Funding for “To the Contrary,” provided by: This week, on “To the Contrary,” first, corporate DEI policies and women in combat.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to “To the Contrary,” a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

At first, DEI policies are getting rolled back.

McDonald's is the latest corporation to scale back its diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

The company cited a shifting legal landscape after a U.S. Supreme Court decision against affirmative action last spring.

This move aligns McDonald's with other major companies, such as Walmart and Ford, which have also dialed back on DEI initiatives.

Public pressure has played a role, as DEI critics call on firms to abandon what they call “woke” policies.

Supporters of DEI say these policies help women and communities of color have a level playing field in the business world.

Joining me on the panel this week are Republican strategist Ann Stone, Fernanda Santos, managing editor of the 19th, Jessica Washington, political reporter from The Intercept.

And Marilyn Colon, vice chair of the Woodbridge, New Jersey GOP.

So my first question start with you, please, Ann and then everybody else chime in.

Why do you think McDonald's decided to roll back its DEI policies?

Well, I think a big part of it not only was that court decision, but it was the election.

They now feel released, that they can go back to a more meritocracy based system.

And I think you're going to see it happen all across.

I mean, right now, the only major corporation that isn't doing it is Costco.

The only major corporation that isn't rolling it back.

Yes.

What's that going to do to diversity and women's roles in the workplace?

Probably very little because more and more women are coming into the workplace now with higher and higher skills.

They're going to get elected.

I don't worry about women or people of color at all.

I think there's been the exposure, and now it's going to be merit based and we're going to get the best of the best in all categories.

American.

All right, Fernanda, your thoughts?

I think we should all strive to live in a world where merit, meritocracy is what determines who has a right to a job, who is picked for a position.

But we're not there yet, and to do away with mechanism systems that were making space for people to people who historically have been left behind and marginalized to reach levels in which they can evenly compete with others, to me, is detrimental to the country as a whole.

It's we're not talking about just people of color.

We're not talking about women.

We're talking about the progress of this country and communities of color.

Very soon will be majority in this country.

So we need to be prepared, so that we have folks who are educated and can fill roles in a way that, is, sets us all up for success.

Jessica, your thoughts on whether this rule set women and people of color back or not?

Yeah.

And I want to echo a lot of what Fernanda said.

You know, we're talking about trying to level the playing field.

We're not talking about, you know, giving people things that they don't deserve.

We know that systemic racism exists.

We know that women have been shut out of the workforce for decades.

And so we're trying to write a lot of historic and current and consistent wrongs.

I think another really interesting point about rolling back these initiatives is we're also rolling back data collection.

So we can't even in I believe this was brought up in the, Fox business, wrote an article about this when they were talking about rolling back some of these DEI initiatives.

Were also talking about rolling back monitoring for policies and practices that are discriminatory against a wide variety of people.

So it's not just that we're rolling back policies that promote the interests of people of color and of women, but we're also rolling back monitor what these companies and corporations are doing.

And I think that is in some ways almost scarier to not know.

You know, are they introducing policies and practices that are harmful?

Are they doing things that are discriminatory?

And so I don't think that most people would think that's a good idea.

Just have no idea what these corporations are doing and allow them to be even less accountable than they were before.

But let me play devil's advocate.

I mean, these policies have been in effect now for the late 70s, certainly 80s and 90s and 00 and 10s This was that not 40 plus years?

Was that not enough to rectify hundreds of years of discrimination against all those groups?

Yeah.

And I think you kind of, in the question sort of answered the point, which is that we're talking about hundreds of years of discrimination, and we're talking about relatively short period of time in which we've tried to ameliorate that discrimination.

I think we've also, throughout that time period, seen attacks on those efforts to move forward.

So we're not just talking about a time period of progress with no backlash.

We're talking about a period of progress, backlash, progress, backlash.

And so we're not able to see the kind of growth that we would want.

I think most people would agree that we still have a way to go on systemic racism, on sexism and all these other issues.

All right, Marilyn, your thoughts and welcome to the panel.

Oh, thank you.

Glad to be here.

Yeah.

So, my mom was the first female in our community to own a car.

So, she fought back.

But it was because of restraint and her courage.

Not because she was a woman.

Nor was.

Was it because she was Hispanic.

Her intelligence got her through.

And her determination to make a better life for herself and that's why I believe meritocracy is something that can be measured.

Because it's how you climb the corporate ladder and how you get rewarded at work.

But if you're going to push an agenda, a DEI agenda that will be implemented differently in each, in each company, then how do you measure that?

What are the numbers?

Has anyone looked at the numbers from McDonald's?

Why did they change?

Was it specifically because of the election, or was it because they looked at their numbers and saw that it would take more or less, or what does that look like?

Do we have specifics?

But what do you think?

What do you think it would look like?

You know, so, what it would look like in a new without the DEI.

Yeah.

It would look like.

If there were data coming forth in the future.

That as it is now.

Right, it would probably show numbers that The bottom dollar is tied to your your dedication to your job, your courage, your intelligence.

Not necessarily because you're a woman or not necessarily because you're tied to a specific ethnic group.

So they probably saw those numbers and they said they were spending more money on these initiatives that really do not add value.

So, like I said, it's the courage, the intelligence, what pushes through, not necessarily because you're a woman.

Fernanda.

Your thoughts?

I just think that it sounds very naive to to believe that courage and intelligence alone are what gets people to where they need to get.

There is a whole systemic issue at play.

Income, for example, being able to buy a car.

You have to have money to buy a car.

So many people don't have the financial, ability to even put themselves through school, to find a way to afford childcare for their kids so that they can go to work.

They don't have access to quality health insurance if they have access to health insurance at all, to take care of their health and therefore be able to be productive in the workplace in a way that I would assume, you know, people in my position, for example, are I'm a Latina, an immigrant, very privileged person because I have a full time job that has good quality health insurance.

But for me to have gotten here, I also came from a family that was a middle class family that put me through college.

I didn't graduate with any debt.

So all those types of things play a role into the, the outcomes for people and, believing that.

I think it's also important to know, and I think, Marilyn, you made a good point that some of these efforts do cost a lot of money.

And some of them really.

I saw one tally.

I saw one tally online that the companies jointly, all of the American companies spend or were spending before all these drop outs.

$8 billion a year on DEI.

Yeah.

So the question is, number one, are those, were those efforts or have these efforts being, delivered on what they promised?

Many times they are crafted very nicely, but you need people to make this an everyday practice, a top down type of approach where you're telling your employees that you have to embrace different people.

Or youre telling your executive that you have to make space for women and people of color.

If it's, not accompanied by people buying into it and believing in the importance of it as a, longevity, a survival type, an existential, necessity, doesn't really mean that, the these programs will be or can be effective no matter how expensive they are.

It's not about how much money, it's about people buying into them.

And that again, doesn't matter whether these programs exists and not, how the laws are crafted.

If people don't believe in the need to address the systemic issues that have existed for centuries.

The biggest thing I have a problem with is the E in DEI and that is equity.

Equity is actually a communist concept, and it never worked in the Soviet Union.

It hasn't worked in China.

You can't guarantee outcome.

You can only guarantee access to opportunity.

And that's where the emphasis needs to be.

And then the things that Marilyn was talking about really play a large part.

Just because somebody gets placed by D doesn't mean they're going to succeed, and that's what they're signing.

You have any data on, do you have any data on what percentage of people who went through those programs did succeed in the court?

They haven't measured.

I don't think they've measured it.

I don't think they want to know.

But I would have a feeling that that's part of why some of these companies are dropping out.

And you're also going to see eliminated within the government.

That's one of the first things Trump's going to do to crush the government.

The programs, the offices are getting shut down immediately.

Again, you don't want to guarantee equity.

You want to guarantee access.

And I don't think anybody on this panel has a problem with that.

And then, like I said, what Marilyn said about hard work and determination, that overcomes any kind of problem that people had or inadequacies in their, in their life experience because if you work hard enough, you can succeed in this country.

Are we going to see or are we going to see?

I mean, I know there's not going to be the kind of data we have, up to this point, but are we going to see Blacks, Latinas, Asian Americans, women falling behind in companies?

In the social media world and this is, again, a big part of what's changed.

There is no way these companies are going to get away with the kind of discrimination or, you know, not hiring enough of a variety of different types of Americans.

They'll get hammered to death.

So I think social media can help overcome a lot of the problems, different communities have had in the past.

You know, social media has existed my entire adult working life.

And I have certainly experienced discrimination.

I think most people of color have experienced discrimination despite the existence of social media and I think sometimes I think about something my mom said, which is and this is, not just something my mom said, but a lot of people say, but a lot of people will be born on third base and think that they hit a home run.

And I think that's generally a large part of this issue when we're talking about equity and why people are confused by the focus on equity, the focus specifically, a lot of people of color, and obviously people agree or not, people of color are not a monolith, but a lot of people of color focus on equity because we are aware that many of us are not born on third base.

We are not given those same advantages.

We face systemic discrimination.

And so folk the focus on equity is about focusing on access to opportunities.

But those opportunities that access is a lifelong process.

So we're talking about elementary school.

We're talking about redlining.

People being in certain neighborhoods.

We're talking about access to education.

We are talking about certain communities that did not get that access.

And so that's why we're talking about equity, because you can't just say you should have equal access to this one opportunity and not think about the entire lifetime that someone experiences discrimination or, you know, systemic discrimination that occurs in ways that isn't as direct, that isn't, you know, something you can blast on social media.

Now, Marilyn, what do you think?

Latinas in your in New Jersey in your area, how do you think they're going to react to this or Latinos or Latinx?

How do you think they're going to react to everything that Fernanda and Jessica have pointed out that might happen as a result of this.

We do not want to be labeled as that.

We are being channeled along because of our ethnicity or even because we're women.

We definitely want to be promoted based on what we've accomplished, based on our merit, based on that we can manage a job and be acknowledged for that.

Are you saying every everybody you know.

In your in your community.

Well, the people that I've spoken to in my community and this is a hot topic and we're aligned, it is a political topic.

And it's a family topic.

And we are aware that our strength is in our courage, especially if, like Fernanda had just mentioned, I admire her comment that the way that she reached her goals with her family behind her pushing her.

So that is being part of a community, a family unit that encourages your values and your intelligence and pushes you along not because you're part of a specific ethnic group.

Should you shy away from any opportunity because someone is going to come along and measure that against their standard, that changes every day.

By the way, what's the standard then?

Ten years ago, it was a certain standard.

Ten years into the future is going to be a different standard.

And where do we fit in into all of that?

All right.

Wonderful.

Thank you all.

Let us know what you think.

Please follow me on Twitter @bonnieerbe.

From DEI to women on the battlefield.

Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, has said he wants to remove women from combat in the military.

This proposal is part of a broader war on woke that has become a cornerstone of conservative politics.

Critics argue this move would undermine military effectiveness.

Hegseth has argued that admitting women into combat has lowered military standards.

Hegseths U.S. Senate confirmati hearings are slated for next week over his views on other topics and past allegations of sexual misconduct.

So, Jessica, do you agree that it will, women have lowered military standards?

And my next question for everybody who responds as well as, the last time I checked and it's been a while, but women were 15% of the military.

And of course, we all know if you kept abreast of the news that they're having trouble recruiting.

So if, in fact, Hegseth were to get his way, how would they make up for, you know, the 15% of women in combat who would have to be replaced?

Yeah, I found I mean, this whole thing is a little confusing since the military has a recruitment problem.

And also part of that problem is that, generally speaking of military people, military readiness is an issue among a large part of the young population in the United States.

So this doesn't seem to have anything to do really with women and lowering the standards because women have joined the military.

I am not a military readiness expert.

But what I will say is, the evidence that I have seen doesn't seem to suggest that this would improve military readiness, particularly because they already have a recruitment issue.

Ann, your thoughts?

Well, I actually went to friends of mine that, now retired so they can speak on this issue.

One who was the longest serving marine when he retired.

He said if they can hack it and many have, I don't care.

And he said the women I served with did a great job.

And we need to have as many qualified women as we can to step up and fill the gaps.

He said, and this is the key thing he said.

In modern warfare, everywhere is a combat zone.

And then I have another person who was a Green Beret and Special Forces person.

His daughter was in the military as well as his son, and he went on and he cited so many things of awards that she got, from what she did and of all these different women that achieved great things in combat while he was in the service.

And he's been out for a while now.

He's very, very supportive.

And again, he's a conservative Republican.

The first person I thought it was a liberal Republican.

So I think that the times have changed on this.

And as my marine friend said, every place is a combat zone now.

So women arent going to be able to avoid it.

Well, and I recall that during, and Fernanda, I want to go to you next.

But during the Reagan administration in the 80s, there was a huge debate about this topic.

And then they allowed women into combat and you don't really hear about any problems or disasters as a result of that.

As we know, men have superior upper body strength to women, so there's certain tests that men are better at.

Women have greater manual dexterity.

So there are other tests that we're much better at.

And actually in modern warfare, you probably need as much of this as you need the, you know, the sheer strength.

So I think coming into the military, the timing is right.

And you're right, it's not what's driven down recruitment.

Whats driven down recruitment was the whole getting away from the mission of winning and into this whole DEI stuff in the military that turned off so many people I know, so many military families that their current generation of kids won't go in the military.

They probably will now as of January 21st.

But, they won't go into the military because of the wokeness that was there.

They hated it.

I'm also not an expert in military recruitment, but I think it also goes well beyond the idea of the quote unquote, “wokeness.” That drove away recruitment.

When it comes to women in particular, it's actually I, we have a reporter who covers military issues, military affairs through the lens of gender at the 19th and the latest story she had talked about 21% of active duty members of the armed services are women today.

So essentially, 1 in 5.

So imagine taking women out of combat roles.

What would happen to our armed services?

What would happen to a structure that now is a web, right.

And so weave together, where every piece of this, let's say it's a puzzle where every piece matters.

And also, how much backwards do we have to go?

I mean, we're talking about things that in the 90s, that were Congress decided to allow women in combat roles, in aviation and on ships.

Right.

And then we allowed them in submarines.

And in 2013, we allowed them in combat.

Women have been, more than a thousand women have been injured in, were injured in the war in Iraq.

Close to 200 women died in combat.

And as Ann mentioned, a lot of the combat these is like playing video games, right?

You are operating from a distance and aiming things.

So it's not about upper body strength as if you're had to carry really heavy rifles.

Or maybe, you know, spears back in the day, but these days, that's not how combat is done.

And to also think that women cannot achieve that level of, physical strength that's necessary to do that job, I think is is especially for all of us women here would be like underestimating ourselves.

Marilyn, you get the last word in on this topic.

Thank you.

Yes.

So I just wanted to make a specific point, and I agree with most of the comments already mentioned.

It's the focus is to strengthen.

That's the focus of the Trump administration to strengthen our military, not to necessarily ban woman.

Its to strengthen it.

And from everybody's comment.

And that would point to a good statistics that the numbers dropped and recruitment because of a DEI which lends to our previous conversation.

But in regards to banning women that it's strengthening the military, which is a whole different view of things.

So Pete Hegseth clearly cleared up that comment.

And he has indicated that it is there are roles that require specific physical strain, and it's not diluting the requirements of that specific roles.

It's making sure that the bar is hit because we are policing the world, not only our country, but we are policing the world in that combat role that requires a specific type of physical strength.

Maybe not only a woman, but maybe there might be a man that cannot hit it, and that's where he is referring to.

It's not banning women, of course.

It's diverse.

We have our intelligence.

We have many areas that we can fit in.

I come from a military family.

My cousin was in the army for 30 years.

A female cousin.

So it's not that they're banning women.

That's that's not the goal of that, nor the Trump administration.

Well, it is to ban them from combat.

But let me ask you this.

Does anybody worry about military readiness if women are kept out of combat?

I worry about military readiness.

If we take a significant chunk of people who are have been trained in and approved for combat out of combat roles, and many, many women these days make up these, these troops.

So how do you compensate for that?

And also, I want to make clear that, I do not believe at all that the reason the drop in recruitment in the military is directly tied to DEI efforts.

I just want to make it clear, since there were comments before that might have implied that, we were in agreement on that.

I'm not.

All right, Hegseth actually went and talked to the troops and found out that that was one of the biggest problems.

That's how he got the attention of Trump, is that he had done the research and written books on why the modern warrior is not coming back in.

And did he do?

Is that, I just, I guess that might be anecdotal.

I would be interested in a study if he did one.

A large part of it, what he was doing was anecdotal, but again, he also assured Senator Ernst herself, a military veteran, that his comments were misconstrued.

It is along the lines of what Marilyn was saying.

So I don't think we're going to have to worry about it.

And both the retired, distinguished military veterans I talked to, they're not advocating either.

You can get liberal and conservative Republicans to agree on it.

That's a pretty good thing.

All right.

Thank you all.

Great discussion.

That's it for this edition of “To the Contrary.” Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website, the address on the screen and whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for “To the Contrary,” provided by: