President Donald Trump terminated federal DEI programs.
Prior to this, companies were already reconsidering their stance.
Victoria’s Secret rebranded “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” to “inclusion and belonging.”
Interestingly, even Disney, typically seen as progressive, opted out of DEI programs after spending 270 million dollars on an ill-conceived remake of “Snow White.”
What’s driving this trend? While the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion have a positive ring to them,
the reality is that many DEI programs have been hijacked by activists preoccupied with victimization, often creating more division than unity.
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion,” states activist Robby Starbuck, “are far removed from the meanings they pretend to uphold.”
Even before Trump’s actions against federal DEI programs, Starbuck managed to eliminate some of these initiatives at various companies merely through vocal opposition.
His approach? Caution businesses that he’ll expose their missteps to his significant online following.
Surprisingly, this tactic proved effective!
After criticizing John Deere on social media for promoting “preferred pronouns” and conducting woke training sessions, the company swiftly abandoned those practices.
Other firms such as Toyota, Target, and Harley Davidson followed suit.
“What made them respond to you?” I inquire.
“We approach them like any journalist would, letting them know, ‘We’re working on a story.’”
Should they choose not to adjust their policies, he publicizes it through platforms like YouTube and Twitter.
Within a week of highlighting Toyota’s involvement in pride parades and segregation of staff into identity-based groups—such as LGBT, black, and Christian—the company ceased its sponsorship of such events and made employee groups accessible to everyone.
Coors was previously committed to mandatory DEI training and funding pride festivities. Following Starbuck’s scrutiny, they stopped.
Jack Daniels, McDonald’s, Walmart, AT&T, Lowe’s, and Ford made similar changes.
“I appreciate diversity,” I remark, implying that DEI initiatives have their merits.
“They appear friendly and appealing,” Starbuck responds. “That’s what initially garnered widespread support . . . I want inclusivity. I’m not aiming to be unkind. Yet, what these programs have become is often akin to absurd training sessions and overtly biased hiring practices, counter to the compassionate ideals they profess.”
While I believe businesses should be free to establish their own policies, allowing customers and employees to choose alternatives,
the alarming emergence of DEI mandates in recent years rendered them nearly inescapable.
As a Chase Bank customer, under the competent leadership of Jamie Dimon,
Dimon declared last year that DEI is “beneficial for business; ethically sound; and we excel in it.”
However, upon Starbuck revealing JPMorgan’s approach, Dimon swiftly shifted his viewpoint.
“I realized we were squandering resources on this senseless stuff,” Dimon lamented, “and it genuinely infuriated me . . . I decided to eradicate them. I detest wasteful bureaucracy.”
Throughout my years of journalism, such rapid transformations have been unprecedented.
DEI advocates are understandably upset about this shift.
The president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation asserts, “We will not be disregarded!”
“What existed prior to DEI?” counters Starbuck. “Were black people non-existent before it?”
On “The View,” host Sunny Hostin claims, “This will especially undermine women, African Americans, and Latinos.”
“What she’s implying is that if we judge solely on merit, minorities will struggle to gain employment. The upbringing I had defines that as discriminatory,” replies Starbuck. “Her viewpoint is itself racist.”
I retort: “They’re merely highlighting historical disadvantages. Slavery was a grim reality in this country.”
“None of them experienced it,” he emphasizes. “I’m Cuban and can recount my family’s struggles, but I cannot claim their hardships as my own.”
“We refuse to be deceived by these outdated narratives. We are committed to evaluating individuals based on merit.”
John Stossel is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”
