Connect with us

Business

Trump gains ground in war against DEI

Published

7 minute read

From The Center Square

By Casey Harper

A major shift is underway in the way large companies talk about and fund Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.

President Donald Trump began the transition when he signed an executive order last month eliminating DEI policies and staff at the federal government and extending the anti-DEI policy to federal contractors.

Private companies, some of which had already begun the transition before Trump took office, remarkably began backing off their DEI policies, even if only symbolically with little internal change.

Costco resisted, pushing back on the Trump administration, but other major brands like Amazon Wal-Mart, Target, and Meta announced a pullback from DEI. Media reports indicated DEI discussions on earnings calls has plummeted.

Others, such as Wisconsin-based financial services company Fiserv, have not yet made a change, at least not publicly.

A murky legal future awaits companies willing to take the risk to stick with DEI policies, particularly in hiring.

Fiserv receives hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts.

According to Fiserv’s website’s Diversity & Inclusion page, the company is “committed to promoting diversity and inclusion (D&I) across all levels of the organization, in our communities and throughout our industry.”

Fiserv says that it “partner[s] with people and organizations around the world to advance our D&I efforts and create opportunities for our employees, entrepreneurs around the world and the next generation of innovators.”

The company’s diversity and inclusion page includes a careers section that discusses “engaging diverse talent” and events to connect with “diverse candidates.”

Critics of DEI initiatives and policies say they discriminate against white men and Asians and lead to hiring and promotion decisions based on factors such as race and sexual orientation rather than merit.

In its 2023 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, the company boasted that “60% of director nominees for the 2024 annual meeting reflect gender or racial/ethnic diversity.”

According to an April 2024 report from Payments Dive, Fiserv was “buoyed by sales to government entities” in Q1 of 2024 and reported $500 million in revenue from those contracts. The U.S. Coast Guard contracted with Fiserv in 2024 to help with payroll, according to HigherGov, among other government contracts.

Fiserv did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

A watershed moment against DEI came when during the Biden administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against longstanding affirmative action policies at American universities, one key example of white and Asian Americans being discriminated against.

Trump’s election has only solidified the new legal framework for what is permissible when considering race and gender in hiring, promotion, and workplace etiquette.

From Trump’s order:

In the private sector, many corporations and universities use DEI as an excuse for biased and unlawful employment practices and illegal admissions preferences, ignoring the fact that DEI’s foundational rhetoric and ideas foster intergroup hostility and authoritarianism.

Billions of dollars are spent annually on DEI, but rather than reducing bias and promoting inclusion, DEI creates and then amplifies prejudicial hostility and exacerbates interpersonal conflict.

DEI has become increasingly controversial as activists use the moniker to advance every liberal policy on race and gender, often at taxpayer expense. In the federal government, DEI had become widespread and infiltrated into every part of governance, from racial quotas for promotions at the Pentagon to driving healthcare research at the National Institutes of Health.

At private companies, DEI policies guided investment decisions via ESG (Environmental, Social Governance) as well as personnel decisions with racial quotas for company board rooms. Those ideas are out of favor with the Trump administration.

Some of the companies resisting the shift from DEI could face legal action.

A coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter to Costco alleging it is violating the law, as The Center Square previously reported.

“Although Costco’s motto is ‘do the right thing,’ it appears that the company is doing the wrong thing – clinging to DEI policies that courts and businesses have rejected as illegal,” the letter said.

This week, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for similar policies.

“By making employment decisions based on characteristics that have nothing to do with one’s ability to work well, Starbucks, for example, hires people by thumbing the scale based on at least one of Starbucks’ preferred immutable characteristics rather than an evaluation of an applicant’s merit and qualifications,” the lawsuit said. “Making hiring decision on non-merit considerations will skew the hiring pool towards people who are less qualified to perform their work, increasing costs for Missouri’s consumers.”

A 2022 Starbucks document touts a DEI goal: “By 2025, our goal is to achieve BIPOC representation of at least 30% at all corporate levels and at least 40% at all retail and manufacturing roles.”

Bailey called the Starbucks policies discriminatory and illegal.

“With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin,” Bailey said. “As Attorney General, I have a moral and legal obligation to protect Missourians from a company that actively engages in systemic race and sex discrimination. Racism has no place in Missouri. We’re filing suit to halt this blatant violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act in its tracks.”

Casey Harper

Casey Harper

D.C. Bureau Reporter

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

Published on

From Pierre Poilievre

The tiny town of Hardisty, Alberta (623 people) moves $90 billion in energy a year—that’s more than the GDP of some countries.

Continue Reading

Business

Why it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast

Published on

The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Moratorium does little to improve marine safety while sending the wrong message to energy investors

In 2019, Martha Hall Findlay, then-CEO of the Canada West Foundation, penned a strongly worded op-ed in the Globe and Mail calling the federal ban of oil tankers on B.C.’s northern coast “un-Canadian.”

Six years later, her opinion hasn’t changed.

“It was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it,” said Hall Findlay, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The moratorium, known as Bill C-48, banned vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of oil from accessing northern B.C. ports.

Targeting products from one sector in one area does little to achieve the goal of overall improved marine transport safety, she said.

“There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast,” she said.

Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP who served as Suncor Energy’s chief sustainability officer before taking on her role at the University of Calgary.

She sees an opportunity to remove the tanker moratorium in light of changing attitudes about resource development across Canada and a new federal government that has publicly committed to delivering nation-building energy projects.

“There’s a greater recognition in large portions of the public across the country, not just Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Canada is too dependent on the United States as the only customer for our energy products,” she said.

“There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”

The Business Council of British Columbia, which represents more than 200 companies, post-secondary institutions and industry associations, echoes Hall Findlay’s call for the tanker ban to be repealed.

“Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast,” said Denise Mullen, the council’s director of environment, sustainability and Indigenous relations.

“This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.

“This results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”

The ban on tanker traffic specifically in northern B.C. doesn’t make sense given Canada already has strong marine safety regulations in place, Mullen said.

Notably, completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2024 also doubled marine spill response capacity on Canada’s West Coast. A $170 million investment added new equipment, personnel and response bases in the Salish Sea.

“The [C-48] moratorium adds little real protection while sending a damaging message to global investors,” she said.

“This undermines the confidence needed for long-term investment in critical trade-enabling infrastructure.”

Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais senses there’s an openness to revisiting the issue for Indigenous communities.

“Sentiment has changed and evolved in the past six years,” he said.

“There are still concerns and trust that needs to be built. But there’s also a recognition that in addition to environmental impacts, [there are] consequences of not doing it in terms of an economic impact as well as the cascading socio-economic impacts.”

The ban effectively killed the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit project, an Indigenous-led pipeline that would have shipped oil from northern Alberta to a tidewater export terminal at Prince Rupert, B.C.

“When you have Indigenous participants who want to advance these projects, the moratorium needs to be revisited,” Desjarlais said.

He notes that in the six years since the tanker ban went into effect, there are growing partnerships between B.C. First Nations and the energy industry, including the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project and the Nisga’a Nation’s Ksi Lisims LNG project.

This has deepened the trust that projects can mitigate risks while providing economic reconciliation and benefits to communities, Dejarlais said.

“Industry has come leaps and bounds in terms of working with First Nations,” he said.

“They are treating the rights of the communities they work with appropriately in terms of project risk and returns.”

Hall Findlay is cautiously optimistic that the tanker ban will be replaced by more appropriate legislation.

“I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country,” she said.

“Repealing C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X