Was Trump a DEI Hire?

As a long-time DEI practitioner, I find myself increasingly frustrated and truth be told annoyed by the way the media and politicians are misrepresenting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles. There’s a growing narrative that portrays DEI as a negative force, suggesting that diverse hires are only chosen because of their identity rather than their qualifications. This viewpoint fundamentally misrepresents what DEI efforts are about. A person hired strictly based on identity and not qualifications is contrary to DEI principles of equity and inclusion.  

One of our main goals is to eliminate biases from hiring, selection and promotion processes, ensuring that individuals are recognized for their skills and contributions rather than being pigeonholed into their identities. For context, diversity encompasses differences in race, ethnicity, gender, disability, veteran status, or age and many other factors. This article is not a critique of any specific political figure or party but rather a case study examining how political candidates align with DEI principles and whether their identity and intersectionality impact how they are viewed as presidential candidates. 

Understanding DEI

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are interconnected principles designed to foster fair and inclusive environments and provide a sense of belonging in the spaces and places where we work, live and play.  Let’s unpack these words before we proceed:

Diversity involves recognizing and valuing differences among individuals, including race, gender, ethnicity, age, and more.

Equity focuses on providing fair treatment and opportunity for all, acknowledging that individuals may start from different places and require different resources to achieve similar outcomes.

Inclusion  strives to ensure that everyone feels welcomed, respected, and valued within their environment.

Belonging is the feeling of being accepted and part of a community.

DEI initiatives aim to create systemic changes within organizations that ensure these ideals are upheld in a fair and equitable manner. They are not about simply meeting quotas or making token gestures but about addressing underlying inequalities and fostering a culture of respect and opportunity.

Let’s look at an example where a practice or policy change can support effective DEI programs.  Biases in hiring processes can significantly impact how candidates are evaluated. Two key types of biases that can affect hiring decisions are Affinity Bias and Gender/Racial bias.  There are many other types of biases that we won’t cover here.

Affinity Bias occurs when evaluators favor candidates who share similar backgrounds, interests, or experiences as themselves. For example, if the candidate went to the same school, grew up in a similar geography or reminds you of someone you know.  This can lead to the selection of individuals who are more like the decision-makers rather than those who are necessarily the most qualified for the role.

Gender and Racial Biases involve preconceived notions or stereotypes about individuals based on their gender or race. For example, if the evaluator thinks a certain race is not intelligent or that women can’t perform certain roles, or conversely that men are better leaders, these biases can influence how candidates' qualifications are perceived and may lead to unfair advantages or disadvantages in the selection process.  Keep in mind these biases are typically unconscious.

The preference for white male leaders in the U.S. has been a persistent theme, influencing political and corporate leadership across various sectors. This bias reflects broader societal attitudes that often equate white male leadership with competence and authority, despite the presence of diverse and equally qualified candidates.

Addressing these biases involves implementing structured and objective assessment criteria, training evaluators to recognize their own biases, and ensuring transparency and consistency in hiring practices. This approach helps in creating a fairer process where candidates are evaluated based on their qualifications and potential rather than unconscious prejudices.

General Expectations for U.S. Presidential Candidates

The qualifications to become President of the United States are outlined in the U.S. Constitution. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

1. Natural-Born Citizen**: The President must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

2. Age: The President must be at least 35 years old.

3. Residency**: The President must have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

These constitutional requirements are relatively minimal and do not specify professional or political experience. However, public expectations for presidential candidates often extend beyond these requirements, reflecting a desire for a candidate who is seen as the "most qualified" for the role. This generally includes:

• Political Experience: Candidates with substantial experience in elected or appointed political positions are often considered more qualified due to their demonstrated understanding of governance and policy-making.

• Leadership Skills: Effective leadership is crucial, and candidates are typically expected to demonstrate strong decision-making abilities, crisis management skills, and the capacity to unite and lead a diverse nation.

• Public Service Record: A history of public service, including legislative accomplishments and effective administration, is often seen as a key indicator of a candidate's suitability for the presidency.

The concept of the "most qualified candidate" encompasses these factors, aligning with voters' expectations for leadership that can effectively manage the complexities of the presidency.

The Case for Presidential Experience

In evaluating the qualifications of presidential candidates, prior experience in office is often viewed as a significant advantage. A candidate who has already held the office of President for four years brings a unique and substantial level of experience that is typically seen as beneficial for the role. This experience includes:

Understanding of Presidential Duties: The incumbent president has direct experience with the responsibilities and challenges of the role, including decision-making on national and international issues, managing executive branch operations, and responding to crises.

Established Relationships: Previous presidents have built relationships with other world leaders, legislators, and key stakeholders, which can be advantageous in navigating complex political landscapes.

Proven Track Record: An incumbent president has a record of their performance in office, providing voters with tangible evidence of their leadership abilities, policy outcomes, and overall effectiveness.

In contrast, candidates who have never held the office lack this direct experience and must rely on their other qualifications and experience to demonstrate their readiness for the presidency. While diverse backgrounds and alternative experiences can be valuable, the familiarity and hands-on knowledge gained from serving as President are often considered critical for the role's demands.

Thus, the argument for preferring a candidate with prior presidential experience is rooted in the belief that this experience equips them with a deeper understanding of the presidency's complexities and demands, potentially making them more qualified for a second term.

Evaluating Presidential Candidates Since 2008

To further understand the hypothesis, we need to assess the qualifications of major presidential candidates from various parties since 2008:

Candidate	Election Year	Experience	Years of Political Experience	Notable Positions	Election Outcome
John McCain	2008	U.S. Senator, U.S. Navy	36	U.S. Senator (1987–2008), U.S. Navy (1958–1981)	Lost (to Barack Obama)
Barack Obama	2008, 2012	U.S. Senator, State Senator, Community Organizer	12	U.S. Senator (2005–2008), State Senator (1997–2004)	Won (2008 and 2012)
Mitt Romney	2012	Governor, Business Executive	4	Governor of Massachusetts (2003–2007), Business Executive	Lost (to Barack Obama)
Donald Trump	2016	Business Executive, Media Personality	0	Real Estate Developer, Media Personality	Won (2016)
Hillary Clinton	2016	U.S. Senator, Secretary of State	24	U.S. Senator (2001–2009), Secretary of State (2009–2013)	Lost (to Donald Trump)
Donald Trump	2020	Business Executive, Media Personality, President	4	President (2017–2021), Real Estate Developer, Media Personality	Lost (2020)
Joe Biden	2020	U.S. Senator, Vice President	44	U.S. Senator (1973–2009), Vice President (2009–2017)	Won (2020)
Kamala Harris	2024 (Anticipated)	U.S. Senator, Attorney General, District Attorney	14	U.S. Senator (2017–2021), Attorney General of California (2011–2017), District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011)	TBD (2024)
Donald Trump	2024 (Anticipated)	Business Executive, Media Personality, President	4	President (2017–2021), Real Estate Developer, Media Personality	TBD (2024)
RFK Jr.	2024 (Anticipated)	Environmental Attorney, Author	0	Environmental Attorney, Author	TBD (2024)
Cornel West	2024 (Anticipated)	Philosopher, Author, Activist	0	Professor, Author, Activist	TBD (2024)

Was Trump a DEI Hire?

The idea of Donald Trump as a "DEI hire" is an unconventional and provocative way to analyze his rise to the presidency in 2016, particularly in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Typically, DEI efforts focus on increasing representation for historically marginalized groups, such as people of color, women, and other individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. However, framing Trump's election as a DEI hire can be explored through a different lens.

Considering Donald Trump through the lens of DEI principles requires a nuanced approach. Trump's candidacy and presidency raise interesting questions about diversity and inclusion, particularly the historical context of U.S. presidencies.

Historically, all U.S. presidents, except Barack Obama, have been white men. This long-standing pattern may reflect deep-seated societal biases and preferences for white male leadership. In this context, Trump’s candidacy could be seen as an extension of these biases, which often favor white men for leadership roles.

If we frame Trump as a DEI hire, it could be hypothesized that his election was, in part, a reaction to the Obama years—a choice by the electorate to pivot away from a historic but unconventional presidency (in terms of race) back to a more traditional figure in terms of race and perceived authority. Trump's appeal to voters as a white, older male could be seen as a reinforcement of traditional power structures after what some perceived as a departure during Obama’s presidency.

Race, Age and Political Experience as Factors

1. Race: Trump, as a white male, fits the traditional mold of U.S. presidents. His race and gender align with the majority of past presidents, which may have contributed to his appeal among certain voter demographics. The absence of a diverse background in this context underscores a bias towards familiar leadership archetypes. After eight years of Barack Obama, the first African American president, Trump's victory could be seen as a response to the shifting racial dynamics in America. 

   
   

   Obama's presidency symbolized a significant racial milestone, but it also triggered a backlash among some white voters who felt alienated or anxious about the changing racial demographics of the country. Trump's rhetoric, which often included nationalist and anti-immigrant themes, resonated with a portion of the electorate that was drawn to his promise of restoring a perceived lost status for white Americans. In this sense, Trump's race (white) may have been a factor in appealing to voters who desired a return to traditional power structures.

   
   

2. Age: Trump was 70 years old when he was elected, making him one of the oldest first-term presidents in U.S. history. His age, combined with his persona as a successful businessman and media personality, projected an image of experience and authority. This could be contrasted with Obama, who was relatively young when he took office. For some voters, Trump's age might have symbolized a return to more conventional leadership, a departure from the historic but relatively youthful presidency of Obama.

   
   

3. Political Experience: Trump’s lack of traditional political experience in 2016 is a key aspect of the discussion. Unlike many previous presidents, Trump had never held public office before his election. This outsider status was a double-edged sword: while it meant he was not part of the political establishment, it also appealed to voters frustrated with the status quo. In this context, his election could be seen as a form of diversity—not in terms of race or gender, but in background and experience.

   
   

Based upon the criteria previously outlined, let’s look at the last 3 elected presidents from an unbiased perspective, comparing Obama, Trump and Biden.  We note that Trump had the least political experience of the three when elected into office.   Based on the previously outlined criteria Obama appears to be less qualified than his successor and competitors. Biden, could be considered the most qualified with 44 years of political experience.  However, this commentary is not unpacking presidential performance.   I will leave that to each of you to decide how you feel each president actually performed the essential functions of the job..

Conclusion

While Donald Trump’s election was not a DEI hire in the traditional sense of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, it can be argued that his race, age, and outsider status played significant roles in his appeal to a particular segment of the American electorate. This segment may have viewed his candidacy as a way to restore a sense of familiarity and stability after a period of significant change under Obama. Thus, in a metaphorical sense, Trump’s election could be seen as a "hire" that reflected a desire for a return to a perceived norm, especially in terms of race and age.

Regardless of political preferences, it is crucial to recognize the long-term impact of negatively portraying DEI. The U.S. is increasingly diverse, with significant demographic shifts: the population is approximately 40% racially diverse, every metropolitan statistical area is now majority minority, and women make up over 50% of the population. Additionally, Generation Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in the U.S. In the United States.  Nearly half of Gen Z identifies as non-white, including significant proportions of Hispanic, Black, Asian, and multiracial individuals. Generation Z will shape the future of the country. Understanding and embracing DEI principles is essential for creating a fair and equitable society that reflects and serves the population effectively.

Masterclass: DEI Strategies for Business Alignment

About the Author, Sherry Snipes

Sherry Snipes is a seasoned DEI practitioner with extensive experience in implementing and advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion in various organizations. She works with organizations utilizing a proprietary methodology to implement customized strategic solutions.  Her work focuses on addressing biases in organizational processes to ensure that all individuals are recognized and valued for their skills and contributions. Sherry is committed to advancing DEI initiatives and creating environments where all individuals can thrive. Through her work, she aims to challenge and change perceptions about diversity and to promote fair and inclusive practices across sectors.