Over the past year, questions of fairness, neutrality, and institutional trust have taken center stage in both education and finance. The national conversation has zeroed in on how major institutions—whether universities or investment firms—should operate in a society that is increasingly polarized. Some of these battles are highly visible. Others are not.
In higher education, recent developments have drawn widespread attention. One of the nation’s most prominent universities came under federal scrutiny following accusations of allowing bias and activism to overshadow academic standards and student safety. That inquiry resulted in a significant settlement—both in terms of dollars and reform. The agreement mandates changes in how the university manages protests, disciplines conduct, and ensures that all students—regardless of faith or background—are treated with dignity.
These events have sparked a broader debate: Should educational institutions be ideological engines, or neutral platforms for learning? Many Americans are asking whether classrooms have become political echo chambers, and whether federal funds are being used to reinforce that trend.
Education exists in the public eye. Everyone sees what’s being taught, how campuses are managed, and where dollars are going. These questions play out on news broadcasts, in family discussions, and across school boards nationwide.
But the same questions should be asked about the corporate world—particularly in companies where public funds and retirement savings are invested.
Unlike education, much of the financial sector operates behind the scenes. Corporations are increasingly embracing policies and practices that promote one side of the ideological spectrum, often under the banners of “equity,” “inclusion,” or “social responsibility.” Internal resources—from hiring pipelines to leadership training, employee benefits, and public donations—tend to align in one direction, while little is done to ensure diverse perspectives or equal representation across the organization. This imbalance matters, especially when companies rely on public capital and benefit from employee retirement dollars.
These companies are not operating in a vacuum. They are influencing culture, politics, and the economy with assets they manage on behalf of others, often without consent, and without transparency. That includes funds set aside by parents saving for college, workers saving for retirement, and taxpayers funding public services, each of them trusting their money will be managed with fairness and focus.
As administrator of Oklahoma’s 529 college savings program, my office uncovered some of these disturbing practices firsthand. Families entrust us with funds meant for their children’s education, and those dollars serve two roles: they help pay tuition and living expenses, but they’re also invested in public markets along the way. What happens inside those markets—how companies behave, and what agendas they pursue—has a direct impact on both the cost of college and the values our savings support.
That’s where my office has stepped in. We’ve filed shareholder proposals at major companies—Amazon, Alphabet, GoDaddy, Netflix, Lululemon, and Yum!Brands—not to promote any political viewpoint, but to call for neutral governance. Our message is clear: serve all customers, all employees, and all shareholders, not just the loudest voices.
And we’ve seen an impact.
Two of these companies responded with meaningful changes. GoDaddy agreed to apply religious accommodation policies for employees. Amazon made adjustments to reduce viewpoint discrimination in its ad systems. These were quiet victories, but real ones.
They proved something important: even one voice at the table can reshape corporate behavior.
The greater challenge, though, is how these companies vote and operate using your investment dollars—through passive index funds and proxy advisors—without your knowledge. Most shareholders never see the votes cast on their behalf. And yet, through this process, ideological agendas advance while neutrality is voted down—even when proposals are measured, practical, and legally sound.
The truth is, the average citizen has no idea how much influence is being exerted in their name—or how little say they have on how their capital is being used. We wouldn’t allow public health funds to be invested in tobacco, yet too many Americans are unknowingly tied to political causes and corporate activism through their retirement accounts.
What we need is a national return to stewardship. Neutrality is not automatic. It takes intentional action to undo the politicization that has already occurred. It takes public officials willing to step forward, to shine a light on hidden mechanisms, and to restore the trust that citizens place in financial institutions. That’s why my office—alongside 20 other states—sent letters to 27 of the largest asset managers in the country, calling on them to stop using public money to push political agendas.
As I see it, this is about more than financial oversight, it’s about moral responsibility. My role isn’t just to track returns. It’s to guard the integrity of the systems Oklahomans rely on to save for college, grow their businesses, and retire with dignity.
There’s no such thing as a neutral institution that won’t defend neutrality. And there’s no such thing as a passive citizen in times like these.
