Survey Says: Most High-Level Business Executives Believe DEI Initiatives Are Necessary To Avoid Legal Risk
Since taking office in January, President Trump has made eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all facets of American life one of his key goals. While he's been relatively successful in getting colleges and universities to bend the knee, it's been a more complicated situation when it comes to American businesses. A recent survey has potentially revealed the reason for that, as many business leaders believe removing DEI initiatives opens them up to legal risk.
According to Fortune, a joint survey of 1,000 C-suite executives revealed that 83 percent believe DEI initiatives are necessary for their company's well-being. Another 68 percent believed removing them would open them up to potential discrimination lawsuits. The survey also interviewed 2,500 employees and found that 76 percent of respondents would stay at a company that maintained its DEI initiatives, and 43 percent would leave a company if they pulled back. The survey was conducted by Catalyst, a non-profit focused on women's inclusion in the workplace, and NYU School of Law's Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. Source: Screenshot / Pollack, A., Glasgow, D., Van Bommel, T., Joseph, C., & Yoshino, K. (2025). Risks of retreat: The enduring inclusion imperative. Catalyst & Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging.
'Opting out of DEI is not a neutral act—it's a choice with consequences,' Christina Joseph, project director of the Advancing DEI Initiative at the Meltzer Center, told Fortune. 'That's because these programs help root out harmful policies that especially affect marginalized groups. This report reminds us that without those safeguards, organizations face more, not less, legal exposure.'
This survey only proves what we've already seen: the average person either supports or, at the very least, isn't actively opposed to DEI initiatives. In fact, another recent poll shows that companies that keep their DEI initiatives are viewed more favorably by the public. The only people upset about DEI are people who can't compete on an even playing field, or keeping it a buck, are just straight up racist.
To some degree, it makes sense why we're seeing universities withdraw from their DEI initiatives. Many of them depend on federal funds to survive, so while they may not necessarily agree with the pullback, they don't really have a choice. Especially considering that the Department of Education (DOE) has been explicitly weaponized to go after any university it believes is trying to provide equitable opportunities for Black, brown, and LGBTQ students. Source:
To be clear, I'm not advocating or being an apologist for these moves; I simply understand why they're happening.
Conversely, it doesn't make much sense for businesses to engage in this pullback as they don't depend on federal funds, and it's unclear what, if any, legal action the Trump administration could take against a company for continuing DEI initiatives. Apple announced that they would continue their DEI initiatives, and all the president did was angrily post about it on Truth Social.
I'm not a legal scholar, but thankfully, Catalyst's poll also included corporate lawyers. A vast majority, 88 percent to be precise, believed that DEI initiatives were essential to avoiding legal risk. So it seems like companies have more to lose by pulling back from DEI than continuing forward.
We've seen the opposing approach to DEI initiatives play out in the marketplace this year. Target has been the, uh, target of several boycotts this year as a result of withdrawing from their DEI initiatives as soon as they thought it was politically expedient. This has resulted in foot traffic being down in the stores and the company reporting a drop in first-quarter sales. Target's woes are so pronounced that several companies have started listing consumer boycotts as a potential financial risk in investor reports.
On the other end of the equation is Costco, which has stood firm on its commitments to DEI and actually beat its sales expectations for the first quarter. Whether it comes to employees, executives, lawyers, or consumers, it appears the majority are in agreement: DEI works for everybody.
Now, if only someone could get that message through to the weirdos running the country right now.
SEE ALSO:
DEI's Economic Impact: What The Data Reveals
Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations
SEE ALSO
Survey Says: Most High-Level Business Executives Believe DEI Initiatives Are Necessary To Avoid Legal Risk was originally published on newsone.com
Black America Web Featured Video
CLOSE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's announcement tonight will be ‘awesome': Brooke Rollins
All times eastern Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off July 4th weekend with remarks at the Iowa State Fairground
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 2 House Republicans who voted no on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump's major tax cut and spending bill passed the House on Thursday, but not without some Republican opposition. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted against the legislation alongside the entire House Democratic Caucus. While Massie and Fitzpatrick were the only GOP members to vote no, several House GOP hardliners were angered by the changes made to the bill by the Senate and there was an overnight scramble by Speaker Mike Johnson to secure the necessary support to proceed. Some of the hardliners who ultimately voted yes say President Trump made promises to get their votes, including that he'd make the bill "better" in the future. On Thursday, Massie said he did not vote for the bill because of its projected impact on the national debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. "Although there were some conservative wins in the budget reconciliation bill (OBBBA), I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates," Massie wrote on X. Massie also opposed the House version of the megabill that passed back in May. MORE: Trump admin live updates: House narrowly passes megabill, sending it to president's desk Trump's been a vocal critic of Massie, lambasting him last month in a lengthy social media post as not being "MAGA." "Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him," Trump wrote at the time. The president accused Massie of being a "grandstander" who routinely votes no on key Republican-led legislation. Trump suggested Massie should be challenged in the upcoming Republican primary, even before this latest vote. "The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard," Trump wrote. Rep. Fitzpatrick did vote for the House bill in May, but said on Thursday that the Senate changes to the bill (which resulted in deeper cuts to Medicaid) as the reason for his change in position. As I've stated throughout these negotiations, with each iteration of legislative text that was placed on the House Floor, I've maintained a close and watchful eye on the specific details of these provisions, and determined the specific district impact, positive or negative, on our PA-1 community," Fitzpatrick said in a statement. "I voted to strengthen Medicaid protections, to permanently extend middle class tax cuts, for enhanced small business tax relief, and for historic investments in our border security and our military," he added/ "However, it was the Senate's amendments to Medicaid, in addition to several other Senate provisions, that altered the analysis for our PA-1 community. The original House language was written in a way that protected our community; the Senate amendments fell short of our standard." MORE: How Trump's megabill could affect Medicaid and who could lose coverage "I believe in, and will always fight for, policies that are thoughtful, compassionate, and good for our community. It is this standard that will always guide my legislative decisions," Fitzpatrick said. The Pennsylvania congressman, who also faces reelection in 2026, represents a swing district that went blue in 2024 for Kamala Harris.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices steady on solid job market, tariff uncertainty
By Arathy Somasekhar (Reuters) -Oil prices were little changed on Friday as a solid job market bolstered the case for the U.S. Federal Reserve keeping interest rates on hold, with investors also awaiting clarity on President Donald Trump's plans for tariffs on various countries. Brent crude futures rose 1 cent, or 0.01%, to $68.81 a barrel by 0036 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude firmed 3 cents, or 0.04%, to $67.03. Trade was thinned by the U.S. Independence Day holiday. The U.S. labour market receded as a risk when new data on Thursday showed that American firms added a more-than-expected 147,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 4.1% - signs the economy remained resilient despite the turbulence and uncertainty over how big tariffs will be. President Trump said Washington will start sending letters to countries on Friday specifying what tariff rates they will face on goods sent to the United States, a clear shift from earlier pledges to strike scores of individual deals. Trump told reporters before departing for Iowa on Thursday the letters would be sent to 10 countries at a time, laying out tariff rates of 20% to 30%. Trump's 90-day pause on higher U.S. tariffs ends on July 9, and several large trading partners have yet to clinch trade deals, including the European Union and Japan. Keeping prices in check, however, OPEC+, the world's largest group of oil producers, is set to announce an increase of 411,000 barrels per day in production for August as it looks to regain market share, four delegates from the group told Reuters. The U.S. also imposed sanctions on Thursday against a network that smuggles Iranian oil disguised as Iraqi oil and on a Hezbollah-controlled financial institution, the Treasury Department said. Barclays on Thursday said it raised its Brent oil price forecast by $6 to $72 per barrel for 2025 and by $10 to $70 a barrel for 2026 on an improved outlook for demand.
