Does "Equality" Save Society or Weaken It?—The Core of the DEI Debate Shaking America

"Equality" is one of the most morally resonant words in modern society. Many believe that everyone should be treated equally before the law, and that one's life opportunities should not be closed off by birth, race, gender, faith, or family background.

However, in recent years in America, the word "equality" itself has become a political flashpoint. Those advocating for equality link it to rectifying discrimination and expanding social participation. On the other hand, critics argue that equality has morphed into "equalizing outcomes" or "prioritizing attributes over abilities."

An article by Selwyn Duke in the conservative American media outlet 'The New American' titled "Is Our 'Equality' Obsession Destroying Our Nation?" is at the heart of this conflict. The author questions whether modern society's obsession with "equality" has caused us to lose sight of more fundamental measures such as "quality," "ability," and "justice."

The core of the article is highly provocative.

Equality, in itself, does not signify good.
It is possible for everyone to be equal in poverty.
It is possible for everyone to be equal in illness.
A state where abilities are uniformly low is, formally, equality.

In other words, merely being "equal" does not determine whether a society is progressing positively or sinking negatively. The author emphasizes this point, arguing that the word equality is overrated as a measure of societal quality.

This debate is not merely philosophical. It is set against the backdrop of intense political conflict over DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion—in America.

DEI originally spread as an initiative to broaden participation opportunities for historically disadvantaged people in workplaces and schools and to reduce prejudice and exclusion. It has permeated various fields, including corporate hiring, university admissions, employee training, and public sector personnel policies.

However, as support has grown, so has opposition. Critics view DEI as, despite its claim to fairness, overly emphasizing attributes like race and gender at the expense of individual ability and effort. Conversely, supporters argue that invisible inequalities remain in society, and without action, existing disparities will only be reproduced.

This conflict is particularly vivid on social media.

Conservative reactions often highlight opinions such as "Don't lower standards in the name of equality," "Destroying meritocracy weakens both organizations and society," and "Confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome." Especially in fields where failure directly impacts lives or social order, such as aviation, healthcare, policing, military, and education, there is a strong argument for prioritizing ability and aptitude over attributes.

From this standpoint, DEI appears not as a well-intentioned policy but as a system that blurs evaluation criteria. If hiring and promotions emphasize "which group's representation to enhance" rather than "who is most qualified," the trust in the entire organization is undermined.

On the other hand, the social media responses from liberals and DEI supporters are entirely different. Comments include "Attacks on equality ultimately serve as an excuse to justify discrimination," "Meritocracy is mentioned, but was the system measuring that merit fair?" and "Ignoring past exclusion and viewing current competition as neutral is deceitful."

From this perspective, DEI is not a denial of meritocracy but rather a corrective mechanism to properly identify abilities. For example, even with the same talent, differences in educational opportunities, family environment, region, network, and the presence or absence of prejudice can determine who reaches the point of evaluation and who does not. The idea is that saying "it's the same starting line" while leaving these differences unaddressed is unjust.

Interestingly, both supporters and critics on social media use the word "fairness." Critics say, "Look at the individual, not the attribute." Supporters say, "Don't ignore the invisible disadvantages caused by attributes." Both seem to be looking at the same society, but the locations of perceived injustices differ.

The original article strongly argues against equating "equality" with "fairness." Equality can sometimes mean distributing the same amount to everyone. However, fairness includes treating people differently based on circumstances, responsibilities, and contributions.

For example, recognizing the same contractual capacity for children and adults contradicts formal equality. Yet, many do not consider it unfair. In roles where physical strength or risk-bearing is crucial, imposing the same standards on everyone or considering different aptitudes can both be debated under the name of "fairness."

Thus, what society truly needs is not simple equality but the discernment to determine what should be treated the same and what should be treated differently.

In this regard, the original article invokes Aristotelian concepts of "justice" and "virtue." It argues for returning to values such as justice, prudence, courage, temperance, and responsibility instead of handling everything with the single word equality. This reflects a fundamental distrust of modern institutional design.

However, there are points to be cautious about in the original article's argument. Criticizing an excessive obsession with equality is different from disregarding equality itself. Historically, the idea of equality has been a force against class systems, slavery, legal discrimination, restrictions on women's political participation, and racial segregation. If the valid point that "equality does not guarantee quality" leaps to the conclusion that "therefore, equality is not important," it poses another danger.

Equality is indeed not a sufficient condition for measuring societal quality. But without a minimum level of equality, society loses the foundation to even discuss fairness.

The issue is not to discard equality but to avoid making it a catch-all term.

In the current United States, the atmosphere surrounding DEI is changing significantly. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the race-conscious admissions processes at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina unconstitutional, imposing significant restrictions on affirmative action. From 2025 onward, there is a movement to reduce or abolish DEI policies at the federal government level, and many large companies are also reconsidering their diversity initiatives.

Public opinion is also not monolithic. According to a Pew Research Center survey, while many Americans recognize the importance of promoting racial and ethnic diversity in the workplace, views on whether DEI has made society more or less fair are sharply divided along political lines. An AP-NORC survey also shows that while some believe DEI reduces discrimination, many feel it increases discrimination against certain groups.

This indicates that the issue of DEI is no longer simply about whether it is a "good policy" or a "bad policy." People perceive it as a very concrete anxiety about how they and their families will be evaluated, whether their efforts will be rewarded, or whether they will face disadvantages.

On social media, this anxiety explodes in short phrases.

"Look at ability."
"Look at discrimination."
"Reverse discrimination."
"Structural discrimination."
"Equality is important."
"Equality of outcome is dangerous."

In these brief exchanges, the fears of the other side are hard to see. DEI critics fear being unfairly excluded due to attributes for themselves or their children. DEI supporters fear that previously overlooked exclusion will once again become invisible. Both are responding to a pressing issue of how they are treated in society, not merely an ideological stance.

Therefore, what is needed is neither to shout the word equality nor to mock it. What is needed is to clarify the objectives and standards for each system.

In hiring, what abilities are measured?
In promotion, what achievements are evaluated?
In education, what disadvantages are corrected, and from where is it treated as individual effort?
In public policy, what rights are equally guaranteed to whom, and what support is distributed according to circumstances?

If these remain ambiguous while only advocating "diversity" or "equality," opposition will intensify. Conversely, if only "meritocracy" is advocated while ignoring past and present prejudices, social division will deepen.

Equality and ability do not inherently need to be adversaries. Rather, both are necessary in a healthy society.

We should be equal before the law.
Access to opportunities should be as open as possible.
Evaluation criteria should be transparent.
The abilities necessary for a job should not be compromised.
Policies to rectify past injustices should be examined for their objectives, timelines, and side effects.
The principle of viewing individuals rather than attributes and the stance of recognizing real disadvantages caused by attributes should be held simultaneously.

The provocative question posed by the original article, "Does an obsession with equality destroy the nation?" does not have a simple answer.

Equality itself does not destroy a nation.
However, the attitude of thinking that all discussions end with the use of the word equality weakens society.
At the same time, the attitude of ignoring real discrimination and exclusion under the name of ability or quality also weakens society.

The real question should not be "Equality or inequality?"
It should be "Which equality to protect, which differences to acknowledge, and by what standards to evaluate people."

The DEI debate in American society is not irrelevant to Japan. Issues such as corporate talent recruitment, university admissions, women's participation, foreign workers, employment of people with disabilities, regional disparities, and intergenerational gaps already pose the same questions in our society.

Do not become intoxicated by the word equality.
Do not become indifferent with the word ability.
Do not evade the more challenging issue of fairness.

That might be the first step needed in an era of division.

Source URL

Selwyn Duke, "Is Our 'Equality' Obsession Destroying Our Nation?" Used for confirmation of the article's theme, points of debate, and author's claims.
https://thenewamerican.com/us/culture/is-our-equality-obsession-destroying-our-nation/

Pew Research Center: Survey on American attitudes towards diversity and DEI as of 2026. Used to confirm support for diversity promotion and partisan differences.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/25/how-americans-value-racial-diversity-ahead-of-the-countrys-250th-anniversary/

Pew Research Center: Survey indicating that views on DEI among U.S. workers have become slightly more negative. Used to confirm changes in workplace DEI evaluations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/19/views-of-dei-have-become-slightly-more-negative-among-us-workers/

AP News / AP-NORC: U.S. public opinion survey on DEI and perceptions of discrimination. Used to confirm the divide between those who see DEI as reducing or increasing discrimination.
https://apnews.com/article/poll-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-discrimination-7b285f32b2e1f4e95a86f5ecaf130774

The White House: Presidential order regarding the review of federal government DEI-related programs as of January 20, 2025. Used to confirm U.S. government anti-DEI policies.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/

Associated Press: Overview of U.S. companies scaling back or reviewing DEI initiatives. Used to confirm corporate responses and pressures through social media and litigation.
https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/which-us-companies-are-pulling-back-on-diversity-initiatives/

SCOTUSblog: Explanation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in college admissions. Used to confirm the legal background.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/