By Muhammad Ahsan, CCIP
DEI Specialist, EHRC
In today’s workplaces, the debate between Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and the emerging concept of Merit, Equality and Individuality (MEI) is more than a clash of acronyms—it represents a fundamental struggle over how we define fairness, success and opportunity in society. While MEI champions a vision where individual merit is the ultimate measure of success, DEI challenges us to confront the systemic barriers that shape the realities of countless individuals.
The appeal of MEI lies in its promise of a meritocratic society where everyone starts on equal footing and success is determined purely by individual effort and ability. It paints a picture of a world where structural barriers do not exist, and every person has equal access to opportunities. In such an ideal world, DEI initiatives may seem redundant. However, our world is far from this utopia. Deep-rooted inequities exist across social, economic and political structures, and these disparities cannot simply be resolved by emphasizing merit alone.
MEI assumes that everyone has an equal starting point, ignoring the significant influence of factors like race, gender, socioeconomic status and disability on one’s ability to succeed. This perspective overlooks how historical and systemic barriers continue to shape individuals’ access to opportunities. For those from marginalized backgrounds, challenges like unconscious biases in hiring, underrepresentation in leadership and limited access to education and professional networks are all too real. MEI risks reinforcing the status quo by focusing on individual merit without addressing these systemic obstacles.
In contrast, DEI acknowledges these systemic inequities and strives for a more nuanced form of fairness. Diversity emphasizes the importance of representation, ensuring that organizations and communities include varied perspectives and experiences. Equity recognizes that treating everyone equally is not enough; it’s about providing the necessary resources and opportunities tailored to individuals’ unique circumstances. Inclusion seeks to create environments where all individuals feel valued and can contribute fully.
Where MEI falls short is in its failure to address the systemic context in which merit is evaluated. It frames disparities in outcomes as personal failings rather than as the result of structural inequities.
This is similar to how the “All Lives Matter” response to the Black Lives Matter movement missed the point: while all lives do matter, the call for justice specifically highlighted the systemic racism disproportionately affecting Black individuals. By attempting to neutralize the issue, “All Lives Matter” inadvertently dismissed the unique struggles that needed urgent attention. MEI risk doing the same by emphasizing a merit-based approach without accounting for systemic inequalities.
Some proponents of MEI view it as a balanced approach, arguing that focusing on merit is more inclusive than explicitly addressing diversity and equity. However, this perspective often aligns with narratives that oppose equity-focused initiatives, sometimes framing them as reverse discrimination. By emphasizing meritocracy and individualism, MEI shifts the conversation away from systemic change and toward a vision of society that inadvertently privileges those who already hold power.
This is not to say that merit, equality and individuality are not valuable—they certainly are. Yet, in the context of systemic inequality, they can be co-opted into a narrative that resists efforts toward a more equitable society. When used without critical examination of the structures that shape individual outcomes, MEI serves to maintain the status quo, fostering resentment toward DEI initiatives by portraying them as unnecessary or divisive.
DEI initiatives understand that true fairness requires more than just equal treatment. It requires a commitment to recognizing and addressing the unique barriers individuals face. By emphasizing diversity, DEI acknowledges the value of varied perspectives. By prioritizing equity, it recognizes that some individuals need more support to overcome obstacles that others do not face. And by fostering inclusion, it strives to create environments where everyone can thrive, not just those who fit the existing mould.
DEI is not a rejection of merit or individuality. Instead, it acknowledges that the evaluation of merit is not neutral, and that individuality is shaped by social contexts. It calls for a systemic approach to addressing the deep disparities created by historical and ongoing injustices. In this regard, DEI is not just relevant—it is essential. It challenges us to confront uncomfortable truths about privilege and inequality and to take deliberate action toward creating a more equitable world.
The debate between DEI and MEI reflects fundamentally different visions of how society should function. While MEI offers a compelling vision of a meritocratic society, it fails to grapple with the complexities of systemic inequality. In its ideal form, MEI might be a framework to aspire to in a world free of systemic barriers. However, in the reality we face, DEI’s principles must guide our efforts to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Until we achieve a world where meritocracy is genuinely unbiased, the work of diversity, equity and inclusion remains crucial.