So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

The idea that we had a merit-based system before DEI is a fantasy. A true meritocracy is devoid of racism, sexism, and agism. It doesn’t exclude based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or other biases. In a true meritocracy, no one would have an advantage simply because of the socioeconomic station into which they were born.

Yet we do not all start on a level playing field. Consider the systemic and structural racial and ethnic discrimination built into our system. Consider low funding levels for non-white schools. Consider repeated instances of environmental racism and poor access to healthcare for minorities, which result in high rates of both acute and chronic illnesses, increased school absences for children, and greater morbidity and mortality rates in adults.

According to a 2024 White House report, Racial Discrimination in Contemporary America, racial discrimination accounts for the loss of trillions of dollars in the U.S. When kids go to poorly funded schools, they can’t access the stepping stones to success, such as basic healthcare, college training programs, afterschool activities, and standardized test training.

Then there’s persistent sex discrimination. A recent study found that in all but one age group, men continue to earn 15% more than women. The gap has continued even as more educated and experienced women enter the workforce and attain the managerial and higher-paying jobs that had been reserved for men. Women also report being treated differently by employers, and sexual harassment remains an issue for more women than men, both in public spaces and within the workplace. The MeToo Report found 26% of all respondents experienced sexual harassment or assault between 2018-2024, with women more than twice as likely to experience this than men (32% vs.15%).

Critics of DEI programs have offered nothing to replace DEI other than a return to norms that perpetuate their false meritocracy, like legacy preferences in university admissions. The Institute of Higher Education reported that 42% of private four-year colleges considered legacy in their admission process in 2022. Unsurprisingly, it also found that the more racially diverse universities are the ones that do not consider legacy. Although these impacts on racial diversity might be small, they are meaningful and clearly unmeritocratic.

Nepotism has a similar antimeritocracy effect in our other institutions. Indeed, nepotism was so alive and well in 2020 in the Army that they wrote a policy to stop it.

DEI programs were introduced to counter biases such as legacy and nepotism. The goal was to level the playing field, expand access to opportunity for a broader range of students, and identify and develop the most talented individuals.

Our society improves when we include more voices and talents in our institutions. A study published by the Boston University School of Public Health found that when DEI programs are successful, they reduce racist and sexist attitudes, reduce ageism, and improve organizational culture, as well as conflict resolution and job satisfaction. This study also concluded that successful DEI programs are those implemented at the institutional rather than individual level and include longitudinal training.

We should not now run from DEI programs and look to the past for false meritocracies. Rather, we need to learn what works and what does not work when it comes to identifying, nurturing, and promoting talent.

Studies show that DEI opponents object to perceived threats to the status quo. To forestall these objections, new programs aimed at leveling the playing field could emphasize that the workplace will continue to uphold its values and that everyone—including the majority—will remain treated fairly.

Rather than truly attempt to problem-solve, diminish discrimination, and allow institutions to draw on the broadest pool of talent available, today’s DEI opponents have only resurrected the discriminatory policies of the past. We all must have the courage to imagine what a truly inclusive and fair society could look like.

Nina Stachenfeld is a Senior Research Scientist at Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences. Dr. Stachenfeld is also a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with Yale University