Unmasking Colonial Legacies in EDI Initiatives

Abstract

In today’s climate of heightened scrutiny of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives, Indigenous and anti-colonial perspectives are urgently needed to clarify why dismantling colonial structures remains a critical priority. Contemporary movements to roll back or “take down” EDI efforts often fail to account for the underlying colonial frameworks that created and sustain systemic inequities. From the vantage point of an Indigenous legal scholar, EDI is necessary but insufficient by itself; it must be part of a broader anti-colonial project that targets colonial power relations at their root.

Introduction

Colonialism’s ongoing legacies are embedded in institutions, policies, and collective consciousness. While EDI campaigns typically seek to diversify representation and foster inclusive environments, they often do so within the boundaries of existing settler-state legal and administrative systems. These systems—established without meaningful Indigenous consent—were designed to advance settler interests, which remain codified in law and policy. Consequently, EDI can become a superficial gesture if it does not confront and disrupt these foundational structures.

For example, universities and corporations that celebrate Indigenous culture through ceremonial acknowledgments or symbolic hires may not simultaneously question or replace the legal frameworks that continue to dispossess Indigenous peoples of land and sovereignty. In such a context, EDI risks becoming an exercise in optics rather than a substantive transformation.

The Backlash Against EDI as a Symptom of Deeper Colonial Anxiety

Recent legislative and policy initiatives that target or weaken EDI programming should be understood as an attempt to protect colonial privilege. Whenever marginalized communities and their allies begin to see tangible changes—whether through curriculum reforms, land-back efforts, or the explicit naming of colonial violence—there is a resurgence of conservative resistance aimed at preserving the status quo. This backlash often appears as budget cuts to EDI offices, removal of critical race theory or decolonial knowledge from institutional guidelines, or public dismissals of diversity-related roles.

These regressive steps illuminate a broader anxiety: if EDI is pursued deeply enough, it will inevitably expose and challenge colonial power structures. Anti-colonial scholarship contends that what is at stake is not merely inclusive language or corporate diversity targets but a fundamental re-examination of legal and constitutional regimes that uphold settler sovereignty.

Anti-Colonialism as Transformative Praxis

Anti-colonialism requires the rejection of legal, political, and intellectual frameworks that rationalize settler supremacy. It goes beyond symbolic inclusion to address the material conditions that enable inequality to persist. Key components include:

Restoration of Indigenous Sovereignty: Efforts to rebalance power must recognize Indigenous peoples’ inherent jurisdiction over their territories. This involves respecting treaties, rethinking property rights, and challenging the historical and legal apparatus that legalized dispossession.
Re-centering Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Anti-colonialism calls for a transformation of educational and institutional norms to incorporate Indigenous epistemologies, shifting from tokenistic acknowledgment to actual authority for Indigenous scholars, Elders, and community leaders in decision-making roles.
Intersectional Accountability: Colonial power has intersected with patriarchy, classism, and racism to create layered inequities. Anti-colonial practice requires accountability to multiple communities that experience these intersecting oppressions, especially Black, racialized, and gender-diverse communities who also contend with structural exclusions.
Critical Engagement with Law: From land use regulations to family law, settler legal frameworks shape social outcomes in ways that favor settler interests. Challenging and remaking these legal processes—not simply diversifying them—forms the crux of an anti-colonial approach.

Beyond EDI: Building Anti-Colonial Futures

Anti-colonialism invites far more than a revision of human resource guidelines or university mission statements. It pushes toward systemic change that addresses land restitution, the protection of Indigenous legal orders, and reparative justice for communities targeted by colonial violence. It also asks how institutions can move from superficial inclusivity to structural transformation that redistributes power, resources, and authority.

We must work within and alongside EDI initiatives to ensure they are not merely cosmetic reforms. Collaborations with community members, educators, policymakers, and activists should foreground the dismantling of oppressive frameworks rather than simply diversifying them. This orientation prioritizes long-term systemic solutions that can weather the current backlash against EDI and continue to foster liberatory pathways for future generations.

Conclusion

In a moment marked by organized pushback against EDI, the significance of anti-colonial praxis cannot be overstated. EDI campaigns will continue to be challenged unless they are firmly rooted in anti-colonial commitments that address the structural injustices of settler states. By reaffirming Indigenous sovereignty, centering Indigenous knowledge, ensuring intersectional accountability, and rethinking law, anti-colonial approaches offer the depth and clarity needed to transform institutions and produce truly equitable futures. The current climate underscores that dismantling colonialism is not a peripheral concern but the central task in the broader quest for justice and liberation.