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

[IwantToRetire]

Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 directed federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to end discrimination at their firms and gave the Labor Department enforcement authority over violations found by the EEOC. It was one in a series of laws and executive orders that codified the employment protections that have existed for the American workforce for decades.

As part of his directives targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI), President Donald Trump revoked this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/23/trump-revoked-equal-employment-opportunity-order/

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

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

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?

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

AS usual it would be better to read the whole article or even check the act.

But is getting rid of DEI he has also got rid of protection from discrimination.

ie the act concerned says:

Section 101. It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency. The policy of equal opportunity applies to every aspect of Federal employment policy and practice.

https://www.eeoc.gov/history/executive-order-no-11246

And I suspect by not reading the act responses are based on how the phrase affirmative action is usually construed to mean.

Have not read every clause in the the act, but from what I have read it is about stopping DISCRMINATION.

To spell it out the EO getting rid of DEI etc., has also meant that protection from discrimination has been removed.

So the purpose of the thread is to discuss what is anyone's reaction to knowing it is now legal to discriminate against women in relation to employment etc..

Anyone who wants to talk about ending DEI, affirmative action can always start a thread about that.

Well according the the Washington post the LBJ EO that stopped discrimination and the resulting law (link above) has been blocked.

Or the WP is scare mongering.

Or the WP is scare mongering.

Maybe this?

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

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?

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.)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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."

Presumably this UK example is the kind of "affirmative action" that the EO is designed to address:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/29/make-exams-easier-to-boost-diversity-say-lawyers/

https://archive.ph/oABsx

Whilst it's both notable and significant that black and Asian candidates don't do as well as white candidates in the exams (and to a lesser degree, women don't do as well as men), surely the next step isn't to lower the pass rate?!
If I need a solicitor, I don't want to be at risk of mine being less competent just because there was a diversity push, so standards were dropped.

Diversity in the workplace is a good thing. Age, sex, race, disability etc. Diversity brings different viewpoints to problem solving. BUT... this can't be forced in at the point of hire - or at the point of qualification pre-hire in this example. Instead, awareness of pathways into these careers can be improved so that children and young people of both sexes and all races have an equal opportunity to be inspired into them. And if there are specific barriers to entering or remaining on these pathways that relate to race or sex (rather than the competence of an individual), these can be looked at and addressed as needed.

I appreciate this thread is about sex and race affirmative action, but thinking about standards being lowered has reminded me of gender identity-related affirmative action.

Does anyone have the split screen video of the TW ballerina, Sophie Rebecca, "performing" a sequence of ballet moves, with it being done properly (move for move) by another ballerina on the other screen? I'm no ballet expert, but even to my eye it's questionable whether the Royal Academy of Dance applied its normal standards during the recruitment process.

@BonfireLady this what you are looking for? https://twitter.com/i/status/1645603056938020867

Wow...

Big Train foretold this two decades ago!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uaWo6xxCKdo&pp=ygUTYmlnIHRyYWluIGJhbGxlcmluYQ%3D%3D

My first reaction, having escaped public sector employment (in Ireland) just before the tsunami of tick box managerialism swept over everyone, is that it's going to remove a huge burden of form-filling from people with specific non-HR jobs to do. Fire chiefs will be able to think clearly about how to prevent fires, rather than worrying about the diversity of the fire crews.

But I might be being naive.

I will watch with interest to see how it works out.

We don’t have an employment meritocracy in reality outside of DEI though. Many (most?) people get their jobs through personal contacts for example and do not always go through an interview process where other candidates are considered. And certain social groups are going to have more useful contacts than others.

I have a disability and found it incredibly difficult to get a job after university and post vocational qualification. This was because even though I was well qualified on paper employers were not familiar and weren’t sure on how to manage and accommodate my disability, though no one would ever say that. They were careful to word things so they did not contravene the discrimination legislation.

I found the only way to get work was through personal contact with those who knew me personally and who saw how well I did my work. In my current job (also through personal contacts) I get praised by the different auditing teams who come round. But if I hadn’t been middle class, I might not have had a pool of personal contacts to use at all.

We don’t live in a world that’s fair, where the most qualified person gets the job and where everyone has an equal opportunity and there are no barriers to entry. Look at Elon Musk - he is not even an elected official and yet he has one of the most powerful jobs in the US Government. And Trump is specifically hiring government officials on the basis of political loyalty, not qualifications and past experience.

To me, DEI in the US is just a formal version of what already happens informally in the workplace anyway.