The so-called “Corporate Equality Index” (CEI) from the radical left-wing Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has gained plenty of attention in recent years as one of the primary engines behind the rise of corporate wokeism. But HRC has another lesser-known ratings system, the “Municipal Equality Index” (MEI), that is driving woke policies in city governments – and may even be rewarding city officials for breaking state laws.
HRC published its first edition of the CEI in 2002, a 100-point scale supposedly designed to score companies on how “inclusive” and accommodating they are to minority groups. Over time, however, the CEI has metastasized into a tool for the left to force corporate compliance with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies and LGBT ideology.
In order for companies to obtain a high CEI score, they must not only employ members of the LGBT community, but also explicitly and publicly endorse transgender rights, work with transgender influencers, and visibly participate in events such as pride parades.
But why do companies care so much about having a good CEI score?
For starters, CEI ratings are relayed to administrators at elite universities. Companies with a poor score may struggle to attract top talent from the Ivy League or other renowned schools.
Additionally, major financial firms also care about CEI scores. Venture capitalists may be hesitant to invest in companies with low CEI ratings for fear that they could face public backlash. As part of the so-called “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) investing movement, firms are more likely to invest in companies with high CEI scores.
In effect, HRC has succeeded in convincing investors, employers, employees, and many consumers that a company’s CEI score matters – giving HRC broad power to dictate corporate policy on contentious social issues by threatening to tank a brand’s CEI rating. As political podcaster James Lindsay told The New York Post last year, the Human Rights campaign administers the CEI ranking “like an extortion racket, like the Mafia.”
Moreover, the Post reports that HRC “sends representatives to corporations every year telling them what kind of stuff they have to make visible at the company” – a list that includes pride flags and demonstrations of corporate loyalty to DEI dogma.
While the CEI controversy has been well-documented for years, MEI, launched in 2011, is less known to the general public but may nonetheless be even more effective at infusing left-wing ideology in American culture.
According to HRC’s MEI guidelines, cities lose points if municipal buildings have “sex-segregated facilities” – or restrooms specifically for men and women. Points are also awarded if city employees receive “transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits” – in other words, taxpayer-funded sex change operations.
Cities receive two points if they have policies explicitly banning so-called “conversion therapy,” which includes counseling to help youth confused about their biological sex. Two more points are awarded for having “LGBTQ-inclusive diversity training for all city staff.”
Even more alarmingly, city governments can apparently earn points for violating city or state laws that conflict with LGBT ideology. According to the MEI criteria, points are awarded to cities that are actively “testing the limits of state restrictions” in states that have instituted policies like a prohibition on biological males using women’s restroom and locker room facilities. This provision can be interpreted as tacitly encouraging city officials to find workarounds to state laws protecting female-only spaces.
Additionally, cities earn three points on the MEI index for “how actively the city has been pursuing pro-equality laws and policies.” HRC will also deduct MEI points if city officials are recorded saying anything that questions LGBT ideology, including raising concerns about hormone therapy and gender transition surgery for minors.
Recent stories about individuals being charged with felony hate crimes for scuffing gay pride flags painted onto city streets are one prominent example of MEI in action. Under the MEI guidelines, cities are awarded points for painting the flags – and for prosecuting those who are accused of defacing them. (Of course, many of these same cities refuse to prosecute actual criminals.)
In the case of the MEI, every city that gets a glowing rating from HRC enjoys positive media attention and a greater chance of attracting corporate interests also looking to boost their CEI scores. Furthermore, city officials can use their MEI rating as a “resume booster” for future employment with liberal organizations. Officials who are particularly aggressive in pushing LGBT ideology are awarded glowing praise from HRC and invitations to high-profile events hosted by the organization.
While many Americans are rightly opposed to corporations pushing controversial left-wing social politics and LGBT ideology, ultimately private companies can make these choices as they see fit and the free market will reply in kind – as it has in instances like the Bud Light controversy.
However, MEI presents a far more alarming prospect – that of a radical left-wing nonprofit group using its political and cultural influence to pressure city officials into compliance with an extremist partisan agenda. While most officials in major cities are already progressive Democrats and likely agree with HRC on most fronts, voters at the very least deserve to know more about the shadowy entities influencing their elected leaders.
Andrew Shirley is a veteran speechwriter and AMAC Newsline columnist. His commentary can be found on X at @AA_Shirley.
