The first in a series authored by Memorial University faculty members on the value and importance of diversity, equity and inclusion policies to build a more just society. Check back next Thursday for the Faculty of Science’s Dr. Lindsay Cahill’s op-ed.

On Jan. 21, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the most extensive rollback of workplace diversity efforts in modern history.

His executive order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, abolished all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) mandates, policies, programs, preferences and activities within the United States federal government and urged private corporations to do the same.

In response, numerous corporations, including Paramount, Citigroup and Target among others, have cut or watered down their DEI programs by eliminating initiatives to hire and promote diverse employees, closing DEI offices, removing DEI references from annual reports and terminating equity and inclusion training programs.

These actions will stall and can even reverse progress on workplace equality.

As a researcher in the field of gender and management for over a decade, I am compelled to draw on existing evidence to speak to the known consequences of such an order.

DEI initiatives benefit all workers

DEI scholarship adopts a critical evidence-based approach, meaning the goal of studying organizational DEI initiatives is to understand what does and does not work.

Not all DEI programs are effective, and some ineffective ones can even be counterproductive.

When DEI initiatives are implemented without substantive change, they are merely performative — such as organizations that launch social media campaigns on International Women’s Day yet continue to sustain gender inequality in their leadership hierarchies.

“For the first time in a decade, the gender wage gap widened in 2023.”

Yet, evidence-informed and effective DEI initiatives benefit all workers, not just those from marginalized groups.

For example, increasing gender representation at all levels in organizations challenges traditionally held stereotypes that define the “ideal worker” as solely masculine, competitive and wholly devoted to their jobs.

This, in turn, can reduce stigma for men who take parental leave and take time off to care for their families.

In summary, eliminating all DEI efforts disregards research that identifies what actually works, reinforces entrenched stereotypes and assumes that equality has already been achieved.

Trump’s actions set stage for regression

A glance at the current state of gender and management research tells us otherwise.

For the first time in a decade, the gender wage gap widened in 2023.

The highest paying jobs remain dominated by men, and women continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of domestic and childcare responsibilities.

“Avoid falling for unsubstantiated rhetoric around DEI coming from the U.S.”

Moreover, recent studies report that Gen Z males value gender equality less than their older male cohorts.

At the current pace, it will take at least 22 years for white women to achieve parity in senior leadership levels — and closer to 50 years for women of colour.

In other words, to say that equality at work has been achieved is inaccurate.

With this recent executive order, it sets the stage for both a significant stall — and even regression — in progress.

Evidence, not anecdotes

So, in the face of critical rhetoric, what should organizations do?

First, we must rely on evidence, not anecdotes.

Look to management scholarship that has rigorously tested which DEI initiatives are effective.

For example, recent research finds that using an opt-out framework for promotions — where internal candidates are automatically considered unless they withdraw — significantly reduces gender bias in promotion opportunities without negatively impacting performance outcomes, compared to more traditional methods of “opt-in” where applicants have to apply and compete for promotions.

Second, organizations must make substantive investments in DEI initiatives rather than merely performative displays.

When companies send mixed messages about diversity — for example, showcasing images of women at work on their websites while maintaining a pronounced gender wage gap — this form of window dressing undermines the company’s credibility and deters potential talent.

Finally, Canada must continue funding, supporting and drawing attention to DEI research while investing in proven strategies or brace for the unraveling of progress.

Avoid falling for unsubstantiated rhetoric around DEI coming from the U.S.

Evidence-based DEI policies transcend politics — they are essential for building workplaces that are both fair and effective for everyone.