DEI Rollbacks & Black Leadership in Corporate America

So last week, or maybe it was the week before, uh, Trump removed some of the Secret Service protections from some key members of his former, uh, time in office. Uh, he removed Secret Service from, uh, Nick Bolton, who was the former Defense Secretary. He removed it from Mike Pompeo, who was the former Secretary of State. And he also removed it from, from Dr. Fauci, another member of his cabinet. But Fauci played a key role in the COVID pandemic.

Now I want to ask you about John Bolton, because Trump removed his Secret Service detail and he was asked—

The protection that was in place for John Bolton was there for a specific reason, which was a specific threat from Iran to kill him. Bolton is in danger because of actions that were part of his official duties. And whether you like those actions or not, you can't leave people vulnerable for what they did when they were in a position of power. Trump is making a different argument, which seems to largely revolve around Trump's own taking of umbrage against Bolton's later criticisms. I think it's hard to justify that as the rationale for removing protection.

So what, right? Big deal, big deal. But it is a big deal. Because the Biden administration kept the Secret Service detail protecting these men because there was credible, identifiable, documentable threats against their lives. So I don't know how Bolton and Pompeo took it, and I'm sure they probably took it the same way I'm going to describe. Basically, Trump is saying, go kick rocks. I don't care if you live. I don't care if you die. That's out of my hands. When Trump was asked about it, he said, look, these guys made enough money. They could hire their own security. Okay. Maybe. Nick Bolton said in an interview that I saw on CNN, he said, look, I'm not going to have to take my protection. Make my own provisions for my protection. All right. So what are we talking about today on Strategic Leadership News? This is Walter Murray, your host, where we look at news events and news stories and see how they could help us in our strategic leadership, accelerating strategic leadership, reaching our goals and objectives faster. So what does this Secret Service details removal have to do with DEI, which is what I'm gonna focus on today. And what does DEI have to do with leadership and strategy implementation?

So what do diversity, equity, and inclusion have to do with strategic leadership? Well, for one thing, a key measure, and maybe the most important measure of a strategic leader's competence and effectiveness is their ability to maximize every resource at their disposal. Every expert in organizational leadership would tell you that the most critical resource is human capital. Human capital is the men and women of every color, creed, gender, and race. And any smart strategic leader, if they are honest, understands that human capital must be fully engaged, right? If that organization wants to accelerate the pursuit and achievement of its strategic vision. Also, DEI is painfully and uniquely connected to Black and minority leadership in corporate America. Any discussion of strategic leadership, especially for Black and brown leaders, must acknowledge that as minorities, we have to deploy different, more effective strategic leadership to achieve the same level of strategic leadership success.

That's just a fact of life, right? The truth of the matter is this, right? Removing the Secret Service detail and protection from, say, Nick Bolton, for example, is a hostile act. It's a hostile act. I might even call it a declaration of war against Nick Bolton by Donald Trump. A declaration of war. Total disregard for the safety and life of another human being. Here's a contrast, a comparison. The removal of the DEI programs and protections. Granted, executive order doesn't make a full sweep removal of all the previously enacted law. Executive order is not law, right? It's just a presidential directive. But there were substantial protections and promotions of DEI that the DEI programs came with. And the executive order removing those protections that protected African Americans and minorities is just the same as him removing the protections against Nick Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Dr. Fauci. The message is the same. The message to Black people and minorities is go kick rocks. I don't care if you thrive or die in corporate America. It's an act of war. It's a declaration of war by the president against minorities and African Americans. It's plain and simple, a declaration of war. Just today, I was listening to one of the Canadian prime minister candidates, presidential candidates, and she was using the same words. The tariffs that Trump imposed against Canada is an act of war. The man is a warmongering, but I'm not talking about him today. I want to talk about DEI and our response as Black leaders and managers within corporate America, particularly those corporations that have rolled back DEI. What is our response to this act of war? So think of the DEI programs that came into vogue, came into being a few years ago. Think of those as a ceasefire, right? It's a temporary pause on the system's collaborated, concerted campaign to attack Black excellence in the workplace, Black leadership. Think of DEI programs as a ceasefire, a pause on that reckless campaign to attack Blackness in the workplace. What does a ceasefire do? So we know in the news here lately, there was a ceasefire that was broken. By Israel, I believe it was, a war between Hamas and Israel, and the ceasefire put a temporary pause so they couldn't kill each other. All right. But one side decided to break the ceasefire and attacked the other. DEI programs, like a ceasefire. Is designed to pause the attacks between both parties. When that ceasefire, when that DEI ceasefire was broken, it was an intentional, deliberate, unmistakable signal that the war is back on. Sorry. I mean, that's what, that's when a ceasefire is broken, that's what it says. The heck with the ceasefire. I'm coming for you. And if you haven't picked up on it so far, right? After all the signals that have been given, not just with the Donald Trump era. Trust me. You know, Republicans and Trump have no monopoly on trying to hold back. Black excellence in the workplace. Don't, don't get it twisted. It may be more pronounced, but they don't have a monopoly on it. Right. And if you haven't been picking up on this, on the signals and the indicators, right, that there is a concerted coordinated campaign to keep Black leadership, Black managers down in the workplace. To keep us from participating in professional advancement. If you haven't picked that up yet, then I don't know what rock you've been hiding under. You know, we have sanitized those dynamics and call them a struggle for DEI, a struggle for inclusion, negotiating balance in the workplace. It's not a negotiation. It is not a negotiation, friends. What it is is war, an attack, an extermination of Black excellence in the workplace. Okay, so you think I'm sounding hyperbolic. Well, just talk to Black leaders who, despite their overqualifications, have been passed up for leadership time and time and time again. I have experienced that personally. And if you're honest with yourself and you've been in corporate America for any length of time, you have experienced that. We just saw a defense secretary pointed and proved, confirmed, whose qualifications pale by comparison to the qualifications of the previous Secretary of Defense. But the previous Secretary of Defense is African American. And the current Secretary of Defense is Caucasian. Lloyd James Austin. Lloyd James Austin. He was a 33rd Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. He was a general in the Army. He had 30-plus years, I think it was. He had all of that, right? And you can look it up. You can look it up. My point is that, that, that there's been a coordinated effort to raise the standard or raise the bar for the advancement when it comes to African American and minority leaders within the workplace. Raise the bar significantly higher than it is for Caucasians to make that same advancement in leadership in the workplace. The DEI programs try to balance that, put a pause on that, a ceasefire, if you would, on that coordinated campaign. And now the removal of those DEI balancing protections is a clear indication that the war is back on.

We took a look, with the assistance of ChatGPT, at a comparison of the qualifications of Lloyd Austin and Pete Hegseth for the role of Secretary of Defense. We've put together a detailed analysis, and the results are pretty compelling. Let's go through the criteria, the scores, and what those scores really mean. First up is military experience. Lloyd Austin scored 10 out of 10, while Pete Hegseth scored 6 out of 10. Austin has an impressive 41 years of military experience, culminating in his retirement as a 4-star general. This top-tier rank reflects decades of leadership and operational expertise at the highest levels of the Army. On the other hand, Hegseth served as an officer in the Army National Guard, reaching the rank of major. While this is a respectable achievement, it lacks the depth and seniority of Austin's experience. In the criterion of key military roles, Austin again scored a 10 compared to Hegseth's 5. Austin served as commander of U.S. Central Command, overseeing critical military operations in the Middle East and managing large-scale defense strategies. Hegseth, in contrast, did not hold senior command roles. His military roles were at a more tactical level without the strategic oversight that Austin demonstrated. When it comes to combat experience, Austin earned a 9 and Hegseth a 5. Both men have seen combat, Austin in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he led combat operations, and Hegseth also served in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a platoon leader and civil-military operations officer. While Hegseth's experience is commendable, Austin's role involved significantly greater responsibility and strategic impact. For Pentagon Defense Department experience, Austin received a 10, while Hegseth scored just 1. Austin served as vice chief of staff of the Army, giving him direct exposure to Pentagon operations, defense policy, and military strategy. Hegseth, meanwhile, had no formal role within the Department of Defense. When we looked at commanding large operations, Austin scored a 10, with Hegseth at 2. Austin managed large-scale military operations, including overseeing the U.S. military drawdown in Iraq. Hegseth's experience did not include leading large operations, focusing instead on smaller, tactical roles. On education, Austin scored a 9 and Hegseth a 6, Austin holds a Bachelor of Science from West Point, a master's degree from Auburn University, and is a graduate of the U.S. Army War College. Hegseth has a bachelor's from Princeton and a master of public policy from Harvard. When evaluating them on policy and strategy experience, Austin scored a perfect 10 while Hegseth received a 4. Austin's career included deep involvement in military strategy and national defense policy. Hegseth's experience is more focused on veterans advocacy and media commentary, lacking the direct defense policy experience. On governmental experience, the AI algorithm gave Austin a score of 9 and Hegseth a score of 2. Austin worked closely with Congress, the White House, and national security teams, while Hegseth did not hold any governmental roles. For media and public communication, Hegseth outscored Austin 9 to 6. Hegseth's experience as a Fox News contributor and his strong public presence gives him an edge in this category. In veterans advocacy, Austin scored a 7 and Hegseth a 9. Hegseth led Concerned Veterans for America, demonstrating significant leadership in veterans issues. Austin also advocated for troops and veterans during his military career, though his advocacy was not as publicly prominent. On legislative experience, Austin received an 8 and Hegseth 2. Austin engaged with legislative processes as a senior military leader, while Hegseth had no formal experience in this area. Lastly, in civilian leadership roles, both Austin and Hegseth scored a 7. Austin served on the board of Raytheon Technologies, while Hegseth held leadership roles in nonprofit and advocacy organizations. Overall, the total scores tell the story. Lloyd Austin scored 105 out of 120, which is 88%., and in most colleges equates to a letter grade of A-. Hegseth scored 58 or 48%, which equates to an F letter grade. The bottom line is that Austin's qualifications align far more closely with the multifaceted demands of the Secretary of Defense role. His qualifications fall in line with many previous Secretaries of Defense. Hegseth's nomination would suggest a lowering of the bar for the role of Secretary of Defense, And that wraps up our breakdown.

My point is that, that, that there's been a coordinated effort to raise the standard or raise the bar for the advancement when it comes to African American and minority leaders within the workplace. Raise the bar significantly higher than it is for Caucasians to make that same advancement in leadership in the workplace.

And the reverse is also true, right? The reverse is that not only is the bar raised for minorities, but the Hegseth versus Austin comparison we did clearly shows that the standards are significantly lowered for non-minorities. So there was a comprehensive study titled Being Black in Corporate America by Coqual, formerly the Center for Talent Innovation. That gave valuable insights into the challenges African Americans face in corporate settings. African Americans are significantly underrepresented in corporate leadership. A very telling statistic is this: African Americans, despite earning 10% of college degrees, African Americans hold only 3.2% of executive and senior manager positions and less than 1% of Fortune 500 CEO roles. Structural barriers, including bias and limited access to influential networks, hinder their progress. This disparity highlights systemic challenges that prevent African Americans from reaching top corporate positions, reinforcing the need for equitable opportunities and structural changes in leadership development and promotion practices.

The DEI programs try to balance that, put a pause on that, a ceasefire if you would, on that, that coordinated campaign. And now the removal of that those DEI balancing protections is a clear indication that the war is back on.

So here's a summary of these executive orders. Earlier this year, President Trump rolled out a series of executive orders with one clear mission: to dismantle DEI initiatives across the board. Now, this wasn't just about cutting DEI programs in the federal government. It's also aimed at companies that do business with the government. Let's break it down. First off, one of the big orders, Executive Order 14173, was all about ending what the administration called illegal discrimination and putting a renewed emphasis on merit-based opportunity. Basically, this order canceled out a bunch of previous federal policies that were designed to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Federal agencies were told to cut DEI offices, stop DEI programs, and get rid of mandates that were seen as creating unfair preferences. But it doesn't stop there. The orders extended their reach to corporate America. All federal contractors and grant recipients are now required to sign off, basically certify, that they're not running any DEI programs that would violate federal civil rights laws. In other words, if your company still supports these initiatives, you could be in trouble. And what's the punishment?

Well, it's pretty steep.

Federal contracts now include a clause that makes a company's compliance with these new standards absolutely crucial. If a company is found to be in violation by continuing to run DEI programs, there are a few potential consequences. They could lose their government contracts outright. They might face legal actions under the False Claims Act, which could mean significant financial penalties. And if it's a repeated issue, they could even be barred from bidding on future government contracts. So, to sum it up, these executive orders represent a sharp pivot toward a merit-based approach. They're cutting off DEI measures and setting very strict requirements for any company doing business with the government. For leaders in the private sector, this means it's crucial to reassess your company's policies and decide how they fit into this new landscape. That's our breakdown for today. It's a lot to take in, and it raises important questions about how we balance merit, inclusion, and business strategy in our leadership roles. Thanks for listening, and we'll dive deeper into these topics in our upcoming episodes.

So needless to say, corporations that may or may not want to, uh, roll back DEI programs, their hands are tied, so to speak, by the economic motivation, because now they've got to do those rollbacks in order to keep some of their contracts. And some, some companies have huge federal contracts. Some companies rely on federal contracts, right? And so it's a question of, do I roll back these DEI programs and stay in business?

Do I not and go out of business?

I could understand that being a business person myself, I can understand that logic, that thinking, but it does not negate the fact that Black leadership, Black management, Black excellence in the workplace is going to be facing escalated attacks. As we seek to advance professionally up the corporate ladder. Like Trump himself said when asked about removing the Secret Service protections from Bolton, he said, look, he can get his own protection.

And Bolton echoed the sentiment and said, look, I better make my own provisions for my own protection.

Now there's some wisdom in that, right?

As it relates to us as black leaders in corporate America.

Trump's words and Bolton's sentiment, there's a lesson there for us. We've got to make provisions for our own protection against the DEI attacks. And in a sense, we should have been doing this a long time ago. Now the removal of the DEI protections may be the catalyst, the fire under our butts that we need to feel the heat so we could take our own DEI protection personally accountable for our own DEI protection, provision for our own protection. We've got to fight the war ourselves in addition to depending on legislative protections like DEI programs and executive orders, right? So Trump removes social— I keep saying Social Security, but Trump removes Secret Service security from Bolton. Bolton says, I got to take care of my own protection. Trump removes DEI protection from African Americans in the workplace. What do we say? We say, we got to take care of our own protection. And how do we do that? How do we do that? How do we fight this fight? So here's the thing. As a group, We have to make provision for our own protection. And we have to be actively, intentionally, and strategically engaged in a war that we didn't ask for, but we're not going to back down from. You with me, right? We didn't start the fight, but we're going to fight.

Here's the thing.

How do we fight? How do we fight? So we've been fighting the fight for decades, some effective results, some not. But the overarching observation I make on the fight that we've been fighting is that we've been bringing a knife to a gunfight. All our fights for DEI, we've been bringing a knife to a gunfight. So this time we got to do it right. We got to fight the fight right. What does that mean? That means we've got to bring a gun to a gunfight. Now, don't trip and say, look, I'm asking people to go shoot people, right? Hey, let me pause right there. Because if you come for me and say I said that, I want to make sure you hear me right. I'm using a metaphor. It's metaphorically speaking. We've been bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Ineffective.

Now we need to fight the fight right. We need to bring a gun to a gunfight. Now let me tell you what that looks like. Let me tell you what that looks like.

Listen, listen. Just to be clear, just so that I am not misquoted or misinterpreted, which I probably will be anyway, but just to make sure there's no ambiguity in what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that those of us who fight for DEI, who fight for the advancement of Black excellence and Black leadership in corporate America, We have not matched the same intensity, the same force, and the same strategic coordination as those who fight against Black leadership and Black excellence.

Right?

It seems to me that our countermeasures have been overly defensive. Mostly reactive, and sometimes even comes across as a request, a stern request, but a request. Please, Mr. System, anti-DEI system, please give us your DEI, please, pretty please. I mean, you know, look, the strategic anti-DEI attempts to suppress Black and minority excellence should be met with equal or greater strategic force and intensity. And look, when I say force, I don't mean uncontrolled rage and anger. That simply feeds into the meme that's in the public space of the angry Black man. You know, uncoordinated and disconnected resistance is as ineffective as no resistance at all. So when I talk about bringing a gun to a gunfight, all I'm saying is that we need to adopt cool-headed, calculated, coordinated countermeasures that are strategically and precisely deployed so we could take advantage of advancement opportunities in corporate America.

That's it.

And so in my upcoming series, I will explore some of these cool-headed, calculated and coordinated countermeasures that Black leaders in corporate America can deploy strategically.

I'm big on strategy, right? So that we can fight this DEI fight right. All right.

This fight, this fight is going to happen on many fronts, many battlefields, right?

There's the social, spiritual, Black church front, cultural, economic front.

In fact, my book Black Cheese, which was actually—

this book was written in 2012. That's 13 years ago. I've been preaching this message about fighting the fight right on the economic financial front.

It ain't nobody listening to me. I will make another appeal.

We've got to fight the fight right on many fronts, social, spiritual, cultural, economic. Today I'm going to focus on fighting this battle on the corporate leadership front, on the corporate leadership front, from inside the belly of the beast, leaders who are in corporate America. In corporations that have been forced to or chose to roll back DEI. That is your battlefield. You with me? So I'm gonna talk about how does a leader, a manager fight the fight right.

By the way, grab a copy of Dr. Murray's book, "The Black Cheese" on amazon.com when you register for his follow-up masterclasses on how corporate leaders and managers can fight the DEI fight right. Register for the follow-up masterclasses at wvernonmurray/strategicleadershipdei.com. Thank you for joining Dr. W. Vernon Murray today in this introductory masterclass on reimagining, reimaging, and repositioning Black leadership in corporate America.

The abolishing of these DEI protections is, is exactly that. It is a clear, unmistakable statement that the war is back on, escalated, if you will, against Black culture, Black excellence, particularly in the context of Black leadership in corporate America. That's where I want to put my focus on today, because as you know, that's my field. I teach, I train, I research, I write on leadership.