As universities attempt to rebrand their “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs and offices, many have embraced the term “inclusive excellence,” promoting it as a strategy to recognize and cultivate both individual and institutional success. Inclusive excellence is framed as a method that values multiple perspectives to enhance overall performance. But in practice, it is little more than DEI under a new name—standards are softened to prioritize representation over merit. Whatever the label, this approach undermines genuine excellence, turning campuses into a kind of academic Little League, where everyone gets a trophy and true achievement takes a back seat.
Let’s be clear: excellence is by definition exclusive because it requires the setting of a high standard and the exclusion of those who can’t reach it. Thus, inclusive excellence is at odds with the rigorous pursuit of true distinction in universities, diluting merit-based criteria, inflating outcomes, and fostering a culture of lowered expectations, which hurts us all.
The rebrand of DEI as inclusive excellence is no surprise, given that it originated as part of the American Association of Colleges and Universities’s (AAC&U) “Making Excellence Inclusive” initiative, designed to ensure that diversity efforts are woven into every aspect of university life, from admissions to hiring to curriculum development. Proponents describe it as a model that goes beyond mere numbers, such as increasing minority enrollment, to create environments where all students can thrive.
[RELATED: A Retrospective on DEI and the Decline of Medical Schools]
On the surface, this sounds noble. Who wouldn’t want universities to be more accessible and to help all students thrive? However, in both theory and practice, this ideology and the programming it supports reduce the chances for most students to truly thrive by prioritizing inclusion over competition, standards, and genuine excellence. Inclusive excellence shifts the focus from objective measures of achievement (e.g., test scores, research output, or intellectual rigor) to subjective factors such as identity and background, lowering the bar to ensure broader recognition.
One of the clearest ways inclusive excellence undermines actual achievement is in university admissions, faculty hiring, and promotions. DEI mandates embedded in the inclusive excellence framework have led to policies that prioritize racial diversity over merit. Evidence suggests that faculty searches are being canceled or recruitment efforts are being altered to prioritize less qualified candidates. Most honest members of hiring and promotion committees in recent years will acknowledge receiving instructions on evaluating candidates that favored certain identities over others, regardless of the candidates’ work quality. (For anyone still unclear about the tension between inclusion and merit, Heather Mac Donald’s When Race Trumps Merit is a must-read.)
Google search results for “faculty status committee training dei.” When you click on the top link, the page now removes mention of equity and has a different URL (https://fse.ucsd.edu/recruitment/index.html), as evidence for rebranding.
Note the specification for creating a hiring committee.
Note how the BIE is not inclusive, but rather targeted at specific identities, marking a clear departure from basic DEI.
And beyond simply admitting less qualified students, work documenting mismatch effects from affirmative action programs, while somewhat mixed, suggests that placing underqualified individuals in settings above their current capacity hurts their chances of success. Inclusive excellence also influences grading and evaluation, fostering an environment where outcomes are adjusted for equity and fairness. Reports highlight how equity-driven policies lead to grade inflation and reduced rigor, often justified as promoting “belonging.” Short-term feelings are attended to with disregard for how this undermines motivation, dulls resilience, and robs students of the growth that comes only through effort and constructive critique.
False feedback that everyone is excellent erodes competition, which further undermines the pursuit of excellence. When standards are flexible to accommodate inclusion, high achievers may feel undervalued, and they may need to put in less effort, thereby reducing their opportunities for genuine growth. Faculty asked to teach inclusive courses are hampered in providing high-level instruction, and the overall quality of education suffers. Rather than expecting those who can’t yet succeed to put in more work to increase their performance, the environment is catered to the lowest common denominator, wasting the potential of top performers to truly thrive. Universities produce graduates who are “included” but not equipped for rigorous professional demands, something seen in the low enthusiasm for hiring newly minted grads.
[RELATED: The Damage from DEI Will Last a Generation. Eradicating It Is Still Essential]
To a true proponent of social justice, this situation should be upsetting because it is highly unjust at the individual and societal levels. By prioritizing inclusive mediocrity over exclusive excellence, institutions contribute to a societal devaluation of hard-earned achievements and foster a heightened sense of entitlement. Beyond the reduction in valuing effort and hard work, progress in society is hindered when top performers are not afforded the opportunity to fully realize their potential, as they are often asked to operate in an environment tailored to their lower-performing peers.
There are plenty of places where mediocrity can linger, but universities shouldn’t be one of them. True excellence depends on competition and high standards, not handouts or participation prizes. To reclaim real achievement, institutions should refocus on merit and redirect funds from DEI and Inclusive Excellence programs toward resources that lift low performers and challenge high performers to reach further. Will this make some feel a bit less included and a bit more stressed about performing? Absolutely—but that’s the point. Just as a child aiming for the professional leagues can’t coast on a participation trophy, students should be held to standards that push them to excel. Inclusive excellence, like those valueless trophies, belongs in the trash—because true accomplishment is earned, not handed out.
Image by eskay lim on Adobe; Asset ID#: 116853709
