On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order ending the Biden administration’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. This marked a shift toward what he called merit-based opportunity (MBO), designed to prioritize hiring and advancement based on individual skills and performance rather than race, gender, or other demographic factors.
Trump framed MBO as a means to uphold civil rights and equal opportunity, echoing Harry Jaffa’s belief that equality is a cornerstone of a fair and generous conservatism.
The Executive Order emphasized:
"These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans."
Many Republicans welcomed the move as a return to hiring the most qualified candidates, leaving DEI behind. Merit-based opportunity promised a system where positions were earned through competence and effort rather than demographic considerations.
However, it raises important philosophical questions, particularly for those who follow John Locke’s idea that "the end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." Is MBO fully compatible with freedoms such as the freedom of contract, association, and conscience?
This question resonates with both libertarians and conservatives who, like M.E. Bradford, challenge Harry Jaffa’s view that equality is inherently a conservative principle. Ending DEI may seem like progress, but understanding the limits and implications of MBO requires revisiting Friedrich Hayek’s analysis in The Constitution of Liberty, particularly his chapter on “Equality, Value, and Merit.”
Hayek on Material Equality and Freedom
Instagram | feeonline | Hayek views material inequality as a fair outcome of individual talent and industry.
Hayek begins by rejecting the concept of material equality. He argues that:
"The equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality."
Material inequality is a natural outcome of freedom. Classical liberals are typically untroubled by inequalities that reflect effort and talent. For instance, society accepts that a brain surgeon earns more than a janitor, or that diligent individuals accumulate more wealth than the less industrious. These differences appear to reflect merit.
Yet Hayek challenges the idea that any inequality can be labeled "justified." According to him:
"Any attempt to found the case for freedom on this argument is very damaging to it, since it concedes that material rewards ought to be made to correspond to recognizable merit."
Luck egalitarians provide a key example. They argue that intelligence, talent, or opportunity is often a matter of luck rather than merit. A surgeon’s high salary might reflect circumstances beyond personal effort, while a janitor may possess equal or greater intelligence but never had the chance to pursue training.
The Problem of Defining Merit
The concept of merit becomes even more complicated in societies influenced by the theory that reality is socially constructed. From this perspective, traits like industriousness or laziness are shaped by social context rather than inherent character. This challenges the notion that merit can be objectively assessed.
Consequently, merit-based opportunity risks becoming as subjective as DEI itself. Decision-makers may have differing opinions on who is most capable, hard-working, or deserving.
For example:
Should H-1B visas be allocated purely based on perceived merit, potentially allowing skilled foreign workers to dominate first-world job markets?
Is hiring a relative who works well in a family business a violation of MBO, even if they may not objectively be the "best" candidate?
Hayek explains that in a truly free society, rewards should not be dictated by others’ perceptions of merit:
"It is an essential characteristic of a free society that an individual’s position should not necessarily depend on the views that his fellows hold about the merit he has acquired."
Examples include a musician or actress who gains wealth because audiences value their work. Meanwhile, a diligent factory worker may never reach similar financial success. Merit, in this sense, cannot reliably predict outcomes or justify unequal rewards.
Challenges of Merit-Based Opportunity
Trump’s Executive Order promotes MBO based on qualities like initiative, hard work, aptitude, and determination. While this framework avoids explicit demographic criteria, evaluating these traits objectively is difficult. Some individuals succeed effortlessly, outperforming peers who appear more hardworking. Others may show great determination but fail due to circumstances outside their control.
Hayek emphasizes the limits of using merit as a measure of success:
"For the same reason that nobody can know beforehand who will be the successful ones, nobody can say who has earned greater merit."
A society attempting to align positions with moral merit risks undermining freedom. It could become a system where rewards are based on others’ judgments rather than actual success.
Instagram | earnyourleisure | Trump’s merit-based order promotes subjective traits that are difficult to measure objectively.
Merit-Based Opportunity vs. State Control
Even if MBO seems superior to DEI in federal agencies, Hayek warns that the system remains vulnerable to bureaucratic interpretation. The definitions of "merit" or "opportunity" are flexible and can be reshaped to fit political agendas. In practice, MBO may replicate the same problems DEI was intended to solve.
The ultimate solution, Hayek suggests, is limiting state power rather than creating new frameworks of enforced equality. Efforts to define merit legally or administratively risk entrenching bureaucracy rather than promoting freedom.
Understanding Hayek’s Perspective
Hayek’s critique highlights that material inequality is an inevitable result of freedom. Rewards and success cannot be strictly measured by merit, as they often depend on luck, context, or subjective judgments rather than effort or ability.
While merit-based opportunity aims to provide a neutral alternative to DEI by emphasizing individual achievement over demographic factors, it carries inherent limitations. Enforcing equality through merit can unintentionally reproduce the same issues seen under DEI, since merit itself is difficult to define objectively.
True freedom, according to Hayek, requires limiting state intervention in the allocation of rewards and opportunities. Rather than attempting to perfect merit-based frameworks, the focus should be on reducing government control.
By acknowledging the inherent uncertainties in measuring merit and scaling back state influence, a society can better preserve individual liberty and initiative.