In the early 1900s, Marie Curie won two Nobel prizes for her work on radioactivity. Half a century later, Rosalind Franklin carried out groundbreaking experiments into the structure of DNA. Thanks to these advances, there have been huge developments in medicine, such as the use of X-rays and understanding the DNA of viruses and human genomes.

If Curie or even Franklin had lived 100 years earlier, it is highly unlikely that their talents would have been uncovered. It wasn¡¯t even contemplated that women could or should dedicate their lives to science or any other intellectual pursuit.

By contrast, women today ¨C in the West, at least ¨C have a much better chance again of fulfilling their potentials than Curie or Franklin did. They don¡¯t have to be the geniuses that pair were to be allowed to contribute to society in multiple different ways.

Few people now believe that opportunities should be denied to people on the basis of their sex. If girls dream about one day competing for their country in the Olympics, they should be encouraged to dream. If women want to go to university, of course, they should be able to go.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Yet women still earn less than men, on average, and opportunities are still denied to people on the basis of their race or class or their family¡¯s religious background or any number of other reasons. Would any one of us willingly swap our identity with someone from a group that typically suffers more disadvantage than our own?

That is where Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) programmes come in.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

People committed to EDI (or DEI in the US) look across society and when they see under-representation ¨C or, indeed, over-representation ¨C they ask why. Why are there fewer women maths professors, for instance? Why are so many politicians in some parties men, whereas in others it is more balanced? If no difference in merit is apparent between under- and over-represented groups, EDI practitioners ask if historical factors and societal factors may be at play, and they try to open up opportunities.

EDI aims to ensure that opportunities are provided to all, so that no one is or feels excluded, so that society is cohesive, and so that talent is maximised. ?

Education is key to allowing people to maximise their potential. That is why educational institutions are at the forefront of many EDI activities: universities particularly, because they are the launching pads for careers. And that puts them in the eye of the storm when things are perceived to have gone too far.

Why has that perception become so common in the US, such that the Trump administration is hellbent on expunging all vestiges of EDI from public life (even from any Australian universities if they have ). Wasn¡¯t the US the leader in championing meritocracy? Wasn¡¯t it the place where anyone could dream of being anything?

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

I think that the intense focus on identifying under- and over-represented groups in the US has had the unfortunate side-effect of highlighting the differences between people and underplaying the similarities they share. People thought about identities and differences first, even historical differences, and the individual was left to one side.

It has even distorted perceptions of meritocracy, with the MAGA movement now seeing any attempt at positive discrimination in university admissions, corporate recruitment or even award-giving as a blight on fairness ¨C a form of ¡°pre-judgement¡± or prejudice.

Yet in Australia politics and society tend to shun the extremes. We don¡¯t believe in miracles and we don¡¯t believe in devils. We believe in a fair go. And our university access policies have generally helped us to better harness talent and to build a cohesive society.

There is concern when elite institutions speak as if all they care about is tearing down elitism and saving the world when in fact most people know that their children could never gain admission to those institutions. But several Australian universities teach about 100,000 students and have thrown their doors open to students from as broad backgrounds as possible. It is hard to be elite when you have 100,000 students.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

However brutal the culture wars over EDI may get in the US, we in Australia should avoid being drawn in. We need to keep the doors open, not lock them shut for reasons that look dubious even in an American context.

And even if you are still are asking yourself whether EDI has gone too far in Australia, please also think about whether we should entice it back from the cliff edge, rather than push it into the abyss.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Merlin?Crossley is deputy vice-chancellor for academic quality at UNSW Sydney.?