As a Costco member and shareholder, I support this; not because of the topic, but because of management deciding to do something and push back. Strong opinions strongly held are rare these days.
Of course it depends on the topic. If you are closed-minded, hold a strong opinion, and refuse to look at other possibilities and nuance, you could very well be making a big mistake. Simply having a strong opinion and holding onto it in and of itself is by no means a virtue.
I think the reason this might resonate with some is it's deeper than an opinion. This is a value, and that kind of thing inspires when defended. Of course this being political, there are deeply held values on the other side as well, so those demands may not go away.
Is that a good thing? Isn’t it better to have a strong opinion but be willing to change one’s mind?
As far as the topic goes, I think the main concern I have is that these policies support discriminatory hiring practices, which are illegal but common in companies wiTH DEI programs. I wish they would change their opinion to keep part of what they’re doing while getting rid of the explicitly discriminatory parts.
Management’s job is to manage. Shareholders and the board can attempt to replace them if confidence is lost. I am confident in this management, as someone with economic exposure to their decisions. If you don’t have exposure, the opinion is academic. Feel free to short the stock, or obtain enough stock as an activist to make change (if so inclined).
DEI practices are not unlawful unless discriminatory actions are taken. I do not support unlawful hiring or labor practices, unequivocally. I have reported such actions to regulators when I’ve observed them. If made aware of such practices, I would file a civil suit with standing, if owning the security in scope.
Most corporate DEI programs are discriminatory but in invisible or hard to prove ways. And most who are affected don’t have the time or resources to investigate or fight them in lawsuits. That’s what we have laws against discriminatory practices based on race or sex. But the “E” in DEI is equity, which is equality of outcomes. Companies uphold that sort by discriminating through quotas for hiring or promotion. This is illegal but rampant.
And you believe banning DEI would make any discrimination go away? Isn’t it more likely to continue, if happening, with no evidence of it happening? If it’s invisible or hard to prove now, you would expect this to change? Does discrimination not occur today at orgs without DEI efforts?
The argument might go something like "The ends don't justify the means" or "Two wrongs don't make it right" etc. It can deeply offend ones meritocratic values to be pushed aside to ensure someone has an equal outcome with lesser qualifications (or even equal qualifications where race was the deciding factor) if it can be shown this occurs.
But of course inequity in outcome deeply offends other values. So there can't be a clearly right answer.
There is a book that explored the values of both sides of these issues called Righteous Mind that really shifted me away from zealous opinions for or against DEI.
A cultural change can have lots of impact. Shutting down such a program means eliminating wasteful positions that impose those illegal processes on others, among other things. But I’m not asking to ban DEI as much as ban the equity part.
