David Staples: University of Alberta wise to get ahead of fierce backlash against DEI

Article content

The University of Alberta is trail-blazing on a critical issue, becoming the first university in Canada to reform its DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) program.

U of A president Bill Flanagan signalled the change in a piece he wrote for the Edmonton Journal where he focused on controversial aspects of DEI programs — or EDI as it’s called at the U of A: “For some, the language of EDI has become polarizing, focusing more on what divides us rather than our shared humanity. Some perceive an ideological bias at odds with merit.”

Flanagan’s reforms will be embraced by anyone who hopes for a fairer, more inclusive, united and productive world. But, no doubt, there will be plenty of opposition. The individuals and institutions who push DEI are well-organized, entrenched, powerful, and not keen to give up any advantage. But there’s also an intense backlash against DEI, including from those who recognize the harm it’s doing to one identifiable group, namely young, straight, white males. This group of students and scholars has been in a tough spot for some time now, but especially since the U of A brought in an intensive DEI regimen 2019. The program was meant to right historic and present-day wrongs, but it’s created a new one by essentially dividing campus into two groups, the oppressed and their oppressors.

The first and largest group — referred to in DEI-speak as “equity-seeking groups” — were identified in the university’s strategic plan for EDI and its 2020 collective agreement with the academic staff as “those in federally designated and other equity-seeking groups such as women, members of visible minority groups, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQ2S+ people.”

That’s a lot of people, no? The oppressed includes all “historically-excluded groups,” as the U of A puts it, everyone on campus save for those in the second group, who are not identified by name in DEI documents: straight, white males.

Under DEI, the university has imposed a legal onus to be proactive in supporting “equity,” which means taking special care of the interests of the historically excluded groups. They must be identified, counted, and given equitable treatment in research, scholarship and employment. The job performance of administrators and hiring committees is rated on how well they enforce DEI policies.

While DEI gives an edge to many, if you’re a straight, white male it might occur to you that even if admin claims all campus members are equal that some individuals are more equal than others, and that you’re in the “out” group.

Yes, you’re in a large group yourself, but not any kind of majority. You’re on a campus packed with people of all races, sexes and sexual identities. You have professors of all races, sexes and sexual identifies. At the same time, you had little or nothing to do with any historic wrongs done to others. You almost certainly don’t support any kind of racial or sexual group discrimination. In fact, you speak out against it.

But, for all that, somehow, you’re the bad guy. Worse, if you mention that this might not be fair, that it might even be discriminatory, many will gleefully and savagely brand you as a misogynist or a racist, while also insisting you’re imagining things.

Welcome to 1984 in 2025, the Orwellian campus.

Does anyone think DEI will create harmony? Little wonder Flanagan seeks to change it.

In an interview, I ask him if the practice of EDI has been discriminatory at the U of A.

“I wouldn’t say that,” he said. “I know that there is a critique around EDI, as I mentioned, that some see it is divisive and polarizing. I think there’s a lot of support for EDI programming at the University of Alberta, but I think we also need to recognize that the time has come for us to evolve and change as an institution and use language that is more broadly reflective of evidence.”

I ask him about the union contract with all its pro-DEI language. Will such binding legal language be chopped?

“We’re in collective bargaining,” he said. “I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment.”

But, he added, there’s a need for the university to move to a policy of access, community and belonging. “We’re articulating a vision that hopefully will garner a lot of support, and people can see themselves reflected in this vision, rather than a vision that seems to favour some groups over others and exclude some and include others — and this is not what we want as a university.”

The goal is to make all feel welcome, Flanagan said, but it’s not easy job.

He’s right about that, but there are two arguments that might well make it easier.

I’ve met few people who support favouring one race or sex over another, at least if they gain no personal advantage themselves. That said, almost all of us are open to helping meritorious individuals in need whatever race or sex they are. If the U of A axes DEI and focuses on distinct individuals in need, the right people will be helped in proper fashion and the controversy will end.

Second, the university is dependent on taxpayer dollars for funding. If it wants widespread support for such funding, it’s best not to racially and sexually discriminate against large groups of taxpayers and/or their children.

The backlash against DEI is coming hard and fast. Smart universities are wise to get ahead of it.