Supporting statement: Amazon has announced plans to conduct a “Racial Equity Audit” under the direction of former U.S.
Attorney General Lorretta Lynch.1 Racial equity calls for potential discrimination by race. Amazon’s proposed audit may
jeopardize Amazon’s value by elevating divisive identity politics above its commitment to excellence, while also raising serious
legal and commercial risks for the company. Such audits do not benefit companies. They are non-neutral evaluations
designed to embarrass the companies that conduct them, with no evidence to suggest that such audits increase shareholder
value.
Racial equity audits may also increase in-company racial division rather than ameliorating it. They distract leaders and staff
from focusing on core business concerns. They promote claims about “white supremacy” in America that many Amazon
employees, shareholders, and customers don’t accept. They sow division among employees and consumers. They’re also
expensive: some auditors reportedly charge more than $2,000 per hour.
The publication of audits often triggers more negative news, criticism, and boycotts of the company by potentially wide
swathes of consumers. Such reports may also fuel unwarranted government investigations, employee grievances, and
meritless discrimination claims.
The concept of “racial equity” that underlies Diversity, Equity & Inclusion programs is itself discriminatory. Equity means,
according to its chief proponents, racial discrimination now to make up for other discrimination by other people against other
people in the past. Per Ibram X. Kendi, “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only
remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”2
Under equity theory, this discrimination must continue until artificial parities of outcome are achieved: “When I see racial
disparities, I see racism,” notes Kendi.3 Where adopted, programs that seek to establish racial and social “equity” have raised
significant objections, including the concern that the programs and practices themselves are deeply racist, sexist, otherwise
discriminatory, and potentially in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.4 In practice, what establishing “equity” means is
distribution of pay and authority on the basis of superficial categories rather than by merit.
Both the audit and the programs are therefore far beyond the Company’s fiduciary remit. That remit requires that Amazon
make decisions maximizing the objectively determined and financially measurable return on shareholders’ investment. To the
extent that Amazon hires, promotes, or trains on the basis of any metrics other than merit, it violates its fiduciary duties by
privileging considerations that cannot enhance the financially measurable return on shareholder investment.