: IBM is one of the largest companies in America and employs more than 280,000 people. As such, IBM ought to be recruiting
employees without regard to race, gender, religious beliefs, or political affiliation, and empowering its many managers/executives to make
decisions regarding recruitment and promotion in the same nondiscriminatory manner. But instead, IBM is engaging in recruitment and
promotion practices that prioritize so-called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and expose the company to charges of not only running afoul of its
legal responsibilities for non-discrimination, but jettisoning its fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder return.
IBM has faced significant backlash against comments made by IBM CEO Arvind Krishna regarding the company’s DEI practices. In one
exchange,1 Krishna asserted that IBM executives are expected to meet certain recruitment quotas of ‘underrepresented’ minorities, including
various racial minority groups and women. As per Krishna’s remarks, IBM execs who fail to reach such quotas risk slashed bonuses, demotion,
or termination of employment. These policies2 directly require IBM executives to make recruitment/promotion decisions based on race.
IBM is listed3 as a member of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, an initiative aimed at “advanc[ing] the goal of furthering diversity
and inclusion in the legal profession,” indicating that diversity KPIs are used in IBM’s recruiting and promotion policies. IBM’s support4 for such
KPIs, along with its use of gender and racial diversity-centric pipeline procedures, raises serious concerns about nondiscrimination5 and its
focus on maximizing value for shareholders.
IBM’s policies raise particular concern, given that DEI workforce initiatives are facing sustained legal pressure in light of recent Supreme
Court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Groff v DeJoy, and City of St. Louis v. Muldrow.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Diversity Goals Are Disappearing from Companies’ Annual Reports.”6 EEOC Commissioner
Andrea Lucas has also stated that workforce representation “goals” like IBM’s may run afoul of Title VII.7
A recent Gallup poll found that only 38% of Americans want businesses to take a stance on current events. This was part of a steady, multi-year
decline among Americans across nearly every age, race, sex, and political persuasion.8 A survey from Viewpoint Diversity Score also found
that a plurality of employees surveyed find that DEI divides, rather than unites, colleagues.9
IBM should avoid needless political controversies and illegal discrimination and support fundamental freedoms that are of broad societal
impact and benefit every American. One step to do this is by increasing transparency around its hiring/promotion practices to ensure such
practices are focusing on business goals as opposed to corporate activism.