Time to Replace DEI with Real Diversity of Thought

Let’s start with the basics: DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It’s a concept that’s been widely adopted by companies, schools, and institutions over the past decade. At first glance, it sounds like a noble cause — who wouldn’t want to be inclusive, fair, and diverse?

But here’s the thing: a growing number of people are beginning to question whether DEI is actually delivering what it promises. More importantly, is it even focused on the right kind of diversity? diversity of thought

The Problem with Skin-Deep Diversity

Most DEI programmes today tend to zero in on things like skin colour, gender, and ethnicity. The idea is that if we bring together people from different racial and cultural backgrounds, we’ll end up with a richer mix of ideas, perspectives, and experiences.

But does that really happen?

Just because someone looks different doesn’t mean they think differently. A boardroom filled with people of various ethnic backgrounds might still be an echo chamber if they all went to the same universities, read the same newspapers, hold the same political views, and speak in the same corporate language. In that case, how diverse are they, really?

Diversity of Thought: The Missing Piece

What’s often missing from the conversation is diversity of thought. This means encouraging people who actually think differently — people with unusual opinions, new ways of seeing the world, or even people who challenge the status quo. This kind of diversity can lead to genuine innovation, deeper conversations, and better problem-solving.

Yet in many modern workplaces and institutions, diversity of thought isn’t just overlooked — it’s discouraged. If someone dares to question the dominant DEI narrative or holds views outside the accepted script, they can be labelled as “problematic” or even punished. The irony is painful: in a world obsessed with inclusion, there seems to be little room for dissent.

Equity or Equal Outcomes?

Let’s dig into the “E” in DEI — Equity. This term is often confused with “equality”, but they’re not the same. Equality is about giving everyone the same opportunities. Equity, on the other hand, is about ensuring equal outcomes. That might sound fair at first, but it raises a lot of questions.

If two people start from the same place and one works harder, takes more risks, or simply performs better, should they end up in the same position? Should rewards be handed out based on identity rather than merit?

When equity is taken to extremes, it risks becoming unfair — even discriminatory. You might have heard stories of job candidates being chosen not for their talent or experience, but because they tick the right diversity boxes. That doesn’t help anyone in the long run. It can also lead to resentment and division, the very opposite of what DEI claims to promote.

Inclusion — But for Whom?

The final letter, “I”, stands for Inclusion. Again, a lovely word on paper. Who wouldn’t want to feel included? But in practice, inclusion often seems to mean: “You’re welcome, as long as you agree with us.”

This narrow version of inclusion creates environments where people are afraid to speak freely. They worry about saying the “wrong” thing, using the wrong words, or holding unpopular opinions. Rather than creating a safe space for honest dialogue, DEI sometimes creates a culture of silence and fear.

The Risk of Tokenism

There’s also the issue of tokenism — hiring or promoting someone mainly to show that a company is meeting its diversity targets. This reduces people to symbols. It’s not only disrespectful to the individuals involved; it’s also damaging to team morale. People start wondering whether someone got the job because they were the best person — or just the “right face”.

Worse still, it puts pressure on minorities to represent an entire group, as if one person could stand for the experiences of millions. That’s not real inclusion — it’s theatre.

What Real Diversity Looks Like

So, what would real diversity look like?

It would mean welcoming people who don’t think like us. People who challenge groupthink. People who bring genuinely new perspectives, not just new packaging.

It would mean hiring based on ability, curiosity, and courage — not on characteristics people were born with and can’t change.

It would mean creating workplaces and schools where disagreement is allowed, even encouraged. Where being different in opinion is seen as a strength, not a threat.

It would mean moving away from tick-box exercises and identity politics, and towards an open culture of learning and questioning.

The Real Risk: We Stop Thinking

The biggest danger of focusing too much on surface-level diversity is that it lets us feel good without doing the hard work. It’s much easier to measure someone’s race or gender than to assess their ideas, values, and critical thinking skills.

But in a world facing complex challenges — climate change, economic instability, war, technological disruption — we need thinkers. We need people who can disagree without hating each other, who can listen deeply, and who aren’t afraid to be wrong.

We won’t get there by obsessing over how people look. We’ll get there by paying attention to how people think.

diversity of thought

Maybe it’s time we stopped treating people like categories, and started treating them like individuals.

True diversity isn’t about your skin, your surname, or where your grandparents were born. It’s about your mind, your courage, and your willingness to explore unfamiliar ideas.

That kind of diversity is harder to measure, harder to manage, and harder to sell. But it’s the only kind that can lead to real change.