Updated: Antitrust & Anti-DEI: Strange Bedfellows?

At first glance, “antitrust” and “anti-DEI” don’t seem to have anything in common—other than both starting with “anti.” But stay with me for a minute, because there’s more overlap than you might think.

Updated Preamble: A quick note before we begin: I approach this as someone with deep experience in antitrust law and a tendency to analyze the world through this lens. Also, this post does not go into right or wrong, justice or injustice, which are valid and necessary discussions that still need to be had. It’s about acknowledging the mental exhaustion that comes with these wild political pendulum swings every four years. It’s about increasing inclusion to include even those who are against inclusion. It’s about we need to do something different if we want different results. It’s about where do we go from here? I woke up this morning needing to re-add this preamble even though ChatGPT had suggested that I take it out. 😆

A Quick Antitrust Refresher

The Sherman Act, passed in 1890, was designed to protect competition—not competitors. It went after monopolies and anti-competitive behaviors like price-fixing that raised consumer prices and blocked market access.

The core idea? Competition is good. It delivers lower prices, better products, more choices, and more innovation.

If you’re Blockbuster and Netflix comes along? That’s the market working as intended. Antitrust law doesn’t shield legacy players from losing market share, and it doesn’t care if businesses are forced to exit the market. It clears the way for new entrants, with regulators at times knocking down barriers to entry and requiring monopolists to open access to their infrastructure if that’s what’s needed to restore a competitive market.

Now Enter: DEI

As we all know, DEI has its supporters and its detractors.

Supporters of DEI view the Civil Rights Act, diversity programs, and government contracting preferences for women- and minority-owned businesses as tools to correct longstanding barriers—barriers that kept entire groups locked out of boardrooms, classrooms, and capital markets for generations.

In this light, DEI is not about favoritism or preferential treatment. It’s about opening up competition. It’s about removing barriers to entry to allow previously excluded groups to compete for their American Dream.

But DEI detractors—often from historically advantaged groups—see DEI as a threat to their past market share. These are who I would call the past monopolists. Let’s say they held a 95% share (monopoly) of the best jobs, the best schools, the best loans for the best houses, and now hold 55%, that feels like loss, even if the broader system is becoming fairer and more inclusive for others.

DEI detractors believe that DEI overcorrects and now is actively harming them and their kids. I acknowledge that there’s real pain and despair amongst some DEI detractors, with a declining life expectancy among white men in rural areas driven by opioid abuse, suicide, and alcoholism. (See: AJMC article on declining life expectancy.) Just on a human level, this statistic is heartbreaking.

So to many in these communities, DEI doesn’t feel like inclusion—it feels like erosion.

But Here’s the Thing…

The answer isn’t to shrink the pool of competitors. We don’t get a thriving economy by excluding qualified women, people of color, immigrants, or LGBTQ+ professionals from opportunity. We’ve made advancements in this area. No one’s going back. And markets never look back. No economy is trying to go back to telephone booths or VHS tapes.

The real answer is to level up the competition. How do we do that? We need to work together with schools, the private sector, nonprofits, and other stakeholders, to find ways to tap into the underdeveloped God-given talents and gifts in these communities, and in other underperforming communities, to rebuild their competitive edge.

Let’s lift people up. Educate. Train. Invest in high-quality education designed with a cultural competence for underserved areas like Appalachia, Mississippi, Alabama, or rural Arkansas, for example. Let’s widen the tent.

The market will expand. New industries will emerge. Innovation will flourish. And all of us, together, can build a stronger, more dynamic, more competitive American society that offers prosperity to us all. Together, we can make a bigger pie with bigger slices for everyone even if each slice is only 30% of the pie.

Then we can have the more difficult conversations. These conversations still need to be had. But it’s easier to talk amongst people who are feeling empowered and optimistic about their future. So let’s get everyone to a competitive baseline, including the anti-inclusive, exhale, and move forward from there.