That Starbucks DEI Case Doesn’t Stand for What You Think It Does
Shareholders have many reasons to be concerned about the embrace of DEI by the corporations they are invested in. One can draw a direct line from corporate DEI commitments to the staggering losses of Disney, Target, and Bud Light this past summer, as well as the $26 million “reverse discrimination” judgment levied against Starbucks this […]
Scott Shepard is General Counsel and Director, Stefan Padfield is Deputy Director, and Ethan Peck is an Associate of the Free Enterprise Project (FEP) at The National Center of Public Policy Research (NCPPR). This post was prepared for the Forum by Mr. Shepard, Mr. Padfield, and Mr. Peck.
Shareholders have many reasons to be concerned about the embrace of DEI by the corporations they are invested in. One can draw a direct line from corporate DEI commitments to the staggering losses of Disney, Target, and Bud Light this past summer, as well as the $26 million “reverse discrimination” judgment levied against Starbucks this past year. And there is reason to believe the financial losses attributable to corporate commitments to DEI will only get worse before they get better, because many of the relevant corporate decision-makers appear zealously committed to discriminating on the basis of race and pushing radical gender ideology regardless of the legal and financial risk, while the growing backlash against this radicalism will ensure more cases are filed and more boycotts are implemented. Simply put, the “true believers” will continue to push their radical neo-racism and biology-defying and family-destroying transgenderism until they are forced to stop.
