Since the mission is only achieved as a function of the work performed by employees, the problems facing large groups of employees is surely in the interest of the employer. If 10% of your employees feel affected by e.g. a death by police hands, and the subsequent protests, then you _will_ notice that on your bottom line. Not to mention all of the non-black people that naturally are also affected by such events.
To take it out of racial lines, imagine how scared a member of the LGBT community must feel as the supreme court justice hearings, which could result in the reversal of crucial protections for that group, are playing out. My point here is that caring about the well-being of your colleagues and/or your employees should necessarily include the singular issues which negatively affect them to the degree that current events seem to have. Or, at least has for the people that I have spoken to.
I want to make it clear that the above argument isn't that "a group should speak out because they have a voice", even if I think such an argument could be made quite strongly. Rather, it's an argument focusing solely on context of keeping employees and/or colleagues somewhat happier, and less affected by events like we've seen. It's also a way to foster loyalty. If someone thinks their employer has their back, they're more likely to have the back of their employer too.
---
On the topic of "at work" problems relating to political issues. Recently there has been a some high-profile but, in my view, quite meaningless changes proposed. Like GitHub changing the default branch name. It's a trivial change, doesn't do anything meaningful about the real problems faced by minorities, and primarily is a way to score a few feel-good brownie points. However, it still had an effect on the people I've talked to about this. Because when 30% of your colleagues care so strongly about _not_ changing the default branch name - something that, again, is utterly trivial and well-supported - it makes them feel less welcome. A change so small and trivial, suggested by some in a well intentioned effort to be nice, turns into exclusionary act by the employee that so strongly feel making that change is preposterous.
You might say that the change shouldn't have been suggested in the first place, and thus the whole thing would be avoided. But the conversation about that change was happening everywhere online in every technology-related sphere. You'd be hard-pressed to follow any news in our industry and miss the conversation. Which brings us back to the crux. It's such a small change that doesn't really matter to most people, but to some it _is_ important. Why not?
Work doesn't happen in a bubble with no connection to the outside world. The work affects the real world, and the real world effects the work. It's a two-way street that you can't ignore.
