Is Fairness the New EDI? A Fresh Perspective on Inclusion and Opportunity

For the past few months, I’ve been closely following the impact of recent policy changes in the U.S., where universities have been prohibited from using federal funding for DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. While these restrictions predate Donald Trump’s presidency, the BBC notes that since taking office, he has aggressively sought to "terminate DEI" and "restore merit-based opportunity". His administration has directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI programs and investigate private companies and academic institutions suspected of engaging in "illegal DEI."

At the core of this pushback is the argument that DEI efforts may inadvertently create bias—particularly against White individuals. The new legislation bans higher education institutions from having DEI offices and staff, prohibits mandatory diversity training, and prevents universities from using diversity statements in hiring and promotion decisions. Additionally, race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin can no longer be considered in admissions or employment. Such sweeping changes have led The Chronicle of Higher Education to launch a “DEI Legislation Tracker” to monitor the evolving situation.

A Broader Critique of EDI

While the political shifts in the U.S. are concerning, there is also a broader discussion around whether EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) is achieving its intended impact. Common critiques include:

• Limited Change: Despite good intentions, many believe EDI initiatives have not brought about the deep transformation needed. Too often, the focus is on training and policy rather than addressing systemic issues like discrimination and pay disparities.

• Siloed Efforts: EDI programs can sometimes feel disconnected from the core mission of institutions, making them less effective.

• Performative Actions: Many universities have EDI policies, but critics argue that leadership often lacks genuine commitment to translating these into meaningful action.

• Inconsistent Data and Evaluation: Varying data collection practices make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of interventions, leading to gaps in accountability.

• Unintended Marginalization: A strong focus on race and culture can sometimes leave out other marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities or those from working-class backgrounds.

Reframing EDI: A Shift Toward Fairness

In response to these challenges, Zheng (2025) has proposed a shift from traditional EDI frameworks to a focus on fairness. This perspective moves away from categorical representation and instead emphasizes setting all individuals up for success while protecting against discrimination.

Zheng’s framework for integrating fairness into institutions is built on several key pillars:

• Data-Driven Insights: Identify which groups disproportionately handle undervalued tasks. Analyzing data helps uncover hidden inequities and allows institutions to address them proactively.

• Outcomes-Based Monitoring: Rather than expecting immediate change, organizations should track long-term progress in staffing, resource allocation, and other key areas.

• Systemic Integration: Instead of relying on self-directed learning, fairness should be embedded into everyday policies and practices. For example, instead of asking for volunteers in mixed-group meetings where women are more likely to put their hands up, responsibilities could be rotated to ensure everyone has leadership

• Coalition-Driven Engagement: Achieving fairness requires collective effort. Inclusive problem-solving fosters stronger, more democratic decision-making.

• Win-Win Messaging: A fairness-based approach benefits everyone. Rather than creating divisions, it highlights how inclusion strengthens entire communities.

The Case for a Fairness-Based Approach

There are two key reasons why fairness may offer a more effective way forward:

1.     In ‘The Fair Process Effect: Overcoming Distrust, Polarization and Conspiracy Thinking’ Kees van den Bos highlights how important fairness is in these terms:

“Fairness matters because when you receive fair treatment this signals that you are valued by important people from your group, community, or society. And unfair treatment hurts so badly, because this communicates that your group, community, or society do not care that much about you. Thus, fairness and unfairness help to bridge individualistic notions in psychology with important social and societal issues.” 

2.      Iris Bohnet and Siri Chilazi argue that when inclusion efforts are framed in universal terms, they attract wider support. A fairness-centred approach invites everyone into the conversation about creating better workplaces and learning environments.

What’s Different About a Fairness Approach?

I have to say that my reflection on Zheng’s list of actions under her fairness banner is that they look no different to what I think we would find in any UK university.  This may well be because we have specific legislation, and regulatory expectations, that have created more deeply embedded practices than are perhaps found in the US.  However, the language of fairness may have broader appeal, which is an important consideration.

A recent IPSOS Mori report underscores this point, revealing that more people in Britain than in any of the other 32 surveyed countries believe that efforts to promote equality have "gone too far." The same respondents also largely agree with Zheng’s definition of fairness—that fairness is about providing equal opportunities rather than ensuring equal outcomes.

This shift in language also challenges the idea that fairness and diversity cannot coexist. In a recent HR World article on the corporate DEI backlash, Ghose points out that alternative frameworks like Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) or Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI) are emerging. These approaches all circle back to the same fundamental goal: fairness.

The Bigger Picture: Why This Conversation Matters

It’s important to recognize that the UK’s legislative framework differs from that of the U.S., as does government policy on equality and inclusion. A 2024 report, Finding a Balance, paints a more optimistic picture, showing that most Britons do not see EDI as a zero-sum issue—even among socially conservative groups.

That said, history reminds us to stay vigilant. In 1991, Susan Faludi’s Backlash documented the systematic erosion of feminist gains from the 1970s during the Reagan era. Over 30 years later, we’re witnessing a similar—if not more aggressive—attack on equity and inclusion worldwide.

The rollback of rights isn’t confined to university campuses. The United Nations reports that in 2024, nearly a quarter of governments globally saw a backlash against women’s rights. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres warns:  “Instead of mainstreaming equal rights, we’re seeing the mainstreaming of misogyny.”

Fairness: A Unifying Force?

Fairness isn’t just a concept—it does have the potential to be a powerful tool for bridging divides. Whether in language, policy, or everyday practice, fairness communicates respect and inclusion, helping to heal divisions and rebuild trust. In a time of increasing polarization, van den Bos reminds us that fairness serves as a psychological balm, fostering a sense of belonging and cooperation.

The question is whether this universalism is a trade-off that could well take us away from the concerted focus on discrimination and inequity for specific groups of people.

Have Your Say!

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with EDI and fairness in your own context. As we navigate potential backlashes against inclusion efforts, how can we celebrate and amplify the positive practices that are keeping progress moving in the right direction? Get in touch and let’s keep the conversation going!

Professor Christina Hughes

Founder and CEO, Women-Space Leadership Limited