New Jersey Spotlight News )NJSN) has a very revealing piece on President Trump’s war on the Left’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement—Taylor Jung’s ‘Chilling effect’ feared as Trump administration attacks DEI. Here is an annotated review of Jung’s “news” article. Indented portions are direct quotes from the article, with my emphasises.
Escalating federal pressure to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is raising more questions than answers about the future of anti-discrimination programming in New Jersey and across the nation.
I have observed that NJSN leans strongly Left in its reporting. So right off the bat, incredibly disingenuous! DEI requires discrimination. Only the tribalism of relying on statistical "disparities" rather than actual evidence can justify seeing DEI programs as an anti-discrimination tool.
Last week, the Department of Justice signaled it could criminally investigate companies engaged in what it called “illegal” race- and sex-based discrimination under the “guise” of DEI.
Note the framing. DEI requires race- and sex-based discrimination to achieve its self-described “equitable” ends, which means eliminating statistical disparities. Yet, Jung prefaces its reporting with a “what it called ‘illegal’” preface, and followed it up by referring to DEI as a “guise”—to what end . . . to protect racism? Apparently:
Legal and workforce experts say it could have a “chilling” effect on programs meant to combat prejudice
How do you combat prejudice through race- and sex-based discrimination?
and to promote equitable working environments
"Equitable" means fair and impartial. How does discrimination lead to that? Of course, to the Progressive/Woke Left, equitable means Egalitarianism, the enemy of fairness and merit.
It is also not clear what criminal laws the Trump administration is citing, those experts say.
“I think that, yes, that is an effort to utilize the kind of mechanism of civil rights law, not in favor of the groups that have been historically served by those laws because they were the impetus for those laws, but instead to say, ‘We believe society has gone too far in the direction of protecting the interest of those groups,’” said Stacy Hawkins, a professor at Rutgers Law School.
Note what's missing from this diatribe—the individual. And the individual is who gets discriminated against—i.e., marginalized, if the Left's favorite term has any meaning—when "protecting the interest of those groups." Groups are made up of individuals. Those who erase the individual from any moral, social or political consideration are not defenders of any group, and the Civil Rights Laws do not and were never meant to protect groups, only individuals. The law should never favor or disfavor any group. It should universally secure and protect individual rights and equal protection of the law.
In order to systematize sex and race based discrimination, the DEI crowd is totally misrepresenting the Civil Rights Laws. Certainly, the historical discrimination against black Americans were “the impetus for those laws." But the Civil Rights laws were never a mechanism for reverse discrimination. They insert universal principles meant to protect all groups from the kind of discriminatory injustices that victimized the black group, through the mechanism—the principles—of individual rights.
Workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and nationality. But Title VII is a civil law, not a criminal one.
This may be true. But whether civil or criminal, DEI requires precisely what Title VII prohibits—workplace discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and nationality (Whether this provision should apply to private enterprise is another discussion).
This should be obvious to any objective person. I can’t believe Jung can’t see the blazing contradiction in his reporting. So, why DEI?
“It is unconscionable that the Trump administration would coopt the language and vision of the civil rights movement in these executive orders as it attempts to send our nation back to an era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination [!!!]
Which is exactly what DEI does. Biden's "whole of government approach" to systemitizing DEI is new era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination. This is exactly what Trump's policy is designed to save us from, as is obvious to anyone with any inkling of understanding capacity. By now, the absurdity and evasiveness of this article can not be hidden. Read on:
Ultimately, these measures drive us farther away from a future when health is no longer a privilege, but a right for all,” said Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a funder of NJ Spotlight News.)
There you have it. The ultimate goal of collectivist DEI. Totalitarian Socialism. Who would enforce this "right" to health? Slaves, that's who. If someone needs health care as a right, then those with the capability to provide it—the doctors and other health professionals—cannot refuse to provide it. Those who pay for it cannot refuse. The same goes for any economic "right"—a "right" to housing, education, food. Socialism is slavery, and totalitarian Socialism is the ultimate goal of anyone who preaches Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. After all, Socialism requires collectivism, and what better way to condition people to accept collectivism than by systematizing the easiest form of collectivism—racism.
Related Reading:
Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell
The Racism of “Diversity” by Peter Schwartz for Capitalism Magazine
Don’t Allow the Left to Own ‘Diversity’
SEC’s Boardroom ‘Diversity’ Rule Is Racist, Unnatural, and Politically Motivated
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle
The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’
This is Rich—a ‘Diversity’ Exec Crying ‘Racism.’
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, the Fed, ‘Diversity’, and Racism
