XYZ Corporation Employment Ad
Come work for us! We value the skill, knowledge, merit, and
education of each of our employees without regard to their race,
gender or ethnicity.
Our pledge is that you will be hired,
promoted, and compensated fairly in a
manner commensurate with your ability to
improve our bottom line.
If you can do the work, if you have the skill,
and if you can do it better than other
applicants, we will hire you and we will pay you accordingly.
"We don't discriminate on the basis of race, gender or
ethnicity -- period!"TM
Table of Contents:
Section:
Title:
Page:
1.
Anti-Preference Boycotts?
2
2.
Detailed Boycott Checklist
4
3.
Life Decisions International Case Study
7
4.
Potential Candidates for a Boycott
11
5.
Where Are Our Conservative Allies?
15
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 1 of 17
.
1. Anti-Preference Boycotts?
By Tim Fay, Adversity.Net, Inc.
Imagine that in some distant future we begin seeing this logo at the
bottom of an employment ad accompanied by the tag line:
"We don't discriminate on the basis of race, gender or
ethnicity -- period!"TM
Imagine further that employers willingly obtain a license to display
this logo (at no charge) by signing a non-discrimination agreement.
Could the arrival of this day be hastened by our concerted efforts to persuade
employers that non-discrimination (no preferences) is in their financial interests and in
their shareholders' interests?
This paper's focus is on Anti-Preference Boycotts, but it is useful to briefly review
some of the other things that the anti-preference movement is doing or could be doing
to hasten the demise of this
discriminatory and counterproductive
practice. In the diagram at the right,
potential new initiatives are illustrated
in the shaded, italicized ovals.
To the best of my knowledge, we are
not currently engaged in any
structured way in the following:
Boycotts; Encouraging and Facilitating
Employee Activism; Shareholder
Activism; Socially Aware Investment
Fund; Offering Race Neutral Models;
nor Offering Alternatives to Diversity
Training.
All of these efforts represent an
opportunity for synergy in our overall effort to eliminate group membership preferences
in the workplace and elsewhere.
The Boycott Initiative
Boycott Purpose: Discourage businesses from practicing racial preferences and/or
providing support to racial preference advocacy organizations. Provide businesses with
economic and PR disincentives for practicing or supporting racial preferences. At the
same time provide them with alternative, model methods to promote and/or practice
equal treatment without regard to race.
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 2 of 17
The main ingredients of a successful boycott should include:







Articulation of clear boycott goals
Selection of vulnerable businesses
Identification of effective methods and messages
Opening two-way communication with the targeted business
Backing and support from a wide range of organizations and individuals
Widely publicizing the boycott
Direct action:
o Letter writing and phone calls (to the press, to the business, to businesses
that do business with the target, to customers of the business)
o Economic sanctions (stop patronizing the business)
The boycott initiative will need a title which evokes civic-mindedness. Some
suggestions include "BLEND" (Business Leaders for Equality and Non-Discrimination),
or "PEND" (People for Equality and Non-Discrimination)
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 3 of 17
2. Detailed Boycott Checklist:
With a generous borrowing of ideas from Life Decisions International
(LDI Web Site: http://www.fightpp.org)
Choose vulnerable businesses
Boycott locally wherever possible
Carefully construct the list of boycott targets:

Establish clear, uniform criteria for boycotting a business or organization.

Establish clear, uniform criteria for removing the business or organization from the
boycott list. What conditions does the target need to meet in order to be removed
from the list?

The boycott list should include the name, address, phone number, website address,
products, subsidiaries, services, and chief executive officer for every boycott target.

Wherever possible the boycott list should also include local trading partners or
businesses who do business with the targeted organizations. Include complete
contact info for the trading partner.
Keep tight control of the boycott list:

We and only we will issue official public statements about one or a few boycott
target(s) at a time.

Charge a nominal fee to supporters who wish to obtain the complete list. This
discourages opponents from trying to bankrupt us by flooding us with requests for
materials. (This is exactly what happened to Life Decisions in their early days. The
pro-choice movement flooded them with requests for materials and nearly
bankrupted them.)

Controlling the boycott list allows us to keep outdated lists out of circulation, i.e.,
after a boycott target has met some or all of our demands.

Controlling the list helps to discourage the creation of sham lists by our opponents.
Offer (via web site and other methods) model scripts or model letters for individual
boycotters to express their support for equal treatment and their opposition to the racial
preferences agenda of the target organization.
Create synergy and publicity with projects related to the equal treatment agenda (this
list is shamelessly paraphrased from LDI's web site). Some of these things are already
being done in one form or the other by our allied organizations:
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 4 of 17

Celebrating Equal Treatment - This project will provide information to employees,
voters, students and elected officials regarding the benefits of equal treatment
without regard to race, gender or ethnicity.

Celebrity Watch - This project will identify public figures that support racial
preferences. Categories will include actors, musicians and authors.

Community Action Project - Will provide tools and proven strategies to help
citizens fight racial preferences.

Corporate Funding Project - Will focus on educating corporate officials about the
agenda of the race hustlers in an effort to convince them to deny support to these
groups.

Just The Facts - A resource for factual, up-to-date and verified information about all
known aspects of the most prominent race hustlers (such as Just Me Jackson, Al
Sharpton, the Urban Institute, ACLU, Harvard's so-called 'Civil Rights Project', and
many others).

Organization Watch - This project will investigate and publish the names of
charitable entities that support the use of racial preferences and quotas.

Project Teach - This project will focus on public education on the agenda of the
race hustlers. After all, the race hustlers greatest ally has been public ignorance of
their goals and activities. Many members of the public willingly buy the warm, fuzzy
terms "affirmative action" and "disparate impact" without having access to objective,
truthful information about the true intent and effect of these policies.

Student Outreach - This project will center on spreading the equal treatment
message on campuses. This will dovetail nicely with the current resurgence of
conservative student organizations on many campuses. We will counter the proquota propaganda with a positive, non-discrimination response that appeals to
young people. We also serve as a resource for pro-equal treatment student groups.
(See also CIR's excellent student handbook at
http://www.cir-usa.org/handbook.html)
Maintain and publish a list of "Pro-Equal Treatment" organizations. Include an
appropriate disclaimer such as: "The following list of organizations is presented as a
service to equal treatment activists and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement
of any particular group, project, activity, policy and/or statement". Here is a partial list of
pro-equal treatment organizations:






Adversity.Net (http://www.adversity.net)
Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences
American Civil Rights Coalition (http://www.acrc1.org)
American Civil Rights Institute (http://www.acri.org)
Atlantic Legal Foundation (http://atlanticlegal.org)
Cato Institute (http://cato.org)
Oct. 25, 2007
(http://www.aadap.org)
Page 5 of 17

Concerned American Firefighters Association Philadelphia Chapter
(http://www.caffaphilly.com)
















Center for Equal Opportunity (http://www.ceousa.org)
Center for Individual Rights (http://www.cir-usa.org)
Committee for Justice (http://committeeforjustice.org)
Council of Conservative Citizens (http://cofcc.org/)
European American Issues Forum (http://www.eaif.org)
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org)
Institute for Justice (http://www.instituteforjustice.org)
Landmark Legal Foundation (http://www.landmarklegal.org)
Mountain States Legal Foundation (http://www.mountainstateslegal.com)
National Association for Neighborhood Schools (http://www.nans.org)
Pacific Legal Foundation (http://www.pacificlegal.org)
ProEnglish (http://proenglish.org)
Southeastern Legal Foundation (http://southeasternlegal.org)
Texas Legal Foundation (http://texaslegalfoundation.org)
Washington Legal Foundation (http://www.wlf.org)
(Others to be added)
Create a "bug" or a "widget" that our allied organizations can prominently post on their
web sites which links the viewer to our boycott web site (BLEND, PEND, or whatever).
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 6 of 17
3. Life Decisions International:
A Case Study in Effective Boycott Techniques
Life Decisions International has had some success using boycotts and targeted
publicity to dissuade businesses from donating money to Planned Parenthood and other
pro-abortion groups.
It is not the purpose of this paper, nor of our boycott proposal, to take a position
pro or con on family planning or abortion. The Life Decisions International (LDI) story is
presented solely as a case study in effective boycott techniques.
Life Decisions International forced Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the
world, and his Berkshire Hathaway holdings, to stop donating money to groups such as
Planned Parenthood. LDI did this by threatening Buffett's smallest, most vulnerable
businesses. It is significant to note that LDI began targeting Buffett and Berkshire
Hathaway in 1992 with little success until they hit upon the strategy of going after
Buffett's most vulnerable companies at the local level.
Buffett, ever the sensitive, liberal capitalist, couldn't bear to see his cherished
small business holdings damaged because of Berkshire's support for abortion so he
withdrew his support of pro-abortion organizations.
Reproduced below is the complete text of an excellent Washington Post article
which was published July 20, 2003. This story documents in some detail how Life
Decisions International succeeded in forcing the world's second richest man to stop
donating money to Planned Parenthood. Post reporter Roger Lowenstein makes it
clear that he is displeased with LDI's tactics and agenda.
Headline: Nothing Charitable About Giving In
By Roger Lowenstein
Washington Post, Sunday July 20, 2003; Page B03
Last Known Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14493-2003Jul19?language=printer
[WESTFIELD, N.J.] Is your corporation now, or has it ever been, a contributor to
Planned Parenthood?
Most executives have yet to be asked, but if Warren Buffett's recent tussle with
an anti-abortion group is any indication, the era of such litmus tests may not be far
behind. Disturbingly, for those who believe in freedom of philanthropic choice, a group
called Life Decisions International has persuaded Buffett to shutter one of the most
novel corporate charity programs in the country.
Buffett, the Omaha investor and Wall Street savant, is the world's second-richest
man, worth some $35 billion. Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate he controls, has
interests in some 60 businesses, ranging from insurance and jet-leasing to furniture. (It
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 7 of 17
also owns a portfolio of stocks, including The Washington Post Co., of which Buffett is a
director.) While Buffett is best known for his stock-picking prowess and his high share
price -- Berkshire's Class A shares closed Friday at $71,500 a share -- his company's
philanthropic program was a quintessentially Buffett-like approach to corporate
democracy.
Buffett has long criticized chief executives for donating corporate funds to their
pet charities. After all, the money belongs to the stockholders, not to the CEOs. So, in
1981, Berkshire inaugurated a shareholder-designated program. Berkshire decided to
give $2 per outstanding share to charity -- but to let each shareholder allocate his or her
portion of the corporate gift. Thus, a stockholder owning 100 shares could designate the
beneficiary of a $200 gift; one with 150 shares could allocate a gift of $300. Each
shareholder was allowed to spread his or her gift over a maximum of three charities.
Over the years, the per-share gift has grown (though not nearly as quickly as the pershare stock price), reaching $18 last year. Since 1981, shareholders have designated
about $197 million in gifts. In 2002, 97 percent of eligible shareholders participated in
the program, resulting in donations of $16.5 million to about 3,500 charitable
organizations.
The program also became a unique part of the Berkshire culture. Even small
shareholders (like me) got a charge out of participating, and the many stockholders
whose children owned shares got a homegrown lesson in corporate democracy. To wit,
I allocated my gift to public radio; my daughter, Allison, picked a local animal shelter. To
each her own.
Over the years, shareholders have directed gifts to every flavor of organization
and cause, ranging from environmental groups to the National Rifle Association.
Schools were the most frequent choice, with about 800 institutions benefiting, followed
by more than 400 churches and synagogues. Meanwhile, during the revelations of
corporate abuse in recent years, Buffett's criticism of conventional charity plans came to
seem prescient. Enron, for example, made large contributions to the University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The center's president, John Mendelsohn, served on
Enron's audit committee, which was highly negligent in monitoring the company. In
effect, it appears that Enron's management used shareholder-funded (and taxpayersubsidized) philanthropy to help buy a complacent board.
The controversy regarding Berkshire's program was triggered by Buffett himself.
By far the company's largest shareholder, he allocated his gifts to the privately run
Buffett Foundation. The foundation has been a big supporter of Planned Parenthood
and other organizations that support abortion rights.
Life Decisions International, based in Washington, targets corporations that
contribute to what it terms "the deadly agenda" of Planned Parenthood and other
abortion rights supporters. Doug Scott, the organization's president and a former high
school history teacher, claims that as a result of boycotts and pressure instigated by his
organization, 91 companies prior to Berkshire had ceased giving to Planned
Parenthood. He won't name most of his corporate trophies, but one of them, he says, is
American Express. (American Express confirms that it has stopped funding Planned
Parenthood, but disputes that it was influenced by any outside group.) [Note: This article
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 8 of 17
was written in 2003. As of today, LDI claims that they have forced 150 companies to
stop funding Planned Parenthood. Tjf]
Planned Parenthood, most of whose money is donated by individuals, says that,
nationwide, it has not seen a drop-off in corporate donations. A spokesman for Planned
Parenthood characterized Life Decisions as "a group so extreme they would cut off their
own funding to harm us."
[Doug] Scott [LDI's president] doesn't dispute that. He says that one corporation
offered to match its Planned Parenthood contribution with an equal contribution to Life
Decisions if Scott agreed to remove it from his target list; Scott refused. Asked if he
would end a boycott if a company donated ten times as much to Life Decisions, Scott
replied, "not a chance."
Berkshire Hathaway has been a target of Life Decisions since the latter's
inception in 1992, but with no noticeable effect until recently. The company routinely got
letters from people protesting Buffett's stance on abortion rights and threatening to
cancel their automobile insurance policies from Berkshire's Geico subsidiary or to not
patronize the company's candy business. Just as routinely, Buffett ignored them.
But when Berkshire acquired a new subsidiary, Pampered Chef, last year, it
suddenly became more vulnerable. [Emphasis added. Tjf]
Pampered Chef, which distributes cooking equipment and kitchenware, was in
many ways a typical Berkshire acquisition. It was a private, low-tech business whose
founder, Doris Christopher, agreed to continue to run the company under the Berkshire
umbrella. But Pampered Chef's sales organization was atypical for Berkshire. It
distributes products via independent agents, known as "consultants," mostly women,
who demonstrate the company's wares in household gatherings of one or two dozen
homemakers at a time.
After Berkshire's acquisition, Life Decisions called for a consumer boycott
of Pampered Chef. The boycott, publicized on radio and over the Web, apparently
did serious harm to the company's sales force. According to Life Decisions, some
of the unit's consultants objected to Buffett's support of Planned Parenthood, and
left the company. Others were distraught over the harm done to their sales and
over being subjected to shrill, high-pressure protests. [Emphasis added. Tjf]
Christopher, the Pampered Chef founder, brought the matter to Buffett's
attention. Although the subsidiary is a negligible part of Berkshire, its distress was
agonizing to Buffett, who dotes over every aspect of the company. And early this month,
Berkshire abruptly terminated its contributions program. Life Decisions trumpeted the
decision on its Web site and asserted that Berkshire was trophy number 92. It also
announced that Berkshire and its subsidiaries were being removed from its hit list.
There is no reason to think that Buffett will not continue to contribute, privately, to
Planned Parenthood, so the group's victory may be a public relations triumph as much
as anything. But the loss to Berkshire, its beneficiaries, and its shareholders, is real.
Those hundreds of organizations from every part of the political and social spectrum will
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 9 of 17
lose a source of funding, and [this reporter's daughter] Allison will not get her annual
course in gift-giving.
Buffett does not want further publicity. He declined to comment beyond a terse
announcement, which was released on the evening of July 3, not exactly a prime news
time. It went virtually unnoticed. Charles Munger, Berkshire's vice-chairman and
Buffett's long-time partner, was, characteristically, more outspoken.
"It killed me" to terminate the program, Munger said. "I invented it." But, he
added, "we really like the woman who invented the Pampered Chef. And we really like
the people, the independent consultants. They were having real rebellion troubles -- we
just hated the idea of having a new subsidiary that was being hurt because they had
joined Berkshire."
Munger [Berkshire's vice-chairman at the time of this article] pointed out that
relative to Berkshire's share price, the donations program was tiny, and that
stockholders are free to give some of their shares, each of which can be broken into
smaller chunks, to charities. "Controversial donations have never been big for
companies," he added. "Maybe they should be left to individuals."
Even so, Berkshire watchers, including yours truly [Wash Post reporter Roger
Lowenstein], were disappointed that Buffett would cave at the expense of a signature
program. Given his means, he has not been an overly generous philanthropist (last
year, his foundation made bequests of $33 million) but in a corporate America
dominated of late by scandal, no one has exemplified the role of a public manager
better. The donations program was a prime example of the principle that appears each
year in his annual report: "Although our form is corporate, our attitude is partnership." It
made every shareholder feel like Buffett's partner.
As for Life Decisions, it will go on, with renewed zeal, to target other companies it
deems offensive. Buffett and Munger no doubt chose the pragmatic course, but
pragmatism has its limits. Standing on principle also has its place. -30Author's e-mail: ElRogL@aol.com -- Roger Lowenstein is the author of "Buffett: The
Making of an American Capitalist." His new book, "Origins of the Crash: The Great
Bubble and Its Undoing," will be published in January by Penguin Press.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 10 of 17
4. Potential Candidates for a Boycott
The nominees in this list are richly deserving of sanctions for their blatant support
of racial preferences and quotas. According to the criteria used to select these firms
just about every business in the U.S. would be a candidate for an anti-preference
boycott. And one could reasonably debate whether the listed firms are particularly
vulnerable or susceptible to a boycott. Local, retail businesses which support racial
quotas and preferences are always a more desirable, vulnerable boycott target.
Kodak, Boeing, Coca Cola and Texaco -- These four firms are nominated in
part because of their racially exclusive supplier diversity programs. The dollar value of
racially-restricted private sector contracting and supply opportunities from these four
firms alone was a staggering $2.7 billion in just one year.
Additionally, all four of these firms are prolific funders and promoters of anything
that is not white, not of Northern European descent, which does not celebrate the
contributions and value of Western Civilization, and which is neither conservative nor
Christian.
Kodak: Kodak is already a target of conservative Christians because of the
company's treatment of employee Rolf Szabo. The Szabo case is a cause celebre on
the internet. Mr. Szabo was a loyal 23 year Kodak veteran. As a conservative Christian
Mr. Szabo had the temerity to object to receiving corporate emails promoting Kodak's
"Coming Out Day" for gay and lesbian Kodakers. For this he was subjected to a choice:
undergo Kodak's "re-education camp" or be fired. He refused the "re-education camp"
so Mr. Szabo was fired.
Kodak's so-called "winning and inclusive culture" is actually an oppressive,
politically correct program which even provides guidelines for employees to "rat out"
fellow employees who may not be completely accepting of the firm's politically correct
racial preference agenda.
Like the other nominees on this list, Kodak generously funds dozens of minority
causes and non-heterosexual groups and basks in numerous awards from these same
groups.
See particularly http://adversity.net/Kodak/03_minority_causes.htm
Boeing: Like Kodak, Boeing has a supplier diversity program which excludes virtually
all small, non-minority firms from providing supplies or other subcontract services. Also
like Kodak, Boeing submitted to racial extortion demands from Just-Me-Jackson and
others, aided and abetted by the ever-sensitive Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP in the Dept. of Labor), and agreed to spend $1.3 billion on racebased and gender-based programs without every having been proven guilty in a court of
law of practicing racial discrimination.
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 11 of 17
Between 1997 and 2002 at least five discrimination lawsuits were brought
against Boeing essentially for not providing equal results (in pay) to preferred groups.
As a result Boeing implemented all kinds of racially sensitive programs none of which
address the values of Western Civilization and none of which embrace equal treatment
regardless of race. Like Kodak, Boeing also basks in the warm glow of numerous
awards and accolades from the race hustlers.
See particularly http://adversity.net/c33_boeing.htm
Coca Cola: In the late 1990's Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity aptly
dubbed this soft drink giant "Quota Cola" for its pliant acquiescence to specious
demands from the quota pushers.
Like Kodak and Boeing, the Quota Cola company submitted to the racialist's
demands that it provide equal results to its minority and female employees regardless of
their personnel and performance records. In the end, and within the span of one year,
Quota Cola provided 1/2 billion dollars for race-based causes and initiatives.
Like the other racially submissive firms, Quota Cola also aggressively pursues a
supplier diversity program which excludes small businesses owned by white males and
other non-preferred groups from opportunities to provide supplies or other contract
services to the soft drink giant.
See particularly http://adversity.net/c26_quota_cola_1.htm
Texaco: In 1994 a half-dozen disgruntled black employees -- subsequently joined by
1400 or so co-plaintiffs -- sued the oil giant for disparate pay or, as I see it, for a failure
to provide equal pay for unequal work.
Texaco Sidebar:
Initially it looked like Texaco would fend off the
attack by NAACP LDF, Clinton's DOJ and EEOC,
Just Me Jackson and the other racialists.
But by 1997 the shareholders and the board were
leery of further negative publicity and Texaco settled
for at least $176 million including funding diversity
training, payouts to the alleged victims, and other
pro-preference initiatives.
Massachusetts' current governator, Deval
Patrick, figured prominently in the Texaco
settlement. (Residents of Massachusetts
should be very afraid.) Deval Patrick was
Bill Clinton's Assistant Attorney General
for Civil Rights at the beginning of the
Texaco litigation (eventually to be
succeeded by Bill Lann Lee). Deval
Patrick went from DOJ to Texaco where
he became the original chair of the
Texaco Task Force in 1997 charged with
implementing Texaco's "remedial" racial
preference policies. In 2001 Patrick
became General Counsel at Coca Cola
(a.k.a. Quota Cola)
At the time of the settlement Texaco wasted no time
in proving it's racialist bona fides. The oil giant
immediately joined Houston's then-mayor Bob
Lanier in a misinformation campaign to defeat the
Houston Civil Rights Initiative which would have banned the use of racial preferences in
that City.
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 12 of 17
Texaco also joins the other boycott nominees in their support of racially exclusive
supplier diversity programs which prohibit small, non-minority-owned businesses from
supplying services or products to the oil giant.
See particularly http://adversity.net/c14_tbd.htm
General Motors (and by extension, Chrysler and Ford): On Sept. 13, 2007 this Big
3 automaker received the extremely dubious honor of being named "Corporation of the
Year" at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition's 8th Annual Automotive Symposium (whatever
the heck that is).
Receiving an honor from any of Just Me Jackson's myriad racial scam
organizations always means that the honoree has been qualified as a bona fide
"racialist".
According to Just Me Jackson's press release on 9/13/07: "General Motors will
receive this award for executing a viable supplier diversity plan, promoting child seat
belt safety in the minority community; providing financial support of the Martin Luther
King National Memorial; demonstrating social leadership with the affirmative action
initiative in Michigan [i.e., opposing equal treatment]; and appointing African Americans
to 14% of its board of directors."
In fact, long before Just Me Jackson issued his recognition of GM as an official
"racialist" company, GM had been vigorously trying to exclude white males, white
females, and other non-minorities from its supply and subcontract business via their
supplier diversity programs.
Ten years ago the U.S. Small Business Administration successfully "encouraged"
the Big Three Automakers (GM, Chrysler, and Ford) to sign a "voluntary" memorandum
of understanding (MOU) which essentially prohibited white-owned suppliers from doing
business with the automakers. The agreement stated in part:

General Motors will increase its Tier 1/Tier 2 subcontract awards to minorityowned businesses by $1 billion, resulting in Tier 1 subcontract awards of $2.2
billion and Tier 2 subcontract awards of $800 million in 2000, the third and final
year of the pilot.

Ford will increase its Tier 1/Tier 2 subcontract awards to minority-owned
businesses by $900 million, resulting in Tier 1 subcontract awards of $2.5 billion
and Tier 2 subcontract awards of $800 million in 2000, the third and final year of
the pilot.

Chrysler will increase its Tier 1/Tier 2 subcontract awards to minority-owned
businesses by $1 billion, resulting in Tier 1 subcontract awards of $1.5 billion and
Tier 2 subcontract awards of $1 billion in 2000, the third and final year of the
pilot.
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 13 of 17

Each year the three Automakers will sponsor, in aggregate, at least ten minority
executives for a formal minority business executive program such as that at the
Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College or the University of
Wisconsin, for a total of 30 minority executives during the three years of the pilot.
Real Life Impact:
According to a Tier 2 supplier whom I interviewed, this MOU resulted in huge
losses for her firm and succeeded in driving first and second tier auto parts business off
shore. In fact, the owner of this particular auto parts firm subsequently went to the
trouble to get her firm certified by the SBA as a Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB).
But the Big 3 made it clear to her they only wanted persons of color. The details of this
case are online at http://adversity.net/c25_tbd.htm
It is a certainty that many other Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers owned by members of
the wrong group suffered similar fates.
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 14 of 17
5. Where Are Our Reliable, Conservative Allies?
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Once considered to be a reliably conservative voice
for American businesses, the U.S. Chamber now trumpets supplier diversity initiatives,
maintains a minority portal on its web site with advice on how to become certified as a
minority business, and maintains a "Women Portal" with similar advice for womenowned businesses.
I couldn't find one single reference on their web site regarding equal treatment
without regard to race, nor any reference to issues facing non-minority owned
businesses.
Playing it politically safe, the U.S. Chamber does publicize its support for a
"reverse discrimination" decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Chamber's
legal arm (National Chamber Litigation Center) filed an amicus brief. But the case had
nothing to do with race, gender or ethnicity. It was a "reverse age discrimination case"
(General Dynamcis Land Systems v. Cline).
COORS BREWING COMPANY: I don't know why I'm picking on Coors Brewing
Company other than the fact that they share a name with the Coors Foundation plus the
fact that I was fairly horrified by what I found on their web site.
Workplace Diversity:
"The following employee resource groups have been
chartered at the company. [In] Golden, Colorado:








Coors African American Association
Coors Veterans Group
Coors Native American Council
Women at Coors
Silent Coors
Lesbian and Gay Employee Resource
Coors Hispanic Employee Network
Coors Asian Network
Coors Sidebar:
Note: The Adolph Coors Foundation,
which is completely separate from the
Coors Brewing Company and which does
not use any of its funds for the benefit of
the Coors Brewing Company, does fund
or has funded conservative causes such
as Accuracy in Media, Center for the
Study of Popular Culture, Institute for
American Values and, of course, The
Heritage Foundation.
See: http://www.coors.com/part_diversity_workplace.asp
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community
"Coors Brewing Company supports collaboration and partnership with the gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community and we've developed a variety of national
and regional initiatives to support GLBT employees and causes."
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 15 of 17
See: http://www.coors.com/part_community_efforts_glbt.asp
African American:
"Coors also strives to develop a workforce that reflects the global marketplace. We
place great emphasis on recruiting qualified African Americans to work at Coors, and
we partner with organizations such as the Colorado Black MBA Association, the
National Black MBA Association, the Colorado Black Chamber of Commerce and the
Urban League to find promising candidates."
See: http://www.coors.com/part_community_efforts_african.asp




"Black Enterprise magazine honored Coors as one of the nation’s Top 30
Employers for Blacks (2005)
"Fortune magazine's "Diversity Elite," a list of America's 50 best companies for
minorities (1998, 1999, 2001)
"Conference of Black Mayors Appreciation Award for support of the African
American community through scholarships, donations and contributions (2000)
"National Minority Supplier Development Council Corporation of the Year award
(1996)"
See: http://www.coors.com/factsheets/African%20American%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Hispanics:
"The Coors Hispanic Employee Network (CHEN) is an active employee diversity council
aimed at ensuring that Hispanic employees receive support and have the ability to
influence the decision-making process at Coors. This organization also helps with
Denver-area events and activities in the Hispanic community, and assists needy
college-bound students with annual scholarships."
See: http://www.coors.com/part_community_efforts_hispanic.asp
Asian American:
"Coors works closely with national and local Asian American organizations, and
supports programs to meet the needs of the Pan Asian immigrant communities and
families. These initiatives also honor our business partners and their diverse
backgrounds. … We were honored with the Corporation of the Year Award from the
Asian Chamber of Commerce in 2004 and 2005."
See: http://www.coors.com/part_community_efforts_asian.asp
Women:
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 16 of 17
"Coors has developed a number of key initiatives to support our female employees,
suppliers and women-related causes."
See: http://www.coors.com/part_community_efforts_women.asp
"Coors' Supplier Diversification and Development Program seeks to develop and
maintain mutually beneficial, long-term relationships with women and minority suppliers.
Coors supports Women Business Entrepreneurs (WBE) by participating in business
network exchanges, seminars, special events and trade fairs, and by making direct and
in-kind contributions to WBE programs."
See: http://www.coors.com/pdf/Women%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Supplier Diversity:
"Supplier diversity is one integral component of our overall commitment to diversity. Our
supplier diversity process seeks to identify diverse suppliers to do business with Coors.
We specifically track our progress with minority and women owned business
entrepreneurs (MWBE) including: African Americans; Asian Pacific and Asian Indian
Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans; and Women"
See: http://www.coors.com/part_diversity_supplier.asp
Oct. 25, 2007
Page 17 of 17