My cynical brain is working overtime finding a flaw in this statement, or the angle from which it is selfish, and it's failing. One of the things I like about it is that its personal, not a company statement. Its a risk for them, though, and I am also, reluctantly, impressed.

Don’t forget Citi Bank was involved one of the most racist economic foreign policy to ever exist instituted by France and the US against Haiti.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti

I'd love to see it more. Ibram Kendi makes the point that in the US, there's not really a thing like "neutral" or "non-racist". One either supports the status quo, loudly or quietly. Or one is an anti-racist. Being "apolitical", which is what most companies pretend to be, is just a fancy way of saying, "Things are fine as they are."

As press critic Jay Rosen suggests, we are all political, especially in times like these. The trick is to be political, to advocate for our own values, without politicizing things: https://pressthink.org/2020/05/you-cannot-keep-from-getting-...

IDK, I’m a little more skeptical of this post. It seems more posturing than actually effecting change. CFOs have other means of doing that, in better ways than a simple blog post. This is no different than the celebrity cause du jour tweet except that it’s coming from a business leader rather than some actor/actress/pop star. Let’s see this CFO use their connections and influence to make things better in real ways.

> CFOs have other means of doing that, in better ways than a simple blog post.

I believe this CFO agrees with you. Most of the "celebrity cause du jour" tweets are just that, tweets. At least at the end of this post he listed groups that he's donating to

[1] NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

[2] Advancement Project

[3] Color of Change

This may not mean much to you, but at least he's claiming to put his money where his mouth is.

[1] https://www.naacpldf.org/

[2] https://advancementproject.org/

[3] https://colorofchange.org/

Meh, some of us have been making charitable contributions to (not these exact ones but similar) like charities for years. This just seems a little too convenient and charlatan.

Saying "meh" and declaring virtue signal! to someone donating money or otherwise doing good is the ultimate 21st century turnoff.

Quit being so cynical, it's not healthy.

This is such a toxic and cynical stance. You are putting all responsibility onto people with "connections" so that you don't have to feel guilty about doing nothing. But at the same time, you are complaining that a rich and powerful person is using both their money and their influence to try and help!

You are part of the problem.

Agreed. Actions speak louder than words. This (and many other company statements like this) are mostly empty nice feel good words, but merely that. Just like what a populist or demagogue would say/do to appear favorably in the eyes of others...

IMO donating to an organization seems weak. It's like outsourcing the problem to someone else, and thinking your helping them because you're giving them money. If you really want to help, get your hands dirty, and take matters into your own hands...

Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Not everyone has the time, skills, or even the "cred" to get their hands dirty.

Giving money to good causes is never weak. It is an extraordinarily effective tool for those of us who want to help.

An effective legal advocacy or lobby group is a force multiplier - they're hands down the best "bang for your buck" in this situation.

By contrast, me spending a day working with inner city youth or building Habitat for Humanity is laudable or protesting in the streets is at best effective on a much smaller scale.

And secondly, this message is clearly aimed squarely at other well to do concerned citizens like him who are looking for ways to help.

He is effectively vetting these organizations as "acceptable by the CitiGroup C suite." As an example, I forwarded this to my parents who would never "get their hands dirty" but also are open to donating to good causes.

This will reach them in a way no celebrity tweet or protest sign possibly could.

What do you expect him to do?? This mindset is incredibly toxic. "If you are not personally fixing all the problems in the world you are weak". And what are you doing?? Complaining about it on HN?

There is a very reasonable argument that says this guy is using all the tools at his disposal. He has money, and he has influence. He is exercising both to make the world a better place. How can you possibly complain about that?

Yet and still HN thought it was some type of act of martyrdom when a multi millionaire old enough to retire resigned from Amazon as an act of protest.

Taylor Swift for instance didn’t exactly gain fans among Trump supporters for speaking out against him. What exactly are they suppose to do besides use their platform?

what do you suggest?

I would hope and can safely assume that they (Citi) have relatively decent community and governmental connections. Leverage those.

Leverage them how? What are specific actions you think a bank can reasonably take to effect large scale social change?

I’m sure that the current administration will be willing participants in a forum about police conduct with respect to minorities.

It is. And it is hard to overstate given that in any large institution that kind of post has to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy. Doubly so in a bank. While I can't shake off the feeling that there is a cynical calculation there for some good PR, I believe it is still a good move.

A C-level exec needs to pass "multiple layers of bureaucracy" to post a personal note on the company blog? That seems excessive, even for a large corporation. If you can't trust your executive management team to represent the company, what are they good for?

Do you have any idea how PR is managed..

Coming from a University research background for the last 5 years after obtaining my PhD, no I don't. Could you elaborate on this?

What process would this CFO need to go through to share this possibly "contentious" post on one of the world's largest and globally recognised banks' websites?

At a minimum it has been reviewed by the PR / marketing manager, legal team, and more than likely the CEO. There was also a lengthy editing process.

A large company doesn't release anything without a review like this, no matter how mundane. You can bet they will double down when discussing sensitive social issues.

I think this is entirely depended on the way the C*O management culture (for lack of better expression). But at least I would expect he's let know legal, CEO, and the PR officer before.

it seems like PR for usury to me. there's been quite a bit of 'bankers are nice guys' propaganda since the coronu.

Perhaps scared of the mass uprisings, people are angry, and frustrated and this situation could explode in the next few weeks. Interesting that you used the word usury. You never really see that word used to refer to predatory loans except in an Islamic context.

many have seen the power of usury through time. most declare it hurts people and is very destructive so should not be practiced, some saw the power and decided to use it. 'lend unto other nations, and you shall rule over those nations'