Disney, the household entertainment brand, is currently in the process of recruiting an executive role under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This prominent role boasts an attractive remuneration package that defies the norm, it clocks in at a minimum of $197,700 and peaks at a staggering $241,500. This package far surpasses the average American wage in 2024, which is recorded as $59,428 annually.
The company sheds light on this role through its job description, where it’s stated that this executive will pioneer their DEI objectives through meticulous development of strategic relationships outside the firm. The individual will contribute to the overall community involvement and be expected to gather valuable insights instrumental in shaping the company’s DEI strategy.
This impending recruit would take course in steering the DEI mission within the company. Their ambition will be reflected through spearheading diversity centric projects, enhancing the presence and recognition of DEI endeavors, as well as reporting on their progression within the company.
The rising prominence of DEI in corporations, such as Disney, has not gone unnoticed and has sparked a wave of scrutiny among professionals dealing with consumer protection. They argue that the DEI ideology, besides bearing ethical problems, also poses potential financial risks.
In an instance of stark criticism against such practices, Will Hild, who heads Consumers’ Research, a non-profit organization dealing with consumer protection, conveyed his skepticism regarding DEI. He put forth that DEI seems to dangerously tread on the fields of competency, replacing it with a rudimentary form of discrimination based on race and gender.
He continues his argument by calling out the seemingly pointless spending on the DEI lead role which to him adds little to no value from a financial perspective. According to him, the annual payout to the DEI officer being a hefty quarter of a million dollars does more to push a particular ideology rather than contribute tangible positive results to the firm’s financial status.
Hild points out that Disney’s decision to deepen their commitment to DEI, despite their financial struggles, rather hints at a deep-rooted problem. In his perspective, what was at one point a reputed American company, seems to have taken a troubling shift towards a less financially sound ideology.
Disney’s attachment to DEI is not a new occurrence, they’ve previously been seen advocating this ideology. Cases in point include the findings of several undercover investigations by the O’Keefe Media Group which suggested the company may have endorsed unjust practices within its ranks, centered around gender and race.
The undercover footage displayed an encounter with a previous senior vice president at Disney, stating he had suspicion of being overlooked for promotions due to his racial and gender identity. This revelation has stirred discussions further about the transparency and fairness in the company’s promotion practices.
In an additional probe by O’Keefe Media Group, it was brought to light that Disney may be intentionally promoting a specific narrative amongst employees. The company even seemed to be advocating employees supporting their colleagues’ decisions to transition, further highlighting the DEI ideology.
The investigations also noted the presence of an employee-led initiative named ‘Disney Pride Think Tank’. This collective effort aimed at amplifying LGBTQ+ representation across the company’s content, products, experiences, and services. Hence, Disney’s additional push towards DEI is visibly mirrored in internal actions.
Interestingly while Disney is bolstering its DEI initiatives, not all companies are following suit. Amidst a growing societal backlash, several large corporations have decided to withdraw from DEI efforts. Harley-Davidson, for instance, has chosen to cease its DEI practices and it seems like others such as Tractor Supply and Lowe’s may follow suit.
Despite the mixed responses and increasing opposition, companies like Disney stand firm behind their DEI policies. Hild reasons that this mindset is possibly due to the HR executives, who despite hailing from top educational institutions, seem entwined with the ‘wokeness’ narrative.
Hild also emphasizes the influential power consumers hold in potentially steering the direction businesses take. He stresses that all aren’t powerless against the sway of DEI, consumers’ expressions of disapproval coupled with social media backlash, can indeed compel these companies to rethink their strong DEI stance.