Trump EO means it is no longer unlawful for employers etc., to discriminate against women, PoC , etc..

Detailed article that may be of interest to the thread:

https://badfacts.substack.com/p/america-changes-sides

"In this post I’ll break down what the EO means for American life and what’s changed already."

@BonfireLady that's how it reads to me as well.

From the link that you provided OP, I found another link to all the current employment laws:

https://www.eeoc.gov/equal-employment-opportunity-laws

There are lots in there covering various different types of discrimination, including age, disability and pregnancy - phew! The screenshot and link below is the one that covers sex, race, sexual orientation and gender identity:

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964

It seems odd that (according to the screenshot) the definition of sex would include sexual orientation and gender identity when describing discrimination. But presumably the new EO that was in the news this week will lead to a removal of gender identity from the definition of the word sex. Obviously sexual orientation isn't affected by the new EO so, as bizarre as it is that the definition of the word sex includes sexual orientation, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation remains unlawful.

What's not clear is how the revoking of EO 11246 would affect this employment act so as to mean "it is no longer unlawful for employers etc., to discriminate against women, PoC , etc." IANAL, but I don't think it does.

It sounds like what's going to happen, following the revoking of EO 11246, is that federal employment law will no longer legally obligate employers to "balance the books" by taking positive action to aim for an equal ratio by sex and race. Instead, it sounds like ratios don't matter any more and it's been dialled back to basic anti-discrimination law, where an individual can't be discriminated against on the basis of their sex or race. Other discrimination laws (age, disability etc) remain unaffected.

Same applies in Maine, which is a 90% white state (ess than it used to be - we have a burgeoning African-American community in southern Maine, though northern Maine is still mostly white).

This change will be good for businesses trying to get contracts outside of major metropolitan areas.

Nothing like trying to get a contract as an innovative business in rural Montana, and failing to qualify because your employees are too white.

Thanks goodness they can still discriminated against the disabled. I was staring to worry things had gone too far.

The whole affirmative action thing is hated by so many in the US, it is seen as being totally counter to the American Dream that you get ahead by reasons of your own hard work and merit. It prioritises race in a way which is divisive.

I have an old friend who emigrated to the US 40yrs ago, she worked her way up in academia, became Dean of her college - was replaced a few years ago by a much less qualified black woman after the college did a DEI audit.

You can't create an equal society by putting less qualified people in positions of power, it's window dressing. You have to address the roots of inequality.

I'm not sure you understand how DEIA - or discrimination in the workplace - works. I'll attach an image I always find helpful to illustrate to differences between reality, equality, equity and liberation.

Another interpretation

For all employers, whether they are federal contractors, the EO does not change the law relating to employment discrimination

www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/trump-administration-revokes-eo-11246-prohibits-illegal-dei-what-eo-ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity-means

Surely affirmative action is at odds with providing equal employment opportunity?

I think OP just put "affirmative action" there to bait people so she could lecture them for "misunderstanding".

Or has Trump or someone from his camp been highlighting the "affirmative action" phrase that occurs in the order to justify it?

Maybe they just searched for all orders with "affirmative action" and "employment" in... I can imagine that's something they'd do.

Obviously a new President can't just repeal laws, but they can immediately overturn any executive orders.

(Which is why it's very important to get anything you want to not be subject to presidential whim actually enacted in law. As lots of employment rights have been over decades, hence making the premise of the thread incorrect.)

the resulting law (link above) has been blocked.

How do you think that works?

A 1965 executive order applying only to federal contractors is revoked and subsequent general legislation vanishes in a puff of smoke?

(Is this another of those "I wanted to get something (misleading) into the search engines" threads?)

Surely affirmative action is at odds with providing equal employment opportunity?

Or the WP is scare mongering.

Maybe this?

Discrimination on the basis of sex, race and sexual orientation is still unlawful.
It's affirmative action/positive discrimination which has been made unlawful.

If I'm understanding it correctly, the EO from 1965 that said "affirmative action" was needed (to bed in the Civil Rights Act) eventually led to the the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972. The EEOC has gradually been extended to define and remove different types discrimination in the workplace. Presumably affirmative action is now leading to what some/many perceive as overreach e.g. quotas that apparently need to be met at the point of hire for diversity of sex, race, sexual orientation gender identity etc.

I haven't read the wording of the EO but dialing the enthusiasm back to this seems broadly sensible....

Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.

... However, presumably it should also say sexual orientation, age, religion/belief (or lack of) and disability. Is this protection covered elsewhere or not at all now?

Sorry but positive discrimination should never have been permitted. If your not the best person for the job you shouldn't get just because of the colour of your skin or your sex.
The removal of positive discrimination doesn't mean that women can be discriminated against it just means they have to be judged on merit

You do know that affirmative action is preferential treatment, and would be illegal discrimination in the UK?