Will the principle of “equal opportunity” become a thing of the past in America? After President Donald Trump signed several executive orders undermining civil rights protections, many are wondering just how far back conservatives are trying to take us. He also rescinded Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 executive order, ensuring equal employment opportunities for citizens. While those reading the tea leaves are not at all surprised, it’s fair to say the impact of this shift will be far-reaching. In short order, Trump has leaned into racist stereotypes to justify unraveling nearly sixty years of precedent.
In one executive order, for instance, Trump announced his administration’s plan for “restoring merit-based opportunity,” claiming that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs “threaten the safety of American men, women, and children.” This framing is misleading on a few levels. For one, the text assumes that diversity programs diminish the quality of workers. Far too many Americans buy into the racist narrative that Black people can’t possibly be as skilled as their White counterparts. It’s presumed that if they managed to achieve career success, they “didn’t earn it.” It’s like it never crossed their minds that someone could be Black and qualified. Or that racism blocks access to opportunities they would otherwise access. Finally, the executive order suggests America was once a meritocratic society. However, given that companies routinely deprived Black people of access to opportunities based on their skin color during Jim Crow, that’s not true.
While the debate over DEI often centers on efforts to hire and retain Black talent, racist stereotyping of this nature also impacts immigrants of color. In a recent sit down with Sean Hannity for Fox News, Trump said that when it comes to immigrants, “you can look at them and say ‘could be trouble,” suggesting that he could judge someone based on their appearance to determine whether they would contribute to society or cause harm, which is impossible. It’s why authors urge readers not to judge a book by it’s cover. In Elie Mystal’s latest article in The Nation, he said that Trump’s executive orders and directives signify that the “federal government is no longer an ‘equal opportunity employer.” He suggested the problem goes beyond opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs because these executive orders wrongfully “assume that every single person hired through a diversity program is undeserving of their position, that their qualifications are lesser and their literal work ethic and talent are suspect.”
The myth of meritocracy portrays society as fair, suggesting that those who work hard will always reap the benefits of their efforts. However, Africans enslaved in this country were not paid for their efforts despite helping to build national monuments like the White House and Capital Building. Black men and women working hard to provide for their families during the Reconstruction Era were often viciously attacked and threatened by white people for registering to vote, often without legal consequences. Historical events, such as the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, illustrate that even when Black Americans worked together to create a thriving, self-sufficient community, racism undermined their efforts. Madeira et al. (2019) noted, “Given that the low-status groups are seen as particularly blameworthy for their own situation,” there is a link between meritocracy and legitimization of inequality.” While President Trump claims he wants the nation to return to a merit-based system, the country’s legacy of discrimination proves that America did not initially award opportunities based on merit.
When confronted with examples of hardworking Americans facing hardship, many cling to this ideology of meritocracy. If they acknowledged society’s role in facilitating success, they’d also have to confront how the system often produces inequality. As we know, Black Americans are more likely to live in communities deprived of resources associated with career success. Predominantly-Black public school districts are chronically underfunded, contributing to disparities in students’ standardized test scores, which, in turn, perpetuate racial inequities in college admissions. Given this context, seeing some politicians double down on this notion of merit is distressing for the most marginalized. Despite substantial evidence of racial class disparities in America, many refuse to acknowledge the value of ensuring citizens have equal access to employment opportunities.
Trump also signed the “Keep Americans Safe in Aviation” executive order, suggesting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “betrayed” its mission by prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion “over excellence.” However, Black pilots, like Latino and Asian pilots, must undergo the same training as White pilots. Suggesting otherwise provokes skepticism that only serves to alienate talented individuals. Implementing a diversity program never requires an organization to compromise quality. Nor does it interfere with “essential life-saving duties,” as Trump suggested in the executive order. It’s harmful that the federal government now readily associates someone’s skin color with their qualifications. This is particularly insulting in an era where Black women are ranked as one of the groups most likely to pursue and earn a college degree despite earning less money than every other group.
In another executive order, entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” Trump portrayed diversity, equity, and inclusion as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.” However, such a characterization overlooks why these programs were implemented in the first place — to mitigate this nation’s legacy of racism targeting Black people and other racial minority groups. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lyndon Johnson gave a speech explaining why such an extraordinary measure was necessary. He noted that while “Americans of every race and color have worked to build a nation of widening opportunities,” racism limited access for Black people and other racial minorities. “We believe that all men are created equal. Yet many are denied equal treatment.” “We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. Yet, millions are deprived of those blessings — not because of their failures, but because of the color of their skin.” “Let us close the springs of racial poison,” Johnson urged, though many Americans resisted this call.
Some of the nation’s first diversity, equity, and inclusion programs were created to mitigate racist hiring practices. Yet, they were never universally implemented in the private sector, and racism persists even today. For instance, Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) found that “résumes with ‘white-sounding’ names’ — Jay, Brad, Carrie, and Kristen — were 50 percent more likely than those with ‘black-sounding’ names to receive a callback. While President Donald Trump and other conservatives refer to these programs as harmful or wasteful, research has demonstrated that diversity has a positive effect beyond morally rejected racism. One study found that diversity enhances organizational performance. Another noted that a diversified workforce “leads to improved productivity,” a primary goal of businesses. Diverse groups are more likely to possess varied perspectives, facilitating better decision-making and innovation. In short, diversity is good for business or any collective goal. And resistance to these policies can be traced to this country’s legacy of racial segregation and discrimination.
Will equal opportunity become a thing of the past under Trump’s leadership? That has yet to be determined, though these executive orders signify he’s willing to attack programs designed to mitigate racism, as well as civil rights protections. In Lyndon Johnson’s executive order, he declared, “We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” Despite protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rescinding this order sends the message that the federal government is no longer committed to ensuring citizens have equal access to employment opportunities. And Trump’s executive orders portraying diverse applicants as unqualified will likely have a chilling effect. After all, the Justice Department announced Thursday that they are freezing the civil rights division, effectively halting pending cases. While many Americans believe our civil rights protections are set in stone, President Trump’s barrage of executive orders exposes the frailty of those protections. As journalist Ida B. Wells noted, “The price of liberty is ever vigilance.”
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of Dr. Allison Gaines' work on Medium.