By Sophia Martensen
Last January, the University of Alberta announced it would be shifting away from Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) portfolios and replacing them with something new: Access, Community, and Belonging (ACB).
Then, in September, the Mintz Report — from a provincial panel on post-secondary funding– recommended a new funding model for Alberta universities. Among the recommendations, the Report emphasized institutional neutrality and a move away from EDI.
Now, CBC News has reported that the University of Alberta is proposing changes to its hiring policy that would remove race-based considerations. The policy would no longer say that when two candidates are equally qualified, preference should be given to persons from historically under-represented groups.
So, what’s going on at the University of Alberta?
Real shift—or just a rebrand?
University of Alberta President Bill Flanagan wrote last year that the move from EDI to ACB is “more than a change in terminology. It reflects a deepened commitment to creating a university community where everyone can thrive,” drawing on popular criticisms that EDI language has become more polarizing.
Before making the switch, the University engaged in consultations and discovered that while the institution was successful at integrating EDI into its research and teaching, there were continued barriers regarding funding and staffing.
Still, critics weren’t convinced. For them, replacing EDI with ACB felt like another rebranding exercise.
Now, with the proposed hiring changes, others are asking a harder question: Is the university backing away from the very commitments it used to attract faculty and students in the first place?
The Trump Effect
It’s impossible to ignore the broader context. Across the United States, EDI programs (popularly known as DEI in the States) have been under sustained political attack.
During his first term as President, Trump was credited with intensifying racial tensions in America and even laid the groundwork for current attacks on EDI with the release of Executive Order 13950 ‘Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.’ According to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, EO 13950 “prohibited speech, activities, and workplace trainings that address or promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has escalated those efforts by signing new anti-EDI Executive Orders, targeting National Institute of Health grants and Fulbright applicants for research dealing with race or gender, and placing over 50 academic institutions under investigation for their EDI programs, leading many universities to engage in ‘anticipatory obedience.’ Most infamously, Trump shared a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in February 2025 deeming EDI programs unlawful, though the letter was critiqued for its ambiguity and vagueness.
Naturally, the world is watching closely. For Canadians, the question becomes whether this political climate could spill over the border, if the University of Alberta is any indication.
While a valid concern, there are key differences between the American and Canadian legal contexts—and confusion over these differences often fuel anti-EDI rhetoric in Canada.
One University of Ottawa professor threatened legal action against the University of Alberta if it dropped its EDI hiring policy. Professor Amir Attaran argued that abandoning EDI in hiring could conflict with the requirements of the Canada Research Chairs program, which mandates equity considerations in appointments.
As National Post columnist Tristin Hopper pointed out, hiring quotas in the U.S. can lead to violations of anti-discrimination laws. In Canada, however, certain equity-based hiring practices are permitted – and sometimes required, as is the case with Canada Research Chairs.
Capitulating to Political Pressure
Even with Trump dominating the news cycle, we can’t afford to ignore the political pressures building in Alberta.
The United Conservative Party (UCP), led by current Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, has been openly critical of EDI. In 2024, the UCP passed Policy Resolution 31, to “strengthen the rights of all Albertans to be treated equally,” arguing that “The very concept of diversity, equity and inclusion is racist in nature and as such must be eliminated in Alberta.” A year prior, at its 2023 meeting, the UCP put forth Policy Proposal 9, which sought “to remove offices of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from post-secondary campuses.”
With UCP’s strong stance against EDI, the timing of the University of Alberta’s shift has raised eyebrows. Some believed that, because of funding cuts under the UCP, the University of Alberta is trying to get on their good side.
CBC also reported that President Flanagan shared news of the ACB transition to the Ministry of Advanced Education before it was made public. For some, that complicates the university’s professed commitment to institutional neutrality.
Looking Ahead: The Politics of Retreat
Although Canada and the United States differ in their approaches to race-conscious hiring, the recent changes at the University of Alberta suggest that tensions around EDI are very much alive here. The shift away from EDI at the University of Alberta is in line with Trump’s America and the pressure against American universities to retreat from inclusion and diversity portfolios.
But we shouldn’t focus exclusively on the University of Alberta, or we risk missing the bigger picture. Consider Ontario’s Bill 33.
The Bill was given Royal Assent in November 2025 and requires university admissions to be merit-based. The language in the Bill itself makes no mention of the terms ‘equity,’ ‘diversity,’ or ‘inclusion,’ yet a deeper reading of section 2 reveals the push for admissions “…based on the merit of the individual applicant.”
Whereas in the United States there is an outright rejection of EDI, in Canada, it is repackaged in more palatable language through merit-based policies. By placing merit as the organizing principle, scholars and stakeholders have sounded the alarm for Bill 33’s potential to stifle equity-based frameworks.
At stake is not just a betrayal of EDI and the threat of Trump’s America, but a bigger question about what universities stand for and how they respond to mounting political pressure– especially if we consider the right to institutional autonomy. Others have expressly flagged Bill 33 because of its power to give “unprecedented power over university and college operations.”
From this perspective, the University of Alberta’s growing shift away from EDI looks less like an isolated case and more like a warning sign. In an act of anticipatory obedience, universities may be recalibrating their policies not simply because EDI “doesn’t work,” but because it is politically risky—and this only emboldens political actors to interfere in university affairs. But this also comes at a cost— if universities begin reshaping their policies in anticipation of—or in response to—political pressure, the issue goes beyond EDI. This is no longer the abandonment of equity-based frameworks, but a capitulation to political pressures and the gradual erosion of institutional autonomy.