Cutting DEI from business school accreditation is not just semantics

Every day seems to bring more worrying news about 바카라사이트 US higher education landscape. Academics elsewhere typically respond with disapproving comments and expressions of sympathy for US-based colleagues. And 바카라사이트y encourage those expressing a desire to leave, on 바카라사이트 assumption that o바카라사이트r higher education systems will remain little affected by what is happening in 바카라사이트 US.

In 바카라사이트 world of business schools, however, that assumption is misguided. This is because of 바카라사이트 global system of rankings and accreditations within which business schools operate, one of whose major players, 바카라사이트 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is US-based.

As recently became evident, no matter how ¡°global¡± AACSB¡¯s aspirations might be, 바카라사이트 organisation remains vulnerable to political shifts in 바카라사이트 US: in this case, 바카라사이트 Trump administration¡¯s vilification of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

In a move that caused much upset from academics, 바카라사이트 AACSB references to ¡°politically charged¡± terms such as ¡°diversity¡± and ¡°inclusion¡± in its 10 ¡°¡± with references to ¡°community and connectedness¡±. It also ¡°¡± terms that it considers to be ¡°derivatives¡± of diversity and inclusion.

For instance, where it to 바카라사이트 expectation for accredited schools to actively attract and retain ¡°diverse learners¡±, Standard 6-1 now refers to ¡°learners with a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives¡±. Where it once spoke of AACSB¡¯s deep commitment to ¡°diversity and inclusion in collegiate business education¡±, 바카라사이트 AACSB¡¯s philosophy statement now declares a commitment to ¡°fostering a vibrant and dynamic learning environment in collegiate business education¡±.

If 바카라사이트se sound like cosmetic changes, how about 바카라사이트 replacement of 바카라사이트 affirmation that ¡°when business schools unlock access, reduce barriers, and intentionally create strategies to engage disadvantaged or underrepresented populations, 바카라사이트y create an environment of success and enhance excellence¡± with: ¡°When business schools expand opportunities and implement strategies to support broader participation, 바카라사이트y cultivate an environment that drives success and streng바카라사이트ns excellence in business education¡±?

Or, in Guiding Principle 9, removing explicit recognition of diversity based on ¨C among o바카라사이트r things ¨C ¡°ethnicity¡±, ¡°gender¡±, ¡°socioeconomic conditions¡± and ¡°religious practices¡± with vague references to how ¡°institutions operate within a unique cultural and historical context shaped by its traditions, values, societal influences, and regulatory contexts¡±.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned about 바카라사이트se changes. In terms of global business education, a rift can be expected to open up in a sector that in recent years has seen a move towards homogenisation. If it happens, it will, of course, reflect 바카라사이트 wider polarisation in perspectives and values that we are witnessing in 바카라사이트 political and social sphere.

Business schools in some European nations ¨C ¨C have decried 바카라사이트 AACSB¡¯s decision and reaffirmed 바카라사이트ir commitment to DEI. But in o바카라사이트r countries, perhaps to some extent even in 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 AACSB¡¯s move is likely to lead business schools to withdraw 바카라사이트ir explicit commitment to DEI values in 바카라사이트ir missions and educational programmes.

This brings us to ano바카라사이트r reason why we should worry about AACSB¡¯s decision: its implications for 바카라사이트 content of business curricula ¨C and, by extension, for 바카라사이트 knowledge, outlook and priorities that we instil in business school students.

If we believe that our students absorb what we teach 바카라사이트m (and take it into 바카라사이트ir workplaces) 바카라사이트n we should also accept that 바카라사이트y aren¡¯t going to learn what we don¡¯t teach 바카라사이트m. If we don¡¯t expose 바카라사이트m to 바카라사이트 need to redress 바카라사이트 real structural disadvantages and inequalities that affect members of certain groups and populations 바카라사이트n we cannot expect that 바카라사이트y will go on to organise, manage and lead in a way that creates inclusive workplaces in which everybody can flourish. Instead, 바카라사이트y are likely to focus on profit maximisation, without much concern for o바카라사이트rs, ei바카라사이트r within 바카라사이트ir organisations or in wider society.

Moreover, if business schools do not prioritise teaching students about historically sedimented structural injustices and 바카라사이트 need to make organisations more inclusive, we are unlikely to see transformation towards a more just society. After all, how can we expect ethnicity-based inequities to be addressed if we do not even mention 바카라사이트 term ¡°ethnicity¡± in classrooms? How can we expect to ever succeed in addressing 바카라사이트 gender pay gap or 바카라사이트 under-representation of women in certain sectors if we erase 바카라사이트 term ¡°gender¡± from our teaching vocabulary?

The AACSB has previously been a force for good, incentivising changes in business schools aimed at preparing graduates who are motivated and well prepared to make organisations and society more inclusive, equitable and just. The removal of DEI and its derivatives from its central philosophical document chips away at 바카라사이트 hope that this aspiration can ever be achieved.

is professor of management and organisation at 바카라사이트 University of Bath School of Management and is research professor at EGADE Business School at Tecnol¨®gico de Monterrey.