codified by Congress in 1986. He cites West Point disbanding cadet organizations for women, LGBTQ, and racial minorities—but the oldest of these programs go back to 1976, and many were there when I toured West Point in 2010. Is Black History Month really cultural Marxism?⁹

Maybe CDR Salamander can summarize his gripes about diversity in one clear list, then provide clear evidence that they lowered readiness. Until he does, here is the story I see.

Diversity Thursday says much more about its author’s ideological fixations than it does about the military’s. On a left-right spectrum where 0 is most progressive, 100 is most conservative, and 50 is the median American, CDR Salamander is a 75 or 80. Once a week he fumes that the military fluctuates between 45 and 55 depending on who is in office. Except for this past month, when he’s been on cloud nine while trying to pretend he’s the real 50.

Maybe part of the confusion is that for most of CDR Salamander’s life, the U.S. military was 20 years behind the public in terms of social tolerance. That began to change during the Obama administration, when the military almost (but not fully) caught up with the rest of the country. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; allowing women to go to Ranger School and combat arms; adopting a gender-neutral ACFT with role-specific standards; all of these changes switched us to an identity-neutral standard for hiring and promotion decisions. A level playing field, more or less in line with the moderate position described atop this post.

Since that time, the American public has become more polarized—but the military brass have clung to that standard, even as their public messaging has gone with the tide. The words they use to dress up their standard are couched in the priorities of each new administration, and I have no doubt they made 100 new offices, publications, and additional duties to talk or train about diversity under Biden. Some of them were probably annoying and ineffective. But under the hood—behind the fluff of public statements and ass-covering—the military’s vision of equality has basically been my moderate vision for over a decade: one standard, applied equally to everyone, with neither affirmative favoritism nor antiquated restrictions for women, LGBTQ, or any other minority.

When Biden got elected on the tail of major racial justice movement, the military’s response was to essentially repackage that standard in the preferred lingo of the day. Now that the political winds have shifted, the Navy is trying to do the same thing in reverse: to unpackage those policies and relabel them in terms more distant from the culture war. Some of that may be good, as the programs they did have may or may not have been effective. But they emphatically were not a major readiness inhibitor outside of conservative fever dreams. At worst, they were just one of the 500 useless mandatory trainings the military puts people through about every subject under the sun.

If that changed since I left the military, I’ve not heard credible reports of it. And to echo part I and my comments below it: if I missed those reports, it was probably because they were buried in an onslaught of fabrications from people crying wolf about this problem, which makes it super hard to extend an assumption of good faith to the next accusers.

My next post will examine whether responsibility for that onslaught of lies extends to people who bit their lip at the left’s excesses.

1. For example, sometimes all three of the speakers on a panel will be men, that’s not necessarily a problem, and it’s not a good reason to discredit or distract from the panel’s findings.

2. Though as my next post will explain, nobody should feel obligated to offer this pushback in the face of bigger fish to fry.

3. Though not about DEI specifically, the Hanania note reveals the same playbook conservatives use in both cases. To them, the terms are interchangeable.

4. I skipped the misogyny for time, but that’s always been a constant with Trump. And more subtly, the kind of weird way that Kamala Harris speaks and laughs was likely shaped by social expectations that women need to be agreeable and approachable, etc. This also made Hilary Clinton seem especially insincere.

5. Hanania did the same thing last week in his note about Scott Alexander’s takedown of Ted Cruz’s bogus “Woke Science” database. More on that in a future post. But to summarize my point: when Red Team says science is so woke we should ignore it, and Blue Team says its not, and a careful review of the evidence suggests that it’s 3% woke…which side needs a reckoning?

6. You know what lowering standards in the military actually looks like? Reinstating the turbo morons kicked out for refusing the COVID vaccine, with back pay. Kicking them out was a meritocracy, and giving them a tissue and an apology is affirmative action for MAGA.

7. The closest thing to quotas I’m aware of under Biden was a 2022 Air Force Academy memo establishing recruitment goals—still not quotas—to have officer applicants reflect the racial and gender balance of the United States as a whole. Let’s first zoom out and keep this in context. The Air Force Academy is just one part of the Air Force, which is just one part of the military as a whole. Anyone applying to the Academy since 2022 has not even entered the Force yet. And even these policies were not quotas (the goals were not even met, for example) and explicitly clarified that no standards should be lowered to meet them. The memo outlining the diversity benchmarks said that "these goals are aspirational, aligning resources to invest in our long-term objectives, and will not be used in any manner that undermines our merit-based processes." This is the sort of thing MAGA habitually stretches into an implication that not only is the entire military lowering standards to be more diverse, but the effect on performance is so pronounced that it caused the failure of the war in Afghanistan.

8. It’s also worth noting that the reason the links to Biden-era DEI policies were dead was because the Trump administration ordered them all to be taken offline, not just in DoD but all across the government, and not just on DEI but on many unrelated Biden era webpages. It’s not some plot from the brass to hide the truth.

9. For that matter, what does cultural Marxism even mean, apart from the accurate observation that some groups have power over others in ways that create injustice?