Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
It’s so utterly pathetic. Starmer wants us to to think the main problem here is kids having assess to… kitchen knives. If only we could all focus on that we can fix this so it doesn’t happen again
Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21
It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
White supremacy is BACK.
Wait until whites start complaining that they can't get into the top universities because they are full of Asian people.
"The new administration has other problems as well. As Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, Trump’s first day on the job was “a dangerous display of rapid mental decline.” Bunch recorded Trump’s slurred speech, rambling, and nonsensical off-the-cuff speeches and said that his “biggest takeaway from a day that some have anticipated and many have dreaded for the last four years is seeing how rapidly the oldest new president in America is declining right in front of us.”"
Heather Cox Richardson email summary of day's events
He doesn't seem anywhere near as fucking gooned out as JRB was but four years is a long time.
Hopefully, the Ukrainians will stop getting their assassins off FB Marketplace before then.
You really do have contempt for the Ukrainians don't you? Hard to say why though I have my suspicions.
You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
Why not go for a triple lock and mandate 3 IDs?
Good morning
They are making it up as they go along
It is impossible to prevent someone from acquiring a knife if they want one
Go into any domestic kitchen and see the knives used every day
Another example of we must be seen to do something no matter how impossible it is
The things we really need to do are boring but expensive. Things like Surestart, after school youth clubs, probation and rehabilitation services. All cut or abandoned.
To change the subject and lighten the mood, I’m starting a new PB tradition of
PB ANTIQUES CORNER
We can all come here and gather under this rubric when the world is too much with us. It will be a regular slot - possibly one comment every three years - for the discussion of antiques we have encountered, lost, inherited, stolen, sold for fentanyl, or are considering purchasing
I’ll go first (and also maybe last)
I just went to an amazing old market here in Rangoon. They sell everything from prawns to silk, old car parts to wedding gowns, and also antiques.
I spotted these. “Sixty year old Mandalay lacquerware boxes”. For £50 each (possibly less after haggling). This seems like an amazing bargain to me, but is it? They are exquisitely pretty. Buy?
I know NOTHING about antiques
60 years old seems strangely precise - "The artsan was bopping away to Rubber Soul as he fashioned it!"
Buy it cos you like it which is always the best reason. Looks like the perfect stash box..
That’s sound advice. Thanks
I think I shall buy a pair. I’m almost certain they are legitimately old because the shop owner - in a shop established in 1936! - is quite happy to point all the stuff that is new or repro, he makes a point of it. But when it’s old he says that too
He has a 100 year old Chinese opium pipe from Yunnan - made of decorated bone! - which gives me the horn TBH but I don’t know what I’d do with it or where I’d put it. $200
I’m pretty sure all these prices are massively depressed because there are zero foreign tourists
In the early 90's, I bought a teapot in the Russian Market in Pnomh Penh for $50. I was advised by a companion that it would sell for $750 in Bangkok. Tourism in Cambodia was almost non-existent back then.
I suspect today the prices are much nearer parity.
Was the internal volume of the teapot suspiciously much smaller than the outside would suggest? Did someone offer to pay for your flight from Pnomh Penh to Thailand to meet a big fan of Teapots in Bangkok?
Looking around the world, you can see the 'strongman/oligarch' system being put into place instead of democracy. The strongman is backed and supported by the oligarchs in return for patronage.
Nice to see the Irish contributing to political thought.
There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.
The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.
But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
"The new administration has other problems as well. As Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, Trump’s first day on the job was “a dangerous display of rapid mental decline.” Bunch recorded Trump’s slurred speech, rambling, and nonsensical off-the-cuff speeches and said that his “biggest takeaway from a day that some have anticipated and many have dreaded for the last four years is seeing how rapidly the oldest new president in America is declining right in front of us.”"
Heather Cox Richardson email summary of day's events
He doesn't seem anywhere near as fucking gooned out as JRB was but four years is a long time.
Hopefully, the Ukrainians will stop getting their assassins off FB Marketplace before then.
You really do have contempt for the Ukrainians don't you? Hard to say why though I have my suspicions.
You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
Dominic Cummings forays into occasional hard truths continue. Rudakubana was 7 days off being 18. Suspect significant number of <18's have fake ID. This is just usual political displacement that solves nothing. Despicable for what they are trying to do.
Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 How the bullshit old media works & why nobody trusts it any more - desperate spin doctors try to shift blame from Whitehall's uselessness to AMAZON and the Sun r*****s swallow it. The issue isn't where he bought a knife, it's how our Idiocracy behaved and covered up as usual.
As discussed a thread or two back, Yvette Cooper also complained that Amazon did not know about Rudakubana's conviction, as if they should or even could. Meanwhile, since Prevent knocked him back as not a terrorist, it looks like Starmer's big wheeze is to muddle the definition of terrorism (is that an Icelandic bank waving?) rather than extend Prevent's mandate or set up a new body for non-terrorist spree killer wannabes.
Not to mention that kitchen knives are easily found in kitchens. The clue is in the name.
The question I have is this. For every Amazon order that I have done that is age restricted - mostly alcohol - I was asked to verify age.
What happened in this case?
- Was it omitted by the seller? I believe this is actually enforced by Amazon, so if so, the seller was breaking their T&Cs - Did the delivery company not enforce it? - Did the delivery guy just check the box himself? - Did Rudakubana get the delivery guy to hand it over without a check - Fake ID used? - Lastly, and most likely - did an adult in the household accept the package? If you are visibly well over 18, the check can be perfunctory. They would have no idea what was in the package, either.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
It’s so utterly pathetic. Starmer wants us to to think the main problem here is kids having assess to… kitchen knives. If only we could all focus on that we can fix this so it doesn’t happen again
Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21
It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
The trouble is that this type of response is so asinine it only reinforces the idea that Starmer wants to hide something. Why did the police and government speak in the way they did after the crime. Avoiding contempt of court doesn't really explain why the Ricin announcement was made two months later, the day before the budget.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.
Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
Who actually runs Prevent? Who's held accountable for their failures and will get to be in the bad seat at a select committee? Why can I google the senior leadership team of my local hospital trust or police force or even MI5 but when it comes to Prevent why does it appear to be a black hole?
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
Here are just some of the laws that prevent American employers being racist and sexist
“In the United States, several laws explicitly prohibit racist hiring practices and ensure equal employment opportunities. Here are the key ones:
1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Prohibits: Discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees. • Enforced by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) • Prohibits: Racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, which includes employment contracts. • Covers: All employers, regardless of size. • Notable Aspect: Allows employees to bypass the EEOC and go straight to court.
3. Equal Pay Act of 1963 • Prohibits: Pay discrimination based on sex, but it also intersects with race and other protected characteristics in cases of intersectional discrimination. • Covers: Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
4. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act • Prohibits: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but also supports equality for employees of all races with disabilities. • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
5. The Fair Housing Act (related to workplace housing benefits) • Prohibits: Discrimination based on race or ethnicity in housing, which can overlap with employment practices related to housing benefits or relocations.
6. State and Local Anti-Discrimination Laws • Many states and cities have their own laws that go beyond federal protections. For example: • California: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). • New York: Human Rights Law.
These laws collectively create a framework that aims to prevent and address racial discrimination in hiring and employment. Employers found violating these laws can face lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.”
What these laws DON’T allow you to do is racially discriminate against, say, whites or Asians in the interests of “affirmative action”
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
Convicted benefits cheats who fail to pay back the taxpayer could be stripped of their driving licences, under government plans to crack down on fraud. Those who repeatedly cheat the system and have debts of £1,000 or more could be punished with a driving ban of up to two years.
The plans also include new powers to force banks to hand over account information about benefit claimants to help target investigations, echoing a scheme announced by the previous Conservative government. But this is likely to face strong opposition from the banks and privacy campaigners.
How does it possibly help society to remove driving licences for non-driving offences?
All that happens is that someone working to pay their debts ends up losing their job, which isn’t going to help the situation.
If you employ more than a couple of people then chances are you will have received an attachment of earnings order from a court that relates to a whole host of unpaid debts. I have had employees with deductions that have gone back as far as 15 years from the original magistrates order (employee had worked for us for 15 months before I recieved notification).
It would be far better making the existing system work (benefits can be reduced, attachments of earning can be swiftly processed), than adding more penalties that in all likelihood won't be imposed.
It will need a court order so there is some checks and balances - which just adds more work, delays and costs to an over worked judicial system.
It seems like a gimmick and more performative nonsense from the government to make them look 'tough'.
A similar performative nonsense was solicitor general, Lucy Rigby, referring Urfan Sharif's sentence to the Court of Appeal for undue leniency. He was sentenced to life with a 40 year minimum tarriff. He would not even be eligible for parole until he aged 83. A heinous crime but the sentence feels right and I doubt the CoA will increase it. But appealing it makes the solicitor general look tough. Perfomative nonsense - please stop it.
I agree. Although I suspect there is a difference, in that Sharif's case was probably politically motivated, with the initiative coming from the minister, whereas the 'banning driving as a general punishment' idea has been kicking around the government for ages and may well have resurfaced as a civil service suggestion / option, whether off-the-shelf, or an individual official pushing the idea as a pet project.
Michael Howard commented that a requirement for the job of Home Sec is saying no to the totalitarian ideas that get presented.
Apparently these ideas are inherited in various departments, and re-presented at intervals. Indefinite detention without trial is a classic of the genre.
A newly-appointed minister arrives in a department responsible for a subject to which they've never given a moment's thought. "I have to be seen to be doing something," they cry. "No problem, minister. Here's a policy we've working on for years. It's ready to go." I assume this explains debacles like HIPS.
Is this it for the next four years? Is the PB left gonna suffer a drop of 38 IQ points - taking it dangerously under 50 - as they all go mad with Trump Derangement Syndrome and start making shit up?
"The new administration has other problems as well. As Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, Trump’s first day on the job was “a dangerous display of rapid mental decline.” Bunch recorded Trump’s slurred speech, rambling, and nonsensical off-the-cuff speeches and said that his “biggest takeaway from a day that some have anticipated and many have dreaded for the last four years is seeing how rapidly the oldest new president in America is declining right in front of us.”"
Heather Cox Richardson email summary of day's events
He doesn't seem anywhere near as fucking gooned out as JRB was but four years is a long time.
Hopefully, the Ukrainians will stop getting their assassins off FB Marketplace before then.
You really do have contempt for the Ukrainians don't you? Hard to say why though I have my suspicions.
You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
And yet post after post of his is dripping with contempt as he endlessly refers to the 'SMO', otherwise known as the biggest European war since 1945.
Dominic Cummings forays into occasional hard truths continue. Rudakubana was 7 days off being 18. Suspect significant number of <18's have fake ID. This is just usual political displacement that solves nothing. Despicable for what they are trying to do.
Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 How the bullshit old media works & why nobody trusts it any more - desperate spin doctors try to shift blame from Whitehall's uselessness to AMAZON and the Sun r*****s swallow it. The issue isn't where he bought a knife, it's how our Idiocracy behaved and covered up as usual.
As discussed a thread or two back, Yvette Cooper also complained that Amazon did not know about Rudakubana's conviction, as if they should or even could. Meanwhile, since Prevent knocked him back as not a terrorist, it looks like Starmer's big wheeze is to muddle the definition of terrorism (is that an Icelandic bank waving?) rather than extend Prevent's mandate or set up a new body for non-terrorist spree killer wannabes.
Not to mention that kitchen knives are easily found in kitchens. The clue is in the name.
We don't need a new body for non-terrorist spree killer wannabees. We just need to make the existing services (in this case, given the age, probably CAMHS*) actually work.
One could widen Prevent's mandate - although that would need some different approaches within Prevent, rather than its present focus on de-radicalisation - or simply have a mechanism for Prevent to say, "not our remit, but this person does need action", and for that action to happen in a timely way, not just go in the queue for CAMHS or effectively be discharged.
What needs to happen in this case, of course, is a review back through the history to identify what, done when, might have changed things. Preventing the purchase of a particular knife probably would have made little difference, assuming there were accessible knives in the house - it seems a somewhat planned attack, rather than something that came out of nowhere and was made worse because the person happened to have a knife on them. Making knives harder to buy may help with some kids carrying knives, as parents are likely to notice (one would hope!) if one of their knives has gone missing for an extended period. Knives that children obtain that parents know nothing about probably is a legitimate problem to tackle (not that I'm convinced proposed remedies will help) but not linked to the Rudakubana case.
*I had a colleague who started researching child and adolescent mental health services, then stopped because it was too depressing and clearly there was not the money or will to actually implement any research findings.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
Why not go for a triple lock and mandate 3 IDs?
Good morning
They are making it up as they go along
It is impossible to prevent someone from acquiring a knife if they want one
Go into any domestic kitchen and see the knives used every day
Another example of we must be seen to do something no matter how impossible it is
The things we really need to do are boring but expensive. Things like Surestart, after school youth clubs, probation and rehabilitation services. All cut or abandoned.
I have my doubts about youth clubs and surestart being the answer. The South Wales valley's is often quoted as the poorest part of western Europe, very little in the way of youth centres and the like when I was growing up, or even today. But oddly there was very little of people going around stabbing each other from the lack of state services. I think it's long since time we accept that there is at times and cultural element to knife crime.
Convicted benefits cheats who fail to pay back the taxpayer could be stripped of their driving licences, under government plans to crack down on fraud. Those who repeatedly cheat the system and have debts of £1,000 or more could be punished with a driving ban of up to two years.
The plans also include new powers to force banks to hand over account information about benefit claimants to help target investigations, echoing a scheme announced by the previous Conservative government. But this is likely to face strong opposition from the banks and privacy campaigners.
How does it possibly help society to remove driving licences for non-driving offences?
All that happens is that someone working to pay their debts ends up losing their job, which isn’t going to help the situation.
If you employ more than a couple of people then chances are you will have received an attachment of earnings order from a court that relates to a whole host of unpaid debts. I have had employees with deductions that have gone back as far as 15 years from the original magistrates order (employee had worked for us for 15 months before I recieved notification).
It would be far better making the existing system work (benefits can be reduced, attachments of earning can be swiftly processed), than adding more penalties that in all likelihood won't be imposed.
It will need a court order so there is some checks and balances - which just adds more work, delays and costs to an over worked judicial system.
It seems like a gimmick and more performative nonsense from the government to make them look 'tough'.
A similar performative nonsense was solicitor general, Lucy Rigby, referring Urfan Sharif's sentence to the Court of Appeal for undue leniency. He was sentenced to life with a 40 year minimum tarriff. He would not even be eligible for parole until he aged 83. A heinous crime but the sentence feels right and I doubt the CoA will increase it. But appealing it makes the solicitor general look tough. Perfomative nonsense - please stop it.
I agree. Although I suspect there is a difference, in that Sharif's case was probably politically motivated, with the initiative coming from the minister, whereas the 'banning driving as a general punishment' idea has been kicking around the government for ages and may well have resurfaced as a civil service suggestion / option, whether off-the-shelf, or an individual official pushing the idea as a pet project.
One issue about banning people from driving is that the penalty is disproportionally severe on people who live in areas with inadequate public transport.
Who actually runs Prevent? Who's held accountable for their failures and will get to be in the bad seat at a select committee? Why can I google the senior leadership team of my local hospital trust or police force or even MI5 but when it comes to Prevent why does it appear to be a black hole?
The budget for Prevent in London next year is £2m, what could any of us do with that? It was £6m a couple of years ago which still isn't much to do anything with.
On the issue of tackling violent non ideological threats the 2023 independent review of Prevent made a specific recommendation to stop Prevent getting involved in dealing with those.
"Recommendation 9 Restrict Prevent funding to groups and projects which challenge extremist and terrorist ideology via counter-narratives and activities. Prevent budgets should not be allocated towards general youth work or community initiatives that do not meet these criteria."
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
Why not go for a triple lock and mandate 3 IDs?
Good morning
They are making it up as they go along
It is impossible to prevent someone from acquiring a knife if they want one
Go into any domestic kitchen and see the knives used every day
Another example of we must be seen to do something no matter how impossible it is
The things we really need to do are boring but expensive. Things like Surestart, after school youth clubs, probation and rehabilitation services. All cut or abandoned.
I have my doubts about youth clubs and surestart being the answer. The South Wales valley's is often quoted as the poorest part of western Europe, very little in the way of youth centres and the like when I was growing up, or even today. But oddly there was very little of people going around stabbing each other from the lack of state services. I think it's long since time we accept that there is at times and cultural element to knife crime.
One of the best ways to change culture and improve integration over time is by building cross cultural friendships at a formative age.
Looking around the world, you can see the 'strongman/oligarch' system being put into place instead of democracy. The strongman is backed and supported by the oligarchs in return for patronage.
Nice to see the Irish contributing to political thought.
There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.
The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.
But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.
What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
Many of them already are, according to the statistics Leon posted, choosing people because of their race and gender not their abilities. And I've heard similar complaints from American friends, by no means all conservative - people whose kids have been denied university places and scholarships because their skin is the wrong tone. And people who themselves have had to comply with incomprehensible federal equalities guidelines just to qualify for government contracts.
The whole DEI state is long overdue for the scrapheap. It perpetuates division, spawns a parasitic industry and doesn't do much if anything to equalise ethnic outcomes. Hopefully we can do similar here before too long.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
It’s so utterly pathetic. Starmer wants us to to think the main problem here is kids having assess to… kitchen knives. If only we could all focus on that we can fix this so it doesn’t happen again
Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21
It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
Trump demonstrates very well that if you are going to do performative stuff it has to be spectacular and attention raising and crowd pleasing. His form of hubristic lying puts into the shadows Starmerish stuff like 'We are going to require dual verification when buying a screwdriver online so that psychopaths will be really puzzled as to how to commit acts of violence on random strangers'.
What Trump might say would be 'We are going to lock up/section dangerous deranged people before they commit crimes, and there will be thousands of them'.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
What Leon forgets or his low IQ doesn’t compute is why LBJ had to introduce this.
Lest we forget it was to deal with the legacy of Jim Crow which was still legally permissible into the1960s.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
Alternatively, as @Fishing notes, an awful lot of white and Asian Americans - men in particular - have had enough of being lawfully discriminated against. Trump promised to fix this, he was duly elected, he is now fixing it
"The new administration has other problems as well. As Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, Trump’s first day on the job was “a dangerous display of rapid mental decline.” Bunch recorded Trump’s slurred speech, rambling, and nonsensical off-the-cuff speeches and said that his “biggest takeaway from a day that some have anticipated and many have dreaded for the last four years is seeing how rapidly the oldest new president in America is declining right in front of us.”"
Heather Cox Richardson email summary of day's events
He doesn't seem anywhere near as fucking gooned out as JRB was but four years is a long time.
Hopefully, the Ukrainians will stop getting their assassins off FB Marketplace before then.
You really do have contempt for the Ukrainians don't you? Hard to say why though I have my suspicions.
You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
And yet post after post of his is dripping with contempt as he endlessly refers to the 'SMO', otherwise known as the biggest European war since 1945.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
I suspect he's asked someone to find everything that mentions "affirmative action" and not thought beyond that.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.
The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
Plenty of US laws still exist saying employers can't be racist or sexist. Trump hasn't repealed any of them, no.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.
Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.
The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
Plenty of US laws still exist saying employers can't be racist or sexist. Trump hasn't repealed any of them, no.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Well unless I am missing your post on it you referred to 'other' laws not this one. And this one seems quite clear
I mean have you actually read it? Or are you really as dim as @TheScreamingEagles keeps pointing out.
Or do you believe that employers can discriminate against Jews and Blacks? The only affirmative action is that discrimination doesn't take place.
Have you ever wondered why no Conservative president ever reversed this?
Or are you a bigot and believe in this stuff eg for example allow for White only toilets and Coloured only toilets. That's progress.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
So where do they go when this fails and the tabloids howl for more to be done.
Signed in triplicate.
When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.
The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
Plenty of US laws still exist saying employers can't be racist or sexist. Trump hasn't repealed any of them, no.
Project 2025 well under way- the thing is, though, quite a lot of it is not going to work or will bring unintended consequences.
I´m reminded of the late, great P J O´Rourke:
“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”
The new logo for twitter is a bit of a giveaway too.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.
Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.
Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
So is the EO completely meaningless?
Yes, other than introducing the concept of "affirmative action" in non-discrimination which the CRA didn't do.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
So where do they go when this fails and the tabloids howl for more to be done.
Signed in triplicate.
When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
It's a legitimate reason to carry a knife for work related purposes.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
So we have numerous posts here justifying it because it exists in other laws. Well good and lets hope he doesn't do anything about them, but really that is your justification. Really? So you think Trump was just doing a bit of tidying up while he was signing EOs to release a few criminals in his circle, or do you think maybe he was trying to make a point.
Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.
Looking around the world, you can see the 'strongman/oligarch' system being put into place instead of democracy. The strongman is backed and supported by the oligarchs in return for patronage.
Nice to see the Irish contributing to political thought.
There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.
The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.
But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.
What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
The popular image of dictatorships is nasty but efficient, Whereas they are mostly nasty, and mostly incompetent.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.
Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
So is the EO completely meaningless?
No, because it adds a whole load of bureaucracy around proving that you aren't discriminating.
I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.
The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
They’re working on the assumption that they have both Houses only until the mid-terms, so it will be full steam ahead until then.
See the last two years of Biden’s presidency, and the last two years of Trump’s first presidency, for what happens when the President doesn’t command both houses and everything needs cross-party agreement to some extent.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
Once again, for the hard of thinking, especially @kjh
Here are just some of the laws that prevent American employers being racist and sexist
“In the United States, several laws explicitly prohibit racist hiring practices and ensure equal employment opportunities. Here are the key ones:
1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Prohibits: Discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees. • Enforced by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) • Prohibits: Racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, which includes employment contracts. • Covers: All employers, regardless of size. • Notable Aspect: Allows employees to bypass the EEOC and go straight to court.
3. Equal Pay Act of 1963 • Prohibits: Pay discrimination based on sex, but it also intersects with race and other protected characteristics in cases of intersectional discrimination. • Covers: Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
4. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act • Prohibits: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but also supports equality for employees of all races with disabilities. • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
5. The Fair Housing Act (related to workplace housing benefits) • Prohibits: Discrimination based on race or ethnicity in housing, which can overlap with employment practices related to housing benefits or relocations.
6. State and Local Anti-Discrimination Laws • Many states and cities have their own laws that go beyond federal protections. For example: • California: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). • New York: Human Rights Law.
These laws collectively create a framework that aims to prevent and address racial discrimination in hiring and employment. Employers found violating these laws can face lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.”
What these laws DON’T allow you to do is racially discriminate against, say, whites or Asians in the interests of “affirmative action”
Looking around the world, you can see the 'strongman/oligarch' system being put into place instead of democracy. The strongman is backed and supported by the oligarchs in return for patronage.
Nice to see the Irish contributing to political thought.
There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.
The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.
But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.
What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
On the subject of Italy in the 40's, I'd recommend a film called "The Children's Train" for it's depiction of the poverty in the Italian south compared to the north. There is also an underlying suggestion that only the rich and well off can afford to do politics.
So we have numerous posts here justifying it because it exists in other laws. Well good and lets hope he doesn't do anything about them, but really that is your justification. Really? So you think Trump was just doing a bit of tidying up while he was signing EOs to release a few criminals in his circle, or do you think maybe he was trying to make a point.
Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.
Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
So is the EO completely meaningless?
No, because it adds a whole load of bureaucracy around proving that you aren't discriminating.
And in doing so it also ushered in an era of reverse discrimination aka affirmative action that meant people who weren't best qualified for the role were given preference over people who were because they needed to show the DoJ they were compliant in pure number terms. It's completely idiotic and hopefully we roll back similar legislation here and regulatory requirements for companies to report racial and sex demographics of their employees.
I really hope that Trump targets B Corps next, it's completely insidious.
US President Donald Trump says he has signed a full and unconditional pardon for Ross Ulbricht, who operated Silk Road, the dark web marketplace where illegal drugs were sold.
Ulbricht was convicted in 2015 in New York in a narcotics and money laundering conspiracy and sentenced to life in prison.
Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he had called Ulbricht's mother to inform her that he had granted a pardon to her son.
Silk Road, which was shut down in 2013 after police arrested Ulbricht, sold illegal drugs using Bitcoin, as well as hacking equipment and stolen passports.
"The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me," Trump said in his post online on Tuesday evening. "He was given two life sentences, plus 40 years. Ridiculous!"
A pardon for Ulbricht was Trump’s promise to the Libertarian Party Conference last year.
He’s spent 12 years in prison for running a Bitcoin marketplace, convicted as a drug dealer because others were using the platform to sell drugs.
For some reason the authorities didn’t care much to go after Facebook, Craigslist, or any other online platform full of illegal goods and services, only Ulbricht, and the judge made a point of throwing the book at him.
eBay but not eBay.
The site was modeled, sensibly, on Amazon and eBay. And that’s what it looked like: a well-organized community marketplace, complete with profiles, listings, and transaction reviews. Everything was anonymous, and shipments often went through the regular old postal service. No need for fake names—you put your real address, and if any one asks, you just say you didn’t order all that heroin!
Silk Road’s “Seller’s Guide” had helpful instructions on how to vacuum-seal or otherwise hide drugs to evade electronic sensors or canine olfactories. Most shipments made it to happy customers. That the small percentage of intercepted Silk Road packages represented an uptick spoke to the quickly rising volume of the site’s trade, a vast pharmacopeia covering dozens of categories with 13,000 listings. It was a colorful smorgasbord for every type of connoisseur: fishscale Colombian cocaine, Afghan No. 4 heroin, strawberry LSD, Caramello hash, Mercury’s Famous uncut cocaine flakes, Mario Invincibility Star XTC, white Mitsubishi MDMA, a black tar heroin called the Devil’s Licorice.
Then there were the prescription meds, everything from Oxycontin and Xanax to Fentanyl and Dilaudid. Silk Road’s product descriptions and user ratings amounted to an encyclopedic information source.
Well worth a read. Not at all the OK kind of guy people of a political persuasion make him out to be:
Ars had a good set of stories on it too - might be the same ones actually, they're both Conde Nast, aren't they, so could be shared.
In addition to the site activities, there's also the small number of paying for people to be bumped off, although I'm not sure he was ever convicted on that (water muddied as at least some of the 'hit-men' were undercover FBI agents, I think, and no bodies were ever linked to the other payments). Wasn't one of the FBI people involved also seriously dodgy, which complicated the case?
He was never convicted, as the charges never went to court (though the trial judge, when sentencing, commented that the evidence against him on this was fairly strong).
There was also a separate case, which was dropped after he was sentenced to life without parole.
How is this consistent with trade threats to China and others for supplying opiates, and other narcotics, to the US market? Trump fans please expl.... no, don't bother
Trump is consistent only in doing what he perceives as beneficial to him. This was transactional payback for the libertarian vote.
Libertarians lionise Ulbricht, presumably because he's a drug trafficker who's white, and from an affluent background/
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
This is so naive and ignores years of careful dismantling of sexism BECAUSE of affirmative action.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?
Looking around the world, you can see the 'strongman/oligarch' system being put into place instead of democracy. The strongman is backed and supported by the oligarchs in return for patronage.
Nice to see the Irish contributing to political thought.
There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.
The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.
But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.
What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
Italy has always had a north/south divide in that regard. One other thing about dictators is that early successes cause overreach. If Hitler had stopped after the annexation of Austria, he'd be venerated today as a political mastermind. Likewise if Putin had been content with Crimea.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
So where do they go when this fails and the tabloids howl for more to be done.
Signed in triplicate.
When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
What, one wonders, was in Trump's mind when he signed that EO. Given the mountain of subsequent laws later enacted.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Didn’t someone American once mention that they’d love their kids to live in a world where all that mattered was the content of their character..?
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?
It is plain to see in my own working life. Senior lawyers still subconsciously (and consciously) discriminate against women because of fears about pregnancies and childcare. They have had to have been forced into change because of things like affirmative action.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
What he has just done is cancel a law that stops you having racist policies. Either this has no effect because of other laws (good), so why do it, or it has an effect.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Woke. This was 1965. This is about segregation, this is about hating blacks, hating jews, discriminating against women. This isn't about today's stuff.
So if some laws go too far regarding affirmative action, do something about them. Don't destroy the law that gives the most basic rights.
Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.
So where do they go when this fails and the tabloids howl for more to be done.
Signed in triplicate.
When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
It's a legitimate reason to carry a knife for work related purposes.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
This is so naive and ignores years of careful dismantling of sexism BECAUSE of affirmative action.
You may not have noticed, but it's currently 2025 not 1970.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era
No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
This is so naive and ignores years of careful dismantling of sexism BECAUSE of affirmative action.
You may not have noticed, but it's currently 2025 not 1970.
Yeah. And there is still work to do. It is naive to think that all these problems and inbuild prejudices have disappeared because they haven’t
I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.
The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
That'd EVER such a big 'if', of course.
Not really, every second term President has seen his party lose control of Congress or fail to gain control of Congress in the midterms for the last 50 years with a new President from the opposing party elected after them therefore entering office with Congress behind them
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era
No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
Get a grip man. Woke derangement syndrome is real and you are riddled.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just
Oh
“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”
“52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring 1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications 53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees 70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”
Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
Plenty of US laws still exist saying employers can't be racist or sexist. Trump hasn't repealed any of them, no.
Which laws?
Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964 etc.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era
No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
Nope, we live in an era where white blokes post they want the government to help fund white babies over all other babies.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
What he has just done is cancel a law that stops you having racist policies. Either this has no effect because of other laws (good), so why do it, or it has an effect.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Woke. This was 1965. This is about segregation, this is about hating blacks, hating jews, discriminating against women. This isn't about today's stuff.
So if some laws go too far regarding affirmative action, do something about them. Don't destroy the law that gives the most basic rights.
Doing so implies out and out bigotry.
When the system acts like a ratchet, sometimes the only effective thing you can do is destroy the whole thing and start again. Tinkering with the bits that go 'too far' doesn't achieve anything.
So we have numerous posts here justifying it because it exists in other laws. Well good and lets hope he doesn't do anything about them, but really that is your justification. Really? So you think Trump was just doing a bit of tidying up while he was signing EOs to release a few criminals in his circle, or do you think maybe he was trying to make a point.
Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.
All of this will get tested in court. That's where what is and is not permissible will be decided. And courts in different parts of the US are going to see things differently, so it will end up at SCOTUS. The key question is: does a business have the absolute right to employ who it wants for whatever reason it wants? I would not bet against the current court deciding it does. But it will take several years to get there.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?
It is plain to see in my own working life. Senior lawyers still subconsciously (and consciously) discriminate against women because of fears about pregnancies and childcare. They have had to have been forced into change because of things like affirmative action.
That’s a sweeping statement based on, I’m guessing (like you),” feels” rather than you actually conducting surveys with the protection of anonymity.
More important than affirmative action in increasing the numbers of females in professions such as law and medicine are cultural changes and the increase in women feeling they can/should go and study these subjects rather than settling for being a housewife. That was not about affirmative action it was about culture changes.
Please however feel free to tell Cyclefree she owes her career in law to affirmative action forcing open a door for her rather than her getting on and doing it.
Please however feel free to tell Cyclefree she owes her career in law to affirmative action forcing open a door for her rather than her getting on and doing it.
Project 2025 well under way- the thing is, though, quite a lot of it is not going to work or will bring unintended consequences.
I´m reminded of the late, great P J O´Rourke:
“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”
The new logo for twitter is a bit of a giveaway too.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era
No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
Nope, we live in an era where white blokes post they want the government to help fund white babies over all other babies.
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?
President Trump has signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson's EO 11246, which established affirmative action, and banning all federal contractors and publicly-funded universities from practicing race-based discrimination, including DEI.
A massive shift.
This is what anti-woke was always really about.
It prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those protections have now been removed for 20% of the US workforce.
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
This is complete drivel. You read it wrong
See my prior comment
Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?
The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
This is so naive and ignores years of careful dismantling of sexism BECAUSE of affirmative action.
You may not have noticed, but it's currently 2025 not 1970.
Yeah. And there is still work to do. It is naive to think that all these problems and inbuild prejudices have disappeared because they haven’t
Sure, but we've reached a point where enough progress has been made that policies that have become counterproductive need to be moved on from.
Comments
Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen
door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21
It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.
Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.
And you object to that? Really?
I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.
Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
They are making it up as they go along
It is impossible to prevent someone from acquiring a knife if they want one
Go into any domestic kitchen and see the knives used every day
Another example of we must be seen to do something no matter how impossible it is
The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.
But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
Camp.
I think that’s the line isn’t it?
What happened in this case?
- Was it omitted by the seller? I believe this is actually enforced by Amazon, so if so, the seller was breaking their T&Cs
- Did the delivery company not enforce it?
- Did the delivery guy just check the box himself?
- Did Rudakubana get the delivery guy to hand it over without a check
- Fake ID used?
- Lastly, and most likely - did an adult in the household accept the package? If you are visibly well over 18, the check can be perfunctory. They would have no idea what was in the package, either.
“In the United States, several laws explicitly prohibit racist hiring practices and ensure equal employment opportunities. Here are the key ones:
1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Prohibits: Discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
• Enforced by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)
• Prohibits: Racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, which includes employment contracts.
• Covers: All employers, regardless of size.
• Notable Aspect: Allows employees to bypass the EEOC and go straight to court.
3. Equal Pay Act of 1963
• Prohibits: Pay discrimination based on sex, but it also intersects with race and other protected characteristics in cases of intersectional discrimination.
• Covers: Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
4. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
• Prohibits: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but also supports equality for employees of all races with disabilities.
• Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
5. The Fair Housing Act (related to workplace housing benefits)
• Prohibits: Discrimination based on race or ethnicity in housing, which can overlap with employment practices related to housing benefits or relocations.
6. State and Local Anti-Discrimination Laws
• Many states and cities have their own laws that go beyond federal protections. For example:
• California: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
• New York: Human Rights Law.
These laws collectively create a framework that aims to prevent and address racial discrimination in hiring and employment. Employers found violating these laws can face lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.”
What these laws DON’T allow you to do is racially discriminate against, say, whites or Asians in the interests of “affirmative action”
See my prior comment
One could widen Prevent's mandate - although that would need some different approaches within Prevent, rather than its present focus on de-radicalisation - or simply have a mechanism for Prevent to say, "not our remit, but this person does need action", and for that action to happen in a timely way, not just go in the queue for CAMHS or effectively be discharged.
What needs to happen in this case, of course, is a review back through the history to identify what, done when, might have changed things. Preventing the purchase of a particular knife probably would have made little difference, assuming there were accessible knives in the house - it seems a somewhat planned attack, rather than something that came out of nowhere and was made worse because the person happened to have a knife on them. Making knives harder to buy may help with some kids carrying knives, as parents are likely to notice (one would hope!) if one of their knives has gone missing for an extended period. Knives that children obtain that parents know nothing about probably is a legitimate problem to tackle (not that I'm convinced proposed remedies will help) but not linked to the Rudakubana case.
*I had a colleague who started researching child and adolescent mental health services, then stopped because it was too depressing and clearly there was not the money or will to actually implement any research findings.
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
On the issue of tackling violent non ideological threats the 2023 independent review of Prevent made a specific recommendation to stop Prevent getting involved in dealing with those.
"Recommendation 9
Restrict Prevent funding to groups and projects which challenge extremist and terrorist ideology via counter-narratives and activities.
Prevent budgets should not be allocated towards general youth work or community initiatives that do not meet these criteria."
What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.
Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-south-bend-indiana-discriminating-against-black-and-female-police
The whole DEI state is long overdue for the scrapheap. It perpetuates division, spawns a parasitic industry and doesn't do much if anything to equalise ethnic outcomes. Hopefully we can do similar here before too long.
What Trump might say would be 'We are going to lock up/section dangerous deranged people before they commit crimes, and there will be thousands of them'.
Although my really radical days were from v.late 50';s, rather than later in the 60's.
Lest we forget it was to deal with the legacy of Jim Crow which was still legally permissible into the1960s.
As simple as that
Signed in triplicate.
I mean have you actually read it? Or are you really as dim as @TheScreamingEagles keeps pointing out.
Or do you believe that employers can discriminate against Jews and Blacks? The only affirmative action is that discrimination doesn't take place.
Have you ever wondered why no Conservative president ever reversed this?
Or are you a bigot and believe in this stuff eg for example allow for White only toilets and Coloured only toilets. That's progress.
Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump
Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected
What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
Just don't take it to a nightclub.
Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.
And not all of them are by me
Seriously. Jesus. Get a grip PB
See the last two years of Biden’s presidency, and the last two years of Trump’s first presidency, for what happens when the President doesn’t command both houses and everything needs cross-party agreement to some extent.
Here are just some of the laws that prevent American employers being racist and sexist
“In the United States, several laws explicitly prohibit racist hiring practices and ensure equal employment opportunities. Here are the key ones:
1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Prohibits: Discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
• Enforced by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)
• Prohibits: Racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, which includes employment contracts.
• Covers: All employers, regardless of size.
• Notable Aspect: Allows employees to bypass the EEOC and go straight to court.
3. Equal Pay Act of 1963
• Prohibits: Pay discrimination based on sex, but it also intersects with race and other protected characteristics in cases of intersectional discrimination.
• Covers: Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
4. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
• Prohibits: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but also supports equality for employees of all races with disabilities.
• Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
5. The Fair Housing Act (related to workplace housing benefits)
• Prohibits: Discrimination based on race or ethnicity in housing, which can overlap with employment practices related to housing benefits or relocations.
6. State and Local Anti-Discrimination Laws
• Many states and cities have their own laws that go beyond federal protections. For example:
• California: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
• New York: Human Rights Law.
These laws collectively create a framework that aims to prevent and address racial discrimination in hiring and employment. Employers found violating these laws can face lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.”
What these laws DON’T allow you to do is racially discriminate against, say, whites or Asians in the interests of “affirmative action”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children's_Train
I really hope that Trump targets B Corps next, it's completely insidious.
https://www.knivesandtools.co.uk/en/ct/uk-knife-laws.htm
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Woke. This was 1965. This is about segregation, this is about hating blacks, hating jews, discriminating against women. This isn't about today's stuff.
So if some laws go too far regarding affirmative action, do something about them. Don't destroy the law that gives the most basic rights.
Doing so implies out and out bigotry.
No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
More important than affirmative action in increasing the numbers of females in professions such as law and medicine are cultural changes and the increase in women feeling they can/should go and study these subjects rather than settling for being a housewife. That was not about affirmative action it was about culture changes.
Please however feel free to tell Cyclefree she owes her career in law to affirmative action forcing open a door for her rather than her getting on and doing it.
So much for pursuing it to the bitter end.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/prince-harry-settles-legal-claim-against-sun-publisher/ar-AA1xEhUI?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=67192d3ce7324d85a22b6df160d022d7&ei=11