Standing firm on diversity, equity and inclusion as business schools

Standing firm on diversity, equity and inclusion: What should our response be as business schools?

I have watched in horror as elite US universities like Harvard University have succumbed to a situation where diversity statements have been removed from academic recruitment processes, key DEI posts have been left vacant, support for cultural and community group celebrations at graduation withdrawn, and the University’s Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging abruptly renamed. When faculty are attacked online for using terms like “anti-racist pedagogy,” a chilling effect follows. Educators begin to self-censor. Research agendas narrow. Our students lose the language to discuss structural injustice with confidence.

The United States has witnessed an increasingly coordinated challenge to DEI initiatives, described by some commentators as a “war on woke” (Duffy et al. 2023). Executive orders, legislative initiatives and legal challenges across several states have sought to restrict DEI offices, limit identity-based data collection and remove DEI language from institutional policies and job descriptions. It is evident that diversity initiatives have attracted growing internal and external scepticism, and that the term DEI itself has become increasingly polarised within public discourse. As business schools globally have been deepening their engagement with inclusive education, often under the umbrella of sustainability and responsible leadership, we must all wrestle with how we respond in this time where the language of DEI seems to be under assault (Prasad & Śliwa, 2024).

In a Times Higher Education blog, Martyna Śliwa and Ajnesh Prasad (2025) observed that when the vocabulary of inequality is removed, the capacity to name and address structural disadvantage may also be weakened. Without this exposure, they argue, we cannot reasonably expect graduates to lead in ways that foster genuinely inclusive workplaces. While UK business schools are not subject to US federal mandates or the same legal environment, it would be unrealistic to assume that such developments have no wider influence. Changes and decisions made within a US context can shape conversations, interpretations and practices across business schools worldwide.

UK business schools cannot stay silent

To me, language matters. It shapes institutional culture and signals organisational priorities. When explicit references to diversity and inclusion are replaced with broader concepts, there is a risk that clarity of intent may be lost. We are witnessing populist narratives around gender identity, freedom of speech and the politicisation of university spaces increasingly dominate public discourse and popular press, and I am finding it deeply troubling. Business schools occupy a distinctive position of responsibility. We educate future leaders, policymakers and entrepreneurs. If the language of diversity, equity and inclusion is diluted within our curricula or institutional values, we risk normalising a form of managerial neutrality that overlooks inequality rather than addressing it.

However, it is not all bad news - reassuringly, in the UK, business schools have responded positively in many ways. Frameworks such as the Athena Swan Charter, the Office for Students’ work on access and participation, and the Chartered ABS public statement that equity, diversity and inclusion is a priority all demonstrate a continuing commitment. In a world facing complex social and environmental crises, inclusivity is not an optional add-on, it is the foundation of good business education. A truly responsible management curriculum cannot exist without acknowledging the lived realities of discrimination, power, and privilege. I am further reassured that decades of research in business and management demonstrate that diversity enhances innovation, strengthens decision-making and improves organisational performance. Equity and inclusion are not ideological positions, but well-evidenced organisational imperatives.

Finding a way to help business schools respond

As a first-in-family, half-Chinese, gay woman, my commitment to equity is both professional and personal. Earlier in my career, I was asked to chair a working group at Anglia Ruskin University responding to cuts in the Disabled Students’ Allowance. While I was not a specialist in disability policy, the evidence was unambiguous. The data showed widening attainment gaps among marginalised students, indicating that existing systems were unintentionally reinforcing disadvantage. That experience fundamentally shaped my academic and leadership trajectory.

It was this conviction that led me, alongside my co-editor and colleagues from across the UK, to develop Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for Business and Management (Sage Publications, 2025). I was delighted when Chartered ABS agreed to sponsor the book and reference it as part of its continued commitment to DEI within business schools. Bringing together over 20 contributors across disciplines, from accounting and finance to marketing, supply chain management and organisational behaviour, the book addresses a central question: what does DEI mean within different fields of business education and how can it be taught more effectively?

I am proud to have overseen the project and to have seen its launch at the Learning, Teaching and Student Experience conference earlier this year. The chapters present rich case studies and empirical evidence, highlighting both progress and persistent gaps. They explore, for example, how inclusive leadership can reshape organisational culture, why gender and ethnicity pay gaps persist despite regulation and how marketing ethics must engage more fully with representational justice. The book is deliberately practical, placing learning and pedagogy at its core, and aims to support educators in embedding DEI within mainstream teaching rather than treating it as peripheral. 

A call to action for business schools

I believe this is a pivotal moment for business education. Business schools must decide how they respond to external pressures. There is an opportunity here to lead with clarity and confidence. Business schools can reaffirm DEI within their missions, ensure inclusive recruitment and assessment practices, and support research that critically examines power and inequality. Above all, we must equip students with the conceptual language and critical tools needed to build workplaces and societies that are just, equitable and humane.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for Business and Management was written for precisely this moment. It offers evidence, case studies and pedagogical frameworks to support educators globally in keeping inclusion at the centre of business education.

Standing firm, and standing together, with clarity and purpose, matters now more than ever.

References

Duffy, B., Gottfried, G., May, G., Hewlett, K., & Skinner, G. (2023, October). Woke vs anti-woke? Culture war divisions and politics [Report]. The Policy Institute at King’s, Ipsos MORI. https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-163

Everett, S. and Hill, I. (2025). Diversity, equity and inclusion for business and management. London: Sage

Prasad, A., & Śliwa, M. (2024). Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0066

Śliwa, M., & Prasad, A. (2025, May 21). Cutting DEI from business school accreditation is not just semantics. Times Higher Education. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/cutting-dei-business-school-accreditation-not-just-semantics