Â鶹ÒùÔº

Trump says diversity initiatives undermine merit. Decades of research show this is flawed

US President Donald Trump earlier this year he would forge a "color blind and merit-based society."

His was part of a broader policy directing the US military, federal agencies and other public institutions to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Framing this as restoring fairness, neutrality and strength to American institutions, Trump argued DEI programs "discourage merit and leadership" and amounted to "race-based and sex-based discrimination."

In Australia too, debates over gender quotas and "" have repeatedly invoked meritocracy as a rallying cry against affirmative action.

The narrative of rewards going to the most qualified people is compelling. Yet decades of research show this is flawed. Far from being the great equalizer, an uncritical reliance on "merit" can perpetuate bias and inequality.

The myths of meritocracy

The merit rhetoric invokes the ideal of a neutral, objective system rewarding talent and effort, regardless of identity.

In theory, merit-based evaluations such as exams, performance reviews, employee recruitment processes and competitive bids, should be impartial.

In practice however, there are several myths associated with the notion of merit.

1. Merit is purely objective or unbiased. In the employment context for example, show that even so-called objective and standardized cognitive or aptitude tests can systematically favor men due to the type of questions asked.

Decision-makers may unknowingly redefine merit to fit whoever already belongs to a favored group. A of elite law firms, for example, found male applicants were rated as more qualified than identical resumes from women.

This is known as "", meaning the criteria of excellence can bend to preference, all while appearing objective.

Supposedly, merit-based judgments can reflect unconscious bias, or comfort with candidates who fit a traditional mold. Over time, preference may be given to a particular type of candidate irrespective of their actual contribution. Privilege and prejudice can be baked into merit-based evaluations.

2. Merit can be separated from social and historical context. assumes a level playing field, where everyone competes under the same conditions.

In reality, however, past inequalities shape present opportunities. What counts as merit is dynamic and socially shaped, not an eternal universal standard.

For example, during the second world war there was a . Qualities women brought to jobs previously held by men such as capacity for teamwork were suddenly deemed meritorious. But these same qualities were downgraded when the men returned.

Merit is often defined in masculine terms. For example, physicality or hyper-competitive traits have long been seen as prerequisites for military service and .

This alignment of masculine norms with standards of merit has been termed "".

Science careers too were built in an era when women were largely excluded. They were predicated on long-hours work and total availability—requirements that clash with caregiving responsibilities. The result is women in leave or are pushed out.

3. Outcomes are the result of personal choice or deficiencies, not structural barriers. Meritocracy carries a moral narrative: those at the top earned their place while those left behind didn't measure up or chose not to compete.

shows, for example, that when women don't advance, it's explained as lifestyle choices, or they lack ambition, or have opted out to prioritize caregiving.

This narrative willfully overlooks the structural constraints impacting choices. When a woman "chooses" a lower-paying, flexible job, it may be less about preference than inadequate social supports.

By accepting unequal outcomes as the natural result of individual choices, institutions can conveniently obscure disadvantage and discrimination and erase responsibility to .

How the merit mandate undermines equality

Trump's vision is to remove equity initiatives and programs that monitor or encourage fair hiring and promotion, cease training that alerts employees to hidden biases, and DEI staff.

This is conceptually flawed and will actually entrench the very biases and barriers that have kept institutions unequal.

In the military, for example—an area highlighted by Trump—leaders have recognized they need to foster more inclusive cultures.

For years, defense forces have grappled with sexual harassment, recruitment shortfalls and retention of skilled personnel. In Australia, the Australian Defence Force undertook to identify violent and sexist subcultures, understanding a more inclusive force is a more effective force.

Yet Trump's bars the Pentagon from even acknowledging historical sexism in the ranks.

Favoring the in-group

Removing equity measures under a banner of neutrality means hiring and promotion will increasingly rely on informal networks and subjective judgments. These can tilt in favor of the in-group—usually white, male and affluent.

DEI initiatives can of women, or people from diverse racial or cultural backgrounds, in an organization or occupational group.

However, without challenging the norms of merit, or without broadening the definitions of talent and leadership, people in those groups may continue to feel like outsiders.

Australian and business leaders increasingly acknowledge objective merit is mythical.

Redefining merit

Fair rewards for effort can improve performance. However, we need to stop pitting merit against diversity. True fairness requires acknowledgment structural inequality exists and bias affects evaluations.

Organizations need to re-imagine merit in ways that work with inclusion, rather than against it. This includes refining hiring and promotion criteria to focus on competencies that are measurable and relevant.