April DEI Talent Trends With Jenn Tardy
If there’s one word that can better describe the beginning of 2025, it’s “change.” Fast. From the rise of AI in hiring and in general to the quiet rebranding of DEI efforts, the pressure is on for companies to figure out who they are and where they really stand.
This month’s DEI Talent Trends cuts through the noise and gets straight to the heart of it. Our CEO Jenn Tardy is here with straight talk on what these changes mean for organizations that are serious about increasing diversity and retention—and how you can move forward without losing your way.
Let’s get into it.
Trend 1: Human-Machine Teaming Revolutionizes Job Seeking and Workplace Dynamics
The rise of generative AI is reshaping the job market. According to Mercer’s Global Talent Trends 2024–2025, AI is augmenting human capabilities, improving efficiency, driving innovation across industries, and finding solutions to old problems. But it’s also sparking fears—nearly two in five workers feel commoditized, and while over half of executives expect AI to create jobs, many haven’t seen it happen yet. Worse, thousands of jobs have gone.
The key shift is toward “human-machine teaming,” where AI complements rather than replaces human skills. Companies are investing heavily in reskilling and upskilling workers, aiming to become “skills-powered organizations.” For job seekers, AI now plays a major role in recruitment—screening resumes, running interviews, and matching candidates to roles—raising fresh questions about fairness, bias, and how to stand out.
Jenn: Let’s talk about what’s really going on with AI in the workplace. Not from the headlines. Not from the hype. Just… real talk. Because there’s a shift happening right now, and if you’re feeling unsure about how to navigate it, you’re not alone. The rise of AI is changing how we apply for jobs, how we get evaluated, and how we show up at work. And while it’s unlocking new possibilities, it’s also raising real concerns about bias, access, and job security.
So let me sit beside you and walk you through what I’m seeing—because we can make sense of this together.
What we’re stepping into is something called “human-machine teaming.” Think of it like this: AI is becoming the coworker we didn’t ask for, but now we have to learn to collaborate with. It’s helping companies screen resumes, conduct interviews, and make faster decisions, sure. But faster doesn’t always mean fairer. And for job seekers, this moment calls for a shift. We’ve got to ask: What value can I add that AI can’t?
And here's where it gets personal: AI doesn’t have your lived experience intelligence. That’s your edge. It’s not just part of your story; it is a skill. A real one. The kind that can’t be automated. It’s how you problem-solve under pressure. How you connect across differences. How you innovate because you’ve had to navigate systems that weren’t built with you in mind. Lived experience intelligence holds the value companies can’t afford to overlook—not now, not ever.
But too many organizations are still stuck measuring talent by outdated proxies, like degrees, titles, or polished résumés. We’ve got to move from those shortcuts and start investing in what people can actually do. Because in a skills-powered organization, skill—not skill proxy—is the true currency of value. That means hiring for capability, not pedigree. And that shift? That’s how we open doors wider, for more people.
Now, about fairness—let’s be clear: AI doesn’t get rid of bias. It inherits it. If we haven’t done the internal work to recognize and eliminate our own biases, all AI does is automate discrimination faster and quieter. That’s why bias awareness is more urgent now than ever. So, every single person involved in hiring needs to understand how bias shows up. It’s not just a recruiter problem. It’s not just a manager problem. It’s a whole team problem.
One of the smartest moves you can make right now is making sure everyone on your hiring team goes through bias training—something real, something actionable. Tools like the Platinum Hiring Bias Blueprint were built for this exact moment. They show you where bias slips through and give you a plan to catch it before it becomes part of your process.
This is the world we’re entering. One where equity has to be baked into every decision, especially the ones we let machines help us make. And that’s the heartbeat of The Equity Edge—not just naming the barriers, but designing systems that work better for all of us.
So no, we don’t have to be afraid of AI. But we do have to be awake. And we have to be bold enough to lead with our humanity because that’s something no machine will ever be able to match.
Trend 2: Erosion of U.S. Higher Education Funding Threatens Global Talent Competitiveness
The recent budgetary decisions affecting higher education in the United States are poised to significantly impact the nation's ability to attract and retain top talent. In February 2025, the House Budget Committee proposed a plan to cut $330 billion in higher education funding over the next decade. This substantial reduction threatens to diminish academic programs, research opportunities, and faculty positions, thereby undermining the quality and accessibility of higher education.
The Pell Grant program, a cornerstone of federal student aid, is facing a projected $2.7 billion shortfall, marking its first deficit in over a decade. This shortfall could lead to decreased accessibility for economically disadvantaged groups, which in turn might exacerbate existing inequities in higher education.
Major research universities are already responding to these fiscal challenges. For instance, Stanford University has implemented a hiring freeze for staff positions, citing potential federal cuts to research funding and increased taxes on university endowments. Similarly, Northwestern University has introduced budget restrictions, including spending limits and enhanced budget oversight, in anticipation of reduced federal support.
These budgetary constraints may hinder universities' ability to attract domestic underrepresented students and international students and scholars, thereby diminishing the U.S.'s status as a global talent magnet. The ripple effects could extend beyond academia and might potentially slow innovation, leading to reduction in availability of skilled workers essential for the U.S. economy. Brookings has called this cut an “‘America last’ not an ‘America first’ approach.”
Jenn: While the funding cuts might look like just another budget line, the ripple effects are real, and they’re heading straight toward our workplaces.
These cuts—like the proposed $330 billion reduction and the Pell Grant shortfall—don’t just shrink academic programs. They shrink access. Especially for underrepresented groups who’ve already had to navigate systemic barriers just to get in the door. And when we make higher education less accessible, we don’t just hurt universities—we hurt the future of our talent pipeline.
Here’s the part that often gets missed: when fewer students can afford college, there will be fewer graduates. And fewer graduates mean fewer candidates who meet degree requirements. Now that’s not just an education issue. That’s a workforce issue. That’s a competitiveness issue. And for underrepresented communities, it’s yet another signal that the path to upward mobility is narrowing.
So employers—this is your wake-up call. Because the real question becomes: Are your degree requirements helping you find talent—or keeping talent out? And if we’re honest, we’ve leaned too long on proxies like degrees to define readiness. But skill—not skill proxy—needs to be the new standard.
And that’s the silver lining. This crisis can push us to reimagine what talent looks like. To build new paths into roles. To partner with community colleges, create apprenticeships, invest in micro-credentials, and design hiring systems that see potential—not just prestige.
Trend 3: DEI is Being Rebranded: Navigating Corporate Diversity Initiatives Amid Political Shifts
Recently, DEI initiatives have faced increased scrutiny, leading many organizations to reassess their approaches. Only that this time it’s not limited to changing terminology; it's more of a strategic response to evolving political and social landscapes.
To mitigate potential backlash, some companies are rebranding their DEI programs. For instance, Disney has restructured its DEI efforts to align them more closely with business goals and values. Similarly, other organizations are thinking of adopting alternative frameworks to emphasize inclusivity, working in coordination, and withstanding the conflicting requirements (such as US’s “anti-DEI” laws vs. EU’s diversity-related regulatory requirements) while navigating the current political climate.
These changes present both challenges and opportunities. Rebranding DEI efforts can help organizations navigate political pressures, but it also requires a genuine commitment to inclusivity to maintain employee trust and public credibility.
Jenn: Honestly, DEI isn’t just being rebranded; it’s being tested. Not just by politics, but by public opinion, fear, and performative pressure. Many companies are trying to figure out how to stay in the game without getting caught in the crossfire. I get it. But let’s not confuse strategy with surrender.
What matters most in this moment isn’t whether you still use the term DEI. It’s whether the work is still happening underneath the label. If you're rebranding to protect the work and keep moving forward, that’s strategy. But if you're rebranding to distance yourself from the responsibility, that’s retreat.
The truth is, this moment is forcing a level of clarity that’s long overdue. Companies are having to answer: Do we believe this work makes us better, or did we only do it when it was easy? Because those of us who live this—who experience bias daily—don’t have the luxury of rebranding our identities when things get uncomfortable. So we’re watching closely.
If you’re looking for new language, use it—but make sure it’s more than just language. There are alternative frameworks that can carry this work forward, such as inclusive leadership, belonging strategy, opportunity equity, and human-centered design. These models may sound different, but when grounded in accountability, they still push toward the same goal: a workplace where people can thrive because of who they are, not despite it.
But there’s a risk: if you rebrand without recommitting, you will lose trust. Employees will notice. So will customers. And so will the talent you’re trying to attract and keep. Culture is built on clarity and consistency. When your message changes with the wind, people start to wonder if your values do, too.
In The Equity Edge, I talk about how language has power—it can move us forward or leave people behind. So, be intentional. Be honest about why you’re making changes. And above all, stay in the work. Because while DEI may be shifting forms, the need for equity hasn’t changed. In fact, it’s never been more urgent.
We don’t have to back away from this moment—we can evolve in it. But only if we remember what this work is really about: people and possibility. And the kind of workplaces we want to leave behind for the next generation.
Conclusion: Moving Forward
Change is here, whether companies are ready for it or not. Those who stay committed to equity will adapt, grow, and lead. Those who fold under pressure will watch talent and trust slip away.
If you’re ready to be the kind of organization that doesn’t flinch, we’re here to help. Get the latest insights delivered straight to your inbox, or dive into our programs when you're ready to move from talking about change to making it happen.
Stay ready. Stay in the work. We’re right here with you.