Texas AG Demands DEI Documents as Part of Probe Into Boeing Supplier

https://www.yahoo.com ^ | March 29, 2024 | Dan Ladden-Hall

[Enterprise]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., his office announced Thursday, after “reocurring issues with certain airplane parts” given to the aircraft manufacturer.

As well as demanding “documents relevant to manufacturing defects” in Spirit’s products, Paxton has also requested records related to the company’s “diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) commitments, and whether those commitments are unlawful or are compromising the company’s manufacturing processes,” his office said in a statement.

(SNIP)

Paxton also asked for documents to show Spirit’s “employee demographics for race, national origin, sexual orientation, and age” before the company’s DEI policy was enacted, and the same workforce demographic information as of Jan. 1, 2024.

[Enterprise]

A Spirit spokesperson told Axios on Thursday that while they cannot comment on any investigations, the company is “wholly focused on providing our customers with the best quality product.”

[PLMerite]

[MtnClimber]

Manufacturing processes? DEI is about virtue signaling. Processes are so inflexible.

[DoodleBob]

I suspect this will be unpopular, but the AG should be told to go pound sand.

Here is the letter from Paxton: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Spirit%20Aero%20Request%20to%20Examine%20Letter.pdf

Let’s turn around the tables: if a Dem AG sent an 8-page demand about gun or speech related policies to a conservative parts supplier, with a customer experiencing quality problems, people would have cow over that. As they should.

Paxton is serving up red meat. And some folks are happy. Until some Dem AG pulls this stunt, and then the “this is outrageous!” chorus will start.

Private businesses shouldn’t be harassed by the state. If the government thinks that a crime was committed, take them to court. Otherwise, go take a long walk off a short pier.

[Enterprise]

I wouldn’t flame you. Your post is fair.

[Dick Bachert]

[BobL]

“Until some Dem AG pulls this stunt”

You mean like Garland’s goons, rifling through everything that Trump’s attorneys own, just for representing Trump - and then indicting his attorneys.

But, if you want to ‘set a new tone’ and just ignore the shit the Democrats are ALREADY doing to conservatives, feel free to do so, but please take it Firing Line, or some other Patrician GOP Elite site because here at FR, we RESPOND IN KIND.

[BobL]

If Paxton is demanding documents, that means he already has the documents and wants them OFFICIALLY delivered.

To me it’s reasonable to see just how BADLY Boeing (or Spirit, in this case) is COMPROMISING its standards and passenger safety, just to avoid ‘offending’ certain unqualified groups that have political power.

[DoodleBob]

I agree. Some conservatives have abandoned their principles in the pursuit of “winning.” I see that a LOT nowadays. They’re less bitchy than leftists for the most part, but just as rudderless.

Odd…for a group that says they hate the trans movement, they’ve undergone moral reassignment surgery.

Next thing you know it, these alleged conservatives will support the Commerce Clause as a way to regulate Firms They Don’t Like.

I just hope they don’t forget to take their hormone pills. Otherwise they’ll look like Divine.

[Antioch]

DEI = Didn’t Earn It

[Fractal Trader]

Last Summer’s Supreme Court decision on Harvard admissions is so broad that it pretty much makes any DEI unconstitutional. Because of this, I’m not going to blame any AG for going after DEI.

I am opposed for AGs going against such issues as gun ownership, because that is a blatantly unconstitutional stand.

[Enterprise]

Only incompetent and ignorant people would actually put such a policy into words. And yet, they actually did it!!!

[Chode]

[DoodleBob]

I get your point, and future cases may weigh in on this point.

For now, it’s not law in industry. And, industry is different. Employees can leave if they don’t like it. The shareholders own the company. If the firm fails due to DEI policies, that is too bad…that’s how the market works.

If Paxton thinks he has a case, sue them. If not, regardless of my views of DEI untethered to Christian diversity, this is harassment. Besides, Paxton has a border problem-focus on that.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Private businesses shouldn’t be harassed by the state

It seems to me that it would be surprising if Paxton was not curious about DEI and airline safety at Boeing. AFAIK nobody has proved that DEI is the cause of Boeing's equipment problems, but IMO airlines acceptance of DEI is asking for trouble WRT equipment and personnel.

[jacknhoo]

“Let’s turn around the tables: if a Dem AG sent an 8-page demand about gun or speech related policies to a conservative parts supplier, with a customer experiencing quality problems, people would have cow over that. As they should.

Paxton is serving up red meat. And some folks are happy. Until some Dem AG pulls this stunt, and then the “this is outrageous!” chorus will start.”

____________________

Sounds like the fascists already have you subjugated to me.

Grow a pair.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If the firm fails due to DEI policies, that is too bad…that’s how the market works.

If an airliner crashes, post hoc customer lawsuits are hardly going to make everything right for the passengers.

[noiseman]

Simple logic dictates that using “diversity” as a hiring priority will at best result in no difference in company performance, and will in most cases actually harm performance. In the best case scenario, maybe you have two applicants who are equally qualified, with, for example, one happening to be black and one white. In that case, if the black applicant is chosen for the job there will be a neutral effect on performance since either candidate would have likely performed similarly. So, in this case DEI is irrelevant since it confers no net benefit..

Then there’s the scenario of a black applicant who is more qualified than the white applicant. In that case, DEI is also irrelevant since the black applicant would be hired and provide more value to the company by virtue of his greater experience, whether DEI factored into his hiring or not.

And finally, there’s the scenario of a white applicant being more qualified than a black applicant. Here, DEI WILL have an effect if the black applicant is hired over the white applicant to promote “diversity”, but that effect will be negative because the company will be getting a less qualified employee.

So in no case can DEI-driven hiring yield a positive result for a company. At best, it can only be neutral and therefore irrelevant, but usually it will have a negative effect.

[HollyB]

If a Leo’s firearm was misfiring or having serious issues on a regular basis, the firearm manufacturer should be looked into.

[Spktyr]

Actually, IIRC, Texas law bars the state or any entity there under from investing in a DEI firm. Including the various retirement and pension funds - so, yes, under state law and as a concerned investor, the state through Paxton does actually have that right.