DEI was always intended to infiltrate businesses and institutions with leftist philosophies under the guise of commendable goals. Pictured: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Photo Credit: Justin Trudeau/X.
Recent decisions of a number of major corporations to abandon DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies in their organizations has prompted some to declare the death of DEI. If only. It is surely important that big companies such as Walmart, McDonald’s, Meta and Ford have moved away from DEI practices, but the fact that DEI continues to be firmly embedded in so many of our institutions – and very important institutions such as governments, universities, public schools and regulatory bodies, among others – will continue to create discord for some time to come.
It’s no accident that private sector entities have been the first to jettison their DEI policies, as performance matters in competitive marketplaces and prioritizing DEI considerations instead of merit hits the all-important bottom line quickly. The government and quasi-government institutions have no such competitive imperative for their survival, so can afford to underperform, supported by very deep taxpayer pockets.
Diversity is our strength was the absurd claim made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his early days in politics that helped to promote the DEI movement in Canada. In reality, diversity is neutral. It can be either a strength or a weakness depending upon how it is manifests itself. The left has weaponized diversity to divide different groups in society, with the animosity and resentment among groups with different racial, religious, indigenous, gender identity, political and socioeconomic characteristics. The Trudeau government has been especially keen to divide Canadians according to “diverse” elements for self-serving partisan political purposes, which has done nothing but created division among Canadians. This is not leadership nor responsible government behaviour.
DEI was always intended as a Trojan Horse, to infiltrate businesses and institutions with leftist philosophies under the guise of commendable goals such as promoting equity for racial minorities, women, underprivileged groups, indigenous and others. On a corporate board, merely a few DEI appointees can cause untold damage as the corporation takes its eye off the ball of profitability and shareholder interests for priorities that have nothing to do with keeping the business successful and solvent.
As with all overbearing regulatory regimes, DEI also reduced the productivity of businesses and government as it requires the creation of a new bureaucracy to monitor it and sidelined merit as the most important criteria for hiring and promotion. It also gives governments yet another pretext to harass businesses by demanding businesses account for how many employees they have that meet various racial, religious, gender or other criteria. This is often problematic for businesses and their employees, who often don’t appreciate having to declare personal details about themselves so they can fit into a DEI-approved mold.
Perhaps the last straw in Canada, at least, was the announcement that some medical schools would value DEI considerations over merit in determining who would be admitted to these schools for training as doctors. When it comes to something as crucial as life or death, valuing any criteria other than competence is clearly unacceptable. As well, many members of groups that could theoretically benefit from DEI practices resent the notion that they may have gotten a job, appointment or board seat largely because of their skin colour, gender, indigenous origin or other DEI criteria. Indeed, DEI ultimately defeats itself by suggesting the groups it is supposed to help are unable to achieve such things on their own merit, which is surely untrue.
Polls show Canadians oppose DEI even more than their U.S. cousins. This is surprising but may be happening because it’s been rammed down our throats so frequently that we resent it all the more. A poll done late last year by Leger showed that 57 per cent of Canadians disagree with the idea that equity considerations should be part of the hiring process. The same poll showed that 36 per cent of Americans supported affirmative action while only 28 per cent of Canadians were in favour of equity hiring.
It is encouraging that DEI is finally losing favour in many quarters, but the ever-woke Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has recently attempted to resuscitate this dying concept. Last week, a TDSB committee voted in favour of asking the Ontario government to approve mandatory DEI certification not only within the TDSB, but for all teachers in the province. The Ontario government has to date been absurdly lenient with some of the worst outrages of the TDSB, such as taking students on field trips to so-called Palestinian protests against Israel and lying to parents about what was going on.
Let’s hope this time the Ontario government will do the right thing, clamp down on the many TDSB transgressions and take action to reform this out-of-control school board in future. It’s no wonder our students’ academic accomplishments continue to decline when so much focus is put on extreme social justice ideology and divisive policies instead of the skills students should be taught to ensure their future success.
Celebrating the death of DEI is surely premature, but it is encouraging that this destructive practice is on the wane. This must continue throughout the economy, from the private sector to public institutions. It’s time the DEI Trojan horse is permanently retired. To help this along, we should start referring to the acronym DEI with its true meaning – Didn’t Earn It.
She has published numerous articles in journals, magazines & other media on issues such as free trade, finance, entrepreneurship & women business owners. Ms. Swift is a past President of the Empire Club of Canada, a former Director of the CD Howe Institute, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, SOS Children’s Villages, past President of the International Small Business Congress and current Director of the Fraser Institute. She was cited in 2003 & 2012 as one of the most powerful women in Canada by the Women’s Executive Network & is a recipient of the Queen’s Silver & Gold Jubilee medals.
