Social credit in America - Politics invades personal finance

Finance
2584

Of course many DEI corporate policies are likely violating civil rights and equality under the law, but now under Trump it’s not just the colleges who are on notice. Companies seeking government contracts or merger approval will be scrutinized also.

Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said the FCC will block mergers and acquisitions from media companies that promote DEI policies. “Any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination,” Carr said in an interview with Bloomberg Friday.

President Trump has used to wind down certain Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (“DEI” or “DEIA”) programs within the federal government and related to its work. Notably, these Executive Orders led to the termination of DEI contracts with agencies and prohibited federal contractors and grant recipients from engaging in “illegal DEI”.

2 Likes
2585

I don’t understand how that fits with the picture of free markets and free enterprise. If DEI programs are so detrimental to the companies enacting them, if they keep hiring subpar employees because of them, if they waste their money on it for no tangible gains, why not let companies shoot themselves in the foot and let the market sort itself out. It feels like micromanaging what does not need to be.

With Dems, people were tripping over themselves to come up with DEI policies to not get cancelled by the woke train. Now it appears companies will be wasting time and energy again figuring out what they need to do to kiss a different ring. And the way the economy is going, they may even need to reverse it all in 4 years again, if not 2. This whole three-ring circus back and forth seems like such as waste of time and energy.

2586

Because with mandated DEI programs, there was no shooting themselves in the foot because of the government contracts. They hired worse employees because they had to to get paid. The government was the ones shooting itself, because the government was the one receiving the lower quality of work.

And, at least the quote says what is prohibited is “Illegal DEI” - as in, discriminatory practices. So they’re welcome to continue having DEI programs, they just cant use such programs as cover for blatantly illegal discrimination.

The only thing terminated was government contracts with DEI consultants.

2 Likes
2587

Then just lift the mandate for companies to have DEI programs to get government contracts. I agree that was an abuse of government influence. But instead we go to reverse discrimination basically. We risk picking companies for contracts, not because they’re the best value but because they’re the most anti-DEI. Stupidity either way. Government should award contracts on price vs performance alone. Then companies would be free to keep their DEI programs only if it truly helps their bottom line.

If discrimination was clear cut illegal - like obviously based on protected classes -, why not prosecute them instead of threatening to withhold funding or contracts? Why bar mergers of these companies? Either they have illegal DEI policies that are discriminatory (and we should prosecute them to make them stop altogether not only for government contracts) or they have legal DEI policies that the administration just don’t like but cannot do anything about. So why not prosecute the illegal DEI policies instead if the law is truly on your side and you have the DoJ to go after them and then leave the legal DEI programs alone if companies insist on keeping them even after they’re no longer mandated.

Just threatening to withhold funding/contracts or block mergers from companies that have alleged illegal DEI programs, looks to me like straight bullying of companies you don’t like the DEI programs of, when you realize you cannot prosecute them.

1 Like
2588

An alternate non- woke company is Hydro-flask.

https://www.hydroflask.com/

Edit. This is not their first entry to woke politics

2589

I dont understand. If you dont like an organization, you dont donate to them. It seems really really petty to refuse to sell them stuff with a standard order. Shareholders should be outraged.

2590

Did you read the article? It’s not the organization they don’t like, they just have a list of “political” words that are not allowed on their merchandise. Seems fine to me.

1 Like
2591

Did you read the article you linked? There’s no entry into politics, they simply stopped old group discounts.

2 Likes
2592

They’re still at fault for inconsistent enforcement of their own policy. If they had a clear cut list of words that they won’t print on their products, they should have refused the previous order along with an explanation of which word(s) were not acceptable. In this day and age, it shouldn’t be difficult to have an automated process for this. And forwarding the customers the policy itself would also go a long way towards removing the appearance of arbitrary refusing their business.

NRA scream about persecution any time the wind does not blow in their direction. Whatever, the outrage boils does to a few tiktoks of a bunch of rednecks who need to spend $100s for new coolers and mugs (aka click bait nothing burger), except now way more expensive due to China tariffs lol.

2 Likes
2593

It says in the article that they did this in the cancellation email for the second order. They also apologized for missing it the first time (in the article, not in the email).

2594

“Conservative women” is a banned political word?

If a word is appropriate enough to be part of an organization’s widely-circulated name, there’s no reason that name cant be printed on merchandise. As I said, they arent donating or supporting the organization, they arent affiliating with anyone; they’re simply selling their merchandise to whomever wants to buy it.

Such filters are typically about profanity and obscenity. No, I hadnt read the full article, but now that I have, it is even worse self-righteous pettiness.

2595

I’d guess it’s just “conservative”, which likely makes it political. Maybe they don’t want it because their own YETI logo is prominently featured on all the merchandise.

2596

This is a real shame :smiling_face_with_tear:

1 Like
2597

LOL. Hollywood kowtowing to China is an embarrassment anyway.

2598

Do people seriously see the KKK getting drinks out of a yeti branded cooler and think “wow, I didn’t know yeti supports the KKK!”?

Because I see that and the only thing I think is that those KKK members apparently like cold drinks. It would never cross my mind that someone buying your product indicates you support or endorse their cause.

2599

I don’t know what you’re looking at. Did YETI put a KKK logo on their mugs?

2600

Sorry, I didnt feel like typing out “The Clare Boothe Luce Center for Conservative Women” so I just cherrypicked another much shorter example.

Besides, I still feel this has to be satire, where either “conservative” or “women” is being considered a dirty word too offensive to print. So I went with a different reference that was much less ambiguous with it’s reputation.

Either way, it has nothing to do with my point, and the fact it is the only part you choose to respond to really speaks to the point I made in the 2024 politics thread.

2601

It wouldn’t cross my mind either, but that’s probably because you and I are not members of an angry mob that’s easily triggered by every little thing that could be perceived as triggering. And whoever is in charge at YETI doesn’t want to trigger one angry mob. They don’t want to trigger the other angry mob either, but that seems difficult these days. Someone is always getting offended :slight_smile:

2602

It’s a shame that the DEI sickness is so deep at JPL. They have done some good work.

1 Like
2603

Trump vs the Ivy League racists

Many Ivy League presidents see themselves as heirs to the civil-rights movement. In fact, they are among the most active practitioners of racial discrimination, stereotyping, and segregation in America today. Shielded by a virtuous public image, elite universities have institutionalized discrimination against disfavored racial groups, implemented DEI policies based on racial rewards and penalties, hired and promoted faculty according to skin color rather than merit, and overseen racially segregated student programs, dormitories, and graduation ceremonies.

The Trump administration has ruptured this illusion. In a series of letters to Ivy League presidents, it has threatened to withhold billions in federal funding, citing violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination policies.

If they resist, the president should not hesitate to cut off funding until they comply. Universities are free to operate as independent institutions and reject federal money—but if they choose to accept billions in taxpayer dollars, they must follow the law.

Harvard for example was given a list of demands they didn’t like and rejected, including these entirely reasonable ones -

Merit-Based Hiring Reform.

By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

Merit-Based Admissions Reform.

By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.

I liked the dig on plagiarism rules being enforced, given their last president and top DEI officer were both exposed as frauds.

Not just billions in taxpayer funding are up for liberation, but the tax exempt status of the endowments are being threatened as well. As an alum I say “Good - let them be high minded racists on their own dime.”

2 Likes