This is conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s secret trick to getting companies to drop DEI

New York Post - Mar 29th, 2025

President Donald Trump has ended federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, aligning with a broader trend among corporations reconsidering their DEI initiatives. Companies like Disney, Toyota, and John Deere have recently dropped or altered these programs, influenced by activists like Robby Starbuck who criticizes DEI efforts as divisive rather than empowering. By publicly shaming companies through social media and journalism, Starbuck has convinced many to abandon practices he deems wasteful and counterproductive. His approach has highlighted the growing backlash against what some perceive as DEI's focus on victimhood and divisive identity politics.

The significance of this development is profound, as it suggests a shift in corporate and governmental attitudes toward DEI initiatives. While proponents argue these programs are essential for fostering inclusivity and addressing historical disadvantages, critics like Starbuck argue they often lead to reverse discrimination and inefficiencies. This debate reflects broader cultural and political tensions surrounding identity politics and meritocracy in America. The swift changes following Trump's order indicate a potential pivot in how diversity and inclusion are approached in the corporate world, impacting the broader discourse on race, gender, and equality in the workplace.

Donald Trump Disney Toyota Corporate Policy Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion John Deere Activism Robby Starbuck Social Media Influence

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides an engaging narrative about Robby Starbuck's activism against DEI programs, highlighting the actions and reactions of several major companies. It is timely and addresses a topic of significant public interest, given ongoing debates about diversity and inclusion. However, the article lacks balance and comprehensive verification of its claims, relying heavily on a single perspective without sufficient corroboration from independent sources. This affects the overall accuracy and source quality, as well as the potential impact and engagement with a more critical audience. While the clarity and readability are strengths, the article would benefit from a more balanced exploration of different viewpoints and a deeper examination of the evidence supporting its claims.

Accuracy

The article makes several factual claims that require verification. It asserts that President Trump ended federal DEI programs, which is partially accurate as he issued executive orders restricting certain diversity training but did not eliminate all DEI programs. The claim about companies like Victoria's Secret, Disney, and others dropping DEI programs due to Robby Starbuck's activism is partially supported by sources, but lacks comprehensive verification for each company mentioned. For instance, while Starbuck has influenced some companies' policies, the extent and specifics of these changes, particularly for each company named, are not fully substantiated by independent sources. Additionally, the article attributes quotes and actions to individuals like Jamie Dimon and DEI activists, which require further confirmation from primary sources.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a perspective critical of DEI programs, largely through the lens of Robby Starbuck's activism. It highlights his successes and criticisms of DEI without providing substantial counterarguments or perspectives from supporters of DEI initiatives. While it briefly mentions reactions from DEI activists, it doesn't delve deeply into their viewpoints or the rationale behind maintaining DEI programs. This creates an imbalance, as the article leans towards a narrative that DEI programs are ineffective or harmful, without adequately exploring the potential benefits or reasons why companies initially adopted these programs.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative. The language is straightforward, and the structure logically presents the story of Robby Starbuck's activism against DEI programs. However, the tone is somewhat biased, as it conveys a critical view of DEI initiatives without sufficiently exploring opposing viewpoints. Despite this, the article effectively communicates its main points and maintains a coherent flow throughout.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on statements and claims made by Robby Starbuck, a known activist against DEI initiatives. While his perspective is relevant, the lack of diverse sources or corroboration from independent, authoritative entities diminishes the overall source quality. There are no direct quotes from the companies mentioned or from DEI advocates, which would provide a more rounded and reliable account. The reliance on a single perspective without sufficient external validation raises questions about the impartiality and thoroughness of the reporting.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodology behind the claims made, particularly concerning how Robby Starbuck's actions led to changes in company policies. It lacks transparency in explaining how these claims were verified or the extent to which these changes were directly attributable to Starbuck's activism. Additionally, potential conflicts of interest, such as Starbuck's motivations or affiliations, are not addressed, which could impact the reader's understanding of the story's impartiality.