Dr. David D. Schein interviews Heritage Foundation research fellow Allen Mendenhall about corporate DEI, federal contractor rules, shareholder engagement, workplace neutrality, Dell, universities, and the changing role of corporate governance.
Corporate DEI did not begin in the boardroom, and according to Allen Mendenhall, it is not disappearing simply because the political environment has changed.
In this Saving America interview, Dr. David D. Schein speaks with Mendenhall, a research fellow in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and senior advisor to the Free Enterprise Initiative at The Heritage Foundation. Their conversation moves from the origins of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to federal contracting, shareholder proposals, executive compensation, universities, religious and political viewpoint concerns, and the changing role of corporate governance.
Dr. Dave also brings a distinctive perspective to the discussion. Before his academic career, he worked in employment law and human resources and prepared affirmative-action plans for corporate employers. That gives the interview a practical contrast between traditional affirmative action, modern DEI programs, and the legal environment employers face today.
DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the corporate world, those ideas have appeared in many forms, including employee training, recruitment goals, promotion policies, diversity offices, employee resource groups, vendor programs, and executive compensation metrics.
Mendenhall argues that modern corporate DEI grew partly from academic theories about structural inequality, intersectionality, institutional power, and the idea that apparently neutral systems can reproduce unequal outcomes.
As graduates carried those concepts into business, government, nonprofit organizations, and human resources departments, DEI became a common framework for discussing workplace representation and organizational policy.
Dr. Dave distinguishes this from the affirmative-action compliance systems he worked with earlier in his career. In his view, some modern DEI programs operate differently from the traditional compliance plans that federal contractors once maintained under Executive Order 11246.
The interview spends significant time on the Trump administration’s changes to federal DEI and affirmative-action policy.
In January 2025, President Trump revoked Executive Order 11246, the long-standing federal contractor affirmative-action framework, and directed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to stop promoting diversity, enforcing affirmative-action requirements, or encouraging workforce balancing based on protected characteristics.
The administration also directed agencies to address private-sector DEI practices that it considers unlawful discrimination.
Readers can review the White House executive order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.
Mendenhall’s argument is not that every program labeled DEI is automatically unlawful. His concern is that race- or sex-based preferences, quotas, workforce balancing, or compensation incentives can create legal and governance risk when they cross into discriminatory treatment.
One of the most distinctive parts of the interview concerns Heritage’s use of its own investment portfolio.
Mendenhall explains that the organization has increasingly used shareholder proposals and direct engagement with public companies to challenge policies it believes create legal, reputational, or fiduciary risk.
Heritage’s Free Enterprise Initiative describes this strategy as an effort to use shareholder rights to encourage transparency, corporate neutrality, and long-term value creation.
Mendenhall says the initiative expanded from only a few engagements in its first year to 26 proposals in a later proxy season. He says about half were withdrawn after companies either demonstrated that the challenged practice had ended or agreed to make changes that satisfied the proposal’s objective.
Dell is one of the examples Mendenhall highlights as a constructive engagement.
Heritage filed a shareholder proposal seeking greater transparency around Dell’s DEI initiatives. Following discussions, Heritage reported that Dell confirmed DEI metrics were not being used to determine executive compensation outcomes, that it did not use race- or sex-based quotas, and that its employee resource groups were open to all employees.
Heritage then withdrew the proposal.
Readers can review Heritage’s account of the engagement in Heritage Foundation Secures Corporate Engagement Win at Dell Technologies Via Shareholder Dialogue.
The example illustrates a broader point in the interview: shareholder activism is not limited to progressive or ESG-oriented investors. Conservative organizations are also using ownership rights to influence corporate policy.
A shareholder proposal forces a board and management team to address a question from the perspective of owners rather than only employees, political groups, or customers.
Mendenhall argues that corporate policies should be evaluated partly through the lens of fiduciary responsibility, legal risk, employee relations, reputation, and long-term shareholder value.
That makes DEI a governance issue when programs affect executive compensation, hiring, vendor selection, charitable giving, or the company’s exposure to discrimination claims.
The broader question is not whether a corporation may express values. It is whether management can explain how politically sensitive programs serve the company’s business purpose and shareholders.
DDSA has explored corporate culture from a different angle in Corporate Culture, which looks at the way organizational values and management choices shape business behavior.
Dr. Dave’s employment-law background creates one of the most useful distinctions in the conversation.
He recalls preparing affirmative-action plans for corporate locations under the older federal contractor system. His point is that compliance historically involved defined legal structures and reporting obligations, while modern DEI can include a wider set of goals involving workplace culture, representation, executive incentives, political expression, and organizational identity.
That distinction matters because employers need to know whether a program is designed to comply with nondiscrimination law, expand outreach, create equal opportunity, or explicitly prefer one group over another.
Different objectives can create very different legal and management consequences.
Mendenhall also discusses corporate charitable-giving platforms, viewpoint discrimination, and whether employees or organizations with conservative or religious beliefs receive equal treatment.
He describes Heritage engagements involving companies that used outside screening systems for employee charitable matching. His concern is that third-party political or ideological classifications can quietly determine which organizations employees are allowed to support with matched contributions.
The broader governance issue is consistency. If a company promises neutrality and inclusion, shareholders and employees may reasonably ask whether those principles apply across political, religious, and ideological lines.
Both Dr. Dave and Mendenhall argue that universities remain important because many corporate DEI concepts developed in academic settings before moving into business and government.
Mendenhall says some institutions have responded to political and legal pressure by renaming or reorganizing programs rather than abandoning the underlying approach.
Dr. Dave adds personal examples from academia and hiring, arguing that identity-based objectives can sometimes override experience or qualifications.
For more workplace context, readers can also see Trust in the Workplace and Whole Foods & BLM Apparel.
The interview suggests a more complicated answer than either political side often gives.
Some companies have reduced public references to DEI, ended specific programs, changed compensation metrics, or adjusted corporate statements. Other organizations may continue similar practices under different terminology.
At the same time, legal risk has increased because employers must distinguish lawful diversity efforts from practices that treat applicants or employees differently because of race, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics.
That means the future of DEI may be less about whether the acronym remains popular and more about what companies actually do in hiring, promotion, compensation, contracting, training, and corporate giving.
The interview ultimately asks whether corporations should be political actors, neutral economic institutions, or something in between.
Mendenhall believes shareholders should use ownership rights to push companies toward merit, neutrality, fiduciary discipline, and viewpoint fairness. Dr. Dave approaches the issue from employment law, management, and his experience in academia.
Whether viewers agree with their conclusions or not, the conversation identifies an important shift in corporate governance: political and cultural debates are now being fought not only through elections and lawsuits, but through proxy statements, shareholder proposals, executive compensation systems, and corporate policies.
Watch the full Saving America interview with Allen Mendenhall
The EEOC’s DEI-related discrimination guidance emphasizes that employment decisions cannot discriminate because of protected characteristics. The SEC’s shareholder-proposal materials provide the procedural framework for proposals and exclusions.
Related DDSA coverage includes DEI in Medicine, Corporate Culture, and Dell’s corporate-law move to Texas.
© Copyright 2026 Claremont Management Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright asserted over US Government material or the copyrighted material of others.
