Against DEI

It is important for me to clarify the conceptual difference between the separate ideas of Equality of Merit, Equality of Opportunity, and Equality of Outcome. It is one of the reasons that it is so difficult to find any sort of middle ground in such a conversation. To believe in Equality of Merit is to trust that individuals who are most deserving succeed (“Meritocracy,” Stanford, McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/ypt4hrvt). Equality of Merit is part of the overarching Equality of Opportunity perspective, which believes in a faultless world of merit, where progress is solely understood to be a function of hard work and ability—essentially that the cream rises to the top and that “inequalities” are just a pecking order of capability. It is an article of faith that everyone more or less starts on the line together in the race of life. Some are naturally faster, some slower, but everybody has a fair chance (J. Caccavale, “The Truth About Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome,” 2021, https://tinyurl.com/m9u45bh6).

Equality of Outcome suggests that not all merit is equal at all. For example, the starting line of the SAT or ACT is mediated by those who can afford expensive exam prep, better schooling (most often white), extracurricular activities, and an expectation that college is a natural multigenerational destiny. It is the reality that they already know the finer points of dining etiquette and their speech holds the right sort of capital, denoting they are from the right sort of school to be the best fit in the professional workplace and beyond. To not have this kind of opportunity means that, in the race of life, you start much further back. Equality of Outcome seeks to guarantee that fairness is measured by benchmarks and quotas to ensure quantitative representations of minorities actually occurs, something that does not happen under the other two perspectives. So, whether we believe in the Equality of Opportunity or Equality of Outcome matters when we have discussions about special pleading for one group or view People of Color (POC) being unable to do well, and so need DEI to nudge them further towards the starting line.

Unfortunately, Equality of Merit and Equality of Opportunity rhetoric doesn’t hold up against the data. For example, the AICPA’s 2021 Trends report notes that in 2020 a mere 2% of qualified CPAs and partners were Black in the United States, while a mere 5% Latino/Hispanic were partners and CPAs. (Note that the 2023 report is available but does not breakdown analysis into qualified CPAs by race. The opening paragraph infers that this might be due to a poor response rate. Therefore, the most complete data freely available remains the 2021 Trends Report; see http://www.nysscpa.org/2021-trends.) Going back further, the 2015 AICPA Trends Report noted that new accounting Bachelor’s and Master’s graduates hired by CPA firms by race and ethnicity from 2000–2014 was 3% for Blacks/African Americans and Hispanic/Latino accountants. Compare this with the 2020 U.S. Census, which records African Americans (alone) as 12.4% of the populace and those of Latino/Hispanic origin 18.7%, and we see that accounting has a problem of Black and Brown representation compared to the population at large (https://tinyurl.com/4yrnh5w3).

This is a long-standing problem: Theresa Hammond, a noted historian of the African American accountant, has pointed out that in 1997 less than 1% of CPAs were Black. Hammond was also one of the first to chronicle African American disenfranchisement in the profession from its inception to modern times, citing that the first African American CPA did not exist until 1921 (A White-Collar Profession, University of North Carolina Press, 2002). She goes on to note that:

The question today is, what to do about it? Be it Affirmative Action or DEI, the aim has always been to address this imbalance. It isn’t about guilt making, or special pleading, but an attempt to hold the profession up to self-professed claims of equity that do not ring true. DEI is admittedly a blunt tool, but it is one of the few that we have to do the job of increasing racial representation. In many ways, arguing against the use of DEI comes down to whether you believe the data and which perspective you take on opportunity. If you trust the numbers, then DEI metrics are a sensible expression of the Equality of Outcome, used to make the myth of accounting meritocracy real with varying degrees of success. If you don’t, then I presume the viewpoint of the Equality of Opportunity holds fast, and I am interested to know exactly how meritocracy can be reconciled against the parlous state of POC, women, and LGBTQ+ representation across the board in the profession, just to name a few.

Some point toward the mantra of DEI as the problem. But for me the idea of a DEI mantra is a bit more difficult to pin down. If I had to hazard a guess, I think it alludes to a feeling of being coerced into equity and inclusion work, a kind of zombification of free thought where the choice to say no is removed. I will concede that the way certain DEI trainings have been broached in the past has done more to disenfranchise those it seeks to aid rather than help. But the core thrust is righteous; it is about cultivating impartiality, tolerance, and connection. (Funnily enough, my therapist tells me this is the basis of most relationships!) Which in a way makes sense—because ultimately, we need to understand one another in ways that might mean right or wrong doesn’t really matter, but trust and empathy in our colleagues do. If a DEI mantra exists, it is time to work across the aisle to make sure that the beat of this drum can be heard and accepted by all in an affirming way.

Let us remember that if institutional barriers do exist for POC in accounting—and we have plenty of evidence to suggest that they do—then they really must swim against the tide and up waterfalls as a daily activity, one that is a concrete requirement for Black and Brown success (P. Davis, D. Dickins, J. Higgs, J. Reid, “Auditing While Black: Revealing Microaggressions Faced by Black Professionals in Public Accounting,” Current Issues In Auditing, vol. 15, no. 2, 2021, pp. 24–33).

In my research I ask accounting as a profession to be brave in dealing with its racial past, accepting that such actions determine its racial present as well as future. Where dialogue across contentious DEI is concerned, I ask us all to be brave once again. I often quote one of the world’s shortest poems on such occasions, Me, We, by Muhammad Ali. It conjures the idea that the “Me” is a steadfast positionality, alone, lonely, and enraged. The “We” however, leads to an “Us,” showing that we are in fact flexible, we are in this together even when in dispute, and we remain hopeful no matter the outcome. This is my call to our readers and many others.

I do deeply value the column and the fine work done by the CPA Journal to inform our readership about varied aspects of the profession. Connection is key, we are not alone, and are much more similar than we know, both in our profession of accounting and in society. We must all strive to find a way together.