EDI is NOT Affirmative Action
Once again, I was asked to comment on a recent story in the news: U of A board approves controversial new hiring policy, which removes EDI
Recent headlines, including this one about the decision by the University of Alberta to remove Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) language from its hiring policy, have reignited an unfortunately familiar debate. Sadly, much of that debate is built on a fundamental misunderstanding: the conflation of EDI with affirmative action.
According to CBC’s story, the policy change removes a previous approach where, in cases of equally qualified candidates, preference could be given to individuals from underrepresented groups. That single element has become the focal point of criticism and, in many cases, the basis for broader claims that EDI is about “giving unfair advantages.” But that framing misses the bigger picture.
Allow me to clarify. Affirmative action is a specific set of policies designed to address historical exclusion often through targeted hiring or admissions considerations. It is one tool, used in certain contexts, with specific legal and organizational frameworks.
EDI, on the other hand, is much broader. EDI is, and always has been if done correctly, about:
Removing systemic barriers
Creating equitable access to opportunities
Ensuring inclusive environments where people can succeed once they are there
Examining bias in processes, not just outcomes
Reducing EDI to a single hiring tie-breaker is like reducing healthcare to emergency surgery. It’s one possible intervention; not the entire system.
Much of the backlash relies on the idea that EDI interferes with merit-based hiring. But merit is not as neutral as we often assume. Hiring processes are shaped by:
Where job openings are posted
Who gets access to education and experience
How credentials are evaluated
Unconscious bias in postings, interviews and decision-making
Networks and referrals that privilege some groups over others
EDI hiring policies and practices should be, again if done properly, designed to address unconscious biases that favour candidates who are more similar to themselves. In other words, EDI doesn’t replace merit; it interrogates how merit is defined and applied.
When EDI is equated with affirmative action, we see that:
The work is minimized: Years of research, policy development, and organizational change are reduced to a single hiring decision.
Public trust erodes: People begin to believe EDI is about lowering standards rather than addressing inequities.
Organizations retreat: Institutions are abandoning EDI language and practices altogether because they have become polarizing, not because the underlying issues/barriers/challenges have been resolved.
The real problems remain: Barriers don’t disappear just because we stop naming them.
This isn’t just about one university’s policy. This change reflects a broader societal tension around how we understand fairness. Is fairness:
Treating everyone the same, regardless of context?
or
Recognizing that people do not start from the same place and adjusting systems accordingly?
EDI operates in the second space. And that’s where discomfort often arises. If we want more productive conversations about EDI, we need to move beyond slogans and soundbites.
What is required is:
Precision in language: Stop using EDI and affirmative action interchangeably.
Focus on systems, not anecdotes: Individual hiring stories don’t capture systemic patterns.
Commitment to learning: Many strong opinions on EDI are based on incomplete information.
Accountability with nuance: Yes, policies should be examined critically, but based on what they actually are, not what they’re assumed to be.
When EDI becomes a catch-all term for anything people find uncomfortable, we lose the ability to have meaningful dialogue about equity and inclusion. The question isn’t whether we should strive for fairness in our institutions because that is a shared value.
It’s really too bad that organizations that have missed the mark around implementing EDI mistakenly focused on affirmative action and are now having to backtrack. The real question is: are we willing to look closely at how fairness actually works? Because if we’re not, removing the language of EDI won’t remove the inequities it was designed to address.
If your organization is considering removing or distancing itself from EDI, it’s worth asking a harder question: what problem are you actually trying to solve? If the concern is about fairness, transparency, or rigour in hiring and decision-making, those are not arguments against EDI. They are reasons to do the work better. Removing EDI language or commitments does not create neutrality. It creates a vacuum where existing biases and inequities continue unchecked. Let’s be honest. They’re just less visible and less accountable.
I’ve been working in this industry for 20 years now. When I first started it was called “welcoming and inclusive” (municipalities, organizations, etc.) and was primarily focused on newcomers because at the time the government was concerned with a predicted labour shortage by 2025 and was doing everything it could to attract newcomers. Ironic, non? Over the years it expanded to include populations who were historically underrepresented in the workforce, then those who were discriminated upon. Does it matter what the work is called? Maybe. Maybe not. But let’s do it right.
So here is the challenge:
If you are stepping back from EDI, what are you putting in its place to ensure equitable access and inclusion? How will you measure fairness without examining systemic barriers? Who benefits from the absence of this work, and who is left out?
Organizations that are serious about fairness don’t retreat from complexity. They engage with it. They refine their approaches, strengthen accountability, and stay committed even when the work becomes uncomfortable.
Because equity was never about optics. It’s about outcomes.
And those outcomes don’t change just because the language does.
Tymmarah Mackie, MA
Founder & President, Fostering Diverse Communities Canada
