Politixia
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1857 Dred Scott Decision
There are differences between supplier diversity and affirmative action. Supplier diversity is an effort by large corporations to be more inclusive in their supply chains. Affirmative action has been applied to increasing diversity in higher education and employment.
The recent Supreme Court decision that makes the affirmative action admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina illegal while not addressing supplier diversity directly represents an attack on Black and brown communities and their businesses. The same forces that were successful in overturning Harvard’s and UNC ‘s programs are the same forces that would see value in overturning the benefits of corporate supplier diversity.
These attacks share a legal philosophy and more importantly, a vision of American society that is ahistorical and fundamentally a reflection of white supremacy beliefs and attitudes. And that is why supplier diversity professionals and corporate leaders cannot and should not assume we can continue with business as usual. They are coming for supplier diversity.
We are living in the most chaotic period in American history since the Civil War, Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction. The former president of the United States has been indicted four times on 91 charges and whose mug shot will now become one of the most iconic photographs ever. The Supreme Court has rolled back women’s rights over their bodies in a “Handmaiden-esque” way. And before the ink was dry on that legal affront, a 6-3 majority ruled that the University of North Carolina’s and Harvard’s admission policies violated the rights of white and Asian students. And just this week, on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington, in Jacksonville, Florida, the state “where woke goes to die,” three innocent Black Americans were randomly gunned down because of the color of their skin. While all these things are true, my 93-year-old father recently reminded me that for Black Americans times were considerably worse during his years growing up in Depression-era Arkansas.
The majority decision and the dissenting opinions by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson are worth reading. Justice Jackson recused herself because of her service on the board of trustees of Harvard University. As a result, she restricted her remarks to the University of North Carolina. In her dissent she tells a powerful story of two University of North Carolina students, John, who is white, and James, who is Black. John comes from a family with seven generations of UNC graduates. James is a first-generation UNC student. She then walks through some of the history that John’s family would have experienced as a member of the preferred race in North Carolina in contrast to the history of James’ family.
John’s family experienced all of the benefits of being a white American, including the Homestead Act which gave land to white Americans but rarely to Black Americans; to the VA Act which funded the higher education of white veterans but not the higher education of Black veterans; to the Federal Housing Authorit, which provided low-interest loans so white North Carolinians so they could buy their own homes but did not provide those loans to Black Americans. The pernicious and cumulative effects on Black business formation and growth of Jim Crow, KKK terrorism and American apartheid cannot be underestimated. And now the Supreme Court rules that history does not matter.
The chipping away at compensatory programs in higher education historically has been followed by the chipping away at supplier diversity programs. Soon after the landmark Baake decision (1978), the Supreme Court ruled in the Croson decision that municipal set-asides for Black businesses were violations of white business owners’ rights. Not too long after Croson, in Adarand (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that set asides for Black businesses in the federal sector violated white business owners’ rights. Ironically, white firms have learned that the laws designed to protect the rights of former slaves could effectively be used to destroy efforts to help those former slaves and their descendants.
Harvard University is a private corporation and while a nonprofit corporation, it is legally like any large NMSDC (National Minority Supplier Development Council) corporation. In fact, Harvard is a member of the Greater New England Minority Supplier Development Council, where I was CEO. This court makes no distinction between the public University of North Carolina or the private Harvard University in its ruling. The court has already ruled that public sector race-based supplier diversity programs are illegal. What makes anyone think this court will distinguish between public sector supplier diversity and private sector supplier diversity when white litigants argue that supplier diversity violates their equal protection rights?
The question of what is next is clear even though the outcome is not. Will white suppliers sue private corporations (Harvard is a private university) who pursue supplier diversity goals because of this recent ruling? It is inevitably the case based on the history of the court and white grievance that they are coming after corporate supplier diversity and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) next. While it is not clear the outcome of this next struggle, the forces for supplier diversity right now are zero wins and three losses in the Supreme Court.
Fred McKinney is the co-founder of BJM Solutions, an economic consulting firm that conducts public and private research since 1999, and is the emeritus director of the Peoples Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Quinnipiac University.
