SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Under the guise of ESG, corporations have allocated significant resources and attention towards implementing so-called anti-discrimination measures into workplace practices and hiring. Across the political spectrum, all agree that employee success should be fostered and that no employees should face discrimination, but there is much disagreement about what nondiscrimination means.

Many companies – including Bank of America, American Express, Verizon, Pfizer, CVS and even John Deere itself1 – have adopted DEI programs, trainings and officers that seek to establish racial and social “equity.” But in practice, what “equity” really means is the distribution of pay and authority on the basis of race, sex, orientation and ethnic categories rather than by merit.

Where adopted, such programs 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 1964.2 And that by devaluing merit, corporations have sacrificed employee competence and morale – and therefore productivity – to the altar of “diversity.”

These practices create massive reputational, legal and financial risk. If the Company is, in the name of so-called “equity,” committing illegal or unconscionable discrimination against employees deemed “non-diverse,” then the Company will suffer in myriad ways – all of them both unforgivable and avoidable.

In developing the audit and report, the Company should consult civil-rights and public-interest law groups, but it must not compound error with bias by relying only on left-leaning organizations. It must consult groups across the spectrum of viewpoints, including right-leaning civil-rights groups representing people of color – such as the Woodson Center3 or Project 214 – and groups that defend the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Similarly, when including employees in the audit, the Company must allow employees to speak freely and confidentially without fear of reprisal or disfavor. Too many employers have established company stances that themselves chill contributions from employees who disagree with the company’s asserted positions, and then have pretended that the employees who have been empowered by the companies’ partisan positioning represent the true and only voice of all employees. This by itself creates a deeply hostile workplace for some groups of employees, and is both immoral and likely illegal.