‘Diversity caused the crash’: The Racism Disguised in Meritocratic Discourse

Roaa Ali

Following the mid-air collision between a passenger jet and a helicopter in Washington, D.C., on January 29th, Donald Trump sparked controversy by suggesting that diversity programmes played a role in the crash. These claims continue to be repeated despite having been widely contested and refuted. His attack on what he termed a “diversity push” is riddled with factual inaccuracies and is, at best, deeply problematic—at worst, overtly racist.

The rise of the far right and the increasing normalisation of right-wing rhetoric under the guise of neoliberal meritocracy are not just racist but also sexist, homophobic, and fundamentally dangerous. The economic welfare of nations in the Global North has long been framed as being at odds with racial equality, an argument often cloaked in purely economic terms. As Cedric Robinson argues, capitalism has always been racial. Its development was never a neutral economic process but was fundamentally shaped by racial hierarchies. Yet, dominant narratives continue to place the blame on racialised communities, portraying them as obstacles to economic prosperity. America is the prime example of this recycled rhetoric: job crises are blamed on racialised immigrants, crime is attributed to racialised groups, and now, in the latest brazen attack, a tragic aviation accident—one with multiple undisclosed technical and security failures—is blamed on diversity hiring. There is no longer even a superficial attempt to disguise this racism.

The insinuation behind the inflammatory rhetoric of “diversity hire” is that ethnically diverse individuals are inherently unqualified, lack merit, and are only hired to appease an imagined “woke” agenda that unfairly discriminates against white people. This claim, championed by Trump and his ideological allies, is openly racist. And there is ample evidence to support the assertion that it is.

First, the concept of meritocracy itself is a neoliberal myth. In a neoliberal economic system, meritocracy does not exist. People’s access to opportunities in education, housing, healthcare, and the job market is structured by deeply entrenched inequalities. The idea that hiring processes are purely merit-based ignores these systemic barriers, reinforcing the illusion that success is solely determined by individual effort rather than structural privilege.

Second, race has always been institutionalised as a means of structuring power, labour, and social relations. Robinson defines “racial regimes” as the ways in which societies are organised around racial hierarchies, where race is used to assign meaning, status, and access to resources. These racial regimes marginalise racialised communities, and though their forms may evolve over time, their function remains the same: ensuring that racialised groups are positioned differently in relation to wealth, power, and social mobility. With Trump’s unfiltered attack on racial equality, we are witnessing a racial regime that is now operating openly and aggressively against marginalised and racialised communities.

Third, and perhaps most crucially, is the myth that so-called “diversity hires” are unqualified individuals selected purely for their race, gender, sexuality, or diverse ability. My research has demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. In interviews with ethnically diverse job entrants and organisations overseeing diversity initiatives, my findings show that, at least in the UK, these so-called “diversity hires” are often overqualified. They typically undergo two stringent recruitment processes: one by the organisation facilitating the diversity scheme and another by the employer hiring them. Furthermore, in the UK, diversity schemes are generally short-term, entry-level, or training-based. They were introduced as a response to structural and institutional racism, yet they offer only a temporary solution rather than addressing the root causes. As I have previously argued, diversity schemes function as a band-aid rather than a long-term structural intervention.

Finally, we must address the underlying racist assumption that diverse entrants are inherently unqualified. Beyond debunking the meritocratic myth, this assumption is rooted in a deeply racist ideology that harkens back to discredited theories of “race realism”, or “race science”, which links social racial disparity to biological difference. The implication is not merely that diverse candidates are less qualified, but that they cannot be qualified—an argument steeped in historical racial pseudoscience.

The resurgence of these racist and discriminatory ideologies in mainstream political discourse is alarming. What is especially dangerous is that these ideas are no longer being spread covertly or through dog whistles—they are now being openly expressed in public political statements. Efforts to address structural, historical, colonial, and imperial injustices, while already insufficient, are not just being undone; they are being actively attacked and distorted. The progress toward racial equality was always already slow and incomplete, but we are now entering an era where racial inequality is not just being tolerated—it is being openly advocated… This is not a drill!