Diversity Initiatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Fires Joint Chiefs Chairman Amid Flurry of Dismissals at Pentagon

      by

      President Trump fired the country’s senior military officer on Friday after weeks of turmoil at the Pentagon, injecting politics into selecting the nation’s top military leader.Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., a four-star fighter pilot known as C.Q. who became only the second African American to hold the chairman’s job, is to be replaced by a retired three-star Air Force general, Dan Caine, who endeared himself to the president when they met in Iraq six years ago.“Today, I am honored to announce that I am nominating Air Force Lieutenant General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Mr. Trump said in a message on Truth Social. “General Caine is an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a ‘warfighter’ with significant interagency and special operations experience.”Joint Chiefs chairmen traditionally remain in place as administrations change, regardless of the president’s political party. But current White House and Pentagon officials said they wanted to appoint their own top leaders.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also indicated, in a statement about General Brown and General Caine, that Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy, was being fired, as was the vice chief of the Air Force, General James C. Slife.“I am also requesting nominations for the positions of chief of naval operations and Air Force vice chief of staff,” Mr. Hegseth said. “The incumbents in these important roles, Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Gen. James Slife, respectively, have had distinguished careers. We thank them for their service and dedication to our country.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What 11 Black Voters Think About Trump’s Actions in His First Month

      by

      Many Black Americans were frustrated by the Trump administration’s targeting of D.E.I. programs. But others embraced the speed at which he moved.The first few weeks of President Trump’s frenetic second term, including sweeping actions to end federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs, have mostly unfurled during the month of February, when the nation recognizes and celebrates Black history each year.For Black Americans around the country, the new administration’s actions to undo diversity programs — while vowing to celebrate Black history — have felt swift, if not entirely unexpected.Some Black voters interviewed on Thursday said they had anticipated that President Trump’s actions would be destabilizing. Those who supported him embraced his quick changes. Those who voted against him — and some who stayed home last November — were aghast. Most were paying close attention, though some said they felt the need to look away.Veronica McCloud in Burke High School’s library in Charleston, S.C.Nora Williams for The New York TimesVeronica McCloud, 63Retired English teacher in Charleston, S.C.“As a person who was born in the 1960s in the heart of the civil rights movement, what we are seeing feels like an attempt to return to a different era,” Ms. McCloud said. “I am talking about a time when Black Americans were without civil rights in their own country and women had to ask their husbands for permission to join the work force.”She was surprised by the speed with which Mr. Trump signed the sweeping executive order that upended diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      As Trump Attacks D.E.I., Wall Street Worries

      by

      Goldman Sachs will drop a demand that corporate boards of directors include women and members of minority groups as financial firms backpedal from D.E.I. promises.Wall Street has not typically been accused of doing too much for women and minority groups. The financial services industry, after all, is one in which more major banks are named after the Morgan family than led by a female chief executive.So it meant something over the past half-decade or so when the biggest names in finance said, over and over again, that they would pour dollars and effort into lending to, hiring, promoting and working with underserved communities.And it means something else now, as many of those much-promoted policies and practices are being scrubbed to be sure they don’t wind up in the cross hairs of the Trump administration’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion.The retreat includes white-collar investment banks, consultancies, mutual funds and stock exchanges. The latest was Goldman Sachs, which said on Tuesday that it would drop a quota that forced corporate boards of directors to include women and members of minority groups. Others on Wall Street are curtailing efforts to recruit Black and Latino employees.One international bank, BNP Paribas, even hit the brakes on programming new events for next month’s International Women’s Day.This pullback has thus far been less overt than, say, in the technology industry, whose executives have made public displays of their support for President Trump’s anti-diversity initiatives. And some financial firms had started to make changes long before the election — opening programs aimed at minority candidates to all, for example.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      To Obey Trump or Not to Obey

      by

      In 1978, my parents went to Poland, the first foreign trip in each of their lives. When they returned to our home in Moscow, my mother couldn’t stop talking about what they’d seen — not a place but a movie, Bob Fosse’s “Cabaret.” One scene in particular stayed with her. Three friends are returning from a weekend trip. Sleep-deprived, hung over and preoccupied with their sexual and romantic entanglements, they pull over at a roadside cafe. There, a teenager wearing a Hitler Youth uniform starts singing. He is both earnest and, in his brown pants tucked into white knee-high socks, puerile. But after a minute, other young people in uniform join in, and soon all but one customer are standing and singing. The protagonists duck out. They have been pushing Nazism out of their minds, but at this moment they realize that they are in the minority, that life as they’ve been living it is over. The song everyone around them is singing is “Tomorrow Belongs to Me.”I was 11 when my mother couldn’t stop talking about “Cabaret,” and I was confused. I thought my parents had gone to an actual cabaret and somehow gained an insight into the nature of the Soviet regime. A few years later, after I’d seen the movie myself, I realized my mother was right: That scene is the single most vivid portrayal of what it feels like to live in a society that is falling in line before a totalitarian leader. I experienced this in real life as an adult, when Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia and my world suddenly felt like a chessboard from which an invisible hand was picking off pieces faster than I had thought was possible.Now, in Donald Trump’s America, I am living through something similar, and it is moving at a faster rate still. For me, it began before the election, when the owners of The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post decided to pull their papers’ endorsements of Kamala Harris for president. It continued with Mark Zuckerberg remaking Meta to reflect what he called the “cultural tipping point” that was the presidential election; with ABC News handing over millions of dollars in response to one of Trump’s frivolous lawsuits and CBS considering doing the same; and most recently, with the great erasure: of records of trans care for minors provided by hospitals and of diversity-and-inclusion policies at many universities and corporations. Now some universities are quietly retooling their programming in hopes of conforming with expectations that have not yet been clearly laid out.I am talking not about deletions of pages from government websites, such as those of the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumably mandated by newly installed officials; I am talking about actions that individual people or private institutions took pre-emptively, with some measure of free will.The Yale historian Timothy Snyder has called this “anticipatory obedience.” In his 2017 book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,” lesson No. 1 was “Do not obey in advance.” Those who anticipate the demands of a repressive government and submit to these demands before they are made, Snyder wrote, are “teaching power what it can do.”Snyder is right, of course, but his admonition makes obeying in advance sound irrational. It is not. In my experience, most of the time, when people or institutions cede power voluntarily, they are acting not so much out of fear but rather on a set of apparently reasonable arguments. These arguments tend to fall into one or more of five categories.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Walmart Pulls Back on D.E.I. Initiatives Amid Conservative Pressure

      by

      The retailer is the largest company to be targeted by the conservative activist Robby Starbuck.Lowe’s. Tractor Supply. Harley-Davidson.Now Walmart.The company, which is the nation’s largest retailer with some two million employees, is pulling back on some of its initiatives for diversity, equity and inclusion, known as D.E.I.Robby Starbuck, an anti-D.E.I. activist and a social media influencer, declared victory on Monday, saying that Walmart, the country’s largest private employer, was taking several actions in response to his threatened conservative consumer boycott before the holiday shopping season. A spokeswoman for Walmart confirmed the changes, some of which were already in motion.The retailer, like many other companies, has been reviewing its practices since the Supreme Court knocked down affirmative action at colleges last year.“We’ve been on a journey and know we aren’t perfect, but every decision comes from a place of wanting to foster a sense of belonging, to open doors to opportunities for all our associates, customers and suppliers, and to be a Walmart for everyone,” the company said in a statement.As a result of the changes, third-party merchants will no longer be able to sell some L.G.B.T.Q.-themed items on Walmart.com that are marketed to children. The company will also stop funding the Center for Racial Equity, a nonprofit initiative that Walmart has backed with $100 million, when the agreement expires next year. And the company will stop sharing data with the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit that tracks businesses’ L.G.B.T.Q. policies. It will also stop using the terms D.E.I. and Latinx in official communications.Mr. Starbuck has waged online campaigns against several companies whose policies he deems to be too “woke.” While Mr. Starbuck is benefiting as much from a trend to reverse D.E.I. policy as he is instigating it, companies across the United States have been preparing for the potential of possible attacks by activists. Walmart’s actions underline the risk it may see in a public fight, particularly as the anti-D.E.I. agenda gets a boost after Donald J. Trump’s election.In a post on social media, Mr. Starbuck said he had told executives at the company that he was working on a story about “wokeness” at Walmart, but instead the two sides had “productive conversations.”Mr. Starbuck initially focused on companies with customers whom he thought would most likely be sympathetic to his cause, like Tractor Supply and John Deere. Walmart represents a different kind of company: one with employees and customers on both sides of the political divide.“America just voted, and we voted against ‘wokeness,’” Mr. Starbuck said in a video posted on X, as he announced his next targets: Amazon and Target. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      York Theater Artistic Director Out After ‘Hurtful’ Diversity Comments

      by

      James Morgan, who has been with the small New York theater company for 50 years, blamed the effects of a stroke for his behavior.The longtime leader of the York Theater Company, a small New York nonprofit known for its emphasis on musical theater, is acknowledging making “hurtful” comments about diversity that he says prompted his abrupt departure from the organization.James Morgan, who has served as producing artistic director of the York since 1979, and who has been with the company for 50 years, issued a letter on Monday saying that he had suffered a stroke in 2022, and attributed his behavior to that medical incident.“During a recent staff meeting, I responded to a colleague’s concerns about the diversity of our audiences in a way that was inappropriate and hurtful,” Morgan wrote in the letter. “The words came out — at a raised volume that has been one of the side effects of the stroke — differently than I intended them.”The York is a niche company, founded in 1969, that operates out of a church on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. During fiscal 2023, it had an annual budget of $2.2 million, according to a filing with the Internal Revenue Service; Morgan was paid a salary of $95,000.On Friday at 5 p.m., the company issued a news release saying that Morgan had “resigned from his duties, effective immediately.” Jim Kierstead, the board’s president, raised the diversity issue in his statement in the news release, saying, “We will soon be announcing plans for a future filled with diversity, talent, and musical theater in order to continue our long legacy of supporting artists of all backgrounds.”It quickly became clear that Morgan’s departure had been preceded by the resignation of Gerry McIntyre, the theater’s associate artistic director.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Women Entrepreneurs Are Hitting a Funding Wall

      by

      For women starting new businesses, early funding from venture capital firms led by other women is vital. But few are large enough to lead subsequent rounds of financing.When Oriana Papin-Zoghbi was looking for venture capital funding to develop a new type of test for ovarian cancer, she found her pitch did best with women investors. “They were able to resonate with the problem we are trying to solve,” she said.Avestria Ventures, a fund focused on women-founded start-ups, led an early investment of $5 million in Ms. Papin-Zoghbi’s company, AOA Dx. And two years later, Good Growth Capital, a firm founded by women, led an additional $17 million investment.Ms. Papin-Zoghbi expects raising the next round of funding to be more difficult. Medical devices are expensive to develop, and AOA Dx is looking for an additional $30 million to bring its first product to market. “Most women-led funds cannot lead a round that size,” she said.More than 100 women-led venture capital funds, many specifically focused on investing in companies started by women, have been founded in the last decade, a trend that has contributed to a gain in fund-raising by women who are just starting their businesses. Female-founded start-ups received 7 percent of pre-seed and seed funding, the earliest funding a start-up raises, in 2023, up from 5 percent in 2015, according to the data platform Crunchbase.But women-led funds tend to be small, limiting their influence to early funding rounds. More mature companies led by women have not seen the same increase in funding. For women-founded businesses seeking investments past a Series B round, typically the third funding round, the share of venture capital dollars contracted to 1 percent from 2 percent over the same period, according to Crunchbase.Founders like Ms. Papin-Zoghbi are hitting — or fear hitting — a funding wall, an obstacle they say has been heightened by a rollback in diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and a general downturn in start-up investing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      D.E.I. in College, Attacked and Defended

      by

      More from our inbox:Why Trump Doesn’t Want Another DebateTrump’s Mental FitnessCancel the Sentinel Missile ProgramA Walker in Manhattan Eli DurstTo the Editor:Re “D.E.I. Is Not Working in Colleges. We Need a New Approach,” by Paul Brest and Emily J. Levine (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 5):Mr. Brest and Dr. Levine underscore the importance of inclusion for all students’ academic success. I agree: For students to succeed, they must have access to a rigorous learning environment in which they also feel they matter.But I disagree with the professors on the history and roles of diversity offices that are responsible for fostering such a sense of belonging. Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education are mission-driven, evidence-backed, research-informed and tailored to meet the particular needs of each campus.These practices seek to bring people together and collaboratively eliminate barriers to success, and they have evolved with legislative and judicial efforts to address decades of discrimination against protected categories under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Given the complexities of differing institutional types, historical legacies and current contexts, the solution includes acknowledging that we live in a pluralist society, that we can value differences as a community of learners, and that doing so is not contrary to academic freedom and critical thinking.There is work ahead to ensure we can continue to meet the needs of our ever-evolving communities. There always will be work ahead; the pursuit of progress is, by definition, unending.Paulette Granberry RussellWashingtonThe writer is the president and C.E.O. of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More