In January, the Trump Administration took a significant step with the executive order titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity."
- This measure reshaped the approach to equal employment opportunities and affirmative action, revisiting policies that date back to 1965.
- The order empowers the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs by shifting the focus away from promoting diversity initiatives and urging federal contractors to be accountable for traditional affirmative action practices.
- Additionally, the executive order encourages agency heads to reconsider and potentially eliminate preferences in employment based on DEI initiatives.
- Significant changes include a memo from the Office of Personnel Management advising of the immediate administrative leave of DEI officials and the winding down of partnerships with DEI contractors.
- Moreover, a related executive order encourages the private sector to evaluate and align with these federal guidelines.
- It emphasizes a commitment to traditional American values such as hard work, excellence, and individual achievement, creating a foundation upon which companies can thrive.
As we move forward, it's essential to engage in a constructive dialogue about these changes. Exploring alternative strategies to promote unity and achievement can foster environments where every individual feels valued and empowered.
By working together and embracing the best of what our diverse backgrounds have to offer, we can build a brighter, more fulfilling future for all.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are not about discriminating against anyone.
Let me start with this truth: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is not about discriminating against anyone—especially not against any group, including white men. It is certainly not about giving a leg up to some by holding others down. That was never the vision, never the mission, and it should never become the practice.
The arc of American civil rights legislation began with clear-eyed efforts to correct historical and systemic discrimination, particularly against Black Americans.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed as a shield, not a sword—to ensure individuals wouldn't be denied employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Over time, that evolved into what we now broadly call “DEI.”
But here’s where it gets complicated. DEI is not defined in Title VII. It’s a concept—one that has come to encompass everything from recruiting practices to training programs to employee resource groups. It’s well-intentioned. It’s often impactful. But it’s not above the law. And that’s something we all need to understand clearly.
I Support the Law—All of It
As someone deeply committed to civil rights, I support the legal tools we have to prevent discrimination, including the full weight of Title VII. That means I also support the principle that discrimination is discrimination, no matter who it affects.
Title VII protects everyone—Black, white, Latino, Asian, Indigenous, men, women, and every identity in between. If you believe you've experienced discrimination at work because of a DEI program or practice—if you think decisions were made based on race, gender, or another protected category—you do have recourse.
However, before proceeding to court, you should first contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Filing a charge with the EEOC is the first step. Only after that process unfolds can you bring your case to federal court. The EEOC investigates thoroughly.
Suppose they find a reasonable cause that discrimination occurred and efforts to resolve it fail. In that case, they can take legal action or refer your case to the Department of Justice, particularly in instances involving state or local government employers. Federal employees follow a slightly different path, beginning with an EEO counselor.
So, we have to ask: Are we educating or alienating?
Are we fostering understanding or breeding resentment? This is not a call to cancel DEI. It’s a call to do it better—to ground it in universal fairness, legality, and the dignity of every worker.
Under Title VII, an employment action—anything from hiring to promotions to training opportunities—that’s motivated, even in part, by race, sex, or another protected characteristic can be unlawful. Let me repeat that: Even partial motivation based on race or gender can make a policy discriminatory.
If your DEI strategy involves excluding certain groups from internships, mentorships, fellowships, or leadership training—based on race or gender—you’re not promoting equity. You’re just creating a different kind of inequality.
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) are powerful tools for fostering a sense of belonging and community. Still, when participation is limited based on identity or when resources aren’t equally distributed, employers risk skating on legal thin ice. Training, mentoring, and access to leadership pipelines must be open to all. Reverse Discrimination? There’s No Such Thing.
Here’s something the Supreme Court and the EEOC have long agreed on: there’s no such thing as “reverse” discrimination. There’s just discrimination. All claims—regardless of who brings them—are judged by the same legal standard.
White applicants or employees have every right to challenge discrimination just as a Black or Asian employee would. I say this not to fan the flames of backlash but to anchor us in legal and moral clarity.
We must never forget why we built DEI programs in the first place—to eliminate barriers, not create new ones. Hostile Environments and Training Gone Wrong: DEI Training Can Be Transformative. But if it becomes divisive—if it singles people out or shames them based on race or sex—it can cross the line into harassment. Courts have recognized that too. It’s not about intention; it’s about impact.
The Path Forward
The power of DEI lies in its ability to lift everyone by removing structural barriers. But when it becomes a checkbox, a quota, or a tool for exclusion, we’ve lost our way.
Title VII isn’t the enemy of DEI. It’s its foundation.
Let me be crystal clear: I still believe in DEI. I believe in representation. I believe in creating spaces where people of all backgrounds can thrive. But I also believe in the rule of law. And I think that we should never have to choose between doing what’s just and doing what’s legal—because they should be the same thing.
So, if you’re designing a DEI program, build it on the pillars of inclusion, not division. Make sure the opportunity is extended to all. And if you’re an employee who feels harmed, know that you're protected—regardless of your identity or background.
We didn’t fight for civil rights to trade one kind of discrimination for another. We fought—and continue to fight—for a workplace and a society where equity truly means everyone gets a fair shot. Let’s honor that legacy.
TT