Who does DEI serve?
-
Thobani’s critique of Canadian multiculturalism challenges the idea that it is a benign policy aimed at managing diversity. Drawing from Himani Bannerji, Thobani asserts that multiculturalism constitutes difference by actively constructing people of color as politically identifiable through their cultural backgrounds. This redefinition of race as culture allows Canada to maintain white supremacy while presenting itself as tolerant and inclusive, particularly in contrast to the assimilationist United States. By essentializing cultural communities as “neatly distinguishable,” multiculturalism ignores internal complexities such as class, gender, and sexual orientation, thereby reinforcing stereotypes and marginalizing people of color. Furthermore, the policy's focus on cultural difference allows for the projection of anxieties of whiteness onto racialized groups, casting white Canadians as tolerant and cosmopolitan while constructing non-white communities as parochial and intolerant.
Thobani also highlights the geopolitical and economic motivations underlying multiculturalism. Post-war immigration from the "Third World" was encouraged to meet labor demands and strengthen ties with comprador classes in newly independent nations. This process masked the ongoing realities of racism and colonialism, allowing Canada to maintain exploitative global relationships while claiming to be inclusive. Additionally, multiculturalism undermines Indigenous self-determination by framing Indigenous peoples as just another cultural group, erasing their unique political claims to sovereignty, and positioning them within a hierarchy that privileges the Anglophone-Francophone model of the "founding nations."
These critiques of multiculturalism are particularly relevant to modern Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. Like multiculturalism, DEI initiatives often emphasize celebrating cultural differences without addressing the structural forces—such as racism, colonialism, and capitalism—that perpetuate inequality. Thobani’s observation that multiculturalism essentializes cultural communities mirrors critiques of DEI programs that tokenize marginalized groups, reducing complex identities to simplistic categories while failing to challenge the systems that marginalize them in the first place.
Moreover, Thobani’s argument that multiculturalism reconfigures race as culture to sustain white dominance resonates with criticisms of performative DEI efforts. Organizations may adopt DEI frameworks to present themselves as inclusive without disrupting entrenched power dynamics. For instance, promoting visible diversity, such as hiring a more racially diverse workforce, often sidesteps deeper institutional reforms needed to dismantle systemic inequities. In this way, DEI can become an aesthetic exercise, reinforcing the status quo rather than driving meaningful change.
That brings us to the question: who does DEI serve? The institution or the people?