The recent increase in unexplained bank account closures of businesses and individuals should encourage families to think critically about what financial institutions they use. Examples of discrimination against religious and political viewpoints are becoming popular as banks try to target those who do not align with their values.
In Britain, Nigel Farage recently had his bank account closed at the prestigious Coutts for his political viewpoints. “I believe Coutts targeted me on personal and political grounds, for its report reads rather like a pre-trial brief drawn up by the prosecution in a case against a career criminal.” The bank engaged in a series of lies and false information while covering up the real reason for closing his account.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. has been repeatedly accused of discriminating against customers that align with religious or political affiliations. The Attorney General of Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, has outlined that Chase promotes inclusivity and opportunity for their customers but does not extend these opportunities to everyone.
“This pattern of discrimination means that many Kentuckians, and many residents of the states. . . , are at risk of being de-banked without notice or recourse,” writes Cameron. “Kentucky is a “conservative state with conservative voters. As recently as 2021, Chase apparently considered these Kentuckians, of both political parties, to hold views that promote “hate, violence, racial intolerance, [and] terrorism[.] And while the bank reversed past decisions that were based on such discriminatory judgments, Chase seemingly has made no institutional changes to prevent similar discrimination in the future.”
Chase should not have the ability to make broad claims about their inclusion policies without being held accountable for all of their products and services. Going back to 2008, Chase received a 25 billion dollar bailout from the federal government. The government should be ensuring that the company abides by the same standards of inclusivity in the same way that government officials are expected to reflect and represent a wide array of opinions and beliefs.
“The too-big-to-fail banks are backstopped by all taxpayers – their executives’ salaries, their depositors’ assets, their investors’ capital, the whole thing,” writes Scott Shephard. “This being the case, they must be forbidden from any sort of discrimination against any legal clients, against any legal industries, and on any other nonobjective grounds.”
Families can learn more about large banks and other businesses through the Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index from Alliance Defending Freedom. This index ranks corporations based on their support of supporting customers that have diverse religious and political viewpoints. Governing officials should hold banks accountable for their decisions by preventing them from discriminating against businesses and individuals. Large banks that are supported through government funding during times of crisis should be held to strict policies against discrimination.
“Threats to freedom don’t just come from the government, but from major corporations like financial institutions and big tech companies that have concentrated power over essential services and communication channels,” writes Jeremy Tedesco from ADF.
Two companies, Fidelity Information Services, and M&T Bank, ranked the highest on banking services from the Business Index that support training of staff on religious diversity training.
–
The blogs published on this news site are created by contributors to the International Youth Coalition. The opinions, views, and statements expressed in these blogs belong solely to the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of the affiliated organization.
About The Contributor
