DEI

Disclaimer. My post(s) are intended to be informative only, not opinion pieces

Over the past year you've seen legislation and executive action that has directly targeted what I would describe as an unaffordable and unmaintainable form of Government. But to discuss DEI

we need to look back. Its widely accepted that DEI policies began in the 1960s. There are scholars that may reference earlier periods, however the 1960s was a time of significant Civil Rights activism and reform. As a result, the Federal Government responded with wide sweeping legislation that was developed to protect and bring to some equity to a class of people that had long in our history been under-represented and ignored.

Fast forward to today, many of these policies, while amended here and there are still in effect. With one large caveat. DEI became more DEI. These policies while originally intended for a marginalized group of people grew to include, sex, sexual orientation, parents, veterans, young, old, and more. These policies began focusing not on hiring practices, but on pay, on protecting the institution of marriage, and the family. What was DEI in the 1960s is not your DEI of today. Legislation is more inclusive than ever before.

The beauty of our 3 distinct but interconnected branches of government means that the executive branch, with the creation of new legislation, must decide how to enforce. Traditionally this has resulted in the creation of new Departments, i.e. DOE, or CMS (future post coming on how we need to think out of the box when it comes to enforcing legislation). This is also why the President, being over the Executive Branch, usually has a significant amount of power and autonomy in how legislation is enforced.

If you've read my earlier blog on Trumps policies, you know that Trump's original platform, what I feel he wants to leave as his legacy, is a debt free, budge balanced economy. In theory this sounds great, but in application, this will be difficult. DEI, as is the case with a lot of legislation, is a cost spending measure. It cost the government, it cost us, to enforce. Point of distinction, Trump's policies determine how legislation is enforced. It does not repeal legislation itself.

Decreasing bureaucracy means increased ownership, accountability, and integrity by our institutions. Not the reverse. We shouldn't need federal enforcement and action to make Diversity a priority. The beauty of our free market society is that companies like Target, who choose to eliminate DEI policies, are often held accountable for their decisions. As a result of Target eliminating DEI policies, consumers responded in protest with a boycott that lead to a decline in sales.

Companies should take ownership of DEI, making it a priority. Doing this not only a reflection of our ideals, ensuring everyone to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But it keeps our government small, keeps cost down, keeps money in your pocket.

DEI is absolutely important. Your consumers are diverse, they're black, white, brown, mothers, fathers, veterans, so why wouldn't you want your workforce to be?