Bias Against Chavez?
I wanted to take slight issue with
your article “Making a Profit
Despite Hugo Chavez”
(DiversityInc - Sept. 2006).
I first of all applaud the decision
to run the article. A discussion of
the intricacies involved in negotiating the complex landscape of
Venezuela was at most times insightful. This is reporting that is not pre-
sented in the mainstream press and
it presents information that will no
doubt be useful to entrepreneurs and
senior management in larger firms
attempting to do business there. The
article could be seen as a call to seek
opportunities in a dynamic, though
The article, though, does suffer
from a particular political bias that
adds little to the insights into the
business landscape. For example,
phrases such as “Chavez’s tyrannical
rule” seem lifted from the rhetoric
of particular sides of the U.S. political spectrum.
In the final analysis, it seems that
Chavez’s principal sin to date has
been his escalation of anti-U.S.
(or perhaps anti-current-U.S.-presidential-administration) rheto-
ric. It is an issue of debate as to
what course Venezuela’s experiment
with socialism will take and the
implications that it will have on
those trying to do business there. Is
there not a way to address these
questions in a way that is free of
Stottler Henke Associates
San Francisco, Calif.
I left the Fortune 100 company
where I had worked for 10 years
largely because of its diversity policy.
Or should I say the lip service they
paid to a diversity policy that was no
more than words on paper? There
was no action or effort behind the
policy. They did the bare minimum
to be able to say they had a diversity
policy and had statements in their
corporate “vision” statement and
ethics policy on how much they valued a diverse workplace.
My main agenda was an effort to
get the company to provide domestic-partner benefits to its gay and lesbian employees. All the words in the
corporate vision statement and the
ethics policy indicated this was a “
no-brainer” decision, and one that the
company could use to its advantage
in publicity and hiring. I had various
communications all the way up to
the president of the company. The
most chilling response was that this
was an idea that needed to “mature”
in the marketplace. This was at a
time when almost 50 percent of the
Fortune 500 companies were already
offering these benefits, and all of the
major companies in the same marketplace were already on board.
In frustration at the lack of
movement on this issue, particularly
my personal need to have domestic-partner benefits, I decided to leave
the company. It was a good move.
I am now working for a smaller company ( 3,000+ employees) that provides this important coverage, and I
am earning 70 percent more money.
Resources Global Professionals
Allen Not for President
I found the recent article on
DiversityInc.com (Aug. 17, 2006)
about the “racially insensitive”
remarks made by Sen. George Allen,
R-Va., disturbing. While I am not
surprised that he was accused of
using derogatory names in reference
to African Americans, I was surprised that Allen was caught on tape
using an ethnic slur toward a person
of Indian-American descent.
Allen has been mentioned as a
contender for the presidency in
2008 With our vote, we must hold
elected officials accountable for their
words and deeds. Virginia voters
must ask themselves if Allen is able
to fairly and adequately represent all
of his constituents based on his
remarks and record of insensitivity.
The notion of racial, religious
and ethnic superiority is not only
short-sighted, it is dangerous!
The Rainmaker Group
In the October 2006 Company Index,
CareerBuilder.com was incorrectly identified.
We welcome your comments. Letters
must include your name, address
and, if applicable, company affiliation
and title. Send letters via e-mail to
editor@DiversityInc.com. We reserve
the right to edit all submissions.