Problem: Reply to at least one of your group member's discussion posts. In order to receive full credit. Your response must include why the initial post caught your attention and your analysis of the potential ethical implications/any additional questions you may have. You should respond with at least a short, well-thought-out paragraph.
Company Name(s): Apple, Disney, Wallstreet
Topic: Apple and Disney Face New Pressure From The Right
Industry: Investing and Social Movements
Why Caught my Attention: The subject line was "anti-woke capital" and I was curious to know what they were referring to. I agree with the overall premise of Vivek Ramaswamy's opinions that Disney and Apple should avoid hiring based on race, sex, or political beliefs, but do not believe that Apple and Disney need to refrain from making political statements on behalf of their companies. Though tacky, both companies are within their legal rights to do so. From a shareholder standpoint, it makes sense that Ramaswamy would seek to protect his own interest by swaying the company to pursue profits rather than politics. This is a valid concern and is something for both companies to take into consideration, but I do believe that investors also should not invest into companies that do not align with their personal principles in order to avoid issues such as this.
Potential Ethical Implications: A potential ethical implication of Ramaswamy's standpoint is the encouragement towards Apple and Disney's to refrain from using constitutionally protected political speech. As for the companies, hiring with specific quotas regarding sex, race, and political belief is discriminatory by nature.
Questions: Is it ethical for companies to set hiring quotas, creating the very same discrimination that they claim to be against?