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

US President Donald Trump declared earlier this year he would forge a “colour blind and merit-based society”.

His executive order 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 “the war on woke” 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 equaliser, 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, studies show that even so-called objective and standardised cognitive or aptitude tests can systematically favour men due to the type of questions asked.

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

This is known as “plasticity of merit”, 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 mould. 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. Meritocracy or the so-called meritocratic promise 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 shortage of male workers. 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 policing.

This alignment of masculine norms with standards of merit has been termed “benchmark man”.

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 STEM careers 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.

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

This narrative wilfully 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 correct inequities.

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 fire or reassign 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 recognised they need to foster more inclusive cultures.

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

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

Favouring the in-group

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

DEI initiatives can increase representation of women, or people from diverse racial or cultural backgrounds, in an organisation 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 experts 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 acknowledgement structural inequality exists and bias affects evaluations.

Organisations 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.