Canada understands itself as a society defined by civility, moderation and multicultural balance. Remaining neutral is treated as a virtue — a safeguard against bias and a foundation for fairness — but it is not an absence of position. Neutrality often functions to preserve existing divisions of power. It is a choice that shapes how decisions are made, whose experiences are recognized and whose concerns are minimized.
Neutrality is embedded in policies, procedures and professional norms across government bodies and public organizations. Hiring committees are instructed to apply criteria equally. Workplace investigations emphasize objectivity. Public organizations avoid political positioning in the name of impartiality. These criteria are often framed as protecting against discrimination, yet in practice they can reproduce it.
Neutrality assumes that treating everyone the same will produce equitable outcomes. This premise overlooks that individuals and groups have varying degrees of power, credibility and protection from risk or scrutiny within the workplace. When these differences are ignored, neutrality does not level the playing field. It stabilizes it.
Neutrality often preserves existing power
This dynamic is particularly visible when decisions are being made. During a hiring interview, for example, evaluators often rely on standardized questions to ensure fairness. Yet these are often shaped by and favour certain experiences, style of communication or backgrounds linked to well-known institutions, universities or employers. Candidates who do not meet these norms may be seen as “less fit.”
A similar pattern emerges in meetings and in the way decisions are made. Ideas are evaluated not only on their merit, but on who gets to speak, who is taken seriously and who ultimately has influence. Who gets interrupted, who gets credit for ideas and whose input influences decisions are rarely considered in any formal way. They are treated as individual behaviour rather than part of a broader pattern and, as a result, are rarely addressed.
In my research, I describe this broader pattern as polite racism, that is, a form of exclusion through language and “neutrality” rather than overt discrimination. It is not defined by intent, but by effect. Institutions can appear fair and inclusive, while producing unequal outcomes. While these dynamics can affect many groups, they are particularly significant in shaping the experiences of racialized individuals within institutions.
How “fair” processes reproduce unequal outcomes
This analysis builds on a broader idea: People often adjust how they speak, act or present themselves to fit what is considered “appropriate.” This influences not only behaviour, but also how people feel. Are they comfortable, confident or able to speak openly? These experiences are rarely captured.
One of the challenges for policymakers is that neutrality is rarely questioned. It is treated as a default — the standard used to judge whether something is fair. But neutrality is not only about fairness. It is about how institutions operate. Many focus on compliance rather than accountability. They track representation of minority groups, introduce diversity initiatives and follow established procedures, but often do not examine how decisions are made or who holds power. What is at stake is not only equity, but the quality and integrity of decision-making itself.
These efforts are not without value. They reflect meaningful commitments to equity. But these efforts can only go so far if institutions do not examine how decisions are made in practice. For equity to be meaningful, neutrality cannot simply be assumed. It needs to be questioned.
Where discretion enters supposedly objective decisions
In practical terms, governments and public institutions need to approach neutrality in their decision-making through the lens of accountability. Several concrete changes could help move in this direction.
First, institutions must stop treating equity as an outcome rather than as a feature embedded in decision-making. Diversity efforts don’t go far if there is no examination of how decisions are made in the first place. Building equity into those decisions requires consideration of how criteria are defined, applied and monitored. That in turn depends on institutional self-awareness — the capacity to question how dominant norms and assumptions affect decision-making.
Second, attention must be paid to decision points — the moments when discretion enters an otherwise standardized framework. Terms such as “fit,” “tone” or “executive presence” are often treated as neutral language, but introduce subtle interpretations that reflect dominant norms. The role of discretion needs to be made more visible and accountable by clarifying how criteria are interpreted, providing explanations of subjective judgments and keeping records on how decisions are reached. This limits the introduction of bias under the guise of neutrality.
Third, employees within government and public institutions must feel safe raising concerns or observations about how decisions are made. When people remain silent because of perceived risk, institutions lose critical insight into how they function. Silence and delay are not signs of stability. Neither are employees who hold back, adjust their input or avoid raising concerns to protect themselves. They are all signs of institutional blind spots.
Finally, institutions must learn to see patterns rather than treat a problem as a one-off. Without this, organizations remain reactive and unable to detect underlying factors that lead to the same outcomes. My policy and advisory work with federal institutions has shown me that identifying patterns in decision-making is critical if organizations are to address concerns early rather than just react to them.
Is addressing anti-Black racism in Canada still a policy priority?
Equally important is the role of an institution’s culture. When neutrality is equated with professionalism, individuals may hide their discomfort or avoid voicing criticisms or different views. Over time, this produces environments in which problems are recognized but not addressed. In this sense, institutional norms are not neutral, but convenient — reinforcing existing expectations and preserving the status quo.
The above changes in thinking require more than policy reform. Institutions must also strive to always be accountable. This is not simply the presence of rules or procedures. It is the capacity to examine how those rules function and to adjust them when they lead to discrimination.
Accountability matters more than procedural neutrality
Canada’s commitment to equity is often articulated through the values of inclusion, diversity and fairness. But values alone are insufficient. We must consider the inherent bias in neutrality. Otherwise our values remain symbolic.
Neutrality can either obscure how power operates or makes it visible. It shapes institutional life — often in ways that are difficult to see because they are normalized. Governments, policymakers and institutional leaders need not abandon the idea of neutrality, but they must recognize that it is not an objective standard. It includes built-in subjective elements that are often unexamined or taken for granted. Only by recognizing how neutrality operates in practice can equity move from aspiration to realization.
