For years, corporations and universities championed diversity initiatives, but now, many are quietly scaling them back. Why? Some claim prioritizing underrepresented groups leads to "reverse discrimination," insisting that merit alone should decide success. But can true meritocracy exist in a system built on inequality?

As I looked deeper, I realized this is not just about fairness—it is about power. Companies like Meta and Amazon have dismantled their DEI programs, often mirroring political shifts. It made me wonder: was diversity ever about justice, or just about staying on the right side of power?

This is not just an abstract debate—it affects real people, real opportunities, real lives. As institutions retreat, one thing is clear: the fight for true representation isn’t over. If equity is to mean anything, we have to demand it.

Discrimination and racism remain deeply entrenched in our institutions, shaping everything from job opportunities to educational access. Historically, minority groups have been sidelined in this relentless, cutthroat world. Over time, attempts were made to fix that. Policies like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) emerged as frameworks to promote fairness, representation, and belonging. Ivy League institutions, like Harvard, launched programs like the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Programme Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Programme to boost underrepresented student enrollment. In 2019, Facebook—now under the Meta umbrella—pledged that by 2024, half its workforce would come from diverse backgrounds. For a while, it seemed like institutions took genuine pride in championing diversity. But that pride is fading. The tide is turning—for the worse.

You might be surprised—I certainly was—when this realization hit me during a J-Term class I took this year called "Democracy in Britain".

During a seminar, our professor invited several high-profile guests—some affiliated with established UK political parties, others deeply involved in national politics. One visitor, aligned with a right-leaning group, shocked the room by vehemently opposing diversity recruitment initiatives. It felt almost surreal in a world that supposedly strives for inclusivity. But this is not just one person’s unpopular opinion—it is a growing sentiment creeping into corporate boardrooms, classrooms, and courtrooms. How did efforts to correct historic injustices become so controversial? The answer lies in claims of “reverse discrimination”—the belief that prioritizing underrepresented groups disadvantages others. Advocates of this perspective, including my seminar guest, push for a color-blind meritocracy, arguing that hiring and admissions should be based solely on achievements, not background.

At face value, that argument seems reasonable—no one wants truly qualified individuals to be cast aside based on race, gender, or identity. But here’s the problem. That utopian, conflict-free world where merit is the only currency does not exist. We live in a system that has historically favored white over Black, men over women, the wealthy over the poor. Inequality isn’t an abstract concept—it’s built into our institutions. So, while slapping the label “underrepresented” on a group might not be a perfect fix, the real crisis is that these communities have long been locked out of opportunities that others take for granted.

Yes, I know, meritocracy sounds like the fairest solution. But can we really call it fair when students or job-seekers start from vastly different playing fields? Can a résumé or personal statement truly reflect someone’s potential when historic structural racism and unequal access to resources have already capped what they could achieve?

Let me be clear: the point is not to undermine meritocracy—it is to ensure that merit and inclusive representation go hand in hand. But here’s the bigger question: If fairness in hiring has always been the goal, why are corporations suddenly reversing course on diversity? Why has the push to scale back these initiatives gained so much momentum in recent years? The answer isn’t as simple as it seems.

Take a look at Facebook. A decade ago, it released its first-ever diversity report, committing to greater representation. Fast forward to today—its parent company, Meta, has quietly dismantled its DEI program. Not only that, but according to The Guardian, reports tracking the company’s diversity progress have vanished online and are not accessible. Meta is not alone—Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants are scaling back diversity efforts, citing everything from cost-cutting to shifting priorities. But the timing is telling.

Soon after Mark Zuckerberg terminated Meta’s DEI programs, U.S. President Donald Trump began issuing similar executive orders for the federal government, rolling back diversity initiatives nationwide. This raises a very critical question: Was this ever really about representation? Or was it always about power— and whose good side we are on?

Many corporations love to frame their diversity efforts as moral commitments—until political tides shift. Then, suddenly, diversity programs become expendable. The influence politics has on these tech giants doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it shapes our lives, seeping into every facet of society. And that, perhaps, is one of the greatest threats we face.

Our world remains tilting toward privilege and power. Minority representation is not a given—it is something that has to be intentionally built, fought for, and protected. If corporate and political forces are willing to dismantle diversity efforts the moment they become inconvenient, then systemic intervention is needed now more than ever.