As conservative critiques of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have intensified across various sectors, the Trump administration has been particularly focused on targeting DEI programs in educational institutions.

The federal Department of Education recently issued a memo requiring states (including Maine) to certify that local districts have removed all DEI programming and so-called “woke” ideologies from classrooms, with threats to withdraw federal funding from noncompliant schools. Maine’s Department of Education has declined to sign the certification letter and has instructed school districts to refrain from signing it as well.

With respect to higher education, Harvard University has been at the center of a conflict with the administration, which demanded the closure of its DEI efforts and the implementation of a “viewpoint diversity audit.” Harvard, thus far, has also refused to comply with these demands.

​Critiques of DEI often center on the belief that such programs undermine merit-based systems by prioritizing identity factors over individual qualifications, thus compromising an emphasis on excellence and competence in admissions criteria or evaluation processes. Specifically, critics argue that DEI programs that emphasize demographic characteristics, such as race, gender or sexual orientation, in hiring and admissions decisions may lead to the lowering of academic and professional standards to achieve diversity goals. This approach is seen as conflicting with the meritocratic principle of evaluating and rewarding individuals based solely on their abilities and accomplishments.

Philosopher Michael Sandel’s analysis of meritocracy in his recent book “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?” offers a compelling framework to examine and challenge such arguments. Sandel contends that while ostensibly fair, meritocracy actually perpetuates inequality and social division by attributing success solely to individual effort and talent, thereby ignoring systemic advantages and disadvantages, and underappreciating the role of luck.

While opponents of DEI initiatives argue that such programs undermine the meritocracy, Sandel’s analysis reveals that meritocracy itself is deeply flawed. He points out that access to opportunities such as quality education and professional networks is often determined by socioeconomic status, not just personal effort. For example, while standardized tests like the SAT claim to measure merit on its own, so that students from modest backgrounds can demonstrate academic promise, in reality, SAT scores and family income are highly correlated.

This reality challenges the notion that current systems are truly meritocratic and suggests that DEI efforts play an important role in seeking to rectify these entrenched disparities by focusing on promoting truly fair and just access and opportunity for everyone. The myth of merit, which overlooks systemic inequalities, can foster arrogance among the successful and humiliation among those left behind. Sandel warns that this dynamic erodes social cohesion and fuels resentment.

Moreover, Sandel emphasizes that attributes often deemed “merit-based,” like intelligence or work ethic, are significantly influenced by factors beyond an individual’s control, including family background and social environment. He argues, therefore, that we must acknowledge the role that both luck and structural advantages play in determining success. As such, by addressing systemic barriers and valuing diverse experiences, particularly in educational institutions, DEI efforts strive to create a more just, equitable and inclusive society where all individuals have the opportunity to succeed.

Rather than viewing DEI initiatives as antithetical to merit, Sandel’s perspective encourages a reevaluation of what constitutes merit and an appreciation of the value of humility. “Such humility,” he says, “is the beginning of the way back from the harsh ethic of success that drives us apart. It points beyond the tyranny of merit toward a less rancorous, more generous public life.”