Editorial Note: Opinions and thoughts are the author’s own and not those of AFROTECH™.

The meaning of words changes over time and often shifts based on who is using them and why.

One example that comes to mind is the word “Woke.” In the context of social justice, “woke” was used as early as the 1920s by Marcus Garvey in his article “Wake Up Ethiopia! Wake Up Africa!” where he urged Black people to become more politically and socially aware. The phrase “Stay Woke,” which we are more familiar with, became widely known during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Originally intended to promote social and political awareness among Black people, the term has since been co-opted by others as a negative label. Today, “woke” is often used in a derogatory way to criticize liberal ideologies or actions.

“Woke” isn’t the only term that has undergone a shift in meaning. The phrase Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI), which traces its origins back to affirmative action, has also evolved. When DEI became popular in 2020, it was embraced as a movement to right historical wrongs faced by marginalized groups—addressing present-day inequalities and providing better prospects for the future.

However, in recent months, the meaning of DEI has been distorted. What was once about prioritizing accessibility and reducing historical barriers for marginalized groups is now being framed by some as signaling incompetence. This shift has been especially noticeable among anti-equity factions who claim that DEI practices lead to lowering standards for marginalized groups, rather than leveling the playing field. This rhetoric has intensified under the current Trump administration. For instance, Pete Hegseth, the current secretary of defense, has spoken out against DEI practices in the military, arguing that it reduces the effectiveness of the armed forces.

So, it should come as no surprise that when a military helicopter collided with an American Airlines plane, killing 63 passengers and four crew members, some people immediately sought to determine whether the helicopter pilot was a “DEI hire.” This was in line with similar attempts to blame diversity for the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in LA County, which killed 29 people and damaged or destroyed 16,000 structures. Even as the fires were still burning, there was a witch hunt for the identity of those involved in the LA Fire Department, with the hope of finding someone from a marginalized group to blame.

DEI is now not only a buzzword for critics on the right, but it is also being used by some in the tech industry to question the qualifications of employees. One example of this occurred with Daniel Penny, the former U.S. Marine involved in the death of Jordan Neely. After Penny restrained Neely in a way that led to Neely’s death, the case sparked national debates about vigilante justice and the homelessness crisis. Penny was later found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. However, when Andreessen Horowitz, a prominent venture capital firm, hired him for their American Dynamism team, the internet quickly labeled him a “DEI hire.” This was based on Penny’s lack of formal experience in investing or startups.

Though the intention of using DEI in this way is to highlight the lack of qualifications and the often hollow rhetoric surrounding meritocracy in tech, I believe this approach undermines the original meaning of DEI. Using the term DEI interchangeably to mean either equity and accessibility or incompetence doesn’t serve its purpose. The term should retain its original significance, especially when it comes to promoting equality and reducing barriers.

We should say what we mean and mean what we say. If we want to call out a lack of qualifications or merit in a hire or system, we should do so directly, without diluting the power of terms like DEI for the sake of making a point.