When the Trump administration cancelled certain U.S. federal inclusion and diversity programmes, the world responded with intense debate. But beyond partisan interpretations, the episode offers deep lessons for Nigeria , especially as our public institutions, private sector,l and education system increasingly adopt diversity clauses. Inclusion is essential for fairness and social cohesion. Yet inclusion without standards can erode merit, weaken institutions, and create new forms of instability.
To understand this balance, we must separate acceptable concerns Trump’s team raised from unacceptable motivations embedded in the political narrative.
On the acceptable side, the administration criticised programmes that had become performative rather than effective, relying on abstract ideology rather than evidence-based methods. Outside issues on funds misadministration of funds, some diversity trainings in the U.S. were justifiably questioned for using guilt-driven exercises, stereotyping or untested psychological assertions. It is reasonable for any government to question the quality of training materials or push for accountability and clarity.
A second legitimate concern was the fear of eroding merit. If inclusion becomes synonymous with lowering standards, institutions lose competence and public trust.
Yet the Trump-era rollbacks also carried unacceptable elements. Some political statements framed inclusion efforts as inherently divisive or anti-majority, undermining minority groups’ lived experiences. Others denied the existence of systemic barriers entirely. Such rhetoric reduces inclusion to an ideological battlefield, erasing real inequalities and discouraging efforts to correct them.
For Nigeria, the lesson is clear and urgent: Inclusion must never be an excuse for incompetence, and standards must never be used as a weapon to exclude capable but disadvantaged groups.
This is especially crucial in education. Teaching, research, curriculum delivery, and institutional leadership demand competence. Lowering entry requirements or hiring unqualified staff under the banner of inclusion would not serve underrepresented groups , it would actively harm them. Poorly trained teachers produce poorly prepared students, creating a cycle of mediocrity that disproportionately affects the same groups inclusion aims to help.
At the same time, Nigeria must address structural barriers , language, location, poverty, disability, gender, and digital access , that limit fair participation. Inclusion is not about bypassing standards but equipping people to meet them, through targeted scholarships, preparatory programmes, digital literacy support, disability accommodations, and community outreach. This model strengthens both equity and merit.
Nigeria’s lessons in inclusion should also extend to admissions into federal unity schools, colleges of education, polytechnics, and universities. These institutions are intended to serve as engines of national integration and centres of excellence. The federal character principle , often misunderstood , was created to ensure that no region is shut out of national opportunities. Its intention is fairness, not dilution of standards.
It is appropriate that unity schools and federal tertiary institutions preserve some admission pathways that consider geographical disadvantage. A child from a rural LGA with limited access to quality secondary schooling cannot be evaluated solely on the same metrics as a child from a well-resourced urban school. To pretend otherwise would reinforce inequality rather than correct it.
But this principle must never be distorted into a justification for admitting students who lack the basic competence required to cope with the curriculum. When universities or unity schools lower cut-off points excessively or admit candidates without adequate preparation, the result is not inclusion , it is frustration, dropouts, and the destabilisation of academic integrity. Worse, it breeds resentment among students who feel standards are inconsistent, and it undermines the reputation of Nigerian qualifications globally.
The correct approach is not to eliminate inclusion, but to pair it with academic support. Unity schools and federal universities should strengthen remedial programmes, foundation years, mentorship schemes, and language-bridging initiatives so that disadvantaged students are equipped to meet the required standard. Inclusion should widen the door, not lower the ceiling.
Furthermore, Nigeria must avoid the emerging trend where inclusion is interpreted as political patronage where admissions are influenced by connections rather than structured equity considerations. Such distortions weaken public confidence and turn inclusion into a tool of inequality rather than justice.
When admissions uphold representation and competence, they stabilise institutions, build national unity, and empower capable individuals from every background. When they prioritise representation without competence, they produce volatility , an outcome Nigeria cannot afford.
Nigeria can also learn from acceptable aspects of the U.S. debate: inclusion programs must be transparent, measurable, culturally grounded, and free of ideological coercion. They must promote human rights including academic freedom and freedom of thought. They must avoid guilt-based instruction that breeds resentment. And they must not become vehicles for patronage. Nonetheless , Nigeria must reject the unacceptable elements of the Trump-era narrative. That is , the denial of discrimination, the framing of diversity as competition, and the dismissal of historically excluded communities. These viewpoints fracture society and silence people who genuinely need protection or opportunity.
Ultimately, diversity policies should unite, not divide; elevate, not dilute; and empower, not patronise. Inclusion should expand excellence, not replace it.
Nigeria now has a rare opportunity , to design inclusion frameworks that respect merit, raise standards, and strengthen institutions across sectors, especially education. If we adopt the right balance, inclusion becomes a tool for national development. If we mishandle it, the result will be volatility, distrust in public systems, politicisation of qualifications, and declining institutional credibility.
Inclusion succeeds only when it is rooted in competence, fairness, and human rights. Nigeria’s diversity clauses must reflect all three.
Aderonke is an expert in Law, Inclusion and Community Development
