It’s telling that two of Canada’s major newspapers published very similar opinion pieces  within a couple of days of each other.…

This is from the piece headlined Canada must stand firm on DEI as U.S. corporations retreat, written by Wes Hall and Walied Soliman, published in the Globe and Mail:

• In 2024, some of the largest corporations in the United States retreated from their diversity, equity and inclusion programs. They disbanded their DEI teams, withdrew from supporting cultural awareness programs and removed DEI metrics from executive pay plans, signalling to leaders that diversity and accountability are no longer priorities.
• This puts Canada at a crossroads. Will we allow this shift south of the border to undermine our own progress, or will we seize this moment to solidify leadership in DEI and build a future where all Canadians have an equal stake in opportunity?
• Critics dismiss DEI as a “woke agenda” that unfairly distributes results. This “us vs. them” mentality distorts DEI’s true purpose: to make sure every person has a fair chance at succeeding, by eliminating unconscious bias and recognizing structural impediments. This will not result in fewer opportunities for traditionally advantaged groups, but rather grow the pie to benefit everyone across the country.
• …This is Canada’s moment. To lead. To rise. To be uncompromising in our commitment to DEI and to build a future where every Canadian – regardless of our differences – has an equal chance to thrive. The stakes are too high, the moment too urgent, for anything less.
• Let’s not waste it.

In the Toronto Star, Ruby Latif contributed a piece titled Have diversity initiatives died? Maybe in the U.S. — but there is still time for Canada:

• With Trump returning to politics, opposition to equity programs will intensify. Critics like Musk argue for ”MEI” — merit, excellence, and intelligence — claiming this approach is more effective than diversity-focused strategies. Musk even called DEI “just another word for racism,” dismissing it as unnecessary. Yet, this rhetoric ignores the systemic barriers equity programs address.
• The call for “merit” overlooks that unequal access to education, mentorship and opportunities distorts merit assessment. Merit is subjective, shaped by unconscious biases and societal norms that marginalize people based on identity markers like race, gender, and class.
• These inequities are entrenched in systems, making efforts to combat them essential. For example, the wage gap reflects not only gender bias but also the societal inequalities affecting immigrants and other marginalized groups. Equity initiatives aim to address these biases.
• To build inclusive and sustainable workplaces and societies, we must double down on efforts, not retreat. DEI isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s a practical approach to creating environments where diverse talent and perspectives drive success. Ignoring the inequities now is unethical and short-sighted. Organizations that recognize this will foster a more just society and position themselves to thrive in the future.

As a piece of would-be persuasive writing, Latif’s calm articulation has a clear edge over Hall and Soliman’s cliché-ridden “this is Canada’s moment”-type rhetoric. But the two articles make the same tragic point, that DEI is too easily painted as a dispensable (if not harmful) “add-on” rather than as an inherent component of rationality in hiring and people management. As we noted the last time we looked at this area, DEI (an acronym I’ve always disliked, not least for how it suggests something self-contained and other) seems to reveal the limits of the clapped-out cliché that “what gets measured gets managed”: if one is so inclined, it’s easy enough to concoct figures that demonstrate movement toward greater representation and inclusivity and all the rest of it, but such a numbers game may be substantially disconnected from (or even opposed to) true equality of perception and opportunity and outcome. And yet, to not measure or monitor the area at all might only invite apathy and denial at best, outright discrimination at worst.

Most depressing is that the retreat of DEI mirrors a broader coarsening of society, an ugliness of spirit that’s particularly apparent in the self-poisoning US at present, but which is also on the rise in Canada. The general interest in ensuring that (in Hall and Soliman’s phrase) “every person has a fair chance at succeeding” or (in Latif’s) creating a “more just society” appears to be comprehensively waning, replaced by more basic, self-protective anxieties and motivations. Against that backdrop, it’s hardly surprising that DEI (in common with anything else that smells vaguely “progressive,” sustainability being the most existentially tragic example of all) should attract adverse attention. But again as we noted previously, getting rid of (say) a prominent diversity-labeled executive position doesn’t preclude (and may even be helpful in) progress in what really matters, organically embedding DEI in day to day activity and culture. If it is indeed Canada’s moment to lead in this area, the ultimate success measure may ironically be that its implementation of DEI becomes so low-key natural and commonplace that no one needs to write overblown articles about it…

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.