Trump’s DEI Ban
Agencies are quickly seeking to comply with the President's order.
WaPo (“Trump targeted federal workers in his opening act, starting with DEI employees“):
President Donald Trump targeted federal workers in an opening act aimed at exerting political control over a sprawling bureaucracy — putting federal diversity, equity and inclusion employees on leave, banning remote work and stripping employment protections from civil servants.
The moves, which came in rapid succession during Trump’s first 48 hours as president, seek to fulfill a campaign pledge and a rallying cry among conservatives to crack down on programs that they consider unnecessary and exclusionary. DEI, the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion that Trump uses in a derisive way, has long been a focus for some of his senior advisers such as Stephen Miller, now his deputy chief of staff.
Trump on Tuesday ordered all employees whose work is focused on DEI initiatives to be placed on leave no later than 5 p.m. Wednesday, and on Wednesday he revoked a 60-year-old executive order banning discrimination in hiring practices in the federal government. Some acting agency heads started enacting the guidance, with multiple directors Wednesday telling staff that all DEI offices are closing and mandating employees report instances where government workers were trying to “disguise” programs by using “coded or precise language,” according to emails obtained by The Washington Post. The White House did not respond to questions about how many of the 2.3 million federal employees were affected by his order.
Federal workers, meanwhile, are scrambling to make sense of the decrees, which may apply differently to each agency, depending on the person in charge and the fine print of union contracts. The return-to-office executive order in particular mystified employees and their supervisors, who are trying to parse whether it also affects telework, which is when employees who are based in an office work from home. The night Trump issued the executive order, Google searches for “federal workers return to office” spiked by more than 600 percent — with the most interest in the D.C. region, where 15 percent of federal workers are based.
[…]
Trump has now rescinded much of what former president Joe Biden did with the federal workforce during his time in office, continuing eight years of policy ping-pong between the two leaders. Toward the end of his first term, Trump signed an executive order that banned federal contractors from conducting anti-bias training. Biden quickly rescinded that order when he took office and promoted diversity and equity programs among federal government offices and contractors.
[…]
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia), who has for years introduced bills to protect the civil service, blamed the Biden administration for failing to push through legislation to permanently block Trump from creating job categories that convert career positions to political ones, like Trump originally tried to do at the end of his first term.
“Now we are paying a price for what I think is poor judgment in the previous administration in this one realm,” he said.
Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, at a Senate hearing Wednesday sidestepped questions about the rights of workers fired under the Trump’s newly restored “Schedule F,” the classification that would remove protections from civil servants.
“Schedule F is a different classification,” Vought said in response to a question about if workers fired under the classification would have the due process rights granted to civil servants. “It is meant to ensure the president’s administration has people working for him that are actually going to do the policies he ran on.”
An email to employees at the Education Department on Wednesday advised that all DEI offices were closing and all DEI-related contracts were being terminated. “These programs divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars, and resulted in shameful discrimination,” new chief of staff Rachel Oglesby wrote.
Benjamine Huffman, acting secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for public security, on Monday terminated “all current memberships on advisory committees” within the agency, “effective immediately.” He also ordered all employees to immediately report to work in person and mandated their managers submit reports of those who did not, with documented justification, within 30 days, according to an email and memo obtained by The Post.
A memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio warns State Department officials that they will face “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who have concealed or obscured existing DEI programs at the department.
WaPo (“Federal Workers Ordered to Report on Colleagues Over D.E.I. Crackdown“):
The Trump administration on Wednesday threatened federal employees with “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who defy orders to purge diversity, equity and inclusion efforts from their agencies.
Tens of thousands of workers were put on notice that officials would not tolerate any efforts to “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.” Emails sent out, which were based on a template from the Office of Personnel Management, gave employees 10 days to report their observations to a special email account without risking disciplinary action.
“There will be no adverse consequences for timely reporting this information,” the template sent to agency heads said. “However, failure to report this information within 10 days may result in adverse consequences.”
The message also said: “These programs divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars and resulted in shameful discrimination.”
Some agencies, such as the Education Department and the State Department, sent the template to their employees on Wednesday. Other agencies made slight modifications when they sent emails to their workers. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, said failure to report D.E.I. efforts “will result” in adverse consequences.
The warnings were a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s war on diversity programs that seek to reverse decades of systemic inequities. They were also part of a broader assault on the federal work force, which the president has long viewed as a bloated bureaucracy. He has pledged to eliminate departments and has ordered remote workers back to the office.
I gather that OPM (the Office of Personnel Management) sent out a mandatory template and have seen essentially identical memos from various agencies, including NASA, posted on social media. Thus far, neither my wife nor I have received one directly.
As a matter of public policy, I largely disagree with the move. While there are no doubt that DEI programs have been poorly administered—some disastrously so, in ways guaranteed to generate resentment rather than understanding—their goals are worthwhile. While I understand the objections to “Equity” as a goal rather than equal treatment, it’s simply undeniable that treating unlike things the same results in unfavorable outcomes. Whether it’s justified in achieving organizational missions is really case-dependant.
Regardless, Candidate Trump explicitly ran on this agenda and we should not be surprised that he’s seeking to implement it. I’m frustrated how poorly some agencies have done in preparing for this inevitability—especially given the long transition period between the election and inauguration. One suspects that at least parts of this will run afoul of the law and collective bargaining agreements. (Neither my wife nor I are covered by the latter.)
I am, of course, troubled by the potential for abuse in the requirement to report attempts to hide DEI programs. I am, however, aware that some agencies (albeit not one I’m associated with) indeed renamed DEI programs things like “Civil Rights” ahead of the transition in hopes of evading the coming policy. Rooting those instances out is a legitimate aim of those seeking to enforce the President’s policies.
Who the eff would ‘hide’ a DEI program? This isn’t about rooting out DEI programs. It’s about clamping down on people who dare complain about discrimination and hostile workplace practices. Is HR going to investigate sexism and racism allegations if doing so gets labeled as DEI? The just want to kill enforcement of ‘Civil Rights’ laws by calling it DEI.
@Argon: So, two things are going on here. One, yes, there are DEI programs that were created during Biden’s tenure that have renamed themselves in hopes of avoiding Trump’s attention. That’s not shocking in the least. Two, yes, you’re absolutely right: lots of folks who disagree with the DEI mission support old-style Equal Opportunity and general nondiscrimination policies. But Trump’s folks are unlikely to distinguish between them.
Equal treatment is not the goal either.
Nice touch by Herr Miller – adding the “failure to rat out” clause to the DEI purge. Perhaps Trump’s “I don’t know anything about Project 2025” claim was true, seeing his knowledge of substantive government policy runs no deeper than bumper sticker slogans. But Herr Miller, Herr Homan, and Herr Vought have certainly done their homework, and so the blitzkrieg began.
I’m of (at least) two minds on this. One mind agrees with your frustration — the agencies should have done better prep work so as to minimize the disruption and damage. People’s livelihoods are at stake.
Another mind says that the agencies (more specifically, the people in said agencies) are under no obligation to pre-emptively work to ensure smooth implementation of policies that conflict with their values and imperil their very existence. People’s livelihoods are at stake.
My other minds say things that are best kept on the inside. And even there, they are allowed but not necessarily welcome.
Does this mean the Federal government now has to fire every employee who isn’t a white male? I mean, just to make sure there was no DEI involved in the hiring?
Oh hey, Civil rights work on hold:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/22/justice-civil-rights-freeze-shutdown/
@wr:
Of course not. Even federal government buildings need janitors, mail room clerks, cooks, etc.
Seriously…mediocre white men rising to positions of power for which they are wholly unqualified is absolute proof of the need for DEI.
Meritocracy???
This is a Kakistocracy.
On the one hand, that’s a fair point.
On the other, it is never entirely clear which promises Trump will keep, nor how he will do so. I would submit trying to guess what would need to be done is a fool’s errand and I don’t really blame anyone for waiting for specific instructions.
How many DEI employees does the govt have? I spent a few minutes looking and couldn’t find anything. In the medical field and I think for probably most businesses, having a DEI program is mostly just cover so it can look like you are doing something. Serious effort isn’t really put into it. The “canned”, pre-prepared DEI programs that you can buy almost never have metrics showing that they achieve anything and much of the time seemed like a scam to me. There appeared to be a brief surge in 2021 of minority hiring but since then the numbers just haven’t changed much.
While actual diversity improves performance in lots of jobs the DEI programs that were created just didnt work that well so I dont their loss per se will change much. However, when you couple that with reversing the Equal Employment EO then it’s pretty clear that employees will be able to engage in discriminatory practices without much fear of reprisal. I dont think most employers, or those doing the hiring at the federal level, will actually do that but I also suspect a non-zero percentage will engage in it with glee.
James- I am guessing they boot trans people out of the military. I suspect they will also try to get rid of gays or make it harder for them to remain. What’s your sense on those issues?
Steve
You’re going to have to be a bit clearer on the “unlike things” part, Doc J. A casual read of this doesn’t sound good, and any deeper attempt at analysis is just trying to read your mind.
The crusade is about a return to a place where you can be who you want to be. Which, obviously, has long the been the dream of corporate drones–getting drunk, dancing with strippers, telling racist jokes, fondling your interns, doing lines on your desk. This is why people used to become investment bankers, accountants, attorneys, traders, copywriters, show-runners, programmers, middle managers, and bureaucrats. Not for them the 9-5 grind of being alone in an unheated studio or trying to write a novel or a poem. Now, though, #metoo, Woke, and DEI have ruined all of the fun. And Trump is here to save it.
@Daryl: this quote – “…mediocre white men rising to positions of power for which they are wholly unqualified…” made me immediately think of Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. You hit the nail on the head!
@steve:
Very true, I fear. In the absence of data, the anecdata I see on DEI makes it look for the most part very much like corporate mission statements, just window dressing.
The rapidity with which they’re being dropped testifies to the seriousness.
@Stormy Dragon: I don’t think it’s TRUMP’s goal but DEI replaced existing Equal Opportunity programs across the executive branch (and various other institutions, including universities).
@Mimai:
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m mostly thinking of the coming ban on telework but, even for the DEI ban, precisely because people’s livelihoods are at stake, they should have been working on how to pivot to mitigate damage both to their workforce and their mission. I don’t think I’m likely to be much impacted by either of these but my wife will almost certainly be impacted by the 100%-in-office order. She asked about it weeks ago and never got a straight answer. There’s still not a plan.
As a side note, on Linked In, the number of men who claim they didn’t get a job because of DEI is large. Probably the same men who can’t get a hot date because of … whatever.
@DeD:
This is a subject for a long post. Short version by way of example.
Until a few years ago, the US military banned women from most ground combat roles, particularly the infantry. Once the Obama administration ordered a policy change, women continually failed to get through training programs, especially the Marine Infantry Officer’s Course.
The question soon arose: Are the standards that weren’t being met based on the legitimate requirements of leading Infantry Marines in combat? If so, I don’t care if they have the diverse impact of making it very hard for women to pass the course. Conversely, if they were established because it was assumed that only men would take the course and they were set simply because a given level of physical stress is what it took to weed out the weakest men, we should relook the standard. Treating women equally in that case is not equitable.
@steve:
I suspect they will reinstitute the ban on trans members. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings would seem to indicate the ban would be struck down, but there is precedent for having different rules for the military and deferring to POTUS and SECDEF on those matters.
I haven’t seen any indication—including the first Trump term—that there will be an attempt to get rid of gays and lesbians. But who the hell knows. Again, though, I think the law is settled on that front.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Thank you!
Going back to the “clinical” definition of D.E.I., regardless of purposely selected instances of failure used to justify its complete erasure, it is impossible to to hide the bigoted and malicious intent of the anti-woke marauders: they are marking territory as both a political expediency and reasserting white male preeminence upon our society.
The compartmentalization is clear: they hold up both the banner of “anti-woke” and Christianity. But any honest devotee of Jesus Christ will have to acknowledge that the ideals of diversity, equity, and inclusion are absolutely congruent with any essential message on morality that can be extracted from our known account of that figure in the Gospels.
The Sermon on the Mount, and in particular the passage following the Beatitudes is a directive to self-sacrifice for the well being of others in no uncertain terms. This is an idea repeated multiple times throughout the Gospels, but fails to land hard within Christianity today, and throughout history. Giving up our own comfort and sense of security runs counter to aspects of our human nature.
I bring this up here in this forum, knowing that some may have little interest in the topic of Christian ideology, or even hold antipathy, and that is fine. But rather, I bring this up to focus a light on the sheer cognitive disconnect that drives this movement that has seized power in our society. They are not even governed by the ideals they hide behind.
Their “morality” is a facade for the raw power they seek through oppression, division, and inequity. Pretty much the opposite of D.E.I.
Significantly, the rise of these power mad fanatics was made possible through the naive and selfish conceits of Christians themselves. They lost the plot of their own Gospels. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are essential directives from their own Godhead.
D.E.I. As delineated in wikipedia;
Not scary stuff at all. The anti-woke crowd probably have invested as little in understanding their political meme as they have in understanding their religious one.
The pushback against all D.E.I. is a retrograde reassertion of “brutality over civility.”
@James Joyner:
Such quaint thinking.
@James Joyner:
The document is located here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/
The document does target DEI but not traditional equal hiring laws. The only old executive order it revokes is Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), which I think requires affirmative action hiring practices for federal contractors.
@Daryl: Bostock v. Clayton County’s majority opinion was written by Gorsuch and joined by Roberts. One member of the majority (Ginsburg) and one in the minority (Breyer) have resigned, replaced by Barrett and Brown. Even if we assume Barrett flips, it’s still 5-4.
Now, if something were to happen to Sotomayor or Kagan, I might be concerned.
@Charley in Cleveland: “this quote – “…mediocre white men rising to positions of power for which they are wholly unqualified…” made me immediately think of Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. ”
Although to be fair, all three of them are much, much worse than mediocre.
@wr:
And to follow that thought through to other actions; does the “14th Amendment by Sharpie” mean that everyone born in this country to undocumented parents are now, themselves, undocumented?
@Fortune: “The only old executive order it revokes is Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), which I think requires affirmative action hiring practices for federal contractors.”
That’s a lovely bit of whitewashing. Actually, it prohibits contractors from discriminating against employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Trump is making it legal for government contractors to refuse to hire Blacks or Catholics or anyone they don’t like.
Of course, maybe that’s what you mean by “affirmative action.”
So now that you know the truth, are you still in favor?
@James Joyner:
Leonard Leo did not have full control of all branches of Government at the time of that decision.
We have yet to see how Roberts and Gorsuch, or Barrett for that matter, behave in this new environment.
@Scott:
Continuing the side note: I try to hide what an absolutely pain in the ass employee I am from future employers. I don’t understand why anyone would post that on a career site.
“I’m a pain in the ass, and I exercise poor judgement.”
@Rob1:
I’ve not met one of those. Christianity has always been about helping an elite to keep the peasants down. There is literally nothing that cannot be justified with a carefully-chosen Bible verse. The people I know who come closest to being good Christians are all atheists. ‘Christian’ is a synonym for ‘hypocrite’.
@James Joyner:
Thanks for the clarification. And quite the clarification indeed given that this post was about “Trump’s DEI Ban.” 😉
Yes, one of my minds agrees with this. Very much.
And another mind says that it might be better in the long(er) run to NOT make it so seamless. If these new policies are radically disruptive and harmful (in spirit and/or practice), then it does the agency no good to soften the blow. To shield the public from this reality.
It’s plausible that short-term disruption and harm will generate enough bad press and ill-will that the policies will be changed.
To reiterate, this is just one of my minds. I’m not fully comfortable with what it says. And that’s ok.
@James Joyner:
90% of queer folks know.
Trans folks are just the most easily targeted chunk of the LGBTQ+ community, and the people who hate trans folks enough to do anything about it also hate gays.
It’s similar to how anytime someone is talking about maintaining the purity of the White race, you know that they will get to the Jews, even if they are only talking about Blacks and Latinxs right now.
@wr:
And a Republican voter doing what they do best: dishonesty.
Of course. Slaves gonna slave. The truth does not matter to “conservative” sheep who do not support Epstein-bestie rapist Trump but are somehow always found spreading falsehoods on his behalf.
@Rob1:
Contemporary American Christianity seems to be bifurcating. You have one type that is represented by people like Bishop Budde and congregations with her sort of pastor and the very different type that follows the “Seven Mountains” style of theocracy advocating.
The NAR types like Mike Johnson and Sam Alito are a lot more vocal and visible.
@Michael Reynolds: Michael, the elite will use whatever tool is handy to keep the rabble down. If Christianity is handy, they will use that. If the handy thing is Islam, they will use that. If it’s devotion to Chairman Mao, they will use that.
It has nothing at all to do with the content of Christianity or any other belief system and everything to do with it’s popularity and authority.
Some inside baseball, at least from the DoD, but I think other agencies are largely the same:
The Biden admin greatly expanded DEI requirements including:
– Mandating full-time DEI position(s), the number of which depended on the organization
– Changing the PD (Position Description) for all supervisory positions to include DEI as a core requirement.
Those are both being rolled back. People who fill the dedicated DEI positions are being put on paid administrative leave. Presumably those positions will eventually be eliminated and the personnel in them will have to transition to something else. For the vast majority of those in that situation, they must be given an equivalent status & pay position in the civil service.
Secondly, the removal of DEI requirements from PDs has already started. Anyone with experience knows how critical the PD is to the civil service, especially the hiring process.
I don’t think the problem is just poor administration—DEI generally has not demonstrated a better ability than the previous EO programs to achieve the goals they are aimed for, and in many cases, DEI has produced counterproductive results.
Having worthwhile goals doesn’t mean much if the program to achieve them doesn’t work or is counterproductive.
Legally, agencies don’t have much room to do that. We still only have one President at a time. While people understood the big picture of what the Trump Administration was likely planning, no one knew the details, so making actual preparation is pretty much impossible. Biden policies remained in force until Trump rescinded them and put in new guidance. That doesn’t leave much wiggle-room for agencies to prepare.
I have several friends potentially impacted by the remote work changes. They were well aware of the potential effects after Trump won, but neither they, as individuals, nor the agencies they work for knew what the new policy would be. And until actual guidance comes down about which positions will still be eligible for telework, no one still knows, so most are in a wait-and-see posture.
And on that score, there are some pretty big caveats in the WH Guidance (emphasis added):
So telework will not completely disappear, it will depend on what exemptions will be made. That will be a long bureaucratic process that will need to consider a lot of different factors and tradeoffs and I don’t think anyone knows how it will shake out.
Federal law defines telework requirements and says it must be a valid option, but it gives agencies a lot of discretion in determining which positions are eligible.
This will almost certainly be done via medical requirements. There are already a lot of medical restrictions preventing most trans people from joining, those will likely be tightened to exclude anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria or those who have already transitioned and are stable.
I’m less certain about trans members already in the service – there are those who have fully transitioned and have been re-coded to a different gender in DEERS, and those who have a gender dysphoria diagnosis but have not fully transitioned. The most likely option for removing them from the service is, again, medical – categorizing gender dysphoria as an incompatible medical condition resulting in a medical discharge.
@Michael Reynolds:
Big brouhaha on the internet and by the Trump family and its allies over Bishop Budde’s homily yesterday, the Trump family was visibly angry listening to it.
Trump posted a very angry response denigrating the Bishop.
The Trumps really hate all that “woke” beatitudes type stuff, can’t even stand to hear it.
@Jay L Gischer:
Actually, what you’re saying is that Christianity has no more moral basis than any other religion, or indeed, Communism. If Christianity can be employed in any cause (which is what I said) what value does it have?
@wr: I want fairness, no advantages or disadvantages for anyone. It sounds like 11246 prevented some discrimination but enforced some other discrimination (as affirmative action).
Wait…are you telling me that there was actual legislation that had gone through both houses on the floor that failed because Biden failed to work for it?
This crap is 1) why I enjoy following politics in the same basic way I used to enjoy WWE, and 2) why I’ve given up on the notion that it’s anything other than a game. It should more, mind you, but it’s not. But in this case I’ll switch the meme around: “Don’t hate the game, hate the playahz.”
@Michael Reynolds: Michael that’s garbage and I think you know it.
Really, I expect better reading comprehension from you.
Social elites use social institutions to advance their own power. The more powerful the institution, the more they want and try to use it. This phenomenon neither affirms or denies any truth of such beliefs and institutions. It is agnostic. It only acknowledges that they are powerful. Which is exactly what you are doing, by the way.
I am not now, nor have I ever, had any urge to move you off your atheistic spot. Because none of this stuff is subject to a scientific process. (I suspect you will want to pounce on this an admission that it’s all fake or something. I hope you can restrain yourself.) The existence of God is not a falsifiable statement. But it doesn’t make it not valuable.
For me, there is a very pragmatic component. I know a professed atheist who prays. He says, “It works”.
One of the core ideas in Christianity is the cycle of repentance, confession, and redemption. The thing that is missing, as discussed above, is repentance – which is a feeling of “That was wrong, I should have done something different”. It is a key element I look for. It is mentioned quite extensively in the NT as well. It is absolutely vital to social repair and healiing.
It is also MIA these days.
I am not sure, though, that what I described above could be called, “moral basis” at all. I think it’s more psychological and social than moral. I also think it’s really valuable.
@charontwo: I think 15% of American Christians are Budde-types and 5% “Seven Mountains” types.
Mostly speaking to the choir here…. It’s been three days and I’m already sick of the flood of garbage coming from the WH. It’s only going to get worse, much worse in meaningful ways than his first administration, as just about everyone with a few brain cells should have realized in November.
@Steven L. Taylor: Moreover what constitutes “preparation?” Preemptive layoffs?
When the produce wholesaler I worked for changed hands in 1985, I knew what my options were before the acquisition was even approved–stay and hope for the best or start preparing my move. I assume that government workers–especially ones who are hired through “special programs/policies” are as intelligent as I am. At least, I would hope so.
@James Joyner: Again referring to the acquisition mentioned above, I don’t think not getting a straight answer is anything nefarious or of ill intent. It a reflection of the reality that there’s no straight answer.. Not that there’s anything comforting in that situation.
@Fortune:
I forget the exact numbers or where I saw then, but a really large number of Republican voters know what the Seven Mountains are and support the movement to take control of them.
Trump enables the NAR too, lots of his key underlings are pretty far out with that kind of stuff.
So I regard your 5% number as way low, you are probably low on your other number also.
@Rob1: Your point is one that repeatedly comes up in conversations I have with all of my remaining co-religionist friends (and sometimes even with ones who don’t share my beliefs). And among other co-religionists, it would pointless for it to ever come up at all. But I never think that I share a faith with co-religionists in those cases.
@Rob1:
The anti-woke crowd probably have invested as little in understanding their political meme as they have in understanding their religious one.
THIS TIMES A MILLION!
@Michael Reynolds:
Some might ponder the same question about the US Constitution, the US military, and the US presidency. Or any other particular hobby horse du jour.
@Jay L Gischer:
A philosophy, or morality, or code of ethics so regularly disregarded by its adherents that it can be employed by any power to commit any outrage, is of no use.
I remain astounded by the fact that Christians seem so indifferent to their abject failure to live the life they demand others live. It’s as if it is somehow offensive to suggest people either practice what they preach, or STFU. If your religion does not in any meaningful way affect your actions, it is, again, of no use. It is then nothing but hypocrisy.
@Fortune: ” I want fairness, no advantages or disadvantages for anyone. ”
Trump just issued an executive order permitting federal contractors to refuse to hire people because of their race or sex or religion. And you’re all in favor of it because you want “no advantages or disadvantages for anyone.”
So you’re fine with a federal contractor firing a bunch of employees because they’re white? Is that what you call fairness? Or is it only fair when minorities get fired for their skin color — which, again, Trump just made legal for the first time in 60 years and you are cheering on.
@DK:
Yes, and when those institutions fail to act the way they should, I criticize them, too.
I live according to the moral/philosophical code I’ve adopted. I don’t claim to be an empiricist and then start talking about horoscopes. I’m not Gaiman, I don’t talk a good game about feminism and then prey on women. I don’t say that I tell the truth, and then lie.
I take responsibility for my own actions – you won’t find me making excuses for my criminal behavior, I did it, no one made me do it, mea culpa, although at that time I did not have the code I built after those events. Those things are in conflict with the code I have now, so I admit my sins. When I fail to live up to my own standards, I beat myself up for it. There are things I did at age ten that still bother me. I don’t understand why this is a strange thing to ask, that people practice what they preach. Or just don’t preach. Pick one.
@wr: Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I want fairness. I want the unfair parts of 11246 to be revoked and the fair parts to remain. I’m not a lawyer, maybe revoking the whole order was the best move, maybe not. Executive orders supercede previous orders, and who knows what protections government contractors have under executive orders now. Or maybe someone knows but I don’t. I want to see full protection against discrimination and no “reverse” discrimination or affirmative action.
@James Joyner:
Thanks, Doc J; that cleared it up.
@Michael Reynolds: What value does unbridled egotism have?
Link below goes to EO 11246. I read through and didnt find any references to affirmative action or anything that I think could be construed as such. I could be wrong and could have missed it but dont think so but if anyone thinks it’s in there please find it and cite it. I dont think it’s there.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/as-amended
Steve
This is all so much hogwash, James.
It’s a legitimate aim to make sure the government only hires white men?
The “E” in DEI is equity. “Rooting out DEI” means that hiring moving forward will intentionally not be equitable. Any time a white male is not hired, the supervisor who selects the person with the correct skills and training for a job [the definition of equity, only maintained within DEI] will catch a case from the whiny entitled incompetent drunk white guy.. because in a shocking twist, that person fails objective analysis of skill.
@Fortune:
No, you don’t. You choose not to understand that it’s FoxNews which is lying to you. DEI “hires people who aren’t qualified”… only if you first assume it’s entirely impossible a woman or a male who isn’t white could ever be qualified for anything in this world.
We got a variation of the OPM template email at my agency, except it explicitly referred to DEIA instead of DEI. The A stands for Accessibility.
Apparently wheelchair ramps have a racial component to them.
@Gavin:
So unfair. James really said “I am, however, aware that some agencies (albeit not one I’m associated with) indeed renamed DEI programs things like “Civil Rights” ahead of the transition in hopes of evading the coming policy. Rooting those instances out is a legitimate aim of those seeking to enforce the President’s policies.”
” I want fairness. I want the unfair parts of 11246 to be revoked and the fair parts to remain.”
I provided a link. Which part do you want changed?
Steve
@steve: I said “I think” 11246 requires affirmative action hiring practices for federal contractors. I also said I’m not a lawyer. There’s a line in the executive order (thanks for linking) about “affirmative action” but it didn’t seem to me to carry the contemporary meaning of quotas or preferences, but when I looked online, documents seemed to treat it as such. I don’t understand. Maybe a lawyer or historian can explain.
@charontwo: The bifurcation started before I was born; it’s merely continuing along different lines.
@Michael Reynolds: Yes, everyone has moral agency. Lots of people in various religious structures decline to accept that. Why single one religion out?
ETA: “Michael that’s garbage and I think you know it.”
Indeed.
“Really, I expect better reading comprehension from you.”
I’ve given up expecting better anything. Every group has its “fundies” and fundies are all alike. Just grinding different axes, goring different oxen.
@Fortune: You may be close. The question becomes the “lean” of the other 80%. How say you?
I am not a lawyer either but I think if you are going to make claims you ought to make an effort to be sure they are correct, especially when you are able to look at original documents. Running my corporation I had to read hundreds of contracts. Reading legalese isn’t fun but it’s largely doable. This particular EO didnt seem that difficult to me. Nowhere did I see the words affirmative action.
More generally, I really hate data free arguments which too often are based solely upon sentiment. At link is data from 84 of the S&P 100 companies that were willing to return data on their DEI programs. What you see, and this holds more broadly AFAICT from other papers looking at DEI programs, is that there was a small bump in 2021 after the Floyd killing. After that there was actual regression. The end result of the DEI programs was that black hirings were the same as before DEI. Asian hirings increased but they are the “good” minority so I dont think that is what conservative complain about as if we are honest the complaints about DEI are really about black hirings.
https://archive.ph/0EH1O
Steve
@steve: Part II, Subpart B, 1.
@just nutha: They’d say “what? you’re asking me if I think people who clean our floors should be afraid or a theocracy? and there were mountains? and you’re saying this has something to do with religion? are you sure?”
@charontwo: I will only note, as an expansion of my comment above about 5/15%, that I would guess that a significant number of evangelicals, christian conservatives, and evangelical white supremacists probably have no strong connection to NAR or Seven Mountains–maybe even never having heard of them–but would count that agenda as a “win” or desirable outcome. I’m cynical, so I would say that those people raise the 5% to closer to 60%. That’s what I was referring to when I asked Fortune about the “lean,” but so far, he’s only responding with incoherent nonsense about cleaning floors.
@Michael Reynolds:
My experience is different. I have met, befriended, shared volunteerism with quite a number of self-identified Christians who are devoted to the essential message of Christ, who are humble and unassuming, who live congruently with their beliefs, seek not to impose their faith on anyone, nor deny anyone what they can offer to needs. They don’t give a flip about politics, race, creed, or gender identity/preference. They live largely unseen. They live to serve. I’m instructed and inspired.
@steve: Recent visibility of D.E.I. is only part of the picture. This society has been increasingly implementing D.E.I. similar/adjacent initiatives for decades, since the 1950s. I can say that I have witnessed changes and shifts over decades. These are changes within our nationwide “cultures of work.”
I scanned the reference you linked. It wasn’t a complete picture. Don’t get hung up on the name D.E.I. There’s more to the concept than it’s most recent formalized expression.
The people who seek to deep-six the visible D.E.I. concept, are gunning for the whole arc of socially conscientious expression. The better to oppress.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Sounds right. But consider that these unaware people are programmed to reflexively follow the banner of Christianity. The Dominionists are noisy, activist, and driven. They have bent Christianity in their direction.
And here we are: a sexual predator felon has been put in the White House, and deified as “God’s own” despite his eery similarities to the anti-Christ of their own mythology. They are only reflexively saluting a flag. That flag now has a white background and with a red cross on a blue square in the corner, and is leading the flock further afield from their own namesake. Among them are some truly sincere people. But they have been fed a good deal of insincerity.
@Rob1: Which is why I noted that a revised count of the 5% Seven mountain types would raise the real number of them to closer to 60%. (And why I had asked Fortune for some estimation of how he (?) thought the other 80% shook out on the comparison.)
@Just nutha ignint cracker: My point was the 80% would think your question was incoherent. They don’t think of their Christianity as dictating politics, at least the kind of politics represented by Budde or the Dominionists. I would guess you’re overlooking black evangelicals, Asian / Middle Eastern Christians, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants in your calculations.
ETA: Mormons would also probably fit your definition of Seven Mountains, but if you stretch it that far you may as well add in militant Islamists.