DEI is often criticized as a modern religion. Without getting into the weeds of that discussion, I would say that my attitude toward DEI, broadly understood, actually does fit neatly into the First Amendment’s view of religion – that the state should pass no law establishing it, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Many companies have recently scaled back their DEI programs. Others have chosen to keep them. I’m content to let companies make their own decisions about who they want to hire and on what basis. My concern as a consumer is if the company is serving my wants or needs at the end of the day. If it is, I’ll exchange with them. And if not, then I won’t. I didn’t make any effort to avoid shopping at Target when they were big into DEI, and I’m not even slightly tempted to boycott them now that they are scaling back their DEI programs. I shop at Target because they sell lots of things that fit my lifestyle, wants, and budget. I think there’s something deeply psychologically unhealthy about the desire to make the place I shop for oatmeal and paper towels into a fundamental part of my personal identity.

Recently, the shareholders of Apple overwhelmingly voted to maintain the company’s DEI program. The news story linked above adds the following observation:

The proposal targeting Apple’s DEI policies was backed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, which had also put forward the proposal at Costco.

It argued that the existence of Apple’s diversity and inclusion programs exposed the firm to “litigation, reputational and financial risks”, pointing to the wider corporate retreat and noting that recent lawsuits have made it easier for workers to sue over discrimination.

To loosely quote President James Dale from the movie Mars Attacks!, two out of three ain’t bad. That is, it’s fine if maintaining the DEI program exposes Apple to financial or reputational risks. As a private company, taking on those risks is Apple’s choice to make – or more precisely, a choice to be made by Apple executives and shareholders. If you’re an Apple shareholder and those risks worry you, you can sell your shares. If you’re not a shareholder but just fundamentally object to any company that chooses to use these practices, then you can simply not buy anything Apple sells. If you’re neither an Apple customer nor a shareholder, then it’s just none of your business how Apple manages these decisions.

The risk of litigation should not be a factor here. The test of how Apple manages its internal affairs should be how well they are satisfying the needs of consumers on the marketplace. If Apple’s hiring practices or internal governance makes them less effective at producing things consumers want, then Apple and their shareholders will pay the price for that in the marketplace. And that’s great! Or maybe Apple’s practices will work out for them, and they’ll continue to produce lots of stuff consumers want to buy, and reap huge success. Also great! But the answer to that question should emerge from a process of capitalist acts among consenting adults, rather than because someone in Washington decided they should be able to make these decisions on Apple’s behalf.