Misinformation and division are stalling progress on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), making it more important than ever to ground the conversation in facts and shared understanding.
This article sheds light on the pushback against DEI, cutting through the noise to provide clarity and insight. If you believe in fostering informed, constructive dialogue, please share—because progress starts with awareness, and unity begins with truth.
As you read, I encourage you to stay open-minded, to consider perspectives beyond your own, and to reflect on how this might shape not just your thinking, but also our collective progress. Because the real path forward to a more inclusive and fair world isn’t about any single viewpoint—it’s about our ability to listen, be empathetic, unite across difference and remain willing to change.
Let’s dive in.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have been big topics in workplaces, schools, and even politics. But lately, there’s been a growing pushback against them. Some people feel DEI is unfair, that it forces companies to hire based on identity rather than talent. Others see it as a threat to meritocracy—the idea that the best person should get the job. But the real issue isn’t DEI itself. It’s how it has been misunderstood and, in some cases, poorly implemented.
Let’s break it down.
Diversity: A Reality, Not a Target
Diversity simply means different people exist in the world—different races, genders, backgrounds, and experiences. It’s not something companies should have to manufacture. But in practice, “diversity” is often reduced to setting targets or quotas, which can feel forced or unfair.
The real problem? Bias and unfair systems. Many workplaces have hiring practices that favour certain groups—whether it’s because of unconscious bias, networking advantages, or outdated ways of assessing talent. The goal should not be to “hit a diversity quota” but to make the hiring process fair.
Why does diversity matter?
The first driver is social justice.
Diversity a sign of equal opportunity. If an—organisation lacks diversity, it is very likely there is an imbalance in the advantages and obstacles different groups face to join and progress within the organisation. Factors outside our control shouldn’t determine our life outcomes.
The second driver is about business success.
Cognitive diversity, shaped by identity, lived experience, and ways of thinking, reduces groupthink and leads to better decisions, creativity, and innovation. It also helps businesses better understand and serve diverse customers.
Diversity is the right thing to do and it’s good for business.
The evolution of diversity in business
Let’s step back in history to look at the evolution of diversity in business.
Initially, diversity wasn’t even on the radar—its absence was simply accepted as the norm.
The push for DEI gained momentum after movements like #MeToo and the outcry following George Floyd’s death. Research began to highlight the benefits of diversity and inclusion, alongside the necessity of equity. This sparked an awakening to the need for inclusive thinking.
Many organisations rushed to take action, but not all responses were well thought out. Some efforts felt performative, and others unintentionally created resentment.
As businesses sought solutions, they turned to diversity quotas as a way to drive change. With a growing war on talent and an increasing focus on workplace culture, setting diversity targets seemed like a logical step toward greater equality.
But these targets, while well-intentioned, were a blunt instrument.
Targets alone failed to address deeper systemic inequities, leading to unintended consequences and, eventually, backlash.
Despite being complex systems, business are quite simplistic. They are steered by targets, processes and structures. The phrase measure what matters comes to mind. Targets become a short cut to focus the business machine on what needs to be achieved. But the nuance and complexities are lost. Setting diversity targets is a way of focussing businesses on the ‘goal of diversity’.
Is diversity the goal?
I would argue that we are missing the point if we only focus on diversity. The real goals for businesses are two fold:
1) Fairness. To remove systemic barriers and biases that prevent equal opportunity. When systems are fair diversity will increase where it has been lacking.
2) Enhanced perspectives: to widen our sphere of knowledge and insight to make better decisions and create better solutions. Diversity brings different perspectives.
Increasing diversity within an organisation does not necessarily achieve either of these things. Affirmative action, which is not universally seen as fair, can bring in diverse talent without addressing underlying systemic issues. This can cause a feeling of unease from both those who are now favoured and those who now feel disadvantaged. This is not the essence of fairness.
Diverse talent within a business does not nessesarily translate into enhanced perspectives if the environment is such that people not feel safe to share different views. A culture of group think and fitting in will never uncover the diversity of perspective that exists within an organisation.
Whilst understanding diversity gaps at a macro level is valuable, at an individual level, rigid targets can create unintended consequences. They fail to address the deeper structural issues that created inequality in the first place. Some people felt excluded, while others question whether their achievements were based on merit or simply meeting a quota.
This brings us to the present day where the backlash has gained momentum, leading some companies to abandon ‘DEI’ initiatives altogether.
The Pendulum Swing: From Reaction to Balance
Whether or not you agree with Donald Trump’s recent executive orders, there is a narrative about fairness for all. Scrapping DEI is often framed as preventing diversity targets from disadvantaging others. While some reactions have been knee-jerk, this moment presents an opportunity—a pressure test to ensure that DEI efforts are genuinely fair, drive meaningful business impact and do not disadvantage anyone.
Getting rid of DEI altogether misses the point of what it aims to achieve. At the same time, allowing DEI initiatives to operate unchecked—without alignment, without measuring impact, and sometimes even creating a new kind of bias—leaves many feeling excluded and disillusioned. Neither extreme is a sustainable solution.
The goal should not be to simply take sides but to create a balanced approach that ensures fairness, fosters inclusion, and delivers measurable benefits. DEI should not be about ticking boxes or quotas, nor can we just ignore systemic barriers.
Brushing it all under the carpet only serves those who are least impacted.
Why don’t we just ignore diversity?
The answer is not to retreat into a past where diversity was ignored. The real challenge is to move beyond quotas and towards meaningful, systemic change. The goal is not just representation but fairness—creating environments where opportunity is truly accessible to all, without bias or artificial barriers.
There is a significant difference between being “colour blind” and “colour brave.” Ignoring diversity means ignoring the systemic biases that hold certain groups back.
Quotas can create new problems, but ignoring diversity is equally flawed.
The key is balance—ensuring fair, inclusive practices that genuinely level the playing field without creating new forms of bias. In the increasingly diverse and polarised world that we live in we are being asked to pick a side, dig our heels in and defend our position. However inclusion is about being fostering a sense of belonging across difference. Finding ways to productively disagree and create better solutions that benefit everyone, leveraging the insights that come from wider perspectives.
When we see headlines about companies scrapping DEI, we are often pushed into two polarized reactions: either celebrating its end or mourning its loss. But there is a third way—a balanced approach.
Removing quotas that drive knee-jerk reactions is a positive step if replaced with meaningful goals that focus on fairness and belonging for all.
Removing quotas that drive knee-jerk reactions is a positive step if replaced with meaningful goals that focus on fairness and belonging for all.
Instead of arbitrary targets, organisations should focus on implementing fair practices and reducing disparities. For example, if 90% of men self-report a high sense of inclusion while only 50% of women feel the same, that signals a problem. This isn’t about “fixing” women—it’s a sign that the systems themselves are not fair. If companies remove biased hiring barriers and focus on equity-driven improvements, they naturally end up with a more diverse workforce—without lowering standards or making diversity the goal itself.
Equity: Fair, Not Equal
Equity is often misunderstood as “giving some people more” or “handing out opportunities unfairly” or “artificially creating equal outcomes.” But equity isn’t about giving everyone the same thing—it’s about giving people what they need to succeed.
Think of it like climbing a ladder. If one person’s path up is clear and another’s is blocked by nails, wires, and missing rungs, they don’t have an equal chance to reach the top. Equity is about removing those barriers so everyone can climb fairly. It’s not about giving some people a boost they didn’t earn—it’s about making sure obstacles don’t hold certain groups back while others get a smooth path.
Inclusion: More Than Just ‘Being Welcome’
Inclusion is making sure that once people are in a space, they feel like they belong and can contribute fully. This means creating an environment where people feel respected, valued, and heard.
The problem? Some see inclusion as a zero-sum game—that making space for one group means pushing another out. This is where the backlash comes in. Some individuals, who have traditionally held influence, feel like they’re being excluded. That’s not real inclusion either.
True inclusion fosters an abundance mindset, where collaboration and mutual support replace competition and division inside organisations. High-performing teams thrive when people feel psychologically safe to express different views, productively disagree, and be vulnerable. Inclusion isn’t a weapon to pit people against each other—it’s a lever for accelerating team success and creating environments where everyone feels valued. Diversifying the talent pool with no regard for inclusion is a pointless exercise that will likely backfire. The opposite of authenticity is fitting in. Those who don’t feel included will be the first to leave.
Companies who are scrapping DEI are still coming out with statements such as ‘everyone is welcome’ and ‘we are still committed to building an inclusive culture’. If performative DEI was an issue of the past I think we need to watch for it even more in the future. You may say that everyone is welcome but will everyone truly feel like they belong.
If you are scrapping all DEI, what exactly will you be doing to create this inclusive culture that you are commited to? How will you measure this? How will you know if different people experience it differently?
To create an inclusive culture for all, you can’t ignore diversity.
If you do, you create a culture that is inclusive for the dominant norm. Everyone else will either try to fit in, or leave. Fitting in is the opposite of belonging. To see if your culture really is inclusive you need to find examples of people taking risks, expressing vulnerability, sharing their differences. This is a sign people feel safe to be themselves. Only then will they be able to do their best work. A culture of groupthink and fitting in may look harmonious, but the truth lies in what isn’t being said, for fear of reprisal.
Not excluding people is not the same as making people feel included.
If you want those in the minority to feel included, you must actively and explicitly include them, demonstrating that they can trust you. They need clear signals that they will be respected and valued, especially given that their experiences elsewhere have often suggested otherwise.
In contrast, for those in the dominant majority, trust isn’t built in the same way.
The system and environment have already been shaped with them in mind, meaning they don’t require the same validation or proof of understanding.
So I am calling BS on the ‘everyone is welcome’ if this isn’t backed up with evidence of what will be done to create this ‘inclusive culture’ you are still so committed to building.
The Big Objection: DEI vs. MEI (Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence)
A common argument against DEI is that it undermines meritocracy—that people should get jobs based on talent, not identity. But DEI and meritocracy aren’t opposites. In fact, you can’t have true meritocracy without fairness. If one person has to work twice as hard to get the same opportunity as someone else, is that really a fair system?
At the same time, DEI shouldn’t be about giving people jobs just because they tick a diversity box. The key is making sure that the hiring and promotion processes are actually fair—so that talent, not bias, decides who succeeds.
Ensuring fairness in a meritocracy requires addressing structural inequities so that people’s achievements truly reflect their talents and efforts rather than unearned advantages. A fair meritocracy isn’t just about equal treatment but about equitable access to opportunities.
Moving towards a just and inclusive meritocracy:
Traditional meritocracies assume a level playing field, but in reality, factors like race, gender, socio-economic status, disability, and other identity traits shape access to opportunities. Instead of just rewarding outcomes, a fair system must evaluate the context in which achievements were made. Looking at achievements in relation to the barriers someone faced is a more effective measure of merit.
A pure meritocarcy in an unequal world is not fair. Simple.
We can’t simply ‘go back’ to the meritocracy, because it never existed. To create a fair meritocracy we have two choices. Either remove the bias, barriers and obstacles that prevent the system from being fair or change the way we measure ‘merit’. Merit should be not just be determined simply by the goal reached, but by what was required to reach it.
Imagine two individuals—Alex and Sam—both of whom become CEOs of FTSE 100 companies. Their paths, however, look very different.
Alex: The Traditional Fast Track
Alex comes from a privileged background—privately educated, with parents who had extensive professional networks. Early on, they secure internships through family connections at top firms, gaining experience without financial pressure. At university, they focus entirely on studies and networking, leading to a prestigious graduate programme at an investment bank. Over the years, they benefit from senior mentors who see a reflection of themselves in Alex, leading to promotions and high-profile opportunities. By the time they reach the executive level, their path has been relatively smooth, with access to capital, social confidence, and networks that have reinforced their rise.
Sam: The Unconventional Route
Sam, on the other hand, grows up in a low-income household, attending an underfunded state school. They work part-time throughout university to cover tuition, limiting their ability to take unpaid internships or network in elite circles. Without industry connections, they struggle to get their foot in the door but persist, taking on less prestigious roles to gain experience. Along the way, they face unconscious bias—being overlooked for promotions in favour of those with ‘the right cultural fit.’ They must consistently outperform to be recognised, often taking on extra responsibilities without the same financial security as their peers. Eventually, after years of navigating systemic barriers, they break through and reach the top—but with significantly more personal sacrifice, resilience, and resourcefulness than their counterparts.
Merit Reframed
This isn’t to say that Alex’s achievements aren’t valid—becoming a CEO in any capacity requires skill, effort, and leadership. But it does highlight that our current system often equates ‘merit’ with the outcome alone, without accounting for the vastly different starting points and challenges along the way. A true meritocracy wouldn’t just recognise who reaches the top—it would factor in what it took to get there.
A Path Forward: What Needs to Change?
The problem isn’t with DEI’s core ideas. It’s with how they’ve sometimes been applied. We need to reframe the conversation:
Fix the systems, not just the numbers. Instead of setting quotas, focus on making hiring, promotions, and opportunities fairer.
Make equity about removing barriers, not giving advantages. Show how fairer systems help everyone, not just underrepresented groups.
Ensure inclusion includes everyone. That means making sure no one—regardless of background—feels pushed out or left behind. This includes those who may feel threatened or disadvantaged by change or are advantaged by the current status quo.
Pressure test for fairness for all. If your DEI initiative could be construed as being discriminatory, it’s time for a rethink.
DEI isn’t about replacing one group with another. It’s about creating a world where everyone has a fair shot. And that benefits us all.
Inclusion is a mindset
Inclusion isn’t just about hiring—it’s a mindset that shapes workplace culture, operational processes, user experiences, events, and product design. It influences our relationships and daily interactions. Inclusive thinking is a skill, not a checkbox; like a muscle, it needs consistent effort to strengthen. Developing this skill enhances our ability to tolerate complexity, engage in productive disagreement, navigate power dynamics, practise allyship, and embrace humility, empathy, and vulnerability as strengths. If we collectively commit to improving our inclusive thinking, we’ll be better equipped to drive meaningful change in every space we operate in.
Inclusive Innovation
In today’s world of rapid innovation, inclusive innovation has never been more important. Innovation has the power to change lives—whether through advances in medicine, evolving work practices, or transforming financial systems. But it also has the potential to cause harm, impacting livelihoods, mental health, or widening inequalities. That’s why embedding inclusion into people, practices, and products is crucial for better results.
Doubling Down or Opting Out
As organisations navigate the pushback against DEI, they face a choice: double down on meaningful, results-driven inclusion efforts or opt out – either through silent inaction or public declarations. I believe that people will ultimately vote with their feet and gravitate towards organisations that share their values.
At Diversily, we’re doubling down, ensuring that inclusion remains a driver of success, and taking everyone on the journey. We are committed to shaping the innovation ecosystem to be more inclusive.
This means increasing the focus on business impact, fairness, and sustainable, long-term change.
