Alright, folks, buckle up because we’ve got another classic case of political spin coming straight from Senator Cory Booker. Over the weekend, the New Jersey Democrat hopped on CNN’s State of the Union to defend diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—arguing that they’re actually about hiring the best of the best. That’s right, Booker wants you to believe that prioritizing race and gender over qualifications somehow guarantees the most qualified workforce.
Now, in theory, that might sound nice—who doesn’t want fairness and equal opportunity? But in practice? Well, that’s another story entirely. DEI, as we’ve seen over and over, has become less about broadening the talent pool and more about enforcing ideological quotas that prioritize identity over merit. And that’s precisely why the Trump administration has been moving aggressively to dismantle these initiatives across the country.
But Booker, ever the salesman, is out here trying to convince America that DEI is actually the key to hiring better people. “This is stunning to me,” he said, responding to GOP efforts to rein in these policies. “They’re really charging this word DEI as if it’s something that undermines the ability for the government to hire the best people.”
Cory Booker champions DEI: "They're really charging this word DEI as if it's something that undermines the ability for the government to hire the best people...it's actually the opposite of that...To me, these are the kinds of things that help us to hire the best of the best." 😂 pic.twitter.com/a1yPsiMr7O
— Julia 🇺🇸 (@Jules31415) February 9, 2025
Now, let’s take a second here—because this is where Booker’s argument starts to fall apart. The idea that government agencies and corporations weren’t hiring highly qualified women and minorities before DEI became a buzzword is just plain false. America has had equal opportunity hiring laws for decades. But DEI goes beyond equal opportunity—it actively pushes race and gender as deciding factors in hiring and promotions, often at the expense of qualifications.
Booker insists that DEI is simply about casting a wider net, saying, “Having a more inclusive search, to go to HBCUs or Hispanic-serving institutions, to find as big of an applicant pool as possible… helps us to hire the best of the best.” But let’s be real: does anyone actually believe that Fortune 500 companies and federal agencies weren’t already looking for top-tier talent across all backgrounds before DEI offices started popping up? The real impact of these initiatives has been a focus on outcomes rather than opportunity—meaning diversity quotas, implicit bias training, and policies that lower standards in the name of “equity.”
Even CNN’s Dana Bash wasn’t entirely buying it. She pointed out that a lot of Americans—including Democrats—see DEI as a major problem. And she’s right. Just look at polling—DEI programs have become deeply unpopular as more and more people realize they’re not about fairness, but about forced ideological compliance.
But Booker doubled down, insisting that DEI is simply about making sure “hiring processes should be inclusive of women and minorities, who often don’t get an opportunity to apply for the jobs because the search parameters are so narrow and so small.”
Now, let’s think about this for a second. Who, exactly, is stopping women and minorities from applying for jobs? Is there some secret cabal of hiring managers out there blocking access to applications? Of course not. In reality, there are more programs, scholarships, and mentorship opportunities than ever designed specifically to boost diversity in the workforce.
But here’s the kicker—what happens when DEI policies force companies or government agencies to pick people based on identity rather than qualifications? Well, we’ve already seen it in action. Look at what happened with airline pilot hiring policies that emphasized race and gender rather than flight experience. Or government contracts awarded based on DEI metrics rather than competitive pricing and quality. The result? A decline in standards, efficiency, and—ironically—public trust.