3. Coca-Cola took a strong social justice stand, do they really get away with stopping at a platitude while not changing their entire business model? Why would they continue to actively produce and sell products that damage the BIPOC community? If they were serious would they not stop producing unhealthy drinks and alcohol? If this doesn't play out exactly why brands should not step into these waters, then I do not know what does.
4. DEI programs as political activism is a mistaken placement, or at least it should be.. A DEI program should be focused on creating an environment where inclusive and proportional representation can occur. This includes liberal, conservative, BIPOC, white, Muslim, evangelical, gay, straight, trans, veterans, and disabled. Political activism by a corporation is going to drive against the objective, it actively creates an unwelcome space for folks on the other side of the line.
Finally, considering you cannot get a job without an ID legally should we not be extremely concerned about the idea that a sizable number of BIPOC's are disenfranchised from voting when an ID is required? Georgia specifically went so far as allowing a bill as a form of ID, if that's racist and Jim Eagle we have some very concerning policies when it comes to I-9 paperwork, income tax, banking, flying, and firearm acquisition. Apparently, we need to create "get an ID" campaign's post haste.
I can't help but notice that the majority of the company leaders asking for a separation between work and advocacy are white men. Granted, most people holding these positions are white and male(which itself is a problem), but I would be curious to know how the handful of minority tech heads feel about this. What do black women in the c-suite say? Or the queer latinx CMO? Does the Korean CTO want to avoid discussions about attacks on AAPI members? They might be in total agreement with Basecamp leadership on this. But maybe not.
Thanks for the piece, David. Undeniable that this is something that will continue to be a hot topic for discussion. For the flip side of the discussion, Milton Friedman's now-famous New York Times Magazine piece from 1970s is worth a read for the argument the other way. There certainly is fodder to discuss merits and (as Jason said) the downsides to the mix. http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
Lets take Coca-Cola as an example to talk about where this goes:
1. Many studies show a link between sugary drinks and early deaths/obesity in the BIPOC community. Unquestionably these studies seem to indicate that soda is a significant contributing factor to early and higher mortality rates. (https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/12/110751/minorities-health-would-benefit-most-beverage-sugar-tax-ucsf-researchers-report)
2. Native Americans have the highest alcoholism rates in the country, a major product line for Coca-Cola. Further, it seems that Hispanic and African American communities are significantly under-reporting alcoholism. https://www.alcohol.org/alcoholism-and-race/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140224204859.htm
3. Coca-Cola took a strong social justice stand, do they really get away with stopping at a platitude while not changing their entire business model? Why would they continue to actively produce and sell products that damage the BIPOC community? If they were serious would they not stop producing unhealthy drinks and alcohol? If this doesn't play out exactly why brands should not step into these waters, then I do not know what does.
4. DEI programs as political activism is a mistaken placement, or at least it should be.. A DEI program should be focused on creating an environment where inclusive and proportional representation can occur. This includes liberal, conservative, BIPOC, white, Muslim, evangelical, gay, straight, trans, veterans, and disabled. Political activism by a corporation is going to drive against the objective, it actively creates an unwelcome space for folks on the other side of the line.
Finally, considering you cannot get a job without an ID legally should we not be extremely concerned about the idea that a sizable number of BIPOC's are disenfranchised from voting when an ID is required? Georgia specifically went so far as allowing a bill as a form of ID, if that's racist and Jim Eagle we have some very concerning policies when it comes to I-9 paperwork, income tax, banking, flying, and firearm acquisition. Apparently, we need to create "get an ID" campaign's post haste.
I can't help but notice that the majority of the company leaders asking for a separation between work and advocacy are white men. Granted, most people holding these positions are white and male(which itself is a problem), but I would be curious to know how the handful of minority tech heads feel about this. What do black women in the c-suite say? Or the queer latinx CMO? Does the Korean CTO want to avoid discussions about attacks on AAPI members? They might be in total agreement with Basecamp leadership on this. But maybe not.
Thanks for the piece, David. Undeniable that this is something that will continue to be a hot topic for discussion. For the flip side of the discussion, Milton Friedman's now-famous New York Times Magazine piece from 1970s is worth a read for the argument the other way. There certainly is fodder to discuss merits and (as Jason said) the downsides to the mix. http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf