Report on Divisive Concepts Spread Internally by Companies in the 2024 Viewpint
by Michael Ross
Legal Counsel for Corporate Engagement
Alliance Defending Freedom
Question Researched: Has the firm used its business recommendations, blog, or other resource to publicly advocate controversial or divisive ideas to the public?
In recent years, a significant drive for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has been seen within business organizations. However, our research has brought to light a concerning trend: many companies are now projecting their internal workforce practices and ideologies outward into society.
The research examined whether the 85 companies scored in the 2024 Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index advocate divisive ideas like critical race theory in public discourse. To make this assessment, our team researched public square resources we already use to score companies on the Index and conducted searches on company websites via Google using terms that we use when assessing whether companies promote divisive concepts for vendors or employees. Specific key terms were applied using open-source search. These were the terms used:
| Allyship | White Complicity | Institutional Racism |
| Paternalism | Whiteness | Cultural Appropriation |
| Unconscious Bias | Antiracis[t/ism] | Hate Speech |
| Internal Bias | Cisnormativ[ity] | Internalized Dominance |
| Implicit Bias | Heteronormativ[ity] | Internalized Oppression |
| Intersectionality | Critical Consciousness | Internalized Racism |
| White Privilege | Oppression | Microagression |
| White Fragility | Systematic Racism | Xenophobia |
Key terms outlined in this report provide a method for tracking how DEI initiatives have permeated the public square. While not all of the terms or inherently problematic, they are closely associated with DEI, which the examples in this report confirm.
Results
Out of the 85 companies evaluated in the 2024 Index, 32, or 38%, actively promote DEI initiatives to the public. Notably, inclusivity, unconscious bias, and LGBTQ+ inclusivity have emerged as the most prevalent themes. With LGBTQ+ inclusivity, the push is to normalize the use of varied or incongruent pronouns for biological sex. Moreover, concepts such as racial justice, allyship, intersectionality, and social justice have been prominently featured in these companies’ outward-facing strategies. The accompanying chart offers a comprehensive breakdown of these findings, underscoring the extent to which DEI principles are integrated into corporate messaging and actions.
The companies we evaluated have published articles, blogs, reports, guides, or other publications promoting divisive concepts for public consumption. Our primary focus was to ascertain whether advocacy was targeted toward external stakeholders, such as customers, clients, industry members, or ordinary people, rather than toward vendors or internal employees. Some instances uncovered the creation of educational materials intended for classroom use, such as Microsoft’s lesson on privilege and fragility and Verizon’s provision of school and parent toolkits addressing race and tolerance.
Verizon’s toolkit link redirects parents and educators to resources on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) website for a resource ironically titled “Teaching Tolerance.” Rather than fostering genuine inclusivity, Verizon is promoting a resource that is divisive and focuses on identity-based categories that emphasize differences rather than unity. This approach creates tension, especially in educational settings where parents expect neutral, fact-based resources.
Similarly, Morgan Stanley provided post-COVID re-emergence guides for parents and teachers with tips on managing teens returning to school, specifically racial minority students, students with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Morgan Stanley and US Bancorp showcased guides for investors targeting LGBTQ+ and minority communities, illustrating how capital allocation can alleviate social and racial inequalities. While well-intentioned, these guides risk further segregating groups instead of promoting opportunities for all. Singling out specific groups for financial support sends a message that certain demographics need preferential treatment, potentially creating resentment among other investors and communities. It also opens the door for accusations of corporate virtue signaling—prioritizing social agendas over sound, inclusive financial advice.
This research represents only a snapshot of external advocacy efforts and does not encompass all promotional activities undertaken by each company. Advocacy levels vary among companies, with some engaging extensively and others only minimally. The chart below lists companies promoting divisive concepts externally and related subject matter. Sample findings are also provided in the form of hyperlinks to a resource. The resources originate from each company’s website and may have a link within the company’s site to a third party, as in Verizon’s link to SPLC.
