This article was originally published in The Gazette.
Let’s set aside tariffs for a moment and look at another major initiative from U.S. President Donald Trump: eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices.The argument goes like this: instead of EDI (as we also call it in Canada), we should return to “merit-based” hiring.
But let’s take a closer look at what these approaches actually mean.
The EDI approach begins with the recognition that some groups face historical disadvantages in the job market. Its goal is to ensure people from diverse and often excluded backgrounds have equitable access to opportunities.
The “merit-based” approach, on the other hand, says hiring should be based solely on credentials, qualifications and individual “merits.”
In public debate, these perspectives often get reduced to caricatures. One side says, “You should hire the most qualified person for the job!” and is met with, “What are you, racist or sexist?” The other side says, “We should make sure everyone gets a fair shot!” and hears in return, “So you want incompetent people?”
This is a false dichotomy.
It suggests EDI and merit-based hiring are mutually exclusive. If you prioritize diversity, you’re sacrificing quality. If you focus on quality, you can’t hire a diverse candidate. This idea isn’t just wrong; it’s rooted in biased assumptions about who is considered “qualified.”
The truth is: To hire the best person, you need to consider both merit and equity. Organizations should be asking: How do we identify the most capable person for the job? And how do we recognize the unique strengths different candidates bring?
Study after study shows there is a strong business case for diversity. Research shows that diverse teams are more innovative and better at solving complex problems. But we also need to acknowledge that hiring is hard. It has been found that most standardized hiring processes predict job success only slightly better than a coin toss. And we’ll never know how well the candidates we didn’t hire might have done. They could have been better.
In the face of that uncertainty, EDI practices offer something critical: humility.
They push us to question our assumptions and widen our view of what merit looks like.
Merit isn’t fixed or purely objective. Traditional indicators like degrees, job titles and credentials are only part of the picture. Success also depends on adaptability, creativity, resilience and the ability to work with different perspectives. A truly merit-based approach accounts for all of this.
Take this example: You’re hiring someone to lead business operations across several countries. You want someone who understands how different cultures operate and brings global experience.
Now ask: Is that a merit-based hire, or a diversity hire?
It could be both. The very qualities that make someone the “best” candidate may be tied to the diverse perspectives they bring. Diverse experiences are a form of merit.
Yes, we all want the best candidate. But the best candidates don’t all come from the same background. Hiring with both equity and excellence in mind ensures that everyone gets a fair shot and that hiring decisions are based on structured, transparent processes.
That’s what equity looks like. It means making clear that we’re considering all perspectives because we need everyone. It means communicating that hiring is based on agreed-upon competencies — so no one assumes someone was hired “just because” of their identity and no one feels shut out because of who they are.
This approach builds trust, reinforces fairness and moves us forward together. Elizabeth Eley is a Concordia University public scholar and researcher in human resource management and organizational behaviour.
