Cathy Young recently wrote a piece "Trump’s DEI Crackdown Is a Bad Solution to a Real Problem" expressing similar concerns as Glenn does in this post. In her piece, she quotes John for the anti-DEI perspective. She might be an interesting future guest on the Glenn Show.
"The first anti-DEI executive order also directs agencies to assess “the number of new DEI hires” under the previous administration."
Isn't the right way to handle this sort of issue just a performance review, rather than seeking to place employees into a "DEI" category based on other reasons. In practice couldn't that lead to singling workers out based on their identities?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
What else needs to be said? legislated? or enforced?
It's immoral, illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race.
But what we saw in the 60's and beyond was the doubled-down emphasis and re-emphasis that such discrimination was really, really wrong (did we tell you it was wrong?), even unto the point of tediously redundant legislation & executive orders, piled one atop the other (turtles all the way down!)
So, as far as Glenn’s concerns go, there is no danger at all that the baby (which is the illegality of racial discrimination) will be thrown out with the disgustingly DIE polluted bathwater ... when common sense dictates, and the law itself requires, that the racial & sexual discrimination which is DIE must end, even as we underline the truth of the Civil Rights Act of ’64 and the importance of non-discrimination.
So no need to worry! Just as there’s no need to wear pants with spandex + a good tight belt and snappy suspenders.
There is, however, a more fundamental issue here...too easily glossed in the neurotic obsession with an endless array of 'thou shalt nots'...and that is the question: what exactly is 'unfair' discrimination? And, probably more importantly, how is ‘unfair/illegal’ discrimination identified and measured?
If I have an open and operationally-critical position in my company and I am looking for 'the best candidate' to fill it (best as measured by work experience, life experience, recommendations, education, and how the candidate interviews)...and I end-up hiring a White male, have I unfairly discriminated? No, of course not, at least not in any way that's measurable. Suppose this is the 4th White Male I've hired for these positions? Still no evidence of unfair discrimination. Suppose in the 12 years my company has existed I've hired only White males into the cumulative 10 openings I've experienced? No, still no evidence of unfair discrimination.
Now a statistician might tell us that the odds that a White Male would be hired, all other things being equal, would be about 3/10. And that would mean the odds that 10 White males would be hired (given 10 openings over 12 years) are very small indeed -- all other things being equal in the absence of discrimination. But all other things aren't equal. They never are.
If the job itself requires an advanced degree in petroleum geology ... and in any given year there are only 16 some graduates in petroleum geology (15 of whom are typically White....and 13 of whom are typically male) then the fact that on 10 different occasions over 10 years I hired 10 White Males is well within the range of ‘normal / to be expected’.
But so what?
Even if there is a significant arithmetic imbalance in hiring (as in the LA Lakers) the fact of demographic imbalance is not evidence that the decisions which drove the imbalance were unfairly, racially biased.
The truth is: no one knows what evil...or what good...lurks in the hearts of men or women...and no one know what goes on behind closed doors, be it good or bad. Did I not hire Bob because Bob was not as well qualified...or did I not hire Bob because Bob was the wrong race or sex? Hell, even I might not know the answer to that question since our own hearts are mysteries, even to ourselves. I may truly believe I didn’t hire Bob because he wasn’t as well qualified or didn’t interview as well as Steve...but maybe – deep down – I didn’t hire Bob because he was fat (and I tend to believe that fat people are lazy). If I don’t truly know, how can anyone else know what is essentially unknowable?
There is another fundamental truth here which must be noted. We are not the same people we were in 1950 or 1960. This is not the same country.
“One of the most substantial changes in white racial attitudes has been the movement from very substantial opposition to the principle of racial equality to one of almost universal support. For example, in 1942, just 32 percent of whites agreed that whites and blacks should attend the same schools; in 1995, when the question was last asked, 96 percent of whites agreed. In 1944, only 45 percent of whites agreed that blacks should have “as good a chance as white people to get any kind of job,” but by 1972 almost all whites agreed with this statement on equal opportunity (97 percent). Finally, in a question that taps whites’ feelings about a black person holding the highest office in the U.S., Gallup found that in 1958, only 37 percent of whites said they would vote for a black candidate for president; by 1997 that figure was up to 95 percent. (A Portrait of African American and White Racial Attitudes By Maria Krysan and Sarah Moberg, 2016)
The authors go on to note: “What is revealing is that many of the survey questions that tap attitudes toward the principle of equality are no longer included on major national surveys; they have become essentially universally accepted by whites and therefore not deemed as worth asking on surveys.”
Racial discrimination as an individual act of hatred will continue as long as individuals find reasons to hate. But racial discrimination as a systemic fact of the American social/economic fabric – that vanished generations ago. Time to recognize that truth and move on.
I hope Glenn will address Trump's claim that the Fed's focus on DEI, trans rights and climate change has somehow impacted interest rates. I think he can say nonsense like this because many people don't know what the Federal Reserve does.
I don't believe eliminating Johnson's 1965 order prevents those who create a hostile work environment, for whatever reason, from being sued. I have never liked the phrase "reverse discrimination" because it implies there are different kinds of racial discrimination. It's similar to the use of the word "transwomen" and also biological woman/man. There are racists of many pigments and they all practice racism.
Cathy Young recently wrote a piece "Trump’s DEI Crackdown Is a Bad Solution to a Real Problem" expressing similar concerns as Glenn does in this post. In her piece, she quotes John for the anti-DEI perspective. She might be an interesting future guest on the Glenn Show.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-dei-crackdown-bad-solution-real-problem-diversity-equity-inclusion
One thing she writes about:
"The first anti-DEI executive order also directs agencies to assess “the number of new DEI hires” under the previous administration."
Isn't the right way to handle this sort of issue just a performance review, rather than seeking to place employees into a "DEI" category based on other reasons. In practice couldn't that lead to singling workers out based on their identities?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
What else needs to be said? legislated? or enforced?
It's immoral, illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race.
But what we saw in the 60's and beyond was the doubled-down emphasis and re-emphasis that such discrimination was really, really wrong (did we tell you it was wrong?), even unto the point of tediously redundant legislation & executive orders, piled one atop the other (turtles all the way down!)
So, as far as Glenn’s concerns go, there is no danger at all that the baby (which is the illegality of racial discrimination) will be thrown out with the disgustingly DIE polluted bathwater ... when common sense dictates, and the law itself requires, that the racial & sexual discrimination which is DIE must end, even as we underline the truth of the Civil Rights Act of ’64 and the importance of non-discrimination.
So no need to worry! Just as there’s no need to wear pants with spandex + a good tight belt and snappy suspenders.
There is, however, a more fundamental issue here...too easily glossed in the neurotic obsession with an endless array of 'thou shalt nots'...and that is the question: what exactly is 'unfair' discrimination? And, probably more importantly, how is ‘unfair/illegal’ discrimination identified and measured?
If I have an open and operationally-critical position in my company and I am looking for 'the best candidate' to fill it (best as measured by work experience, life experience, recommendations, education, and how the candidate interviews)...and I end-up hiring a White male, have I unfairly discriminated? No, of course not, at least not in any way that's measurable. Suppose this is the 4th White Male I've hired for these positions? Still no evidence of unfair discrimination. Suppose in the 12 years my company has existed I've hired only White males into the cumulative 10 openings I've experienced? No, still no evidence of unfair discrimination.
Now a statistician might tell us that the odds that a White Male would be hired, all other things being equal, would be about 3/10. And that would mean the odds that 10 White males would be hired (given 10 openings over 12 years) are very small indeed -- all other things being equal in the absence of discrimination. But all other things aren't equal. They never are.
If the job itself requires an advanced degree in petroleum geology ... and in any given year there are only 16 some graduates in petroleum geology (15 of whom are typically White....and 13 of whom are typically male) then the fact that on 10 different occasions over 10 years I hired 10 White Males is well within the range of ‘normal / to be expected’.
But so what?
Even if there is a significant arithmetic imbalance in hiring (as in the LA Lakers) the fact of demographic imbalance is not evidence that the decisions which drove the imbalance were unfairly, racially biased.
The truth is: no one knows what evil...or what good...lurks in the hearts of men or women...and no one know what goes on behind closed doors, be it good or bad. Did I not hire Bob because Bob was not as well qualified...or did I not hire Bob because Bob was the wrong race or sex? Hell, even I might not know the answer to that question since our own hearts are mysteries, even to ourselves. I may truly believe I didn’t hire Bob because he wasn’t as well qualified or didn’t interview as well as Steve...but maybe – deep down – I didn’t hire Bob because he was fat (and I tend to believe that fat people are lazy). If I don’t truly know, how can anyone else know what is essentially unknowable?
There is another fundamental truth here which must be noted. We are not the same people we were in 1950 or 1960. This is not the same country.
“One of the most substantial changes in white racial attitudes has been the movement from very substantial opposition to the principle of racial equality to one of almost universal support. For example, in 1942, just 32 percent of whites agreed that whites and blacks should attend the same schools; in 1995, when the question was last asked, 96 percent of whites agreed. In 1944, only 45 percent of whites agreed that blacks should have “as good a chance as white people to get any kind of job,” but by 1972 almost all whites agreed with this statement on equal opportunity (97 percent). Finally, in a question that taps whites’ feelings about a black person holding the highest office in the U.S., Gallup found that in 1958, only 37 percent of whites said they would vote for a black candidate for president; by 1997 that figure was up to 95 percent. (A Portrait of African American and White Racial Attitudes By Maria Krysan and Sarah Moberg, 2016)
The authors go on to note: “What is revealing is that many of the survey questions that tap attitudes toward the principle of equality are no longer included on major national surveys; they have become essentially universally accepted by whites and therefore not deemed as worth asking on surveys.”
Racial discrimination as an individual act of hatred will continue as long as individuals find reasons to hate. But racial discrimination as a systemic fact of the American social/economic fabric – that vanished generations ago. Time to recognize that truth and move on.
Wow, what a brilliant post/comment! Thank you so much!
I hope Glenn will address Trump's claim that the Fed's focus on DEI, trans rights and climate change has somehow impacted interest rates. I think he can say nonsense like this because many people don't know what the Federal Reserve does.
I don't believe eliminating Johnson's 1965 order prevents those who create a hostile work environment, for whatever reason, from being sued. I have never liked the phrase "reverse discrimination" because it implies there are different kinds of racial discrimination. It's similar to the use of the word "transwomen" and also biological woman/man. There are racists of many pigments and they all practice racism.