This propaedeutic philosophical investigation concerns normative academic ethics, that is, how we ought to think about improving the overall quality of teaching and learning throughout US higher education—especially in public colleges and universities. It differentiates between diversity, inclusion, and equity (D.I.E., commonly known as D.E.I.) policies and programs, on the one hand, and affirmative action ones, on the other, arguing that the latter seem more suitable for effectively addressing many of the deepest qualitative problems facing the US Higher Educational Industrial Complex insofar as they embrace the concept of merit or desert. It explores philosophically some of the problems with instituting D.I.E. policies in public colleges and universities throughout the USA. Qualitative factors (inclusive of merit, but absent racism, sexism, classism, etc.) should never be sacrificed for educational access in higher educational contexts, as doing so cheapens the value of college and university degrees and what they are supposed to represent in terms of learned outcomes, and that cheats students (including non-White students) and society in holistic qualitative terms. The concept of merit is herein elucidated in terms of Joel Feinberg’s analysis of the concept of desert. This chapter also notes some rarely discussed underlying problems plaguing the business side of the US Higher Educational Industrial Complex and explores philosophically ways in which they can be addressed effectively and gradually. The myth of merit is that numerous Whites (and non-Whites) underperform and do not deserve the positions they hold, whether administrators, faculty, staff, or students in the US Higher Educational Industrial Complex. However, policies and programs of equity, to the extent that they largely or altogether ignore the importance of non-racist, non-sexist, and non-classist reasonable meritorious standards, have forged the myth that merit does not matter. Affirmative action policies and programs, insofar as they tend to embrace and require reasonable standards of merit (even if only implicitly), can be conjoined with the vital values of diversity and inclusion, broadly and deeply construed, in order to rebuild US higher educational institutions for the betterment of students and society as a whole—including businesses. The focus herein will be on US higher educational administrators and faculty and the business side of academia. However, it ought to be borne in mind that successful businesses probably have little to nothing to learn from the complex when it comes to efficiency. Indeed, it is for the most part the other way around. This discussion of some of the problems with D.I.E. programs and the business of the US Higher Educational Industrial Complex has important implications for the global corporate world when considerations of merit are foregone in favor of matters of access in terms of equity when it comes to hiring and retaining skilled personnel. Generally speaking, a business enterprise should not expand itself unless there is a justified confidence that it can hire high-quality and inspired personnel in skilled positions. Otherwise, it risks decreasing its quality of goods, services, and its good reputation. This is particularly sound advice for the business side of institutional members of the US Higher Educational Industrial Complex, where waste, fraud, corruption, and mediocrity run rampant.