Taxi-Talks: DEI vs Meritocracy

We asked Paul the taxi driver what his passengers had to say about DEI. Specifically: Does DEI go against rewarding people for their abilities?

The overwhelming response from the back seat of Paul’s taxi? It absolutely is. Jobs, they argued, should go to the best person for the role, not someone chosen just because of their identity.

It’s a sentiment that (a) we understand and (b) we’ve heard before. It is particularly prevalent as of late with the rollbacks of DEI in the US - context that was also referred to by Paul’s passengers. 

In March, the White House issued a statement after DEI was removed from the Foreign Service, saying its goal was to "restore the values of individual dignity, hard work, and excellence" and to "put merit first."

It's important to clarify how this debate differs in the UK. While the US has affirmative action, which sometimes uses quotas to boost diversity (reserving spots for certain identities in education or teams), the UK follows a different approach. Quotas are illegal in the UK and merit-based hiring is a requirement. What’s legal in the UK is positive action, which allows employers to address under representation proportionally. This could mean offering leadership training or targeted outreach to encourage applications from certain groups. When it comes to hiring, positive action only applies in tie-breaker scenarios, when candidates are equally qualified.

Some of Paul’s passengers also saw DEI as excluding White men, a view that’s been gaining traction in recent debates about DEI and commonly in sociological circles discussed as reverse racism. The equation goes something like this: If DEI ignores me (in this case a White man) and focuses on uplifting others (marginalised identities and characteristics), then it’s inherently discriminatory towards me. Despite DEI’s intention to address the structural and historical disadvantages that have affected certain communities for generations, in many contexts, it would also benefit White men, such as those from working-class backgrounds.

Our view is that the benefits of inclusion haven’t been communicated well enough: between misleading media narratives and corporate missteps, the messages have been muddied. This leaves people feeling alienated on both sides: some marginalised groups feel and are treated like token hires due to misconceptions about the hiring processes, while others feel as though they’re being unfairly overlooked.

If businesses don’t start clarifying what inclusion really means in their workplaces (and what it doesn’t), they risk the very backlash we’re seeing in the US extending further into the UK.