Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
Violence and mayhem are roiling Minneapolis after another police-involved shooting. As this occurs, the narrative created and perpetrated by the media and left-wing activists does nothing more than increase racial tensions and cause more economic and emotional damage in the Twin Cities in particular and America at large.
There are several leading factors in the death of Duante Wright. First, Wright struggled to escape officers seeking to arrest him for an outstanding warrant discovered during a routine traffic stop. And an arresting officer appears to have mistakenly drawn her gun instead of her Taser, firing the fatal shot.
Neither of these factors advance an claim made by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar that this is “a basic part of police interactions with communities of color.” And it doesn’t lend credence to Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley’s comparison of police to “slave patrols” and her assertion that “[w]e can’t reform this.” Or the commentary by a CNN legal analyst who said this is “so illustrative of what black and brown people across the country have been enduring” – including attacks on their character and their persons.
In a segment with Tucker Carlson on the Fox News Channel, Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper dispelled the notion that black and brown people are targets. More importantly, he pointed out that black Americans are specifically NOT buying into the narrative of systemic American racism or “all cops are bad” sloganeering.
“It’s hard to believe this is happening yet again,” Tucker commented. “You gotta think it’s only happening because certain people are benefiting from this.”
Horace replied: “That’s exactly correct,” adding:
What we’re seeing is the same lie… that, in the 21st century, America is a place where people are being snuffed out, killed solely on the basis of their race.
And now we’re seeing a second lie added to the first lie… that all black Americans have bought into this lie.
Every survey asked this summer, all the way to the present, of Americans – but particularly black Americans – asked the question: Do you want more police support or less police support? More funding or less funding? And black Americans said they wanted more.
With calls from the left for new restrictions on police powers, despite ongoing riots and looting and long-term increases in crime as a result of past de-policing efforts, Tucker remarked that it “kinda leaves the mob in charge.”
Horace exclaimed, “absolutely it does!” He added:
And is it any wonder that, just like blacks said we want more police, that black Americans are going and legally buying firearms because they – like the rest of America – are worried that the government is going to fall down on its primary responsibility: protecting people?
Who’s to blame? The usual suspects – with deadly results:
And the media is going around validating this behavior – calling looting “demonstration.” Going around saying black Americans need to be concerned when we have nearly 50 law enforcement officers dead already this year.
It’s a very simple question: “who watches the watchdogs?”
Instances of the media appearing to take sides on things that are purely political – consider the blackout over the Hunter Biden laptop story, President Donald Trump’s Twitter trials and tribulations and Candace Owens being slimed by Facebook and USA Today – are creating an environment for the nation’s highest court to examine protections the media has thus far enjoyed.
Perhaps enjoyed too much.
Our Founders assumed that the media would take its role as watchdog seriously, not become a cheerleader for one side over the other. Can a constitutional protection endure when it only protects one side of the debate?
New York Times v. Sullivan – a major case regarding libel, defamation and the media – has twice been criticized by prominent jurists in recent legal opinions. D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman called it “a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law,” and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declared that the case “has no relation to the text, history or structure of the Constitution.”
That suggests that a case could come along soon that may decide “whether social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter should be liable for what they ‘publish’ or allow to be splashed across their pixelated webpages and for what they refuse to allow.”
Horace explains the Sullivan decision:
The landmark ruling announced that a public official seeking damages for defamation must prove “actual malice” – that is, not malice in the ordinary malicious sense, but that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge that it was false or was reckless in publishing it without first investigating its veracity. Upon then reviewing the evidence, the Court found insufficient evidence that the Times had published the controversial ad with such malice.
But this may end up on a future Supreme Court docket because, Horace notes, “there is a real question of how democracy thrives in a media environment where leftists in the media make scurrilous claims about conservatives and the same media simply ignores legitimate charges against their progressive allies.”
To read more about the details of the Sullivan case and Horace’s further thoughts about it, click here to read his commentary – “Who Watched the Media Watchdogs?” – at the Townhall website.
On the Fox News Channel program “The Next Revolution,” host Steve Hilton called the problem of woke businesses “an ideological campaign that’s been in development.” He pointed out: “It conquered the universities… and it’s been moving through our institutions. It’s the culmination of a very long ideological process.”
Calling this the “biggest internal threat America faces” and “the enemy within,” he turned to Justin Danhof, Esq.– director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project – to find out “what we can do about it.” He let viewers know that Justin has “got a very practical answer to that question.”
Justin was joined by former Trump White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEneny and Fox News commentator Tammy Bruce for a panel discussion on the problem of corporate interests entering the political arena to help advance the left’s agenda.
Justin laid out a “great idea that’s very simple: let’s vote.”
“Let’s vote the bums out,” Justin continued. “And I’m not talking about voting out the swamp in Washington, D.C. I’m not talking about political votes.” He explained:
At any publicly traded company, there are two sets of very important votes that take place every single year at their annual shareholder meetings. The first is for the corporate directors, and the second is for shareholder proposals.
Taking a deeper dive into explaining these two important aspects of shareholder activism, by which any investor with even one share of a company’s stock can participate, Justin said:
Because the evidence bears out that what happens at corporate annual meetings is shameful. And it’s shameful if you’re a conservative investor. Because what we have is the equivalent of a red state election or a purple state election that goes blue every single year because the left coalesces organizations and their money together to vote.
And the evidence bears out that conservatives just don’t. We ignore this vote at our peril because… politics is downstream from culture. That’s what the left knows. That’s what the right ignores. And I’m glad we’re over the target today talking about it.
Laying out the importance of the shareholder proposal process and the need for conservatives to catch up, Justin added:
These things often seem nuanced or mundane, but they are tremendously important.
And guess what? I run the only organization on the right that – for the last decade – has been filing shareholder resolutions at these woke companies to try and course correct… [But] dozens of liberal groups that represent hundreds of billions of dollars engage and file hundreds of resolutions every single year.
In detail, he went through the importance for investors to pay attention to the proposal process:
[W]hat the left-wing activists are pushing today – that’s what becomes mainstream in three or four years.
So let’s look at it. Three or four years ago, Jesse Jackson and the SEIU were demanding affirmative action for boards of directors. Fast-forward to today – it’s Goldman Sachs who says they won’t finance your IPO unless your board is sufficiently woke. It’s NASDAQ, who literally has a plan to delist any of their own companies in their exchange that aren’t sufficiently woke or diverse in their eyes.
And so again, in three or four years, the agent of change went from Jesse Jackson and the SEIU to Goldman Sachs and NASDAQ. That’s why we have to stop these things in their infancy.
Emphasizing the importance of FEP’s message, Hilton said, “we’ve got to put the pressure on… we’ve got to organize.”
In 2019, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project asked JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon to “pledge that JPMorgan Chase & Co. is not debanking people and will not debank them because of their politics.” Dimon responded: “We have not and do not.”
But maybe they do now.
In a March 29, 2021 commentary published by The Epoch Times, conservative writer and documentarian Dinesh D’Souza revealed that Chase Bank cancelled the credit card for his company, D’Souza Media, with “[n]o reason given for the cancellation.” He wrote:
I realized right away that this might be a politically motivated decision. After all, I have had the card for years. I pay my bills every month, so chronic lateness was not an issue. (Besides, credit card companies prefer people to pay late, so that they can charge them usurious rates of interest.) Moreover, my company has a stellar credit history, having been in operation for many years.
But it’s possible there was a good reason to cancel my card that I couldn’t think of. So I called Chase, and the representative informed me that she was puzzled, too. She could find no reason listed in the internal records. All she could say was that the direction had come from senior management in the bank’s main office.
After National Center Vice President David W. Almasi confronted Dimon at the 2019 JPMorgan Chase & Co. shareholder meeting, David commented:
We gave Dimon a chance to definitively say that JPMorgan Chase has not debanked conservatives and will not wield its power against conservatives in the future, but he really only gave us half.
From the story D’Souza tells, what David said was prophetic.
During the shareholder meeting, David cited four instances of alleged debanking of conservative Chase customers that had been reported in the media at that time. One even had an audio recording of a bank employee investigating the situation who called it “mind-boggling.”
David asked Dimon:
Frankly, as someone who works in the conservative movement, I’m asking for a personal reason: Am I next?
“These companies, by becoming hyper-political, are essentially discriminating against a significant portion of Americans who don’t share their political views,” D’Souza warned in his commentary.
In 2019, David brought a copy of George Orwell’s 1984 for Dimon, saying at the time that Dimon “and the JPMorgan Chase leadership could brush up on the specter of Big Brother and making someone an ‘unperson.’”
While D’Souza suggested there might be a need for a subculture of conservative-friendly businesses to be created, FEP has stressed engagement with corporate America as the best way of breaking the left’s pressure on CEOs to debank, defund and deny services to approximately half of the American people.
FEP made D’Souza aware of what Dimon said in 2019, and Dimon can expect FEP to raise this issue again at a future shareholder meeting.
After a year of flattening the curve, declaring that black lives matter and having a bipolar fascination with election integrity, it’s time for the “first open-world test” of the longevity of the “moral panic” that the woke, cancel, destroy (WCD) mob has created.
“The Great Awokening of 2020 was abetted in large part by the lockdowns,” notes Free Enterprise Project Deputy Director Scott Shepard in a Townhall commentary. “If people – you know, the non-woke ones whose outside activities didn’t magically cure COVID – had been free to roam about the world and to respond fully to indignity after indignity and crime after crime as they were stacking up, sanity would likely have been restored fairly quickly.”
But now that the vaccines are leading to a lessening of the lockdowns, there must be a reset of the societal equilibrium. As Scott sees it, this means there will be a lot of reckoning this summer as the center-right gears up to battle for the soul of the nation.
At the moment, leftists have a grip on the gears of the federal government. They’ve wasted no time trying to ram through their agenda in the U.S. House of Representatives and through executive White House actions. Throughout their ranks, their pointed accusations show how they’re being corrupted by their power:
It’s worth reminding leftists that not very long ago they deeply opposed the McCarthyism they now practice – though current events suggest that perhaps they only opposed its use against allies of theirs, while admiring the oppressive concept itself.
Uncertainty at this point revolves around just how much power the left can hold onto as people emerge from COVID cocoons and are able to speak up for themselves. And while the left likens conservative governance and policy ideas to “Jim Crow,” Scott suggests that it’s actually the Antifa/BLM/green/leftist political coalition that is basing its leadership style on that brand of repressive rule-making. But there’s a catch:
The old Jim Crow in the South required a whole complex of state laws and power to survive. And that was against, in most parts of the South, a minority of the population. This New “Antiracist” Jim Crow, if it is to continue after the lockdowns, will have to be instantiated into law the same way, and then applied with massive force.
Hence the uncertainty of how the uprising over the last year will settle into equilibrium. Scott explains that the WCD movement could wither away. It could ridiculously expand to where wokeness will be “wielded by all” and “everyone will have the power to cancel” in a scenario of mutually-assured destruction.
And the scariest outcome, and undoubtedly the most desired by the left, is the WCD mob “try[ing] to enforce its New Jim Crow nationwide.” Scott says “[t]here’s legitimate reason to fear this”:
Indoctrinating the military about “extremism” but only of the almost entirely mythical “white supremacy” kind, rather than the kind that has caused billions of dollars worth of damage in the last year; a bill that would make election cheating by the parties that control the cities uncontestable; a bill that would force the unwilling disarming of millions of Americans, rendering them ripe for control: it sure looks like the preliminaries to massive coercion, doesn’t it?
So the practical choices are either stopping the WCD push peaceably this summer or saving up vastly uglier prospects for not very far down the road.
To read all of Scott’s Townhall commentary – “As Lockdowns End, Either Woke Recedes or Freedom Does” – click here.
Ballot integrity rules such as those recently passed in Georgia are commonly and viciously described by the left, and reported in the mainstream media, as racist. Yet they protect black votes – oftentimes the most at risk – from being diluted by those seeking to coopt American elections.
On the Fox News Channel program “The Ingraham Angle,” Horace said that the left’s fury – which led Major League Baseball to move its All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver – is also causing economic hardship for black Georgians:
[W]hat we have now done is punish a city – Atlanta – with an over 50% minority population by taking from them nearly $100 million in new opportunities and sending it to Denver, which has barely a nine percent black population.
Highlighting the confusion created by the left’s ire for real and unobtrusive voter integrity rules, guest host Brian Kilmeade asked:
If minority voters overwhelmingly support having voter ID – not a license, just ID, a utility bill – then why are people using terms like Jim Crow 2.0? Does it make sense to you?
It makes sense to me because this isn’t on the level.
The plan here is to manipulate people. It is to divide people. Black Americans aren’t any less likely to be able to get access to a driver’s license than white Americans or any other communities in our country.
The truth of the matter is, when they say these things, they do them intentionally to create the impression that America is a place, in the 21st century, [where] we ought to be worrying about who our neighbors are based primarily on their skin color.
Contrary to the leftist narrative that black voters are disadvantaged by voter protections, Kilmeade noted that recent polling showed black approval for voter ID measures at 73%. Horace explained that keeping people’s ballots from being compromised by “ghosts” and those not legally allowed to vote protects all Americans:
Our organization has done multiple studies, and they show that it is actually black Americans who are most likely victimized when voter fraud takes place. It turns out that it is very tempting to manipulate election returns when black communities are involved.
Black Americans, like white Americans, need voter integrity. We need to be sure so that, when Gallup asks Americans why we don’t vote, we don’t answer “because my vote can’t make a difference.” We need to make sure that every person is confident when they go in [a polling place that] real votes are gonna decide elections.
Project 21 has made policy recommendations for voter ID, citizen-only voting and voter roll maintenance – among other protections – in its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America.” Additional recommendations will be released soon in a second edition of the Blueprint.
Starting off their conversation with the observation that “context is so crucial in every major question,” former Trump Administration senior advisor Sebastian Gorka asked Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper to address the leftist assertion that the voting-related HR 1 is integral to “stopping racial inequality.”
Horace noted the opposite is actually true:
This bill is promoting one of the biggest falsehoods that we have seen… [the] inability to participate in elections.
Horace added that “[i]f we would like a replication of what happened in 2020, HR 1 is the perfect tool to ensure [that].” Putting the alleged crisis in greater context, Horace explained:
In 2018, the percentage of black Americans who voted in America set a record high. And that was only broken by the record number of black Americans who voted in 2020.
The real purpose of these measures is not actually to protect black Americans. That’s a very, very useful dodge…
At the end of the day, the real goal here is to prevent the greatest experiment in self-government from going forward. And that is letting “we the people” decide what our policy is going to be, who our officials are going to be.
What HR 1 would really accomplish, in Horace’s analysis, is create circumstances in which liberal opportunists can “overwhelm the existing base of actual voters” with those who will do their bidding:
When you allow ghosts, convicts and illegals to participate, you will be surprised to find that the ghosts, the convicts and the illegals are way more interested in bigger government, greater taxation. And they will divest from real, bona fide citizens any ability to decide for themselves whether or not these terrible, destructive policies that harm them are going into effect.
With liberals dominating Washington politics right now, Gorka asked if “statehouses are the solution.” Horace replied: “That’s where we are right now.”
Citing polling data showing black Americans favor less regulation and fewer taxes and don’t want their own money to subsidize those unwilling to work, Horace noted how the liberal agenda actually cuts against black interests. And HR 1 would only strengthen that grip through its new voting rules:
Why then – on Election Day – are we supposed to believe that, overwhelmingly, black Americans supported the opposite vision?… HR 1 seeks to divest, from states, the ability to make sure real people – blacks, whites and brown – are actually making the decisions about policies. They would like to replace them with proxies who are guaranteed to vote… exactly as the big government progressives want.
Horace mentioned to Gorka that the increase in minority support for Trump came from those who saw the former president’s policies working for them.
And, relevant to the discussion of liberals attempting to use procedural voting changes to cement their big government agenda, Gorka asked Horace to comment the budget-busting spending bill that was just signed into law.
Horace warned that “the consequences are gonna be significant.” He explained that the bill’s negative effects will likely be particularly hard on poor and minority communities:
Here we are expressly providing financial support for people who are not supposed to be in the country…
The people who suffer are not going to be elites. They’re not going to be the upper middle class. They’re going to be the lowest among us….
If you’re a bureaucrat, if you are part of big government – over at the state level – this bill rewards you handsomely… But if you are independent and try to stand up for yourself, but you’re of modest means, this bill leaves you out.
Bringing up some good economic news, Horace – who was in Texas at the time of the interview – also reported on the state’s lifting of its mask mandate:
It is [now] up to us… to decide… with regard to social distancing and mask-wearing.
And I’ve been out today. And I was actually quite struck by how many places had removed the signs saying that it was somehow state law that one had to do certain things, and… how crowded – in fact – places were because people were feeling free to go out.
As a result of the easing restrictions, his prediction for the Lone Star State was optimistic: “A big boom economically is heading this way.”
“You can’t just pick up the phone and take on one of the most powerful CEOs in the world. Or can you?”
Yes, you can! During the recent Walt Disney Company shareholder meeting, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) showed how it’s done.
As chronicled in a commentary published by the Daily Signal, Disney CEO Bob Chapek was called out by FEP for helping perpetuate the new blacklist against conservatives in the entertainment industry. One media report on the exchange called it “eye-opening.”
As the commentary noted, this is not an insider trick or a tool available only to those with a lot of money:
I was able to relay my concern directly to Chapek because of my status as an investor. I called into the meeting and keyed in a command to let the operator know I wanted to speak.
Most shareholder meetings reserve time for such questions. It’s a unique opportunity for average Americans to address CEOs and other high-ranking executives in front of their boards of directors, other executives, investors, and the media. The price of admission is as little as owning one share of the company’s stock…
These types of admissions, revelations, and actions are possible if conservatives become shareholder activists with the tenacity to engage.
As of April 1, a share of Disney stock cost near $190. A Facebook share costs just under $300. And there are bargains at companies that need to hear from conservatives, such as Bank of America at around $40 a share and Levi’s near $25.
Stock can be purchased quickly and without fees through online brokers such as Robinhood. As shareholder meetings approach, you’ll be emailed the instructions on how to participate.
At the Disney meeting, Chapek was forced to address the firing of actress Gina Carano. She had posted a meme showing Nazi-era incivility as a precursor to the Holocaust and asked, “How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”
It was more passive than memes posted by her costar Pedro Pascal, who used Nazi images to criticize the Trump Administration’s policies and its supporters. Yet it was Carano who was fired from the Disney+ program “The Mandalorian.”
Because of the ownership of a small amount of Disney stock, FEP was allowed to attend Disney’s virtual shareholder meeting and ask the question that pressured Chapek to address this inconsistency. He replied that Disney was not political, but “reflective of the rich diversity of the world we live in.”
Media covered the exchange, and it wasn’t pretty for Disney. One report said:
It’s clear Disney does not believe any of the values that Chapek claims they do. The firing of Carano proves the opposite.
Shareholders also have the power to vote on a company’s board of directors and various company policies. It’s important for conservatives – who have largely let their powers as investors fall by the wayside and not voted their shares or participated in meetings – to involve themselves in a corporate America that is being co-opted by leftist investors who are eagerly participating in shareholder activism.
And it all starts with owning one share of a company’s stock.
“Boycotts aren’t effective,” the commentary noted. “Engagement is key to conservatives’ effectiveness in the corporate culture wars.”
In all of 20 minutes, veteran broadcaster Jim Bohannon’s views about the politics of corporate America were changed. His eyes were opened by Justin Danhof, Esq. – director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project – during a nationwide interview.
The Westwood One radio host, who had thought corporate America was still dominated by the pragmatism and profit-driven legacies of Standard Oil’s John D. Rockefeller and General Electric’s Jack Welch, was introduced to the markedly different and politicized business models of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan – who are prodded further left by the woke mobs and radical investment groups such as the As You Sow network.
After Justin explained how companies no longer stand up to the political intimidation of the left, Bohannon declared:
I’ve never heard the issue to be declared in such straightforward terms as you’ve just mentioned. And, no, I don’t tend to vote because [shareholder proposals are] usually talking about things that are beyond me. And if someone had explained all that you just explained, I certainly would have voted.
Asked about the proliferation of “cancel culture,” Justin likened what’s happening on the corporate campuses to what has already happened on the college campuses:
It’s symptomatic of conservative self-censorship, much like we see on college campuses… where you know that your grade… is beholden to a professor that – if you’re a conservative individual, if you’re a traditional-minded American – you know they hate your guts… and so you don’t dare speak your truth. Why would you let your grade suffer to speak your truth?
The cancel culture is just the evolution of that into business.
Justin noted that in today’s workplaces, being outspoken about something like the benefits of traditional marriage could end with an employee “given the cancel card.” So, he noted, “you self-censor yourself in the workplace.”
Incredulous that this is “becoming pervasive across society,” Bohannon wondered if blue-collar workplaces such as distilleries and manufacturers could be as woke as Silicon Valley companies. Justin cited the Equality Act, the federal legislation that blurs gender lines in high school sports and repeals religious protections when it comes to sexual issues, among other things. He pointed out:
Do you realize, Jim, that 400 of the leading companies in America are lobbying for and pushing the Equality Act?
And you mentioned distilleries. Guess what? Diageo supports this. Food – Domino’s and Denny’s support this. Accounting – Deloitte supports this. I’m just on the letter D.
He also mentioned a manufacturer – also still in the letter D – Dow Chemical.
Remaining skeptical, Bohannon facetiously asked if CEOs have “all become twentysomething woke people?”
Justin explained such changes at the CEO level are just the next step in a larger leftist strategy:
If you slice America into cultural lanes, you are right – big business is the most recent that the left have taken the slow march through. But their slow march through education took decades… The same thing with media. The same thing with Hollywood. These were decades-long takeovers. Big business has gone quicker, and it’s an intentional takeover.
I have this running question that I ask corporate America… Why do you fund Planned Parenthood? Why do you support the Southern Poverty Law Center? And they all say… that’s what our employees want us to do.
Bohannon appeared to become a believer of the clear and present dangers of the left’s campaign against the traditional business model when Justin chronicled how investors in Chevron – an energy company – voted for a radical shareholder proposal to align the company with the regulatory agenda of the Paris climate accord. While Bohannon understood that this would “essentially destroy their own investment,” 53% of voting shareholders voted for the company to do it.
Then Justin pointed out that 35% of investors didn’t vote. “Do not throw your proxy ballots in the trash,” he warned.
“Why do they cater to the radicals?” Bohannon asked.
Justin curtly remarked:
It’s very simple. They conservative side of the investment and consumer aisle is so silent that that’s the voice that fills the room.… Conservative investors don’t use their dollars.
Conservative investors are too lazy to get up and vote.
But, when a convinced Bohannon asked if corporate America is at the political “point of no return,” Justin quickly and loudly replied “absolutely not!”
Justin showed that there is hope:
What the left has done to be the tail that wags the dog in corporate action, they’ve done in the open.
So all that the right needs to do is start with a single word – engagement.
We need to approximate the left’s army, approximate what the left has done to weave themselves into the C-suite, to weave themselves into the boardroom and to effectuate so much change within our corporate landscape. Because – again – they did none of this in hiding…
While admitting that conservatives have “ceded the engagement and the tools of efficacy to big corporate culture alongside public policy,” Justin noted that FEP is designed to “fill the void.” Pointing out that “no other conservative organization dedicates their time to invest in corporate America to effectuate change,” he described how FEP is “reverse-engineering the left’s model for conservativse to bring industry back to neutral.”
Justin’s interview with Jim Bohannon on the nationwide Westwood One radio network is in the second segment of the March 31, 2021 program – between the 20- and 40-minute marks on the version posted to this webpage.
Cigna, the fourth-largest health care insurance provider in the United States, apparently doesn’t want to hire white employees. As outrageous as this sounds, Free Enterprise Project (FEP) Director Justin Danhof, Esq., warns that this sort of thing “is happening everywhere” in the corporate world these days.
A whistleblower report published by the Washington Examiner claimed that radical beliefs on race may be impacting the company’s hiring methods. It revealed that training for Cigna’s 70,000+ employees includes aspects of “critical race theory” instruction, an agenda that typically suggests that the United States is a systemically racist nation plagued by white supremacy. Coca-Cola was also recently revealed to be utilizing critical race theory training in which employees were instructed to be “less white.”
According to the Examiner’s coverage of Cigna’s hiring practices:
Chat logs between an employee and a hiring manager viewed by the Washington Examiner detail an incident where a minority candidate with strong credentials performed exceptionally well in an interview. When that employee suggested to the hiring manager that the company wave the candidate through to the next step in the process, the hiring manager dismissed the candidate under the assumption he was white.
After learning that the candidate belonged to a minority group, the manager said she was excited to hire him, despite learning virtually nothing else about his background.
“Given the hiring practices they have in place where white, male candidates are blocked, regardless of qualifications, I have to say, ‘Yes, there’s obvious discrimination at this company,'” one employee told the Washington Examiner.
Another time, an employee suggested a candidate with years of industry experience. That employee was informed by the hiring manager that the candidate, a white man, could not be interviewed because he didn’t meet the diversity criteria.
In an interview with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow network, Justin said: “It just took a brave whistleblower to leak these documents.”
Additionally, leaders at the Fortune 500 health care company instructed Cigna staff to use “inclusive language.” For instance, they recommended not using terms like “grandfathered” and “mankind,” or phrases such as “I had a crazy day,” or even certain complements such as “lovely lady.” Signs of “privilege” are being “able-bodied,” heterosexual, Christian and white.
Even the congratulatory “hip hip hooray” is supposed to be shortened to simply “hooray” because it is allegedly anti-Semitic.
“This is just nuts,” Justin commented. “Who is this supposed to offend?”
Cigna issued a statement that its recruitment practices are “focused on qualifications, abilities, aptitude and attitude for open roles” and not on intersectional hierarchy, but a company spokesman would not issue an explicit denial to an inquiry made by PJ Media.
Despite Cigna’s stated policy that employees have protections from retaliation for going to the media or other sources with their good faith concerns, Justin told OneNewsNow that the whistleblower could end up being fired if the company’s computer experts can link internal emails or computer use to the leak.