Abdullah Fayyad

In 1987, there was a report from a think tank called the Hudson Institute. The report was called Workforce 2000. In the year 2000. This came out in 1987, and it kind of took the corporate world by storm. It went viral at the time, if that's not a word that was used then. Their version of viral.

In 1987, there was a report from a think tank called the Hudson Institute. The report was called Workforce 2000. In the year 2000. This came out in 1987, and it kind of took the corporate world by storm. It went viral at the time, if that's not a word that was used then. Their version of viral.

This was a report that every major company was reading, and it essentially was making predictions for what the American workforce was going to look like in the year 2000. And it was telling these companies that the workforce is diversifying at a really rapid rate, both by gender and by race, immigrant status and the like.

This was a report that every major company was reading, and it essentially was making predictions for what the American workforce was going to look like in the year 2000. And it was telling these companies that the workforce is diversifying at a really rapid rate, both by gender and by race, immigrant status and the like.

This was a report that every major company was reading, and it essentially was making predictions for what the American workforce was going to look like in the year 2000. And it was telling these companies that the workforce is diversifying at a really rapid rate, both by gender and by race, immigrant status and the like.

And essentially, companies really took that to heart because they wanted to remain competitive. And to remain competitive, you had to be competitive among the workforce, not just consumers. But if you wanted to hire good talent and the workforce was changing, these companies really tried to change their policies in order to adapt to this new world that was being created in the U.S.

And essentially, companies really took that to heart because they wanted to remain competitive. And to remain competitive, you had to be competitive among the workforce, not just consumers. But if you wanted to hire good talent and the workforce was changing, these companies really tried to change their policies in order to adapt to this new world that was being created in the U.S.

And essentially, companies really took that to heart because they wanted to remain competitive. And to remain competitive, you had to be competitive among the workforce, not just consumers. But if you wanted to hire good talent and the workforce was changing, these companies really tried to change their policies in order to adapt to this new world that was being created in the U.S.

for a more diverse workforce. So that's the kind of business argument, that's where it started from.

for a more diverse workforce. So that's the kind of business argument, that's where it started from.

for a more diverse workforce. So that's the kind of business argument, that's where it started from.

Well, I mean, I think M is not too far off. I happen to agree with a lot of what they said, you know, which is a lot of the DEI initiatives that we have seen at many major companies, at academic institutions, have largely been performative. And that's why what we see oftentimes and why there's a lot of criticism of DEI programs, not just from the right, but from the left as well.

Well, I mean, I think M is not too far off. I happen to agree with a lot of what they said, you know, which is a lot of the DEI initiatives that we have seen at many major companies, at academic institutions, have largely been performative. And that's why what we see oftentimes and why there's a lot of criticism of DEI programs, not just from the right, but from the left as well.

Well, I mean, I think M is not too far off. I happen to agree with a lot of what they said, you know, which is a lot of the DEI initiatives that we have seen at many major companies, at academic institutions, have largely been performative. And that's why what we see oftentimes and why there's a lot of criticism of DEI programs, not just from the right, but from the left as well.

You bring in a speaker, a one-time thing, or you do anti-harassment trainings and implicit bias trainings that study after study have shown have been largely ineffective, and some studies have actually shown them cause antagonism. They have been antagonizing some people in management.

You bring in a speaker, a one-time thing, or you do anti-harassment trainings and implicit bias trainings that study after study have shown have been largely ineffective, and some studies have actually shown them cause antagonism. They have been antagonizing some people in management.

You bring in a speaker, a one-time thing, or you do anti-harassment trainings and implicit bias trainings that study after study have shown have been largely ineffective, and some studies have actually shown them cause antagonism. They have been antagonizing some people in management.

But the reason we do it is in large part because companies are performing for their employees, showing them that they are saying the right things, but it doesn't always mean that they're doing the right things. You know, one of the best examples of this is that, you know, we see pay discrimination at company after company after company.

But the reason we do it is in large part because companies are performing for their employees, showing them that they are saying the right things, but it doesn't always mean that they're doing the right things. You know, one of the best examples of this is that, you know, we see pay discrimination at company after company after company.

But the reason we do it is in large part because companies are performing for their employees, showing them that they are saying the right things, but it doesn't always mean that they're doing the right things. You know, one of the best examples of this is that, you know, we see pay discrimination at company after company after company.