Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is a divisive issue in the current state of American politics. The practice intends to help diversify workplaces, most importantly it attempts to help diversify government offices. The practice has been very actively combated by the Trump administration, and generally faces large Republican opposition. 

I believe that DEI is completely acceptable not only in a private workforce but also in a provincial environment. In fact, I think local governments should pursue even more radical practices for diversification in the workplace. 

The organization of  the western American society, pursuing fluid meritocracy and capital, directly alienates minority communities. Capitalism in the raw film of its western origin, assumes that the success of an individual is directly proportional to their merit. At a quick glance, meritocracy may seem appealing, the underlying problem with such thinking is the naivety surrounding the thought that a blank slate can be achieved. 

Would these DEI measures really diversify the workplace? DEI measures have not only been proven to be effective, but have also led to a general increase in financial performance, according to an NYU study. Therefore, a general conclusion can be drawn that DEI is both effective at diversifying the workforce, but also follows a general increase in financial performance. 

One must also ask the question, isn’t diversity without complications an inherently good thing? A pattern has been seen throughout American history, a pattern that rejects the American identity; an identity of diversity. This nation is one of immigrants, of no fluid culture nor language. A nation must best represent the climate of its citizens. Is this ideal not the striking force of diversity, the general American consensus of cultural hegemony?