#with all the DEI rollbacks…

[cchickki]

those type of people being so disgusting and racist and crying over their favorite white girlie pop singers didn’t win their millionth grammy in a row for the same old regurgitated album.

13,000 academy voters were added to combat the bias of the same 5 old white men who voted yearly and admitted to purposely not voting for certain people over petty BS.

innovation, competition, effort and talent really shown through this year. your fave will be fine if they didn’t win this time around, relax. a black artist has never won for a country album, a black woman hasn’t won album of the year since the 90s. “no one was listening to these albums or songs!” you all really don’t be around black people like that at all and it shows. keep telling on yourselves. (also ‘not like us’ was literally everywhere like inescapable from sport games, brands, etc. people who say they never heard it are being disingenuous)

you can be upset about something without being terrible and racist to the person who won and the people celebrating the win, weirdos.

cope and seethe harder.

[metalheadsforblacklivesmatter]

I should point out that even though Trump cites "there's only two genders" to roll back DEI programs.

Rolling back DEI will roll back all protections based on race and sex. So women and people of color are at risk too.

You know what? All the gay people and women that supported him? Especially the ones that attacked me for not supporting him? I say this with every fiber, every cell, every ATOM of my fucking being. I hope not only do you lose your job for it. I hope that your pink slip cites that the rollback of DEI protections to be the very reason why you lose your job. I hope that you know that voting for Trump is EXACTLY what caused it. I hope you get EXACTLY what you voted for.

Because I fucking told you what was coming and you called me mentally ill.

-fae

[thatvvitch]

Something I find endlessly hysterical is that all of these predominantly white people cheering at the rollback of civil rights and DEI actually don’t even know what that means. Corporations have been using performative DEI, but what the actual intention was was to prevent discrimination against a lot of different factors.

So not only are the women cheering on allowing discrimination to fully be alive and well against themselves as we are fully entering the Handmaid‘s Tale… but all of these people seem to forget that because we will and have always been in a class war, they will not be able to retire and inevitably when they try to gain employment in their twilight years, age discrimination will come back to bite them in the ass.

America 

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

President Donald Trump is expected to issue more than 200 executive orders on Monday, moments after being sworn back into office. The orders will target transgender rights, diversity initiatives, and other federal policies. According to Fox News, the actions will include sweeping reversals of Biden administration policies and significant measures to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises.

Defining "biological sex"

One of Trump’s first executive orders will require federal agencies to define sex as strictly either male or female. This directive will eliminate recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities at the federal level, barring individuals from updating gender markers on passports and other federal documents that currently allow for “X” gender markers. The Biden administration had allowed such updates, viewing them as critical for equality for nonbinary people.

Eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs

Trump is set to abolish all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies. These programs, implemented under Biden, aimed to address systemic inequities and create more inclusive workplaces. Trump’s administration argues that DEI programs are unnecessary and divisive, according to Fox News. This rollback is expected to disproportionately impact underrepresented groups who have benefited from the programs.

Reinstating the transgender military ban

Trump has promised to reinstate a ban on transgender people serving in the military, reversing Biden’s 2021 policy that allowed transgender Americans to serve openly. Trump originally introduced the exclusive policy during his first term and faced widespread criticism for being discriminatory. Trump has framed this decision as a cost-saving measure, though studies have shown that transgender service members have a negligible impact on military spending. Advocates warn the ban will exclude capable individuals from serving their country.

Banning transgender women in sports

Another executive order is expected to ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports, aligning with Trump’s campaign promises. He has argued this measure ensures fairness in competition despite a lack of evidence supporting widespread advantages for transgender athletes. Advocacy groups have called such a ban harmful and rooted in misinformation. Despite the exceedingly small number of trans athletes who participate in competitive sports, Republicans have made targeting them a priority.

Several of Felon 47’s 200+ tyrannical executive orders will target trans rights (and LGBTQ+ rights more broadly), such as legalizing trans erasure by declaring that the only two federally recognized genders are male and female, ban on trans women in women sports, reinstate the ban on trans military service members, and attacks on gender-affirming care.

Blue states should not obey any of his tyrannical anti-trans EOs!

See Also:

HuffPost: Trump Preparing Executive Order To Declare There Are Only 2 ‘Not Changeable’ Sexes

Erin In The Morning: Trump Promised 200 Executive Orders Day 1: Here Are Some That Could Target Trans People

[sweaterkittensahoy]

y'all, if you want me to participate in a boycott, you have to tell me why. I should not have to google the name of the thing and the date to get an answer.

In case anyone else has seen things about "economic blackout on February 28 ", it's about protesting DEI rollbacks from large companies.

But I had to look it up. You can't run an effective boycott if people don't know why, and you shouldn't want to run a boycott where people can't easily answer why.

Also, the info I saw about it said "Starting with one day, maybe going up to three."

You don't get to be wishy-washy on the length of your short boycott. That's not how this works. Are you doing a 24-hour boycott or are you doing a 3-day boycott? Because it feels like you're trying to have a ready excuse if the numbers aren't as devastating as you would like them to be in 24 hours.

Also, frankly, setting it for February 28th when Valentine's Day is FRIDAY and a day that large retailers usually get slammed makes me feel there's no real backbone in play here.

Look, if you wanna participate, participate. Here's a Newsweek article explaining it.

Also, here's Newsweek explaining who The People's Union is because i sure as fuck didn't know, and frankly from the what the founder of the union focuses on on his own Union website, I do not find them serious in the least. It's all buzz words and sob story background with nothing in the article actually indicating what this group does to actually effect change.

If Newsweek has to run an article explaining who the group is who is trying to run a boycott, and that article doesn't actually explain what the group hopes to achieve by having the boycott, it's not a serious group.

"But, Gayle! They want DEI offices back!"

Okay. But do you really think PBS cut its DEI department because it wanted to or because if they don't, the government funding they get will get yanked? Do you really think Target, that loudly made a point to talk about how less rainbow their capitalism was gonna be before Pride last year, is just chomping at the bit to put their DEI office back into place, or do you think maybe they showed up which side they were on and now they have an easy excuse to drop it?

Do you think Google, who was literally head-hunting me for nearly a year, and then suddenly stopped talking to me just as they got sued by female employees for sexist work practices geniunely care about what DEI can do?

Do you think Amazon, who has cut me out of interview cycles TWICE because when they ask "How do you innovate every day?" and I go, "I don't. I think it's an odd standard to judge all possible employees by especially in my department, where the focus should be on being able to communicate complicated information to anyone in any place at any time, which can lead to innovation but should not be a high-ranked goal" gives a shit about DEI? The Amazon that demanded workers come back to the office back in September while announcing everyone had until January? Thus making it possible for them to have a "voluntary headcount reduction" instead of a layoff to deal with whatever shortcomings the balance sheet showed?

"But, Gayle, I care!"

Aim it somewhere useful. Do a personal boycott. Email all those big companies The People's Union think they can hit on the bottom line within maybe 72 hours and tell them what you generally spend at their company and that you are taking that money away. Because, honestly, an email campaign that is "Hey, I did the math, and last year, I spent $500 at your business, and this year, I'm spending $0." Get your friends into it. Do some community organizing around it. Rather than this empty threat of 24-72 hours, commit to a long-term refusal to work with these private companies who do not have to answer to the government for their funding.

At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to this: A maybe 3-day boycott by an unproven group calling itself a "Union" whose main talking points are "government bad" and "I've been meditating since I was six" (that's not a joke, that's in the article about who the fuck People's Union is) isn't going to do jack fuck all for any DEI program. Literally every business they want you to target can easily handle three days of no shoppers. They can probably handle three years of slow sales, frankly.

The reasons boycotts work when ACTUAL unions call for them is because companies know their average sales. So, if a REAL union says, "Please show your support for the union on February 28 by refusing to buy from our place of business," and that place of business sees a HUGE drop in sales on February 28, they can only assume it's because the union asked customers to show they stand with the union. (By the way, if you ever participate in a boycott like that, please also send an email to customer service that says "I will not be buying from you on February 28 because I stand with the union," but also please only do it if you actually go to that business in general; lots of people call things a boycott when they mean they just don't and never have shopped someplace.).

Those 24-72 hours the People's Union want you spend not shopping but maybe shopping if they feel really powerful after the first 24 hours, will be much better spent bothering your elected officials to make them refuse the anti-DEI executive order.

This is a bragging rights boycott. It will not harm the businesses in the least, but at the end of it, all the people who participated can smugly announce they didn't buy anything at the Target for a whole 3 days because they're so morally correct.

[bighermie]

Notoriously Woke Target Announces DEI Rollback Just Days After Trump's Inauguration | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Zeisloft, The Western Journal

[mariacallous]

Meta told investors on Thursday that it remains committed to building “an inclusive workplace” full of “cognitive diversity,” even as the social media company moves to end its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The statement was part of an annual earnings filing Meta made to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in which it removed mentions of DEI-related “learning and development courses” for employees, as well as statistics on the percentage of staff who identify as disabled, LGBTQ+, or from other underrepresented backgrounds.

“In early 2025, we announced changes to our diversity programs in light of the shifting legal and policy landscape,” Meta wrote in the filing. “We will continue to work to build an inclusive workplace where we can leverage our collective cognitive diversity to build the best products and make the best decisions for the global community we serve.”

The filing, known as a 10-K, maintains language from Meta’s 2023 version about how “a broad range of knowledge, skills, political views, backgrounds, and perspectives” leads to cognitive diversity and “fuels innovation.” The world’s biggest social media company disclosed it has about 74,000 employees globally, up 10 percent from a year ago. Overall, Meta said it grew its daily active users by 5 percent to 3.35 billion in 2024, while sales increased by 22 percent to over $164 billion.

Two current Meta employees told WIRED they are still upset about the DEI rollbacks announced earlier this month and believe many of their colleagues share the same sentiments. Janelle Gale, the company’s vice president for human resources, said at the time that Meta was eliminating a program that aimed to ensure candidates from underrepresented groups in the tech industry weren’t overlooked in its hiring practices. Cuts were also announced to efforts that promoted Meta working with a diverse slate of outside vendors, such as businesses owned by military veterans or women, as well as to training programs designed to engender respect in the workplace among people with different backgrounds and abilities.

Meta spokesperson Tracy Clayton declined to comment on the revisions to its SEC filing. The company did not immediately respond to a separate request for comment on the concerns raised by some employees.

In a note to staff earlier this month, Gale cited the changing US legal landscape that is “signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI.” She added that the term had “become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others."

Some Meta employees say they have yet to notice any impacts internally. “I’m not convinced they are going to do anything at all. Could just remove mention of it and move on,” one staffer says. But the changes, which followed the relaxation of Meta’s hate speech policies for content shared on Instagram and Facebook, remain a constant source of discussion among workers, according to one of the employees.

Meta employees typically vote on which questions executives should address at companywide meetings. Ahead of such a gathering scheduled for Thursday, several of the most-endorsed questions were related to DEI. But Meta leadership have told employees that the popularity of a certain question no longer guarantees that it will be answered by company leadership, according to one of the employees. The New York Times earlier reported the change.

A number of US companies, including in the tech industry, removed mentions of diversity goals and programs in their annual filings about a year ago amid growing public criticism of the initiatives in the form of civil lawsuits and pressure from activist investors. A new round of cutbacks have been announced by retailers, restaurants, manufacturers, and tech developers as President Donald Trump returned to the White House this month.

Trump has repeatedly criticized DEI policies and programs, calling them “nonsense” and “discriminatory.” After he was inaugurated on January 20, Trump quickly moved to end DEI programs at agencies across the federal government.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has sought to warm his once-frosty relationship with the president over the past few months. On Wednesday, Meta and Trump reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit Trump filed over the temporary suspension of his user account after the January 6 Capitol insurrection, according to a federal court filing. Meta agreed to pay about $25 million, with most of the funds going toward Trump’s future presidential library, The Wall Street Journal reported. Dani Lever, a Meta spokesperson, confirmed the reporting to WIRED. Trump’s attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.

Zuckerberg didn’t acknowledge the settlement on the company’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday, but did applaud the president. “We now have a US administration that is proud of our leading companies, prioritizes American technology winning, and that will defend our values and interests abroad,” he said. “And I am optimistic about the progress and innovation that this can unwind.”

At Meta, the effect of the DEI cuts may be muted, in part, because the company has been working on trimming them for some time behind the scenes, according to a former Meta employee directly familiar with the changes. “It’s been a slow, painful death,” they say. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020, then chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg spearheaded the company’s increased commitments to diversity, including commissioning an internal civil rights audit. In its 2022 diversity report, Meta noted that it had doubled the number of women and Black staff members since 2019 as part of its diversity goals.

With Sandberg’s support, the former Meta employee says, “there was like this huge rush of energy to make a difference.” But in July 2022, Sandberg announced her departure from day-to-day operations at the company. Around that same time, the tech giant announced that it would start identifying teams to let go during upcoming widespread layoffs, which took place several months later. The eventual cuts affected some 11,000 people and were the first blow to Meta’s progress on diversity, the former employee alleges.

“Managers who were on these DEI teams were forced to either convert to non-manager roles or move to other teams that weren’t DEI. Teams with DEI in their names were disbanded,” the former employee says. They further allege that after the layoffs, Meta stopped hosting quarterly leadership meetings to discuss progress on DEI goals.

Asked about these allegations, Meta’s Clayton says the layoffs affected employees across the company.

Diversity advocates maintain that investing in DEI programs helps businesses perform better financially. Some companies, including Microsoft, have not announced recent changes to DEI programs or amended related sections in their SEC filings. This week, Netflix, one of the first major tech companies to publish its fourth quarter earnings report, bolstered its section on diversity. The company now says that it trains not only its recruiters, but also “our people leaders” on hiring “more inclusively.”

The streaming giant continues to state that diversity in the workplace is important to attracting subscribers. “We want more people and cultures to see themselves reflected on screen—so it’s important that our employee base is diverse and represents the communities we serve,” Netflix explains in its SEC filing. The company, which employs about 14,000 people, declined to further comment.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

It's clear at this point that the single most mobilizing issue in the 2024 election in the US is anger over the Opus Dei Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, and a demand that this decision be overturned and Roe v Wade, which enjoys 70% support among Americans, be reinstated. Whitney Fox is a political newcomer, but the Democratic candidate for Florida’s 13th congressional district is optimistic that anger over the rollback of abortion rights will nudge her to victory.

Fox is challenging Republican incumbent Anna Paulina Luna, a firebrand ally of Donald Trump and a self-described “pro-life extremist”, with a promise to defend women’s autonomy. In a campaign video, Fox makes her pitch: “Our way of life is under attack by extremist politicians, attacking our reproductive freedoms, our democracy and doing nothing to lower the costs we are all struggling with,” she adds. “That’s why I am running for Congress: to end these attacks and protect our way of life, for my family and yours.”

But Fox faces an uphill battle if she is going to win on November 5. Pinellas county, where she is standing, has leaned conservative in recent years, and the non-partisan Cook Political Report rates the Fox-Luna race as “competitive” but “likely Republican”. Over a lunch of Cuban sandwiches in the city of St Petersburg, Fox is confident. Luna is wrong on this issue, she says, “And we know that with the right candidate, the right message, and our well-run campaign, we will be able to beat her.”

Democrats across the country are making the same bet. With just under two weeks until election day, when Americans will choose not only a new president but also a new Congress, they believe the hardline positions on abortion being pushed by many Republicans will work in their favour. Florida is one of nearly a dozen states where voters will be given a direct say on abortion laws through ballot referendums in November, including presidential battlegrounds such as Arizona and Nevada that are likely to determine who wins the White House.

Ever since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade in 2022, striking down the national right to an abortion, Republican officials have been pushing for increasingly prohibitive abortion restrictions at the state level. More than 20 states have laws to limit abortion earlier in pregnancy than the viability standard set by Roe, including 13 states where abortion is now banned in almost all circumstances, including for victims of rape and incest.

Some conservative lawmakers and judges are going further, calling for restrictions on access to contraception and fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilisation. All of this is at odds with the clear majority of Americans who identify as pro-choice, according to multiple polls. Opposition to the hardline policies was credited with supercharging Democratic victories in the 2022 midterms and several other special elections and off-year contests since. Democrats are now bullish that voter discontent with Republicans on the issue will once again motivate voters — especially women and young people — to turn out in large numbers for their candidates, from vice-president Kamala Harris to congressional hopefuls like Fox.

At the same time, many high-profile Republicans — including Trump — have scrambled to distance themselves from the religious right, to avoid alienating moderate and swing voters whose support will be critical in an election that is on a knife-edge.

The latest polling suggests while Harris and Trump are in effect tied in the crucial swing states, the former president has a problem with female voters in particular: a recent NBC News survey showed women across the country supporting his rival by a 14-point margin.

At a campaign stop in the battleground state of Pennsylvania on Monday, Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who broke with her party over Trump and is now campaigning for Harris, called on women of all political stripes to “reject cruelty” and “misogyny” at the ballot box.

“[Abortion] is not an issue that we’re seeing break down across party lines,” Cheney added. “There are many of us around the country who have been pro-life but who have watched . . . state legislatures put in place laws that are resulting in women not getting the care they need.”

Jessica Mackler, president of Emily’s List, a national group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, says the issue is already shaping how Americans will vote.

“The question is not: Will abortion drive votes in this election?” she says. “It is: How far, how wide and how deep does that impact go?” Florida — a racially and economically diverse state that is America’s third-largest by population — was for decades considered a bellwether of who would take the White House. Pinellas county, where Fox and Luna are competing, has picked the winner of every presidential election since 1980, with the exception of George W Bush in 2000.

But the state, which Trump adopted as his own after making Mar-a-Lago his primary residence in 2019, has become increasingly Republican. Trump won Florida by 3.4 points in 2020 and, in the 2022 midterms, Republican governor Ron DeSantis was re-elected by a nearly 20-point margin.

“Trump has carried Florida twice. I don’t know why he won’t carry it a third time,” says Brad Coker, a veteran non-partisan pollster and chief executive of Mason-Dixon Polling in Jacksonville, Florida’s biggest city. For now, Florida is leaning Republican, the Financial Times poll tracker shows, with Trump holding a 5.9-point lead over Harris. Yet there are signs of brewing discontent; political analysts expect the results in November will be much closer than they were in 2022. Other polls show Florida’s US Senate race — with incumbent Republican Rick Scott facing Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell — within striking distance for Democrats.

DeSantis’s approval rating has also fallen sharply in the past two years, a trend some analysts attribute to his increasingly conservative policy positions. In May, he signed a law banning access to abortion in the state after the sixth week of pregnancy — when many women do not yet realise they are pregnant — with some exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In this election, voters have a chance to overturn that law thanks to a ballot question known as Amendment 4, a referendum on enshrining abortion rights in Florida’s constitution. If 60 per cent of the electorate votes yes, the amendment would broadly guarantee access to abortion until a foetus can survive outside the womb, usually defined as around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The referendum, which was added to the ballot following a petition campaign by pro-choice groups, is nevertheless seen as an opening for Democrats, who are confident it will draw out voters on their side even though the campaign is not technically affiliated with any political party. “In every district that we are in, in every state that we are in, this is the issue that is driving the Democratic coalition in a really remarkable way,” says Mackler of Emily’s List. “Where abortion is on the ballot in any form, it is a driver of wins for Democrats.”

There is growing evidence that ballot measures to codify abortion rights can pass even in states that skew conservative, especially when only a simple majority is required. The most recent example was last year in Ohio, where an amendment enshrining reproductive rights in the state’s constitution passed with nearly 57 per cent of the vote. A year earlier, a similar measure passed in Kansas with 59 per cent support.

Both those states are reliably Republican: the Financial Times poll tracker shows Trump on course to win Ohio by more than 8 points and Kansas by 16. That has prompted GOP leaders to shrug off suggestions that support for abortion rights will fuel a so-called “blue wave” next month, insisting that issues like the economy carry more weight with voters. A recent nationwide Pew poll found the economy was the number-one issue for all voters in the election, while abortion ranked eighth. However, for those who identify as Harris supporters, abortion ranked as the third most important issue.

“You hear a lot of noise in the media, but the reality on the ground is that we are in a better place than we ever have been in Florida,” says Evan Power, chair of the state’s Republican party. “If you talk to Floridians, they care about immigration, inflation and the economy.”

Republicans already have an advantage over the Democrats when it comes to registered voters in the state, according to the latest official figures. Roughly 5.4mn people in Florida are registered Republicans, compared with 4.4mn registered Democrats. Another 3.5mn are registered to vote but unaffiliated with either major party.

That makes non-partisan experts like Coker doubtful Democrats can pull off an upset. “[Abortion] might move the needle a little in Florida when you start talking about the margins, but I don’t think it is going to change the overall outcome,” he says. “It is not going to be enough to flip a state like Florida.”

[cueburstnews]

Disney Content Warnings Revert Amid DEI Walkbacks

Dumbo Photo: Walt Disney Co./Everett Collection Anyone who has a Disney+ account can take a trip back in time by watching an old Disney movie like Dumbo or Peter Pan. But not all the way back to the ’40s or the ’50s, when those movies were made, back to 2019. Disney sent out a letter to its employees on February 11 walking back some of its company DEI initiatives, Axios reports. The rollbacks…

[cyber-polemics]

Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

Jack: On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed the executive order titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." This order revokes several previous executive actions, including Executive Order 11246, which had prohibited federal contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, and mandated affirmative action to promote equal employment opportunities. The new order directs federal agencies to eliminate any mandates, programs, or activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), asserting that such initiatives may lead to unlawful discrimination or preferences. It emphasizes a return to merit-based practices in federal contracting and employment, requiring contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws. The administration argues that these measures are necessary to uphold civil rights laws and ensure fairness in federal operations. whitehouse.gov Imani Jefferson: This executive order represents a significant rollback of protections against discrimination and undermines decades of progress toward workplace diversity and inclusion. By revoking Executive Order 11246 and related directives, the administration removes essential requirements for federal contractors to implement affirmative action and promote equal opportunity. Eliminating DEI programs under the guise of restoring merit-based practices ignores the systemic barriers that have historically marginalized underrepresented groups. This action risks perpetuating inequality and discrimination in federal contracting and employment, as it fails to address the implicit biases and structural disadvantages that DEI initiatives aim to mitigate. Preston Bancroft: The executive order appropriately refocuses federal contracting and employment on merit-based principles, ensuring that opportunities are awarded based on individual qualifications and performance rather than demographic characteristics. While DEI programs may have been implemented with good intentions, they often result in preferential treatment that undermines the principles of equal opportunity and fairness. By eliminating mandates related to DEI, the administration is upholding civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination and ensuring that federal operations are efficient and effective. This approach promotes a level playing field where all individuals have the opportunity to succeed based on their abilities and contributions. Imani Jefferson: However, this perspective fails to recognize that merit cannot be fully assessed without considering the diverse experiences and perspectives that individuals from different backgrounds bring to the table. DEI programs are designed to level the playing field and ensure that all qualified individuals have equal access to opportunities, particularly those from historically disadvantaged groups. Eliminating these initiatives risks perpetuating existing disparities and overlooks the value of a diverse workforce in enhancing problem-solving and decision-making within federal agencies. Preston Bancroft: While diversity of thought and experience is valuable, it should not be mandated through DEI programs that may inadvertently introduce bias into the hiring process. A truly merit-based system evaluates candidates solely on their qualifications, skills, and performance, without regard to race, gender, or other demographic factors. This ensures that all individuals are judged fairly and that the federal workforce is composed of the most capable personnel, thereby improving government performance and service delivery to the American people.

[brooklyndadshow]

White Supremacy in the White House

Prompt: Please answer as an expert in African American History and American History. I want to write a curriculm for two tree our lecture classes as part of a college class on African American History. The topic is White Supremacy in the White House. The class will trace the history of White Supremacy in the highest levels of our government and federal government sanctioned racist policies. The class will connect the policies of the current adminstration - elimination of DEI programs and policies accross the federal government, elimination in education of African American history and history of all people of color, support for white South African's - to past adminstrations with implicit and explicit racist - for example Nixon's Law & Order policies and CointelPRo ANd Woodrow Wilson showing Birth of the Nation at the White house and the systemically racist policies enacted by him and other presidents throughout the 20th century. The curriculum should consist of outline for topics for each day. The First day should start with examination of history. The Second day should concentrate on impacts and efforts to combat systemic racism coming from the highest level of federal government. There should be readings to do before each days lecture. There should be an short assignment to be done at home after each lecture. There should be bibliography at the end with all the sources used to put together the curriculum, links to sources when available. It should include follow-up books to read and movies to watch, with links.

ChatGPT:

Curriculum for Two-Day Lecture Series: White Supremacy in the White House

Course Title: White Supremacy in the White House: The Federal Government’s Role in Systemic Racism

Instructor: Course Level: Upper-Level College Seminar Class Duration: Two three-hour sessions

Day 1: The Historical Foundations of White Supremacy in the White House

Pre-Class Readings:

Ibram X. Kendi, "Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America" (Chapters on Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan)

Michelle Alexander, "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" (Introduction and Chapter 1)

Carol Anderson, "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide" (Chapters on Nixon and Reagan policies)

Selections from "The COINTELPRO Papers" by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall

Primary Source: Woodrow Wilson’s Statement on "Birth of a Nation"

Lecture Topics:

Introduction to White Supremacy in the Executive Branch

Defining White Supremacy and its manifestation in policy and leadership

The role of the presidency in setting racial norms

Woodrow Wilson and the Re-Emergence of Federal Racism

Wilson’s screening of "Birth of a Nation" and its impact

Federal segregation policies implemented under Wilson

FDR and Truman: The Limits of Racial Progress

New Deal policies and their exclusion of Black Americans

Truman’s desegregation of the military—an exception or a shift?

Nixon’s "Law & Order" and COINTELPRO

Targeting of Civil Rights leaders, Black Panthers, and radical movements

The Southern Strategy: Appealing to white voters through coded racial policies

Reagan and Bush: The War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration

Crack vs. Cocaine Sentencing Disparities

Welfare Reform and "Superpredator" narratives

Homework Assignment:

Write a 2-3 page response analyzing one of the historical examples from today’s lecture. How did the policies explicitly or implicitly uphold white supremacy? Use at least two sources from the reading list.

Day 2: Contemporary Impacts and Resistance to Systemic Racism in Government

Pre-Class Readings:

Derrick Bell, "Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism" (Selected Essays)

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, "From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation" (Introduction and Chapter 4)

Report: "The Trump Administration’s Rollback of Civil Rights Protections" (Brennan Center for Justice, 2021)

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Report on Federal DEI Program Eliminations (2024)

Articles on the Biden Administration’s Mixed Record on Racial Justice

Lecture Topics:

Trump and the Resurgence of Explicit White Supremacy in Policy

Muslim Ban, Border Policies, and Xenophobia

Attacks on Critical Race Theory and DEI programs

Response to Charlottesville and endorsement of far-right groups

Biden’s Administration and the Struggle for Systemic Change

Reinstating some DEI initiatives but maintaining law enforcement funding

Attempts to address economic disparities for Black Americans

Legislative and Judicial Roadblocks

Supreme Court decisions undermining voting rights and affirmative action

GOP-led state efforts to restrict education on race and systemic oppression

Resistance and Advocacy

Legal battles against racist federal policies

Grassroots organizing and policy advocacy

The role of academia and journalism in exposing systemic racism

Homework Assignment:

Create a short policy proposal (2-3 pages) that addresses one contemporary racial justice issue at the federal level. What changes would you advocate for, and how would they be implemented?

Bibliography & Additional Resources

Books for Further Reading:

Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Between the World and Me"

Isabel Wilkerson, "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents"

Angela Davis, "Are Prisons Obsolete?"

Richard Rothstein, "The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America"

Nikole Hannah-Jones, "The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story"

Films and Documentaries:

"13th" (Directed by Ava DuVernay) - Available on Netflix

"I Am Not Your Negro" (Directed by Raoul Peck) - Available on Amazon Prime

"Eyes on the Prize" (PBS Documentary) - Available on PBS

"Birth of a Nation" (1915) - For historical analysis only, Available on Archive.org

Online Resources & Reports:

Brennan Center for Justice Reports on Systemic Racism in Government: https://www.brennancenter.org/

NAACP Legal Defense Fund: https://www.naacpldf.org/

The Sentencing Project (Mass Incarceration Data): https://www.sentencingproject.org/

This curriculum aims to provide students with a thorough understanding of the historical and contemporary manifestations of white supremacy at the highest levels of government, while also highlighting efforts to resist systemic racism. Through readings, discussions, and assignments, students will critically analyze the policies that have shaped racial dynamics in America and consider actionable solutions for justice and equity.

[considerourknowledge]

Only White Eagles Players, Coaches Invited to White House After Super Bowl Victory

The Philadelphia Eagles won a stunning 40-22 rout of the two-time defending champion Kansas City Chiefs at Caesars Superdome in New Orleans Sunday night, a resounding victory that avenges a gutting, last-second Super Bowl loss two years ago to these same Chiefs. President Trump was on hand to see the game, marking the first time a sitting president has attended the Super Bowl. Trump did not stay until the end of the game, but did congratulate the Eagles afterward on Truth Social. "Great win by Philly in the Super Bowl. Looking forward to welcoming all the white players and coaches to the White House!" Trump announced. Later his aides had to clarify that because of Trump's rollback of DEI policies, only white members of the team will be allowed to celebrate their victory at the White House. "We can't have Hurts or Saquon, but that white kid who picked off Mahomes will be there," added Trump later.

[enolabar]

Trump's Executive Order: Ban on Trans Participation in the U.S. Military In a move that has sparked nationwide controversy, President Donald Trump is set to issue an executive order that will effectively ban transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. This new directive is part of a broader rollback of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the Department of Defense. The executive order not only signals a return to policies reminiscent of Trump’s earlier administration but also raises significant concerns about the future of trans rights and the overall inclusivity of the American armed forces. The Policy Shift and Its Implications Historically, the U.S. military has been a battleground for policies regarding the participation of transgender service members. In 2017, President Trump initially banned transgender individuals from serving, a policy that was later reversed by President Joe Biden in 2021. Now, with this forthcoming executive order, Trump is poised to reinstate restrictions by declaring that the physical and mental readiness of the military requires a ban on transgender service members. The order specifically aims to dismantle current DEI initiatives that have been implemented over the past years to ensure a more inclusive and representative armed forces. Critics argue that this change not only undermines the progress made toward equality but also jeopardizes the morale and effectiveness of the military by excluding a capable segment of the population. The Rationale Behind the Executive Order Supporters of the order claim that the decision is based on concerns about military readiness. They argue that accommodating transgender service members, particularly in relation to the use of gender pronouns and associated medical protocols, could potentially hinder operational efficiency. Proponents also assert that reinstating these restrictions will help restore traditional military values and discipline. However, numerous studies and expert opinions have disputed these claims, highlighting that the integration of transgender individuals into the armed forces has had minimal impact on overall performance. Many military professionals argue that diversity and inclusion are assets rather than liabilities, contributing to a more dynamic and adaptable fighting force. Broader Political and Social Impact The executive order is not merely a policy adjustment—it represents a significant shift in the cultural and political landscape of the U.S. military. By removing DEI initiatives, the administration signals a move away from policies designed to foster inclusion for all service members, irrespective of gender identity. This change comes at a time when debates over transgender rights and the role of diversity in public institutions are more polarized than ever. Critics view the order as a regression in terms of civil rights, suggesting that it undermines decades of progress toward ensuring equal treatment under the law. They fear that it will further marginalize transgender individuals, denying them the opportunity to serve their country based on outdated notions of gender and readiness. On the other hand, supporters claim that the decision is necessary to maintain the integrity and functionality of the military. Legal and Operational Considerations Legally, the executive order is expected to initiate a series of policy reviews and legal challenges. It mandates senior military officials to develop new guidelines that enforce the ban on transgender participation while rescinding any previous policies that supported DEI initiatives. The order also outlines provisions for handling cases where military personnel have been discharged for non-compliance with the vaccination mandate—a separate but equally contentious issue that continues to stir debate across political lines. Operationally, the order may result in significant restructuring within the armed forces. Military leaders will have to navigate

the practical challenges of enforcing these new guidelines, potentially facing resistance from within the ranks and from advocacy groups that support transgender rights. The long-term impact on morale, recruitment, and overall military cohesion remains uncertain. The Future of Transgender Rights in the Military As the nation braces for the official release of the order, the debate over transgender participation in the military remains a highly charged issue. This policy change, if implemented, could set a precedent for future administrations and shape the landscape of military recruitment and diversity for years to come. Observers both in the U.S. and internationally are closely watching how this decision will unfold and what it means for the broader fight for transgender rights. Conclusion Trump's forthcoming executive order to ban transgender participation in the U.S. military marks a dramatic policy reversal that will have far-reaching implications for military diversity and inclusion. By dismantling DEI initiatives, the administration is signaling a commitment to traditional standards of military readiness while inviting significant debate over the role of transgender rights in modern society. As legal challenges loom and military leadership grapples with the practicalities of enforcement, the long-term impact of this decision remains to be seen. The coming weeks will be critical in determining how this policy shift shapes the future of the U.S. armed forces and the broader discourse on civil rights and equality in America.

[sohaibsmart]

Protesters Collect Outdoors Goal HQ, Name for Nationwide Boycott After DEI Rollback

Protesters rallied outdoors Goal’s headquarters in Minneapolis and known as for a nationwide boycott after the retailer rolled again its variety, fairness and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a transfer aligned with President Trump’s govt ban on DEI within the federal authorities. “The truth is all of us make up the material of America and ought to be embraced,” stated Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil…

[starwanderer18]

Love waking up to seeing an email from the office of your university's president stating that all DEI-related programs are shut down indefinitely overnight without any warning or conversation with faculty and students.

Man's has a lawsuit against him for being (allegedly) a facilitator of or at least complicit in letting the sexual harassment of faculty and staff slide at the previous university he was president of (still ongoing) and has a vote of no confidence from the faculty and it's very clear that we as students don't approve of him either. But the board said they think he's still fit for the job. Our university is run by racist old white guys who do not care about the well-being of their students or what is going to happen to the university due to this rollback of DEI programs.

They will lose so much money and so many students because of this, in the long run. I'm worried I won't be able to complete my 4-year degree next semester if I can't afford to pay for it or even get jobs in the field I want to go into. And everyone in my friend group, including myself, are all affected by this.