Across North America, organizations are grappling with how to create inclusive workplaces. But the policy environments in the United States and Canada are moving in very different directions.  These shifts matter for how inclusion efforts succeed or fail.

1. The U.S.: From Affirmative Action to “Merit-Based” Policies

In early 2025, the U.S. federal government issued sweeping executive orders dismantling decades of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) infrastructure. These orders revoked Executive Order 11246, which had required federal contractors to implement affirmative action plans, and directed agencies to end all DEI-related programs in the federal workforce. The stated goal: restore “merit-based opportunity” and eliminate what the administration calls “illegal DEI discrimination.”

This follows the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023),which struck down race-conscious admissions in higher education. Together, these moves signal a profound shift: U.S. policy is moving away from systemic remedies for inequality toward a model that emphasizes individual effort and “colourblind” principles.

For workplaces, this creates uncertainty. Without affirmative action requirements, many organizations may scale back DEI programs, either out of legal caution or cultural backlash. Critics argue this will reduce representation and stall progress on equity. Supporters claim it restores fairness. Either way, the policy signal is clear: inclusion is now framed as optional, not mandated. However, U.S. employers must also comply with discrimination prevention laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. Canada: Multiculturalism as a Policy Foundation

Contrast this with Canada, where multiculturalism is enshrined in law, public policy and culture. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide a constitutional legal framework that promotes diversity as a national value. Federal institutions are required to report on multiculturalism initiatives, and employment equity laws continue to guide workplace inclusion efforts. Also, each province’s human rights legislation and the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6) solidifies our common expectation about interacting with each other in workplaces.  

Canada’s approach is rooted in a “mosaic” philosophy, encouraging cultural retention rather than assimilation. This means inclusion is not just a corporate trend; it’s part of the country’s identity and governance. While challenges remain, the policy environment supports organizations in building inclusive cultures rather than discouraging them.

3. The Inclusion Backlash Scenario

Now, let’s revisit a common scenario: a male-dominated workplace hires its first woman. Soon after, she experiences inappropriate comments and files a harassment complaint. Leadership responds with frustration: “We tried to do the right thing, and now we’re in trouble.” The result? A chilling effect: “Hiring women is risky.”

This is a classic case of inclusion backlash. But the real issue isn’t the hire, it’s the lack of cultural readiness. When organizations introduce diversity without addressing entrenched norms and behaviors, resistance is inevitable. The danger comes when that resistance is misattributed to the inclusion effort itself rather than to those resisting change. This misdiagnosis deepens bias and reinforces exclusion. At a macro level, this is what we’re witnessing in the United States today: a large-scale inclusion backlash. It’s not a failure of the system’s design, it’s a failure of leadership evolution, a reluctance to adapt human behavior to match the principles of economic inclusion.

4. Why Policy Context Matters

In the U.S., the rollback of affirmative action and DEI policies may amplify this dynamic. Without external accountability, organizations may interpret inclusion as a liability rather than a strategic imperative. Leaders who fear “getting in trouble” may retreat from diversity efforts altogether.

In Canada, the policy environment sends the opposite message: inclusion is expected, monitored, and celebrated. While backlash can still occur, the structural supports, Such as legal protections, reporting requirements, and cultural norms, make it harder for organizations to abandon inclusion without reputational or legal risk.

Not to mention that in Canada the safety in the work environment is considered part of the terms and conditions of employment (a contractual responsibility), and employers have a legal duty to provide a harassment-free workplace by law and implicitly by contract.

5. Avoiding Backlash: Lessons for Both Contexts

Regardless of policy shifts, the core lesson remains: representation without culture change is fragile. To prevent backlash:

- Assess readiness: Identify cultural gaps before diversifying teams. In Canada, you have to diversify teams, so, sooner rather than later.  

- Set clear expectations: Define and enforce respectful conduct.

- Equip leaders: Train managers to handle resistance and foster inclusion.

- Respond decisively: Address misconduct promptly and transparently.

6. Final Thought

Inclusion is not a one-time hire. It’s a process. When organizations understand this, they can navigate policy changes without sacrificing progress.

Policy landscapes shape organizational behavior, but they don’t absolve leaders of responsibility. Whether in a U.S. environment rolling back DEI mandates or a Canadian context that champions multiculturalism, the question is the same: Will inclusion be treated as a compliance checkbox or as a cultural commitment?