The War on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is a War on Human Rights

The backlash on DEI programs already has some consequences in Canada. One federal party ran on an “anti-woke” platform, with rhetoric suggesting DEI is undermining competencies and merit, and some large companies, such as DEI award winners, are publicly dismantling their DEI programs. Understanding the connection between these programs and fundamental human rights is essential. Those programs are mechanisms to implement the fundamental rights of people on the margins of society and outside the power structures. 

Today, more than ever, we must remember that equality rights are the bedrock of freedom, justice, and peace. The rights entrenched in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not just principles; they empower citizens who strive for equality and justice to redesign power structures. This transformative potential should inspire us to defend them.

Recognizing the DEI obligations derived from international human rights instruments implemented by national laws is crucial. By promoting economic and social justice for historically marginalized and subordinated groups, DEI initiatives play a pivotal role in addressing systemic discrimination by also taking into account intersectionality. Their implementation is not a choice but necessary to achieve an equal society in a democracy.

Black women are the main target, an example of the differential impact of the DEI attack by the dismantling of civil rights and inclusion programs across government. “Black women… spent decades building a career of government service, only to see those careers shattered in a sudden purge.” Their intersectional positions put them at higher risk.

The Canadian Human Rights Charter 

Canada’s past is stained by discrimination against women, disabled people, 2SLGBTQ+ members, and racialized peoples, but also racism, slavery, and segregation against Black and Indigenous peoples.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Human Rights legislation protects human rights, fairness, and justice, which are core values of democratic societies.

Substantive equality, a key concept in the Canadian Charter, goes beyond treating everyone equally. It recognizes that everyone should have equal rights. In a world where discrimination is embedded in systems, treating everyone equally does not necessarily lead to equality. Substantive equality (or equity in the DEI framework) recognizes the impact of discrimination and exclusion.

Substantive equality involves “attention to the ‘full context of the claimant group’s situation” and to the “persistent systemic disadvantages that have operated to limit the opportunities available to that group’s members.” If the effects of a law, rule, policy, or practice “perpetuates, reinforces or exacerbates disadvantage,” it must be examined critically to ensure that discrimination is not embedded in neutral norms.

As a cornerstone principle, it reveals the power dynamics between those who are privileged and those who are not, between dominant and subordinate. Thus, to achieve substantive equality, we must recognize that inequalities are often embedded in “neutral” rules and policies, demanding that we make them visible. When laws and policies are applied without considering the specific context of historically marginalized and subordinated groups, they perpetuate inequality, such as racism. For instance, some managerial practices rooted in discrimination, racism, and stereotypes still hurt the careers of marginalized groups.

In CN v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court recognized that “an employment equity program is an attempt to ensure that future applicants and workers from the affected group will not face the same insidious barriers that blocked their forebears.” The same argument could be made for DEI initiatives.

Why are DEI Programs Essential?

For example, in March 2025, the Diversity Institute published the first report on the State of Black Economics, documenting the situation of Black Canadians in education, employment, and entrepreneurship and proposing some approaches to foster inclusion.

According to this report, Black people are underrepresented as “teachers, guidance counsellors, and principals as well as faculty members and administrators in post-secondary institutions” who are responsible for shaping “curriculum, pedagogy, and services.” Notably, the report points out that Black youth are facing “disproportionately high disciplinary actions and also facing low expectations from their teachers.”

Concerning racial discrimination in employment, a recent survey by the Diversity Institute and Environics showed that Black Canadians report more discrimination than other racialized groups. They face systemic racism in the employment system: hiring, promotion practices, and workplace interaction. Black women are confronted with a specific racism where gender and race are entangled; this intersectional racism is also known as misogynoir. 

Black Canadians are still underrepresented in leadership positions (executive and board representations). Regarding Black entrepreneurship, only 1% of Black Canadians own small and medium businesses, and they face additional barriers compared to other entrepreneurs. After facing “barriers in traditional employment, many Black Canadians are self-employed. 

Recognizing the importance of legislation, policies, voluntary codes, and DEI initiatives to support the Human Rights framework, the report proposed better disaggregated data gathering. It also supports the recommendation of the report A Transformative Framework to Achieve and Sustain Employment Equity: the recognition of the specific racism faced by Black Canadians by creating a specific category for Black Canadians (and also a particular group for the 2SLGBTQ+) in the Employment Equity Act. 

Businesses Should Implement Human Rights

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are grounded in recognition of: 

1. States’ existing obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights and fundamental freedoms; 
2. The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights; 
3. Rights and obligations must be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached.

“These Guiding Principles should be understood as a coherent whole and read, individually and collectively, to enhance standards and practices about business and human rights to achieve tangible results for affected individuals and communities, thereby contributing to socially sustainable globalization.” 

The PRI’s 2020 report, Why and How Investors Should Act on Human Rights, clarifies how the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights set expectations for investors to act on human rights, including those related to DEI.

The DEI Discourse and Human Rights

While many employers understand that there are legal obligations related to Human Rights and other human rights-based legislation, such as the Employment Equity Act and the Pay Equity Act, the rationale for DEI programs has been linked to organizational performance rather than human rights principles. The popularity of DEI as a managerial discourse is also linked to the fact that it is more flexible than human rights.  

However, while some organizations have embedded DEI into their organizational strategy, structure, culture, and processes, others have engaged in largely performative efforts, creating and publicizing stand-alone programs. Furthermore, some DEI initiatives were put forward without an in-depth understanding of the obstacles faced by historically marginalized and subordinated groups.

In an article noting the decline of affirmative action programs in the United States, Richard Thompson Ford, Law Professor at Stanford, criticized the way the concept of “diversity” has also become a lazy substitute for any discussion of generations of race-based exclusion and exploitation. Thus, he concludes that the concept of diversity hinders the achievement of racial justice: “[D]iversity is not the same as justice. It is a substitute for justice. Like saccharine instead of sugar in diet soda, diversity serves some of the functions of justice and also takes its place. Diversity has made justice seem redundant. Because it has become a regular part of our diet, it is easy to forget what the real thing tastes like.”

Ultimately, they act as window dressing. Moreover, when the DEI efforts are bolted on, it is relatively easy to dismantle them. 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion under Attack 

Because some DEI programs effectively dismantled the status quo, they were targeted as a new iteration of the outbreak of affirmative action and, eventually, the outburst against human rights. They undermined not only human rights and equality but also democracy.

There is little doubt: Some DEI initiatives were high on marketing and low on substance. For many years, historically marginalized and subordinated groups have pointed to the gaps between what they publicized and what is done. Others have critiqued the focus on performative and symbolic actions without walking the talk. Others have observed the ineffectiveness of unconscious bias training or even the harm it can cause without comprehensive policies and processes. We also have to point out that one of the most egregious examples has been found in Human Rights organizations; such organizations are hidden behind their mandate, illustrating moral credentials.

While the research on “what works” is uneven, evidence suggests that the most effective DEI initiatives are not bolted on but embedded in every aspect of corporate life. Ensuring that substantive equality is brought to all levels of the organization’s structures, policies, and practices and that it becomes an organizational responsibility is key. 

Organizations do not exist in a vacuum; ensuring that they not only comply with human rights obligations and regulatory requirements but also embrace them and build them into their processes and culture is essential, as is ensuring that all employees understand their rights and responsibilities. A DEI lens should be applied to every aspect of the organization’s value chain, from research and development to procurement, product and service design, marketing, and support, as well as to its partnerships, philanthropy, and advocacy efforts. Focusing only on human resources without strong organizational leadership and commitment seldom produces results. Embedding DEI in an organization’s strategy, performance metrics, and culture is crucial for long-lasting change. 

Fighting Back

To face those attacks, we accept that the foundation of DEI is human rights. Thus, we must use the framework and language of Human Rights, such as non-discrimination, substantive equality, participation, and inclusion. Inclusion is both a goal and a process, ensuring that individuals are valued not despite but because of their differences. Drawing on Human Rights concepts and language is decisive for defending DEI in Canada, where institutions, laws, and jurisprudence differ substantially from those south of the border.

We must remember that in Canada, Equity is the Law. Substantive equality should be entrenched in the organization’s mission and practice. Educational initiatives grounded in human rights ethics should be crucial in addressing the many social and racial injustices endemic in our society. 

John Dovidio, PhD, an emeritus professor of psychology at Yale University who studies power and social relations, warns us to defend ourselves solely against an attack. For him, “Rooting for your continued support for diversity in your discipline’s mission is going to be the key to surviving some of this.” 

A better approach, he said, is to emphasize the broad goals of DEI and work to find common ground. He added, “Part of it is stepping back and thinking about what we want to accomplish rather than getting in the trenches. Threat makes us myopic. We get divisive and defensive,” he said. “How can we be smarter and wiser than that in a time of threat?”

Furthermore, on June 11, 2025, the most extensive survey on DEI, conducted by Catalyst and the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging in 2025, on workplace inclusion (2,500 US employees) was published. “Risks of Retreat: The Enduring Inclusion Imperative” highlights the risks of scaling back on DEI. These risks include talent loss due to employers’ lack of commitment to DEI programs, legal risk from increased potential for discrimination claims, and reputational damage from perceived insincerity in DEI commitments. Notably, the survey also underlines a financial risk, as respondents are more likely to purchase products or services from organizations that support DEI.

Taking into account “the significant legal and social risks of maintaining DEI work and the significant legal and social risks of retreating from DEI work,” the report proposed some “practical recommendations for how leaders can assess risk in DEI programs, modify programs as necessary, align communications to their strategy, and maintain commitment even in the face of headwinds.” This American report can be useful for Canadian employers to address the challenging time for DEI policies, keeping in mind that equity in Canada is the law.

Shareholders’ Courage 

According to Nancy Levine Steans, “Shareholders of 29 of the largest corporations in the US, and one in Canada (Lululemon Athletica), have voted unanimously to reject anti-DEI proposals in 2025, by overwhelming margins – most by 98% or 99% of voting shares.” Those companies are valued at more than 13 trillion US dollars.

Under these circumstances, courage should be your mantra. We have to be braced and stand firm against the escalating assault on equality rights and DEI. The response should be leveraged by a coalition of historically marginalized and subordinated groups who understand the threat but also understand the multiple facets of discrimination and the specificity of anti-black racism.