I write this opinion piece at a critical moment, not just for business education but for the broader fight for justice in South Africa and beyond. As an academic, the attempted erasure of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) from business school lexicon might seem problematic, but this radical manoeuvre is intended to delegitimise an entire body of work that has sought to improve our workplaces and society at large. The recent decision by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) to remove DEI from its reporting standards is emblematic of the broader attempts to disregard and dissociate from meaningful engagement with systemic inequalities in education and business. A move, in response to political pressure, has been positioned as an effort to mitigate risks for its members. While unfortunate and in the interest of short term favour, the reality for AACSB is far more fateful, it is not just a shift in language but instead a betrayal of the principles of transformative education. This Faustian bargain will in no uncertain terms leave a moral scar on integrity of the association and those that follow suit.
AACSB accreditation is considered the gold standard in business education. It offers global recognition, speaks to rigour and quality assurance in business schools, and the commitment to excellence in teaching and research. For Stellenbosch Business School achieving accreditation in no uncertain terms enhances its reputation, provides credibility, contributes to improved relations within industry and to attracting the best candidates for management education. However, this prestige has always come with the responsibility of shaping future business leaders who understand the complexities of the global economy that are inherently intertwined with issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. By succumbing to this pressure and detracting from its commitment to DEI, AACSB is signalling that diversity is expendable, rather than essential to quality business education. To those in higher education this is not merely an academic concern; it has real consequences for businesses, economies, and societies that require ethically grounded and socially aware leaders.
In South Africa, the historical struggle against systemic exclusion remains unresolved, and the voices of discontented citizens should not be dismissed but actively engaged with. Complacency is not an option. At the same time, those who claim to uphold democratic values and the South African Constitution should not seek external backing from parties with little genuine interest in addressing our shared challenge of inequality. We must remain vigilant and proactive in maintaining the course for restorative justice, ensuring that our educational and business institutions serve all, rather than a privileged few. The recent controversy over student fees on our doorsteps clearly shows that our work is far from complete. The fight for genuine inclusivity continues, and business leaders and educators must resist any temptation to dilute or depoliticise the nation’s transformation agenda. It is, after all, our country and ours to make of what we want – that is if we can agree on what it is we want. If we fail to deal with these challenges constructively – and by this I mean head-on – we risk allowing the forces of regression to undo decades of progress (albeit slow). We need to consider the importance of developing business leaders that show the fortitude and critical consciousness to change the societies in their midst. As business schools we must challenge this dilution of DEI efforts and never stop advocating for real, substantive change rather than sanitised, risk-averse rhetoric.
Language as a shield and the neutrality myth
AACSB’s decision to replace “diversity and inclusion” with “community and connectedness” is indicative of the growing trend of adopting more palatable, less confrontational language rather than addressing the root causes of exclusion. This is not neutrality – it is complicity; a “negative peace, which is the absence of tension” rather than a “positive peace, which is the presence of justice” . In the South African context, we have seen how euphemisms and avoidance strategies perpetuate inequality rather than dismantle it. The apartheid regime, for example, used bureaucratic language to justify systemic oppression, and today, corporate South Africa fails when it employs diversity discourse as a branding exercise rather than a commitment to justice. If AACSB truly values inclusivity, it would not merely alter terminology but foster spaces for honest, critical dialogue about systemic barriers in business education. History has shown that symbolic gestures without substantive policy changes can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Consider the failure of affirmative action rollbacks in the United States where the U.S Supreme Court in 2023 ruled to strike down race-conscious admissions policies at universities which have resulted in declining diversity in elite institutions, reinforcing socioeconomic stratification. Similarly, South Africa’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) policies, though well-intentioned, have often been exploited to benefit a privileged few rather than driving meaningful economic transformation. When organisations focus on ticking compliance boxes rather than fostering genuine inclusion, they not only undermine the policy’s intent but also entrench the very inequalities it seeks to dismantle.
A dangerous precedent for business schools
Yes, there might be a
financial cost, but by bowing to the politicisation of DEI, AACSB is setting a dangerous precedent for business schools worldwide. Institutions that look to AACSB for accreditation will interpret this as a signal that diversity efforts are expendable rather than essential. This is particularly concerning for South African business schools, where transformation remains an ongoing struggle in the wake of apartheid’s legacy. Our institutions cannot afford to follow the lead of American universities that fear political backlash more than they value justice. We have come too far to turn back now and suggest all the work is done.
Education is never apolitical and to remain silent in the face of such oppressive thinking is to side with those exerting such power. Business schools are not merely training grounds for managers but institutions that shape the leaders of tomorrow. If those leaders are not trained to engage critically with race, gender, class, and disability, we risk perpetuating the same cycles of exclusion that have long defined global capitalism.
The impact on businesses will also be significant. Companies ill equipped to foster diverse and inclusive workforces will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Research consistently shows that diverse teams drive innovation and better decision-making. By de-emphasising DEI in education, business schools will produce graduates who will lack the reflexive muscle to navigate multicultural, globalised markets, which will lead to decreased corporate adaptability and ethical blind spots in leadership.
The failure of risk aversion: the need for courageous conversations
Lily Bi, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of AACSB, claims that this change is meant to “mitigate risks” and ensure long-term stability.
But, at what cost? Stability is a poor excuse for inaction in the face of injustice. True leadership requires the courage to challenge the status quo, even when it is uncomfortable. By stripping DEI from their principles, AACSB is reinforcing the idea that business education should remain a tool of existing power structures rather than a force for equitable change.
The consequences of failing to address DEI extend beyond business schools and into global economies. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, was exacerbated by a lack of diverse perspectives in decision-making bodies, leading to unchecked risk-taking and a failure to foresee systemic collapse. On home soil, the ongoing Steinhoff saga, provides us with a similar example. In contrast, companies that have embraced inclusive leadership such as those with strong DEI policies in place have demonstrated greater resilience in times of crisis, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Apple is one such company. For all its failings in other areas, they’ve been bold enough to hold their own. We should all remember that the exclusion of marginalised voices from economic decision-making leads to policies and practices that reinforce economic disparity rather than alleviate it. The course will be set and many already in disadvantageous positions will continue to suffer.
From symbolism to substance
Rather than removing diversity standards, AACSB and other accrediting bodies should be deepening their commitment to meaningful transformation. This means calling on its associates to firstly, ensure that DEI remains embedded in their curricula and not as an optional extra. Secondly, AACSB and other accreditation bodies should ensure that concrete and measurable outcomes are shared and not remain vague commitments to “community”. Thirdly, business schools should be encouraged to engage in critical pedagogies that confront rather than avoid or side steps issues of privilege and power. And finally, AACSB should be that champion for creating opportunities where voices often silenced are given the space to be heard rather than allowing risk-averse decision making to keep them silent.
South Africans know best that symbolic gestures, like being considered the rainbow nation or more recently campaigns like No RSA just DNA are insufficient without structural change. The dismantling of repressive regimes was not achieved through rebranding oppression it was the result of sustained struggle and radical truth-telling. Business schools must follow suit, fostering an environment where difficult conversations are embraced rather than evaded.
A price to pay
The AACSB’s decision reflects a deep-seated fear of the very transformation that true education demands. But this is not just an American issue it has global ramifications. Business schools must resist the lure of depoliticising diversity and inclusion, for doing so turns them into institutions that reinforce rather than reform the status quo.
A truly transformative education does not merely produce business leaders who uphold existing structures but cultivates those who challenge and reshape them. Diversity and inclusion cannot be reduced to rhetoric; they demand action, accountability, and an unyielding commitment to justice. Without that, what we hold in our hands is not gold but pyrite – the illusion of progress without its true worth.
* Dr Armand Bam is Head of Social Impact and Senior Lecturer: Business in Society at Stellenbosch Business School. This article originally appeared in Financial Mail (Business Live).
?
