Donald Trump’s vow to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in workplaces and educational institutions on day one of his administration is not about fairness—it’s about erasing decades of progress and reinstating systemic racial barriers under the guise of equality. This is not a neutral policy proposal but the blueprint for a modern-day colorblind Jim Crow 2.0.
Calling DEI “Didn’t Earn It,” as critics derisively refer to it, is not just insulting but echoes the rhetoric and practices of the Jim Crow era, which were designed to delegitimize the achievements and contributions of Black Americans by framing them as unqualified or undeserving. The poll taxes and literacy tests of that era operated under the idea that Black people were fundamentally unqualified to participate in democracy. The Supreme Court justified “Jim Crow” aka separate but “equal” by arguing in Plessy v. Ferguson that racial separation did not impose inequality and that any perception of inferiority among Black Americans was a result of their own faulty thinking. Ironically the Roberts Court, in its decision to strike down affirmative action in college admission also accused Black people of a similar type of “faulty thinking.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority: “They have wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin…”Legal scholar Cedric Merlin Powell argues that such logic rewrites history and creates an unworkably narrow definition of discrimination, focusing on outcomes while ignoring structural inequity.
A key figure in Trump’s anti-DEI agenda is Stephen Miller, who according to reports is set to become Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Miller has proposed transforming the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into an entity focused on addressing what he calls “anti-white discrimination.” Thus, Trump’s presidency appears poised to roll back workplace protections for Black Americans to a degree not seen since the end of Reconstruction, which ushered in Jim Crow. For Black professionals, who already navigate systemic barriers and entrenched inequities, this represents a direct assault on their workplace opportunities and dignity.
The claim that DEI initiatives unfairly disadvantage white Americans is not only false but dangerously misleading. U.S. institutions—from housing to education—have systematically excluded Black Americans and other people of color for generations, creating barriers that persist today. Programs like the GI Bill, celebrated as America’s first “color-blind” policy, ostensibly extended benefits to all veterans. Yet in practice, Black veterans were excluded from the housing loan benefits that white veterans used to build generational wealth. This exclusion laid the foundation for the racial wealth gap that still endures: Black Americans, on average, hold a fraction of the wealth of white Americans.
Today, DEI initiatives aim to address these inequities, but Trump and his allies, including Christopher Rufo, the architect of the “critical race theory” panic, frame these programs as preferential treatment. They claim DEI promotes “unqualified” Black professionals and other people of color, while advocating for a so-called “color blind” meritocracy. This narrative mirrors historical efforts to disguise exclusion as neutrality and is built on a lie.
According to a McKinsey & Company study, Black Americans are currently one to three centuries away from achieving employment and economic parity with their white counterparts without targeted interventions. Is the goal to extend that gap by a millennium? Far from privileging people of color, DEI initiatives and policies like affirmative action have barely pried open a crack in the doors of opportunity. These programs are not about elevating the “unqualified” but about dismantling the structural barriers that perpetuate inequality.
Miller has gone from theory to action in his role with America First Legal, amplifying the myth of reverse discrimination. He has targeted institutions like Northwestern University and NASCAR with lawsuits and complaints, alleging that DEI initiatives marginalize white men. But the data tells a starkly different story. According to an article in USA Today, about the EEOC complaint Miller brought against NASCAR, Miller alleged that NASCAR, one of the least diverse sports, was discriminating against white men because it had a program to increase the diversity of the pit crew. According to the article, NASCAR has just one Black driver in its premier Cup Series and five Black pit crew members out of more than 300. So, would fairness be zero? Miller’s narrative is a deliberate attempt to weaponize “colorblindness” and allegations of reverse discrimination to dismantle programs fostering equity.
Trump’s agenda doesn’t just aim to dismantle DEI—it seeks to, like the Plessy Court and the Roberts Court, delegitimize the very idea that systemic racism exists. This tactic is part of a long historical pattern. In 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act, arguing it unfairly advantaged Black Americans over whites and articulated what could be called the first reverse discrimination argument. Trump’s strategy follows the same playbook, updated for today’s political landscape. Today systemic racism often operates through policies and practices designed by what I call the “hidden hand” to appear race-neutral or by obscuring the role race has played, such as in the racial wealth gap, to reframe the narrative while maintaining white dominance. Nicholas Confessore’s investigative reporting in The New York Times exposed a coordinated effort by the “hidden hand” to dismantle DEI initiatives under the pretext of combating “anti-white bigotry.”
For Black professionals, the stakes could not be higher. DEI and anti-discrimination policies provide critical frameworks for addressing microaggressions, bias, and systemic inequities in the workplace. Highly qualified Black professionals with skills, education and ability still find themselves un and underemployed. Without these programs, workplaces risk reverting to environments where equity is not even an afterthought. The consequences extend beyond individuals. Dismantling DEI stifles innovation, alienates diverse consumer bases, and undermines the ability of organizations to compete in an increasingly global and diverse economy.
The fight against this “color-blind” agenda requires collective action. Corporations have both the responsibility and the tools to resist. Businesses have the right to require workplace education and hiring practices that support competitiveness in the market. Government overreach into these areas, if properly framed, could be challenged in court, with lower courts and the Supreme Court potentially drawing the line on infringement of corporate autonomy.
By doubling down on DEI efforts, challenging systemic inequities, and advocating for policies that advance inclusion, companies can push back against the erosion of civil rights and lay the foundation for a more equitable future. Trump’s attack on DEI is not just a rollback of policy, it is a test of our national commitment to equity and justice. The stakes could not be higher.
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/24/pl...-day-one-is-a-colorblind-path-to-jim-crow-20/ (Archive)
