We Should Improve D.E.I., Not Erase It

More from our inbox:

• Misinformation or ‘Reality Rebrand’?
• Trump’s True Goal

Credit…Ben Hickey

To the Editor:

Re “The Corporate D.E.I. Movement Was Destined to Fail,” by Anson Frericks (Opinion guest essay, March 17):

Mr. Frericks seems to misunderstand the purpose of internal diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs, which advance the very “principles that built great American companies” he identifies: hiring the best people and letting merit determine success.

These programs seek to ensure that the best person for the job is not unfairly held back because of their background. Indeed, many of these programs are precisely about improving evaluation of individual merit and guarding against the judgment of people — based on stereotypes, biases, or assumptions — as “groups.”

Although Mr. Frericks blames D.E.I. for the cruel backlash against Budweiser’s partnership with the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, these external marketing decisions have nothing to do with the internal workplace diversity and inclusion initiatives that he assails.

Strikingly, even Mr. Frericks recognizes that a “diversity of thought” — which is naturally associated with a diversity of ethnicities and backgrounds — is “good for business” and embraces the advancement of employees of different backgrounds. This is why so many employers consider their D.E.I. programs to be essential to their business.

Mr. Frericks does not address how companies can foster diversity and inclusion without intentionally providing resources to their staff or monitoring progress toward these goals. While Mr. Frericks cheers the dismantling of D.E.I. departments, he does not confront the reality that, without them, there will be, by design, a decrease in diversity and the many advantages that it brings to the work force and to the business.

Ming-Qi Chu
New York
The writer is the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project.