Last night, I discussed a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump that included an extension of his earlier move against “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies to the area of higher education. The order makes direct reference to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) banning the use of race in college admissions and instructs the Departments of Education and Justice to investigate any circumvention of the prohibition by colleges and universities. The order effectively carries out the mandate declared by Chief Justice John Roberts: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” Since the EO has not been officially posted on the government website, I have included the full language below.
The new order will send a shockwave through higher education and the resulting agency actions are likely to trigger a tsunami of lawsuits. It is the latest in a series of actions designed to combat DEI policies and programs. The EO joins earlier orders in dismantling the DEI initiatives of the prior Administration. It also fast tracks agency actions, particularly at Education and Justice, in laying out a new framework for contracting to grants to combat DEI efforts.
The order was released around the same time as a memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that notified the heads of agencies and departments that they must move to clove all DEI offices by the end of the day Wednesday and place government workers in those offices on paid leave.
We have previously discussed how universities and colleges openly planned for the final rejection of race-based admissions criteria. Many universities denounced the Supreme Court and pledged to “reimagine” admissions. Medical schools are being encouraged to “pivot” to continue reaching diversity goals for entering classes. More schools are moving to dump objective standardized tests (or make them optional) in favor of more subjective scoring to shield racial criteria for admissions. Others are tweaking essay prompts to shift enhancements based on race.
Roberts himself anticipated some of those efforts in referencing how students could still self-identify as minorities in discussing their views or struggle with racial discrimination.
The use of federal authority to investigate such circumvention could be a major change for higher education. Most schools have resisted transparency or disclosures on such practices and private litigants often find it difficult to get courts to order discovery. This could expose schools to greater public scrutiny.
The question is how the government will address circumventions, such as using essay prompts to reintroduce racial identification. In my view, this would raise serious free speech issues for both schools and students.
However, the greatest contribution could be the exposure of circumvention systems or practices. In his order, Trump wrote that “Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’” His order directs all federal agencies to each identify up to nine corporations, large non-profit groups, or institutions of higher education with endowments exceeding $1 billion which are violating civil rights laws.
The agencies are to develop an action plan against “illegal discrimination or preferences.” Those preferences are described as not only violating “the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws,” but “also undermine our national unity.” The plan is to consider federal litigation and regulatory actions.
The order also instructs incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Education Linda M. McMahon to issue guidance within 120 days to all state and local educational agencies on how to abide by the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down race-based affirmative action policies. That could prove a major new element for higher education in setting out criteria for evaluating compliance by schools.
This is clearly going to generate intense litigation. The definition of DEI is vague and is likely to draw challenges. For example, organizations will argue that the following line could become dangerously subjective in its application or enforcement:
“Terminate all ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.”
Such vague terms are likely to draw judicial scrutiny and could sweep too broadly for figures like Chief Justice Roberts. Agencies will need to narrow and add greater clarity on these terms as they move forward with this mandate.
Moreover, while the EO expressly states that it is not to be construed as limiting free speech, these policies and programs could easily contravene that right. Federal contacts will now have an affirmative statement of compliance by organizations, including universities and colleges, that they do not have DEI components.
The key will be not the policy contained in the EO but the actual guidelines and determinations made by these agencies. There will also be challenges if some changes do not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and notice and comment requirements. Those procedures take time, but a failure to comply can lead to even greater delays from litigation and resulting injunctions.
In other words, this is a major new initiative that will quickly become a major battlegound for the Justice Department.
Here is the language of the new Executive Order:
01/21/25 EXECUTIVE ORDER ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.
Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system. Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.
These illegal DEI and DEIA policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government, and the medical, aviation, and law-enforcement communities. Yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed first-hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.
The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws. The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work. I therefore order all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.
Sec. 3. Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government.
(a) The following executive actions are hereby revoked:
(i) Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations);
(ii) Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce);
(iii) Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); and
(iv) The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce).
(b) The Federal contracting process shall be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws. Accordingly:
(i) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), is hereby revoked. For 90 days from the date of this order, Federal contractors may continue to comply with the regulatory scheme in effect on January 20, 2025.
(ii) The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease: (A) Promoting “diversity”; (B) Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and (C) Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.
(iii) In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.
(iv) The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:
(A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and
(B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.
(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall:
(i) Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance;
(ii) Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and
(iii) Terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.
Sec. 4. Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences.
(a) The heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work identified in section 2 of this order.
(b) To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI. The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:
(i) Key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction;
(ii) The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern;
(iii) A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;
(iv) Other strategies to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all Federal civil-rights laws;
(v) Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and
(vi) Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.
Sec. 5. Other Actions. Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
Sec. 6. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 7. Scope. (a) This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.
(b) This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.
(c) This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2025.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
if awarded degrees (being a testament of the degree of standing body knowledge being exposed to and awareness of tested [i.e. a validation of this knowledge as a reference] so this entire premise is potentially destroyed by the imposed burden of DEI agenda, which has no such aims or focus.
* You have nothing to work with. Just ignorance and poverty is the due. Pay your piper.
There is nothing personally good except the identification of traitors an Judas. You’ve bought a paupers graveyard and tried to justify it.
😂
All that has transpired thus far is great, but it’s the tiniest tip of the iceberg. We all have to support the momentum building going forward; the deep state is not going to simply roll over and all that has been entrenched over the past 15 or so years will not evaporate overnight. I genuinely feel that it is a new era, but there is a whooooole lot left to do.
James,
Well said and I agree. We are moving forward but have to keep it going. This is what real leadership looks like.
Dr. Suess could not have said it better.
You mean a whole lot of left to get rid of!
The good thing about LA going up in flames, smoke and toxic chemicals is that nearly everyone, including smug Hollywood types, finally got a good smell of DEI in action.
Not so attractive when it comes to your neighborhood, is it?
Or perhaps as that overweight assistant LA fire chief explained, don’t count on her help; you just got yourselves into the wrong place.
Young,
FYI, Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution, which is made clear by the intent and design of the Founders and Framers, by multiple state documents of ratification, and by the letter and spirit of the 10th Amendment.
At some point, you will be compelled to concede that point.
__________________________________________________________________
“The Constitutionality of Secession”
THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A “PERPETUAL UNION.”
The purpose of the Articles was not only to define the relationship among the new States but also to stipulate the permanent nature of the new union. Accordingly, Article XIII states that the Union being created “shall be perpetual.”
…
But whatever the reasons involved, in the resultant Constitution, there was no mention of a “perpetual union,”
…and at no place in that document is the word “nation” to be found. Indeed, in many of the original documents pertaining to the Constitution, in the words “united States” a term that signified the change from the old Articles to new the Constitution, the “u” in “united” is not capitalized! This is significant for had it been capitalized, it could be supposed that the Constitution, by bestowing a title rather than a description with the use of the capital letter in the word “United,” had created an “entity” other than the original thirteen separate and sovereign States. But the words united States as they sometimes appear in that document and others pertaining to it, simply identified the condition of those States; that is, united in their ongoing efforts to function as a “confederation” and not as a nation or a national entity.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-constitutionality-of-secession/
_______________________________________________________
The ratification document of New York, July 26, 1788:
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;…
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp
__________________________________________
The ratification document of Rhode Island, 1790:
III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The ratification document of Virginia, 1788:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia,…DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:…
_____________________
James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state.
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
________________
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“[Where powers are assumed by Lincoln which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act of Lincoln’s assumption is the rightful remedy].”
– [Thomas Jefferson]
___________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
George– “Young. FYI, Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution.”
Didn’t say it was.
If secession is not prohibited, everything Lincoln and his successors imposed illicitly, unconstitutionally, and by brute force subsequent to his denial was and remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional, requiring that it be struck down and rescinded—America itself is similarly invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional.
Jonathan: I applauded your straight forward opposition to DJT’s pardons of 1500 J. 6 criminals. Then you go and ruin it with this column. By the way a major poll taken just before DJT took office showed 6 out of 10 Americans opposed the pardons.
For years you have attacked DEI policies in the federal government, at universities and in businesses. For over a hundred years because of institutional racism, Black people and other marginalized groups have been discriminated against in hiring and promotion in educational institutions and in businesses. Across industries pay disparities continue to adversely affect employees based on race, gender, age, disability and sexual orientation. The purpose of DEI policies is to address those disparities and help universities and businesses “recognize and address how power, privilege and how society affects our personal identities” (D. Emerick, “What is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”, Jan. 3, 20230).
DJT wants to turn back the clock when race, sex, age and gender discrimination was common and accepted. That’s a very bad policy for a country that promotes “equality”. And it’s even worse you would endorse his racist policies!
Dennis: What a night I had! Temps in the mid-teens. I tried to keep a fire going all night, but when I woke at 3:00AM, there were seven cats in the recliner with me, and Peanut under the blankets. They were all frozen together in a mass, like a big pizza. I had to wait until they thawed out this morning.
Dennis
A poll taken on Nov. 5th called an election shows that the majority of voters support J6 pardons.
The same poll showed that the majority of people opposed pardons for the Biden Crime syndicate and the J6 committee, …
This is the poll that matters.
Trump also pardoned Ross Ullbricht on day one – exactly as he promised at the Libertarian convention.
Within 24 hours of taking office Trump kept myriads of campaign promises and began the process of keeping others.
People who voted for Trump KNEW what they were voting for, ad they voted for Trump.
DEI is unconstitutional. It violates the 14th amendment and the Civil rights act.
Over 100 years ago there was institutional racism in this country. Progressive democrat Wilson purged the Civil Service of blacks. He aired the KKK film “Birth of a nation” in the White House. There is not institutional racism in the US today, there is not even consequential on-institutional racism. Myriads of studies have show that if you are born in this country Race is the least consequential factor in whether you succeed.
White Black Green, Blue – if you want to join the Middle class in this country
Learn to read – Democrats have certainly F#$Ked that up spending more money than ever on education and delivering the worst outcomes ever.
Graduate from High School
Get a job – even a crappy job
succeed at that job – success at crappy jobs leads to good jobs.
Do not have sex until you are ready to be a parent.
Do not become a parent until you are ready and able to support a family.
Get married before having a family.
Do not commit crimes.
Do all of the above and you are GUARANTEED to join the middle class – no matter what your race.
I thought left wing nuts claimed to be for Science – well the above is what the data tells us.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You are burring MLK’s dream to ash.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Justice Roberts
Regardless, it is NOT 100 years ago.
The purpose of DEI is to promote racism.
“DJT wants to turn back the clock when race, sex, age and gender discrimination was common and accepted.”
No Trump is ENDING discrimination based on race.
You are a racist.
Minorities in this country are not “marginalized” – left wing nuts are deservedly marginalized for holding idiotic views.
You are being judged by the content of your character not the color of your skin.
Most americans – including minorities beleive that each and everyone of us is capable of success – success consistent with our ambition, skill, and effort without regard for race.
It is left wing nuts that beleive that minorities can not succeed without lowering the bar,
It is left wing nuts that beleive that minorities are inferior.
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/daa23d_ad19dc1fb3d14c19a38713a84fc3553a~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1480,h_1056,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/daa23d_ad19dc1fb3d14c19a38713a84fc3553a~mv2.jpg
I hope that Federal contracting also gets its time in the limelight. Ironically, one of the reasons that the Biden administration was so inept was because of self imposed DEI restrictions on contracting. One manifestation of this insidious policy was that only 8 EV charging stations were built (by Sept 2024 presumably now more) – competency was not a concern with the Biden administration.
On the Left, it seems that every position, whether employee, contractor, or student, is a sinecure to be awarded per some ill defined political calculus. We need to get back to the basics of being the land of opportunity rather than the land of sinecures.
Were gas stations built by the government?
No.
That was the purview of free enterprise in the free markets of the private sector.
* I’m unable to apply Robert Nozik or John Rawls right now. I do know some really good work is being done in identifying the characteristics of poverty traps. It’s being done at MIT. They’re probably using the student body as research lab rats.
DEI did not consider merit and failed. DEI gave the Stradivarius to the elementary school marching band. They used it as firewood eventually.
Great Five Minute Video on DEI:
New Bumper Stickers: “Lets Go Bakke!”
IMHO, this is by far the most important story today, of the three written. If Trump is successful in ending the DEI crap, and Affirmative Action, then that could cut off the woke recruitment going on in these institutions. Over time, that could restore some sanity, or at least reduce the insanity in the country.
The Department of Education has no legal basis in the Constitution and is utterly unconstitutional.
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
*****************************
DEI is truly dead if it dies an ignominious death on campus. Let’s all join the wake and the toast the decrepit body. Who knows? We might even get God back on campus. Wouldn’t that be something.
* Surely , by God you mean moral principles?
My hope is that @mespo meant God, from whom mankind has derived moral principles. Also, s/he may object to being called Shirley.
* I suppose you think Allah is the same as Christ or zoraster or any number of “gods”? Shirley, you think all Gods are the same?
Moral principles vary and are generally separated by landmass.
This dude has a good channel, and I hope more people subscribe. He has picked up about 6,000 new ones since I started watching him. This one is about 2 girls who were DEI Woke brainwashed in college –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6k6rC87XH8
I am sure that a lot of the American students of Chinese ancestry will be happy to see that they will now have an equal chance at a great education. They will no longer be discriminated against because they have higher entrance exam scores and the color of their skin is not of a preferred shade. What is admired about the American Chinese culture is not that they are smarter than other Americans but that they have a higher degree of respect for excellence of endeavor and they pass it from one generation to another. Well done President Trump for honoring hard work to get ahead in life.
* They’re smarter. Based on evolutionary and circumstantial choices.
* nah, it’s all about cutting out dead wood.
I note that the head of The Coast Guard was fired, partly because she went all in on DEI. FWIW, I know that on one boat, doing coke was kinda common. This was back in the early 2000s, and before DEI. So probably there are other problems that need good supervision and leadership, not leaders that tick a box.
Sure, but does this EO require diet coke be available now for that one boat, Floyd? 😋
Diversity is an umbrella reference to class-disordered ideologies, including: racism, sexism, genderism, ageism, etc. DEI is a model for institutional, systemic Diversity.
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
I don’t know if these defendants received fair trials or had their civil rights violated, I doubts Turley knows either. It makes a big difference when deciding whether Trump should have pardoned these individuals.
I posted this excerpt on the other thread:
Trump’s pardons and commutations thus might objectively be considered “wrong” except for Biden’s action on the way out of office, in which he pardoned obstruction of justice, witness tampering and willful destruction of evidence by persons who led to those prosecutions, all of which were part and parcel of the original charges and trials and due to the acceptance of Biden’s pardons by those committee members is in fact a confession of guilt to those federal offenses.
As a direct result Biden’s preemptive pardons make the Jan 6 pardons by Trump not only objectively reasonable they became, at the moment Biden issued them, mandatory.
For people alleging that they are highly educated, they seem rather willfully uninformed as to our constitution.
The only way to end discrimination is to end discrimination. We know what happened in the past and that’s where discrimination should be left.
From what I have been reading, more and more companies are ditching DEI divisions, and even some schools. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of DEI insanity and wokeism.
I hope so too, but I think “woke” is far from dead. Over 75 million Americans voted for Kamala. Only two Democrats in the House voted to keep boys out of girl’s sports. Even though nearly 70% of Democrats are against boys playing in girls sports.
That tells me that “the people” are against “woke” but not their leaders and the stupid white Left elites. In other words, The Establishment.
The battle is far from over.
Mr Upstate makes a great point as he always does, but I have to agree with Floyd as well. How do we fight a battle against the “leaders” when 70% of Democrat voters are against boys in girls sports and spaces and yet only TWO democrats in the House voted that way?
How can the leadership be so out of step with their own voters?
HullBobby and Floyd,
I like to think traditional Democrats leave the party and become Independents. Vote against Democrats or not at all. Some are reading the writing on the wall.
Elissa Slotkin Just Wants to Be ‘Normal.’ Will Her Fellow Democrats Listen?
https://www.thefp.com/p/peter-savodnik-elissa-slotkin-just-wants-to-be-normal
Good article. I hope Slotkin votes to remove boys from girl’s sports.
Floyd,
This gentleman gets it, The Rising Democratic Coalition Fell. Now What?
“Representative Ritchie Torres: Why my party started losing voters of color—and how we can win them back.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/ritchie-torres-the-rising-democratic-coalition-fell-trump-inauguration
Again, the problem as he points out, is these elite leftists, mostly white, who think they know what minorities want or think without asking.
I like this quote from your link:
“I presented him with a simple question meant to dislodge him from his high horse: “What happens if your social experiment of abolishing the police ends badly? What happens if it causes an outbreak of gun violence, gang violence, and youth violence?” I then ended with a polemic: “You lead an ivory-towered existence in a wealthy white neighborhood whereas my constituents, poor people of color, will be forced to live with the consequences of your social engineering. Is that truly progressive—to have white progressive luxury beliefs whose costs are primarily borne by people of color?”
Like I have said, white people can not fix what is wrong in black communities. Black people have to fix it,
While republicans have a tenuous hold on congress, the imposition of DEI can be halted but we are left with at least several generations of miseducated prog/left tools who will be screaming bloody murder about this and will file endless lawsuits to stop/delay this. These poor brainwashed fools are still out there and can cause all sorts of societal disruption. What to do with all this cultural human flotsam is a different and more challenging question than whether a temporary government injunction can erase the entire concept that his been cooked into so many poorly educated noggins. Waiting for these types to age out will be costly and a never ending source of societal disruption.
“What to do with all this cultural human flotsam is a different and more challenging question than whether a temporary government injunction can erase the entire concept that his been cooked into so many poorly educated noggins. ”
Exactly right. Some will mature out of this foolishness, and many already have. But there will remain a large contingent who will never give up on it. They are of the same mindset as the Millerites. Or the 1950s UFO cult who were the subjects of Festinger’s cognitive dissonance study. The more they are proven wrong, the deeper they will dig in.
I am not optimistic that a democracy can fix the problem. Bezmenov said that the Russians would have killed or gulag-ed these mentally broken ninnies.
Your quote from Bexmenov about the gulags reminds me of a notion held by my husband that Putin is, in fact, a conservative leader in that he believes in the old culture of Russia. He would whip those woke lefties strewn throughout Europe into a more common sense concept of society and there would never be the sort of insanity as we saw at the Paris Olympics. Perhaps we should just fund Putin and let him blaze through Europe all the way to the Hebrides and bring some sort of cultural sanity and immigration sense to all of Europe.
I think Trump should send a message to NATO, that we are in NATO to support free countries. And that when they deny free speech rights to their citizens, then they are no longer worthy of support.
I thought we were in NATO to insure free democracies against communism. Just how did that work out when a good many of our NATO allies have embraced socialism/communism as their operational base? I think we should withdraw from NATO completely and let those sad old commies fend for themselves.
Nope, your ideas will fade away.