Last week, the Epstein Files forced Kathryn Ruemmler to resign from Goldman Sachs, after her "Uncle Jeffrey" correspondence emerged in full. Ruemmler connected Goldman Sachs to the same Democrat-progressive establishment that pushes DEI, thanks to her senior role in the Barack Obama administration as White House general counsel. Ruemmler joins several left-leaning figures from politics, Academia, corporate America, and Hollywood getting the heave-ho.
Now, Goldman Sachs wants to dump DEI when it comes to choosing their board of directors, the Wall Street Journal reports. Coincidence? We report, you decide:
The Wall Street giant is preparing to remove race, gender identity, sexual orientation and other diversity factors from the criteria its board will consider when identifying potential candidates, according to people familiar with the matter.
The board’s governance committee currently finds qualified candidates based primarily on four factors, one of which is a broad description of diversity, such as viewpoints, background, work and military service in addition to “other demographics” that includes a list of DEI factors.
Now it plans to cross off the “other demographics” including race, gender identity, ethnicity and sexual orientation, the people said.
Goldman’s decision followed a behind-the-scenes request from the conservative activist nonprofit National Legal and Policy Center, which owns a small stake in the bank. The group submitted a proposal to the firm in September, seeking to remove the DEI criteria, the people said. The group requested its proposal be included in Goldman’s proxy statement that will be circulated to shareholders ahead of the firm’s annual shareholder meeting this spring.
In truth, this may well be more coincidental than strategic. As the WSJ noted, Goldman Sachs had already begun retreating from DEI in its operations, starting that shift shortly after Donald Trump took office. The entire banking industry followed suit, with Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup immediately acting in the wake of Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo reportedly close behind. By May, Goldman Sachs had taken one of its premier DEI projects – the "One Million Black Women" initiative – and retooled it for a focus on black ink rather than race and sex:
The Wall Street giant four years ago launched its “One Million Black Women” program, a multibillion-dollar commitment to invest in Black women. In recent weeks, the bank removed mentions of “Black” from the program’s home page, without changing its name.
An educational program for Black businesswomen was also recently scrubbed of references to race. Goldman’s site now just says its “Black in Business” program helps entrepreneurs “stay in the black,” a reference to being profitable. ...
Goldman, like much of corporate America, has been combing through its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to ensure that it doesn’t run into legal troubles, while trying not to entirely abandon its pledges. The bank is treading a fine line. While Goldman has been changing words, the program’s sites still feature photos of Black women and research reports about “Black Womenomics.”
So Goldman Sachs has been on retreat from DEI in its operations for a year. Why is this news? Until now, corporate America has clung to the idea of DEI representation on corporate boards, again under pressure from the progressive Left and the Protection Racket Media. It is a somewhat safer approach to DEI than in banking operations, where the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division could make cases for discrimination in employment and lending, under the new policies of the Trump administration. Board appointments are more shareholder driven and less fraught with legal liabilities.
Plus, the DEI activists understand that boards hold real power and can drive internal policies, which is why the Left has spent the last several years pushing for regulation requiring boards to have quotas for "diversity." California passed AB979 in 2020, requiring "corporate board diversity," for instance. Courts have derailed it over its violation of the Equal Protection Clause in California's state constitution, but the pressure from state and federal governments – as well as the mainstream media – have kept this quota system in place, if more sotto voce.
Until now, that is, and one has to wonder whether the Epstein Files had some impact on the timing. Goldman Sachs resisted this move for a full year after beginning its retreat from DEI. Did Ruemmler push to maintain this policy? Or did the breathtaking hypocrisy of seeing so many progressive scolds chumming up to a known sexual predator for cash and fancy gifts finally cut the moral legs out from under their pet DEI policies?
It all comes down to whether one believes in coincidences in politics. I've heard of them. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen one, and I'm not convinced that this is my first coincidence rodeo, either.
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Hot Air, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. Sometimes, however, we just point and laugh, and let the radical Left embarrass itself. This is one of those times.
Help us continue to point out, laugh at, and expose the idiocy of progressive elites. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member