The Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan’s Commitments to DEI Initiatives Inspire

Good People, special love to JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs for standing firm on why they would continue their DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives against the avalanche of softies who are reversing course on something which makes society better: “The heads of both JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs reaffirmed their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, joining Apple and Costco among the companies resisting the push to roll back DEI programs. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon argued that diversity policies have been good for the bank’s bottom line, in contrast to recent DEI retreats by companies like Meta and Walmart.”

It is naive to think that a non-optimal system does not need a fudge factor to attain a better equilibrium. The anti-DEI crusaders love their legacy admissions which enable kids of rich parents to attend colleges, because their parents donated monies to universities, but hate it when poor kids need a little consideration to move to the next steps. So, diversity works if it is paid via donations as unqualified rich kids get admissions, but it is “woke” if we need to reserve 2% to enable those who are eternally excluded to have a future.

As a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins, as part of my National Science Foundation PhD Merit fellowship, I volunteered to teach mathematics and physics in many high schools in Maryland State. During that program I learnt one thing: where you are born in America can determine many things about your future. Yes, the local schools are largely funded by local real estate tax, and poor areas have bad schools, while rich areas have resources and typically have better schools.  Yes, when you have mansions, they make more money from real estate taxes to fund their schools where areas with small people’s homes see their schools collapsing.

As I moved from one district to another, I correlated the readiness of students, on average, with the wealth of where they live. Simply, statistically, a kid in a poor area has tons of odds to overcome poverty through education because the school will fail him or her.  

I get you – they should remain school dropouts because their local schools have failed them. But someone can say, in the 100% total, can we pick the most promising despite all odds, just in the way legacy admissions offer access to rich kids, diversifying schools to have the children of billionaires? You cannot support diversity via donation but hate diversity in DEI for the excluded.

But when it comes to GS and JPMC, this is not about competence as everyone is qualified. What is happening here is ACCESS. You can graduate top of your class, but you have no one that can give you access. But if there is a policy to reserve 2% for people like you, through that, you could be discovered. I write this because we make investments in Tekedia Capital: you can have the USD dollars, but you may not be in the loop of the startup pipelines. 

Imagine if fund managers decide to say: it is 100%, but 2% will be allocated to people who traditionally do not have access to these deals. Those people will pay REAL dollars. But today, that is not the case. Sure, people will complain: why must you allow that guy to be part of a deal when his US dollars has been touched by a DEI hand?

GS and JPMC, I salute. Do not give up, stand up for the excluded until the world becomes more equal. 

EI is built on merit; it is giving access to qualified but excluded people. On SpaceX and GS, think deeper, the guy who keeps money manages the world. America can function without SpaceX, but I am not sure we will be here without banks for a week. GS and JPMC are apostles of merit and their numbers show that and that is the point the CEOs are making. If you believe in facts, and understand financial statements, DEI is working for them, and they are not lying! Why abolish what has made them great?

Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.