In my 49 years
of employment history, I have never experienced discrimination against white
people, men, or Christians. I have experienced discrimination against African
Americans and other minorities, though not a lot of it. I have also experienced
being passed over for a job for an African American man who was far less
qualified than I, although I do not attribute that to any kind of employment
policy, but rather to the whims of the person who did the hiring.
The backlash against DEI
overreach is warranted to some extent, However, that does not mean diversity,
equity, and inclusion are not important, just that they should not be overly
pursued by things like mandates, budgets, and staff. I do not think that making
DEI policies illegal or punishable by the government is the answer to the
issue, as the Trump administration seems to think. The whole notion that DEI
undermines “meritocracy” has not been adequately demonstrated, and calling
someone a DEI hire should be considered insulting and borderline racist. It can
be argued that the Biden administration put too much effort and funding into
DEI initiatives. However, companies should be free to have such initiatives if
they want, rather than being punished by the government for having them. I
really don’t think we are in a position where a white guy doesn’t have a chance
for a job (even though I am currently an unemployed white guy that is having
difficulty finding work). It can be argued that the government went too far
with DEI and businesses went too far with ESG concerns, but that does not mean
DEI and ESG are not important.
The Biden administration’s
DEI initiatives were initiated by the government but did not require other
institutions, such as schools and universities, and businesses to adopt similar
policies, although many did. They were not required by law to adopt such
policies. However, the Trump administration is tying government funding to DEI
policies, essentially defunding anything the federal government helps to fund
if they have DEI policies. It is not even clear what those policies are to
trigger the defunding, since DEI policies differ by institution and company.
They also differ by degree, some being more or less aggressive than others.
Essentially, any institutional or business policy meant to oppose
discrimination against marginalized populations is now essentially against the
law, punishable by loss of funding. That is going too far. Universities all
over the country are dismantling DEI-related offices and staff. Some of that is
warranted, as it was overreaching. However, the solution to overreach is not a
greater degree of overreach in the other direction.
Disparate-Impact Liability
A new Trump executive order
from earlier this month:
“Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy is
intended to encourage "meritocracy and a colorblind society, not race- or
sex-based favoritism."
The wording certainly suggests a view that women and
minorities are being unfairly given opportunities ahead of men and
non-minorities. Is there any real evidence of that? I am not sure, but I doubt
it. Newsweek writes that:
“…if independent federal agencies abide by the order they
will stall litigation protecting women from being discriminated against for
credit, and they will roll back guidance and regulations which were in place to
protect people's rights.”
This harks back to the 70s when the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA) addressed discrimination against women for loans and
credit. Before the ECOA was enacted, women could be asked to have a male
relative or spouse co-sign for their credit cards or loans. Can you imagine
that happening now? I don’t think it will, but it could happen if Congress
voted down the ECOA.
The issue is whether racism
or sexism can actually occur without explicit intent, an idea known as
disparate impact. According to the DOJ Title VI Legal Manual, disparate impact
regulations are explained:
“The disparate impact regulations seek to ensure that
programs accepting federal money are not administered in a way that perpetuates
the repercussions of past discrimination. As the Supreme Court has explained,
even benignly-motivated policies that appear neutral on their face may be
traceable to the nation’s long history of invidious race discrimination in
employment, education, housing, and many other areas…. The disparate impact
regulations ensure “that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute,
not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or
results in racial discrimination.”
TITLE VI DISPARATE IMPACT VIOLATION
“Disparate impact. Does the adverse effect of the policy
or practice fall disproportionately on a race, color, or national origin group?
See Section C.1.”
“Justification, If so, does the record establish a
substantial legitimate justification for the policy or practice? See Section
C.2.”
“Less discriminatory alternative. Is there an
alternative that would achieve the same legitimate objective but with less of a
discriminatory effect? See Section C.3.”
It is as if the Trump administration is saying that instead
of acting to make sure the government is not supporting remnants of racism,
they would rather ensure that we are not unfairly promoting non-racism, which
may be unfair to non-minorities. While the goal of a “color blind” society is a
good one, we also need to be realistic. There are indeed remnants of racism and
sexism that still exist.
According to Newsweek:
“Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform
and Governance at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained to Newsweek
that disparate-impact liability is: "A recognition that you could have
certain hiring practices that, while not, not clearly discriminatory in
intent...may have a disproportionate impact on a particular protected class.”
"It could be where you advertise, for example,
around employment listings. It could get at certain kinds of redlining
practices."
“President Trump said: "[Disparate-impact
liability] not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to
equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution."
"They're trying to argue that it is somehow
violating civil rights law and the Constitution to require employers or housing
providers to consider the disparate impact on race or gender or age, right or
disability," Olinsky told Newsweek. "Because that somehow might, in
individual cases, cause a white young man to lose out because the criteria has
been shifted."
“President Donald Trump, Executive Order: "Because
of disparate-impact liability, employers cannot act in the best interests of
the job applicant, the employer, and the American public. Disparate-impact
liability imperils the effectiveness of civil rights laws by mandating, rather
than proscribing, discrimination."
Disparate impact is part of the 1964
Civil Rights Act. The Trump administration is essentially arguing that the
Civil Rights Act is discriminatory against non-minorities, and the EO is saying
that any federal cases involving disparate impact will be abandoned or not
pursued by the federal government as required by the Act. Is the Civil Rights
Act really depriving us of our civil rights? Olinsky noted that private suits
can still be filed for discrimination, but the government won’t help.
Hegseth “Cancels” Women’s Peace and Security Leadership
Program
Another recent act by Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth was the cancellation of a women’s leadership program at
the Pentagon, the Women’s Peace and Security program. It was enacted during the
first Trump administration, championed by both Donald and Ivanka Trump, drafted
in part by Kristi Noem, and praised just recently by Marco Rubio. The program
had strong bipartisan and international support. Hegseth called the initiative
a divisive, liberal focus that does not add to service members’ readiness.
Hegseth boast-posted the following on X:
“WPS is yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden
initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops — distracting from our
core task: WAR-FIGHTING.”
“WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and
left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it.”
“DoD will hereby executive the minimum of WPS required
by statute, and fight to end the program for our next budget.
GOOD RIDDANCE WPS!”
Apparently, he was not aware of the bipartisan nature of
the program and Trump’s initial support for it, being more concerned perhaps
that it would lead to women being promoted at the expense of men. The
cancellation dovetails nicely with Hegseth’s other anti-women activities,
including his advocacy against women in combat roles, the administration’s
banning of trans women from the military, and his own allegation of being
abusive towards women.
Anti-Christian Discrimination. Really?
One thing I have never ever
experienced in the work world or really anywhere is anti-Christian
discrimination. I know many people who are not Christians, and I have never
heard any of them discriminate against Christians. However, I have heard quite
a bit about how they were mistreated by fanatical Christian family members,
sometimes horribly so. I have also been subjected at workplaces to Christian
proselytizing and Christian prayer, but never to any other kind of proselytizing
or prayer.
So-called “religious liberty”
policies supposedly designed to protect religious liberty are often thinly
disguised efforts to allow religious groups to be discriminatory against
marginalized groups like LGBT, essentially arguing that their religion commands
them to be discriminatory. It is a similar argument to fanatical Muslims
arguing that their religion commands them to mistreat women, such as among the
Taliban, the Iranian theocracy, or ISIS. Secularism becomes the enemy rather
than discrimination. The concern is that Christians (or Muslims) are being
discriminated against by secularist concerns about women’s rights or the rights
of marginalized groups.
In February, Trump launched
an initiative, the White House Faith Office, to root out anti-Christian bias in
the federal government. Earlier this month, an internal email sent out by US
Secretary of State Marco Rubio details how the department will collect evidence
of anti-Christian bias by its own employees via anonymous tip-off forms.
According to The Telegraph:
“{Trump} accused his predecessor Joe Biden, a lifelong
Catholic, of engaging in an “egregious pattern of targeting peaceful
Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offences.”
I have heard anti-Muslim bias
and anti-non-Christian bias at work, but never anti-Christian bias. The State
Department plan includes the department’s work around the world, including in
Muslim countries where anti-Christian biases may be more common, as anti-Muslim
bias is here. While both directives include a nod to discrimination against any
religion, the focus of both is on anti-Christian discrimination.
Should we really be concerned
about discrimination against white Christian men? I didn’t vote in the 2012
election but after Obama was re-elected a white Christian man at a work site
felt that he was free to shout at me: “Did you vote for that nigger?”
No, I am not concerned about discrimination against white Christian men.
References:
Trump
Executive Order Raises Alarm Over Women's Financial Independence. Opinion by
Sophie Clark. Newsweek. April 24, 2025. Trump
Executive Order Raises Alarm Over Women's Financial Independence
Snitch
on your anti-Christian co-workers, federal workers told. Benedict Smith. The
Telegraph. April 11, 2025. Snitch
on your anti-Christian co-workers, federal workers told
State
tells employees to report on one another for ‘anti-Christian bias’. Robbie
Gramer and Nahal Toosi. Politico. April 11, 2025. State
Department tells employees to report on one another for ‘anti-Christian bias’ -
POLITICO
Section
VII- Proving Discrimination- Disparate Impact. Title VI Legal Manual. U.S.
Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Civil Rights Division |
Section VII- Proving Discrimination- Disparate Impact | United States
Department of Justice
Hegseth
cancels women’s leadership program despite past Trump support. Leo Shane III. Army
Times. April 29, 2025. Hegseth
cancels women’s leadership program despite past Trump support
No comments:
Post a Comment