Getty

getty

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, debates about diversity, equity, inclusion, merit and fairness have become increasingly polarized. Yet beneath those arguments lies a question that has shaped the nation since its founding: Who gets the opportunity to participate in the American promise?

The debate over diversity, equity and inclusion has become one of the nation's most visible fault lines.

Some states have restricted the use of terms like diversity, equity and inclusion in government and education. Federal programs and grants that once prioritized equity-related goals are being scaled back or eliminated.

Supporters argue these changes restore merit and equal treatment. Critics contend they are closing doors that previous generations worked hard to open.

Whatever side of those debates Americans find themselves on, the conversation often gets reduced to a false choice: opportunity versus outcomes, merit versus equity.

The reality is more nuanced.

The American experiment has never been about guaranteeing that everyone arrives at the same destination. It has been about expanding who has the opportunity to pursue success, contribute their talents and build a better future.

While the United States was founded on the belief that all people are created equal in dignity and rights, the nation has often fallen short of that ideal. Yet over 250 years, America has repeatedly expanded who can fully participate in its promise.

For much of our history, large portions of the population were excluded from opportunities that others took for granted. Property ownership limited political participation. Enslaved people were denied freedom. Women were denied the right to vote. People with disabilities were often shut out of schools, workplaces and public life.

American progress has largely been the story of removing those barriers.

Each step was contested, and each was imperfect. Yet together they reflected a common principle: opportunity should not be reserved for a narrow group of people.

Today, discussions about equity often become mired in disagreements over outcomes. Many people hear the word and assume it means guaranteeing identical results for everyone. That assumption fuels much of the political controversy.

Outcomes have never been equal, and they never will be. People make different choices, possess different talents and encounter different circumstances. Some take risks that pay off. Others experience setbacks despite doing everything right.

The question is whether everyone has a meaningful opportunity to contribute, compete and succeed. That distinction matters.

At its core, equity is intended to expand opportunity by removing barriers that prevent qualified people from being considered, competing or succeeding.

Throughout my career, I have never hired someone simply because of a demographic characteristic, nor would I. But I have worked intentionally to create systems that expand the pool of people considered for opportunities. You can’t identify the best talent if you’re only looking in part of the talent pool.

Businesses, sports teams and military organizations understand this principle. In a previous column, I wrote about the Rooney Rule, which was designed to ensure that qualified candidates had an opportunity to compete. The underlying logic is straightforward: organizations make better decisions when they evaluate a broader pool of talent. That distinction — between expanding opportunity and guaranteeing outcomes — is often lost in today's debates.

The broader the search, the stronger the competition. The stronger the competition, the more likely you are to discover exceptional people, innovative ideas and unexpected solutions.

That is not a rejection of merit. It is a reaffirmation of it.

Expanding opportunity and rewarding merit are not competing values. They depend on one another.

Expanding opportunity helps ensures that talent is not overlooked, barriers are removed and people are considered based on their abilities and potential. It is about making sure opportunity is available to those who might otherwise be excluded from consideration.

America's greatest successes have often come from widening the circle of participation. The nation's economic growth, scientific breakthroughs, entrepreneurial achievements and civic progress have been powered by people who were once denied opportunities that others took for granted.

Expanding opportunity is not simply a moral aspiration. It is a competitive advantage.

A nation that draws talent from every community will outperform one that overlooks capable people. An economy that allows more individuals to contribute will generate more innovation. Organizations that cast wider nets will discover stronger leaders, better ideas and greater resilience.

America's future prosperity depends not on lowering standards, but on ensuring that talent has the opportunity to rise wherever it is found.

After 250 years, Americans will continue to disagree about politics, policies and priorities. That is part of the nation's character. But one idea has endured across generations: opportunity should never be reserved for a fortunate few.

America has changed dramatically over 250 years. Industries have risen and fallen. Technologies have transformed daily life. The nation has expanded, struggled, adapted and reinvented itself. Through all that change, one principle has endured: the belief that opportunity should grow wider with each generation.

If America is to thrive in its next 250 years, it must continue the work of making good on its promise of opportunity.