Connect with us

Tech News

One point everyone can agree on in the DEI debate

Published

on

I was recently interviewed by Fortune on the debate around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. As the CEO of a nonprofit that represents shareholders, I approach the issue of human capital management from a financial and business perspective. After all, it is the fiduciary duty of investors and their representatives—among them asset and retirement fund managers—to reduce material risk and optimize long-term financial sustainability for all stakeholders.

In the interview, I stated that opponents of corporate diversity programs are forcing companies to “underperform.” I was pleased to see that over 1,000 comments were posted in places the interview appeared and that most proponents and detractors had more in common than they may realize. We all seem to agree that employees need to be hired and promoted based on “merit”—that people should be judged on their qualifications and work product, not gender, race, or ethnicity.

I also realized there’s a surprisingly simple way to bring people together on this divisive issue: using a common definition. I propose this one:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people based on merit.

Notice it doesn’t say that diversity is about creating “race quotas” or discriminating against white men (both are illegal). Diversity programs are meant to promote workers based on merit for “all people”—not just women, veterans, people with disabilities, and non-whites. Businesses need DEI to eliminate all-too common “glass ceilings” that override merit to block women and people of color from promotions that maximize business outcomes.

So how do we achieve meritocracy when the people making hiring and promotion decisions may have unconscious bias, as they are naturally more at ease and understand applicants who look like them, grew up in similar circumstances, and went to the same universities? How can viewpoints from different lived experiences help build high-performance teams to solve business problems? The answer is exposing bias with diversity training.

Nondiscrimination in corporations isn’t just an ethical or legal obligation, it’s good for business. At As You Sow, we analyzed 1.5 million data points measuring gender and race from 1,641 public companies over five years. We found an undeniable statistically significant correlation across sectors that teams with more diverse management outperformed teams with less diversity on eight financial metrics, including: enterprise value growth rate, free cash flow per share, return on invested capital (ROIC), and 10-year total revenue compound annual growth rate (CAGR). In short, if you look at the data, there is no doubt that greater diversity leads to financial outperformance. 

A thoughtful commenter of my interview correctly stated, “DEI increased excellence. It was normalized discrimination that sacrifices excellence.” Another added, “Organizations have found that diverse workforces are far more innovative and productive because they benefit from a wider range of thought patterns and experiences.” Given that the data shows greater diversity leads to financial outperformance, why so much resistance?

Studies show members of majority groups may perceive actual meritocracy as “zero-sum,” assuming if someone else makes gains that they will necessarily incur losses. Another common response is to deny the existence of discrimination in the corporation, or for white men to distance themselves from it personally by arguing they are unbiased. A level playing field may feel like punishment, especially for those used to “failing up.”

Much of the misinformation about DEI comes from conservative politicians and biased social media agitators pandering to those objections. They play to insecurities of white males because they know riling up the base is good for voter turnout. However, opposition to diversity efforts goes beyond healthy debate. A recent presidential executive order banning DEI from federal activities shows opponents aim to eliminate diversity by mandate.

For every company that rolls back an aspect of DEI, there are a thousand more continuing diversity programs. Because as JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently said in defiance of political pressure, DEI is “proper and legal.” Management teams from Costco to Apple have publicly defended diversity programs as essential to their business. Why else would high-profile business leaders take a public stand despite likely political blowback?

When shareholder resolutions meant to end DEI programs were voted on at annual shareholder meetings this year at Deere, Costco, and Apple, more than 98% of investors rejected proposals calling for management to end current diversity efforts. That’s because unlike politicians and online agitators, investors and their representatives have a legal duty to support programs that increase shareholder value.

I often get asked if DEI is on the way out. The acronym may change and there may be fewer references in public reports due to attacks on free speech, but diversity that creates a meritocratic culture and delivers positive business results will never be eliminated. If there’s one thing corporations can be counted on to do, it’s to maximize profits.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech News

Proposed Trump policy could force thousands of citizens applying for social security benefits to verify their identities in person

Published

on

By

Trump’s Social Security Administration proposed a major change that could force thousands of people every week to show up at a shrinking list of field offices before they can receive benefits.

In an effort to combat fraud, the SSA has suggested that citizens applying for social security or disability benefits over the phone would also need to, for the first time, verify their identities using an online program called “internet ID proofing,” according to an internal memo viewed by the Washington Post.

If they can’t verify their identity online, they will have to file paperwork at their nearest field office, according to the memo sent last week by Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations Doris Diaz to Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek.

The memo acknowledged the potential change could force an estimated 75,000 to 85,000 people per week to seek out field offices to confirm their identities and could lead to “increased challenges for vulnerable populations,” “longer wait times and processing time,” and “increased demand for office appointments,” the memo read, according to the Post

The change would disproportionately affect older populations who may not be internet savvy, and those with disabilities. Claimants seeking a field office will also have fewer to choose from, as more than 40 of 1,200 are estimated to close, the New York Times reported, citing advocacy group Social Security Works. The list of offices slated to close is based on an unreliable list released by DOGE, according to Social Security Works. Elon Musk’s DOGE has also said it will cut 7,000 of the SSA’s 57,000 employees. 

The White House and the Social Security Administration did not immediately respond to Fortune‘s request for comment.

The SSA previously considered scrapping telephone service for claims, the Post reported, but backtracked after a report by the outlet. Regardless, the SSA said claimants looking to change their bank account information will now need to do so either online or in-person and could no longer do so over the phone.

Almost every transaction at a field office requires an appointment that already takes months to realize, according to the Post. 

The White House has repeatedly said it will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicare benefits, and has said any changes are to cut back on fraud. A July 2024 report from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general estimated that between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2022, the SSA sent out $8.6 trillion in disbursements. Fewer than 1% of the disbursements, or $71.8 billion worth were improper payments, according to the report.

Acting Social Security Commissioner Dudek said for phone calls, the agency is “exploring ways to implement AI — in a safe, governed manner in accordance with” guidance from the Office of Management and Budget “to streamline and improve call resolution,” according to a Tuesday memo obtained by NBC News.

Dudek mentioned in the memo that the agency has been frequently mentioned in the media, which has been stressing out employees.

“Over the past month, this agency has seen an unprecedented level of media coverage, some of it true and deserved, while some has not been factual and painted the agency in a very negative light,” he wrote. “I know this has been stressful for you and has caused disruption in your life. Personally, I have made some mistakes, which makes me human like you. I promise you this, I will continue to make mistakes, but I will learn from them. My decisions will always be with the best intentions for this agency, the people we serve, and you.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Continue Reading

Tech News

4 health benefits of rosemary, including a hidden compound scientists could potentially use to fight Alzheimer’s

Published

on

By

As you place sprigs of rosemary on a pan to roast alongside chicken or in a garlicky loaf of bread, you may not be thinking about the potential health properties this common herb is wielding.

It turns out, rosemary is a well-studied herb with myriad benefits—from boosting hair growth to potentially helping fight cancer.

Here’s how to take advantage of this natural health powerhouse.

Stimulate hair growth

While there are countless hair-growth supplements and hacks that circulate social media, rosemary oil, extracted from rosemary plants, is a tried-and-true tool to boost hair growth, backed by science.

In one study comparing the effectiveness of rosemary oil compared to minoxidil—a common medication used to stimulate hair growth in men and women—participants saw significant hair growth from both products after six months, with no difference between the two treatments’ effectiveness.

A comprehensive review of studies on the hair loss condition alopecia demonstrated that rosemary oil is an effective treatment due to its ability to improve scalp blood flow and enhance the regeneration of the hair follicles.

Improve skin health

Rosemary also has the potential to help heal the skin, according to a 2023 review of studies. Oxidative stress to the skin, caused by things like ultraviolet (UV) light, environmental pollution and chronic psychological stress, can damage the skin and lead to further skin aging and may play a role in skin cancer, according to researchers.

But thanks to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, rosemary could help treat some skin diseases either when ingested or applied to the skin.

Anticancer properties

Rosemary’s anticancer potential is more than skin deep: Ingesting rosemary was found to help stop the activation of carcinogens, increase antioxidant enzyme activities, reduce tumor-stimulating inflammation, decrease cell growth (which can lead to the production of cancerous cells), stimulate programmed cell death, and suppress tumor growth and invasion, according to a 2020 study.

Brain health and Alzheimer’s treatment

The benefits of rosemary extend to your nervous system, according to a 2020 review of studies. Rosemary extract showed anti-spasm, pain-relieving, anti-inflammatory, anti-anxiety and memory-boosting properties.

The study concluded that components of rosemary show promise in the treatment of anxiety, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and withdrawal syndrome, researchers found.

For Alzheimer’s in particular, a January 2025 study in mice linked a compound found in rosemary to boosts in memory, more neuron synapses, reduced inflammation, and greater removal of toxic proteins that are linked to Alzheimer’s. It was administered to mice three times a week for three months, with no observable toxic effects. 

How to use rosemary for your health

All of the studies on rosemary have limitations: The use different a dose as well as different methods of extracting and administering rosemary, making it difficult to put the findings into clinical practice. In the anticancer study, authors also raised concerns about chronic use of rosemary extract becoming toxic.

While the Food and Drug Administration designates rosemary extract as generally recognized as safe (GRaS), there is no recommended daily allowance. Talk to your doctor before taking any supplement to make sure it’s safe for you.

The most common forms of rosemary are the herb or as an essential oil. You should not ingest the essential oil as it is highly concentrated and can be toxic when ingested, according to Poison Control. If you want to apply it to your skin, they recommend diluting it with a carrier oil like jojoba or argan oil. Rosemary essential oil is generally safe when inhaled through an aroma diffuser.

To reap the benefits of rosemary, you can steep the herb in boiling water and drink it as a tea, or make it a regular part of your cooking.

Mount Sinai Hospital advises, however, that pregnant and nursing women avoid taking rosemary as a supplement, as higher doses can potentially cause miscarriage—but, it is still safe to consume as an herb in food. Additionally, people with high blood pressure, ulcers, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis should not take rosemary.

For more on supplements:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Continue Reading

Tech News

Exclusive: Superlawyer David Boies expected to hit Boeing with wrongful death suit spurred by suicide of whistleblower John Barnett

Published

on

By

Attorney David Boies and the legal team that have long championed the case of the late Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, are expected to file a “wrongful death suit” against the troubled aerospace colossus, Fortune has learned. A little over a year ago, after giving two days of testimony in a long-running action versus Boeing, Barnett was found dead after spending the entire night in his Clemson orange, Dodge Ram truck, his finger on the trigger of a sliver Smith and Weston pistol, and a note sitting next to his body. In May, an investigation by the Charleston Police Department found that Barnett had committed suicide by putting by putting a bullet through his head. (You can read the full story of Barnett’s life and tragic death in our feature here.)

Fortune is the first to report the news of the expected suit and Boies’ involvement. When asked for comment, Boeing provided the following statement to Fortune: “We are saddened by John Barnett’s death and extend our condolences to his family.”

Barnett’s passing didn’t end his crusade to make Boeing expose blatant violations of its own policies and procedures that he claims to have experienced in his seven years at the 787 Dreamliner factory in North Charleston, South Carolina. Starting in 2017, just before Barnett left Boeing due to the onset of PTSD and panic and anxiety attacks, Charleston attorneys Rob Turkewitz and Brian Knowles sued Boeing on a so-called Air21 complaint under an Office of Health and Safety Administration law that protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers. But the wrongful death suit versus Boeing is a new action that’s being introduced in addition to the OSHA or regulatory suit. The team will strive to prove “causation” showing that Boeing’s specific actions caused the workplace stress that led him to suicide. And the Trukewitz-Knowles duo added big time firepower by engaging Boies, Schiller et al. to join the campaign, and especially in getting the 84-year old founder who’d won a landmark antitrust case for the US Justice Department against Microsoft, represented the Al Gore campaign in the 2000 Florida presidential recount and garnered big settlements for the Jeffrey Epstein victims to take a leading role in both cases. (Boies, it should also be noted stirred controversy for his representation of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, who’s serving time for sexual offenses, and Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos.)

The OSHA and new wrongful death suit each seeks financial damages on behalf of Barnett’s estate, including Vicky Stokes and his brothers Rodney, Michael and Robbie Barnett. “When we got the police and autopsy reports concluding that John had taken his own life, Brian and I issued a press release expressing our sadness and stating that ‘while Boeing may not have pulled the trigger, the company is legally responsible for his death,'” Turkewitz told Fortune. Boeing greatly hardened its stance, he says, after it became clear that the Barnett lawyers were also seeking to file a wrongful death case.

Up against what he characterizes as a small army of Boeing lawyers, Turkewitz and Knowles decided they needed to engage powerful reinforcements. So Turkewitz turned to his old friend Boies. The two had collaborated in the late 1990s, securing a big verdict in an asbestos liability case in New York City. “David’s one of the best lawyers in America,” said Turkewitz. “He got to know the Barnett family. He took the case not because the dollars are huge but because of the message we’d be sending.” Boies is working closely on the cases with Boies, Schiller et al. managing partner Sigrid McCawley.

Boies blasts “the old Boeing arrogance”

When this writer interviewed Boies in mid March at his rambling country home set in horse country north of Manhattan in Amonk, New York, the litigator was in full reformer mode. Boies, who’d turned 84 the previous week, insisted that Barnett was a hero who embodied just the kind of dedication to diligently following safety rules that Boeing now needs to restore its reputation. Attired in a vintage blue suit over red-and-green plaid work shirt and Sketchers shoes, Boies told me, “He wasn’t looking for anything for himself. He was just looking to make airplanes safe. And they immediately wanted to bury him because they considered any kind of criticism a threat. If they’d listened to people like Barnett all along, they wouldn’t have had the problems that injured them so badly.”

Boies says that in the litigation, Boeing adopted a “scorched earth policy” that “you see from time to time, but thankfully not often.” He professes amazement that leadership isn’t settling the Barnett case as part of an initiative symbolizing that Boeing’s shedding its recently troubled past to find a new direction. “They should be celebrating Barnett instead of continuing to try to ignore his example of doing the right thing,” he allows. For Boies, the new management keeps using the right words, but contradicting its position by not admitting openly to its past mistakes. “They purport to want to close the door to the past. But every time you bring up the kind of specific abuses Barnett identified, they deny them. The old Boeing arrogance and refusal to accept criticism comes back,” declares Boies.

Says Turkewitz, “John’s death has been devastating for his family and friends. John’s mom Vicky and his brothers are amazing people and want to continue John’s mission to protect the flying public. We had hoped to resolve the cases at mediation, but unfortunately reached an impasse.”

Boies expects the wrongful death case to go to trial

As for the cases, Boies recounts that the two sides have discussed a deal that would settle both actions in a single package. “But I don’t think we ever got into a narrow enough range,” he says. “It was clear they were not willing to be reasonable in terms of numbers. They want to treat this like they’re an insurance company that doesn’t want to pay out any money.” He believes that in the OSHA case, the administrative judge will award the Barnetts a settlement if the two sides don’t reach an agreement beforehand. “Boeing will mainly argue about the amount to be paid,” he says. In the wrongful death action, he adds, the outcome will hinge on whether Boeing’s alleged harassment of Barnett on the job that he claims brought on post dramatic stress syndrome and anxiety and panic attacks was legally responsible for his demise, when he took his own life. “It will be the argument ‘We didn’t pull the trigger, we didn’t push him off a ledge,'” says Boies. “But I think we know a lot about PTSD today and the effects it can have in destroying a person’s life.”

Boies believes the wrongful death case will go to trial, and Turkewitz agrees. The Charleston attorney predicts that Boeing will fight hard to prevent it from getting before a jury. “Boeing’s lawyers will argue that it’s frivolous, they’ll file motions and seek summary judgment to block it,” he says. Both Turkewitz and Boies believe that Barnett’s ultimate vindication may be from the judgment of twelve Americans assessing whether Boeing caused the death of this passionate maverick by punishing him for a crusade that, had leadership joined in, could have saved a great American institution from its steep fall from grace.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 NewsBiz.online