Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad DEI? The acronym is almost poisonous now—a word that creates almost instant tension between those who embrace it and those who want it dead.
A prime example of this gap was the response to Scale AI founder Alexandr Wang Position in X last week. He wrote about moving away from DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) to embrace “MEI” – merit, excellence and intelligence.
“Scale is a meritocracy and we must always remain one,” Wang wrote. “It’s a big deal any time we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been influenced by orthodoxy or virtue signaling or whatever else is current.”
X’s commentators – which included Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Brian Armstrong – were excited. At LinkedIn, however, the startup community gave one less than enthusiastic answer. These commenters pointed out that Wang’s post made it seem like “merit” was the definitive benchmark for finding special hiring candidates — without considering that the idea of merit is itself subjective. In the days since the post, more and more people have been sharing their thoughts and what Wang’s comments reveal about DEI’s current state of technology.
“The post is wrong because people making the meritocracy argument ignore the structural reasons some groups are more likely to outperform others,” Mutale Nkonde, a founder who works on AI policy, told TechCrunch. “We all want the best people for the job, and there’s evidence that diverse teams are more effective.”
Emily Witko, an HR professional at AI startup Hugging Face, told TechCrunch that the post was a “dangerous oversimplification” but that X got so much attention because it was “openly expressing emotions that aren’t always expressed publicly, and the audience there is hungry to attack PPC”. Wang’s MEI thinking “makes it so easy to refute or criticize any discussion about the importance of recognizing underrepresentation in technology,” she continued.
But Wang is far from the only Silicon Valley insider to attack DEI in recent months. He joins a chorus of those who believe that the DEI programs implemented in businesses in recent years, culminating in 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 eliminate hiring programs that considered candidates who, under previous hiring regimes, were often overlooked in the hiring process.
Seeking to make a difference, in 2020 many organizations and powerhouses came together to pledge more focus on DEI, which, contrary to the mainstream debate, is not just about hiring someone based on the color of their skin, but has to it does by ensuring qualified people from all walks of life — regardless of skin, gender or ethnicity — are better represented and included in recruitment pipelines. It is also to take a look at the disparities and issues of lawsuits, analyze the reasoning behind it because some candidates are constantly overlooked in a hiring process.
In 2023, the US data industry saw new female hiring levels fall by two-thirds, from 36% in 2022 to just 12%, according to a report by staffing firm HR Harnham. Meanwhile, the percentage of Black, Indigenous and professionals of color in VP data roles or greater stood just 38% in 2022.
DEI-related job listings have also fallen out of favor, falling 44% in 2023, according to data from job site Indeed. In the artificial intelligence industry, a recent Deloitte overview The women found that more than half said they eventually left at least one employer because of the disparate treatment of men and women, while 73% considered leaving the tech industry altogether because of unequal pay and an inability to advance their careers.
But for an industry that prides itself on being data-driven, Silicon Valley can’t let the idea of meritocracy go — despite data and research showing how such thinking is just a belief system and one that can lead to 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 — groups and groups of people who look alike, when research has long shown that more diverse groups perform better. Furthermore, it has only raised suspicions about who the Valley considers exceptional and why.
The experts we spoke to said this subjectivity revealed other issues with Wang’s mission—mainly that it presents MEI as a revolutionary idea rather than one that Silicon Valley and much of corporate America has long embraced. The acronym “MEI” appears to be a derogatory nod to DEI, intended to drive home the idea that a company must choose between hiring diverse candidates or candidates who meet certain “objective” qualifications.
Natalie Sue Johnson, co-founder of consulting firm DEI Paradigm, told TechCrunch that research has 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 they have to try hard to be fair in their decision-making,” he continued. “They think meritocracy is inherent, not something to be achieved.”
As Nkonde reported, Johnson noted that Wang’s approach fails to recognize that underrepresented groups face systemic barriers that society is still struggling to address. Ironically, the most deserving person could be the one who has acquired a skill set for a job despite obstacles that may have affected their educational background or prevented them from filling their resume with the kind of college internship that impresses Silicon Valley.
Treating an individual as a faceless, nameless candidate without understanding their unique experiences, and thus their employability, is a mistake, Johnson said. “There is a nuance.”
Witko added to this: “A meritocratic system is based on criteria that reflect the status quo, and therefore, will perpetuate existing inequalities by continually favoring those who are already advantaged.”
To be somewhat charitable to Wang, given how sour the term DEI has become, developing a new term that still represents the value of fairness to all candidates isn’t a terrible idea — even if “meritocracy” is wrong. And his post suggests that Scale AI values could align with the spirit of diversity, equality and inclusion, even if they may not realize it, Johnson said.
“Casting a wide net for talent and making objective hiring decisions that don’t disadvantage candidates based on identity is exactly what diversity, equity and inclusion work seeks to do,” he explained.
But again, where Wang undermines this is by endorsing the mistaken belief that meritocracy will produce results based on one’s abilities and merits alone.
Perhaps all this is a paradox. Looking at Scale AI’s behavior toward its data commentators—many of whom live in third-world countries and subsist on minimal pay—suggests that the company has little real interest in disrupting the status quo.
Scale AI commentators work on assignments for multiple eight-hour workdays — with no breaks — for pay ranging up to $10 (according to the Verge and New York Mag). It is on the backs of these commentators that Scale AI has built a business valued at more than $13 billion and with more than $1.6 billion in cash in the bank.
When asked to comment on the allegations made in the Verge and NY Mag piece, a representative pointed out this blog post, in which he described the human commentator’s jobs as a “concert”. The spokesperson did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for clarification on Scale AI’s MEI policy.
Johnson said Wang’s post is a great example of the box many leaders and companies are trapped in.
He reflected, can they trust that the existence of meritocratic ideals is enough to lead to actual meritocratic outcomes and promote diversity?
“Or, do they recognize that ideals are not enough and to truly create a more diverse workforce where everyone has equal access to opportunities and can do their best work requires intent?”
