On September 22, President Trump signed the Decree on Combating Racial and Gender Stereotypes.
The ordinance speaks of “racial or sexual stereotypes”, which are defined as the act of “attributing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status or beliefs to a race or a sex, or to an individual because of their race or sex. Federal agencies or entities that receive federal funds are prohibited from stereotyping in their training or education procedures. If an organization wants federal money, for example, its material cannot claim that men are racist, sexist, or oppressive just because they are male, white, or heterosexual. This constitutes a racial and sexual stereotype.
The order has teeth in two ways. Presumably, the executive can enforce compliance within its own federal agencies. Tax recipients, including entrepreneurs, who do not comply may be excluded or forfeited their “licenses”; a university could lose federal money, student access to federal loans, or accreditation.
People oppose government involvement in discrimination issues, and rightly so, because individuals have the right to freedom of association. The law does not have to regulate peaceful interactions or refusals to interact. But the government is already involved until the end and the decree aims to take several steps back. Additionally, the dynamics of discrimination or stereotypes change when it is a government agency or tax-funded entity that discriminates. They are accountable to the public for how tax money is used, or they should be. And the cash reserve should never be used to promote unequal treatment of people on the basis of their race or gender. (Whether laws or funding should exist is an important but separate discussion.)
Discrimination against men is currently common in government agencies and among federal tax recipients. The past few decades have transformed men into a disadvantaged class that is virtually excluded from federal services, such as DOJ-funded domestic violence (DV) programs.1 The redefinition of discrimination by decree – racial and gender stereotypes – is a long overdue challenge and rejection of identity politics and its dogmatic mantra that men oppress women, that men and women are class enemies, and that men bring it in. It is only after discrediting the ideology of identity politics that the laws, policies and institutions that result from it can be dismantled.
What specifically redefines the command?
It begins with Martin Luther King Jr.’s most famous statement “I dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Today King’s dream has been turned upside down for justice for his children require discrimination based on race and sex. Character content is secondary at best.
Two ideological tendencies have accomplished this feat: identity politics and critical race theory. Identity politics asserts that individuals are not defined by their choices or character, but by the class or classes to which they belong – white or minority, male or female, for example. Critical Race Theory is a postmodern framework by which all institutions and dynamics of society are analyzed in terms of race and hierarchy. The decree sums up these trends: “Many people push for a different view that relies on hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than on the inherent and equal dignity of each person as an individual.” This vision sees America as “an irreparably racist and sexist country” in which “some people, simply because of their race or gender, are oppressors.” In contrast, the Executive Order returns to King’s dream by removing funding for tax-paid diversity and anti-racism training that is based on identity politics and critical race theory. In theory, the ordinance means that all federally funded training will cease.
It seems like a serious push. A September 4 memorandum issued by the Bureau of Management and Budget paved the way for the decree. “Federal Government Training” asked agencies to “begin to identify any contracts or other agency expenses related to any training on critical race theory” or institutional racism. The memo outraged and alarmed its targets, of course, who seem equally serious about resisting the push. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 700,000 federal and DC employees, quickly condemned him. “As racial injustice continues to rock this nation,” said AFGE National President, “we should build more bridges of understanding. But all this president seems to know how to do is build walls of division. Obstruction of one form or another is likely.
To anchor the coming conflict in practical reality: what type of agency is targeted, and precisely for what? Three examples are instructive. The command distinguishes:
- The Treasury Department, an executive department, which held a seminar claiming that “virtually all white people … contribute to racism”. Participants were asked to avoid advocating color blindness or letting “people’s skills and personalities make them stand out”. Judging people on their merits is considered racist.
- Argonne National Laboratories, a federal entity, which has stated in its documents that racism is “woven into every fabric of America” and describes “color blindness” or the promotion of a “meritocracy” as “actions of bias.”
- The Smithsonian Institution, largely federally funded, has asserted that concepts like “[o]rational and objective linear thinking ”,[h]and the “nuclear family” were “divisive aspects and assumptions of whiteness”.
Obviously, the new policy will be applied aggressively at all levels.
Perhaps the most interesting institutions to watch out for are universities. They are sources of identity politics and critical race theory, as well as pioneers in the demonization of men. Almost all universities receive federal funds – if not directly, indirectly through mechanisms such as student loans. In theory, this means that everyone will radically change their training materials and possibly their programs. Academics have also reacted with indignation and concern. In a joint statement, the deans of the University of California’s five law schools unusually passionately defended critical race theory, calling Trump’s rhetoric “rhetoric evoking McCarthyism and the Red Fear.” Obstruction of one form or another is likely.
Universities have reason to be afraid, because a judgment day may be near. Just consider one way this policy change could alter the American campus. Each women’s studies program promotes the theory of patriarchy, which is defined as an “unjust social system that subordinates, discriminates or oppresses women.” The oppressors are men as a class; the victims are women and minorities. This makes all women’s studies programs guilty of the gender stereotypes described in the ordinance. In theory, these programs must abandon their ideology or risk being withdrawn from funding and losing their accreditation.
The words in theory should be stressed when considering the impact of the decree, as a bureaucratic reaction is inevitable, and it will be fierce. Universities are bastions of impenetrable infrastructure that close ranks when attacked. Exposing the system as intellectually corrupt, cruelly discriminatory and vicious towards the young men in its charge will make the cars spin. Universities are the hill on which this executive order can die.
The invoice is due. This time the cost is falling on universities rather than male students. Will the system pay? If it happens on campus, it will happen everywhere else.
Or universities could become the springboard for a healthier method of how people should relate to each other, that is, as individuals who log in based on their own merit rating. of each one. Social justice has spread from campus to Main Street; perhaps it is the same with reason and respect for the individual.
#Trumps #race #gender #decree #eases #political #madness #thrown #men #Dateway