Connect with us

News

How White Women Dominated DEI Programs

Published

on

The benefits of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and affirmative action programs have often been mischaracterized as primarily benefiting the Black community. However, data from the U.S. Department of Labor and other sources reveal a different hierarchy of beneficiaries, with Black Americans ranking last among groups that gain from these efforts.

Who Benefits the Most?

  • White Women
    White women are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. They have made significant gains in employment and leadership roles over the past decades. For example, white women hold nearly 19% of C-suite positions in corporate America, far outpacing women of color. Additionally, white women dominate DEI leadership roles, occupying 75-80% of such positions over the past 10 years.
  • Latino and Hispanic Americans
    Latino and Hispanic workers have seen considerable benefits from affirmative action and DEI programs, particularly in workforce representation and educational opportunities.
  • Asian Americans
    Asian Americans are another group that has benefited substantially, especially in sectors like technology and higher education.
  • Native Americans
    Native Americans have gained from targeted initiatives aimed at improving access to education and employment opportunities, though they remain underrepresented in many industries.
  • People with Disabilities
    Disability inclusion has been a growing focus within DEI frameworks, providing more opportunities for individuals with disabilities to enter and thrive in the workforce.
  • Veterans
    Affirmative action policies have historically included provisions for veterans, ensuring they receive fair consideration for jobs and promotions.
  • LGBTQ+ Community
    LGBTQ+ individuals have seen increased workplace protections and inclusion efforts under DEI programs, though progress remains uneven across industries.
  • Black Americans
    Despite being a focal point of many DEI discussions, Black Americans are often the least benefited group in practice. Structural barriers continue to impede their access to leadership roles and equitable opportunities compared to other groups.

Current Challenges

Recent political developments have significantly altered the landscape of DEI and affirmative action programs. On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which effectively terminated race- and gender-based affirmative action requirements for federal contractors. The order also prohibits federal agencies from promoting or enforcing DEI policies deemed discriminatory or preferential based on race or sex.

This shift may further limit opportunities for groups that previously relied on these programs for workplace equity and representation, including Black Americans.

Conclusion

While DEI and affirmative action initiatives were designed to address systemic inequities, their benefits have not been evenly distributed across demographic groups. White women have emerged as the primary beneficiaries, followed by other groups such as Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and people with disabilities. Black Americans remain at the bottom of this hierarchy, highlighting persistent gaps in achieving true equity. As federal policies continue to evolve under new directives, these disparities may widen unless targeted efforts are made to address them comprehensively.

Advertisement

Bolanle Media covers a wide range of topics, including film, technology, and culture. Our team creates easy-to-understand articles and news pieces that keep readers informed about the latest trends and events. If you’re looking for press coverage or want to share your story with a wider audience, we’d love to hear from you! Contact us today to discuss how we can help bring your news to life

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Luana Lopes Lara: How a 29‑Year‑Old Became the Youngest Self‑Made Woman Billionaire

Published

on


At just 29, Luana Lopes Lara has taken a title that usually belongs to pop stars and consumer‑app founders.

Multiple business outlets now recognize her as the world’s youngest self‑made woman billionaire, after her company Kalshi hit an 11 billion dollar valuation in a new funding round.

That round, a 1 billion dollar Series E led by Paradigm with Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, CapitalG and others participating, instantly pushed both co‑founders into the three‑comma club. Estimates place Luana’s personal stake at roughly 12 percent of Kalshi, valuing her net worth at about 1.3 billion dollars—wealth tied directly to equity she helped create rather than inheritance.

Via Facebook

Kalshi itself is a big part of why her ascent matters.

Founded in 2019, the New York–based company runs a federally regulated prediction‑market exchange where users trade yes‑or‑no contracts on real‑world events, from inflation reports to elections and sports outcomes.

As of late 2025, the platform has reached around 50 billion dollars in annualized trading volume, a thousand‑fold jump from roughly 300 million the year before, according to figures cited in TechCrunch and other financial press. That hyper‑growth convinced investors that event contracts are more than a niche curiosity, and it is this conviction—expressed in billions of dollars of new capital—that turned Luana’s share of Kalshi into a billion‑dollar fortune almost overnight.

Her path to that point is unusually demanding even by founder standards. Luana grew up in Brazil and trained at the Bolshoi Theater School’s Brazilian campus, where reports say she spent up to 13 hours a day in class and rehearsal, competing for places in a program that accepts fewer than 3 percent of applicants. After a stint dancing professionally in Austria, she pivoted into academics, enrolling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to study computer science and mathematics and later completing a master’s in engineering.

During summers she interned at major firms including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel, gaining a front‑row view of how global macro traders constantly bet on future events—but without a simple, regulated way for ordinary people to do the same.

submit your film

That realization shaped Kalshi’s founding thesis and ultimately her billionaire status. Together with co‑founder Tarek Mansour, whom she met at MIT, Luana spent years persuading lawyers and U.S. regulators that a fully legal event‑trading exchange could exist under commodities law. Reports say more than 60 law firms turned them down before one agreed to help, and the company then spent roughly three years in licensing discussions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission before gaining approval. The payoff is visible in 2025’s numbers: an 11‑billion‑dollar valuation, a 1‑billion‑dollar fresh capital injection, and a founder’s stake that makes Luana Lopes Lara not just a compelling story but a data point in how fast wealth can now be created at the intersection of finance, regulation, and software.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Entertainment

How The Grinch Became The Richest Christmas Movie Ever

Published

on

The Grinch didn’t just steal Christmas—he stole the box office. The 2018 animated film The Grinch turned holiday chaos into serious cash, grossing around $540 million worldwide on a modest $75 million budget, making it the highest‑grossing Christmas movie of all time. That is more than seven times its production cost, which is the kind of holiday return every studio dreams about.

Meanwhile, the 2000 live‑action How the Grinch Stole Christmas with Jim Carrey laid the groundwork for this green empire. That version pulled in roughly $345–347 million worldwide on a $123 million budget, turning a prickly Dr. Seuss villain into a perennial box‑office player and a meme‑ready holiday icon. The nostalgia around Carrey’s performance is a big part of why audiences were ready to show up again almost two decades later.​

The Money Behind The Mayhem

The 2018 film did not just earn big—it earned smart.

It opened to more than $$67 million domestically in its first weekend and kept playing steadily through November and December, ultimately pulling in about $272 million in the U.S. and roughly $267 million internationally.

Holiday timing, family‑friendly branding, and the Illumination animation style (the same studio behind Despicable Me) helped it become a go‑to choice for parents seeking something safe, colorful, and chaos‑free for kids.

Then there is the profit. Trade estimates peg the film’s net profit in the neighborhood of nearly $185 million once theatrical revenue, home entertainment, and TV/streaming deals are baked in. That is before counting years of reruns, licensing, and holiday programming packages—every December, the Grinch gets another quiet deposit while everyone else is wrapping gifts.

Grinch vs. Everyone: Who’s Really On Top?

Here is how the Grinch stacks up against other Christmas heavyweights by worldwide box office:

Advertisement
FilmYearWorldwide Gross (approx.)Notes
The Grinch (animated)2018$510–540 millionHighest‑grossing Christmas movie ever
Home Alone1990~$476 millionLongtime champ, now second place
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (live‑action)2000~$345–347 millionBuilt the modern Grinch brand
The Polar Express2004~$315 millionHoliday staple, trails both Grinch movies

Different sources list slightly different totals, but they all agree: the 2018 Grinch sits at the top of the Christmas money mountain.

Why The Grinch Keeps Printing Money

The secret sauce is that the Grinch is more than a movie—he is a business model. Every version of this character hits a different emotional lane: Jim Carrey’s 2000 Grinch is pure chaotic energy and quotable nostalgia, while the 2018 Grinch is softer, cuter, and perfectly engineered for modern families and global audiences. Together, they keep the character relevant across generations, which is exactly what studios want from an evergreen holiday IP.

On top of box office and home sales, the character feeds theme‑park attractions, holiday events, branded specials, apparel, toys, and seasonal marketing campaigns. The Grinch went from “I hate Christmas” to “I own Christmas,” quietly turning grouchiness into one of the most profitable holiday brands on the planet.

Continue Reading

News

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

on

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending