Summary
Costco’s board rejected a shareholder proposal to end its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, arguing they foster respect, innovation, and cultural alignment with customers and employees.
Shareholders claimed DEI could lead to lawsuits citing “illegal discrimination” against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, referencing legal cases like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Costco countered that its DEI efforts comply with the law and enhance its culture, rejecting claims of legal risk.
The proposal will be voted on at Costco’s January 23 shareholder meeting.
DEI is inherently racist no matter what political affiliation, to hire someone based on ethnicity over qualifications.
It’s a flawed policy. Perhaps focus more on free education so all ethnicities can be as qualified as the next “white, Asian, male, or straight employees”.
We’re all Americans. Can’t just say “fuck conservatives” and not compromise to come up with a rational solution. But I digress.
I understand your sentiment. Can I ask you to consider a scenario?
Imagine a company needs to hire a new employee. They have 9 white men, and need a 10th person. Whoever is hiring may not think they are prejudiced, but they need to consider how the new hire will fit in with the existing team.
They may be worried about how hiring a qualified woman will upset the dynamic. A qualified Hispanic with an accent may be overlooked if the hiring manager is concerned about their English skills. Any number of reasons that may not even be conscious, but influence the decision to hire another white man.
Do you think it is possible for DEI practices to ensure diverse and qualified candidates? Why does hiring a non-white have to mean they are less qualified? If we instead start with the assumption that qualified candidates exist from many backgrounds, hiring them in proportion to their representation in the population doesn’t seem like a crazy idea.
Where is the diversity? Where is the equity? Where is the inclusion?
It’s not the same thing.
Your argument ignores the value of diversity within a business. A diverse workforce offers much more variety in how to progress the company. Peoples of similar traits and backgrounds tend to have similar ideas and methods. More diversity can increase problem solving, customer relations, and ingenuity by forcing all parties to see things from different perspectives.
The US has a long history of employers refusing to hire minorities/paying the “othered” less. We are not so far removed from these practices to reliably function without laws and regulations ensuring businesses not fall back to old habits. Slavery in the US ended around 150 years ago. The Jim Crow laws, officially, almost 60 years ago. Sundown towns were still around, though not as common, 45 years ago.
What makes you think certain line items listed on a resume will guarantee that a person is going to be a better pick than someone else who doesn’t have those things listed? Would you argue that someone who’s been a cashier for 8 years is more qualified than someone who’s been a cashier for 4 years, or do you think it wouldn’t really make a difference?
You can argue that this is a racist initiative, but you could also argue that basing hiring decisions purely off of advantages and opportunities that some people receive inherently based off their ethnicity, in a country full of systemic racism, is also racist. There’s also a big component of classism involved here as a result of hundreds of years of systemic racism that kept certain groups locked out of certain classes while other families have had opportunities to build on generational wealth and all the advantages that come along with it.
