SCOTUS affirmative action decision's impact

SCOTUS affirmative action decision's impact on corporate America

Eleanor Hawkins Erin Doherty

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Any day now, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in favor of rolling back affirmative action at universities, and the decision could have a domino effect on corporate diversity initiatives.

Why it matters: If overturned, corporate hiring and recruiting practices could be next to land in the crosshairs.

Catch up quick: The high court is weighing whether colleges can explicitly consider applicants' race in admissions.

• Those in favor believe affirmative action is critical for ensuring diversity, while opponents believe it discriminates against white and Asian students.

The big picture: Some conservative organizations have already begun to apply the discriminatory argument to U.S. companies.

• America First Legal has filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and asked for an investigation into the hiring practices of such companies as BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, McDonald's, Starbucks, Twilio, Hershey and Kontoor Brands.
• "[Companies] should expect some litigation as an outcome based on what we think may happen," Valerie Capers Workman, chief legal officer for recruiting platform Handshake, told Axios. "That doesn't mean that the litigation will have merit, but it does mean that companies will probably have to spend some money defending claims that they otherwise would not have."

State of play: According to HR Dive, all Fortune 100 companies have publicly championed DEI commitments.

• HR, communications and in-house counsel Axios spoke with say they are monitoring the case closely and are preparing messaging based on the scope of the ruling.
• "One of the lessons from the Dobbs decision is that it's very hard in the immediate aftermath of a divisive decision to have a communication that doesn't appear to be taking one side or the other," a communications professional in the financial services industry told Axios.
• "No matter what the decision is, we're going to feel the same way about how important DEI is to us as a firm, so communicating that to internal stakeholders is the priority, and that can be done in advance of the decision."

Between the lines: Companies could see an uptick in reverse discrimination claims from employees if the Supreme Court rules against race-conscious admissions, Andrew Turnbull, a partner at Morrison Foerster, told Axios.

• "When people hear affirmative action has been overruled, they may say, 'Well, why is my company still doing diversity programs?'" Turnbull, who represents companies on labor and employment litigation, said.

🥊 Reality check: According to a Harvard study, U.S. states that eliminated affirmative action hiring requirements have seen a significant decrease in workplace diversity, compared to the states that kept affirmative action programs in place.

• Asian female, Black female and Hispanic male workers were most impacted by the statewide affirmative action bans, the report found.

What they're saying: Now is not the time to shy away from diversity initiatives, said Libi Rice, chief communications officer of the Executive Leadership Council, a nonprofit focused on advancing opportunities for Black executives.

• "This is an opportunity for companies to look at where they are right now, in terms of their recruiting of Black talent, where they're looking for Black talent, what they're doing to retain Black talent in their organizations, and to make sure that they continue to be authentic in their actions and continue to push forward, as opposed to letting a ruling like this shake them," said Rice.

• "Companies do not invest in DEI to favor a certain group of individuals over another group of individuals," said Aniela Unguresan, founder and CEO of Edge Certification. "Companies invest because diverse, equitable and inclusive workplaces are more agile, more resilient and are sustainably more successful than organizations [that] do less of those investments."

What we're watching: Much depends on the decision itself, its scope and the precedent it sets for lawsuits that could follow.

• There will be political ramifications following the decision, but it could also present an opportunity for chief diversity officers to expand their responsibilities and reframe the DEI function.
• "A lot of professionals are looking at changing the titles of diversity officer to chief workforce transformation officer— and in some ways, it's a positive outcome, because it could mean that the DEI role could be expanded," Capers Workman said. "It could be a larger, more encompassing role that encompasses not just diversity initiatives, but also the entire workforce culture."
• Plus, the ruling may spur some companies to actually bolster their DEI initiatives, Turnball said.
• "Not that they're looking to do anything unlawful, but I think you will see some companies double-down on their diversity initiatives and say, 'We believe in this, we don't care what the states are doing, we don't care what the Supreme Court is doing.'"
• What the End of Affirmative Action Means for Business
  
  
  
  
  By the end of June, legal experts predict, the US Supreme Court will ban race-based admissions in higher education. It will be a concussive, though not fatal,
  blow to affirmative action’s corporate cousin: diversity, equity and inclusion.
  
  
  
  The U.S. Supreme Court.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
  
  Kelsey Butler
  June 22, 2023 
  
  The decision comes as companies are already caught in the crossfire of the culture wars, whether it’s a consumer boycott of a popular brand of beer or Republican-led states refusing to work with financial institutions that follow environmental, social and governance investing principles. With the court’s ruling, DEI could soon replace ESG as conservatives’ most-loathed acronym.

  
  
  Bud Light was the target of a recent consumer boycott over a personalized can of beer given to a transgender influencer.
  Photographer: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
  
  The Supreme Court, which will actually rule on two cases—one centered on Harvard College and the other on the University of North Carolina—could scrap precedents dating back decades. A landmark 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke had barred the use of quotas yet allowed race to be considered as one of many factors in admissions. The court’s rationale wasn’t to correct racism’s legacy but to ensure a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints in classrooms.
  
  When demographers soon after predicted that entrants into the labor market would be mostly women and minorities by 2000, diversity became the goal—and mantra—that academia and corporations have cited to cope with a changing applicant pool and to justify admissions and hiring decisions.
  
  At the same time, conservative resistance has grown. In the Harvard case, opponents argue that diversity provided cover for discriminating against Asian American applicants. DEI advocates predict companies will be next to face hostility. “Corporate America’s looking at that and saying, ‘first they came for academia, next they’ll come for us,’ ” says Janet Stovall, global head of DEI at the NeuroLeadership Institute, a leadership coaching firm.
  
  For companies, the ripple effects of the ruling could be immediate, beginning with declines in minority student enrollment. After California’s 1996 Proposition 209 barred racial preferences—one of nine states with such bans—the number of Black freshmen at the University of California’s most selective campuses fell by half in the fall of 1998, when the ban took effect. In some cases, those numbers haven’t recovered.
  
  As a result, fewer people from underrepresented groups will make their way into jobs and management roles. Almost 70 employers, including General Electric, Google and JetBlue Airways, warned in a brief to the court that without affirmative action they’ll lose access to “a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders” and will struggle to meet diversity hiring goals.
  
  Looking simply at the letter of the law, the court’s decision won’t apply to employers. Private institutions such as Harvard are governed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination in programs receiving federal funding. Private-sector workplaces, however, are governed by Title VII—a different, though similarly worded, section. Still, “many of the thought processes and the basic legal principles” are the same, says Daniel Pyne III, an employment specialist at law firm Hopkins & Carley. If the court strikes down race-conscious admissions in education, “that is a strong hint that the same decision might be made” in employment cases.
  
  What else will this potential decision mean for the business world? Read more, including profiles of six people who say affirmative action helped their lives or needs to end.

  
  

Opinion: The Canadian wildfires should be a wake-up call to us all

Abby Drey/adrey@centredaily.com  PENNSYLVANIA

Lydia Shen
Fri, June 23, 2023

Like many other Centre County residents, I stepped out of my house a couple weeks ago to find my neighborhood engulfed in a pale gray haze and a strange, smoky smell.

But there was no mistaking this scene for someone’s backyard cookout gone wrong. I was standing amid smoke caused by Canadian wildfires hundreds of miles to the north, drifting into central Pennsylvania and creating such dire air pollution that state officials issued a rare Code Red alert — meaning that the air quality was unhealthy for the general public.

Mother Nature is sending us an unequivocal message, and we must heed her warning: If we fail to mitigate climate change, we will continue to grapple with its consequences in the years to come. These recent wildfires are just one example. Rising temperatures cause droughts, dry air and more frequent lightning strikes, creating the perfect conditions for an entire forest to ignite. These events put both humans and wildlife alike in harm’s way — experts believe that spending 24 hours outside in some of Canada’s recent air quality conditions can cause the equivalent lung damage of smoking up to nearly 11 cigarettes. This year’s wildfire season alone has displaced more than 20,000 Canadians, a number that will only rise from here on out.

The ongoing growth in global temperatures, if left unchecked, will come with a host of other concerns besides wildfires. Coastal damage due to ice cap melting and sea level rise. Intense hurricanes and tropical storms wreaking havoc on vulnerable communities. Heat waves worse than the ones that swept across the U.S. last year, and ecosystems completely upended as natural habitats are destroyed. And living through all of this, forced to bear the consequences of our current inaction, will be each of us — regardless of where you live or what you believe in.

My generation is watching. We are watching as biospheres are damaged for pure economic benefit, as the scope of the Clean Water Act is drastically limited and precious natural resources are sacrificed in the name of profit. We are alarmed, and we are certainly not impressed. On an individual level, it may be easy to write off the environmental consequences of your own actions. But when many people do so, across towns, counties and nations, the effects will be felt. By continuing to dispel greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at the present rate, we only enable and encourage more wildfires, more hurricanes, and more heat waves.

Climate change is here, and it’s here now. It will only get worse if we don’t set our priorities straight. My personal mantra is think globally, act locally. Look at the big picture, and take the extra step to sort your recyclables, compost in your garden, or buy from the local farmers market. Turn off that light switch, visit the thrift shop down the street, and consider investing in an electric car. The average U.S. citizen has an annual carbon footprint of 16 tons, and by making just one of these simple changes, you can reduce that amount by up to 1.95 tons. In doing so, you’ll be shaping a better future for the next generation to live in.

These are not the first wildfires we’ve encountered, and they certainly won’t be the last. But let them be a warning sign, a reality check. There is no plan B — no planet B. This is the only earth we have been given, and we must do everything we can to protect it.

Lydia Shen is a senior at State College Area High School, where she is co-president of the Environmental Club and president of Ocean Bowl.

Church of England to disinvest from fossil fuels this year

A Church of England logo is seen during the Candlemas Festival Eucharist service at Ripon Cathedral in Ripon

Reuters
Thu, June 22, 2023 

LONDON (Reuters) - The Church of England Pensions Board said it had decided to divest its holding in Shell over what it said were insufficient plans to align its strategy to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The Board, which up to 2022 led engagement with Shell on behalf of the CA100+ climate-focussed investor group, has around 1.35 million pounds ($1.72 million) invested in Shell of its total 3.2 billion pounds in investments.

The Church of England's separate 10.3 billion pound Church Commissioners fund will also divest from all remaining oil and gas companies in its portfolio, including Shell, BP, Equinor and TotalEnergies, it said on Thursday.

"The Church will follow not just the science, but our faith – both of which call us to work for climate justice," Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a statement.

The Pensions Board said in its statement it would no longer prioritise engagement with the oil and gas sector on climate change and would instead refocus its efforts on reshaping the demand for oil and gas from sectors such as the auto industry.

Shell aims to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and has set several short and medium-term emission intensity targets, but has so far rejected calls to set 2030 goals to reduce absolute emissions.

Scientists say the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 43% from 2019 levels by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

A Shell spokesperson said the Church funds' decisions were "disappointing, but not surprising", adding Shell believed it was Paris-aligned.

"At the same time, we are clearly focused on capital discipline, enhanced performance and delivering shareholder value," the Shell spokesperson said.

This year, the Board voted against Shell's chair and directors over climate concerns and in favour of an activist shareholder resolution asking Shell to set Paris-aligned emissions targets for 2030, which received 20% support.

($1 = 0.7839 pounds)

(Reporting by Shadia Nasrall and Muvija M; Editing by Jan Harvey)

Church of England dumps all oil and gas investments

Phil HAZLEWOOD
Thu, June 22, 2023 

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said oil and giants had made some progress in energy transition 'but not nearly enough' (JUSTIN TALLIS)

Campaigners on Thursday hailed a move by the Church of England to exclude all oil and gas majors from its investment portfolio because of climate concerns.

The body that manages the Church's £10.3-billion ($13.1-billion) endowment fund excluded 20 companies from its list of financial assets two years ago.

It has now extended the ban to 11 more, including BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies, after assessing that none was meeting the goals of the 2015 UN climate accord to tackle global warming.

"With the 2021 exclusions and those announced today, the Church Commissioners (for England) will have excluded all oil and gas majors," it said.


"The broader exclusion of all oil and gas exploration, production and refining companies will follow by the end of 2023."

The Church of England Pensions Board announced separately that it, too, would disinvest from fossil fuels.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, a former oil company executive who leads the worldwide Anglican Communion of affiliated churches, said Christians had "a duty to protect God's creation".

"Energy companies have a special responsibility to help us achieve the just transition to the low-carbon economy we need," he added.

"Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough. The Church will follow not just the science, but our faith –- both of which call us to work for climate justice."

First Church Estates Commissioner Alan Smith said the decision to divest "was not taken lightly" but energy majors had been too slow to act.

- Campaign -

The announcement came as the Church's national assembly, the General Synod, comprising hundreds of lay members and clergy, prepares to convene in early July.

In 2018, the body set a five-year strategy to invest in climate solutions, engage with high carbon-emitting companies, and disinvest from fossil fuel firms not aligned with the Paris accord.

The agreement saw countries agree to cap global warming at "well below" 2.0 Celsius above average levels measured between 1850 and 1900 -- and 1.5C if possible.

The Church's National Investing Bodies are due to report back to the upcoming synod in York, northern England, on progress meeting the plan.

Last week, more than 200 clergy, including 10 bishops, sent an open letter to the commissioners and the pensions body calling for "fossil-free" pensions.

The 42 Church of England dioceses have their own investments but according to Operation Noah, a Christian climate charity, more than half have pledged to exclude those linked to fossil fuels.

Operation Noah chair Darrell Hannah said Thursday's announcement "should send shockwaves around the world".

Hannah said it should show that oil and gas majors "are not operating in good faith and not preparing for the global transition to renewable energy".

"We trust that today's announcement... will encourage many others to divest from fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions," he added.

- 'Lost faith' -

Oil and gas majors have been frequent targets for climate activists for not doing enough to move from polluting fossil fuels towards cleaner alternatives such as renewables.

Energy giants have been accused of stalling on their commitments because of strong demand for fossil fuels, which has given them bumper profits.

The Church of England Pensions Board in May joined other minority shareholders in voting against Shell's "green" transition plan, and called for more ambitious carbon-cutting targets.

Friends of the Earth's divestment campaigner Rianna Gargiulo said she hoped Thursday's announcement could spur institutional investors such as local councils, pension funds and universities to follow suit.

Greenpeace called it a "moment of moral reckoning" for other investors and the government.

"After years of trying to change these companies from within, the Church of England has clearly lost faith in Shell and other oil giants' ability to redeem themselves," it added.

phz/rfj/lth

Rules allow transgender woman at Wyoming chapter, and a court can't interfere, sorority says


Two people walk on the University of Wyoming campus in Laramie, Wyo. Sorority rules allow a transgender woman to belong to its University of Wyoming chapter and a court can't interfere with that, a sorority being sued over the matter says in seeking the lawsuit’s dismissal. The Kappa Kappa Gamma motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday, June 20, 2023. in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, is the sorority's first substantive response to the lawsuit, other than a March statement by its executive director, Kari Kittrell Poole, that the complaint contains “numerous false allegations.” 

(Shannon Broderick/Laramie Boomerang via AP, FIle) 

MEAD GRUVER
Wed, June 21, 2023 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A national sorority has defended allowing a transgender woman into its University of Wyoming chapter, saying in a new court motion that the chapter followed sorority rules despite a lawsuit from seven women in the organization who argued the opposite.

Seven members of Kappa Kappa Gamma at Wyoming's only four-year state university sued in March, saying the sorority violated its own rules by admitting Artemis Langford last year. Six of the women refiled the lawsuit in May after a judge twice barred them from suing anonymously.

The Kappa Kappa Gamma motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, is the sorority's first substantive response to the lawsuit, other than a March statement by its executive director, Kari Kittrell Poole, that the complaint contains “numerous false allegations.”

“The central issue in this case is simple: do the plaintiffs have a legal right to be in a sorority that excludes transgender women? They do not,” the motion to dismiss reads.


The policy of Kappa Kappa Gamma since 2015 has been to allow the sorority's more than 145 chapters to accept transgender women. The policy mirrors those of the 25 other sororities in the National Panhellenic Conference, the umbrella organization for sororities in the U.S. and Canada, according to the Kappa Kappa Gamma filing.

The sorority sisters opposed to Langford's induction could presumably change the policy if most sorority members shared their view, or they could resign if “a position of inclusion is too offensive to their personal values,” the sorority's motion to dismiss says.

“What they cannot do is have this court define their membership for them,” the motion asserts, adding that “private organizations have a right to interpret their own governing documents.”

Even if they didn't, the motion to dismiss says, the lawsuit fails to show how the sorority violated or unreasonably interpreted Kappa Kappa Gamma bylaws.

The sorority sisters' lawsuit asks U.S. District Court Judge Alan Johnson to declare Langford’s sorority membership void and to award unspecified damages.

The lawsuit claims Langford's presence in the Kappa Kappa Gamma house made some sorority members uncomfortable. Langford would sit on a couch for hours while “staring at them without talking,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also names the national Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority council president, Mary Pat Rooney, and Langford as defendants. The court lacks jurisdiction over Rooney, who lives in Illinois and hasn't been involved in Langford's admission, according to the sorority's motion to dismiss.

The lawsuit fails to state any claim of wrongdoing by Langford and seeks no relief from her, an attorney for Langford wrote in a separate filing Tuesday in support of the sorority's motion to dismiss the case.

Instead, the women suing “fling dehumanizing mud” throughout the lawsuit “to bully Ms. Langford on the national stage,” Langford's filing says.

“This, alone, merits dismissal,” the Langford document adds.

One of the seven Kappa Kappa Gamma members at the University of Wyoming who sued dropped out of the case when Johnson ruled they couldn't proceed anonymously. The six remaining plaintiffs are Jaylyn Westenbroek, Hannah Holtmeier, Allison Coghan, Grace Choate, Madeline Ramar and Megan Kosar.

TRANSPHOBIC BANNER
Premier David Eby calls banners over B.C. highway 'hateful' and 'reprehensible'
Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 6:04 p.m.

David Eby

RICHMOND, B.C. — British Columbia Premier David Eby says "hateful" banners aimed at transgender people that have hung for months over one of the province's highways are "reprehensible" and he wishes the protesters involved would "go home."

The premier's comments come more than a month after a B.C. Supreme Court judge granted the government an injunction banning signs or gatherings in the area around the Mountain Highway Overpass over Highway 1 in North Vancouver.

The signs have included messages saying "gender ideology = child sex grooming" and "no child is ever born in the wrong body."

Eby said he had concerns about safety as well as the nature of the protest.

"The content of the protest, obviously, it's quite hateful. It's really, in my opinion, seeking to divide British Columbia and to foment division and hatred in our province," Eby said at an unrelated news conference on Thursday.

"I find it reprehensible and while I recognize the free speech rights of people to be out and to demonstrate, the content of the demonstration I find quite awful and I wish those people would certainly go home."

RCMP said Wednesday they were seeking clarity from the Ministry of Transportation related to whether enforcing the injunction, granted on safety grounds, would mean infringing on protesters' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Related video: Controversial North Vancouver highway protests continue despite injunction (Global News)   Duration 1:59   View on Watch

“If we enforce the injunction, we have to make sure that doing so will not infringe on the Charter rights of any individual,” Insp. Jayson Lucash, officer in charge of the North Vancouver RCMP, said in a statement.

“It is a complex assessment, but it’s ultimately aimed at upholding the integrity of judicial process, and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.”

The Mounties said the sentiments behind the protests "do not align with the RCMP’s core values, and are contrary to the RCMP’s commitment to inclusivity in supporting our diverse community."

In a statement issued Thursday, the Ministry of Transportation said the court order gave police the ability to arrest and remove anyone they think is contravening or has contravened the injunction.

The ministry said hanging banners from highway overpasses is not allowed under the Transportation Act.

"We continue to ask police to act on the injunction to provide for the safety of the travelling public," the statement said.

Eby said the government went to court seeking the injunction because the location of the protest raised safety concerns for drivers along the highway and that a sign has fallen on at least one occasion.

"If nothing else, we need to ensure that the public is safe and that the demonstration doesn't compromise public safety," he said.

Banners at the same location have declared COVID-19 a "fraud" and carried abusive messages about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 22, 2023

The Canadian Press