Skip navigation

Category Archives: DIVERSITY

  • GREAT RELIGION–NOT

Saudi female journalist gets 60 lashes RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

– A Saudi court on Saturday sentenced a female journalist to 60 lashes who had been charged with involvement in a TV show in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex. Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment, but there were conflicting accounts about how the court issued its verdict. Al-Yami told The Associated Press it was her understanding that the judge at the court in the western city of Jiddah dropped the charges against her, which included involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the Internet. But she said he still handed down the lashing sentence “as a deterrence.” “I am too frustrated and upset to appeal the sentence,” said al-Yami, 22. Al-Yami worked as a coordinator for the program, but she has said she did not work on the sex-show episode. Al-Yami refused to provide contact details for her lawyer to ask about the legal proceedings, including the basis in Islamic law for the punishment and whether the charges were really dropped. Sulaiman al-Jumeii, the lawyer for the man who appeared in the TV show, said such “physical punishment is not an indication of innocence or a drop of charges.” “If the judge had dropped the charges, then why did he give her the 60 lashes?” he added. Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told the AP he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it. In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, the man, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes. Al-Jumeii maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded. On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law. “It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job,” he said. The case has scandalized this ultraconservative country where such public talk about sex is taboo and the sexes are strictly segregated. The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC’s two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline. Three other men who appeared on the show, “Bold Red Line,” were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each. Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

The “True Identity” Of Van Jones

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  September 10, 2009

The fact is that Jones was nailed by his own associations and statements.

Some people are wondering who is next after Van Jones. But the Van Jones story is not over. And we still don’t know who hired this “obscure” official, as some on the left are now trying to refer to him. Some of these controversies are currently being investigated by the new media. Blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke the story about Jones’ communist background, thinks White House official Valerie Jarrett needs to be seriously scrutinized. She appears to have had a family connection to Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

For the record, this “obscure” official technically worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), established within the Executive Office of the President. It “coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.” Yet, he never went through a Senate confirmation hearing.

Meanwhile, representatives of various George Soros-funded organizations are coming to the defense of the identified communist.

John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, hailed Jones as an “exceptional and inspired leader who has fought to bring economic and environmental justice to communities across our country.”

Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org said Jones had “worked tirelessly to bring jobs and environmental progress to some of the poorest communities in our nation. His dedication and leadership are exactly what we need more of in Washington. And his resignation is a loss to this Administration.”

Josh Silver of the Free Press calls Jones “one of our most visionary and principled young leaders.”

Questions about Van Jones personally are not over, either. It’s been reported that Van Jones is not his real name. He is really Anthony Jones.

By the same token, Barack Obama was once Barry Soetoro. It’s not exactly clear when his name was changed, and when or if it was reflected on official documents.

Jones and Obama put a lot of importance in names. Jones named his son Cabral, after African Marxist Amilcar Cabral. So what happened with “Van?”

In an interview with Ariane Conrad, the person who largely wrote his best-selling book, Jones said, “Well my true identity, of course, is Anthony Jones from Jackson, Tenn. One might be able to use a search engine to figure that out.”

He may have been referring to the fact that his “true identity” had been previously revealed in a New Yorker article, “Greening the Ghetto,” by Elizabeth Kolbert. She noted, “Van Jones, born Anthony Jones, grew up in Jackson, Tennessee, a small town about ninety miles east of Memphis.” Kolbert explained that “After high school, Jones enrolled at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The first day of his freshman year, he decided that he needed a new identity, or, at least, a new name. Anthony Jones was dull. He chose Van because, he told me, ‘it has a little touch of nobility, but at the same time it’s not overboard.'” On another occasion, he said he picked “Van” because it sounded cool.

If he got a new name his freshman year of college, then why is he listed years later as “Anthony Jones” in the 2005 IRS form 990 filed by the organization he ran, the Ella Baker Center? The form is actually signed by “Anthony K. Van Jones” but printed as “Anthony K. ‘Van’ Jones,” with the name “Van” in quotation marks.

By 2006, it is back to “Anthony K. Jones” and by 2007 it has become “Anthony ‘Van’ Jones.”

In his statement, Podesta said that Jones, whatever his real name and true identity, had “chosen to resign because he believed he was serving as a distraction to the President’s agenda. I respect that decision.” Podesta was co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition project and employed Jones before he went to the White House CEQ.

But how could he have been a “distraction” when the major media had been ignoring the story? Jones was forced to resign, as the Marxist “progressives” at the Rag Blog website fully understand, because the investigation of Jones was getting too close for comfort for Obama and his inner circle. Sacking Jones was a way for the White House and the major media, just beginning to take an interest in the story, to move on.

It is apparent that Jones was thrown “under the bus” because too many of Obama’s close associates, including Jarrett, are implicated in his hiring. Jarrett had said that “we” had recruited Jones. Who is “we?”

Obama himself obviously approved the decision to bring him aboard. After all, he is the President. Jones and Obama were photographed together. What is the nature of their relationship?

Rep. Mike Pence was the only member of the House Republican Leadership to call for Jones to go. But the resignation has not resulted in any coherent explanation of how he was hired in the first place.

Just before Jones jumped ship, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri sent a letter asking for congressional hearings into the appointment. Among other things, he noted, “Last year, Mr. Jones in a radio interview stated his goals as a ‘complete revolution’ to ‘transform the whole society’ away from capitalism. These recent comments remove the credibility of his assertions that his past radical statements and actions such as the creation of the group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) rooted in Marxism and Leninism merely reflect youthful sentiments in the distant past.”

In fact, I am not aware of any claims by Jones that his involvement in STORM was just a matter of being too youthful. He never replied to my calls or emails and I was forced to file a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to try to get answers.

His Marxist rhetoric about a “complete revolution” was made to “Uprising Radio” in April of 2008 and brought to light by Breitbart TV. Going beyond “systems of exploitation and oppression is a process,” Jones said, that will take us beyond “eco-capitalism.”

He explained, “So the green economy will start off as a small sub-set and we’re going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

In other words, environmentalism and “green jobs” are the cover for implementing Marxism. Obviously, Jones has not changed. Only his methods have changed.

Bond sent his letter in his capacity as ranking member of the Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. But the chairman of this subcommittee, to whom Bond sent the letter, is socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a booster of Jones! So the chances of any hearings were always zero to begin with.

Are the Republicans serious about getting to the bottom of this scandal?

For his part, Sanders responded that Democrats should have stood by Jones. “To surrender to them is ridiculous, because they’re not going to stop. They’re just going to go after the next guy. We need to be standing up to them more vigorously and exposing their lies.”

He did not identify what “lies” he was talking about. The fact is that Jones was nailed by his own associations and statements. As he told Conrad, all you had to do was use a search engine.

Before going on to the “next guy,” it’s the job of the conservative media which took this story seriously to examine how Jones got his job. Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal blog is still on top of it. Glenn Beck should not let the Jones story drop now. And that means exposing those who are now defending Jones.

Speaking of Jones, Josh Silver of the Soros-funded Free Press says that “progressives” have a responsibility to “defend the public servants and innocent people who are being attacked…”

Their idea of “innocent” is someone who openly associated himself with an international movement that has taken the lives of more than 100 million truly innocent people. International communism is still the biggest “death panel” the world has ever known.

Which raises the question: why do modern “progressives” want to celebrate the work of a communist?

// // // //
<p><img alt=”Clicky” width=”1″ height=”1″ src=”http://static.getclicky.com/110761-db15.gif” mce_src=”http://static.getclicky.com/110761-db15.gif” /></p>
//

<img src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-f3_BaGrSUyW5s.gif” mce_src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-f3_BaGrSUyW5s.gif” style=”display: none;” border=”0″ height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”Quantcast”/>

Saudi Judge–>Its OK To Slap Your Wife

Posted: 10 May 2009 12:40 PM PDT

Islam has a very low opinion of women. Take for example these quotes from the holy Hadith text:

  • Bukhari (48:826) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
  • Tabari I:280 “’I must also make Eve (bad word), although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are (bad word).”)…happy, content…utterly incapable from intellectual weakness…never to give us trouble…

One may think that being an ancient text, Islam would have changed its view about women in the intervening years. NO WAY !

A Saudi Arabian Judge was teaching  a seminar on domestic violence an he says that it is OK to smack your wife if she spends too much money. Hey, Happy Mother’s Day from the religion of peace:

Slapping a wife ‘is okay’

Riyadh – A Saudi judge has told a seminar on domestic violence that it is okay for a man to slap his wife for lavish spending, a local newspaper reported on Sunday.

Jeddah judge Hamad al-Razine gave the example of overspending to buy a high-end abaya, the head-to toe black shroud Saudi women have to wear in public, as justifying a smack for one’s wife, Arab News said.

“If a person gives 1 200 riyals ($320) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals ($240) to purchase an abaya from a brand shop, and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” he said.

The judge’s remarks sparked an outcry at the seminar on the role of judicial and security officials in preventing domestic violence, the paper reported.

The seminar was attended by officials as well as activists on domestic violence, including representatives of the National Family Safety Programme.

Razine acknowledged the depth of the problem of domestic violence, until recently not acknowledged as a serious issue in the ultra-conservative Muslim country, where family problems traditionally remained behind closed doors.

Saudi women have in the past few years become more vocal about the problem of husbands beating wives and fathers mistreating children.

But Razine said some of the blame must be shouldered by wives for their behaviour. “Nobody puts even a fraction of the blame on them,” he said, according to the report.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

YID With LID Link to YID With LID

The Racist King Of Jordan Gets it Wrong Again Posted: 11 May 2009 04:54 AM PDT There is a reason why the diminutive bigot who runs Jordan is pushing so hard for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs—he hates Palestinian Arabs. Here in the US, one of the most racist phrases is “Not in my neighborhood!” This disgusting practice is used when someone of another ethnic background dares to purchase a house on his or her block. In November of 2006 Abdullah for all intents and purposes, used that phrase to refer to Palestinians in a speech to the Jordanian Parliament: “Jordan will not accept an unjust settlement of the issue, nor will Jordan accept any settlement that comes at its expense,” Abdullah told lawmakers, who applauded loudly. The king did not elaborate, but he was referring to Jordanian fears of a settlement that would cause thousands of Palestinians to settle in the kingdom, upsetting the country’s delicate demographic balance (of course he is trying to do just that to Israel by pushing the Saudi Plan). Source The King either suffers from dementia or is a racist. Does he really forget that Jordan is a Palestinian state? Does he forget that until 1967 the west back of the Jordan River was part of HIS country? Or that the Jordanian Army acting on his dad’s orders, massacred thousands of Palestinian Arabs to get them out of the country Abdullah is a Racist as is much as are his fellow Arab leaders! The only reason there is a “Palestinian Problem” is that his father and the other Arab nations refused to take in the Palestinian “Refugees”. They kept them in “camps” on the border so they could not integrate into society and to use the refugee children as a fighting force against Israel. During the same period a slightly higher number of Jews left the Arab countries, they aren’t refugees 61 years later because Israel absorbed them. So the short bigoted King comes to America, not to offer to pressure his former citizens to stop the terrorism so there can be a negotiated peace, or to moderate their all or nothing demands but to tell the US to pressure Israel to put her people in danger. Abdullah is wrong when he says that Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama decides Mid-East’s future. That’s just bravado to protect his racist butt. Next weeks meetings may decide American/Israeli relations for the rest of the Obama administration but it will not decide the future of the Middle East: Netanyahu meeting with Obama decides Mid-East’s future, says Abdullah Michael Binyon and Richard Beeston President Obama’s critical meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu next week has become the acid test for the Administration’s commitment to peace in the Middle East, King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday. The monarch does not conceal his feelings about the Israeli leader. He described their last encounter – 10 years ago when he had just come to the throne – as the “least pleasant” of his reign. But he, and President Mubarak of Egypt, are expected to meet the Israeli leader before his trip to Washington, where the future course of the region could be decided. The King said that he was prepared to believe what Israelis have told him — that a right-wing Government in Israel is better able to deliver peace than the Left. “All eyes will be looking to Washington,” he said. “If there are no clear signals and no clear directives to all of us, there will be a feeling that this is just another American Government that is going to let us all down.” If Israel procrastinated on a two-state solution, or if there was no clear American vision on what should happen this year, the “tremendous credibility” that Mr Obama had built up in the Arab world would evaporate overnight. And if peace negotiations were delayed, there would be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months, with implications far beyond the Middle East. “If the call is in May that this is not the right time or we are not interested, then the world is going to be sucked into another conflict in the Middle East,” the King said. He broke off from his busy schedule hosting the Pope in Jordan to give his warning to The Times. He was the first Arab leader to call on President Obama in Washington two weeks ago, and is now leading the hectic Arab efforts to respond to the Administration’s determination to seek a comprehensive peace. Mr Obama is expected to lay this out to the Muslim world in a visit to Cairo next month. The King travels today to Damascus to urge President Assad to join the Arab efforts to seek a settlement with Israel, based on the Arab peace plan adopted in 2002. Brokered by the Americans, this would be the most comprehensive deal attempted since the opening of the Madrid conference in 1991. It would offer Israel immediate benefits, such as entry visas to every Arab country, the right of El Al, Israel’s national airline, to overfly Arab territory, and the eventual recognition of Israel by all 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. In return, the Israelis would have to put an immediate stop to the building and expansion of settlements and agree to withdraw from territories occupied since 1967. The two most sensitive issues — the future status of Jerusalem and the right of return by Palestinians who fled in 1948 — would be negotiated within the framework of the peace plan. The King yesterday sidestepped reports that he had been asked by the Americans to clarify the Arab proposals on making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state and the Palestinian right of return, the two most contentious issues in Israel. Mr Netanyahu has frequently said these were not negotiable. “I was very specific in carrying a letter on behalf of the Arab League highlighting the Arab peace proposal, their desire to work with President Obama to make this successful, their commitment in the peace proposal in extending the hand of friendship to the Israelis,” he said. Jerusalem was not an international problem but an “international solution”, he insisted. A symbol of conflict for centuries, it was now desperately needed to become a symbol of hope. And hinting at the Arab demand for international control of the old city, he said that Islam, Christianity and Judaism should make it a “pillar for the future of this century”. He sensed a lot more understanding in these times of cultural and religious suspicions that “Jerusalem could be the binder that we need”. The Pope’s visit, he said, was timely. His spiritual pilgrimage with a message of peace sent a signal of hope to back up the reconciliation that politicians in the region were planning. “It is all part of one major effort.” He saw Mr Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama next week as the turning point: “A lot is on his shoulders as he goes to Washington.” The King said that Mr Obama was committed to the two-state solution, which had to be implemented now. The Arabs were “sick and tired” of promises of a new peace process. What was needed was for the Israelis to sit down not only with the Palestinians but also with the Syrians and the Lebanese to settle all the issues. In a direct appeal to the Israeli public, he said they could either do a deal that would lead to peace and recognition by the 57 Muslim countries — a third of the world’s population; or they could maintain “Fortress Israel” for another ten years, which would be a calamity for everyone. This was a bigger issue than just Israel-Palestine. It had become a global problem. “This is where I think the Obama Administration gets it.” Britain also had been “very active” — more than at any time for a decade. The King singled out David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, for praise. Mr Netanyahu is expected in Amman on a private visit very soon. The atmosphere may be difficult, the King considers that Mr Netanyahu had contrived to make the first three months of his reign very unpleasant. But, he added, “we have to deal what we’re stuck with. Just because there is a right-wing Government in Israel does not mean that we should chuck in the towel.” It might even be easier for such a Government to do a deal, he believes. Emphasising again the urgency now felt by all Arab governments of making the most of Mr Obama’s commitment to a settlement, he said this was a final opportunity. “I think we’re going to have to do a lot of shuttle diplomacy, get people to a table in the next couple of months to get a solution.” The alternative was bleak — war, death and destruction. The King added: “This is a critical moment.” My friend Fausta points out Long-time readers of this blog may recall Abdullah was essentially saying the same thing at Princeton U in February 2008, when he specifically asked for a homeland for the Palestinians. Back in February 2008 he was saying “2008 is a critical year for the solution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict,” and that “we need the USA completely involved to ensure a final agreement by end of 2008.” Read Her full post here Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Minorities Should Express Shame, Not

Only Pride
Dennis Prager TOWNHALL,COM
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride.

Multiculturalism.

Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

For a generation, America has been awash in the celebration of minorities and minorities celebration of themselves. Just recall Black is Beautiful or I am a woman, I am invincible.

At the same time, the majority group in America — white Christians — has been allowed to celebrate very little. Rather, they have constantly been reminded of what they should be ashamed of — their racism, sexism, homophobia, patriarchy, and xenophobia — real and alleged.

But what about minority shame?

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism.

Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

All this came to mind recently when, by coincidence, I read two things about the minority group of which I am a member — Jews. I just completed reading Anthony Beevors The Fall of Berlin 1945, in which the author writes that in the midst of the massive rape of German women (millions of girls and women of all ages) by Red Army troops, Jewish officers in the Red Army were known to be the one group that protected German girls and women. In Beevors words, Red Army officers who were Jewish went out of their way to protect German women and girls.

I fully admit to a sense of Jewish pride when I read that.

The next day I read a news report that because of the objections of one kindergartners mother, a public school in North Carolina had banned the singing of Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer because the song contained the word Christmas. I blame the school officials first and foremost for this craven and foolish decision. But when the news report noted that the woman was Jewish, my heart sank. Just as I had read the Beevor report and felt a surge of Jewish pride, I read the North Carolina story and felt a surge of Jewish shame.

It was a surge of Jewish shame that years ago led to one of the largest demonstrations of Israeli Jews in Israel’s history. They were demonstrating against the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. The killings were committed by Lebanese Christian militias, but they took place while Israel occupied that area of Lebanon.

It would seem, then, that group shame is a good thing.

There are at least three reasons:

1. It is maturing. Only children think only well of themselves. A group that only expresses pride is essentially a group of children.

2. If one expresses group pride, one is morally obligated to express group shame. Obviously, this does not apply to any person who does not identify with, let alone take pride in being a member of, a group.

3. If only the majority group is expected to express shame, then only the majority group is expected to be governed by rules of morality. It is, ironically, the highest moral compliment to Americas white Christians that they are the only American group of whom expressions of shame are expected. It means more is morally expected of them than of anyone else.

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islam’s name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting — and attempts to economically destroy — anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example. When Sen. Joseph McCarthy blacklisted people in Hollywood for real or alleged support for the Communist Party, he was finally shut up with the words, Have you no shame, sir?

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesn’t exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.diversityinc.com

Why Did Yahoo! and Monster Quit Diversity?

By Daryl C. Hannah

©DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.

Keywords: Yahoo, Monster, economy, diversity newsletter

Even in this tough economy, progressive companies, especially those on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity® list, are maintaining or even escalating their commitment to diversity. But not Yahoo! and Monster, two companies that have never participated in the DiversityInc Top 50. To find out how diversity will withstand this recession, read “Why the Recession Won’t Kill Corporate Diversity Programs.”


Click here to enlarge.
Click Here to Subscribe for $19.99 and get a 22 x 351/2 poster of “Know Your Six Black Presidents” free.

Yahoo! announced in its Dec. 2 newsletter to subscribers that it is pulling the plug on its diversity newsletter. Yahoo! encouraged subscribers to sign up for general job alerts.

Also Read
Diversity 101: Five Short Topics You Can Present
Debunking the Attack on Diversity Training
An Easier Way to Strengthen Diversity Programs
Diversity Councils: Task Forces for Change
Verizon CEO Shares How Diversity Management Gets Results

Here’s what Yahoo! readers saw:


As for Monster, its publicly touted diversity focus–and chief diversity officer Steve Pemberton–are gone, and the company won’t talk about it. Despite three inquiries from DiversityInc, Monster maintains “no comment” on why its “commitment” to diversity is apparently gone.

Looking at both companies’ web sites, it’s clear there is no “commitment.”

Yahoo’s company web site has no mention of diversity on the homepage. And aside from touting being ranked by the Human Rights Campaign as one of the 100 best places for LGBT people to work, there is no mention of diversity on the Yahoo! Careers page either. And don’t think about typing in “diversity” as a keyword in the job search box–it yields no results.

And the same goes for Monster. Monster also has no mention of diversity on its corporate homepage or in its “Work for Us” section where company job opportunities can be found, and a search for “diversity” takes you to a blank page.

While Monster and Yahoo! don’t get diversity during these tough economic times, more progressive companies do. Here’s what they said:

“We never want to stop recruiting,” says Allen Thomas, chief diversity officer and managing partner for Deloitte LLP, No. 16 in the DiversityInc Top 50. “We want to have access to the talent pool as it’s changing. We, the country, will come out of this economic downturn, and those companies that took a longer view of recruiting will be in a better position to take advantage of recruiting.”

“Even though we are cutting back on hiring, we really want young undergrads and new generations [who] are more diverse,” says Liza Gutierrez, executive director of global diversity at Cummins, No. 20 in the DiversityInc Top 50.

“We have continued to hire; however, hiring has greatly decreased this year, considering our current business environment,” says Charlotte Neal, chief diversity officer for Toyota Motor North America, No. 48 in the DiversityInc Top 50. “Diversity and inclusion remains relevant through regular reviews of our talent pipeline to include recruiting/sourcing strategies, talent-availability studies, career development [and] succession planning through partnership with human resources.”