As a Costco member and shareholder, I support this; not because of the topic, but because of management deciding to do something and push back. Strong opinions strongly held are rare these days.

Of course it depends on the topic. If you are closed-minded, hold a strong opinion, and refuse to look at other possibilities and nuance, you could very well be making a big mistake. Simply having a strong opinion and holding onto it in and of itself is by no means a virtue.

I think the reason this might resonate with some is it's deeper than an opinion. This is a value, and that kind of thing inspires when defended. Of course this being political, there are deeply held values on the other side as well, so those demands may not go away.

Is that a good thing? Isn’t it better to have a strong opinion but be willing to change one’s mind?

As far as the topic goes, I think the main concern I have is that these policies support discriminatory hiring practices, which are illegal but common in companies wiTH DEI programs. I wish they would change their opinion to keep part of what they’re doing while getting rid of the explicitly discriminatory parts.

Management’s job is to manage. Shareholders and the board can attempt to replace them if confidence is lost. I am confident in this management, as someone with economic exposure to their decisions. If you don’t have exposure, the opinion is academic. Feel free to short the stock, or obtain enough stock as an activist to make change (if so inclined).

DEI practices are not unlawful unless discriminatory actions are taken. I do not support unlawful hiring or labor practices, unequivocally. I have reported such actions to regulators when I’ve observed them. If made aware of such practices, I would file a civil suit with standing, if owning the security in scope.

Most corporate DEI programs are discriminatory but in invisible or hard to prove ways. And most who are affected don’t have the time or resources to investigate or fight them in lawsuits. That’s what we have laws against discriminatory practices based on race or sex. But the “E” in DEI is equity, which is equality of outcomes. Companies uphold that sort by discriminating through quotas for hiring or promotion. This is illegal but rampant.

And you believe banning DEI would make any discrimination go away? Isn’t it more likely to continue, if happening, with no evidence of it happening? If it’s invisible or hard to prove now, you would expect this to change? Does discrimination not occur today at orgs without DEI efforts?

The argument might go something like "The ends don't justify the means" or "Two wrongs don't make it right" etc. It can deeply offend ones meritocratic values to be pushed aside to ensure someone has an equal outcome with lesser qualifications (or even equal qualifications where race was the deciding factor) if it can be shown this occurs.

But of course inequity in outcome deeply offends other values. So there can't be a clearly right answer.

There is a book that explored the values of both sides of these issues called Righteous Mind that really shifted me away from zealous opinions for or against DEI.

A cultural change can have lots of impact. Shutting down such a program means eliminating wasteful positions that impose those illegal processes on others, among other things. But I’m not asking to ban DEI as much as ban the equity part.

The only valid form of DEI is socio-economic - colour, gender and ethnicity blind.

If someone grew up poor in a bad area (whether projects in NY or a trailer park in Appalachia) and got sent to a shit school, they should get extra credit for that.

The fact that those blind seems like precisely the reason they should be included. The public is diverse and has diverse needs. A monoculture of staff will fail to see the those needs and only meet a subset. Maximizing success requires finding those blind spots in your business, which requires diverse staff. In short, poor is not a culture by itself.

> Maximizing success requires finding those blind spots in your business, which requires diverse staff.

Is this really true? That’s what customer research is for. Otherwise, what you’re saying is no one has the ability to see anything other than their own experience. Which is clearly not true.

I've been through DEI training at two different jobs. In both jobs, the trainings were about learning to ignore any biases one might have in order to hire the most qualified candidate, FWIW.

Wouldn’t “invisible” back office people in product strategy and sourcing be able to identify more products that appeal to a diverse set of customers? If you think DEI is only about having multiple colors of people in marketing stock photos or as customer service staff, you’re way, way off.

If you optimise for people from a lower socio-economic background, you get a broad mix of other demographics.

Shareholder note: I just received my ProxyVote form which lists CostCo's recommendation that I vote against this shareholder proposal (to "study the effects of removing DEI programs"); i.e., I do believe us shareholders get to vote for/against this — NOT CostCo getting to downright "decide" (it's up for vote, which is still being tallied).

It's too bad, but I see why this is flagged. Discussion of these opposed values does not have a necessarily right answer, and it's so easy to fall into strong opinions and repeated talking points.

It would be nice if we could allow for multiple viewpoints to be expressed in good faith, in order that we might argue ourselves closer to the truth and mutual understanding. But too often the loudest voices drown out the others and stifle and productive conversation, even in cases where the loudest voices are actually a small fraction of those who would want to participate in the discussion.

I'm fine with others arguing positions that I disagree with, and I would appreciate the opportunity to argue in response.