_edited.jpg)
The Hypocrisy of Meritocracy: The Boeing Decision, Rufo Commentary, and Presidential Appointments
Christopher Rufo’s recent commentary on Boeing’s dismantling of its DEI department highlights a broader ideological trend: corporate DEI efforts are under attack, with “meritocracy” cited as the main casualty of initiatives aimed at equity and inclusion. Rufo frames DEI as an “anti-excellence” approach, suggesting it undermines core competencies and dilutes organizational goals. But as we look at the broader landscape—particularly the Republican Party’s early presidential appointments and alignment with loyalty over leadership—it’s clear that the rhetoric around “meritocracy” is less about a principled stance and more about political convenience. When corporations or government leaders decide to dismantle DEI in the name of “meritocracy,” what’s truly being abandoned are the democratic values of equity, inclusivity, and the opportunity for all voices to thrive.
Boeing’s decision, and Rufo’s take on it, suggests that DEI initiatives distract from a company’s mission. Rufo and like-minded critics argue that DEI is “the drop you put in the bucket, and the whole bucket changes,” labeling it as “anti-excellence” and contending that these programs foster division rather than unity. Yet Boeing’s choice to abandon DEI doesn’t ensure a return to excellence; instead, it risks homogenizing a workforce that should reflect the global customers Boeing serves.
DEI isn’t a distraction from mission-critical goals like airplane production or technical expertise—it’s an essential enabler of resilience, adaptability, and growth. Boeing and others may find, as they dismantle DEI efforts, that they are losing more than they are saving by eliminating spaces for diverse voices and perspectives.
Meanwhile, as the new Trump administration begins staffing key federal roles, we see early signs that “meritocracy” is not the defining criterion in their selection process. Rather, allegiance and ideological alignment take precedence over competence or innovation. This approach underscores a glaring inconsistency: meritocracy is a rallying cry only when it serves to discredit DEI. When political or ideological loyalty takes center stage, the “identity politics” conservatives claim to oppose becomes a tool for reinforcing loyalty over leadership and suppressing diversity of thought within government.
The real identity politics on display is not in DEI initiatives; rather, it’s in the consolidation of power and loyalty-driven appointments that elevate alignment with the leader above all else. By attacking DEI as “lazy thought leadership” while simultaneously filling key roles based on ideological conformity, Republicans reveal a preference for control over competence. This politicization of appointments, rooted in deference rather than dynamism, highlights the very dangers DEI seeks to mitigate: a narrowing of perspectives, loss of critical feedback, and suppression of meaningful change.
Rufo’s critique and Boeing’s decision both reflect a broader grievance against DEI, framed as a meritocratic defense. Yet, paradoxically, the new administration’s early staffing choices suggest that merit is irrelevant when loyalty is prioritized. This contradiction leads to a fundamental question: if “meritocracy” is truly valued, why are diverse voices and independent thinkers sidelined in favor of those who pledge allegiance to a single leader?
Corporate leaders blaming DEI for “woeful performance and profits” might consider the reverse: could a lack of DEI and commitment to core democratic values be at the heart of organizational stagnation? Evidence consistently shows that diversity in leadership and workplace culture contributes to innovation, adaptability, and long-term financial success. Rather than seeing DEI as a box to check, companies should view it as a critical pillar for sustainable growth.
Abandoning DEI in the name of “meritocracy” is a false economy, one that may ultimately rob organizations of the creative, resilient thinking they need to thrive.
In a political climate where ideological conformity is valued over competency, the attack on DEI becomes increasingly transparent. DEI efforts are not anti-merit; they are anti-exclusion and anti-stagnation. By enabling workplaces to harness diverse strengths, backgrounds, and experiences, DEI ensures organizations are future-ready and capable of meeting the challenges of a rapidly changing world.
If companies, and indeed our government, want true meritocracy, they must commit to systems where opportunity, equity, and inclusion are not seen as threats but as the bedrock of excellence and innovation.
Effenus Henderson
Comments