LTP News Sharing:
In his executive order targeting DEI, President Trump directed now-Attorney General Pam Bondi to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations.”
“Should Apple be one of those nine?” asked Free Enterprise Project (FEP) Executive Director Stefan Padfield in a commentary published at RealClearMarkets the day he presented a proposal at Apple’s annual shareholder meeting requesting that Apple drop its DEI efforts.
The answer to Stefan’s answer became quickly clear. The day after the meeting, President Trump specifically called out Apple for rejecting FEP’s proposal, writing on Truth Social: “Apple should get rid of DEI rules, not just make adjustments to them. DEI was a hoax that has been very bad for our country. DEI is gone!!!”
Read Stefan’s prescient commentary in full below.
On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” One of the subsections of that EO is titled “Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences.” Among other things, that section directs “the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies” to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations.”
Should Apple be one of those nine? To answer that question, let’s review some of Apple’s relevant disclosures.
Stefan Padfield
First, Apple’s “Inclusion & Diversity” page starts by proclaiming that: “We’re continuing to create a culture of inclusion, increasing representation across teams, and holding ourselves accountable at every level.” And just to be clear that Apple is referring to representation on the basis of race and sex, tables are set forth just below this statement dividing Apple’s workforce into “Gender” (though only “Male” and “Female” numbers are provided) and “Race and Ethnicity,” which is broken into Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Indigenous, Multiracial, and White. This immediately raises the question: How does a company increase representation of one race without discriminating against other races? As Judge Ho, concurring in the 5th Circuit case of Price v. Valvoline noted: “favoring one race necessarily means disfavoring those of another race.”
Second, Apple makes clear that this discrimination will occur not only in entry level hiring but also leadership positions by proclaiming: “Over the past year, we filled more open leadership roles than ever with women globally and Black candidates in the United States. We remain committed to continuing to grow leadership representation.” Numbers here are provided for only women, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and URCs. (Apple explains that “Underrepresented communities (URCs)” are “groups whose representation in tech has been historically low — Female, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Multiracial, and Indigenous peoples.”) The absence of Asians and Whites is arguably telling and informative as to what Apple considers “diversity” and “inclusion.”
Third, Apple divides its employees on the basis of race and sex via its “Diversity Network Associations (DNAs).” These apparently include Black@Apple, Women@Apple, and Pride@Apple. Not only does this divide employees, it also raises the specter of allocating Apple’s resources on the basis of race and sex, such as when we’re told that DNAs partner “with the Apple Recruiting team. The team hosts résumé and interview skill-building workshops for DNA members and, when possible, informs DNAs of open roles.”
Fourth, we can jump to Apple’s “Racial Equity and Justice” page. By now, most readers will have been fully disabused of the notion that “equity” means “equality.” While equality of opportunity is laudable, “equity” promotes equality of outcomes – which is nothing short of neo-Marxism. We are told that Apple is: “Advancing equity today. And every day.” Examples include: “Apple’s Racial Equity and Justice Initiative surpasses $200 million in investments,” and “Apple is investing an additional $25 million in venture capital to expand support for minority businesses.” One may reasonably ask to what extent this amounts to Apple expending shareholders’ money on projects with a “No Whites” sign attached. See, for example: “Apple selects 15 Black- and Brown-owned businesses for first-of-its-kind Impact Accelerator.” This discriminatory allocation of resources may also extend to Apple’s charitable giving. See, for example: “Apple and The Conservation Fund are partnering with community organizations across the region to scale sustainable land retention and climate resilience in Black and Brown communities.”
Fifth, Apple promotes its “Supplier Diversity Program.” Not only does this program potentially create a risk of Apple illegally discriminating in the selection of its suppliers, it may also create a risk of Apple forcing its suppliers to discriminate in kind.
In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that this brief review of Apple’s disclosures has captured all the ways Apple proudly and brazenly discriminates on the basis of race and sex. Accordingly, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), where I work, has filed a shareholder proposal asking Apple to end its DEI initiatives. Meanwhile, whether the Trump administration chooses to put Apple to its list of worst DEI offenders remains to be seen. In the meantime, America First Legal has warned Apple’s board that it is “misleading investors by concealing DEI and the related … risks.”
Perhaps most importantly, all the relevant concerns about inequality and disparate outcomes can be addressed on a colorblind basis. Can you imagine if all the resources corporate America has devoted to dividing us on the basis of race and sex in the name of DEI had been directed towards charitable and bottom-line-enhancing initiatives geared towards raising the floor for all Americans on a colorblind basis, whether that be in the areas of health, wealth, education, or job opportunities?
On that point, NCPPR’s Project 21, an initiative “to promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility have not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment,” recently published commentary explaining why “Rolling Back DEI Rewards Black Americans Instead of Crippling Them.” Perhaps Apple’s management would benefit from reading the nine diverse perspectives on DEI set forth therein before spending another dollar on further dividing us on the basis of race and sex in the name of DEI.
Author: Stefan Padfield
