Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently gave what many are calling a “dumbass” definition of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) in an attempt to claim that it is an inherent American value. While his remarks aimed to connect DEI to core American principles, critics argue that his interpretation distorts historical and constitutional ideals.

What Did Hakeem Jeffries Say?

During a speech, Jeffries stated:

“Diversity, equity and inclusion are American values. Perhaps I can explain. The motto of the United States of America is e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. That’s diversity.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution—one of the most important amendments in our country—provides equal protection under the law. That’s equity.

In this country, we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. A flag that we just presented to the new President and Vice President. And in that pledge, we promise, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. A-L-L. That’s inclusion.

Not complicated. Diversity, equity and inclusion are American values. It’s about economic opportunity. It’s about merit for everyone, based on what you know, not who you know.”

While Jeffries’ remarks were intended to link DEI to the nation’s founding ideals, critics argue that his reasoning is deeply flawed and distorts the historical context of these principles.

The Problems with Jeffries’ Interpretation

1. E Pluribus Unum: Not About Diversity
   Jeffries claimed that the national motto, e pluribus unum (“out of many, one”), is about diversity. However, this interpretation ignores the historical context. The motto was created to symbolize the unification of the original 13 colonies into a single nation, not the celebration of diversity. The idea was that different colonies—and later, immigrants—would come together, assimilate, and unify under shared values, laws, and principles. It reflects unity, not diversity.

2. The 14th Amendment: Equality, Not Equity
   Jeffries also claimed that the 14th Amendment represents equity, but this is inaccurate. The 14th Amendment ensures equal protection under the law, which is about equality—providing the same opportunities to all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or background. Equity, on the other hand, involves government intervention to force equal outcomes, a concept rooted in socialist ideals. Equality is about fairness, while equity often involves redistribution and preferential treatment, which are fundamentally at odds with the principles of the 14th Amendment.

3. The Pledge of Allegiance: About Equality, Not Inclusion
   Lastly, Jeffries pointed to the Pledge of Allegiance as evidence of inclusion. However, the pledge is not about inclusion in the modern DEI sense. It emphasizes unity and equality—“one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This reflects the idea that all Americans, unified as one nation, are entitled to their God-given rights, not a call for modern notions of inclusion that often emphasize division and group identities.

The Real Impact of DEI

Critics argue that DEI, in practice, contradicts the very principles Jeffries claims it represents. Instead of fostering unity and opportunity, DEI often promotes division, segregation, and preferential treatment based on identity rather than merit.

• DEI and Its Failures:
  In many cases, DEI policies have led to disastrous outcomes. For example, critics point to the leadership in Los Angeles, where DEI-focused policies have allegedly exacerbated crises such as wildfires. Instead of prioritizing merit and competence, these policies often elevate unqualified individuals, leading to inefficiency and, in some cases, loss of life and property.

• A Tool for Division:
  Far from uniting people, DEI policies often focus on differences rather than commonalities, fostering resentment and reinforcing group-based identities over shared values.

Conclusion

Hakeem Jeffries’ attempt to redefine DEI as an “American value” has drawn sharp criticism for its distortion of history and principles. While he seeks to tie DEI to unity, equality, and inclusion, the reality of DEI policies often undermines these ideals, promoting division and preferential treatment instead.

America’s foundational values are about equality, merit, and unity—principles that transcend identity politics. What do you think of Jeffries’ comments? Is DEI truly reflective of American values, or is it a misguided and divisive framework? Let us know your thoughts below.

Join the Conversation

If you found this article insightful, share it with others and subscribe for more discussions on politics and current events!