Judged by the Skin They're In

Equal protection under the law remains the law of the land regardless of any other phrases by which we call it

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

~ Brian Sims

If you have ever tried to define institutional racism, just continue to pay attention to the resulting impacts from the Trump Administration’s fervor to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The proximity between the actions of the second Trump administration and institutional racism comes into sharper focus as the administration attempts to not only set employment discrimination policy for the operations of the federal government but also for every public and private concern operating in the United States, as well. The likely net result of following the Project 2025 roadmap for removing critical race theory (CRT) and DEI from American society will be the ushering in of Jim Crow 2.0. America is not now nor probably ever will be a colorblind society. Moreover, that is not the point of the laws protecting our civil rights. The United States does, however, guarantee equal protection under the law for every U.S. citizen. And that is the spirit and intent behind most DEI initiatives. The real world effect of the Trump executive order dismantling DEI is to scare private sector employers into judging their employees by the color of their skin. Words cannot express how frustrating it is to still be discussing why African Americans are not intellectually inferior regardless of who says we are. Unfortunately, this topic yet requires discussion. So, let’s take it to the head … Straight, no chase, Baby!

Civil Rights, Affirmative Action and DEI Initiatives

Anti-discrimination cannot be effectuated by creating an environment of legal discrimination. Statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were enacted to provide a legal framework for reversing decades of discriminatory practices in employment, financial services and housing. Nowhere in the language of the provisions of these enactments are racial quotas mandated for employment or college / university admissions. Both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were born of the power vested in the U.S. Congress to enforce the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” Recall that African Americans were barred from holding certain professional positions due to legalized segregation and virtually shut out from holding other positions simply because of the prevailing stereotype that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, a notion in which President Trump seems to continue to believe. Black folks were also prevented from buying life insurance, being deemed to be too high risk due to lower life expectancies. Banks refused to underwrite mortgages for African Americans customers. The federal government refused to extend homeownership programs to Black Americans, even to black veterans. These things happened and were the social order of the United States because of economic and social policies based on statutes following the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the several states. No level of cognitive dissonance, disagreement or gaslighting can change historical facts. Further, the idea that these discriminatory policies were enshrined in the law, literally means that these racist policies were the institutionalized social order. Jim Crow segregation and employment discrimination was enforced by public and private institutions – i.e. churches, government agencies, nonprofit organizations and publicly-trade corporations. Institutional racism was the law of the land in the United States from 1788 to 1964. Affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are really small measures to address the decades of injustices directed toward people of color, women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

POTUS Cannot Reverse Federal or State Statutes with an Executive Order

No President of the United States (POTUS) can overrule the will of the people, which means the president cannot reverse or rescind legislation enacted by Congress and signed into law by a previous or, even, the current POTUS. Executive orders issued by a president simply cannot supplant enacted legislation or decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed[.]” Meaning the president’s authority is derived from: (1) Article II of the Constitution; and (2) the laws that We the People, via our representatives in Congress, decide to enact for the governance of our society.

The U.S. Government is comprised of three co-equal branches of government: the Legislative Branch (Congress), the Executive Branch (POTUS, White House and Federal Agencies) and the Judicial Branch (SCOTUS plus the federal appellate and district courts). State governments are organized in the same manner with their general assemblies, governors and judicial systems. While the U.S. Constitution is “the supreme law of the land”, the Tenth Amendment creates our system of federalism in which “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” American federalism prevents POTUS from ordering states to take actions to further the agenda of the federal government. In fact, unless Congress passes legislation that requires states to act in a way that does not violate the Tenth Amendment, POTUS has no power over the several states of the union.

Therefore, the president’s power is legally limited to the operations of the U.S. Government. Which means that the president has no authority to mandate that private entities such as the publicly-traded corporations, nonprofit organizations and universities with endowments in excess of $1 Billion end their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Like most authoritarians, Trump is using the threat of government action as a blunt instrument to force compliance with his endeavors to undue the nation’s attempts ameliorate a history of animus, manifested through wide-ranging discrimination against marginalized groups of American citizens. As Deena Zaru reported for ABC News:

“Several legal experts who advise companies and institutions regarding their DEI policies told ABC News that while the Trump administration doesn’t have the legal authority to mandate that private business abandon their DEI policies, the executive order’s language uses the threat of potential legal action against certain companies with DEI policies to ostensibly force them to do so.”

State governments along with the local governments within their jurisdictions and private companies across the nation must continue to push back against the Trump administration’s threats seeking to force the termination of DEI initiatives outside the federal government. Honestly, We the People need to push back against Trump’s assault on DEI initiatives within the federal government.

DEI Initiatives Increase Meritocracy

In one of his first addresses as a duly elected senator, the Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock echoed the words of former Pennsylvania state legislator, Brian Sims, by reiterating, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equity might feel like oppression.” Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives actually increase meritocracy by ensuring qualified Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), LGBTQ+ and women professionals receive an equal opportunity, especially regarding holding leadership positions from which they were once legally excluded. The real issue behind DEI initiatives becomes the tendency of employers to use DEI as an excuse for hiring decisions even when the candidate from a so called diverse background is the most qualified to fill a vacant position. In other words, for years some hiring managers have suggested they were forced to develop a diverse workforce rather than fairly evaluating the benefits of creating diversity in their workplace. By casting hiring decisions in this light, doubt regarding the qualifications of African American professionals, in particular, percolates throughout so many workplaces unnecessarily. Far too many Black professionals find themselves spending valuable time defending their professional bona fides rather than advancing initiatives to address strategic priorities of their organizations.

Unfortunately, even in the face of national tragedy, President Trump found a way to blatantly use race as a basis for advancing his culture war agenda regarding DEI. In the aftermath of the first mid-air collision of a commercial flight since 2009, President Donald J. Trump blamed DEI for the crash involving a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and American Airlines Flight 5342 on Wednesday, 29 January 2025. President Trump, at one point during a press conference to address the incident, said that Presidents Obama and Biden “had determined that the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] workforce was ‘too white’,” according to Adriana Gomez Licon reporting for the Associated Press. Interestingly enough, neither the air traffic controllers nor either of the pilots involved in this deadly crash were black. Trump went on to state:

“We have a high standard. We’ve had a much higher standard than anybody else. And there are things where you have to go by brainpower. You have to go by psychological quality, and psychological quality is a very important element of it.”

Both Veep J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, echoed the president’s assertion that DEI could be the root cause that led to the horrific accident. Vice President Vance even went so far as to say, “When you don’t have the best standards in who you’re hiring, it means on the one hand, you’re not getting the best people in government, but on the other hand, it puts stresses on the people who are already there.” It is probably a safe bet to assume many of the nation’s top military commanders completely agree with that sentiment, at the moment.

Let’s be honest. No one who nominates Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense can truly claim to be a champion of the idea of meritocracy. Hegseth, by all accounts, is utterly unqualified to lead one of the largest military machines ever assembled, which also happens to be the most lethal armed force the world has either known. Which also begs the question as to how Secretary Hegseth can decry anyone else as being unqualified with any sense of propriety. So, the goal of the Trump administration in dismantling DEI is obviously not the advancement of meritocracy. Trump literally suggested that Barack Obama, who has not been in office for the nine years preceding the American Airlines – Black Hawk crash, and Joe Biden purposely hired fewer white professionals to staff the FAA and thereby caused a “brain drain” on the agency. The only problem with this logic becomes the fact that President Obama was succeeded by the same Donald J. Trump making this claim. He is also the same Donald J. Trump who, in the first week of his second term in office:

• Failed to nominate a new FAA Administrator following the departure of former FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker on January 20^th

• Ordered a hiring freeze for air traffic controllers.

• Eliminated the Aviation Security Advisory Committee.

Leaders who take accountability for the decisions they make are both invaluable and highly effective. In Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., we have a saying: “Excuses are the tools of incompetence that build moments to nothingness, and those who excel in them seldom succeed at anything else.” Blaming past administrations for issues the president could have fixed in his previous or current administration is making excuses. Blaming a former public official who the current president replaced nine days before an incident is also an excuse. Blaming diversity, equity and inclusion for a national tragedy that did not involve the direct control or leadership of a Black American, Latino, woman or member of the LGBTQ+ community is pure bigotry.

By Way of Conclusion

Dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives will likely serve to encourage employers to judge African American, Latino, female and LGBTQ+ candidates and employees solely on the basis of immutable characteristics like ethnicity, race, sex and gender. In other words, marginalized groups will be judged by the skin they are in rather than the content of their bona fides, much less the content of their character. Advancing an elimination of DEI initiatives across the federal government along with the federal contracting space will certainly result in the removal of black and female professionals from positions of leadership in federal agencies and among the contractors selling goods and services to the U.S. Government. And since the President of the United States has no authority over the employment and operational practices of the states or private organizations, institutions that operate outside of the federal government should continue to advance the principles of equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of what we call those efforts.