Once upon a Friday, a federal judiciary, Judge Adam Abelson who is stationed in Baltimore, decided to challenge an effective executive directive given by President Donald Trump. The order was part of proactive measures to increase process efficiency across various government initiatives. The instruction was to prioritize other important projects over equity, diversity, and inclusion programs due to their frequent clash with federal civil rights laws. This determination by the President was primarily about steering funds in a direction that would be in line with his government’s primary objectives.
President Trump’s order on the first day at the helm of affairs specifically directed all federal agencies to review and possibly terminate equity-related grants or contracts. It was an assertive step towards reducing unnecessary expenditures and promoting more beneficial programs. This was followed by another move where all the federal contractors were to pledge their commitment not to push for DEI agendas.
Several entities, including the city of Baltimore and some higher education groups, ironically decided to put up a lawsuit against the Trump administration. They claimed that these administrative orders were a direct violation of the constitution and an apparent overstretch of presidential authority. These allegations, however, do not showcase the holistic picture, given that the intentions were to streamline spending according to the government’s priorities.
There were also allegations regarding the supposed curtailment of free speech. However, the true motive of these orders was to curtail those DEI programs that contradict federal civil rights laws. Government attorneys further emphasized that it is reasonable to align federal spending with the Presidential priorities, challenging the claim that these orders overstep on the President’s authority.
Interestingly, Judge Adam Abelson, originally nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, sided with the plaintiffs. He claimed the executive orders essentially deterred businesses, organizations, and public entities from openly supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, this observation misses the point that the President was after DEI programs that violate the constitution and not the concept of DEI itself.
While allowing room for the Attorney General to study and prepare a report on DEI practices, Judge Abelson’s decision sought to curb enforcement. The basis for this action was his argument that the orders were somewhat unclear. He maintained that federal contractors and grant beneficiaries would struggle to comply because the orders didn’t paint a clear picture regarding adjustments needed to fulfill them.
Abelson illustrated his point using everyday examples, such as a scenario where an elementary school would receive Department of Education funding for technological assistance. If a teacher, benefitted by this technology, teaches about the Jim Crow laws, does this qualify as an ‘equity-related’ issue? Moreover, if funds acquired via road construction grants were used to fix issues in disadvantaged neighborhoods instead of wealthy ones, does that mark it as ‘equity-related’? Such hypothetical situations contribute more to confusion than clarity.
The argument surrounding efforts to increase diversity has been a centuries-old debate, with detractors viewing them as threats to a merit-based system. They believe this system is undermined when biased measures are put in place under the guise of diversity. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that DEI measures play a crucial role in meeting the needs of a diverse populace while addressing the residual effects of systematic racism. Despite their good intentions, most of these DEI measures ended up breaching the federal civil rights law.
Legal representatives for the plaintiffs contended that the sudden end to such programs, as directed by President Trump, would lead to extended damage. This claim stood mainly on the ambiguity of language in the executive orders. Among the plaintiffs was the city of Baltimore which receives federal funds for various public services, stoking questions about how these funds would be re-allocated with the orders.
Brandon Scott, the Mayor of Baltimore who secured his re-election last year, has showed marked efforts in creating opportunities for the city’s underprivileged citizens, specifically the people of color. Despite targeted racial slurs online that wrongfully labeled him a ‘DEI mayor,’ Scott did not let such negative comments slow him down. Instead, he used that term positively, inferring that he ‘Definitely Earned It’ for the feats he achieved throughout his administrative history.
Among other plaintiffs, the case also saw the participation of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United. These organizations which represent various academics and restaurant workers nationwide claimed that they had experienced the adverse effects of the executive orders.
Their statements suggested that President Trump was encroaching on Congressional powers and trying to suppress views he didn’t agree with. However, this needs to be critically examined. Is the President really suppressing free speech, or is he simply promoting adherence to federal civil rights laws? This, as has been the case throughout the article, seems largely a matter of perception.