The prior admin made it so that their chosen DEI programs fit "Federal Law". This admin has done a complete 180. Courts haven't tested any of this yet. It's all a hammer being wielded by the side in power.
We can debate whether doing this rights historical wrongs but we can't pretend it is not racist to treat different people of different skin colors differently.
"Racism" means the oppression of one group because of race.
In an historically racist society (writing this in New Zealand) righting those historical wrongs involves some treating "...one group different from others based on race."
It is bad enough here, and it continues here explicitly by the current government (indigenous people just lost a bunch of property rights because they were indigenous, blatant, official, statutory racism), but according to people I respect in the USA it is considerably worse there.
"ACT New Zealand party, a junior partner in the governing centre-right coalition government, last week unveiled the bill, which it had promised during last year’s election, arguing that those rights should also apply to non-Indigenous citizens."
How does grant others the same rights turn into racism. Shouldn't everyone have those rights including groups that are bigger minorites in New Zealand like blacks of Indians from India?
When we single out groups for special treatment we exclude others who might need it more but who's voices are softer.
It might be worse in the US compared to New Zealand but compared to most of the rest of the world: Middle East, India, Africa, Europe, Russia, China, Korea the US is the least racist place but also has the biggest anti-racism industry which makes their voiced louder.
I am talking of the Foreshore and Seabed Act (under a different name) that overturned settled case law and disapropriated IWI claims for property rights.
Māori have their property rights confiscated regularly. About every twenty or thirty years there is another round
That said the racism here is mild compared to reports from the USA
And there's not really a debate about whether it rights historic wrong. There is a debate about whether righting historic wrongs is even possible.
The debate is whether we can/should counterbalance existing wrongs in society.
And I have hard time taking anyone seriously who says we shouldn't.
If the issue is not using a person's race to make blanket judgements against them then using someone's race to to counterbalance historical is equally as wrong.
The message you are telling everyone is you should use someone's race to judge them. The people in power changes but the racism never goes away.
You end up with foolish ideas like reparations where the people demanding money are a product of a union between a slave and slave owner where half of you should pay the other half.
Or quota systems that exclude minorities because they aren't the right race.
The racism you want to keep needs to be let go. You can't say racism is bad but then use it to enrich yourself.
The foolish idea is that you can't do anything about racism because it'd require helping some people while not helping others.
Which is a bit like thinking you can't feed the hungry because you're not giving food to the obese.
That's my point. Why not give food to all? You just want to give food to who you think is hungry based on great grandparents being hungry. Everyone should eat even the obese.
That's my point.
Your "solution" only works if racism is eliminated. It is not eliminated, despite eduction and fairness laws.
So we can either chose to feed the hungry or let them starve in the name of a false, ignorant, and naive position of neutrality.
People have been getting the message "you should use someone's race to judge them" in my country for over a hundred years
In the USA since the seventeenth century
Here Māori property is confiscated with gay abandon, laws written specifically for that purpose
In the USA there was slavery. It has cast a long shadow, and still politicians are moving mountains to corral the black vote so it does not threaten entrenched privileges
Golly!
"A significant portions of Māori land were confiscated by the New Zealand government, primarily after the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s through legislation like the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. This process, known as raupatu, resulted in the seizure of over a million hectares of land from various iwi"
Wasn't there a Waitangi Tribunal investing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi? Isn't there a Māori land court setup to deal with those issues?
Are there specific instances you want to refer to? We would like to understand a little more.
No one is trying to corral the black vote in the US. It generally goes to one party. It does not threaten the powerful. Black vs rich powerful isn't really an issue as many powerful people are black. Working class vs rich powerful is more of the classic stereotype.
What utter ignorance of the prevailing social conditions in the West
I'm white and not discriminated against in my Western-adjacent country (Czech Republic) and think most of Europe is the same.
I see race-based politics as primarily a US thing: both the militant "diversity advocates" and the white supremacists. From my point of view over the ocean they are quite similar: putting importance of skin colour over other things.
Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion forces turn out to be (gasp) against all of diversity, and equity, and inclusion.
On the surface, it is simply a requirement that the grantee comply with existing non-discrimination laws coupled with a completely fictional example of a potential violation (“discriminatory equity ideology”) provided as an example that happens to have an initialism collision with a real thing. This is legal and (but for the propaganda example) routine.
But... the text viewed in isolation is not the issue.
Isn't that when you let your mates buy into your corrupt private investment vehicles for cheap?
Does it matter for the Trump administration what is legal and what isn't?
We always discriminate. We have to. But only some discrimination is allowed and some are not allowed. The difference is what kind of discrimination people feel is fair and unfair.
On some level, the idea that we all discriminate has the potential to help us move beyond the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy. (I prefer the formulation "we all discriminate" over the dubious alternative "we're all racist".) But I'm not sure it will ever achieve mass acceptance, because it activates the human impulse to self-justify.
I dream that one day someone will come up with version of this idea that is universally acceptable.
Should not be a new or surprising statement at all in this type of thing, let alone a question of if it's un-American.
Yes, these terms are usually called "laws", you might've heard of them.
Federal funding of research created the Internet that you are posting this idiocy on.
Or are you trying to hang this entire thing on a definition of DEI that somehow always and exclusively means illegal race or gender based discrimination (I assume against white men)?
These conversations are so absurd sometimes. I'm baffled by how spitting mad people can decide they are to fight these straw men. Then I'm annoyed by (and suspicious of) the overwhelming silence from most of these sources when it comes to other obvious examples of racial discrimination or things like the government trying to remove history books that mention slavery.
These things don't look like good faith to me.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52
This is basically the US Federal Government’s standard Master Services Agreement (MSA).
Yes, and anyone who takes the Barry Goldwater libertarian position that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constituted an un-American government dictate about how you can run your business with respect to discrimination based on demographic categories probably agrees with you. There's a real sense in which this administration is invoking the formally-neutral legal infrastructure that has been built up over many years by liberals with the intention of securing the civil rights of various marginalized groups, and ostentatiously using it as a weapon against groups that are discriminating against white people or white men in particular and feel like they are acting righteously in doing so.
More generally, there's all sorts of laws in every country including America that involve the government dictating how you run your business, or how you run your business if you want to be eligible for government grants. No one actually thinks that a law becomes illegitimate if it dictates how a person can run their business, unless they are such a radical anarchist that they entirely reject the legitimacy of any kind of government or law at all.
> “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant?
I applaud them for taking a stand, it seems to be more and more rare these days.