January 4, 2025 • 46 mins
Corporate America's DEI initiatives are not what they seem! As Walmart rolls back its diversity programs, there are more questions about the future of equity in the workplace. Brittany and Karen ponder the repercussions on minority and women-owned businesses in a time of shifting political landscapes and discuss the balancing act corporations face between staying compliant with existing anti-discrimination laws and the looming threat of reverse discrimination claims, opening a dialogue on the fragile state of workplace protections for vulnerable groups.
CONTINUED LEARNING
- Walmart U.S. CEO John Furner says DEI policy changes will "ensure every customer" feels welcome (CBS News)
- Walmart’s DEI rollback signals a profound shift in the wake of Trump’s election victory (AP News)
- Walmart becomes latest — and biggest — company to roll back its DEI policies (NPR)
- Walmart 2024 Annual Belonging, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Report (Walmart)
Stay With Us
- Watch and Subscribe to The E Word on YouTube.
- Follow Karen on LinkedIn and learn more at Colossal Work.
- Follow Brittany on LinkedIn and learn more at BND Consulting Group.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Brittany S. Hale (00:01):
Hey Brittany, hey Karen.
Karen McFarlane (00:04):
We're back.
We're back on the E-Word.
Brittany S. Hale (00:07):
We are, we are .
Mina is joining us, but she'snapping.
Karen McFarlane (00:14):
As per usual, one day we're going to have to
wake her up.
Brittany S. Hale (00:18):
I know, See what she has to say.
I haven't handed her the mic,so I will next time.
I haven't handed her the mic soI will.
Karen McFarlane (00:27):
Well, we are greeted with some new news right
On the plight of diversity,equity and inclusion.
Brittany S. Hale (00:37):
Yeah, yeah, and it seems to be
unsurprisingly directly relatedto the results of the 2024
presidential election.
Karen McFarlane (01:01):
Exactly so.
One of the industry's largesttitans, Walmart, has now pulled
back their DEI policies and evenbeyond their policies.
That that is.
That's well, that's inclusiveof their supplier diversity
programs.
And also they had funded aracial equity center which they
are no longer going to fund,Right, so, and they're all.
And they've also pulled back onthe equality index as well, the
(01:25):
LGBTQ equality, human, humanshoot, I forgot the name of it
now, but the LGBTQ human index,quality index, some ways is
surprising for Walmart, right,Because of you know, first of
(01:54):
all, they serve a large swath ofpeople, but particularly many
of demographics that they serve.
Right, and because it's just ahuge component of, I'm going to
say, American society.
Right, Walmart is a huge staplein ensuring, you know, access
and opportunity, whether it befrom the consumer level to the
(02:17):
business level.
A really surprising developmentthat Walmart, again such a huge
titan, seems to be bending tothe incoming administration's
(02:39):
stance on DEI, even before it'sactually instituted actually
instituted.
Brittany S. Hale (02:51):
Yeah, and so I think that's the part that's
really interesting is thatthey're taking a more proactive
approach to potentially guardagainst any sort of government
censure, whereas previously, itseems as if many organizations
maybe not Walmart, but otherorganizations were more reactive
when it came to DEI adoptionand implementing DEI policies to
(03:17):
workplaces.
So, yeah, I mean, walmart to meis such a stunning response
because there's such a largecompany.
(03:39):
And then the question is well,who's next?
Right, right, who else is goingto do so?
And I saw that you mentionedthey're not going to give
priority treatment to women andminority-founded companies.
Many organizations have what'scalled supplier diversity
(04:01):
programs, where they want toexactly what it says diversify
their suppliers, diversify thevendors that they work with so
that there can be more expansiveopportunity in business for
people of all backgrounds.
And, yeah, in 2020, they had afive-year commitment for a
(04:26):
racial equity center and theyare not doing that.
And, to your point, the gayrights index.
Karen McFarlane (04:37):
The Human Rights Campaign Corporate
Equality Index.
I wanted to to get right.
Yes, yes, yes.
Brittany S. Hale (04:45):
So then my question is you know we've
people quite literally have diedto further transparency.
So in the absence of thattransparency, obscurity kind of
reigns, right.
You know, we go back to placeswhere it's really uncertain what
(05:06):
happens.
And we should note that StephenMiller is Trump's incoming
chief of policy, and this seemsto be a priority for Miller
because he was one of the peoplewho led America First Legal
(05:27):
Right.
And they've been strategicallysuing corporations to scale back
these corporate DEI policies,been doing this in preparation
of a cabinet seat and willlikely utilize the federal
(05:49):
government to have this kind ofbroad overreach into what
corporations are doing, whichagain seems quite odd, coming
from a Republican administration, because Republicans are, at
least historically, the party ofsmall government to see that
(06:12):
there's potentially a sweepinginvestigation into an overreach
into corporate practices isinteresting, it's super
interesting, and I think thatwhat is what what they have
(06:33):
spoken about so far?
Karen McFarlane (06:35):
right, the administration is eliminating
DEI in the channels that theycontrol.
Right, it's within the federalgovernment.
Right, in the channels thatthey control.
Right Within the federalgovernment.
Right, sure, or anyorganization, company that takes
federal dollars, correct, and Iguess that is their right to do
(06:55):
so.
What is troubling is thatcorporations who are not subject
to that are taking thisproactive approach.
And the question is why?
Now, I sort of get, I do getwhy, right, they're mitigating
(07:18):
their risk.
Right, and that's part of thecompany's biggest posture, you
know.
And but there's risk on bothsides, right, so we have the
Civil Rights Act, we havecertain policies that were put
in place to preventdiscrimination in many facets,
right, and so DEI was in someway a protection against, you
(07:39):
know, allegations aroundViolation of exactly,
allegations around violation ofexactly right.
But now you have this threat ofreverse discrimination, which
is an interesting term to me, bythe way.
Reverse discrimination,discrimination is discrimination
, I don't what is.
And so I think it is a verydifficult needle to thread,
(08:07):
because as you pull back, youstart to open yourself up to
things that you were trying toprotect yourself from before.
So it's this weird balancingact that corporations are now
going to have to try to figureout.
And I also just want to sit onwhat you said, which is this
(08:30):
isn't just about race, right?
This is minorities and women,right?
Brittany S. Hale (08:38):
Minorities, women, disabled, older employees
right, Because the 1964 or theCivil Rights Act of 1964
precludes discrimination on age,race, color, creed, nationality
, so on and so forth.
So everyone who shows up atwork on Monday morning likely
(09:05):
fits into one of thoseprotections.
And so to your point, if DEIpolicies are implemented to
guard against and to mitigatethe risk of violating federal
anti-discrimination laws, andwe're rolling those back, are we
(09:28):
now to assume that thesefederal anti-discrimination laws
are going to be rolled back andor abolished?
Karen McFarlane (09:39):
It's so incredibly scary, even said like
that, right, like, because itfeels like you roll back one
thing, then you can roll backother things, correct, correct.
It just shows how precariouseverything really is.
When you have people who aren'tnecessarily standing on ethics
(10:01):
and I'll just say the rightthing to do Right and even in
rolling back DEI, you havecorporations that are either
taking it all together right orrebranding it right Something
else, but let's just say youdon't call it what it is right
(10:28):
Then you are actually leavingout a very important aspect of
why it even exists in the in thefirst place, which is the
systemic and historicalinequities that have led us to
this point where we even neededit.
And there's always been a goal,I think, to not need it.
(10:48):
But we're not there yet and youcan't fix what you don't
measure.
So if you are rolling it back orstill trying to practice it in
some way, the big question islike how are you measuring the
effect of your programs ifyou're not setting some targets
(11:13):
around that to see if you'resuccessful and what that's
supposed to look like for yourorganization?
Like, you always look at whereyou're winning and where you
could do better, right, that'salways the calculus for anything
that you do, but what this saysto me is you cannot look at
that through a clear lens whenyou're not necessarily allowed
(11:36):
to measure those differentaspects that are affecting
whether you can become moresuccessful in certain areas by
diversifying different aspectsof your company.
So that's how you look at yourfinancial portfolio, but you
can't look at people in the sameway, and so it's very confusing
(11:59):
right now as to what's next.
Brittany S. Hale (12:04):
I mean, if you look at the federal government,
that's over 60 programs alonejust within the federal
government, not to mention otherorganizations.
I mean this is incrediblyextensive, expansive.
What does it mean, especiallywhen there are a lot of people
who feel a certain amount ofsecurity and pride in being a
(12:29):
federal employee, to know thattheir contributions and attempts
to forward our conception ofwho is competent, capable and
talented gets wiped out?
And I did want to revisit thepoint that you brought up, which
(12:51):
is a great one, which is thisisn't the question about whether
or not this makes businesssense?
Is, we'll see, becausebusinesses are to your point,
the risk of attracting attentionfrom this incoming
(13:13):
administration and having todeal with that, the ability to
attract top talent, right?
How many people are now goingto be drawn to other
(13:33):
organizations, whether or notthey're in the United States or
abroad?
Right, because there aren't thesame guarantees what we once
thought were inherent orimplicit guarantees that you
know talent will be rewarded oryou know organizations are
(13:54):
seeking the best talent.
That may not be the case iforganizations fear that their
pursuit of the best talent goesthrough implementing inclusive
practices and that may drawundue attention.
And so it is this question.
I'll be curious to know.
You know, two years from now,assuming we'll be here I'm
(14:18):
curious to know what we'll see.
Karen McFarlane (14:26):
I don't and I don't know if we'll actually see
it.
See it right, because you knowwe think about I'll just did a
very loose type of way, right,we think about a company's risk
profile, right, and what theirappetite for risk is.
In certain categories they mayjust have a lower risk tolerance
(14:48):
for I'm not saying they breakout DEI this way, but just for
argument's sake, right now,right For DEI activities and a
higher risk tolerance forwhatever.
Reverse discrimination sorry,discriminatory suits may come
because of this.
Maybe, looking at their pasthistory, we haven't really seen
(15:10):
that many or we feel like we'regoing to have a strong stance or
people just don't.
They don't come to fruition inthat way because it's very
difficult to prove.
There'll be a lot ofconversations around if
something happens.
What does that mean Exactly?
Brittany S. Hale (15:27):
exactly?
And what do we call it right?
Naming things is very important, and ascribing a name to the
practices that we've beenengaged in for better or worse
helps us determine ourrelationship to it.
Yeah, and so when we look atWalmart Walmart rolling back
(15:49):
their center, where, again, toyour point, they dedicated space
and time and talent tomeasuring their impact, and it's
likely through this center andthrough their practices that we
know that about $13 billion ingoods and services go through
Walmart, through the businessesthat are owned by women, people
(16:14):
of color, veterans, right aswell, and so that's just in this
past year alone.
That's just in this past yearalone.
So if these businesses are nolonger given priority or are
instructed to be deprioritizedbecause of the people who own
(16:36):
them, how does that impactWalmart's bottom line?
So you know, the question isare we just now going to
practice the DEI policies andnot call it DEI?
It seems like a lot oforganizations are just hoping to
(16:56):
kind of fly under the radarwith that.
What's your thought on that?
Karen McFarlane (17:02):
fly under the radar with that.
What's your thought on that?
I think that's absolutely right.
I think the ones where it wasingrained from the very
beginning will continue to do soand just not name it.
I mean Walmart's changing theirchief diversity officer title
to chief belonging officer,right, which you know.
Same connotation.
This took the D, the E and theI out.
Same connotation this took theD, the E and the I out.
(17:26):
And so I think some of thechanges are definitely going to
be cosmetic.
For those who truly believe init and also believe it will come
back around, right, Four yearsis four years and things can
change in four years, and so itmight be safer, less riskier, to
just keep your head down.
Don't call it that and just youknow, keep working your plan.
(17:48):
For those who weren't fullyvested, it's a great get out of
jail, free card right.
And those who are somewhere inthe middle, they're going to
have to figure out what thatmeans for them.
I think that there can be hugeimplications, right.
So if we just take supplierdiversity, for example, that has
(18:10):
existed for decades upondecades, right Again, to right
the historical wrongs, Walmartremoving a supplier diversity
program is going to have hugeeconomic effect if they are
actually removing it and notjust rebranding it something
(18:33):
else, which we don't know.
I suspect they're just going torebrand it something else, Right
, but um and kind of you know,reinterpret the data in some
meaningful way.
So you know, if they have alarge percentage of female
(18:54):
buyers, right, then they'regoing to want to stock their
shelves with things that areattractive to female buyers and
that more than likely, will comefrom female suppliers, right,
Things of that nature.
So understanding their customerand having like a deeper, more
fuller understanding of that,which they probably do to some
(19:16):
extent right now, will probablystill fuel a lot of what they're
doing undercover, Right.
But when you are a hugeorganization and you say out
loud we're not doing thisanymore, then it just sends this
huge signal and, to all thecompanies that are not as huge
(19:37):
as Walmart and don't have theapparatus around them to defend
their activities, you're goingto want to play it really safe
for whatever that looks like forthem 100%, because, despite all
(20:01):
this talk about innovation andingenuity and all of this, most
companies don't want to be thefirst to do anything Right.
Brittany S. Hale (20:12):
They want to toe the line.
And so we're thinking aboutconflict, this kind of this gap
between what we want and whatwe're expecting or what we're
experiencing.
Again, I, even if I disagree Iunderstand the business strategy
to try to err on the side ofcaution, yeah.
(20:34):
At the same time, data works inmany ways right, so we
understand what's coming in.
But I also think it's importantto note that Pew, in October,
did a study and they found that52% of people in October still
(20:58):
said focusing on workplacediversity was mostly a good
thing.
Still said focusing onworkplace diversity was mostly a
good thing.
So a majority of people stillbelieve that this is worthwhile.
The survey that they did priorto that was in February 2023,
and it was at 56%.
(21:18):
So a little bit of a drop, notnecessarily one that I think
could justify these hugesweeping shifts to DEI.
Outside of the fact that theincoming administration has its
priorities and an executivewould be foolish not to listen,
(21:40):
not to take heed and plan forwhatever they have coming, we're
not saying ignore the incomingadministration.
What we are saying is there arestill a significant group of
consumers and you have to deeplyknow and understand your
(22:03):
consumers.
When you look at Walmart, who'sthere?
Who's there?
What do they want to see andwhat are you making money off of
?
You know, we know, that Walmartsare, in many places, the
cultural hub of some smallcities and towns.
(22:27):
That's correct.
It's the place where people goto get supplies, to congregate,
to socialize to.
You know, you will see somesupermoms, they have a bank and
a hair salon and you know a postoffice all of these things in
this one place.
So Walmart, you know it'srolling this back as a
(22:50):
legitimate business purpose maybe part of the strategy, but
also understanding the functionof Walmart and what they offer.
And to your point again, thereare women.
We know that the United StatesI believe as of now we are a
(23:14):
majority femme identifying groupI believe that there are more
women in the United States thanmen.
Someone will fact check me.
But, with that being said, ifwe are not prioritizing
women-owned businesses, if we'renot offering products that
(23:35):
people have been introduced togotten comfortable with,
developed relationships, withRight Supporting their growth,
correct, are people more likelyto just choose another brand, or
are they more likely to chooseanother store?
Karen McFarlane (23:57):
Yeah, or are they more likely to just pull
back, right?
So that's also a choice.
Just don't buy anything.
And what's also frustrating isI.
I thought it was just going tobe a blip, but it's not.
You know the rise of the meiargument um the merit,
(24:17):
excellence and uh.
Intelligence acronym that elonmusk supported quite vigorously,
and of course now he's in theadministration and so you know
we talked about this before in aprevious show, as if merit, uh,
(24:38):
excellence and intelligence wasnot part of the DEI framework.
But that's how it is being builtand it's an attractive
alternative.
Let's just be honest right.
It feels on face value umequitable and universal in the
(24:59):
language.
But again, we're ignoring, youknow, why this model hasn't
worked in the past?
Right, and I'll be clear, likeI agree that we have to name it
right, okay, okay, it could haveanother word, as long as the
(25:29):
practices are put into place andwe're acknowledging why we need
those practices in the firstplace.
Correct, because is has beenfor a select few, historically
speaking.
Right, that it was more aboutnepotism, um, you know, affinity
(25:51):
, bias, things of that nature,and those are, those are things
that are, those are unconsciouswithin people's psyche, right,
it's not that you can just flipa switch and these things go off
.
And that's the challenging partof just saying, hey, di is bad,
(26:14):
let's put MEI, and everybody'sjust going to be like, all right
, cool, let's just do that, dothat.
What are the policies andpractices that you're going to
put in to ensure that MEI is theframework that everyone is
using and is inclusive ofdifferent groups and is not
(26:35):
subject to bias and and and,which is exactly what DEI was
doing?
So, if your okie doke is tojust change DEI to MEI and do
the exact same thing, more powerto you.
Do the exact same thing as DEI.
More power to you because youbelieve in what the purpose was
(26:55):
in the first place.
Brittany S. Hale (26:58):
And it seems oh, no, go for it.
No, no, go for it.
Karen McFarlane (27:00):
Well, I was, I was gonna say you're not gonna
acknowledge this is the reasonwhy it was there, then it's it's
.
It's not gonna work and we'regonna be right back in the same
place yeah, two things itreminds me of.
Brittany S. Hale (27:12):
The first point is, uh, me, I suggest that
there's only one particulargroup that can objectively
determine whether or notsomething is discriminatory.
True, and that's problematic,because how are we?
What is the objective level?
(27:33):
Or is, is the center spoke,whether or not a Christian,
heterosexual, able-bodied whitemale feels excluded, and
anything that's outside of thator challenges that or brings up
difficult feelings, is thereforenot an extension of MEI and
must be eradicated.
So that's one question, but Idon't know, have you seen Wicked
(27:57):
?
Not yet?
Okay, not a spoiler if you'relistening or watching, but
there's a particular line whereone of the characters says to
the professor I don't know whyyou can't just teach us history
without going on and on and onabout things that already
happened in the past.
(28:18):
And this seems to be what we'retalking about.
Right, just um, teach ushistory, but nothing that makes
us uncomfortable.
Yeah, um, let's do business,but only to the extent that it
centers me.
(28:38):
Yeah, yeah, don't.
You know and I bring this upbecause you're talking about the
reason why we have DEI policiesor MEI policies, right, which
is to provide the historical,systemic, the problematic and
(28:59):
systemic inequities that haveplagued this country since
before it was a country, and itseems that there's this
cognitive dissonance betweenwhat got us here and where we're
standing, and it seems like theincoming administration doesn't
(29:21):
necessarily want us to examineall of the things that have
gotten us here and why we needthese anti-discrimination laws
and want to instead just saylet's just get rid of it.
I also want to bring attentionto RFK, who's also part of the
(29:50):
incoming administration, andhave you heard RFK's recent
comments on racism?
What'd he say?
So he says let's see, I justwant to pull it up.
I do not want to misquote him.
Let's not misquote him, yes, sohe hosted a town hall, and so
(30:16):
RFK Jr.
He hosted a town hall with EricB, of Eric B and Rakim, and he
discussed racism and Blackchildren specifically in the
United States.
And he says that we should armAfrican-American boys and girls
with education and resilience soracism will bounce off of them
like the Avengers.
(30:37):
And so he says it's more likelythat we will be able to teach
them resilience and help themdeal with racism than it is to
(30:57):
eradicate racism from the UnitedStates, which I thought again
that I don't necessarilydisagree with.
Right, it's as American asapple pie.
So, rfk, I agree with you onthat point.
However, the fallacy in thatargument is the belief that
(31:18):
African Americans haven't beenarming their children like the
Avengers for decades, if notcenturies.
Since this country has beenfounded, there have been
different conversations, and somy question is when you have
(31:43):
Black children that you'repreparing them, right, you are
going to encounter people whotreat you poorly.
You're going to you need to beresilient to suggest that we
should do this so the childrencan be super human.
Right, like the Avengers, theAvengers are superheroes, right,
you have to be super, above andbeyond a human reaction to what
you're experiencing and we donot offer the same for children
of other backgrounds,specifically white children, who
(32:05):
may be the proponents of thisbehavior that could be harmful.
Why are we not having thatconversation with these white
children?
Because we want to arm them, wewant them to be superheroes as
well and be so anti-racist andso aware of the types of
(32:26):
behavior that could be harmfulto other people that they
unequivocally say no, that mayhave been the America of old.
That is not our America now.
Karen McFarlane (32:37):
Yeah, no, he really is just talking about
modern day slavery, right, sincewe've since Black people were
pulled over on the ships, okay,to to face these types of
atrocities, they have built up aresilience that no normal human
should have to have.
Right, they weren't eventreated like humans, despite
(32:59):
being humans, and that has beeningrained in our DNA since all
of this happened for hundreds ofyears.
So what he's talking about ispure nonsense.
It's really just saying wedon't want to change, okay, so
just keep doing what yourancestors did and everything
will be all right.
And what's also quitefascinating about that statement
(33:23):
and you know even your commentabout let's not learn about
history, the uncomfortable partsof history is that when you
watch television, for example,right, you know television and
you watch these period pieces,it has become normal and
glorifying of history whenEuropeans or Americans right,
(33:49):
particularly Europeans, thoughare colonizing different
countries, right.
And the atrocities and thebrutality, we watch that as
normal, accepted behavior inhistory.
That does not make anyoneuncomfortable.
But the minute you talk aboutslavery or Japanese internment
(34:15):
camps and things of that nature,the minute you talk about that
aspect in a very focused way,all of a sudden it's
uncomfortable.
You weren't uncomfortable whenyour ancestors were ripping the
guts out of people anddisplaying them for the whole
(34:38):
town to see Public executions.
You weren't uncomfortable withall of these wars that were
waged and all of the violenceand the deaths just to take over
a territory.
You weren't uncomfortable withall of those things.
It's in every single movie thatwe've watched about history
(34:59):
european and american history.
So why is that not making youuncomfortable?
Brittany S. Hale (35:06):
well, I think it's not only for the reason of
um perception and marketing,right, because when we see a
period piece or a period drama,we drop these people in the
world that's happening aroundthem, but we want to center it
(35:28):
on these two unique individualsso we can have that cognitive
dissonance that are falling inlove, right, this is a love
story.
And so we can marvel at thebeautiful silk gowns without
wondering where the silk camefrom.
We can marvel at you know thegold-tipped it out in the Wild
(36:00):
West without wondering where thepeople who inhabited that land
went.
Or you know an esteemed Britishman who made his fortune in
exports in the 1800s.
We know what that means.
Oh, I get the little bubble.
(36:21):
We know what that means, but wedon't have to ask.
It's quite ugly and it'sdiscouraged from asking well,
what were you exporting?
Or who are you exporting, orwho?
Right, and so.
So then we, we get to revisitthese situations, even when you
(36:43):
go to um.
We have living history allaround us, but we've sanitized
it, we've distanced ourselves,and I think that is the the
trouble and the problem, andthat's why we have such
difficulty and resistance to DEI, because we don't connect the
two, why you need to diversifyyour workplace or why you need
(37:19):
to give priority to Black-ownedbusinesses Like.
It's very fascinating to me tosee that you can separate the
two so keenly.
Karen McFarlane (37:29):
You know, and particularly women right.
So just talking about whitewomen, if you look at your
period pieces right, like womenrecently just got their rights
right.
They couldn't do anything.
They couldn't only have theirbank accounts, they couldn't.
They just passed around as likebaby making mills.
And do you want to go backthere?
Yeah right, that is your recenthistory, okay, recent, and so
(37:54):
if you, just yeah.
Brittany S. Hale (37:59):
Okay, recent, the year I was born was the
first year that a woman couldown a business by herself
without having a man.
Wow Right, I don't think that Ilook that old.
So.
Karen McFarlane (38:18):
You're not, you're a baby.
So it's recent, very recenthistory, Very recent history
Right, we're living through it.
Brittany S. Hale (38:28):
So in the span of my life to our lifetime,
both of us business owners.
To my knowledge, you're thesole owner of your business, as
am I.
We would not have been able todo that.
Karen McFarlane (38:46):
I just don't get it.
I just don't, I don'tunderstand.
I guess I don't understandbecause we're the ones being
potentially affected by all ofthis and I guess other groups
have felt threatened for a verylong time and this is their
(39:10):
opportunity to enact somepolicies to slow down the
progress that other groups aremaking.
And it's very sad.
And I actually was reallyhopeful I'll still remain
hopeful because you can't giveup, right.
But I was really hopeful thatthese big corporations would
just be like okay, well, we'regoing to do what's best to build
(39:34):
our business, and I think theystill will.
At the end of the day, I believethe ones again that I said
before were committed will bakeit in.
They'll figure it out.
It might not be as aggressiveas it was.
It was already waning to somedegree anyway and they'll just
(39:57):
wait it out until the next termand they'll call it something
else and they'll keep pressingon.
I just urge the smallercompanies, the mid-sized
companies, to figure out theirapproach, because workforce
diversity, figure out theirapproach, because workforce
(40:21):
diversity, inclusiveness, equityas your center to creating all
of this is key to your success.
And that doesn't change becausean administration or anybody,
okay, has got their feelingshurt.
Okay, you want to reach intoyour business and affect it.
It doesn't change the facts.
So you know, businesses arevery creative and that's why
(40:42):
they exist.
Yes, yes, continue beingcreative.
Brittany S. Hale (40:50):
Yeah, and I really just think that's that's,
and I I really just thinkthat's that's.
It is the need for creativity.
Now is the time for creativityand innovation, because we know
what the buying power of theseparticular groups is and it is
not good business sense toalienate billions of dollars
(41:14):
worth of commerce.
And I understand that, elon.
You know he's spoken aboutthere being hard economic times.
You know that are coming withthe transition.
(41:36):
But assuming that he doesn'tspeak for the president,
assuming that the president is,you know, we don't know what the
tone and tenor of thatrelationship is.
We can make some guesses, butthe one thing that I do think is
interesting is that DonaldTrump seems to he loves ratings.
(41:58):
Right, this is a reality TVstar, so he wants to go in the
sway of what the people want.
You know you gotta give thepeople what they want and this
doesn't seem like the peoplewant it.
Karen McFarlane (42:17):
So we'll see.
It doesn't seem so, but thepeople have to scream a little
bit louder.
Brittany S. Hale (42:21):
The people are going to have to scream louder
and the people are going to.
I look at Starbucks as anexample.
Right, starbucks lost billionsin one quarter due to people
boycotting them for variousreasons, and the result of that
was they had a new CEO, they hadnew business practices to
(42:54):
revamp and take back who theypurported to be, which is this
luxury coffee house where youcould go in and, you know, be
part of the elite and listen to.
You know, listen to acid jazzand write the next great
(43:15):
American novel with yourorganically sourced coffee.
And that's what they're hopingto work toward.
But they had to make changesbecause they knew what they were
doing wasn't working.
Similarly, for the people wholove Walmart, the question is if
(43:38):
you love Walmart but you don'tlove their practices, do you
still shop there?
Do you move with your feet?
Do you make a statement withyour wallet?
A tweet isn't necessarily goingto do it, right?
Karen McFarlane (43:51):
Right, yeah, you have to choose your causes
and your battles and do it inmultiple different ways.
Tweet about it with your walletshare with your friends, get
perspectives, comment onWalmart's customer service feed.
Let them know that you're aconsumer and you're concerned
(44:16):
about this.
Right, your voice really doesmatter and, like I said, I'm
optimistic.
It's four years, right, thetides can turn.
The tides have turned on DEIbefore it will turn again, and
so we just have to stay thecourse and continue to fight the
fight.
And I have a little thing in mythroat and, at the end of the
(44:39):
day, right, you need to justpartner with you know people who
understand what you're tryingto do and can help you find
creative and innovative ways tomove forward.
So that's me.
Brittany S. Hale (44:50):
Yeah, I guess the question that I will leave
you with, and maybe we cananswer it next time, is with
corporations ousting, concealingwhatever their DEI policies, is
this the resurgence of smallbusiness?
(45:11):
Small business, Is this now anopportunity for smaller
businesses to attract moreclients, more customers who want
different?
Karen McFarlane (45:29):
That's a great teaser for next time.
Brittany S. Hale (45:33):
I have answers .
Mina told it to me, that wasMina's contribution.
Karen McFarlane (45:39):
Thank you, mina .
As always, brittany, it wasfantastic discussing these
issues with you.
I always learn from you, so Ihope the audience is like you.
See ya, till next time.
Hey Brittany, hey Karen.
Karen McFarlane (00:04):
We're back.
We're back on the E-Word.
Brittany S. Hale (00:07):
We are, we are .
Mina is joining us, but she'snapping.
Karen McFarlane (00:14):
As per usual, one day we're going to have to
wake her up.
Brittany S. Hale (00:18):
I know, See what she has to say.
I haven't handed her the mic,so I will next time.
I haven't handed her the mic soI will.
Karen McFarlane (00:27):
Well, we are greeted with some new news right
On the plight of diversity,equity and inclusion.
Brittany S. Hale (00:37):
Yeah, yeah, and it seems to be
unsurprisingly directly relatedto the results of the 2024
presidential election.
Karen McFarlane (01:01):
Exactly so.
One of the industry's largesttitans, Walmart, has now pulled
back their DEI policies and evenbeyond their policies.
That that is.
That's well, that's inclusiveof their supplier diversity
programs.
And also they had funded aracial equity center which they
are no longer going to fund,Right, so, and they're all.
And they've also pulled back onthe equality index as well, the
(01:25):
LGBTQ equality, human, humanshoot, I forgot the name of it
now, but the LGBTQ human index,quality index, some ways is
surprising for Walmart, right,Because of you know, first of
(01:54):
all, they serve a large swath ofpeople, but particularly many
of demographics that they serve.
Right, and because it's just ahuge component of, I'm going to
say, American society.
Right, Walmart is a huge staplein ensuring, you know, access
and opportunity, whether it befrom the consumer level to the
(02:17):
business level.
A really surprising developmentthat Walmart, again such a huge
titan, seems to be bending tothe incoming administration's
(02:39):
stance on DEI, even before it'sactually instituted actually
instituted.
Brittany S. Hale (02:51):
Yeah, and so I think that's the part that's
really interesting is thatthey're taking a more proactive
approach to potentially guardagainst any sort of government
censure, whereas previously, itseems as if many organizations
maybe not Walmart, but otherorganizations were more reactive
when it came to DEI adoptionand implementing DEI policies to
(03:17):
workplaces.
So, yeah, I mean, walmart to meis such a stunning response
because there's such a largecompany.
(03:39):
And then the question is well,who's next?
Right, right, who else is goingto do so?
And I saw that you mentionedthey're not going to give
priority treatment to women andminority-founded companies.
Many organizations have what'scalled supplier diversity
(04:01):
programs, where they want toexactly what it says diversify
their suppliers, diversify thevendors that they work with so
that there can be more expansiveopportunity in business for
people of all backgrounds.
And, yeah, in 2020, they had afive-year commitment for a
(04:26):
racial equity center and theyare not doing that.
And, to your point, the gayrights index.
Karen McFarlane (04:37):
The Human Rights Campaign Corporate
Equality Index.
I wanted to to get right.
Yes, yes, yes.
Brittany S. Hale (04:45):
So then my question is you know we've
people quite literally have diedto further transparency.
So in the absence of thattransparency, obscurity kind of
reigns, right.
You know, we go back to placeswhere it's really uncertain what
(05:06):
happens.
And we should note that StephenMiller is Trump's incoming
chief of policy, and this seemsto be a priority for Miller
because he was one of the peoplewho led America First Legal
(05:27):
Right.
And they've been strategicallysuing corporations to scale back
these corporate DEI policies,been doing this in preparation
of a cabinet seat and willlikely utilize the federal
(05:49):
government to have this kind ofbroad overreach into what
corporations are doing, whichagain seems quite odd, coming
from a Republican administration, because Republicans are, at
least historically, the party ofsmall government to see that
(06:12):
there's potentially a sweepinginvestigation into an overreach
into corporate practices isinteresting, it's super
interesting, and I think thatwhat is what what they have
(06:33):
spoken about so far?
Karen McFarlane (06:35):
right, the administration is eliminating
DEI in the channels that theycontrol.
Right, it's within the federalgovernment.
Right, in the channels thatthey control.
Right Within the federalgovernment.
Right, sure, or anyorganization, company that takes
federal dollars, correct, and Iguess that is their right to do
(06:55):
so.
What is troubling is thatcorporations who are not subject
to that are taking thisproactive approach.
And the question is why?
Now, I sort of get, I do getwhy, right, they're mitigating
(07:18):
their risk.
Right, and that's part of thecompany's biggest posture, you
know.
And but there's risk on bothsides, right, so we have the
Civil Rights Act, we havecertain policies that were put
in place to preventdiscrimination in many facets,
right, and so DEI was in someway a protection against, you
(07:39):
know, allegations aroundViolation of exactly,
allegations around violation ofexactly right.
But now you have this threat ofreverse discrimination, which
is an interesting term to me, bythe way.
Reverse discrimination,discrimination is discrimination
, I don't what is.
And so I think it is a verydifficult needle to thread,
(08:07):
because as you pull back, youstart to open yourself up to
things that you were trying toprotect yourself from before.
So it's this weird balancingact that corporations are now
going to have to try to figureout.
And I also just want to sit onwhat you said, which is this
(08:30):
isn't just about race, right?
This is minorities and women,right?
Brittany S. Hale (08:38):
Minorities, women, disabled, older employees
right, Because the 1964 or theCivil Rights Act of 1964
precludes discrimination on age,race, color, creed, nationality
, so on and so forth.
So everyone who shows up atwork on Monday morning likely
(09:05):
fits into one of thoseprotections.
And so to your point, if DEIpolicies are implemented to
guard against and to mitigatethe risk of violating federal
anti-discrimination laws, andwe're rolling those back, are we
(09:28):
now to assume that thesefederal anti-discrimination laws
are going to be rolled back andor abolished?
Karen McFarlane (09:39):
It's so incredibly scary, even said like
that, right, like, because itfeels like you roll back one
thing, then you can roll backother things, correct, correct.
It just shows how precariouseverything really is.
When you have people who aren'tnecessarily standing on ethics
(10:01):
and I'll just say the rightthing to do Right and even in
rolling back DEI, you havecorporations that are either
taking it all together right orrebranding it right Something
else, but let's just say youdon't call it what it is right
(10:28):
Then you are actually leavingout a very important aspect of
why it even exists in the in thefirst place, which is the
systemic and historicalinequities that have led us to
this point where we even neededit.
And there's always been a goal,I think, to not need it.
(10:48):
But we're not there yet and youcan't fix what you don't
measure.
So if you are rolling it back orstill trying to practice it in
some way, the big question islike how are you measuring the
effect of your programs ifyou're not setting some targets
(11:13):
around that to see if you'resuccessful and what that's
supposed to look like for yourorganization?
Like, you always look at whereyou're winning and where you
could do better, right, that'salways the calculus for anything
that you do, but what this saysto me is you cannot look at
that through a clear lens whenyou're not necessarily allowed
(11:36):
to measure those differentaspects that are affecting
whether you can become moresuccessful in certain areas by
diversifying different aspectsof your company.
So that's how you look at yourfinancial portfolio, but you
can't look at people in the sameway, and so it's very confusing
(11:59):
right now as to what's next.
Brittany S. Hale (12:04):
I mean, if you look at the federal government,
that's over 60 programs alonejust within the federal
government, not to mention otherorganizations.
I mean this is incrediblyextensive, expansive.
What does it mean, especiallywhen there are a lot of people
who feel a certain amount ofsecurity and pride in being a
(12:29):
federal employee, to know thattheir contributions and attempts
to forward our conception ofwho is competent, capable and
talented gets wiped out?
And I did want to revisit thepoint that you brought up, which
(12:51):
is a great one, which is thisisn't the question about whether
or not this makes businesssense?
Is, we'll see, becausebusinesses are to your point,
the risk of attracting attentionfrom this incoming
(13:13):
administration and having todeal with that, the ability to
attract top talent, right?
How many people are now goingto be drawn to other
(13:33):
organizations, whether or notthey're in the United States or
abroad?
Right, because there aren't thesame guarantees what we once
thought were inherent orimplicit guarantees that you
know talent will be rewarded oryou know organizations are
(13:54):
seeking the best talent.
That may not be the case iforganizations fear that their
pursuit of the best talent goesthrough implementing inclusive
practices and that may drawundue attention.
And so it is this question.
I'll be curious to know.
You know, two years from now,assuming we'll be here I'm
(14:18):
curious to know what we'll see.
Karen McFarlane (14:26):
I don't and I don't know if we'll actually see
it.
See it right, because you knowwe think about I'll just did a
very loose type of way, right,we think about a company's risk
profile, right, and what theirappetite for risk is.
In certain categories they mayjust have a lower risk tolerance
(14:48):
for I'm not saying they breakout DEI this way, but just for
argument's sake, right now,right For DEI activities and a
higher risk tolerance forwhatever.
Reverse discrimination sorry,discriminatory suits may come
because of this.
Maybe, looking at their pasthistory, we haven't really seen
(15:10):
that many or we feel like we'regoing to have a strong stance or
people just don't.
They don't come to fruition inthat way because it's very
difficult to prove.
There'll be a lot ofconversations around if
something happens.
What does that mean Exactly?
Brittany S. Hale (15:27):
exactly?
And what do we call it right?
Naming things is very important, and ascribing a name to the
practices that we've beenengaged in for better or worse
helps us determine ourrelationship to it.
Yeah, and so when we look atWalmart Walmart rolling back
(15:49):
their center, where, again, toyour point, they dedicated space
and time and talent tomeasuring their impact, and it's
likely through this center andthrough their practices that we
know that about $13 billion ingoods and services go through
Walmart, through the businessesthat are owned by women, people
(16:14):
of color, veterans, right aswell, and so that's just in this
past year alone.
That's just in this past yearalone.
So if these businesses are nolonger given priority or are
instructed to be deprioritizedbecause of the people who own
(16:36):
them, how does that impactWalmart's bottom line?
So you know, the question isare we just now going to
practice the DEI policies andnot call it DEI?
It seems like a lot oforganizations are just hoping to
(16:56):
kind of fly under the radarwith that.
What's your thought on that?
Karen McFarlane (17:02):
fly under the radar with that.
What's your thought on that?
I think that's absolutely right.
I think the ones where it wasingrained from the very
beginning will continue to do soand just not name it.
I mean Walmart's changing theirchief diversity officer title
to chief belonging officer,right, which you know.
Same connotation.
This took the D, the E and theI out.
Same connotation this took theD, the E and the I out.
(17:26):
And so I think some of thechanges are definitely going to
be cosmetic.
For those who truly believe init and also believe it will come
back around, right, Four yearsis four years and things can
change in four years, and so itmight be safer, less riskier, to
just keep your head down.
Don't call it that and just youknow, keep working your plan.
(17:48):
For those who weren't fullyvested, it's a great get out of
jail, free card right.
And those who are somewhere inthe middle, they're going to
have to figure out what thatmeans for them.
I think that there can be hugeimplications, right.
So if we just take supplierdiversity, for example, that has
(18:10):
existed for decades upondecades, right Again, to right
the historical wrongs, Walmartremoving a supplier diversity
program is going to have hugeeconomic effect if they are
actually removing it and notjust rebranding it something
(18:33):
else, which we don't know.
I suspect they're just going torebrand it something else, Right
, but um and kind of you know,reinterpret the data in some
meaningful way.
So you know, if they have alarge percentage of female
(18:54):
buyers, right, then they'regoing to want to stock their
shelves with things that areattractive to female buyers and
that more than likely, will comefrom female suppliers, right,
Things of that nature.
So understanding their customerand having like a deeper, more
fuller understanding of that,which they probably do to some
(19:16):
extent right now, will probablystill fuel a lot of what they're
doing undercover, Right.
But when you are a hugeorganization and you say out
loud we're not doing thisanymore, then it just sends this
huge signal and, to all thecompanies that are not as huge
(19:37):
as Walmart and don't have theapparatus around them to defend
their activities, you're goingto want to play it really safe
for whatever that looks like forthem 100%, because, despite all
(20:01):
this talk about innovation andingenuity and all of this, most
companies don't want to be thefirst to do anything Right.
Brittany S. Hale (20:12):
They want to toe the line.
And so we're thinking aboutconflict, this kind of this gap
between what we want and whatwe're expecting or what we're
experiencing.
Again, I, even if I disagree Iunderstand the business strategy
to try to err on the side ofcaution, yeah.
(20:34):
At the same time, data works inmany ways right, so we
understand what's coming in.
But I also think it's importantto note that Pew, in October,
did a study and they found that52% of people in October still
(20:58):
said focusing on workplacediversity was mostly a good
thing.
Still said focusing onworkplace diversity was mostly a
good thing.
So a majority of people stillbelieve that this is worthwhile.
The survey that they did priorto that was in February 2023,
and it was at 56%.
(21:18):
So a little bit of a drop, notnecessarily one that I think
could justify these hugesweeping shifts to DEI.
Outside of the fact that theincoming administration has its
priorities and an executivewould be foolish not to listen,
(21:40):
not to take heed and plan forwhatever they have coming, we're
not saying ignore the incomingadministration.
What we are saying is there arestill a significant group of
consumers and you have to deeplyknow and understand your
(22:03):
consumers.
When you look at Walmart, who'sthere?
Who's there?
What do they want to see andwhat are you making money off of
?
You know, we know, that Walmartsare, in many places, the
cultural hub of some smallcities and towns.
(22:27):
That's correct.
It's the place where people goto get supplies, to congregate,
to socialize to.
You know, you will see somesupermoms, they have a bank and
a hair salon and you know a postoffice all of these things in
this one place.
So Walmart, you know it'srolling this back as a
(22:50):
legitimate business purpose maybe part of the strategy, but
also understanding the functionof Walmart and what they offer.
And to your point again, thereare women.
We know that the United StatesI believe as of now we are a
(23:14):
majority femme identifying groupI believe that there are more
women in the United States thanmen.
Someone will fact check me.
But, with that being said, ifwe are not prioritizing
women-owned businesses, if we'renot offering products that
(23:35):
people have been introduced togotten comfortable with,
developed relationships, withRight Supporting their growth,
correct, are people more likelyto just choose another brand, or
are they more likely to chooseanother store?
Karen McFarlane (23:57):
Yeah, or are they more likely to just pull
back, right?
So that's also a choice.
Just don't buy anything.
And what's also frustrating isI.
I thought it was just going tobe a blip, but it's not.
You know the rise of the meiargument um the merit,
(24:17):
excellence and uh.
Intelligence acronym that elonmusk supported quite vigorously,
and of course now he's in theadministration and so you know
we talked about this before in aprevious show, as if merit, uh,
(24:38):
excellence and intelligence wasnot part of the DEI framework.
But that's how it is being builtand it's an attractive
alternative.
Let's just be honest right.
It feels on face value umequitable and universal in the
(24:59):
language.
But again, we're ignoring, youknow, why this model hasn't
worked in the past?
Right, and I'll be clear, likeI agree that we have to name it
right, okay, okay, it could haveanother word, as long as the
(25:29):
practices are put into place andwe're acknowledging why we need
those practices in the firstplace.
Correct, because is has beenfor a select few, historically
speaking.
Right, that it was more aboutnepotism, um, you know, affinity
(25:51):
, bias, things of that nature,and those are, those are things
that are, those are unconsciouswithin people's psyche, right,
it's not that you can just flipa switch and these things go off
.
And that's the challenging partof just saying, hey, di is bad,
(26:14):
let's put MEI, and everybody'sjust going to be like, all right
, cool, let's just do that, dothat.
What are the policies andpractices that you're going to
put in to ensure that MEI is theframework that everyone is
using and is inclusive ofdifferent groups and is not
(26:35):
subject to bias and and and,which is exactly what DEI was
doing?
So, if your okie doke is tojust change DEI to MEI and do
the exact same thing, more powerto you.
Do the exact same thing as DEI.
More power to you because youbelieve in what the purpose was
(26:55):
in the first place.
Brittany S. Hale (26:58):
And it seems oh, no, go for it.
No, no, go for it.
Karen McFarlane (27:00):
Well, I was, I was gonna say you're not gonna
acknowledge this is the reasonwhy it was there, then it's it's
.
It's not gonna work and we'regonna be right back in the same
place yeah, two things itreminds me of.
Brittany S. Hale (27:12):
The first point is, uh, me, I suggest that
there's only one particulargroup that can objectively
determine whether or notsomething is discriminatory.
True, and that's problematic,because how are we?
What is the objective level?
(27:33):
Or is, is the center spoke,whether or not a Christian,
heterosexual, able-bodied whitemale feels excluded, and
anything that's outside of thator challenges that or brings up
difficult feelings, is thereforenot an extension of MEI and
must be eradicated.
So that's one question, but Idon't know, have you seen Wicked
(27:57):
?
Not yet?
Okay, not a spoiler if you'relistening or watching, but
there's a particular line whereone of the characters says to
the professor I don't know whyyou can't just teach us history
without going on and on and onabout things that already
happened in the past.
(28:18):
And this seems to be what we'retalking about.
Right, just um, teach ushistory, but nothing that makes
us uncomfortable.
Yeah, um, let's do business,but only to the extent that it
centers me.
(28:38):
Yeah, yeah, don't.
You know and I bring this upbecause you're talking about the
reason why we have DEI policiesor MEI policies, right, which
is to provide the historical,systemic, the problematic and
(28:59):
systemic inequities that haveplagued this country since
before it was a country, and itseems that there's this
cognitive dissonance betweenwhat got us here and where we're
standing, and it seems like theincoming administration doesn't
(29:21):
necessarily want us to examineall of the things that have
gotten us here and why we needthese anti-discrimination laws
and want to instead just saylet's just get rid of it.
I also want to bring attentionto RFK, who's also part of the
(29:50):
incoming administration, andhave you heard RFK's recent
comments on racism?
What'd he say?
So he says let's see, I justwant to pull it up.
I do not want to misquote him.
Let's not misquote him, yes, sohe hosted a town hall, and so
(30:16):
RFK Jr.
He hosted a town hall with EricB, of Eric B and Rakim, and he
discussed racism and Blackchildren specifically in the
United States.
And he says that we should armAfrican-American boys and girls
with education and resilience soracism will bounce off of them
like the Avengers.
(30:37):
And so he says it's more likelythat we will be able to teach
them resilience and help themdeal with racism than it is to
(30:57):
eradicate racism from the UnitedStates, which I thought again
that I don't necessarilydisagree with.
Right, it's as American asapple pie.
So, rfk, I agree with you onthat point.
However, the fallacy in thatargument is the belief that
(31:18):
African Americans haven't beenarming their children like the
Avengers for decades, if notcenturies.
Since this country has beenfounded, there have been
different conversations, and somy question is when you have
(31:43):
Black children that you'repreparing them, right, you are
going to encounter people whotreat you poorly.
You're going to you need to beresilient to suggest that we
should do this so the childrencan be super human.
Right, like the Avengers, theAvengers are superheroes, right,
you have to be super, above andbeyond a human reaction to what
you're experiencing and we donot offer the same for children
of other backgrounds,specifically white children, who
(32:05):
may be the proponents of thisbehavior that could be harmful.
Why are we not having thatconversation with these white
children?
Because we want to arm them, wewant them to be superheroes as
well and be so anti-racist andso aware of the types of
(32:26):
behavior that could be harmfulto other people that they
unequivocally say no, that mayhave been the America of old.
That is not our America now.
Karen McFarlane (32:37):
Yeah, no, he really is just talking about
modern day slavery, right, sincewe've since Black people were
pulled over on the ships, okay,to to face these types of
atrocities, they have built up aresilience that no normal human
should have to have.
Right, they weren't eventreated like humans, despite
(32:59):
being humans, and that has beeningrained in our DNA since all
of this happened for hundreds ofyears.
So what he's talking about ispure nonsense.
It's really just saying wedon't want to change, okay, so
just keep doing what yourancestors did and everything
will be all right.
And what's also quitefascinating about that statement
(33:23):
and you know even your commentabout let's not learn about
history, the uncomfortable partsof history is that when you
watch television, for example,right, you know television and
you watch these period pieces,it has become normal and
glorifying of history whenEuropeans or Americans right,
(33:49):
particularly Europeans, thoughare colonizing different
countries, right.
And the atrocities and thebrutality, we watch that as
normal, accepted behavior inhistory.
That does not make anyoneuncomfortable.
But the minute you talk aboutslavery or Japanese internment
(34:15):
camps and things of that nature,the minute you talk about that
aspect in a very focused way,all of a sudden it's
uncomfortable.
You weren't uncomfortable whenyour ancestors were ripping the
guts out of people anddisplaying them for the whole
(34:38):
town to see Public executions.
You weren't uncomfortable withall of these wars that were
waged and all of the violenceand the deaths just to take over
a territory.
You weren't uncomfortable withall of those things.
It's in every single movie thatwe've watched about history
(34:59):
european and american history.
So why is that not making youuncomfortable?
Brittany S. Hale (35:06):
well, I think it's not only for the reason of
um perception and marketing,right, because when we see a
period piece or a period drama,we drop these people in the
world that's happening aroundthem, but we want to center it
(35:28):
on these two unique individualsso we can have that cognitive
dissonance that are falling inlove, right, this is a love
story.
And so we can marvel at thebeautiful silk gowns without
wondering where the silk camefrom.
We can marvel at you know thegold-tipped it out in the Wild
(36:00):
West without wondering where thepeople who inhabited that land
went.
Or you know an esteemed Britishman who made his fortune in
exports in the 1800s.
We know what that means.
Oh, I get the little bubble.
(36:21):
We know what that means, but wedon't have to ask.
It's quite ugly and it'sdiscouraged from asking well,
what were you exporting?
Or who are you exporting, orwho?
Right, and so.
So then we, we get to revisitthese situations, even when you
(36:43):
go to um.
We have living history allaround us, but we've sanitized
it, we've distanced ourselves,and I think that is the the
trouble and the problem, andthat's why we have such
difficulty and resistance to DEI, because we don't connect the
two, why you need to diversifyyour workplace or why you need
(37:19):
to give priority to Black-ownedbusinesses Like.
It's very fascinating to me tosee that you can separate the
two so keenly.
Karen McFarlane (37:29):
You know, and particularly women right.
So just talking about whitewomen, if you look at your
period pieces right, like womenrecently just got their rights
right.
They couldn't do anything.
They couldn't only have theirbank accounts, they couldn't.
They just passed around as likebaby making mills.
And do you want to go backthere?
Yeah right, that is your recenthistory, okay, recent, and so
(37:54):
if you, just yeah.
Brittany S. Hale (37:59):
Okay, recent, the year I was born was the
first year that a woman couldown a business by herself
without having a man.
Wow Right, I don't think that Ilook that old.
So.
Karen McFarlane (38:18):
You're not, you're a baby.
So it's recent, very recenthistory, Very recent history
Right, we're living through it.
Brittany S. Hale (38:28):
So in the span of my life to our lifetime,
both of us business owners.
To my knowledge, you're thesole owner of your business, as
am I.
We would not have been able todo that.
Karen McFarlane (38:46):
I just don't get it.
I just don't, I don'tunderstand.
I guess I don't understandbecause we're the ones being
potentially affected by all ofthis and I guess other groups
have felt threatened for a verylong time and this is their
(39:10):
opportunity to enact somepolicies to slow down the
progress that other groups aremaking.
And it's very sad.
And I actually was reallyhopeful I'll still remain
hopeful because you can't giveup, right.
But I was really hopeful thatthese big corporations would
just be like okay, well, we'regoing to do what's best to build
(39:34):
our business, and I think theystill will.
At the end of the day, I believethe ones again that I said
before were committed will bakeit in.
They'll figure it out.
It might not be as aggressiveas it was.
It was already waning to somedegree anyway and they'll just
(39:57):
wait it out until the next termand they'll call it something
else and they'll keep pressingon.
I just urge the smallercompanies, the mid-sized
companies, to figure out theirapproach, because workforce
diversity, figure out theirapproach, because workforce
(40:21):
diversity, inclusiveness, equityas your center to creating all
of this is key to your success.
And that doesn't change becausean administration or anybody,
okay, has got their feelingshurt.
Okay, you want to reach intoyour business and affect it.
It doesn't change the facts.
So you know, businesses arevery creative and that's why
(40:42):
they exist.
Yes, yes, continue beingcreative.
Brittany S. Hale (40:50):
Yeah, and I really just think that's that's,
and I I really just thinkthat's that's.
It is the need for creativity.
Now is the time for creativityand innovation, because we know
what the buying power of theseparticular groups is and it is
not good business sense toalienate billions of dollars
(41:14):
worth of commerce.
And I understand that, elon.
You know he's spoken aboutthere being hard economic times.
You know that are coming withthe transition.
(41:36):
But assuming that he doesn'tspeak for the president,
assuming that the president is,you know, we don't know what the
tone and tenor of thatrelationship is.
We can make some guesses, butthe one thing that I do think is
interesting is that DonaldTrump seems to he loves ratings.
(41:58):
Right, this is a reality TVstar, so he wants to go in the
sway of what the people want.
You know you gotta give thepeople what they want and this
doesn't seem like the peoplewant it.
Karen McFarlane (42:17):
So we'll see.
It doesn't seem so, but thepeople have to scream a little
bit louder.
Brittany S. Hale (42:21):
The people are going to have to scream louder
and the people are going to.
I look at Starbucks as anexample.
Right, starbucks lost billionsin one quarter due to people
boycotting them for variousreasons, and the result of that
was they had a new CEO, they hadnew business practices to
(42:54):
revamp and take back who theypurported to be, which is this
luxury coffee house where youcould go in and, you know, be
part of the elite and listen to.
You know, listen to acid jazzand write the next great
(43:15):
American novel with yourorganically sourced coffee.
And that's what they're hopingto work toward.
But they had to make changesbecause they knew what they were
doing wasn't working.
Similarly, for the people wholove Walmart, the question is if
(43:38):
you love Walmart but you don'tlove their practices, do you
still shop there?
Do you move with your feet?
Do you make a statement withyour wallet?
A tweet isn't necessarily goingto do it, right?
Karen McFarlane (43:51):
Right, yeah, you have to choose your causes
and your battles and do it inmultiple different ways.
Tweet about it with your walletshare with your friends, get
perspectives, comment onWalmart's customer service feed.
Let them know that you're aconsumer and you're concerned
(44:16):
about this.
Right, your voice really doesmatter and, like I said, I'm
optimistic.
It's four years, right, thetides can turn.
The tides have turned on DEIbefore it will turn again, and
so we just have to stay thecourse and continue to fight the
fight.
And I have a little thing in mythroat and, at the end of the
(44:39):
day, right, you need to justpartner with you know people who
understand what you're tryingto do and can help you find
creative and innovative ways tomove forward.
So that's me.
Brittany S. Hale (44:50):
Yeah, I guess the question that I will leave
you with, and maybe we cananswer it next time, is with
corporations ousting, concealingwhatever their DEI policies, is
this the resurgence of smallbusiness?
(45:11):
Small business, Is this now anopportunity for smaller
businesses to attract moreclients, more customers who want
different?
Karen McFarlane (45:29):
That's a great teaser for next time.
Brittany S. Hale (45:33):
I have answers .
Mina told it to me, that wasMina's contribution.
Karen McFarlane (45:39):
Thank you, mina .
As always, brittany, it wasfantastic discussing these
issues with you.
I always learn from you, so Ihope the audience is like you.
See ya, till next time.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.