In revoking Executive Order 11246, Trump took aim at history and efforts to combat discrimination. Also: Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is blocked for now.
When I started as a new attorney in the Chicago regional office of the Solicitor of Labor, in 1979, I was handed a thick binder, with EO 11246 and related regulations. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was the agency within USDOL that handled much of the enforcement of the executive order. Over the next 3O years I handled many matters related to the order (along with a lot of litigation in the myriad of other laws enforced by DOL).
Over the years, some administrations tried to cut back enforcement, but the program was never fully destroyed.
New administrations quickly learned that for all their grousing, many contractors liked the rules. They knew that integrated workforces were effective but this way they could blame the government for imposing the obligations.
Affirmative action is a touchy topic, but has a vital role in our society. This is a dark day.
There was one administration, however, that wanted harsher enforcement precisely to create the public impression that the program was unreasonable. I won't name, but IIRC it was the time when the phrase "I'm from the government and I am here to help" was sarcastically made popular.
The biggest problem is that we are emerging into a paradigm shift of information warfare and active malicious compliance in face of a potential New Reich.
Corporations fund Trump's pocketbooks, evaluation has been made that Trump intends to give tech (and other nebulous) companies free. Rein.
"Signal" exists. As demonstrated by Elon and representation by CEO culture 1% at inauguration.
As government services slow down invariably people will wish to fight back. With nebulous companies controlling information narrative, New open source hugging face Large language model becomes very useful for general public. Remember, libraries are great places to meet people that share similar views.
They won't do that. These people are cowards. They fear anyone different from them, yes, as evidenced by this horseshit. But they also fear criticism, which is why they react so strongly when people call them out on their hate and bigotry.
If the roots of an executive order go back to FDR, shouldn't Congress have made the policy into law by now? Live by the EO die by the EO, I'm not looking forward to the federal government flipping back and forth every election because Congress doesn't have the backbone to do their job and write laws that the executive carries out.
Sadly, congress is infested with GQP scum (vastly over-represented due to decades of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and mass media propaganda). Racism & bigotry have always been a key leg on their stool.
The thread of European white supremacy from which the USA social fabric is woven to normalize homelessness, starvation wages, unemployment, astronomic medical debt, chronic wealth inequality, disproportionate rates of state violence and incarceration, prison labor and inaccessible built environments doesn’t originate in shithole countries.
When this first came up, I checked out Wikipedia on Executive Order 11246. There was a section that said that "the order" (with no citation) required affirmative action plans. A lot of conservative news media had headlined that idea. It didn't feel right, so I READ the order--the version on line says "as Amended" (and includes sexual orientation and gender as protected categories). I couldn't find any reference in that to Affirmative Action, beyond a statement that the contractor shall take affirmative action to be sure everyone working for him complies--he can't turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see.
WAS there anything about Affirmative Action as it is now understood in Executive Order 11246? If so, has it been amended out? Is there some other EO that trump is rescinding that involves it? Or is Wikipedia just wrong? If so, I have no idea how to edit it.
So, if I start a company that contracts with the feds, and I explicitly exclude people who have far right/extremist/MAGA politics, can I defend my contracts by stating that I simply don't give a shit about "diversity," much as our ass-boil-in-chief?
He has some history with discrimination in federal contracting, at least with housing. He and his father discriminated against Black people and finally settled allegations of discrimination against them. As I recall, their lawyer in that proceeding was Roy Cohn.
I believe many people believe that many good ideas like DEI have gone astray. We see many times that people needing help have to look over someone more qualified to appease the bureaucracy enforcing the mandates or EO's. I have heard at from people that have observed it in a work place and then, of course, there is discontent. and divisions. It is so ridiculous for an employer to have a % or a number to follow DEI rules and possibly sacrifice a businesses' efficiency and work place. Now, I realize this is not always true but often the case.
As I've understood it, DEI is separate from Affirmative Action. DEI just means broadening the scope of who you look at for hiring (advertising, for example, in minority areas), but requires no quotas. Nor any obligation to hire the less qualified.
Of course, "qualified" has many aspects beyond "who can do data entry fastest." It can include ability to work well with others, not being overly prickly about things, and other of this type of thing that involve "fitting in" as a human being. Hard to tell when you hear stories about "oh, they hired the less qualified minority" what exactly actually went in to the decision.
I call bs. This is always the argument of white guys. Having spent 30+ years in white male dominated industries, I can also give you numerous examples of discrimination against women in hiring, promotion, and promotion to management.
So u have experience of owning, managing and hiring employees for YOUR company or business that u r responsible for profitability and payments to your lender?
I will not dispute in the PAST of women being over looked for advancement, I don't see it near as prevalent. As a past employer I always selected on qualifications and performance of the job. I, like others have related to me, a workplace with many women was quite challenging. Had a 'crying chair' where women quite often would come in to relate how other women were clickey and leave her out, not quite as much problem with men. I'm sure that people don't quite agree have surely owned and managed a business and might be able to understand.
When I started as a new attorney in the Chicago regional office of the Solicitor of Labor, in 1979, I was handed a thick binder, with EO 11246 and related regulations. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was the agency within USDOL that handled much of the enforcement of the executive order. Over the next 3O years I handled many matters related to the order (along with a lot of litigation in the myriad of other laws enforced by DOL).
Over the years, some administrations tried to cut back enforcement, but the program was never fully destroyed.
New administrations quickly learned that for all their grousing, many contractors liked the rules. They knew that integrated workforces were effective but this way they could blame the government for imposing the obligations.
Affirmative action is a touchy topic, but has a vital role in our society. This is a dark day.
And now OFCCP is now barred from “promoting ‘diversity.’”
Truly horrifying.
There was one administration, however, that wanted harsher enforcement precisely to create the public impression that the program was unreasonable. I won't name, but IIRC it was the time when the phrase "I'm from the government and I am here to help" was sarcastically made popular.
Reagan and his puppet masters were scumwads that did lasting damage to the country.
The biggest problem is that we are emerging into a paradigm shift of information warfare and active malicious compliance in face of a potential New Reich.
Corporations fund Trump's pocketbooks, evaluation has been made that Trump intends to give tech (and other nebulous) companies free. Rein.
"Signal" exists. As demonstrated by Elon and representation by CEO culture 1% at inauguration.
As government services slow down invariably people will wish to fight back. With nebulous companies controlling information narrative, New open source hugging face Large language model becomes very useful for general public. Remember, libraries are great places to meet people that share similar views.
Trump revokes …
Again, what is his alternative to DEI? Segregation? If so, say it out loud.
They won't do that. These people are cowards. They fear anyone different from them, yes, as evidenced by this horseshit. But they also fear criticism, which is why they react so strongly when people call them out on their hate and bigotry.
Donald Trump, thin skinned tyrant, who blows as big as a hydrogen balloon … and is as easily punctured, and deflated.
Yup!!
If the roots of an executive order go back to FDR, shouldn't Congress have made the policy into law by now? Live by the EO die by the EO, I'm not looking forward to the federal government flipping back and forth every election because Congress doesn't have the backbone to do their job and write laws that the executive carries out.
Sadly, congress is infested with GQP scum (vastly over-represented due to decades of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and mass media propaganda). Racism & bigotry have always been a key leg on their stool.
Ditto immigration.
The thread of European white supremacy from which the USA social fabric is woven to normalize homelessness, starvation wages, unemployment, astronomic medical debt, chronic wealth inequality, disproportionate rates of state violence and incarceration, prison labor and inaccessible built environments doesn’t originate in shithole countries.
When this first came up, I checked out Wikipedia on Executive Order 11246. There was a section that said that "the order" (with no citation) required affirmative action plans. A lot of conservative news media had headlined that idea. It didn't feel right, so I READ the order--the version on line says "as Amended" (and includes sexual orientation and gender as protected categories). I couldn't find any reference in that to Affirmative Action, beyond a statement that the contractor shall take affirmative action to be sure everyone working for him complies--he can't turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see.
WAS there anything about Affirmative Action as it is now understood in Executive Order 11246? If so, has it been amended out? Is there some other EO that trump is rescinding that involves it? Or is Wikipedia just wrong? If so, I have no idea how to edit it.
So, if I start a company that contracts with the feds, and I explicitly exclude people who have far right/extremist/MAGA politics, can I defend my contracts by stating that I simply don't give a shit about "diversity," much as our ass-boil-in-chief?
He has some history with discrimination in federal contracting, at least with housing. He and his father discriminated against Black people and finally settled allegations of discrimination against them. As I recall, their lawyer in that proceeding was Roy Cohn.
Does Trump offer an alternative to DEI? The same alternative he offered to end the ACA—nothing. And how, exactly, is DEI illegal?
I guess being a president you don’t have to say you’re sorry.
WOW! Very informative and thanks. This info is a keeper.
All of this is so crazy! What is the ultimate goal here? I know we know, but we need to be stating it LOUD AND CLEAR!
I believe many people believe that many good ideas like DEI have gone astray. We see many times that people needing help have to look over someone more qualified to appease the bureaucracy enforcing the mandates or EO's. I have heard at from people that have observed it in a work place and then, of course, there is discontent. and divisions. It is so ridiculous for an employer to have a % or a number to follow DEI rules and possibly sacrifice a businesses' efficiency and work place. Now, I realize this is not always true but often the case.
As I've understood it, DEI is separate from Affirmative Action. DEI just means broadening the scope of who you look at for hiring (advertising, for example, in minority areas), but requires no quotas. Nor any obligation to hire the less qualified.
Of course, "qualified" has many aspects beyond "who can do data entry fastest." It can include ability to work well with others, not being overly prickly about things, and other of this type of thing that involve "fitting in" as a human being. Hard to tell when you hear stories about "oh, they hired the less qualified minority" what exactly actually went in to the decision.
true
I call bs. This is always the argument of white guys. Having spent 30+ years in white male dominated industries, I can also give you numerous examples of discrimination against women in hiring, promotion, and promotion to management.
So u have experience of owning, managing and hiring employees for YOUR company or business that u r responsible for profitability and payments to your lender?
I will not dispute in the PAST of women being over looked for advancement, I don't see it near as prevalent. As a past employer I always selected on qualifications and performance of the job. I, like others have related to me, a workplace with many women was quite challenging. Had a 'crying chair' where women quite often would come in to relate how other women were clickey and leave her out, not quite as much problem with men. I'm sure that people don't quite agree have surely owned and managed a business and might be able to understand.
Constitutional originalists should be happy. Only white mail billionaires will have a say in government policy.