https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/business/trump-dei-corporate-reaction.html
Thoughts?
7 replies (most recent on top)
Some of us understood Newton's laws of motion in elementary school and some of you will never have enough functional neurons to ever grasp them.
Corporate USA, who have taken US federal money and/or contracts, are already backing away from DEI b/c they don’t want to be Title VII targets:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Justice Gorsuch described such potentual challenges by articulating his view on p.4 & p. 16 of his concurrence to Title VII challenges
… Congress chose a simple and profound rule. One holding that a recipient of federal funds may never dis- criminate based on race, color, or national origin—period.
If this exposition of Title VI sounds familiar, it should. Just next door, in Title VII, Congress made it “unlawful . . . for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individ- ual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, s-x, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). Appreciating the breadth of this provision, just three years ago this Court read its essentially identical terms the same way. See Bos- tock, 590 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–9). This Court has long recognized, too, that when Congress uses the same terms in the same statute, we should presume they “have the same meaning.” IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U. S. 21, 34 (2005). And that presumption surely makes sense here, for as Justice Stevens recognized years ago, “[b]oth Title VI and Title VII” codify a categorical rule of “individual equal- ity, without regard to race.”…
…. the dissent does not dispute that everything said here about the meaning of Title VI tracks this Court’s precedent in Bostock interpreting mate- rially identical language in Title VII.
“Vaughn v CBS news” might be a US Supreme Court test case that could result in a nation-wide Title VII ruling on DEI
Didn't earn it
I believe the prescribed language is "discrimination, exclusion, indoctrination."
NyTimes articles ....whatever. Losing's hard.
Tell Fran and the multiple Didn't Earn It Execs she's hired that the milk run is over. Someone noticed that hiring etc based on race/gender is illegal.
Who knew..
It terminates “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) discrimination in the federal workforce, and in federal contracting and spending.
Federal hiring, promotions, and performance reviews will reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and not, under any circumstances, DEI-related factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements.
The order requires OMB to streamline the federal contracting process to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil rights laws.
It revokes Executive Order 11246 contracting criteria mandating affirmative action
It bars the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs from pushing contractors to balance their workforce based on race, s-x, gender identity, s-xual preference, or religion.
It requires simple and unmistakable affirmation that contractors will not engage in illegal discrimination, including illegal DEI.
It directs all departments and agencies to take strong action to end private sector DEI discrimination, including civil compliance investigations.
It mandates the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education issue joint guidance regarding the measures and practices required to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Seems simple to me.
Why, it's aimed at the government .... geesh, grow a pair, be a leader and make your own choices. BTW, DEI is discriminatory by its very nature. Work hard, be excellent. No, not everyone gets a trophy in the real world.
Good, good...