 |
|
|
|||||
DEI measures may be under threat, but the reality is many workers want jobs at companies that value diversity. Comparably, a platform for salary data and work culture insights, just released its list of the top 100 large companies for diversity. To compile the list, Comparably asked 30,000 employees of color to weigh in on 16 different categories, including satisfaction with leadership, compensation, and career growth opportunities. The ratings were collected between February 10, 2024 and February 10, 2025. To qualify, large companies had to employ over 500 employees and needed at least 75 employee ratings. (Comparably also published a list of top 25 small-to-midsize companies for diversity.) Its worth noting that nearly a quarter of the companies on the list have CEOs of color, including Informatica (led by Amit Walia) and Synopsis (led by Sassine Ghazi). While tech company HubSpot is celebrating its eighth year on the list, other tech giants such as Uber and IBM didnt make this year. Apple and Meta havent been on the list since 2020, and Google and Microsoft last made an appearance on the list in 2021. Here are the top 25 large companies for diversity, according to Comparably: Elsevier: New York City, NY RingCentral: Belmont, CA Informatica: Redwood City, CA ADP: Roseland, NJ Calix: San Jose, CA Teleperformance: New York City, NY Esri: Redlands, CA TaskUs: New Braunfels, TX LexisNexis Legal & Professional: New York City, NY Synopsys: Sunnyvale, CA N-able: Burlington, MA Arista Networks: Santa Clara, CA Paycom: Oklahoma City, OK Squarespace: New York City, NY Adobe: San Jose, CA Altametrics: Costa Mesa, CA Baylor Scott & White Health: Dallas, TX DataStax: Santa Clara, CA Elastic: San Francisco, CA HubSpot: Cambridge, MA Boston Consulting Group: Boston, MA Trimble: Westminster, CO Remitly: Seattle, WA Sunrun: San Francisco, CA Workday: Pleasanton, CA
Category:
E-Commerce
Researchers in a highly regarded Department of Defense program called the Minerva Research Initiative recently received word that grants already awarded by the Defense Department are being terminated, potentially putting their workand in some cases even paychecks for their students and lab staffin peril. Since 2008, the Minerva program has funded university social science research projects related to U.S. national security. Created under the George W. Bush administration and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the program has backed research into subjects like Russian propaganda campaigns, overseas effects of U.S. military deployments, and modern maritime piracy. As recently as August, the program announced a new round of $46.8 million in multiyear grants to teams studying topics like organized crime in Colombia, the impact of AI technology, and population movements amid climate change. “In a rapidly changing world, social science is essential for making sense of human behavior, guiding informed decisions, and understanding societal progress,” David Montgomery, director of social science in the Defense Department’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, said at the time. “We need to explore and better understand the complex social dynamics that shape our world and provide insights useful to policymakers and others concerned with the social context of security.” But under the Trump administration, priorities appear to have changed. A March 2 report in Science found that “dozens” of researchers are affected, and that applicants for the next round of Minerva funding received word that the Department of Defense was “no longer offering” the program. It’s a decision that left grant recipients and other scientists baffled, since the program previously received support under presidents from both major parties, appears to align with the Trump administration’s focus on national security, and cost relatively little. A 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found the program typically received between $20 million and $22 million in annual federal funding. Total annual defense spending is typically more than $700 billion per year. “There’s an aspect of this in which we’re removing an investment in the efficacy of future national security policy for short-term cost savings,” says Jacob Shapiro, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. The Department of Defense didn’t respond to an inquiry from Fast Company. The Trump administration has gone after a wide array of scientific programs, probing grants related to disfavored topics like climate change and gender, pausing research funding through the National Institutes of Health, and cutting the jobs of hundreds of weather forecasters and other employees at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has pursued cuts throughout the federal government and cancelled contracts and grants throughout the government. Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell cited a Minerva-funded study of “Vulnerability and Resilience to Climate Hazards in the African Sahel” in a video posted on Monday to X discussing allegedly “wasteful spending” highlighted by DOGE. “This stuff is not a core function of our military,” he said in the video. But scholars familiar with the Minerva program say the cuts there still came as somewhat of a shock, since the program supports research in national security-related areas that otherwise seem to be White House priorities. “It just seems tremendously short-sighted to cut support from a program that has absolutely transformed research and practice on counterterrorism, says John Horgan, a professor in Georgia State University’s psychology department and an expert on the psychology of terrorism. It makes no sense.” In addition to traditional peer-reviewed research papers, scientists receiving Minerva grants have generated write-ups in mainstream publications like The New York Times and Scientific American, interactive mapping tools for visualizing climate change and disaster issues, social network analysis software, and numerous relevant data sets, according to the National Academies study. “Over the past decade, Minerva grants have produced a substantial body of research in a variety of areas of importance to national security,” the report found. Horgan received Minerva funding between 2014 and 2018 to study religious conversion and converts who commit acts of terrorism. He says the program was valuable not only for the grants it provided but for connecting researchers with DOD officials. Those connections helped officials understand researchers’ insights and put them into practice around the world. They also helped scientists learn to better communicate their results to public officials, he says. Minerva funding has also supported new scholars in national security-related fields, particularly in today’s academic environment, where graduate students, undergraduate researchers, and early-career professors depend on external grants to finance their work. Horgan says Minerva funds made it possible to recruit up-and-coming researchers with newly minted doctorates in fields related to national security and “give them the time and space and resources to shine” as their careers take off. “It really is about figuring out how to support and pave the way for success for the next generation of terrorism scholars,” he says. “That’s what Minerva allowed me to do.” The sudden apparent shutdown of the program will likely leave some scholars scrambling for new sources of funding for existing projects and workers. “Many of us cut our teeth as assistant professors with support from the Minerva Initiative, which allowed us to support students and carry out field work,” writes Josh Busby, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas at Austin, in an email to Fast Company. “We were able to develop innovative new datases and methods including geospatial mapping and conflict event data. We explored important new areas of risks to U.S. national security from emergent problems like climate change. The loss of a major funding source for the social sciences is a significant setback for academic research, he says, and may weaken the government’s ability to comprehend and address threats facing the nation, he says. The Trump administration has already made several high profile about-faces around funding cuts and personnel decisions, so it’s still possible the Minerva program could be restored in some form. It’s unclear whether the administration has the authority to terminate existing Minerva grants, which means the cuts could face legal challenges. Also still up in the air is how budgets across the federal government will be affected by votes in Congress, which faces a March 14 deadline to pass a spending bill for the rest of the fiscal year or face a government shutdown. But, researchers say, if the funding isn’t restored, the lack of research into security-related topics and the failure to cultivate up-and-coming scholars and their relationships with the Defense establishment may cost more down the line. Recent decades have seen plenty of successful research into what sorts of programs actually work to promote international security and development, from cash transfers for poor people to various kinds of public health interventions, says Christopher Blattman, a professor of global conflict studies at the University of Chicago who has received Minerva funding for research involving organized crime in Colombia. “The unfortunate thing is the toolbox for the next 20 years not only will be more poorly funded, but it won’t be as effective, because we won’t be continuing to build on what actually works,” he says. Blattmans work has included looking at ways to offer young people alternatives to gang membership. He says he and his colleagues had been “cautiously optimistic” that the Trump administration’s focus on countering drug smuggling could lead to more funding for that sort of work. “Why this was on the chopping block?” he says. “I don’t know.” Blattman, who also saw other government funding from sources like the U.S. Agency for International Development dry up, says his team will likely be able to “sweep by on fumes” and continue existing projects, though they may not be able to do as detailed measurement as would have been possible if the grants continued. “Nothing shuts down, but we definitely are maybe less ambitious in our scope of what we can do,” he says. In general, says Princeton’s Shapiro, the Minerva program has funded research with practical applications into civil wars in Africa, Islamist extremism, drug-related conflict in Mexico, and why people join terrorist organizations and how best to demobilize them, among other topics relevant to U.S. defense efforts. And while it’s a tiny fraction of overall U.S. defense spending, the research that has come out of Minerva has helped officials make decisions about how to effectively allocate funds and personnel to actually make a difference, Shapiro says. “There’s tremendous value for money in this program,” he says.
Category:
E-Commerce
The question came innocently enough: What do you want to be when you grow up? Lindsays daughter, after a brief pause, looked up and confidently replied, I want to be a client. The simplicity of the answer hid the complexity of what she had observed: The clients always seemed to get the very best version of her mother. In her daughters young mind, being a client meant holding a special placeone that commands focus, care, and an unwavering commitment. As two mothers navigating full-time legal careers, that moment was not lost on either of us. It reveals a truth that is often glossed over in the narratives about working women, especially those of us balancing professional intensity with parenting. Beneath the thin veneer of having it all, we know all too well the quiet sacrifices and compromises that characterize our balancing act. The spotlight may be on our professional accomplishments, but in the shadows our children wait patiently for our attention, often competing with the demands of a profession that do not easily relent. The Weight of Expectation Too often the complexities of ambition, motherhood, and professional duty are distilled into stereotypes that seek to diminish rather than dignify. Its a familiar storythe notion that a woman with power and responsibility must inevitably be lacking elsewhere. Or that her identity as a mother or partner is somehow contrary to her professional persona. These narratives, however veiled, carry weight. But lets say what that really means. It means that the diligence and tenacity we bring to our careers and our clients are identical to the dedication we offer to our families. It means that the long hours spent advocating for clients are juxtaposed with the quiet moments at home, where the stakes are equally high, even if measured in hugs rather than verdicts. It means that, despite the portrayal of women in leadership as one-dimensional, we are more. We are multifaceted, resilient, and deeply invested in both our professions and our roles as mothers. Living with the Tension The path of a working mother demands a constant recalibration of priorities where both career and family vie for equal attention and each carries its own form of guilt. The notion of balance is a fallacy. At least thats what weve learned from years of trying to juggle our careers and motherhood. Instead, its a constant series of trade-offs and compromises leading us to understand that each day is unique. Theres no neat division between work and life anymore. Mornings usually start early, working before the rest of the house wakes up. We often work with one eye on the clock, calculating the minutes until we sprint from the office to catch a school or sport event. Or days when theres a sick child and no available caregiver, the idea of balance seems laughable. This has forced us to rethink how we define successnot by perfection but by flexibility and resilience. Its about being okay with the days that feel like controlled chaos and accepting that sometimes one part of life will have to be put on pause for the other. When our daughters see us in actionthey dont just witness the power, grace, and poise required of our profession; they see the weight of that responsibility and the effort and dedication it takes to give both our clients and our children the best of us. The Lessons We Teach As children we dreamed of becoming lawyers, mothers, or both, imagining these roles as ultimate markers of success and happiness. Our daughters, however, have grown up watching us navigate the realities of those choices and their dreams for us are different. If a child believes happiness comes from being in a position where others give their full attention, then maybe thats a mirror to our own internal narrativesthe idea that to be happy we must be fully attended to, in control, or on the receiving end of care. But our journey has taught us that happiness, real happiness, isnt about being a client. Its not about receivingits about the pursuit itself, the constant striving to give our best to both our careers and our children. So while our daughters might want to be clients today, we hope they understand, over time, that true fulfillment comes not from being at the center of attention, but from living and thriving with the tension.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||