What that means is that the Clinton-era definition of morality (having the right view on social issues such as diversity on your staff, environmental extremism and payroll), matters more than fiduciary responsibilities for the stockholders. That’s what’s being taught in business schools, rather than pure business tactics. Before you go thinking this is great, ask yourself if you’d want to work for a company that puts all this at the expense of making those evil profits that pay your salary. Ask if they should be hiring based on skill or on these other concerns.
Only 23% of the business students rank “providing clear and accurate business statements to stockholders and creditors” first. The rest prefer goals like “recruiting a diverse workforce,” 38%; “minimizing environmental pollution,” 18%; and “not exporting jobs or moving plants,” 18%. Three of those four have nothing to do with running a successful business. Seventy-three percent responded that the view of ethics most often transmitted was the politically correct view that what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity.
Only 25% said that there are clear, universal standards of right and wrong. You think this stuff doesn’t come out of the Clinton-Gore administration? If not, then where does it come from? It’s pure, unadulterated liberal drivel! And it’s being taught in business schools. The students think they’re answering this stuff the right way – with their social consciousness, their allegiance to diversity and all that, not to competence or even turning a profit.