As the resistance to diversity programs grows, so does pressure to put these programs on ice. In a recent example, Jack Daniels, a Tennessee-based whisky company, announced they’d sunset diversity programs within their organization in response to “angry conservative customers.” The Brown-Forman executive leadership team described the shift in a leaked internal email. “We launched our diversity and inclusion strategy in 2019. Since then, the world has evolved, our business has changed, and the legal and external landscape has shifted dramatically, particularly within the United States. With these new dynamics at play, we must adjust our work to ensure it continues to drive business results while appropriately recognizing the current environment in which we find ourselves.” This change also means the company will end its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index Survey and efforts to incentivize diversity targets. Rather than risk being labeled “woke,” executives discontinued these programs. And yet, the irony shouldn’t be lost on us that Jack Daniels wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for the contributions of a Black man.
In 1866, Jasper Newton Daniel, also known as “Jack,” opened his first distillery to produce whiskey. Despite the popularity of the brand, many are unaware that an enslaved Black man, Nathan “Nearest” Green, taught Daniel the tricks of the trade. His story challenges the myth of meritocracy, as he was hardworking but did not profit from the spoils of his labor. While the Daniel family eventually paid some money to the Green family for his contribution, they weren’t provided any ownership in the distillery and thus received nothing when Brown-Forman bought the company for billions. While Green is responsible for creating the signature charcoal-mellowed Tennessee whiskey, people often mistakenly describe Daniel as the creative mind behind the blend. No one can deny the impact diversity had on crafting this whiskey. Yet, it’s still unclear how this new, anti-diversity shift will impact current Black employees and applicants in the future.
When diversity is removed as a core company value, White leaders may openly oppose the inclusion and advancement of Black people within the company without any fear of consequence. While some claim diversity programs were unfair, arguing that decisions should only be made based on merit, they overlook the impact of bias in corporate decisions, as well as the racial discrimination experienced by hardworking, well-qualified Black employees and applicants. For instance, if Jack Daniel’s were named after the man who put the most hours of labor into creating its signature whiskey, it would be named after Green, a Black man, and not Daniel, a White man. Perhaps that’s why the brand’s new stance on diversity leaves a bitter aftertaste. It’s as if they forgot where they came from.
The threat of anti-woke backlash likely contributed to the company’s decision to put its diversity initiatives on ice. Before a portion of the leaked email detailing a shift in policy, corporate activist and conspiracy theorist Robby Starbuck claimed Jack Daniels was next on his list of places to boycott. However, the parent company released their decision before he could start this campaign. Starbuck has also been credited with stirring the anti-diversity movement which targeted Harley Davidson, Tractor Supply, and Loews. Starbuck recently teased that he will soon announce the next company to target online, seemingly committed to his quest to attack DEI programs on a continuous basis.
If an organization changes its values based on whatever sentiment is popular at a given moment, then it’s safe to say that its purported values are nothing more than a means to an end, a way of profiting off public sentiment. Of course, as a capitalist enterprise, the response by Jack Daniel’s is predictable. If too many consumers are fed up with racism, they will embrace diversity and inclusion, and if too many are fed up with diversity and inclusion, they will toss them just as quickly. Despite many organizations making pledges to combat racial injustice, many are now abandoning those promises in response to backlash. Some may wonder whether it matters whether companies abandon their diversity efforts since, after all, these programs did not unitarily solve the problem of racial discrimination. However, confronting a social problem imperfectly is much different from refusing to try. Organizations are comprised of people who work for the company and consume its products. Thus, their values have a real-world impact. Industrial-organizational psychologists have suggested that a company’s success is tied to their values, which impact the hiring process and how the entire system functions (Rothwell, 2015). Thus, Jack Daniel’s anti-diversity statement may impact hiring, Black employees’ access to upward mobility within the company, and how Black consumers view the company.
Following the leaked email, some suggested supporting Uncle Nearest, the award-winning brand named after the first Black master distiller, Nathan “Nearest” Green, rather than continuing to support Jack Daniel’s. The sentiment is motivated by the belief that if Jack Daniel’s no longer supports diversity efforts, then there’s no reason for Black consumers to support the brand, especially when there are many black-owned whisky brands to choose from. Journalist Ronald Martin said, “ain’t no Jack Daniels without a Black man,” pointing out the absurdity of the organization’s opposition to diversity given the historical contributions of Green. However, their decision was cheered by some, who considered the policy change refreshing, given their worldview. One self-avowed conservative, Phillip Denton, posted jubilantly, “We are back to making and selling booze DEI free!” Others offered critique but weren’t surprised by the company’s decision, arguing that since the company profited greatly from a recipe taken from an enslaved Black man, formally ending diversity efforts was aligned with the founder’s values.
While Jack Daniel’s is a prominent whiskey brand, their shift away from diversity has left a bad taste in the mouths of Black consumers. And some are thirsty for alternatives like Uncle Nearest, Duke & Dame, and Frisky Whiskey. Beyoncé has recently launched a whiskey brand that may appeal to consumers displeased with the policy shift. Sir Davis, a rich, buttery, toffee-style whiskey, is an effort to honor her great-grandfather’s role as a moonshiner. While companies are free to select their values, it’s also true that customers’ evaluations may be shaken in the process. For some, banning diversity programs is distasteful, especially considering the valuable contributions of a Black man like Nathan “Nearest” Green.
Comments
Leave a comment