What’s in a name?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” So says Shakespeare’s Juliet, attempting to persuade Romeo that a name is nothing but a convention, with little meaning.

DEI practitioners and departments may nervously be pondering similar arguments.

As bans on DEI continue to ramp up in the US, Canadians may be wondering when the backlash will gain momentum here. And it has begun.

While corporate DEI rollbacks in the US (looking at you Walmart) will of course, have a cross-border trickle effect, what’s happening in our own organizations?

The University of Alberta is leading the DEI retreat after recently announcing the “rebrand” of their diversity, equity and inclusion policy to “access, community and belonging”, after consultation with the “campus community”. President Bill Flanagan’s justification of the change centres on language, which, as he put it: “has become polarizing, focusing more on what divides us rather than our shared humanity. Some perceive an ideological bias at odds with merit.” Hmm. So, it’s the language that’s the problem?

The U of A follows in the footsteps of many American universities, who have seen a flurry of linguistic creativity in their rebranding efforts. Witness the University of Tennessee’s “Division of Access and Engagement”, University of Oklahoma’s “Division of Access and Opportunity”, Louisiana State University’s “Division of Engagement”. In some cases, only the words have changed, while the work, ostensibly, continues.

What is notably missing is the concept of “equity” which recognizes that not everyone has the same access to opportunity. Central to the attack on DEI is a narrative that its principles are fundamentally opposed to a meritocracy. (I won’t argue the case here as to why this is false, or the myriad ways playing fields have not been level.)

While changing the names of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs may give cover to organizations for a while, it doesn’t change the underlying attitudes towards the fundamental concepts of DEI. While we may now no longer use the terms “insanity” or “crazy” to describe mental illness, it does not change the fact that mental illness still bears significant social stigma. Changing the word, doesn’t change the underlying social issues or prejudices. Similarly, rebranding will not likely change the perception by some of an “ideological bias” which discredits the notion of merit.

Lily Zheng has recently argued for a new model they call FAIR (Fairness, Access, Inclusion and Representation) and advocates for an approach to DEI work which focuses on measurable organizational outcomes. I’m a firm believer that not only what gets measured gets done, but that good data can galvanize change. And while I quite like the FAIR acronym (who will dispute “fairness”, after all), I wonder about the efficacy of name changes in the long run. We’ve seen a multitude of acronyms representing the work of making our workplaces fairer and more accessible – DEI, EDI, IDEA, DEIB, and the peppy, popular “Culture and Belonging”. But whatever we call it, the work itself will have the same goals: achieving pay equity, equal access to opportunity and ensuring conditions for physical and psychological safety. Should those of us working in this space focus on changing the name of what we do, out of fear that the acronym “DEI” has been distorted and rendered toxic beyond redemption? Or do we focus on communicating that “merit” has always been a fundamental tenet of DEI work? And that creating workplaces that are diverse, equitable and inclusive actually benefit everyone?

I just listened to a webinar put on by the SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) in which Craig Leen, former head of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs suggested that the term has become so divisive that we consider using language like “Equality in Employment Opportunity”.

In this moment, changing the name of the work we do seems to me like a tacit acknowledgment that the “merit” argument has, well, merit. And at the same time, I’m considering that Romeo never did change his name. And we know what happened to him.