Nope, for lots of reasons.
Thinking about Alcoa.. I have a soft spot in my heart for Paul O’Neill.
1 Like
But it is not unconstitutional.
AI Overview
While some court decisions and legal opinions challenge DEI programs, particularly in the context of affirmative action, the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in higher education specifically does not render all DEI programs unconstitutional. The ruling primarily addresses race-conscious admissions policies in colleges and universities, not DEI initiatives in workplaces. DEI programs in workplaces are generally legal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
- Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action:
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education. This ruling means universities can no longer consider race as a factor in admissions decisions.
- DEI in the Workplace:
The ruling does not directly impact DEI programs in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
- Unlawful DEI:
Some DEI initiatives, policies, or programs may be unlawful if they involve an employer taking an employment action based on an individual’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.
- Legal DEI:
Well-designed DEI programs that focus on fair employment processes and equal opportunities for all workers are generally legal.
- Ongoing Legal Challenges:
Despite the legality of many DEI programs, there are ongoing legal challenges to some aspects of DEI, particularly those involving race-based eligibility criteria or policies that could be seen as discriminatory.
- Executive Orders and Legal Challenges:
Some executive orders, like those issued by the Trump administration, have sought to restrict DEI programs, but these have faced legal challenges. A federal court in Maryland temporarily blocked some provisions of the Trump administration’s executive orders, ruling them unconstitutional.
- EEOC Guidance:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that it remains lawful for employers to implement DEI programs that ensure workers of all backgrounds are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace.
3 Likes
I agree, but…the current court has shown its willingness to “bend” the Constitution to its will and to throw out stare decisis whenever it wants.
Pete
4 Likes
This has everything to do with abandoning free speech. The Executive branch is using the IRS to attack american citizens openly. How any Citizen of the United States could be for this is very telling. This is the first brick in the wall.
4 Likes
No, I got the point. IRS denied tax exempt status. I gather you did not read your own link. Context matters. Nuance matters.
To quote:
Pursuant to a 1970 revision to IRS regulations that limited tax-exempt status to private schools without racially discriminatory admissions policies.
Now, if you can point to an IRS regulation that limits tax exempt status based on the absence of DEI, then the two cases have something in common.
5 Likes
Exceptionally unlikely since DEI isn’t even well defined.
4 Likes
Agreed, SCOTUS would have to define it first. This seems more unlikely than black dude accused of sexual harassment passing confirmation to be a justice. Oh crap…
2 Likes
FUD trumps the Constitution? What an amazing country!
The Captain
When you can’t point to any reference of DEI (either a protection of, or a prohibition of) in the Constitution, you let me know. I can be patient.
Edit: For those interested in what the court stated when they ruled against Affirmative Action in college admissions:
The Court noted, however, that “nothing in [the] opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
Notably, the Court did not expressly overrule Grutter in its decision, as SFFA had called for. It instead applied Grutter and highlighted the “serious reservations … [it] had about racial preferences” and the limitations it placed on race-based admissions programs, including its restriction on using race for stereotyping and its emphasis that race-based admissions programs “must have reasonable durational limits” and that such “deviation from the norm of equal treatment” must be a “temporal matter.” Additionally, the Court in its majority opinion did not specifically evaluate the admissions programs under Title VI — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance — instead reciting the principle that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also violates Title VI.
The court had a chance to be more expansive on this issue and it declined.
I serious doubt the fact that Harvard offers “Bias Training” or that it promotes “Pay Equity” is going to violate any of the above.
4 Likes
“If we’re gonna fight fire with fire”
Exactly. TIG can spew a firehose of lies, but his opponents are supposed to play by the rules ?? For every lie TIG spews, we match it with a whopper of our own. Makes as much sense as anything else that is going on today.
4 Likes
I find that amusing coming from you.
3 Likes
Dayton Public Schools Board of Education voted unanimously Thursday against signing a federal document that school board members said would substantively limit the schools’ ability to do their job.
President Donald Trump’s administration sent out a letter to all U.S. schools on April 3, requiring them to verify that they did not use diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or other programs to “advantage one’s race over another.”
The document also says that institutions that use DEI practices in violation of federal law may face lawsuits from the U.S. Department of Justice and may forfeit previous funds that were paid to them under contracts and grants.
Earlier this week, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce sent a letter to public schools in Ohio demanding they respond to the letter and ODEW by 11:59 p.m. Friday.
Dayton Public could lose roughly $50 million because of their refusal to sign, according to district officials.
5 Likes
The ignorance is astounding.
The astounding ignorance is not astounding, it is long standing, obdurate, stoopid, and often full of hate (and often is simply habit and blindness).
That DEI has become the Right Racist Agitators new N and Q slogan is no surprise at all.
4 Likes
I was raised in an African American town. I did not cut my teeth on hatred.
Hatred starts with self. Younger men are part of the shame we are witnessing before the world.
4 Likes
You win! There is no reference to the DEI acronym in the Constitution! If that were the basis of law, law would be garbage. I have to admit that often the ‘LETTERS’ of the law prevent justice.
One needs to dig deeper, beyond politics and lucre, to find justice. America has a legacy of racism that most other countries have managed to outgrow. Ask yourself why America, unlike most countries, has not managed to bury racism and let it rest in peace, why is it still a top ten topic.
I’m not going to comment further, only to say that while I was in Silicon Valley between 1985 and 1990 I did follow Civil Rights policies and figured they would end badly.
The Captain .
1 Like
It does, and neither of us is a lawyer or judge. The similarity I see is that the administration(s) require the schools to adhere to the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws.
This has been the situation for decades, but now the administration’s interpretations of these laws and policies is different. We shall see what the courts think.
DB2
1 Like
This happened in the Arab Muslim world in the 1500s.
What is happening to US colleges
Possibly. But since the SCOTUS and US government required and encouraged DEI in the first place, I’d say Harvard has a has a pretty good argument they shouldn’t be punished for things they legally had to do to be in compliance.
2 Likes