President Donald Trump is making headlines again with his strong stance against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Many believe this approach is a key reason for his political rise, especially in light of the social unrest following events like the killing of George Floyd in 2020. While issues like immigration, inflation, and crime played major roles in his election, the cultural shifts associated with what some call “woke” ideology have also stirred significant public sentiment.
Recently, the Boy Scouts of America changed its name to “Scouting America” to promote inclusivity. This decision sparked a reaction from comedian Bill Maher, who remarked that such moves contribute to Trump’s appeal among voters.
Public opinion shows a consistent rejection of what is often labeled as woke ideology, which includes DEI and social justice initiatives. The core beliefs of this ideology suggest that all cultures are equal, and that any disparities between racial or identity groups are due to discrimination. Advocates argue that achieving equal outcomes, or “equity,” is essential for social justice.
These ideas have circulated in academic circles for decades, but they have recently become more prominent in civil rights law, particularly since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Political scientist Richard Hanania argues that this law has created a framework where organizations are seen as discriminatory if their policies lead to unequal racial outcomes. He claims that DEI is essentially a bureaucratic extension of civil rights law.
Despite not being known for his academic insights, Trump’s actions against DEI suggest he understands the implications of these policies. In his first ten days in office, he signed numerous executive orders targeting DEI. Among these, he ordered federal agencies to eliminate DEI offices and to end programs that guarantee equal outcomes based on race or identity.
Trump’s executive orders also include measures to enforce compliance. Organizations working with the federal government must now certify adherence to colorblind policies. If they fail to do so, they could face serious repercussions under the False Claims Act. Furthermore, Trump has instructed agencies to investigate compliance among various large organizations, including universities and medical associations.
Critics argue that Trump’s approach only goes so far. They emphasize that lasting change requires more than executive orders, which can easily be reversed by future administrations. However, Trump is credited with showing that the federal government can be a tool for social change, a concept often associated with leftist movements.
The cultural shift towards equity has its roots in past civil rights initiatives, notably Executive Order 11246 signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Johnson’s push for equity as a goal diverged from the ideal of equality under the law, leading to a shift in how discrimination is measured and addressed.
The idea of “disparate impact,” which emerged from a Supreme Court ruling in 1971, holds that if an employer’s hiring practices result in a lack of minority representation, they could be scrutinized for discrimination. This has led many organizations to adopt racial quotas to avoid legal repercussions, fundamentally changing how hiring and promotions are approached.
Many Americans are uncomfortable with policies that favor one racial group over another. Polls indicate that a significant majority believe race should not factor into hiring decisions. Even in liberal areas, voters have shown resistance to reinstating racial preferences.
While Trump’s executive orders may signal a shift towards race-neutral policies, their effectiveness will depend on enforcement and legislative support. The path to a more equitable society, free from the divisive impacts of DEI policies, remains a contentious issue in American politics.