Whether it’s EDI or DEI, let’s talk rebrand.

But it was a featured presentation by Anne Stegenga, PsyD, and Jacinta Dickens, PhD, on The Impact of Anti-Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Legislation that sparked a lively conversation at dinner with colleagues. As the subject of EDI reaches deep into the mental health sector and resides on many layers, it was not a brief discussion. 

As you may be aware, EDI—equity, diversity, and Inclusion—is a reordering of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. EDI has been gaining steam in the last couple years, and perhaps more so lately. As DEI garners more political and legal scrutiny, some organizations are looking for alternative terms or phrases that speak more broadly, if not softly, to the masses. Indeed, this “What-should-we-call-it-then?” question came up at the dinner table as well. 

But the concept of EDI predates the current political climate and is rooted in an equity-first approach. The thinking is that before any real progress can be made on genuine and authentic diversity and inclusion, organizations must first ensure that fair and equitable systems are in place.

Doctors Stegenga and Dickens leaned into the critical need for guidance on managing the wild discrepancies emerging between standards, ethics, and law. Schools, EDI training programs, and many mental health professionals are certainly looking for that help.  

On another layer, as the presenters pointed out, the anti-EDI movement amounts to censorship (often cast as self-censorship). Mental health practices are now bracing for the potential silencing of a workforce in which diversity is so important, especially in meeting the needs of underserved populations and areas. This is particularly frustrating to some mental health professionals given that diversity representation was (is) considered to be pivotal in reversing care inequities.  

Wide impact

A widespread negative impact from the anti-EDI movement isn’t hard to imagine. In fact, it’s coming into full view. Dangers to virtually everyone loom in numerous forms, including a loss of civil rights progress, an increase in discrimination and hostility, job losses, and threats, if not outright funding cuts, to educational institutions who dare support EDI initiatives. 

For many mental health patients, the consequences will most certainly be tragic.

Business hit

From a pure economic standpoint, EDI has proven itself to be a remarkable business partner. A study by McKinsey & Company demonstrated that organizations with higher workforce diversity consistently outperform businesses with lower workforce diversity. Diverse teams in the business environment have shown themselves to be more open to ideas and alternative thinking. That’s key to problem solving and innovation, both of which drive healthy organizations and businesses.  

Businesses today who are pulling back on EDI initiatives are likely to be giving away a business advantage. 

Understanding EDI

Has the EDI mission always been understood? That’s a fair question. Misrepresentations, intentional or unintentional, are prevalent, including the notion that EDI is simply about race. 

A 2025 Resume Templates survey reported that 19% of white men felt that DEI initiatives harmed their careers. Strikingly (or perhaps not), one in three Americans support President Trump’s executive order banning federal DEI programs.

EDI initiatives have never been about giving or taking anything away from anyone, and as I’ve always held, EDI was never just about equal representation. What matters are the business and social results that come from it. Are we creating equal opportunities for everyone? And are businesses, orgs, and society in general benefiting from that? 

Clearly, the talking points and practices need to evolve not only to defuse the flashpoint that EDI has become, but also to help initiatives work better. Execution has been inconsistent and sometimes sloppy. Some companies merely paid lip service to EDI initiatives and held no real action plans. Other companies implemented overly rigid EDI policies that only served to undermine the greater mission.