After that dinner, I did something I hadn’t planned: I started asking around.

Not to argue. Not to debate. Just to understand where people stood on DEI. And what I heard surprised me—sometimes more than the dinner itself.

Some echoed my classmates almost word for word:

“I want the best person for the job. I don’t care if my fireman is diverse—I care if he can put out a fire.”

It was meant to sound practical. But the implication was clear: diversity and competence are opposing forces. As if the presence of one somehow diminished the other. It was the same false binary I’d heard at dinner, just dressed in everyday logic.

One friend, a liberal, said something that stuck with me:

“DEI is the latest right-wing boogeyman.”

And he was right. Take a concept, distort it, blame it for everything, and build a movement around its destruction. Rinse, repeat.

Others were more nuanced. They saw the value of DEI—especially for those it directly benefits: Black, queer, female, trans communities. But they also pointed out how DEI seems to bypass others—especially if you’re Asian or white, male, straight, cis. They weren’t angry, just… skeptical. Supportive in theory, uncertain in practice.

A few friends were fully aligned with me—people who saw DEI as both necessary and urgent. I suspect if they’d been at that dinner table, they might have frozen too. Not out of confusion, but from the emotional weight of having to defend something that should be self-evident.

And then there was one far-left friend who worked in nonprofits. Her take?

“We haven’t gone far enough.” Fair enough. She may be right.

All of it made me realize: this conversation isn’t about having the answer. It’s about being willing to stay in the discomfort long enough to find better ones.

To me, DEI isn’t a sprint. But it’s not a marathon either. That implies an endpoint—a finish line where we’re done. I don’t believe in that.

DEI isn’t about reaching a goal and calling it a day. It’s about constantly moving forward—redefining the goal as society evolves. It’s not a finite game. It’s an infinite game.

It’s about creating a world where access isn’t decided by race, gender, or background—but by potential, support, and opportunity. It’s about building a meritocracy that actually includes everyone, not just the ones who look like those who built the system in the first place.

And yeah, that means those with privilege will have to give some of it up. Not because they’re being punished. But because fairness requires it.