Why Conservatives Should Reconsider Their Critique of DEI

Conservatives often direct their criticisms at Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives by highlighting how these programs may erode merit-based systems and promote ideological conformity. While these concerns are valid, the arguments typically presented are incomplete. By failing to acknowledge the deeper causes of group disparities in educational and professional achievement, conservative critiques remain superficial and ineffective.

A recent article by Ellie Gardey Holmes in The American Spectator illustrates this issue. In her investigation of admissions practices at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, she reported that black applicants were six times more likely to be accepted than Asian applicants. This was despite the fact that the black applicants had an average MCAT score in the 62nd percentile, compared to an average score in the 87th percentile for Asians. To many conservatives, this appears to be undeniable evidence that DEI policies are unfair and discriminatory.

However, such arguments only point to the visible outcomes without addressing the underlying factors. They fail to explain why these gaps in performance exist in the first place. To understand why DEI initiatives were created, one must consider the enduring differences in cognitive ability between racial groups—a subject that remains taboo in mainstream discourse but is essential for a comprehensive discussion.

Well before contemporary researchers such as Charles Murray and Richard Lynn entered this field, psychologists like Henry Garrett and Audrey Shuey had already studied the issue in great detail. Shuey’s comprehensive 1966 book, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, analyzed more than 400 studies and consistently found that African Americans scored approximately 15 IQ points lower than white Americans on average. These results were remarkably consistent across different regions, time periods, and types of intelligence tests. Importantly, the research showed that these disparities could not be fully explained by socioeconomic status. Middle-class black children tended to score lower than working-class white children, even when factors such as education and parental occupation were held constant.

This is not merely an academic point. Intelligence, particularly general intelligence—often referred to as “g”—is a major predictor of success in cognitively demanding professions. When professions such as medicine, law, engineering, and academic research are described as “highly selective,” they are effectively filtering for individuals with high levels of cognitive ability. These fields are “g-loaded,” meaning that success within them depends heavily on general intelligence rather than on specific learned skills alone.

Because the average black IQ in the United States is around 85, compared to an average of about 100 for whites and even higher for some Asian groups, it follows mathematically that there will be fewer African Americans in the top percentiles of the intelligence distribution. This has significant implications. For example, only a very small proportion of the population has an IQ over 140, a level often seen in individuals who become top researchers, surgeons, or inventors. Given the average differences in group IQ, the proportion of African Americans at this level is much lower than that of whites or Asians.

This reality helps to explain the disparities that DEI initiatives aim to address. These programs are not random or irrational; they are responses to a stubborn pattern of unequal group outcomes. By focusing only on the symptoms—racial preferences and lowered standards—conservative critics fail to explain why these measures were implemented in the first place.

Moreover, this oversight weakens the moral force of conservative arguments. Progressives claim that all groups are equally capable and that disparities in outcome must therefore be due to discrimination. When conservatives accept this premise but oppose the remedies, they leave themselves without a consistent or credible foundation. If outcomes are unequal and ability is presumed equal, then policy must step in. If, however, differences in ability exist, then we must confront the implications directly.

Currently, conservative opposition to DEI is largely symbolic. It generates headlines, fuels commentary, and rallies partisan enthusiasm, but it does not change policy in any meaningful way. Court cases and investigative journalism can reveal misconduct and double standards, but without a deeper analysis of ability differences, these efforts will not produce a sustainable or coherent alternative to DEI.

To move beyond surface-level outrage, conservatives must begin addressing the reality that cognitive ability is not distributed equally among all racial groups. This does not mean embracing biological determinism or rejecting individual merit. It means acknowledging the scientific data and understanding the policy implications. If DEI is a misguided solution to a real problem, then we must first understand the nature of that problem. Only then can we develop more rational and effective responses.

Until conservatives are willing to engage with the psychometric literature and the possibility of genetic influences on intelligence, their arguments will remain incomplete. DEI will continue to grow in influence, not because it is wise or effective, but because its critics are too timid to challenge the assumptions that sustain it.

In its current form, the conservative critique of DEI lacks both explanatory power and strategic depth. It focuses on appearances rather than causes, and in doing so, it fails to offer an intellectually serious alternative. If conservatives truly wish to dismantle the DEI framework, they must be willing to speak the uncomfortable truth: that group disparities are not always the result of discrimination, but often reflect enduring differences in ability. Pretending otherwise will only ensure that the DEI movement remains dominant, unchallenged, and entrenched