legal challenges to workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

Seems like in recent times, workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have come under attack from right-wing sources.
Some have even claimed it is racist to have these policies

one example (headed by Stephen Miller):

America First Legal Blasts the NFL’s Illegal and Racist “Rooney Rule,” Files Federal Civil Rights Complaint

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a federal civil rights complaint against the National Football League (NFL) for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and engaging in race and sex discrimination. America First Legal also sent a letter to the NFL...

aflegal.org

The Rooney Rule interview policy is in clear violation of civil rights law which prohibits hiring practices that limit, segregate, or classify applicants for employment because of race, color, and/or sex. America First Legal is unrelenting in its fight to dismantle the DEI industrial complex that cuts at the heart of equality.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Being opposed to Stephen Miller is always a good thing

 

[Optimus Prime]

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Diversity initiatives would be defunded or banned from universities and other public institutions under a slate of bills pending in Republican-led legislatures, with some lawmakers counting on the issue resonating with voters in this election year.

Already this year, Republican lawmakers have proposed about 50 bills in 20 states that would restrict initiatives on diversity, equity and inclusion — known as DEI — or require their public disclosure, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural.

This is the second year Republican-led state governments have targeted DEI. This year’s bills, as well as executive orders and internal agency directives, again focus heavily on higher education. But the legislation also would limit DEI in K-12 schools, state government, contracting and pension investments. Some bills would bar financial institutions from discriminating against those who refuse to participate in DEI programs.

Meanwhile, Democrats have filed about two dozen bills in 11 states that would require or promote DEI initiatives. The bills cover a broad spectrum, including measures to reverse Florida’s recent ban on DEI in higher education and measures to require DEI considerations in K-12 school curricula in Washington state.

The Supreme Court’s June decision ending affirmative action at universities has created a new legal landscape around diversity programs in the workplace and civil society.

But DEI’s emergence as a political rallying cry has its roots on campus, with Republican opponents saying the programs are discriminatory and promote left-wing ideology. Democratic supporters say the programs are necessary for ensuring institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse student populations.……

Republican lawmakers are backing dozens of bills targeting diversity efforts on campus and elsewhere

Diversity initiatives would be defunded or banned from universities and other public institutions under a slate of bills pending in Republican-led legislatures, with some lawmakers counting on the issue resonating with voters in this election year.

apnews.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

This is the second year Republican-led state governments have targeted DEI. This year’s bills, as well as executive orders and internal agency directives, again focus heavily on higher education. But the legislation also would limit DEI in K-12 schools, state government, contracting and pension investments. Some bills would bar financial institutions from discriminating against those who refuse to participate in DEI programs.

when your party is led by a racist this is somehow not racist?

 

[zztop]

spoiler alert: It is Utah, maybe the whitest state in America

The State That’s Trying to Rein in DEI Without Becoming Florida

How should public institutions in a diverse society treat identity?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

As all Black folk have quickly come to learn, ”DEI” has become not only a euphemism for the favorite slur of racists near and far, but a target of GOP legislators nationwide.

The latest example of this is The University of Texas at Austin laying off about 60 people who used to work in diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as first reported bythe Austin American-Statesmanand later confirmed by UT Austin President Jay Hartzell in an email.

“I recognize that strong feelings have surrounded SB 17 from the beginning and will shape many Longhorns’ perceptions of these measures,” Hartzell wrote, referring to state legislation that led to the layoffs. “It is also important that this continues to be a welcoming, supportive community for all.”

Senate Bill 17, which bans DEI initiatives at Texas’ public colleges and universities, was passed last year and went into effect in January. State Sen. Brandon Creighton (R) had warned institutions that they could see their funding frozen if they did not comply.

As a Texan, I am disturbed by the legislation but not shocked that the open hostility toward Black people has been codified into law. However, when it comes to the matter of “what now,” I hope that Texans and others being placed into this predicament by Republicans look to Alabama on how to respond.

During this most recent Black History Month, in what can only be classified as a very 2024 move, a white lawmaker introduced a bill to ban taxpayer-funded diversity, equity and inclusion departments in Alabama. Speaking to reporters about his legislation, state Sen. Will Barfoot (R) said: “We shouldn’t be forcing or teaching to children that one race or sex or religion is better than the other. Those are just some of the divisive concepts that are listed in there.”

Based on my recollection of Republican complaints about Black people in recent years, Barfoot seems to be repurposing political talking points about critical race theory, which was not designed to make white children cry and is not typically taught in their K-12 public schools.

What does that have to do with DEI?

Negroes are involved in both!

Barfoot won’t just flat-out say it that way, but close enough.

The bill would prohibit “state agencies, local boards of education, and public institutions of higher education, from maintaining a diversity, equity, and inclusion office or department or sponsoring any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or program that advocates for a divisive concept.”

It would also prohibit public entities from “promoting, endorsing, or requiring affirmation of ... certain divisive concepts relating to race, sex, or religion.”

So it sounds like no Black graduations at predominately white schools. No Pride celebrations on any campuses. Insert everything else not straight and white gone too. In spite of the wording, Barfoot maintains that the bill would not lead to the sanitizing of his state’s history with racism.

“There is specific language in there that encourages and authorizes, continues to authorize the teaching of historically-accurate history, and certainly, I think that is a fabric of what has made Alabama from a history standpoint...the good, bad and the ugly,” he explained.

“I don’t think we need to gloss over that.”

The phrase “historically-accurate history” explains everything about what that “specific language” means.

After all, who better to trust with accurate depictions of U.S. history — especially when it comes to racism and slavery — than one of the Confederacy’s VIP members, the state of Alabama?

Understandably, Black lawmakers are tired of the stunts from their neo-Confederate colleagues.

Speaking on the Senate floor after the legislation was filed, Alabama state Sen. Rodger Smitherman (D) said: “You’re trying to destroy every black person in this state. You’re trying to destroy them. That’s what you’re doing. If you don’t think that this critical race theory bill doesn’t wipe us out as a race…it wipes us out. It wipes everything that has been accomplished by African-Americans or the avenues and the valleys that are open for them to have an opportunity in this state is wiped out.”

Separately, state Sen. Kirk Hatcher (D) suggested that he might resign over the legislation.

“I’m just tired,” he said in committee. “I’m praying about a letter that I penned to resign from the Senate. I can’t do things like this.”

Democrats are expected to filibuster the legislation, but given the state of the GOP, the decimation of all DEI-related programs will remain a top priority. So it may be only a matter of time.

As many college students across universities in Texas are learning, the absence of those programs and the communities they benefit will be felt the second they’re deemed illegal............

MSN

 

[zztop]

Guess I'll put this here

https://www.fastcompany.com/91180452/dei-freefall-continues-now-u-s-home-improvement-chain

The retailer also will no longer participate in an annual survey by the Human Rights Campaign that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees, and will also stop sponsoring and participating in events, such as festivals and parades, that are outside of its business areas.

The changes were made to ensure Lowe’s policies are “lawful” and aligned with its commitment to “include everyone,” the memo states.

 

[Dragon]

One thing that always surprises me about the US is that race is even recorded. Race is such an artificial construct. Why is a person's race considered a part of their official identity? We register eye color, height, gender, and take a picture—that should be enough. Recording hair color wouldn't make sense since many people change it throughout their lives. Similarly, how many people are purely of "one" race? I would guess most people have a mixed heritage.

 

[RobF]

One thing that always surprises me about the US is that race is even recorded. Race is such an artificial construct. Why is a person's race considered a part of their official identity? We register eye color, height, gender, and take a picture—that should be enough. Recording hair color wouldn't make sense since many people change it throughout their lives. Similarly, how many people are purely of "one" race? I would guess most people have a mixed heritage.

I'd like to make a long response to this, because it's a complex question and there's a lot of nuance to it, but unfortunately I don't have time.

What I will do is point to discussions about France, where they don't collect data on race and ethnicity. Here's a Washington Post article about one specific and practical aspect of that recently - responding to COVID:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/coronavirus-france-race-data/2020/06/25/e5b4d0a6-b58d-11ea-9a1d-d3db1cbe07ce_story.html

Patrick Simon, a senior researcher focusing on immigration and discrimination at France’s National Institute for Demographic Studies, said France would be in a better position to save lives if it knew whether certain ethnicities were overrepresented among coronavirus cases and deaths.​

​

“Not to see minorities as a means of protecting them doesn’t hold,” he said. “It’s necessary to bolster the information we have to protect people.”​

​

Jennifer Kauffmann, an emergency room doctor at Jean-Verdier Hospital in Bondy, said the absence of statistics means screening strategies might not be focused on the right groups.​

​

There are, of course, particular historic reasons that led to France (and also Germany I think) deliberately not recording that information. Like I said, it's definitely a complex topic when you dig into it. Personally, I'd lean towards collecting the data, because it is highly relevant to understanding contemporary problems, including where disparities are and how they can be addressed. But at the same time, I wouldn't dismiss the reasons for the reluctance to collect that information outright.

 

[LA - L.A.]

One thing that always surprises me about the US is that race is even recorded. Race is such an artificial construct. Why is a person's race considered a part of their official identity? We register eye color, height, gender, and take a picture—that should be enough. Recording hair color wouldn't make sense since many people change it throughout their lives. Similarly, how many people are purely of "one" race? I would guess most people have a mixed heritage.

I agree race is an artificial construct and it was constructed to treat some humans as inferior sub-human species. There is only one human race/species. Skin color differences do not make us different races just as eye or hair color differences don't.

 

[Dragon]

I'd like to make a long response to this, because it's a complex question and there's a lot of nuance to it, but unfortunately I don't have time.

What I will do is point to discussions about France, where they don't collect data on race and ethnicity. Here's a Washington Post article about one specific and practical aspect of that recently - responding to COVID:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/coronavirus-france-race-data/2020/06/25/e5b4d0a6-b58d-11ea-9a1d-d3db1cbe07ce_story.html

Patrick Simon, a senior researcher focusing on immigration and discrimination at France’s National Institute for Demographic Studies, said France would be in a better position to save lives if it knew whether certain ethnicities were overrepresented among coronavirus cases and deaths.​

​

“Not to see minorities as a means of protecting them doesn’t hold,” he said. “It’s necessary to bolster the information we have to protect people.”​

​

Jennifer Kauffmann, an emergency room doctor at Jean-Verdier Hospital in Bondy, said the absence of statistics means screening strategies might not be focused on the right groups.​

​

There are, of course, particular historic reasons that led to France (and also Germany I think) deliberately not recording that information. Like I said, it's definitely a complex topic when you dig into it. Personally, I'd lean towards collecting the data, because it is highly relevant to understanding contemporary problems, including where disparities are and how they can be addressed. But at the same time, I wouldn't dismiss the reasons for the reluctance to collect that information outright.

The conclusion is flawed because, as I mentioned, over time, people intermarry, and many are unaware of their ancestral history. While you might gain some medical insights from broad generalizations, these insights are less effective compared to what can be achieved with a simple genetic test. You don't need to categorize people into "boxes."

For instance, conducting a genome test on individuals who are experiencing severe outcomes from a disease (at a cost of $300 to $1,000) can help identify overlapping gene sequences or common genetic markers. Once these markers are identified, a far less expensive and targeted test can be developed for individuals suspected of carrying the disease or those already diagnosed. This approach can more accurately determine the risk of a more severe infection or complication.

 

[RobF]

The conclusion is flawed because, as I mentioned, over time, people intermarry, and many are unaware of their ancestral history. While you might gain some medical insights from broad generalizations, these insights are less effective compared to what can be achieved with a simple genetic test. You don't need to categorize people into "boxes."

For instance, conducting a genome test on individuals who are experiencing severe outcomes from a disease (at a cost of $300 to $1,000) can help identify overlapping gene sequences or common genetic markers. Once these markers are identified, a far less expensive and targeted test can be developed for individuals suspected of carrying the disease or those already diagnosed. This approach can more accurately determine the risk of a more severe infection or complication.

I'm not sure I follow; the conclusion is rooted in broad generalizations, both because definitions of race and ethnicity are inherently broad, and because a broad approach would appear fundamentally necessary in targeting disparities, because we don't have precise individual data.

Maybe an example would help. Say France had carried out genome tests and identified a marker indicating a higher risk. How would that then be used to target a response to address those at higher risk?

 

[Dragon]

I'm not sure I follow; the conclusion is rooted in broad generalizations, both because definitions of race and ethnicity are inherently broad, and because a broad approach would appear fundamentally necessary in targeting disparities, because we don't have precise individual data.

Maybe an example would help. Say France had carried out genome tests and identified a marker indicating a higher risk. How would that then be used to target a response to address those at higher risk?

Well, I can only speak about what would be done here. Specifically, a genome test would be conducted alongside the COVID test when people visit the doctor's office. If a particular genome is identified, a more aggressive treatment plan can be implemented.

Regarding the issue of ghettos mentioned in the article, the government here launched specific COVID awareness campaigns with posters at bus stops and other public places. These campaigns didn't target ethnic groups but rather focused on reaching those who might not typically follow official messages due to various reasons. The higher COVID mortality rates were less about ethnic origin and more about people living on the "margins of society."

 

[SystemShock]

One thing that always surprises me about the US is that race is even recorded. Race is such an artificial construct. Why is a person's race considered a part of their official identity? We register eye color, height, gender, and take a picture—that should be enough. Recording hair color wouldn't make sense since many people change it throughout their lives. Similarly, how many people are purely of "one" race? I would guess most people have a mixed heritage.

By that logic, why even register eye color ( can change it with contacts), height (shoe inserts, heels, sole thickness), gender (which can change depending how a person feels at a moment in time, not necessarily a physical description) or take a picture (plastic surgery, weight gain-loss, beard, tan, skin bleach)? Or even someone's name (marriage, name change to fit in, ).

Maybe we should all just be a number and a DNA sample.

Anyway, as @RobF says, that's a question that requires a long response, that starts with the huge difference between Denmark, a country of ~6M overwhelmingly Danish people, vis a vis the U.S., a country of about 335M people, flooded from people from all corners of the world since the establishment of the original 13 colonies, a country that 1/3 of its land mass used to be Mexico, a country that includes some 1500 native ethnic groups, a country in which ethnic groups maintain ethnic and cultural identities, a country that's trying to correct the sins of its past, a country that even in its whiteness includes ethnic/cultural diversity,...

 

[Dragon]

It's not that uniform—about 20% of our citizens are not of Scandinavian origin. Still, I stand by my claim: people should be free to identify however they want and maintain their cultural differences, but on official documents, they should all be identified as Danish—nothing else. Differentiating on identification papers can foster an "us vs. them" mentality.

As I mentioned, why should a child of an African American and an Anglo-Saxon American be registered as African American? What's the logic behind that? Currently, if a child has one non-white parent, they are often registered as belonging to the non-white parent's ethnic group. This makes no sense at all.

 

[bird]

It's not that uniform—about 20% of our citizens are not of Scandinavian origin. Still, I stand by my claim: people should be free to identify however they want and maintain their cultural differences, but on official documents, they should all be identified as Danish—nothing else. Differentiating on identification papers can foster an "us vs. them" mentality.

As I mentioned, why should a child of an African American and an Anglo-Saxon American be registered as African American? What's the logic behind that? Currently, if a child has one non-white parent, they are often registered as belonging to the non-white parent's ethnic group. This makes no sense at all.

If Mrs. Bird is filling out a form which calls for stating which race she is she checks “other” and writes “human”.

 

[bird]

Imo, what has been happening, particularly on the right but perhaps among some on the left/independent is the rise of xenophobia which is a holdover from Europe. Previously being an American simply meant that you were a citizen. Not anymore. If there was anything “exceptional” about this country it was that. Anybody could become an American. Now, we have the “real American” bullschlitz.

It is all tribalism writ large.

 

[SystemShock]

It's not that uniform—about 20% of our citizens are not of Scandinavian origin. Still, I stand by my claim: people should be free to identify however they want and maintain their cultural differences, but on official documents, they should all be identified as Danish—nothing else. Differentiating on identification papers can foster an "us vs. them" mentality.

As I mentioned, why should a child of an African American and an Anglo-Saxon American be registered as African American? What's the logic behind that? Currently, if a child has one non-white parent, they are often registered as belonging to the non-white parent's ethnic group. This makes no sense at all.

Anglo-Saxon American... that's a good one.

80% of Scandinavian origin is a lot, don't you think?

You are ignoring the history and demographics of the U.S., and really, America (as in the continent). Migrants from all over the world have not flooded Denmark for a couple hundred years, establishing their own colonies; Denmark wasn't colonized by 4 different empires (the territory that makes the U.S. today was colonized at one point by the British, Spaniards, and French) and doesn't have 1500 different ethnic native groups...

And in the U.S. no one that I'm aware of comes to your house to tell you what you are and registers you as such. Although God forbid if you are white you identify as something other than white (just ask Rachel Dolezal).

And when you are dealing with so many cultural backgrounds, there are some valid practical applications...

Ever heard of the Marshmallow Test? Or Cognitive Functioning?
It's a test developed in the 1970s. In the test, a marshmallow is placed in front of a child. The child is told they can have the 1 marshmallow now, or don't eat it, wait 15 minutes, and then they can have 2. The research concluded that those children who waited the 15 minutes did better later in life in many areas, some of them being SAT scores, weight, etc.

But there was an issue with this test: it did not account for cultural differences among the test subjects. Some examples: Black children who didn't take the marshmallow because they were afraid of the white testers, or black people not being as conscious of weight as whites, so higher body mass as adults doesn't count as a failure in adulthood (they like big butts and they cannot lie)... kids of Mexican descent who left the room, because they didn't care that much about sweets and felt weird staying put in a room by themselves (go to a Mexican supermarket and you'll see why).

So, yes, there are a number of cultural differences that need to be taken into account in education, the workforce, healthcare, etc., simply because they exist in the U.S.

And speaking of healthcare a child of an African American and an "Anglo-Saxon American", another quick example, people of African descent are much more prone to diseases like sickle cell disease, kidney disease, etc... of course, when a person goes to a hospital, that's easily determined... however, it is important information when new hospitals/clinics are being built, and medical resources allocated.