How woke corporations aid and abet racism.

Corporate America is awash in racism and racist brainwashing, so it’s not surprising that it is defending the anti-white and anti-Asian racism practiced at the nation’s colleges.

It’s gotten so bad in the world of business that hurting people with the wrong skin color is now a Fortune 500 best practice.

This corporate racism has only intensified since violent career criminal and drug addict George Floyd died of Fentanyl poisoning while he happened to be in Minneapolis police custody on May 25, 2020, and was instantly transformed by leftists into a symbol of police brutality for the ages.

Since St. George’s martyrdom, big businesses have funneled untold millions of dollars to the terrorist outfit known as Black Lives Matter, embracing the faddish lies of the 1619 Project as they race to one-up each other in their embrace of “anti-racism,” the misnamed brainchild of racism-profiteer Ibram X. Kendi (born Ibram Henry Rogers), who insists that the only way to get rid of racist discrimination is to perpetrate it against white people.

These corrupt companies seem to be fulfilling Vladimir Lenin’s much quoted aphorism turned cliché that “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

Businesses nowadays compel employees to embrace Black Lives Matter and denounce themselves as racist for the sin of being born white. As Cynical Theories author James Lindsay has said, this is cult programming, not responsible human resources management, because it teaches employees that they are defective and in need of correction.

And as Christopher Rufo writes, diversity consultants teach that “all whites have unconscious, ‘implicit’ bias that they must vigilantly program themselves to overcome.” This “has become an article of faith across corporate boardrooms, academe and law enforcement, even though the premise is unscientific and impossible to verify.”

In the pursuit of so-called racial justice, the Walt Disney Co. terrorizes its employees, intimidating them into unquestioning acceptance of the most orthodox tenets of Marxist-derived Critical Race Theory. American Express gives managers bonuses for firing white employees. Hollywood increasingly refuses to hire white, especially white male, writers. Wells Fargo cruelly gives fake job interviews to minorities for jobs already filled in order to satisfy internal diversity interviewing quotas. Dropbox openly discriminates against whites in the hiring process.

Sandia National Laboratories subjects employees to struggle sessions, insisting that “white male culture” leads to “lowered quality of life at work and home, reduced life expectancy, unproductive relationships, and high stress.” CVS Health Corp. forces employees to confess their racial “privilege.” AT&T Corp. pressures employees to acknowledge that “American racism is a uniquely white trait” and endorses slavery-related reparations for blacks.

Many large companies are fine with racial discrimination practiced on their own premises; they are comfortable with it in the university admissions process as well.

On August 1, 80 big corporations made their commitment to race-based discrimination in the university admissions process official.

A major cross-section of corporate America filed “amicus curiae” or friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court that day urging the court to allow colleges to continue using race as a factor in student admissions.

Could an effective boycott even be launched against all these corporations? They cover so many important sectors of the economy: technology, chemicals, transportation, insurance, finance, pharmaceuticals, defense, manufacturing, retail, accounting, fashion, energy, and telecommunications. Observing such an all-encompassing boycott could turn a person into a hermit, barely able to function in the modern world.

Nevertheless, it is important to put the morally repugnant beliefs of these companies on record, so they can be shamed.

The first brief, titled “Brief for Major American Business Enterprises as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents,” has 69 corporations onboard.

They are:


Adobe Inc.  

Air Products and Chemicals Inc.

Airbnb Inc.  

Alaska Airlines Inc.  

American Airlines Inc.

American Express Co. 

American International Group Inc. (AIG)

Amgen Inc.  

Apple Inc.  

Ariel Investments LLC

Bain & Company

Bayer US LLC

Biogen Inc.

Bristol Myers Squibb

Chamber of Progress

Cigna Corp.

Cisco Systems Inc.

Corning Inc.

Cruise LLC

Dell Technologies Inc.

Eaton Corp.

Engine Advocacy

Etsy Inc.

General Dynamics Corp.

General Electric Co.

General Motors Co.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC

Google LLC

HP Inc.

IKEA Retail US

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

Intel Corp.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC

JetBlue Airways

Johnson & Johnson

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.


Leidos Holdings Inc.

Levi Strauss & Co.

Logitech Inc.

Lyft Inc.

Match Group LLC

Mattel Inc.

Merck & Co. Inc.

Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook)

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Paramount Global

PayPal Inc.

Pinterest Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

RealNetworks Inc.

Red Hat Inc.

Ripple Labs Inc.

Salesforce Inc.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Starbucks Corp.

Steelcase Inc.

The Hershey Co.

The Kraft Heinz Co.

The Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Twilio Inc.

Uber Technologies Inc.

United Airlines Inc.

Verily Life Sciences LLC

ViiV Healthcare Co.

VMware Inc.

Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.

Zazzle Inc.

The second brief has 11 businesses signed up.

They are:

Applied Materials Inc.

Corteva Agriscience

Cummins Inc.

DuPont de Nemours Inc.

Gilead Sciences Inc.

LinkedIn Corp.

Mastercard Inc.

Micron Technology Inc.

Microsoft Corp.

Shell USA Inc.

Verizon Services Corp.

The briefs were filed in hopes of influencing the Supreme Court justices who are poised to hear challenges to universities’ racially discriminatory policies on October 31. The challengers say so-called affirmative action not only hurts white applicants, but works out to be an “anti-Asian penalty” as well. Asian American applicants reportedly generally have higher academic scores and higher extracurricular scores.

The briefs came in the cases known as Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, court file 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina, court file 21-707. Harvard and UNC are, respectively, the oldest private college and the oldest public college in the United States.

Students for Fair Admissions, founded by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, brought the lawsuits. SFFA calls itself “a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” Blum also founded the Project on Fair Representation with a goal to ending racial classifications in education, voting procedures, legislative redistricting, and employment.

Previously, the high court ordered the cases be heard together, but it changed course and on July 22 ordered that they be heard separately.

It did this because the newest justice, Biden affirmative action pick Ketanji Brown Jackson –the esteemed jurist who can’t define what a woman is— is very closely tied to Harvard. Under pressure from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at her confirmation hearing in March, Jackson agreed to recuse herself from the Harvard case. (Both Cruz and Jackson are Harvard Law School graduates.) So now the new leftist justice will only be able to vote to sustain the racist admissions policies of one educational institution, instead of two.

The briefs make it clear that corporate America hates white people and Asian Americans.

The first brief (pdf) argues improbably that race-based discrimination boosts the corporate bottom line and guarantees that higher-ed will produce employees suited for competition in the economy.

“While the benefits of diversity are real and tangible—and corporate DE&I [i.e. diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs seek to maximize those benefits—[the corporations signing the brief] do not recruit applicants in a vacuum.”

“To succeed, these DE&I efforts depend on university admissions programs that lead to graduates educated in racially and ethnically diverse environments. Only in this way can America produce a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders prepared to meet the needs of the modern economy and workforce.”

“There is no doubt that people of all races and ethnic backgrounds deserve a seat at every table and that increasing racial and ethnic diversity throughout [the signers’] workforces is the right thing to do. Although [the signing companies] believe that this is reason enough to seek out racially and ethnically diverse employees and to promote diverse leaders, this brief explains a wide variety of research-backed, tangible ways in which racial and ethnic diversity improves business.”

“Empirical studies confirm that diverse groups make better decisions thanks to increased creativity, sharing of ideas, and accuracy,” the signers of the brief fancifully claim.

“And diverse groups can better understand and serve the increasingly diverse population that uses their products and services. These benefits are not simply intangible; they translate into businesses’ bottom lines. For these reasons, it is no surprise that companies are investing substantially in diversity initiatives—a concrete acknowledgment of the value of a racially diverse workforce and leadership structure to business success.”

David Pivtorak, a Los Angeles attorney, who was born in Ukraine and is wise to the ways of the Left, isn’t buying the claim that these so-called studies prove anything.

“Fascinating that the ‘leading science and technology companies’ who support race discrimination in admissions don’t actually have any ‘science’ in support of their position,” he tweeted August 2.

Pivtorak and right-thinking Americans reject this leftist, identity politics-infused nonsense, but this kind of drivel is what holds sway in corporate boardrooms nowadays.

Corporate America believes that skills are less important than your skin color.

There is, however, still some reason for hope. Americans aren’t fooled by the increasingly absurd arguments advanced by the Left and their corporate allies. They know that racist discrimination doesn’t cease to be racist discrimination just because it is enforced in the name of combating racism.

A 2019 study by Pew Research Center revealed that 73 percent of all adults believe race or ethnicity should not be used in the college admissions process. Whites opposed racial criteria by 78 percent, followed by 65 percent of Hispanics, 62 percent of blacks, and 58 percent of Asians.

Americans know that Corporate America’s in-your-face racism is wrong.

It is possible that the Supreme Court with its 6-3 conservative supermajority is willing to do something about it. In recent months the court has shown unusual courage and good sense by overturning Roe v. Wade, expanding Second Amendment rights, and curbing the government’s environmental regulatory powers.

In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), then-Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor predicted affirmative action’s demise.

“We expect that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” she wrote at the time.

Making race-centered admissions decisions is “dangerous,” O’Connor wrote, describing it a “deviation from the norm of equal treatment.” Such programs must “be limited in time,” she said, adding that “all governmental use of race must have a logical end point.”

Let us hope the time has finally come for the Supreme Court to do the right thing about racism in college admissions.

This article was first published in