The debut of the President’s doppelganger as “Satan” on HISTORY channel’s hit miniseries The Bible went viral this week (@bibleseries, #TheBible) once fans, including conservative radio host Glenn Beck, began tweeting their reactions to the uncanny resemblance between the actor (Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni) cast to play Christianity’s fallen angel and Obama.

You can read some of The Bible fans’ tweets here.

But wait, there’s more: Ouazanni is Moroccan! Without makeup to darken his skin and accentuate his features, he looks nothing like Obama. The actor, who has starred in several biblical TV films, has light skin; long, graying hair; and facial hair. Scroll down to see the image below.

Satan Looks Like Obama? Coincidence?

It’s a casting—and costuming—gaffe that has the public slamming The Bible producers Mark Burnett and Roma Downey (both white) with accusations of racism. The controversy that according to this married Hollywood couple is “utter nonsense.” Burnett says, “Mehdi Ouzaani is a highly acclaimed Moroccan actor. He has previously played parts in several biblical epics—including Satanic characters long before Barack Obama was elected as our President.”

The stereotype of the devil having a dark-skinned appearance has existed since the early third and fourth centuries. How many films  actually feature a Black actor or someone with darkened skin in that role?

As it turns out, the majority of movies since the early 1940s personify Satan as a white, middle-aged man—The Devil and Daniel Webster (Walter Huston, 1941), Angel Heart (Robert DeNiro, 1987), The Witches of Eastwick (Jack Nicholson, 1987), The Devil’s Advocate (Al Pacino, 1997), The Reaping (David Morrissey, 2007); as a large red monster—Legend (Tim Curry, 1985) and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (voice of Trey Parker, 1999); or as a seemingly innocent, possessed white child—The Exorcist (Linda Blair, 1973) and The Omen (Harvey Stephens, 1976, and Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, 2006). You can click here to see more examples.

Research shows the damaging effects that stereotypes can have on individuals’ sense of self. For example, Dr. Claude Steele’s study on stereotypes in the workplace and schools (detailed in the video below) shows a direct correlation between negative slurs and low performance.

What The Bible Producers, HISTORY Channel Have to Say

So why did Burnett and Downey think this was a good idea? In a statement, they denied any intended connection between Blacks and Obama and the Satan character.

Downey added that both she and Burnett, her husband, love and respect Obama. She says that “false statements such as these are just designed as a foolish distraction.”

HISTORY channel, owned by A+E Networks, also released a statement that similarly expressed its approval and respect for the President. “The series was produced with an international and diverse cast of respected actors. It’s unfortunate that anyone made this false connection,” the statement read.

But are their responses enough? Will The Bible lose its status as Sunday’s No. 1–watched show? As Lisa Suhay writes on The Christian Science Monitor’s website: “The problem with ‘utter nonsense’ is that people just can’t seem to stop uttering it all over the Twitterverse and other social-media sites.”

–Stacy Straczynski

The post HISTORY Channel Racist? Why Satan Looks Like Obama appeared first on DiversityInc.

“Use of a voter initiative to promote democratic self-governance cannot save a law like Proposition 8 that would otherwise violate equal protection,” read the brief. “Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.”

“[Same-gender couples] establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death,” the administration wrote.

The Obama administration’s brief follows a similar pro-same-gender-marriage motion filed earlier this week by more than 200 corporations. Legal experts say that the briefs, although not legally binding, could help sway the Supreme Court ruling of the case, reports USA Today.

Theodore Boutrous, a partner in the law firm Gibson Dunn, which is representing the two same-sex couples who filed the case initially, said the administration’s arguments represent “a clear path to marriage equality across the United States.”

The court filing completes President Obama’s self-described evolution on gay marriage and puts his administration squarely on the side of gay rights groups and the nine states where same-sex marriage is legal.

The Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit LGBT-rights organization, hailed the President’s actions. “The Obama administration has filed a historic court brief arguing that California’s Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. This is a historic step forward in the civil rights battle of our generation—and shows yet again that having the most pro-equality president in history is a game-changer,” reads an entry in HRC’s blog.

The organization also urges gay-rights supporters to fill out this form to thank President Obama “for his bold leadership, for putting the words of his inspirational inaugural address into action, and for opposing marriage discrimination.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case on March 26, while the Defense of Marriage Act case, a separate ban also under review for being “unconstitutional,” will be argued on March 27. Rulings on both cases are expected by the end of June.

The post Obama to Court: Overturn Prop 8, Gays & Lesbians Deserve Right to Marry appeared first on DiversityInc.

After I saw the movie Lincoln, I wondered: When did the Republican Party go from being the champion of inclusion to advocating the “politics of nullification”?

The answer is analyzed in a fascinating and important new article in The New Republic, “Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.”  The author, Sam Tanenhaus, is the editor of The New York Times Book Review and an astute observer of political history and the ramifications of ideology.

Tanenhaus was interviewed on CNBC’s Squawk Box this weekend and his controversial ideas were put to the test. “This article is going to get some people a little crazy,” said Squawk Box host Andrew Ross Sorkin. He cited the GOP’s “new diversity” and rising stars such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio as a means of disagreeing with Tanenhaus’ central point. Sorkin was joined by co-host Joe Kernen, former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Dr. Howard Dean, and CNBC commentator Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who described herself as a conservative Hispanic.

Tanenhaus contends that the GOP dominated U.S. politics from 1968 to 1988 through “a strategy of polarization that essentially gathered up much of the population against … African-Americans.” He noted that before the November election, there was great concern by political analysts about how President Obama might not receive even 40 percent of the white male vote. “Three or four election cycles ago, that would have ruined him. Today, that is the minority in this country. It’s not just African-Americans; it’s Asians, it’s Latinos, it’s women who see themselves as an outsider group—this is the new majority that Republicans have to deal with,” Tanenhaus said on the show.

Actually, according to The Atlantic, Obama’s voters were 56 percent white, 24 percent Black, 14 percent Latino and 4 percent Asian, while Romney’s were 88 percent white, 6 percent Latino, 2 percent Black and 2 percent Asian.

Tanenhaus agreed with the view of Wall Street Journal political reporter Neil King, who spoke at DiversityInc’s Innovation Fest last week, that the changing demographics of the electorate are making white people—and the white people’s party—an anachronism quickly. That point was also stressed by DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti in his column Diversity Wins: Demographics, Psychographic Shifts Decided Election. Tanenhaus delved deeply into the reasons why the GOP has failed to understand the changing electorate and why it may just put itself out of business shortly. Watch the video.

Asked by the hosts about the business angle, since CNBC’s main audience is business executives, Tanenhaus noted that corporate America “has been pretty good on race,” specifically with affirmative action and corporate diversity programs.

Caruso-Cabrera also took exception to Tanenhaus’ theories. “As a Hispanic conservative I reject some of the underlying premise in terms of rejection of affirmative action. Republicans are not necessarily rejecting affirmative action because they’re anti-minority; it’s because they don’t want to tell businesses how to do their business,” she said.

The Republican party’s issues, Tanenhaus argued, are more ideological. “These are the two oldest parties in Western democracy, and one of them has a long history of not being so great in civil rights,” he said.

Dean disagreed, noting that he believes the Republican Party does have a future but that it’s been captured by a hard-line conservative minority and its leaders need to stand up to that group.

When asked if Lincoln was the last nonracist Republican president, Tanenhaus became irritated and asked the hosts “if anyone actually read my article?”  They responded that they had, indeed, read it.

What He Really Said About the GOP

You can read Tanenhaus’ eloquent but very lengthy article for yourself, but to summarize: He notes that while President Eisenhower advocated for civil rights (and Brown v. Board of Education occurred on Eisenhower’s watch), the GOP in the early 1950s drew on the theories of 19th century politician John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina slavery apologist who believed in “institutional democracy” and states’ rights that “became the justification for conservative politicians to resist, ignore, or even overturn the will of the electoral majority.” Calhoun basically said that states can ignore federal actions by saying they are not valid, which Tanenhaus refers to as “nullification.”

Calhoun “called slavery ‘a positive good’ and ridiculed the Declaration’s ‘all men are created equal.’” (“Taking the proposition literally,” Calhoun once said, “there is not a word of truth in it.”) Years later in The National Review, William F. Buckley’s editorial “Why the South Must Prevail” defended voting restrictions as the region’s right.

The era of Barry Goldwater and Democrat George Wallace of Alabama heightened the racial politics, which went “into remission” under Richard Nixon, Tanenhaus indicated, but came back full force under Ronald Reagan, under whom efforts were made to roll back affirmative action. George W. Bush’s success with Latinos was attributed directly to tax and educational initiatives he supported while governor of Texas. In the era of Romney—and after—Tanenhaus contends that better recruitment of Blacks and Latinos isn’t enough.

The image of the “angry black man” still purveyed by sensationalists such as Ann Coulter and Dinesh D’Souza is anachronistic today, when blacks and even Muslims, the most conspicuous of “outsider” groups, profess optimism about America and their place in it. A politics of frustration and rage remains, but it is most evident within the GOP’s dwindling base—its insurgents and anti-government crusaders, its “middle-aged white guys.” They now form the party’s one solid bloc, its agitated concurrent voice, struggling not only against the facts of demography, but also with the country’s developing ideas of democracy and governance.

The post GOP for White People Only? appeared first on DiversityInc.

“My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life,” Obama said, noting that the Boy Scouts provides young people opportunities and leadership and that “nobody should be barred from that.”

Boy Scouts to Lift Gay Ban?

Corporate pressure from companies such as Ernst & Young, AT&T and Merck & Co. certainly contributed to the Boy Scouts of America’s apparent decision to end its ban on gay scouts and troop leaders, with a formal announcement expected as early as next week. The new policy would leave membership decisions up to the Boy Scouts’ 290 local councils and 116,000 sponsors, which are comprised of religious and civic groups.

“The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong,” said Herndon Graddick, President of GLAAD, an advocacy group for LGBTs. “Scouting is a valuable institution, and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.”

“Last year Scouting realized the policy caused some volunteers and chartered organizations … to act in conflict with their missions, principles or religious beliefs,” said Boy Scouts of America spokesperson Deron Smith. “It’s important to note this policy would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs.”

Change of Heart?

However, many news sources say the Boy Scouts’ sudden reversal is less about conflicting missions—after all, the policy had been in place since before the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 2000—and more about societal pressure to shift toward more inclusive practices.

The announcement comes just seven months after Boy Scouts of America was slammed nationally for reaffirming its anti-gay membership policy after nearly two years of examination, and just one month after Merck & Co ended its funding to the Boy Scouts.

In addition to continual chiding from the public, Boy Scouts of America evoked strong reactions from senior executives and other diversity leaders at top corporations—in particular, Ernst & Young Chairman and CEO Jim Turley and AT&T Chairman, CEO and President Randall Stephenson, who are both BSA board members. Turley very publicly urged the Boy Scouts to reconsider the policy to better reflect the times; the Girl Scouts, 4-H clubs and the U.S. military all have policies of inclusion.

“I support the meaningful work of the Boy Scouts in preparing young people for adventure, leadership, learning and service. However, the membership policy is not one I would personally endorse,” Turley said last June. “As I have done in leading Ernst & Young to being a most inclusive organization, I intend to continue to work from within the BSA board to actively encourage dialogue and sustainable progress.”

Ernst & Young is No. 6 in the DiversityInc Top 50 and No. 4 in The DiversityInc Top 10 Companies for LGBT Employees. AT&T is No. 4 in the DiversityInc Top 50 and No. 8 in The DiversityInc Top 10 Companies for LGBT Employees. Merck & Co. is No. 16 in the DiversityInc Top 50. All three companies have a 100 percent rating on the Corporate Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign, which designates those organizations demonstrating workplace equality for LGBT employees.

The post Obama Joins Corporate Outcry Against Boy Scouts’ Gay Ban appeared first on DiversityInc.

Public figures are weighing in with their dissatisfaction: Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said, “I think [Obama] can do better;” and Congressman Charlie Rangel said the lack of diversity on Obama’s team was “embarrassing as hell. … He’s had four years to work the bench, to work the second team, so that in the second term, these people should be just as experienced as any other American.” Watch the video interview with Rangel.

Is There Really a Lack of Diversity?

The three people the President has nominated so far—John Kerry as Secretary of State, Jack Lew as Secretary of Treasury and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense—are all white men. With two appointments still in the works, the 16-member Cabinet will be at least 69 percent white and at least 69 percent male. (Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, a Latina, and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, a Latino, have announced their resignations, but replacements have not been nominated.)

“I’m very proud that in the first four years we had as diverse, if not more diverse, a White House and a cabinet than any in history,” Obama says. “And I intend to continue that.” A diverse team, he added, “helps to create more effective policy-making and better decision-making for me because it brings different perspectives to the table.”

“Women are well-represented in the president’s senior staff here,” Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, adds. “Two of the three deputy chiefs of staff are women. The White House counsel is a woman. A woman runs Homeland Security for this country, Secretary [Janet] Napolitano. … The Cabinet secretary in charge of the most important piece of domestic-policy legislation in a generation is a woman, [Secretary of Health and Human Services] Kathleen Sebelius.”

According to White House personnel data compiled by The New York Times, the Obama Administration has improved the number of women appointees by 10 percent to 43 percent, up from 33 percent in George W. Bush’s administration and about the same ratio as Bill Clinton’s (41 percent).

But with a campaign strongly based on a message of change—and diversity—Obama’s seemingly not happy with a meager 10 percent bump either. “Word from the White House is that the President himself is irritated, and demanding answers about the faces his staff is pushing forward. Unfortunately, he has only a bunch of white guys to offer an explanation of why the picture looks like a bunch of white guys,” writes New York Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd, a Pulitzer Prize winner. She notes that some women on the White House staff say they “are privately gratified at the latest kerfuffle, hoping it will shut down the West Wing man cave.”

Obama & Diversity: The Picture Worth a Thousand Words

Chatter about the Cabinet’s lack of diversity began building when Obama nominated several white men—Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State, Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and, most recently, Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury—and news surfaced of two female Cabinet members’ resigning: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Solis.

The controversy came to a head when The New York Times ran a photo of Obama sitting in the Oval Office with 10 of his advisers—all 10 were male, and all but one were white. Senior Adviser and Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls Valerie Jarrett was also in the room—but only part of her leg was visible in the shot because she was upstaged by one of the white men.

Obama has been under fire since from a wide range of high-profile media sources: Bloomberg View’s Margaret Carlson says “He doesn’t look beyond his nose for more minority recruits”; The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus says, “About all those white guys: What a shame. Not an outrage, but a shame”; CBS News Political Director John Dickerson says, “Look, Mr. President, you won your election based on the votes of women and minorities, so you should respect that in your naming of the cabinet picks.” Fifty-five percent of women, 93 percent of Blacks and 71 percent of Latinos voted for Obama, according to CNN exit-poll data.

In May 2012, Obama similarly received disapproval for a photo of his majority white campaign staff; only two members were Black, which is far below the 13 percent representation in the national population and the 33 percent representation in Chicago.

The post Obama’s Cabinet Diversity Record ‘Embarrassing as Hell’ appeared first on DiversityInc.

The NDAA is an enormous bill that specifies the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense (DOD). It also contains sections that deal with military issues ranging from the total number of troops to retiree benefits, and everything in between. It is one of the primary vehicles used by Congress to provide oversight and mandate change within the military. Every year, SWAN partners with key members of Congress to provide bipartisan legislative recommendations to both the House and Senate to improve the welfare of service women and women veterans.

This year, SWAN was able to help introduce into the bill a record number of provisions based on our policy agenda, chief among them to improve the way the military handles sexual assault and sexual harassment in the ranks. Other provisions were also included that improve health care for service women and military families. Specifically, the law now provides for:

• Prohibiting the military from recruiting anyone convicted of a sex offense

• Mandatory separation of convicted sex offenders

• Insurance coverage for abortions in cases of rape or incest for service women and military family members

• Retention of restricted report documentation for 50 years if so desired by the victim

• The creation of “Special Victims Units” to improve investigation, prosecution and victim support in connection with child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault cases

• Allowing victims to return to active duty after separation to help prosecute sex offenders

• The creation of an independent review panel comprised of civilian and military members that will closely examine the way that the DOD investigates, prosecutes, and adjudicates sexual assaults

• Required sexual assault prevention training in pre-command and command courses for officers

• Improved data collection and reporting by the military on sexual assault and sexual harassment cases

• Annual command climate assessment surveys to track individual attitudes toward sexual assault and sexual harassment

• A review of unrestricted sexual assault reports and the nature of any subsequent separations of victims who made those reports

• Notification to service members of the options available for the correction of military records due to any retaliatory personnel action after making a report of sexual assault or sexual harassment

• Requirement for DOD to establish a policy for comprehensive sexual harassment prevention and response

• Language that will allow better oversight and tracking of DOD’s implementation of sexual assault provisions from prior Defense Authorizations in order to ensure they are being enforced properly

Legislating reform of DOD policies can be a difficult, complicated and sometimes painfully slow process, and is only one of several tools SWAN uses to make institutional change happen. Ensuring those policies are properly implemented by the services and fairly practiced in individual units “where the rubber meets the road” is a continuous process for us. Calls from active duty troops and veterans on our Helpline continue to inform and guide our work. We are grateful to be able to provide help to service members and veterans in need. We are also thankful for our incredible coalition of military, veterans and civil rights organizations, the members of Congress who have partnered with us, and each one of you who have supported us this year. In order to eradicate sexual assault and sexual harassment we must continue to work together to transform military culture. The passage of the 2013 NDAA is another critical step in moving the military one step closer to change.

As we move forward with this year’s policy and legislative agenda, and prepare for our second annual Summit on Military Sexual Violence, SWAN will continue to hold our civilian and military leadership accountable for the welfare of our nation’s service members and veterans. We will continue to fight for changes in the execution of military justice for victims of sexual assault, service members’ access to civil courts, and comprehensive reform of VA policy regarding “Military Sexual Trauma” compensation claims. With your support, we look forward to continued success as we begin work on the 2014 NDAA.

* This article is republished with permission from Service Women’s Action Network

The post Obama Signs New Military Sexual Violence Provisions Into Law appeared first on DiversityInc.

The post [Slideshow] Obama’s New National Security Team—Better Put on Your Sunglasses appeared first on DiversityInc.

Update: Donald Trump may have singlehandedly destroyed the “magic of Macy’s” right before the holiday shopping season. Widespread support for the @DumpDTrump petition caused Macy’s brand loyalty index among women to plummet 45 percent in just 10 days, according to the latest YouGov Brand Index. This time of year is the retailer’s most critical, accounting for 60 percent of Macy’s annual net income.

The report was released just two days after Macy’s Chief Marketing Officer Martine Reardon publicly stated that the company would not drop Trump as a celebrity spokesperson, despite the real-estate mogul’s history of sexist, racist rants and birther accusations against President Obama.

“We try to separate from that and we try to let the customer vote on that. … As long as that customer is still voting by wanting to buy that product, then that’s what it’s all about,” Reardon said during at Business Insider’s Ignition 2012 conference.

Macy’s originally had forecasted its sales would rise 4.2 percent during the holiday season between online sales and its 840 stores in the United States, which brought in higher-than-expected earnings last quarter, with sales increasing 24.1 percent. At the time of publication, Macy’s had not replied to DiversityInc’s request for comment on the impact the controversy may have on its sales.

Plummeting Loyalty? You’re Obviously NOT Listening to Customers

Dump Donald Trump protest leader Angelo Carusone is leading the protest and determined to hit Macy’s where it hurts—in revenue. Carusone, the activist who also led the successful large-scale advertiser boycott of Rush Limbaugh when the radio-show host called university student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute,” threatened Macy’s that he’d urge the 670,000-plus people who’ve signed the petition to cut up their Macy’s credit cards.

“The rapid drop of Macy’s’ brand reputation is, I believe, directly attributable to their insistence of defending Trump instead of listening when their customers told them that Trump’s brand of bigoted bullying is inconsistent with Macy’s,” said Carusone in a statement.  “These latest numbers illustrate what we’ve been saying all along—Macy’s should dump Trump. For brand loyalty to drop so rapidly over the course of this effort, particularly during the start of the holiday shopping season, is no coincidence, and the damage will only deepen the longer Macy’s refuses to listen to their customers concerns.”

The Dump Trump protest, which went viral on Nov. 19, is demanding that Macy’s drop real-estate mogul Donald Trump as one of its celebrity spokespersons. The petition cites Trump’s history of “unpleasant, nasty and despicable behavior,” personal attacks and sexism toward women, including his own daughter, and perpetuation of the “racially charged birther conspiracy theory” against President Obama as a severe misrepresentation of Macy’s corporate values.

Macy’s issued this response to the protest:

Macy’s marketing and merchandise offerings are not representative of any political position. Many of the individuals associated with products sold at Macy’s—or at any retailer, for that matter—express personal opinions that are not related to the merchandise we sell or to the philosophies of our company.

Additionally, Macy’s, one of DiversityInc’s 25 Noteworthy Companies, told DiversityInc:

In our merchandise assortment, we strive to meet our customers’ expectations for unique and interesting products across a broad array of styles, categories and brands. This allows our customers to choose what they prefer. A longtime focus of Macy’s holiday advertising has been to celebrate the season’s spirit of generosity and goodwill through our ongoing “Believe” campaign, and that is the sole message of our holiday television commercials.

Our company’s philosophy of [diversity and inclusion] is well-known, and at the core of our approach to doing business. We expect our associates, our advertising and our in-store presentations, and the companies with which we do business, to mirror the diverse multicultural marketplace we serve. Macy’s is a company that respects diverse points of view and welcomes all customers into our stores and online sites.

Macy’s has featured Trump in advertisements and carries the Donald Trump Signature Collection menswear line, comprised of 65 items including dress shirts, ties and other accessories. Trump also is featured in the retailer’s 2012 holiday commercial in which he plays a skeptic opposite footage of Edmund Gwenn from the 1947 Miracle on 34th Street film.

“Macy’s says it has a strong obligation to be ‘socially responsible’ and that ‘actions speak louder than words.’ Indeed. It’s time to act,” writes Carusone.

Donald Trump’s Rants: Racism & Sexism at Their Finest

Trump’s most recent zinger, which triggered the petition, occurred two weeks before the election: He offered to pay $5 million to a charity of Obama’s choice if the president released his college transcripts and passport applications, saying it “would be doing a great service to this country.” This follows previous remarks contesting the president’s credentials—including his ability to get into Harvard and Columbia—which CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer called “code for saying he got into law school because he’s Black” and “an ugly strain of racism.”

Among the 673,000-plus who are fed up with Trump’s overzealous tongue is singer and songwriter Cher. “I didnt [sic] know they sold Donald Trump’s Line! If they don’t care that they sell products from a LOUDMOUTH RACIST CRETIN, WHO’D LIE LIKE ‘HIS RUG’ TO GET SOME CHEAP PRESS ! I CANT BELIEVE MACY’S THINKS HE’S THE RIGHT ‘MAN’ 2 [sic] REPRESENT THEIR NAME !” Cher posted on Twitter (@cher), swearing to boycott Macy’s until the store cuts ties with Trump.

RACIST CRETIN,WHO’D LIE LIKE “HIS RUG”TO GET SOME CHEAP PRESS ! I CANT BELIEVE MACY’STHINKS HE’S THE RIGHT “MAN” 2 REPRESENT THEIR NAME !

— Cher(@cher) November 12, 2012

Trump had berated Cher as “somewhat of a loser” and “very miserable” for posting an anti–Mitt Romney tweet back in May. Other victims of Trump’s uncensored public tirades include:

• Rosie O’Donnell and Cher: “Like @Rosie O’Donnell, a total loser!”
• Arianna Huffington: @ariannahuff is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision.
• Barbara Walters: Barbara has become a sad figurehead dominated by a third-rate comedian … Rosie just pushed her out like a (‘pathetic’) puppet.”

Trump seems unfazed by the petition. He’s even leveraged the added publicity to plug his new fragrance:

“My fragrance—“Success”—is flying off the shelves @Macys. The perfect Christmas gift!” he tweeted.

My fragrance–”Success”– is flying off the shelves @macys. The perfect Christmas gift!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2012

Corporate Values & Clear Messaging

Macy’s is the latest in a series of companies to fall under public scrutiny for its corporate decisions over the last year: Boycotts impacted sales at both Lowe’s and Chick-fil-A, while Popchips was berated by social-media users for its racist ads featuring Ashton Kutcher in brownface.

In order for consumer-facing companies to be successful and genuinely connect with the marketplace, companies need to understand their customers, according to John Bryant, CEO of Kellogg Company:

“We have a very special bond with our consumers. Our goal is to help us understand our consumers so well that every day we’re in even better position to bring our best to those consumers. And to do that, we need not just a diverse organization, but an environment which is inclusive, where the ideas of that organization can come into our products, so we can create even better products for our consumers,” Bryant said at our event, where he accepted the DiversityInc Special Award for Top Company for Diversity-Management Progress. That diversity is key in meeting customer needs, increasing marketplace engagement and subsequently results in brand loyalty and increased sales.

Read more on the importance of clarity of values and consistent communication:

Ask the White Guy: Decision Making, Clarity of Values & What to Do When It Goes Horribly Wrong

Are Political Donations That Conflict With Your Diversity Policy a Shareholder Issue?

Lessons on Values From Ellen & jcpenney

–Stacy Straczynski

The post Macy’s Brand Loyalty Falls Sharply After Trump’s Gaffes appeared first on DiversityInc.

Papa John’s profits are up 25 percent—that’s why CEO John Schnatter’s threat to cut workers’ hours and raise the price of pizza by up to 14 cents to offset the company’s cost of Obamacare resulted in a widespread boycott of the pizza chain.

“I got in a bunch of trouble for this,” Schnatter said. “That’s what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don’t think people know what they’re going to pay for this.” The Affordable Care Act dictates that companies with 50-plus full-time employees must provide healthcare coverage to those workers. That means some companies will need to cut back on employee hours to avoid added healthcare costs, according to Schnatter.

Earnings Increased But You Can’t Afford to Offer Healthcare?

Schnatter’s announcement came right after President Obama’s reelection (Schnatter hosted a fundraiser for Mitt Romney), which signals that the Affordable Care Act should remain intact.

In the summer, Schnatter said he would have to raise the cost of pizza by 11 to 14 cents per pie because of healthcare reform, yet the company recently reported a 25 percent jump in earnings and is proudly touting that it will give away 2 million free pizzas during the NFL season.

Never mind that CNN refuted that figure, pointing out that many of Papa John’s employees already are part-timers who are not guaranteed company-sponsored healthcare coverage. The company’s own 2011 annual report states that “most restaurant team members [of which there are 14,400] work part-time and are paid on an hourly basis,” suggesting that only the approximately 2,100 full-time employees—who presumably already have coverage—would be impacted. Moreover, many of the chain’s restaurants are owned by franchisees who may not have 50 full-time employees and thus are not responsible for providing coverage.

But even if Schnatter’s estimated cost increases were accurate, this is a company whose adjusted earnings per share for the third quarter of 2012 surpassed the numbers from a year ago by 25 percent. Moreover, Papa John’s third-quarter total revenue jumped 6.5 percent year over year to $325.5 million and domestic company-owned restaurant revenue improved 11.3 percent to $143.4 million. Per its annual report, the company’s 2011 revenue was $1.22 billion.

Consistency in Messaging & Accountable Leadership

Schnatter’s comments recall this memo from David Siegel of Westgate Resorts, the CEO who is building the largest private residence in the U.S. In October, Siegel suggested that his employees vote for Mitt Romney because “if any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.”

Siegel seems to have changed his tune post-election. He told Bloomberg Businessweek that not only had he not laid off any employees, but he “gave everybody in the company a raise this week—the average was 5 percent. I wanted to help them handle the additional burdens the government will put on them.”

The big difference between Schnatter and Siegel and CEOs who have inclusive workplaces is that the latter’s messages don’t vary and they stay true to values.

Schnatter likes to portray himself as a generous fellow who uses the profits he makes selling pizza to help others. After he made his recent comments in Naples, Fla., he told the audience that he was headed to a telethon to raise money for Hurricane Sandy victims, and his company pledged to donate $1 from every pizza sold last Wednesday to the American Red Cross.

But by using his political views to raise prices and slash employee benefits, he hurts his company’s image. In fact, online tweets are now calling for a boycott of Papa John’s.

To understand the importance of clarity of values—and communicating that consistently—see Ask the White Guy: Decision Making, Clarity of Values & What to Do When It Goes Horribly Wrong.

The post Papa John’s CEO Latest News: ‘In a Bunch of Trouble’ for Obamacare Job Cuts appeared first on DiversityInc.

This time, it wasn’t about the excitement of “hope” and “change.” It was a campaign that seemed to me to be rather uninspiring and visionless, in the middle of a searing, aching, endless recession that is destroying more household wealth than anything in 80 years. And in who won lies a lesson for business.

This election was about diversity. As I watched John King go over the election map on CNN the night of the election, it was clear to me that there were key counties in key states that were going to determine the electoral college—and that diversity was determining the trends overall as well. Of the nine battleground states, the President Obama lost only North Carolina.

If you look at who voted for each candidate, the demographics shaped up as older and whiter versus younger and multiethnic. I think Neil King’s analysis in the above video is exactly right. One amazing number is that Asian voters went from 2 percent of the total votes four years ago to 3 percent on Tuesday—but almost 75 percent of Asians voted for the president. In the end, youth will win over age and our country will become more than 50 percent nonwhite by 2043. (This year was the first time there were more nonwhite births than white births.) What most people fail to comprehend is that the rising trend influences the declining demographic: As families become more diverse, as recognition and respect of LGBT relatives becomes a part of more family realities, as the less-diverse old realize they need to have the support of the more-diverse young to pay for their Medicare, the demographic shift becomes a seismic psychographic shift.

Going beyond just the presidential race, there were remarkable wins for women candidates and same-gender marriage initiatives, and stunning, complete losses for male candidates who decided their opinions on rape and pregnancy were important to discuss. This election is a clear mandate from the voters.

Here are major victories to note:

Women Candidates Elected at Historic Numbers

At least 19 women will occupy seats in Congress, increasing the total number of women by 12 percent (from 17 to 19). This marks a new high in United States history.

Women that won reelection were: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.). Deb Fischer (Neb.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) will join the Senate. Additionally, according to the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers, about half of all Senate races had at least one female candidate.

• Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren Win: Record Number of Women Running in Election 2012
• Women In Senate: 2012 Election Ushers In Historic Number Of Female Senators
• Exit Polls: Obama’s Winning Coalition of Women and Non-Whites
• ‘War on women’ may have helped Democrats; Senate has record number of women
• Another year of the woman

Openly Gay Candidates Gain Seats in Senate & House

It was a landmark election for LGBT candidates, as seven of the eight running for seats won. Baldwin became the first openly gay person elected to the Senate; two openly gay Congressmen (Jared Polis of Colo. and David Cicilline of R.I.) won reelection; and as many as four other first-time candidates—including openly bisexual Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona—could be sworn in come January.

• Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin is first openly gay person elected to Senate
• Mark Pocan will be next openly-LGBT member of Congress
• New York sends openly gay candidate to U.S. Congress
• Openly gay Congressman Jared Polis cruises to re-election in Colorado
• Out Congressman David Cicilline re-elected in Rhode Island
• Openly gay Asian American first LGBT person of color in U.S. Congress
• Sinema widens lead, but CD9 race remains too close to call

Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights

Referendums showed that voters are ready for a change, as attitudes toward same-sex marriage begin to shift.

• Election 2012: Same-sex marriage passes in Maryland, Maine
• LIVE BLOG: 2012 election results important to LGBT Americans
• Gay Rights Groups — Mostly — Celebrate Obama’s Re-Election

Healthcare

President Obama’s win means that the Affordable Care Act should stand.

• Obamacare survives — now what?
• Culturally Competent Care: How Diversity Creates Better Patient Outcomes

‘Legitimate Rape,’ ‘God Intended Pregnancy,’ & Other Male Politician Gaffes

These male politicians decided to make rape and abortion “their” issues—and they suffered at the polls.

• Analysis: Todd Akin can blame his own words for Senate race loss
• Donnelly triumphs over Mourdock in Indiana Senate race

Lack of Diversity in Mainstream Press

72% of Newspaper Articles About The General Election Written by Men

For more on the election and a look back at the candidates’ campaigns, read DiversityInc’s coverage:

DOMA Rejected by Federal Court in N.Y.

President Obama Supports Marriage Equality

Ruling Against Defense of Marriage Act Is Major Diversity Victory

Diversity & Inclusion Includes Gays & Lesbians: Is Black Church Getting the Message?

Ask the White Guy: What Changed Obama’s Mind About Gay Rights?

Can You Prevent a ‘Todd Akin’ Moment at Your Organization?

‘God Intended’ Pregnancy After Rape, Says Romney’s Candidate

The post Diversity Wins: Demographic, Psychographic Shifts Decided Election appeared first on DiversityInc.