Every day seems to bring more worrying news about the US higher education landscape. Academics elsewhere typically respond with disapproving comments and expressions of sympathy for US-based colleagues. And they encourage those expressing a desire to leave, on the assumption that other higher education systems will remain little affected by what is happening in the US.

In the world of business schools, however, that assumption is misguided. This is because of the global system of rankings and accreditations within which business schools operate, one of whose major players, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is US-based.

As recently became evident, no matter how ¡°global¡± AACSB¡¯s aspirations might be, the organisation remains vulnerable to political shifts in the US: in this case, the Trump administration¡¯s vilification of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

In a move that caused much upset from academics, the AACSB references to ¡°politically charged¡± terms such as ¡°diversity¡± and ¡°inclusion¡± in its 10 ¡°¡± with references to ¡°community and connectedness¡±. It also ¡°¡± terms that it considers to be ¡°derivatives¡± of diversity and inclusion.

51³Ô¹Ï

For instance, where it to the expectation for accredited schools to actively attract and retain ¡°diverse learners¡±, Standard 6-1 now refers to ¡°learners with a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives¡±. Where it once spoke of AACSB¡¯s deep commitment to ¡°diversity and inclusion in collegiate business education¡±, the AACSB¡¯s philosophy statement now declares a commitment to ¡°fostering a vibrant and dynamic learning environment in collegiate business education¡±.

If these sound like cosmetic changes, how about the replacement of the affirmation that ¡°when business schools unlock access, reduce barriers, and intentionally create strategies to engage disadvantaged or underrepresented populations, they create an environment of success and enhance excellence¡± with: ¡°When business schools expand opportunities and implement strategies to support broader participation, they cultivate an environment that drives success and strengthens excellence in business education¡±?

51³Ô¹Ï

Or, in Guiding Principle 9, removing explicit recognition of diversity based on ¨C among other things ¨C ¡°ethnicity¡±, ¡°gender¡±, ¡°socioeconomic conditions¡± and ¡°religious practices¡± with vague references to how ¡°institutions operate within a unique cultural and historical context shaped by its traditions, values, societal influences, and regulatory contexts¡±.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned about these changes. In terms of global business education, a rift can be expected to open up in a sector that in recent years has seen a move towards homogenisation. If it happens, it will, of course, reflect the wider polarisation in perspectives and values that we are witnessing in the political and social sphere.

Business schools in some European nations ¨C ¨C have decried the AACSB¡¯s decision and reaffirmed their commitment to DEI. But in other countries, perhaps to some extent even in the UK, the AACSB¡¯s move is likely to lead business schools to withdraw their explicit commitment to DEI values in their missions and educational programmes.

This brings us to another reason why we should worry about AACSB¡¯s decision: its implications for the content of business curricula ¨C and, by extension, for the knowledge, outlook and priorities that we instil in business school students.

51³Ô¹Ï

If we believe that our students absorb what we teach them (and take it into their workplaces) then we should also accept that they aren¡¯t going to learn what we don¡¯t teach them. If we don¡¯t expose them to the need to redress the real structural disadvantages and inequalities that affect members of certain groups and populations then we cannot expect that they will go on to organise, manage and lead in a way that creates inclusive workplaces in which everybody can flourish. Instead, they are likely to focus on profit maximisation, without much concern for others, either within their organisations or in wider society.

Moreover, if business schools do not prioritise teaching students about historically sedimented structural injustices and the need to make organisations more inclusive, we are unlikely to see transformation towards a more just society. After all, how can we expect ethnicity-based inequities to be addressed if we do not even mention the term ¡°ethnicity¡± in classrooms? How can we expect to ever succeed in addressing the gender pay gap or the under-representation of women in certain sectors if we erase the term ¡°gender¡± from our teaching vocabulary?

The AACSB has previously been a force for good, incentivising changes in business schools aimed at preparing graduates who are motivated and well prepared to make organisations and society more inclusive, equitable and just. The removal of DEI and its derivatives from its central philosophical document chips away at the hope that this aspiration can ever be achieved.

is professor of management and organisation at the University of Bath School of Management and is research professor at EGADE Business School at Tecnol¨®gico de Monterrey.

51³Ô¹Ï