DEI, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, has faced its fair share of critiques, with some even likening it to a modern-day faith. Rather than delve into the theological debates surrounding this phenomenon, I would argue that my perspective on DEI aligns closely with the First Amendment’s stance on religion: the state should neither endorse its establishment nor inhibit its practice.
Recently, a number of companies have opted to either reduce their DEI initiatives or maintain them. Personally, I believe businesses should have the autonomy to decide who they hire and based on what criteria. As a consumer, my primary concern is whether the company meets my needs and preferences. If it does, I’ll engage with them; if not, I’ll take my business elsewhere. My shopping habits at Target didn’t change when they were heavily invested in DEI, and I’m not inclined to boycott them now that they’re dialing it back. I shop at Target because they offer a variety of products that fit my lifestyle and budget. It seems rather psychologically unhealthy to intertwine my shopping choices for mundane items like oatmeal and paper towels with my personal identity.
In a recent shareholder meeting, Apple’s investors overwhelmingly voted to uphold the company’s DEI program. The article linked above notes a significant detail:
The proposal targeting Apple’s DEI policies was supported by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank that had also presented a similar proposal at Costco.
They contended that Apple’s commitment to diversity and inclusion programs exposes the company to potential “litigation, reputational, and financial risks,” pointing to a broader trend of corporations retreating from such practices and recent lawsuits that have made it easier for employees to sue over discrimination.
To paraphrase a line from President James Dale in the movie Mars Attacks!, two out of three ain’t bad. It’s perfectly acceptable if maintaining the DEI program poses financial or reputational risks for Apple. As a private entity, the decision to embrace those risks rests with Apple’s executives and shareholders. If you hold shares in Apple and are concerned about these risks, you have the option to sell your shares. If you’re not a shareholder but strongly oppose any company employing such practices, then simply refrain from purchasing Apple products. If you don’t fall into either category, then how Apple chooses to manage its policies is, quite frankly, none of your concern.
The specter of litigation shouldn’t be a deterrent in this context. The real measure of Apple’s internal management should be its ability to meet consumer demands in the marketplace. If Apple’s hiring practices or governance structures hinder their effectiveness in delivering what consumers desire, the market will hold them accountable. And that’s a positive outcome! Alternatively, if their strategies yield successful products that consumers love, then they will thrive, and that’s equally commendable. Ultimately, these questions should be resolved through the dynamics of market interactions among consenting adults, rather than being dictated by policymakers in Washington.
