I Am Not a Diversity Hire. I Got Hired Because I Can Do the Job.
In the aftermath of the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump, the public conversation took an unexpected and divisive turn. Despite the fact that investigations into the security lapse are still ongoing, some were quick to blame the agents involved — women — dismissing them as “DEI hires.” The implication? That diversity initiatives and women being allowed to do the job are to blame for failures in the system. But let’s pause and consider the facts: The former president survived. The Secret Service has some of the highest hiring and training standards in the country, and agents earn their positions through rigorous selection, regardless of gender or race. Blaming the event solely on a woman is not only absurd but dangerously misleading.
As someone who has worked as a first responder in multiple capacities — including as a 911 call taker, EMT, crisis worker, and Fugitive Recovery Agent — I know firsthand the level of skill, dedication, and professionalism these jobs require. Whether it was answering emergency calls, holding homicide victims as they took their last breaths, talking people out of suicide, helping parents calm their autistic children, or physically restraining individuals who didn’t want to return to jail, these roles demanded everything I had. And as a woman in this field, I had to work ten times harder to be seen as just as good as my male counterparts. Despite earning my promotions through skill and experience, I still heard the whispers: What did she do to get promoted? Spoiler alert — it wasn’t “be good at my job.”
When someone claims — without evidence — that a woman or person of color in a position of significance is a “DEI hire,” they are making three admissions:
- They believe all positions of significance belong to them by default. The very assumption that diversity means someone must have been given an unfair advantage reveals an entitlement to power and influence.
- They believe these individuals are inherently inferior and that there HAD to be a more qualified white person or male. This belief ignores experience, training, and qualifications in favor of a racial or gender-based assumption of superiority.
- They believe that sharing power fairly disadvantages them, which is an unconscious acknowledgment that they currently hold it all. The anger toward diversity efforts stems from the fear that true equality will mean giving up the disproportionate control they’ve long benefited from.
The idea that women or minorities only get their jobs due to diversity quotas is not just insulting — it’s blatantly false. The assumption that these professionals are unqualified ignores their rigorous training, experience, and the high standards they must meet. These attacks are rooted in deep-seated biases that undermine the achievements of those who have worked tirelessly to earn their roles.
This is especially evident in law enforcement. When people of color enter the field, they are often accused of being “diversity hires” and subjected to excessive scrutiny. Any mistake they make is blamed on so-called lowered standards, while their white counterparts are not held to the same level of criticism. It’s a lose-lose situation: people of color are criticized for not supporting law enforcement, yet when they join, their legitimacy is questioned. This bias doesn’t stop there. When Latinos enter public safety jobs, they are sometimes still accused of being undocumented or linked to cartels — an offensive and baseless stereotype. These assumptions ignore the dedication and hard work of Latino professionals and further fuel dangerous biases.
Now imagine being both a woman and a minority. The scrutiny and skepticism double. Not only is your competence questioned, but your very presence is reduced to being a “token hire.” This dual bias makes it even harder to gain the respect and recognition that should be based on merit, not background.
What’s truly dangerous is hiring someone not because they are the best for the job, but because of who they know. This happens frequently in long-standing institutions that have historically been dominated by white men. It’s not DEI that puts unqualified people into jobs — it’s nepotism.
In many police departments, firehouses, and government agencies, hiring still favors people whose father was a captain, whose uncle is a lieutenant, or who has the right friends in the department. These individuals often face far less scrutiny, even when they struggle to perform. Yet, no one calls them “nepotism hires” or questions whether they deserve to be there. If we are truly concerned about qualifications, then favoritism in hiring should be just as concerning — if not more so — than diversity efforts.
The same issue exists in elite higher education. Many Ivy League schools and prestigious universities still give preferential treatment to legacy applicants — students whose parents or grandparents attended the school. This practice, known as legacy admissions, gives an unfair advantage to students who already have access to wealth, connections, and top-tier schooling, often at the expense of equally or more qualified students from less privileged backgrounds. If we’re going to question whether DEI is fair, then we should also be questioning why legacy admissions still exist.
“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) is not about giving jobs to unqualified people to fill quotas. It’s about making sure the workforce reflects the communities it serves. It means outreach efforts to encourage people from underrepresented groups to consider careers they might not have previously thought about — not lowering the bar for them.
First responder fields, the military, and other public safety sectors hold job fairs and recruitment events targeting women and minorities — not to hand out jobs, but to show them these careers are open to them. Departments often seek bilingual officers in areas with large non-English-speaking populations, because communication in emergencies saves lives. But being bilingual doesn’t replace the other job requirements. Every candidate must still meet the necessary standards.
Despite what some believe, DEI does not mean skipping over qualified white men to hire unqualified women or minorities. It simply means making sure talented individuals from all backgrounds are aware of and encouraged to pursue these roles. The reality is that white men are not the only ones qualified to work in America. Women and minorities bring valuable perspectives and skills, and their contributions should be recognized — not dismissed as “diversity hires.”
Standards in professional fields exist for a reason, and those who meet them — regardless of gender or race — deserve respect for their abilities. The claim that diversity equates to diminished standards is not only incorrect but also harmful.
If people truly care about qualifications and fairness, then the conversation shouldn’t just be about DEI. It should also include the many unqualified people who are hired simply because they have connections. If we are going to demand that hiring and admissions be based solely on merit, then legacy admissions at elite universities and nepotism in hiring practices should be eliminated as well.
The successful outcome of the recent security incident should be seen for what it is: a testament to the high standards maintained by the Secret Service and the skill of its agents, regardless of their background. It’s time to stop using “DEI” as an insult and start recognizing women and minorities in public safety for what they truly are — qualified professionals who have earned their place.
