SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Charles Schwab is one of the largest companies in the United States and employs over 30,000 people. As a major employer, Charles Schwab should respect the free speech and religious freedom of its employees. Charles Schwab is legally required to comply with many laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on a variety of factors, including religion and sometimes political affiliation.

Respecting diverse views also allows Charles Schwab to attract the most qualified talent, promote a healthy and innovative business culture, serve its diverse customer base, and contribute to a healthy economic market and marketplace of ideas.

Despite this, the 2023 edition of the Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index1 found that 91% of scored companies promote divisive training concepts like critical race theory (CRT) that replace rich cultural and ideological diversity with a monolithic focus on group identity. These concepts label employees as “oppressed” or “oppressors” based on the color of their skin, biological sex, or religious status. While companies often push concepts like CRT under the guise of promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” such efforts often have the opposite effect. Instead of creating workplaces that afford equal opportunity based on individual merit, DE&I too often leads to hostility, polarization, and partiality.

Many companies also alienate their own employees by taking divisive stances on political issues. For example, many companies have adopted radical stances and policies on abortion. The 2023 Index also found that 78% of scored companies discriminate against religious nonprofits in their charitable giving and 63% give money to legislation that undermines fundamental First Amendment freedoms. According to the Freedom at Work survey, 60% of employees were concerned that their company would punish them for expressing their religious or political views at work, and 54% said they feared the same for sharing these views even on their private social media accounts.2

Companies may also face additional legal liability for DE&I programs that make distinctions based on race, per the recent Supreme Court decisions in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Groff v. DeJoy. In light of these risks, the Company must take immediate steps to assess potential shortcomings and act to remedy these concerns.