Since 2024, pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has gathered momentum across North America. This year, that retreat has taken on a new form: the rebranding of "equity" with softer, less contentious terms like "belonging" or "community."
Author
- Simon Blanchette
Lecturer, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University
The University of Alberta , for instance, no longer has a vice-provost of equity, diversity and inclusion. Instead, it now has an office for "access, community and belonging."
Similarly, Alberta's public pension fund eliminated its lead DEI role during a restructuring . A spokesperson maintained that "the departure of the individual responsible for the formal DEI program has not lessened AIMCo's firm commitment to these principles."
A similar shift is underway at the University of Lethbridge , which established an office of "accessibility, belonging and community" in December.
While language naturally evolves, this current shift appears to lack the deliberate engagement needed for genuine progress. Instead, it may be obscuring a step back from equity rather than a step forward.
A retreat disguised as progress
Calls for rebranding DEI work have existed for years and are valid , even within the field itself. What we are seeing now, however, often lacks genuine community engagement and the voices of the very stakeholders these shifts to "belonging" are meant to include.
Today's so-called rebranding efforts are more about appeasement than progress. Rather, they are reactive moves that respond to external pressures rather than to the needs and demands of the communities most affected.
Once embraced as essential to address systemic discrimination, the term equity has now become a political lightning rod .
Some institutions now face political, shareholder and donor pressures that frame DEI initiatives as divisive or ideologically extreme, pushing them to distance themselves from such programs.
In the corporate world, the trend is stark. Mentions of "DEI" in S&P 500 corporate filings have dropped 70 per cent since 2022 , replaced by softer terms like "belonging" and "inclusive culture."
This shift allows organizations to sidestep accountability, obscure inequities and replace measurable equity frameworks with vague platitudes.
Why this matters
By softening language, organizations secure a socially acceptable way to exit from the difficult work of equity. It suggests these organizations have somehow moved beyond equity without ever having done the work.
Removing equity from organizational language has tangible consequences. First, it undermines accountability. Effective equity frameworks create measurable, trackable goals. Terms like "belonging" are harder to define and easier to abandon. They allow organizations to gesture toward inclusion without doing the hard work of systemic change.
Second, it risks leaving people behind. Equity centres those facing real structural barriers, like women, Black and racialized people, Indigenous Peoples, 2SLGBTQI+ communities and people living with disabilities. When the term disappears, so too can their visibility in policies, funding and accountability .
Finally, there's a risk to organizations themselves . DEI rollbacks hurt morale, retention, innovation and performance, and can even increase legal risk.
A 2025 survey from New York University's Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging found 80 per cent of leaders believe reducing equity efforts increases reputational and legal risk. It also found widespread agreement that DEI initiatives improved firms' financial performance.
The myth of meritocracy
A common justification for dropping "equity" is desire to return to "meritocracy." Meritocracy is the idea that individuals should be rewarded based on their talent and hard work.
But meritocracy assumes a level playing field and obscures the fact that "merit" is socially constructed and context-dependent. It ignores that unequal barriers, like access to education and networks, impacts individual success despite a person's achievements.
Meritocracy also assumes that diversity is prioritized over qualifications, which is not the case. We can successfully focus on both skills and inclusion .
Research by MIT management professor Emilio J. Castilla has shown that organizations claiming to be meritocratic often end up reinforcing biases instead - this is also called the "paradox of meritocracy."
For instance, in a study involving 445 participants with managerial experience , researchers asked participants to make bonus, promotion and termination decisions for fictional employees. When an organization's culture emphasized meritocracy, male employees received higher bonuses than equally qualified female employees.
Conversely, when the work culture emphasized managerial discretion instead, the bias reversed in favour of women. This likely occurred because the prompt signalled a potential gender bias, triggering an over-correction. In a third scenario where neither meritocracy nor managerial discretion was emphasized, there was no significant difference in the bonuses assigned.
While the last scenario sounds promising, most work environments emphasize meritocracy, consciously or not. Merit- or performance-based pay remains the norm in many organziations, meaning the first scenario is most common.
Without transparency, merit-based rhetoric about who supposedly "deserves" advancement often reinforces existing inequalities . Nepotism, network-based advantages and selective visibility often fill the gap when equity frameworks are abandoned. Networks and visibility matter, but they should not be mistaken for merit.
Ironically, sometimes the loudest critics of equity initiatives are silent when inherited privilege or insider connections determine who rises to leadership .
What can organizations do?
While some institutions are backpedalling on DEI commitments, others in Canada and across Europe are holding firm by embedding equity in their strategy, leadership and performance frameworks.
Advancing equity in today's climate requires both strategy and sustained action. Here's where organizations can begin:
Establish and embed explicit, measurable equity objectives aligned with your business strategy.
Increase data transparency by collecting and publicly sharing disaggregated information on recruitment, promotion, pay equity, turnover and employee experience.
Give diverse voices real decision-making authority over policies and initiatives. Employee resource groups are a great way to start.
Hold leaders accountable by training them to champion equity and tying their incentives to concrete DEI outcomes.
Communicate DEI impacts transparently and authentically by sharing stories and metrics that showcase how equity efforts have improved business performance.
These solutions are already working. In my consulting practice, I have accompanied organizations that are making progress by building trust, energizing teams and driving innovation. In the end, they are measurably more successful and resilient .
The business case for equity is well-established: it drives performance, helps fuel growth and is an overall leadership imperative. In today's political climate, it's critical to stay focused on outcomes rather than rhetoric that frames equity as divisive or unnecessary.
The way forward
Rebranding "equity" as "belonging" doesn't advance justice, especially when there's no shared definition of what "belonging" actually means. It politely denies the need to dismantle real systemic barriers. For individuals facing those barriers, it sounds like an empty promise.
No one chooses their race, sex, socio-economic background, sexual orientation or to live with a disability or the lasting impacts of military service. But institutions can choose whether to confront the inequities tied to those experiences and dismantle barriers that individuals face.
This moment also calls for an honest reflection within the DEI space itself. Some initiatives have overreached or lost focus , contributing to this current backlash. Addressing missteps openly is part of rebuilding credibility in DEI work.
Equity, at its core, is about ensuring dignity and providing everyone with a fair chance to succeed. Walking away from equity work or watering it down until it becomes meaningless is not the answer. Moving forward requires less political polarization and more co-ordinated action so that everyone can have a fair chance to thrive.
Simon Blanchette does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
