Across the country, institutions are rethinking how they pursue diversity, equity, and inclusion at a time when these efforts are facing unprecedented scrutiny. Universities and corporations are increasingly turning to the concept of inclusive excellence, which ties diversity goals directly to collective achievement and organizational success. This approach moves away from framing inclusion as a separate or preferential initiative and instead focuses on the belief that strong communities lead to stronger outcomes. Inclusive excellence recognizes that true excellence is co-created as individuals thrive when they are supported by environments that reward collaboration, mutual accountability, and shared purpose. This shift toward collectivism challenges notions of hyperindividualism embedded in many American professional norms, reframing success as something that is sustained when communities lift one another up rather than compete in zero-sum terms.

The Shift Toward Inclusive Excellence

Amid mounting legal scrutiny and political pressure, both academic institutions and corporations are reimagining their approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). While private-sector entities still have more discretion than federally funded universities, they are not immune to the ripple effects of national policy and public discourse. One concept gaining renewed traction in the academic world is inclusive excellence, a framework that blends the goals of diversity with a focus on collective achievement. Inclusive excellence is being positioned as a pragmatic evolution of DEI, legally compliant, publicly palatable, and framed as a shared value rather than a contested ideology.

This shift reframes inclusion as a cornerstone of organizational excellence, not as preferential treatment but as a strategy for tapping into broader talent and driving performance. The Trump administration’s rhetorical focus on "individual initiative, hard work, and excellence" has influenced how institutions present their DEI efforts, often emphasizing universal access and meritocracy over explicit support for underrepresented groups. However, this framing can obscure the social nature of success. In prior commentary, I have critiqued how hyperindividualism and transactional professional norms harm employee well-being in the U.S. In many collective cultures, excellence is co-created. Individuals challenge and support one another, recognizing that shared success is more sustainable and more just.

We already celebrate this ethos in American sports. When an athlete sacrifices a win to help a competitor cross the finish line due to an issue such as the first-place runner starting to faint feet from the finish line, we praise that act as honorable rather than weak. Yet in the corporate arena, the idea of lifting others up is often framed as a threat to merit. Inclusive excellence offers a counter-narrative that success is not a zero-sum game and that real excellence is cultivated through inclusive, collaborative environments. As we explore how this framework is taking shape in academia and business, we can consider whether it has the potential to expand rather than dilute the pursuit of excellence.

Inclusive Excellence in Academia

Universities are at the forefront of retooling DEI practices to navigate legal risks while holding onto their core mission. In 2025, Duke University unveiled a new DEI framework centered around inclusive excellence. All programming is now required to be "inclusive, welcoming and open to all," effectively prohibiting exclusive opportunities based on race, sex, or other protected traits. As a result of earlier pushbacks, in 2023, a full-ride scholarship for Black students was transformed into an open leadership program whose mission still centers on addressing disparities.

This reconfiguration reflects broader national trends. Following executive orders from the Trump administration mandating the termination of DEI programs at federally funded institutions, many universities paused DEI activities and sought legal guidance. Duke, for example, temporarily withheld public comment and advised departments to review new guidance carefully before proceeding. The university’s working group recommended neutral language and emphasized outcomes over labels. Instead of naming a program "Diversity Training," universities might now offer "Leadership Workshops" or "Global Engagement Seminars."

At Tennessee public universities, staff described the rebranding as a complicated process with DEI offices renamed as "Access & Engagement" or "Community & Belonging." Even when programs are sunset, such as Oregon State University’s Search Advocate and Social Justice Education initiatives, many institutions fold DEI goals into broader institutional strategies such as overall student retention. The goal is to maintain momentum on inclusion while staying compliant and under the radar. 

However, considering the growing diversity of the US population, perhaps this shift in focus can produce positive effects. Necessity is the mother of invention, and those who sit idly and bemoan changes will not create a more inclusive future. Those who are motivated to stay the course with mission-focused goals and adapt even in less-than-ideal circumstances are the people who will create a better tomorrow. Abandoning race-focused metrics to stay compliant and focusing more generally on metrics such as overall college student retention across different backgrounds can help many people advance in life from disabled students to first-generation students to senior citizen non-traditional students to students from lower socioeconomic brackets to other categories who tend to have higher attrition rates, especially considering where multiple factors are involved in overlap between these groups. Focusing more broadly on well-being and success for all people can drastically unite a very divided population in a shared goal of excellence. 

Another upside of changes is a heightened emphasis on accountability. Critics have long claimed that DEI programs lack measurable outcomes. As inclusive excellence gains traction, institutions are now embedding general metrics into program evaluation while avoiding diversity-specific metrics, such as focusing on improved retention, higher engagement, and wider access across all students. Research shows that diversity improves innovation and problem-solving, and institutions are increasingly making the business case for inclusion rather than a political one. Inclusive excellence invites participation from all stakeholders, particularly groups like white male students who have historically reported feeling alienated by DEI, by reframing inclusion as a shared endeavor.

Corporate Responses to DEI Backlash

The inclusive excellence model is likewise shaping corporate America, where legal scrutiny and political backlash have led to similar recalibrations. In early 2025, President Trump issued an executive order discouraging DEI efforts in the private sector. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) leadership signaled it would prioritize investigations of programs perceived to disadvantage majority groups.

Even before this order, shareholder activism and legal threats had already pressured companies to scale back DEI. Since 2021, DEI mentions on S&P 500 earnings calls have dropped over 80 percent. Companies like Accenture, Meta, and McDonald’s have either ended demographic-specific initiatives or moved them into broader talent development structures. The Society for Human Resource Management removed "equity" from its strategy. Terms like "belonging" and "diversity of thought" have taken center stage.

Likewise, Meta dismantled its Diverse Slate recruiting model but is still investors that it wants to maintain “cognitive diversity” as a similar phrase to “diversity of thought.” Goldman Sachs reversed its policy requiring at least one woman or minority on boards for IPO underwriting. McDonald’s dropped participation in external diversity indexes and ended demographic hiring goals. All of these actions reflect a move away from high-visibility diversity targets toward low-profile integration within general performance frameworks.

At the same time, some companies are doubling down on DEI initiatives, citing the strong business case for diversity among their employees as part of a strong talent brand. Apple rejected shareholder proposals to curtail DEI. Cisco and JPMorgan Chase reaffirmed their commitments, stating DEI aligns with their business values. Even traditionally conservative sectors have emphasized moral imperatives for continuing inclusion efforts with the NFL being one example. Increasingly, corporate leaders justify inclusion not with ideology but with data due to the undeniable fact that diverse teams perform better, retain talent, and drive innovation.

Balancing Inclusion and Compliance

In practice, inclusive excellence requires organizations to walk a careful line. Programs must be legally open to all while still addressing systemic inequities. This might mean offering open mentorship programs that explicitly support challenges faced by underrepresented groups or leadership workshops focused on inclusive practices without excluding anyone.

It also means expanding the lens of inclusion. Many companies are shifting toward socioeconomic, geographic, or first-generation status as proxies for race or gender, thereby supporting diversity without triggering legal concerns. Training programs now are moving to emphasize allyship, inclusive leadership, and unconscious bias recognition as professional skills rather than moral obligations. Framed as essential for effective teams, these trainings could increase buy-in among groups who previously felt DEI didn’t include them.

Legal experts continue to affirm that well-designed, inclusive programs are not inherently unlawful, but organizations are proceeding cautiously. Some have paused public-facing diversity metrics and reassessed their participation in indexes or rankings. Other entities, such as Target or Caterpillar, have restructured their supplier diversity and training programs to focus on performance and engagement across the board.

Looking Ahead

Inclusive excellence is a response to a new reality. By embedding diversity within business excellence frameworks and legal compliance strategies, institutions can sustain the progress of the last decade while avoiding backlash. The focus is shifting from labels to outcomes, from standalone initiatives to integrated practices, and from exclusive programs to universally accessible ones that still drive equity.

In doing so, organizations must navigate the risk of performative neutrality, specifically in appearing compliant while abandoning meaningful change. However, the best actors out there are seizing this moment to sharpen their focus, clarify their goals, and create systems that are both inclusive and sustainable. If done sincerely, inclusive excellence can transform DEI from a politically charged obligation into a core driver of innovation, engagement, and collective success with a stronger base with more buy-ins across all groups. 

Overall, inclusive excellence is emerging as a durable strategy for a complicated moment. By embedding diversity into the greater goal of organizational excellence, institutions can uphold progress while navigating legal and cultural headwinds. However, the true potential of inclusive excellence lies beyond simple compliance. This re-emerging framework invites a return to a more collective understanding of success. Excellence does not occur in isolation; it is cultivated through systems where people challenge, support, and grow together. Organizations that embrace this mindset can move beyond performative neutrality and toward a deeper form of inclusion to one that drives innovation, retains talent, and builds more resilient communities. When inclusion becomes a shared value rather than a siloed obligation, the pursuit of excellence elevates rather than separates, strengthening the foundation on which collective success is built.