Defining Diversity

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is getting a lot of backlash and an attempt to redefine it as the anthesis of merit. This is a gross mistake.

Diversity and DEI are words that are now controversial, and there is an ongoing attempt to reframe them as the opposite of merit. Demonizing diversity is a slippery slope, and like many other pushes against the representation of differing perspectives and backgrounds, successfully pushing against it will result in a worse environment and halted societal progress. I research how social factors impact health outcomes and how medical information is communicated to underrepresented and marginalized populations. I wanted to be a health sciences researcher because of seeing my family members suffer from conditions, specifically when they forgo healthcare because they feel like medical spaces are not for them and these places do not have their best interests at heart. Diversity in spaces not only helps people feel more welcome but also brings fresh ideas to get a more complete conception of viewpoints.

Questioning the qualifications of people because they are not in the majority is an experience I have felt frequently. In high school, I went to a school where we had a few students go to highly selective colleges each year, and around half attended a four-year college. So, when I got into Dartmouth College, my dream school, through Early Admissions, I got many congratulations but equally got the same number of responses of “what was your ACT?”, “what was your GPA?”, “Did you get in for sports?”. Which surely takes the excitement away from a 17-year-old who got an achievement that he had envisioned for himself for a while. Those questions of merit were annoying, but I could argue they were fair since test score and GPA are the driving force of college admissions and it is easy to flatten people to a few numbers opposed to having a nuanced conversation about your lived experience. The most troubling statement (which sadly was a frequent one), “well if I was Black, I would have gotten in too”. A double whammy, not only belittling my achievement but also throwing in insight about yourself that I did not ask for.

For those who care, my ACT was within the median range of admitted students at Dartmouth. As were my unweighted and weighted GPAs. I took a ton of the highest courses offered at my school, was the President of our Student Government and National Honors Society as well as on the leadership board of our Black Student Union. I played Varsity Football and Track (but was not good enough to compete at the Division 1 level, so the snarky remarks about being recruited for a sport should be offensive both to me because of this misclassification and the prolific athletes recruited to my alma-mater because I did not have their accolades). I worked on my essay for Dartmouth specifically for well over 8 months and really wanted to go. If I had not gotten in, it would have been disappointing, but it would not slow down the mission of what I wanted to do in life, and I think that is indicative of who I am as a person and my temperament. Some might say that if there were not Affirmative Action and other DEI-related initiatives, my admission into a highly selective school would be more legitimate. Taking away legitimacy and agency from accomplishments is asinine to me, because at no point did I ever delegitimize the accomplishments of people who had more advantage than me, more exposure to opportunities, or other background items that might have elevated their profile. Again, it is a slippery slope to make diversity and merit at odds when the scales for both of those have considerable overlap.

During my time at Dartmouth (and most of its existence, I am sure), there was a large asymmetry between the socioeconomic diversity of America and the socioeconomic diversity that is present at the college. From my knowledge, half of the school did not qualify for financial aid on the approximately $ 80,000 a year cost of attendance. Since Dartmouth is solely a need-based financial aid-granting institution, this is based on your parental income alongside the other tuition needs they are facing at the time. At my high school, I am fairly certain that less than 5 of the around 1,000 people in the school would qualify to receive no aid from Dartmouth. The wealthiest person in my high school would probably be far closer to the median person at Dartmouth, which is not a reflection of the generational and/or top 1% wealth that many peers had in undergrad. While not guaranteed, having resources at that level will provide opportunities that people from places that reflect most of the average American’s lived experience could not even dream of. Merit is not based on equal opportunity, and although DEI is focused on diversity amongst socially constructed groups, throwing out DEI and diversity will throw gasoline on the stark divide in opportunity between individuals with immense resources and those who do not have them.

The reality of the current anti-DEI push is that the people in my position, who are hardworking and have a varying lived experience because of their racial background, have been vilified. At the same time, people who have enormous resources and have been taught about schools like Dartmouth since their early childhood are going to continue to reap the rewards of what privilege has offered. Racial and ethnic diversity programs are not without their flaws, but at the same time, the lack of consideration of socioeconomic diversity will not only make an environment where privilege and nepotism are the strongest currency that can facilitate merit. Underrepresented and historically marginalized groups are beginning to have an opportunity to make an impact at the highest possible level, and vilifying them at this stage prevents advancement.

My first NIH award was a diversity supplement. The diversity supplement program is a program which encourages principal investigators of existing awards to collaborate with underrepresented minority scholars by constructing a sub-question under the scope of the awarded grant that is an enhancement of their on-going work. These awards are available to individuals across all career stages, and in my opinion, the proposition of this helps diversify the biomedical workforce. If your institution does not already have funded investigators, you cannot have diversity supplements. I am fortunate enough to be at an institution where we have many R-level NIH grants (the larger grants that are offered to individual and co-investigators), and on these grants, there is a lot of potential for supporting important science and personnel. Often, places are told that they need to support minority scholars. At the same time, institutions do not provide faculty with the protected time or compensation to properly mentor individuals and while having an incredibly tight timeline for promotion and tenure decisions.

Being on a diversity supplement enabled my mentor to provide me with the necessary resources to support my work with newly acquired grant dollars. Additionally, it granted me the protected time to engage in independent projects that exposed me to new methods and new aspects of the research process. From a broader perspective, the preliminary evidence generated from these projects has the potential to pave the way for my career development and research agenda, ultimately contributing to my progress. I received my supplement in 2022, and since then, it has significantly contributed to my identity and CV. It has directly led to two first-author manuscripts currently under review, two more that I published due to the protected time it provided, and three co-author manuscripts through collaborations. Notably, the preliminary evidence generated by this work ultimately led me to receiving an NIA F99/K00 pre-to-post-doctoral transition award. I will provide more details about the diversity supplement and F99 research in later posts. However, the idea that programs like diversity supplements will be suspended is deeply concerning for those who may not have the opportunity to develop their careers in an environment where the odds are already stacked against them.

Demonizing diversity undermines the very foundation of my work. This sweeping approach to a complex issue is a clear sign of misunderstanding. Even the most well-intentioned opponents of DEI acknowledge the importance of nuance and present solutions and alternatives with depth. I firmly believe that moving away from diversity and in lieu of abstract “merit” is not beneficial; it is a step away from excellence and advancement.