Universities must resist undermining efforts to make real social change 

Over the past two decades, the need to rectify structural inequity (the systemic injustice, bias, and unfairness embedded within higher education institutions) has driven the development of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policies across many universities and colleges. These policies aim to promote justice, fairness and inclusion by addressing unjust and inequitable distribution of socio-economic resources. Common EDI initiatives include diversity hiring, expanded research focus, and curriculum revisions to foster more equitable and inclusive education. These efforts to promote and implement EDI, however, are now facing growing backlash across North America, becoming a scapegoat for right-wing politics and reframed as a liberal illusion causing harm. 

In response, corporations including Target, Amazon, Ford, and Walmart have caved to social pressure and scaled back their EDI initiatives. Meanwhile, some postsecondary institutions are attempting to rebrand EDI with variations of the terms “accessibility, community, and belonging.” Although the term “belonging” is inherently political, higher education has historically framed it as a celebratory, apolitical and universalized concept, aligning with dominant norms and political evaluation. University brochures may showcase diverse, smiling students to promote “belonging,” yet institutions continue to struggle to address real issues like inaccessible housing for students with disabilities or microaggressions against racialized students. This focus on belonging sidesteps systemic inequities and undermines efforts for real social change.  

EDI and/or DEI as it is more commonly referred to in the U.S, should be self-explanatory, yet in today’s “post-truth” world, their practicality and necessity deserve reflection. Rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, DEI policies combat discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions and employment practices based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. When effectively implemented, DEI/EDI policies address structural inequities in resource distribution, fostering fairer workplaces and institutions. Like corporations, higher education has acknowledged these disparities and taken steps to narrow gender and pay gaps while increasing representation in faculty and leadership. 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump falsely blamed DEI policies for the L.A. wildfire response and a Potomac River plane crash, while ordering DEI job cuts in federal agencies. This reaction isn’t new but has intensified under his leadership. Despite Canada’s efforts to distance itself politically, similar Conservative-led pushback is emerging in this country. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has long opposed equity initiatives, dismissing EDI as “garbage” and part of the “woke” agenda. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and the UCP advocate for “merit-based” hiring, seeking to ban race as a factor in PSI admissions, eliminate DEI, and revoke funding for institutions with DEI offices.  

Moreover, EDI initiatives face criticism for performativity and lack of clear, actionable goals. Garrett D. Hoffman & Tanian D. Mitchell argue that while EDI challenges language norms and increases marginalized representation, it often fails to address systemic barriers in higher education. Colonial and dominant discourses largely go unchallenged. Despite its shortcomings and the need for ongoing critical reflection, EDI principles remain essential for fostering a more just and equitable higher education system. 

The shortcomings of belonging  

The University of Alberta and other institutions are now unsettling EDI programs and introducing replacements under the banner of “belonging” after pressure from policy makers and leadership. Despite its comforting connotations, “belonging” is a vague, apolitical term that centers on individual well-being while ignoring systemic inequities. It shifts responsibility to marginalized individuals, reinforcing exclusionary practices and an “us vs. them” divide, rather than challenging structural barriers or fostering real social change. The ambiguous notion of belonging complicates the very clear objectives of equity, diversity and inclusion programs. This benign seeming rebrand dilutes the substantive changes required to address social injustice. In the absence of equity, belonging alone is not enough for fulfillment at work equity matters more. Many find meaning in fair, inclusive environments, rather than in superficial belonging within discriminatory spaces that constantly undermine their expertise and humanity. 

By rejecting EDI and embracing the concept of belonging, institutions risk reinforcing dominant narratives and processes that primarily serve the dominant group. For equity denied groups, achieving belonging often necessitates assimilation into dominant ideologies, ways of being and ways of living. The notion of belonging, in the absence of EDI, remains counter to the core objectives of EDI initiatives to enhance fairness and justice.  

Real equity is more necessary than ever  

In today’s divisive climate, the risk of being political is higher, a true test of our collective resolve. Rebranding EDI as belonging isn’t a substantive action. It’s a weak concession to those in power. Rebranding EDI as belonging, based on the institutional assumption that belonging is an individual and fixed phenomenon, not only neutralizes and universalizes the concept but also fails to recognize its inherently political nature at both institutional and socio-political levels. This depoliticized, universalized approach ignores deep-rooted inequalities, reinforcing power imbalances and further burdening those facing systemic barriers.  

Some may see EDI and belonging as mere labels. This is inaccurate and they are fundamentally different in principle. Belonging demands the marginalized to adapt, while EDI aims to reshape systemic inequalities that cause exclusion. Regardless of how out of fashion the term might be at this point in history, EDI can be a transformative tool for tackling racist, homophobic and transphobic systems when implemented effectively. Without EDI, belonging forces marginalized individuals to assimilate, conforming to heteronormative, patriarchal and colonial standards. 

White supremacy is gaining traction. We see this in Germany’s AfD, the Proud Boys in the U.S. and the U.K.’s far-right resurgence. Now is not the time for institutions to quietly abandon EDI commitments due to devolving social norms or the threat of political retribution. While equity and social justice advocates have long carried this work, it’s time for society to take accountability and demand EDI rooted in decolonial principles and practices. Individually and institutionally, we must deepen our understanding, challenge misinformation, and affirm EDI’s necessity. Now more than ever, we must stay the course – reflect, strengthen and reform EDI, not abandon it.