The neutrality trap

2 min read · February 20, 2025
New Power Labs

The University of Alberta’s proposal to eliminate equity, diversity, and inclusion language from hiring policy is framed as a move toward "institutional neutrality" and merit-based hiring, while noting that the existing policy framework wasn’t functioning as intended. The change follows the U of A president’s decision last year to move away from the term equity, diversity and inclusion, saying it had become polarizing for some.

Acknowledging that a framework is imperfect is different from concluding that inequities have been resolved, or that the tools designed to address them should be removed. If a policy isn’t delivering the desired results, a logical response is to refine or strengthen it, not to eliminate the mechanisms that make accountability possible.

This shift is also occurring in a broader climate where equity initiatives have become politically charged, making ‘neutrality’ an appealing but often misleading frame. In practice, "neutrality" often defaults to the status quo.

The proposed policy eliminates the practice of applying equity considerations to select between two equally qualified candidates. It also removes references to the university’s commitment to correcting historical employment disadvantages, among other changes.

At the same time, the university is rebranding its commitments under the softer language of “access, community, and belonging.” These terms gesture toward inclusion but lack the operational clarity of the commitments they replace. Without explicit expectations, “access” becomes an aspiration rather than a requirement. 

Barriers continue to exist for underrepresented communities across universities. For example, faculty from visible minorities still face 54% lower odds of receiving tenure, and women hold only 33% of full professor roles despite making up the majority of assistant professors. By removing explicit equity language, institutions risk decoupling hiring from the specific tools designed to correct historic exclusion.

Even imperfect EDI frameworks are often the only mechanisms that keep institutions oriented toward correcting historic exclusion. Removing them without replacing them with equally concrete structures doesn’t create neutrality; it creates ambiguity – and ambiguity reliably protects the existing distribution of advantage.

Narinder
New Power Labs

Like what you’re reading? Subscribe to get weekly Equity Shots in your inbox.