Is Racial Discrimination Illegal or Not?

Donald Trump is finding out.

This video is available on Rumble, BitChute, Odysee, Telegram, and X.

Is racial discrimination in hiring legal? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says no. You can’t “refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual” based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

And yet, 61 years later, there is still widespread, official discrimination against whites, except that it’s called “affirmative action” or, more recently, “diversity, equity and inclusion,” or DEI.

The law requires equal treatment by race, but with equal treatment, you don’t get equal outcomes, and liberals yearn for equal outcomes. That’s why they use all sorts of ways — some open, some covert — to favor preferred groups.

Employers often claim to be “An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Employer.” Well, you can’t be both. Affirmative action means you don’t practice equal opportunity.

This is from the State of Florida’s employment practices. And it’s has been going on for decades.

We’ve had a fine demonstration of this comedy in the legal fight over Donald Trump’s attempt to get rid of DEI. President Joe Biden loved DEI. He issued executive orders that required every part of the government to come up with plans to hire more non-whites, women, homosexuals, and immigrants. And to make sure that government contractors did the same.

How did he square that with civil right law? He insisted — swore on a stack of Bibles — that this was about “removing barriers” to wonderful but neglected people. Not enough Navajos in the State Department? Well, get out there and remove the awful racist barriers that keep them out, and hire them. The result, of course, was discrimination against whites.

And so, Donald Trump issued an executive order called “Ending Illegal Discrimination” to ban “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences” by the government and by contractors.

He also ordered an end to all government grants to anything or anyone who practices DEI, and required that applicants for grants affirm they weren’t up to any DEI stuff.

Of course, there was an immediate federal suit to block these orders The lead plaintiff was none other than the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, whose 2,500 members could end up on the breadline.

Their brief started with the usual window dressing. DEI is all about “fair treatment,” “equal opportunity,” and “equal justice under the law.”

Diversity is “critical in mitigating the harmful effects of centuries of discrimination.”

“This is particularly true at medical schools,” and in “research related to whether and how race and ethnicity affect health outcomes.”

Medical school is the last place you want DEI. You want competence. But the brief goes further: “Diversity results in better knowledge production . . . and fill[s] gaps in our understanding.”

Wow. If you really believe that to get better knowledge you have to have blacks and Hispanics and homosexuals and Buddhists and nudists and fruit-juice drinkers and one-legged African lesbians, then isn’t this almost an admission that you have to shove out pointless white guys if you want to make progress?

The DEI operatives claimed the orders violated the First Amendment, because they were afraid just talking about it could get their funding cut. This was silly because the orders specifically said it’s OK to “endors[e], or promot[e] the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.”

You can talk all you like about how much you’d love to discriminate against white people, so long as you don’t actually do it.

The suit also claimed that banning DEI was unconstitutionally vague because the orders did not define DEI.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote back and said that the only things the orders ban are already illegal under civil rights law. Therefore, if the DEI swamis have a beef about vagueness, it’s “with the federal civil rights laws — not the [Executive Orders]. And the logical (but stunning) consequence of Plaintiffs’ position would be that the federal civil rights laws themselves are void [because of] vagueness.”

In other words, follow the law, don’t discriminate, and you’ll be fine.

Well, Biden appointee, Judge Adam Abelson bought the DEI line.

This is no surprise from a guy who was once vice chair for the Maryland-based Job Opportunities Task Force, which promotes “inclusion” “through the application and promotion of a racial equity lens in every facet of life.”

He ruled that the orders are unconstitutionally vague, and they punish free speech. He even bought the preposterous idea that banning DEI means we can’t talk about the past. “If an elementary school receives Department of Education funding for technology access, and a teacher uses a computer to teach the history of Jim Crow laws, does that risk the grant being deemed ‘equity-related’ and the school being stripped of funding?”

A three-judge panel of the appeals court for the Fourth Circuit unanimously slapped this guy down and reinstated the executive orders. They are not unconstitutionally vague, and they don’t infringe speech. But the case isn’t over. The Fourth Circuit will look into this further, but in the meantime, the executive orders are valid and must be obeyed.

The chief judge of the circuit, a Hispanic named Albert Diaz, couldn’t resist a poke at the Trump side: “people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium.”

DEI “creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?”

What could be more American than discrimination against white men?

Another Obama appointee, Pamala Harris, echoed Judge Diaz, and said DEI was great stuff.

Only Trump-appointed Judge Allison Rushing understands what the court’s role is.

A “judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration. A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.”

Actually, I have some sympathy for the DEI boys when they claim that the executive orders are vague. If, as the Trump boys say, the law on discrimination is clear, could they not just indict the law-breakers? Who needs an executive order when you have statute law? Of course, even if the law is clear — as I noted in the beginning — it’s been twisted inside out by people determined to discriminate in favor of their special pets.

Something else to consider: I’m glad the government has been ordered to stop discriminating against people like me. It’s about time. Government should treat people equally. However, individuals and private companies should have the right to discriminate — on any grounds. That Civil Rights Act of 1964 deprived Americans of the ancient and fundamental right to choose their associates. At present, it is tempting to applaud when Donald Trump says he is going to stop racial discrimination in the private sector, because most of that discrimination is against whites.

But ultimately, I want complete freedom of association, and that means the right of private citizens to discriminate in all areas of their lives — for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all.