The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Diversity Hiring

Although the Trump administration continues to dismantle federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs through executive orders, the debate over diversity hiring remains intense. What began as efforts to broaden opportunity has, for many, morphed into a source of division, resentment, and at times, real injustice. 

In many work environments, diversity is seen as a self-evident good—an enriching force that broadens perspectives, sparks creativity, and corrects historical inequities. For others, it has become a watchword for ideological overreach, reverse discrimination, or empty corporate virtue-signaling. Still others are simply confused, caught between competing narratives and unsure which, if any, deserves their trust.

As I have reflected on the idea of diversity over the last five years, I have come to think about it as having three distinct faces: the good (a noble vision of diversity worth pursuing), the bad (a distorted practice that undermines its own stated goals), and the ugly (an ideologically driven framework that divides sometimes excluding entire groups of people). This is my attempt to explain how I think about diversity and the human toll that this ideology has had on some.

The Noble Vision: Diversity as Impartial Talent Expansion

Diversity hiring traces its roots to the 1960s Civil Rights era, with affirmative action (AA) policies. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Executive Order 11246 prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Sex was added later by EO 11375. These mandates were intended to ensure equal opportunity for all. Anti-discrimination laws were then enforced for contractors by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Such steps laid the groundwork for what would eventually evolve into an entire ideology: hiring for diversity, equity and inclusion.

In its simplest form, diversity is about assembling people from varied backgrounds—racial, cultural, socioeconomic, and more—into shared spaces like workplaces or communities. This is how many Human Resource managers will generally define it. Christian diversity advocates will usually cite verses like Rev. 5:9 and 7:9 as their biblical warrant to tell Christians that they have a moral obligation to participate in the diversity project.

At its best, diversity in hiring is neither quota-driven nor identity-obsessed. It is the disciplined effort to ensure that no qualified candidate is overlooked because of unfair recruitment practices. This version of diversity hiring would take additional steps to ensure that hiring practices have reduced biases related to unfair considerations about personal characteristics that are unrelated to job performance. 

Human resource managers will often provide this noble definition when asked about diversity. They will also say things like, “evidence shows that diverse workplaces increase collaboration” and that “ethnically diverse teams outperform peers,” thus increasing the company’s profitability. Plus, these practices are seen as attracting younger employees. In other words, diversity hiring is good for business.

The version of diversity says that it maintains a crucial commitment: merit remains king. The goal is not to achieve demographic parity for its own sake, but to remove artificial barriers that might exclude capable, but often overlooked, candidates. A mid-career professional should not be dismissed because the industry “tilts young.” A qualified applicant should not be ignored because the hiring manager unconsciously favors candidates who share his alma mater or cultural background.

This noble vision maintains a crucial commitment: merit remains primary, grounded in skills and character. The goal is not demographic parity for its own sake, but removing trivial barriers that exclude capable people. Scripture supports this impartial approach—God judges by the heart, not outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7), and commands us to "do no injustice in court... not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness... judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15). Proverbs 24:23 echoes: "To show partiality in judging is not good." Our goal as Christian hiring managers should be careful discernment, to judge fairly. Scripture also encourages us to think consider a person's character when putting them in a place of leadership (Acts 6:3; 1 Timothy 3:1-3; Titus 1:7-9). This could include things like honesty, work ethic and responsibility. Work experience, skills and God-given talents could also be a consideration.

This version of diversity isn’t about filling racial quotas. Instead, it asks practical, mission-aligned questions, such as:

• Are we missing out on hiring qualified people simply because our recruitment and marketing channels are too narrow?

• Is anyone in our HR department unfairly pre-screening out qualified candidates based on trivial reasons?

  
  

• Are we setting a priority on hiring people who align with our mission and have the proper experience and skill set to help us accomplish our institutional goals?

Monique (my ministry partner) and I often travel and speak together. When we do, I occasionally need to use airport assistance for passengers with disabilities. (It’s a long story.) Recently a young man came to help me who introduced himself as autistic and proudly wheeled me through security. He performed every required task flawlessly, radiated enthusiasm for his work, and told us how meaningful it was to earn a living alongside his similarly autistic brother who was also a wheelchair runner. He was quite open about it. The airport had clearly chosen to cast a wider net, tapping talent that larger contractors might overlook. I think that’s commendable.

This is diversity at its best: opening doors to capable people who might otherwise remain invisible, not because of their identity, but in spite of obstacles that identity sometimes creates. Such an approach aligns with a Christian commitment to human dignity and impartiality—treating each person as an image-bearer worthy of an opportunity to work and earn an honest living. When done ethically—with safeguards like blind reviews—this vision can foster unity rather than division.

The Bad: When Good Intentions Meet Perverse Incentives

Unfortunately, the noble vision is not always what shows up in practice. Instead, many DEI practices often end up ruining work culture, fueling perceptions of hypocrisy and reverse discrimination.

Public sentiment reflects this growing unease. A Resume Builder survey found that one in six hiring managers reported being instructed to de-prioritize white men. Over half believed their companies engaged in reverse discrimination, and more than two-thirds suspected DEI initiatives existed primarily for appearances.

Corporate America’s post-2020 hiring surge raised similar questions. In the year following the Black Lives Matter protests, S&P 100 companies added over 300,000 jobs—94 percent of which went to people of color, according to Bloomberg analysis. Reasonable people can debate the data and context, but the pattern fueled a widespread perception: “diversity” sometimes functions as a euphemism for excluding certain groups.

High salaries for diversity administrators further erode trust. At the University of Virginia, senior DEI roles commanded annual compensation ranging from $312,000 to nearly $452,000. Taxpayers and tuition-paying parents understandably ask whether such expenditures reflect genuine educational priorities.

Some universities have shuttered their DEI offices. In March 2024, the University of Florida eliminated its chief diversity officer position, terminated thirteen full-time DEI roles, and ended related contracts—following Governor Ron DeSantis’s 2023 ban on state DEI funding. Similar moves at other public universities signal a broader backlash against bureaucratic bloat and ideological capture.

The bad face of diversity, then, is the gap between rhetoric and reality: promises of impartial merit-based expansion that give way to quotas. Talk about "broadening pools" is actually a mask for quotas or tokenism. Performative DEI—initiatives for appearances—erodes trust and builds resentment.

The Ugly: Critical Social Theory and the Matrix of Oppression

At its ugliest, diversity hiring abandons the noble vision entirely and becomes an instrument of critical social theory (CST).

CST views society through a “matrix of oppression” that sorts people into privileged oppressors and marginalized victims across intersecting identity categories: race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, class, ability, religion, and age.

Typical “privileged” categories include:

• White

• Male

• Cisgender

• Heterosexual

• Christian

• Middle- or owning-class

• Able-bodied

• Middle-aged

• English-speaking

Typical “targeted” or “underrepresented” categories include:

• People of color

• Women

• Transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals

• LGBTQ+ people

• Working-class or poor

• Disabled

• Religious minorities (historically Jews, Muslims, Hindus)

• Very young or very old (categories that shift over time)

The critical theory-influenced version of DEI often views diversity through a lens of power dynamics, oppression, and systemic inequities, sometimes pitting groups against one another in a zero-sum struggle. (For a thorough academic treatment of contemporary critical social theories from a Christian perspective, I recommend Critical Dilemma by Dr. Neil Shenvi and Dr. Pat Sawyer. It's a comprehensive book with extensive footnotes examining where these theories align or conflict with the Christian worldview, urging believers to test all ideas against Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:21).)

The goal of diversity hiring within the standard DEI framework quietly shifts from broadening the talent pool to achieving proportional representation of historically marginalized groups—often at the expense of privileged ones. Relationships, conversations, and decisions are filtered through power dynamics: Who holds privilege? Who bears oppression?

Often DEI practices, such as implicit bias training and privilege walks shift the focus away from merit to proportional representation, even to the point of explicitly excluding "privileged" demographics.

Real-world examples abound.

Disney’s ABC Entertainment once published inclusion standards requiring that at least 50 percent of regular and recurring characters, actors, production heads, and crew come from “underrepresented groups.” Such numerical targets function as quotas, raising inevitable questions: What happens when qualified candidates from non-preferred groups outnumber those from preferred ones? Are standards lowered to meet the numbers?

Johns Hopkins University’s former chief diversity officer sparked outrage in early 2024 by declaring “privilege” the diversity word of the month and listing white, male, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual, middle-class, middle-aged, and English-speaking people as its beneficiaries—unearned advantages granted regardless of individual effort or intent. The backlash was swift; she soon departed the administrative role.

Perhaps most emblematic was the controversy surrounding former Harvard president Claudine Gay. After allegations of plagiarism in her academic work surfaced, Harvard’s governing board described the issues as “inadequate citation” rather than research misconduct. Critics asked whether an African-American woman in a flagship diversity hire received leniency that others would not. The episode fed perceptions of double standards—one set of rules for the privileged, another for the protected.

This week, Jacob Savage wrote a long essay ("The Lost Generation”) in Compact magazine about his personal experience with this issue. It provides a stark illustration of the ugly version of diversity hiring. Savage argues that DEI's institutionalization around 2014 created a "lost generation" of white male millennials—born in the 1980s/early 1990s—who faced systematic barriers in culture industries.

Key evidence from Savage:

• Hollywood: White men dropped from 48% of lower-level TV writers in 2011 to 11.9% in 2024; women of color rose to 34.6%. Entry-level rooms reserved for diverse candidates; millennial white men received zero Emmy nominations under 40 since 2021.

• Media/Journalism: The Atlantic shifted from 53% male/89% white (2013) to 36% male/66% white (2024); post-2020 hires heavily favored women and people of color. Condé Nast 2021 hires: 25% male, 49% white. Internships/fellowships often <10% white men.

• Academia: Harvard humanities tenure-track white men: 39% (2014) to 18% (2023). Yale: One white man among 16 millennial hires since 2018. Brown: 6.7% white American men in recent tenure-track. UC programs used DEI statements as initial cuts, slashing white male hires (e.g., Berkeley from 52.7% in 2015 to 21.5% in 2023).

• Broader Fields: White men in law/medical school matriculants and tech/management roles declined sharply post-2014. Awards like MacArthur Fellows and National Book Awards showed near-total exclusion of millennial white men.

Savage’s story humanizes the toll that DEI has taken on some. Writers offered spots only to have them withdrawn for demographic reasons; academics writing dozens of DEI statements yet repeatedly passed over; journalists stagnating as "diverse" juniors advanced. Many delayed life milestones—marriage, children—facing debt and bitterness. According to Savage, older white men (Gen-X/Boomers) retained power, pulling up the ladder for those behind them.

Savage concludes DEI wasn't benign but a "profound shift" abandoning meritocracy, displacing talent and contributing to institutional decline. This approach ended one form of discrimination only to replace it with another.

When diversity becomes a vehicle for redistributing power along identity lines, it ceases to be about impartial opportunity and becomes ideologically-based social engineering. Elon Musk’s blunt declaration that “DEI must die” captures the frustration of many who believe the cure has become worse than the disease: discrimination replaced by different discrimination.

Toward a Better Way

I think a biblical case can be made for some version of the noble vision of diversity. God created humans in His image and then told commanded them to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28; cf. Gen. 9:1), establishing their “appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands” (Acts 17:26). As they migrated, humanity reflected an array of ethnic and cultural diversity, across nations and languages. This is simply an observable fact.

In addition, there is nothing unbiblical about Christian business owners, university leaders, and ministry directors wanting to recruit the best possible talent—people who can do the job excellently, regardless of background. Blind application reviews, broader recruitment channels, and deliberate efforts to overcome personal bias remain worthwhile.

The challenge is setting ethical guardrails and not falling down the slippery slope of secular DEI ideology (the bad and ugly versions of diversity). When merit becomes secondary, confidence erodes—not only in workplaces but in institutions that touch our lives profoundly: hospitals, airlines, universities, courts. Sadly, critical theorists often dismiss meritocracy itself as a construct of “whiteness,” a claim that reveals how far the conversation has drifted from a biblical vision of fairness.

It should be observed that the standard DEI framework is very far away from the simple definition of diversity that was offered at the top of this article. We are no longer merely talking about assembling people from varied backgrounds—racial, cultural, socioeconomic, and more—into shared spaces like workplaces or churches. Now we are engaging into a massive project of structural reorganization and social engineering. This is a textbook case of the motte and bailey fallacy in action. Christian DEI officers will sell us on the motte of assembling people together from various backgrounds (a modest and easy-to-defend proposal) only to restructure workplaces into executing the bailey (a highly controversial set of policies) of applied Critical Race Theory through secular DEI practices. When DEI (the bailey) is challenged, the Christian DEI advocate will retreat to the more modest version of the concept (the motte) and tell the interlocutor some version of, "Diversity is biblical! Just look at Revelation 7:9!" This kind of shell game with definitions erodes work culture and institutional trust.

When engaging friends or colleagues who champion diversity, it’s good to begin with common ground: We all want to hire skilled, capable people. We all oppose unjust exclusion. From there, gently probe: Is merit still primary? Are we expanding opportunities for qualified candidates that we might inadvertently pass over or merely enforcing outcomes? Are we uniting around a shared mission or simply dividing along identity lines?

Clarity in definitions and consistency in practice are the antidotes to confusion and cynicism. Diversity need not be a dirty word—nor an untouchable sacred cow. But it does need a proper definition and biblical warrant. Done rightly, it reflects the simple conviction that talent is distributed widely, and we can work toward processes that help us not to arbitrarily shut people out from contributing theirs. The choice before us is not between indifferent homogeneity and ideological coercion. Instead, we can choose impartial excellence that welcomes qualified contributors. That is the good worth keeping. The bad and the ugly we can—and should—leave behind.

More to come on this topic. So stay tuned.

Additional Resource: