In an interview with The New York Times, President Trump explained his hostility towards the civil rights laws meant to end discrimination against racial minorities and women and to expand opportunities for them in the workplace and in education.
He believes that civil rights protections have hurt white men. That is the rationale for his aggressive campaign to purge policies of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) from all institutions receiving federal funding.
Trump is indifferent to the long history of slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, bigotry, and segregation that harmed minorities, especially African Americans. He is equally indifferent to the long history of sexism and misogny that restricted the careers of women.
Erica Green reports:
President Trump said in an interview that he believed civil rights-era protections resulted in white people being “very badly treated,” his strongest indication that the concept of “reverse discrimination” is driving his aggressive crusade against diversity policies.
Speaking to The New York Times on Wednesday, Mr. Trump echoed grievances amplified by Vice President JD Vance and other top officials who in recent weeks have urged white men to file federal complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
When asked whether protections that began in the 1960s, spurred by the passage of the Civil Rights Act, had resulted in discrimination against white men, Mr. Trump said he believed “a lot of people were very badly treated.”
“White people were very badly treated, where they did extremely well and they were not invited to go into a university to college,” he said, an apparent reference to affirmative action in college admissions. “So I would say in that way, I think it was unfair in certain cases.”
He added: “I think it was also, at the same time, it accomplished some very wonderful things, but it also hurt a lot of people — people that deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job were unable to get a job. So it was, it was a reverse discrimination.”
Trump’s approach is calibrated to appeal to white men who blame their grievances on laws that protect racial minorities and women.
Carrying out Mr. Trump’s agenda is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was formed in 1965 under the Civil Rights Act. The commission’s chair, Andrea Lucas, issued a striking video message last month underlining the agency’s new posture.
“Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?” Ms. Lucas said in the video posted on X. “You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the E.E.O.C. as soon as possible. Time limits are typically strict for filing a claim.”
“The E.E.O.C. is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating ALL forms of race and sex discrimination — including against white male applicants and employees,” she said.
In the video, Ms. Lucas pointed white men to the commission’s F.A.Q. on “D.E.I.-related discrimination,” which notes that D.E.I. “a broad term that is not defined” in the Civil Rights Act.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the nation’s primary litigator of workplace discrimination, and for decades has been a resource for minorities, women and other groups who have historically faced discrimination. But Ms. Lucas has endeavored to make it one of Mr. Trump’s most powerful tools against D.E.I., with a particular focus on remedying perceived harms against white men.
Trump has combatted DEI in universities by threatening to cut off the funding of institutions that implement affirmative action for students and faculty and that have programs to encourage minorities.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Many years I ago I had an interesting conversation with an experienced Air Traffic Controller (ATC). I asked him about the hiring process at the FAA for new trainees. He said that everyone first had to take an aptitude test to assess whether they had the innate talent to learn the job effectively. If you passed that test, you then went into rigorous training for a lengthy period, in classroom and eventually on-the-job. The washout rate was often 50+% because the consequences for mistakes were obviously grave – fatal. The key point was that no one got beyond the aptitude test without passing. He said that he knew many highly intelligent people with great educational credentials who just didn’t have the right mental makeup for the job no matter how much they trained for it. Hence the very tough initial screening.
That conversation came to mind last week when I read an online comment posted by a current ATC. He said that in 2011 he took the aptitude test and passed with a 99% score; he finished the test 20 minutes early and looked around the room where everyone else seemed to be scrambling to finish the test. He was rated in the Best Qualified category, the highest rating possible and usually a lock to make it into ATC training class. But he was informed the next week that the FAA was not hiring any more white men for ATC positions. The Obama administration was pushing racial and gender quotas for all federal jobs – merit was a secondayy concern, even for ATCs.
I’ve heard similar stories for other public and private organizations. The Biden-era DEI wasn’t the original affirmative action, i.e. reaching out to people from all groups to make sure that they were aware of opportunities. It was was straight-up quotas. Trump is always hyberbolic and never makes even a good case well. But this reality about DEI is one reason why many young white men voted for Trump. The Boomer generation of white men never experienced this type of discrimination based on group identity.
LikeLike
You may count me among the skeptical where this story is concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of all the things that never happened, this didn’t happen the most.
LikeLike
Says the privileged, rich, white guy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The abused white male is part of the mythology of the radical right. It is tale told by men that feel sorry for themselves and their current status in life. The right tries to promote the image of everyone pulling themselves up by their so-called bootstraps, but it is much harder for poor people of color to do so. Trump is someone that enjoys provoking his cult for political gain. Lots of people have good reason to be dissatisfied with the economy, but the real “boogie man” is not affirmative action or DEI policies.
Reality tells a different story. Our economy is the result of years of globalization and neoliberal polices that have caused extreme income inequality. All working families have faced a diminished return on their labor, not simply white men. If white men are unhappy with their circumstance, they should stop blaming and start working to change the system that has allowed income in inequality to become so extreme.
The problem is not immigrants or women. By the way, in the wake of the recent tragedy in Minneapolis, I have read a few posts on social media that propose “deporting white women.” Misplaced blame is a distraction that never solves problems. If we are looking for someone to blame, it should be based on facts, not prejudice. The main causes of our current income disparity are the ultra-wealthy and political system that allows the wealthy to rig the economy to favor them and their interests.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ever since the Baake case, the claims of “reverse discrimination” against white males has been a constant drum beat from a conservative viewpoint. It is always a narrative-based argument. I heard this story about this guy, or I met this guy who is a phrase that meets the ear immediately. If we never consider the statistics, we really do not understand whether we are creating a more inclusive society or not.
So the real question is whether you care whether we are creating an inclusive society.
Or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What angers younger white men is that they are effectively penalized for the advantages that older white men from previous generations had. The evidence is overwhelming that some younger white and Asian men have been excluded from consideration for employment or college admissions. These younger men are further angered by having their personal experiences dismissed, as we see here in other comments.
LikeLike
But in fact, younger white men (I was just entering the work force when Baake was decided) still had advantages born of who knows whom and all the other personal connections that made us score higher and spew confidence rather than worry and second guess. How do we do it? How do we make fairness a part of society do that all of us buy into the system?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a teacher, I frequently advised students that they could get ahead in life by focusing on learning, i.e., education, training and experience, e.g., it’s primarily about what you know, not who you know –as I think it should be.
LikeLike
BTW, as a retired professor, I don’t have a problem with the Baake decision or believe in quotas to promote diversity in colleges. When it’s competitive for all though, that doesn’t ensure there will be enough spaces for everyone who wants to attend and are qualified to do so. However, we have a lot of colleges for students to choose from, so they should be advised from the get-go to apply to many schools instead of putting all their eggs in one basket…
I think it should be the same when it comes to jobs as well, because I was up for a promotion and was discriminated against myself, in favor of a minority candidate –who lacked the education and experience that I had. I knew I was more qualified (as did my supervisor there –who encouraged me to apply for the position and recommended me, but was over-ruled by a committee). I moved on to an even better position at another college though, so thank God it’s a big world out there for all of us!
LikeLike
I come from an era and neighborhood where college attendance, particularly for women, were rare. Some of my childhood friends became victims of their own bad choices. Luckily, I had good parents and a desire to learn so I focused on my education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s being lamented is “the good old days” of white male privilege. I remember it well. For example, in 1962, when my 4th Grade teacher gave us an assignment to read a local newspaper and I saw my babysitter reading our northern big city paper, I asked what she was reading and she told me she was about to graduate from high school and she was looking for a job. So, I asked to see the Classifieds after her. What I saw was page after page of Help Wanted Men ads, that listed a lot of very different kinds of positions, many of which indicated they were unionized and included pensions. I noticed that a lot of ads said “colored and women need not apply.”
The Help Wanted Women jobs were listed separately, but there were just a few columns on a single page and they were limited to service lobs, such as store sales lady, waitress, secretary, nurse and teacher. Just a few said they were unionized and included pensions. All that changed only gradually after Civil Rights legislation was enacted in 1964 –which I know because in 68, I was looking for work myself. By that time, women felt they had to protest so they could get included in more kinds of jobs, etc. I have never missed the days of white male privilege.
LikeLike
You are of course correct that there was blatant discrimination against women and non-white men in the bad old days. Should white men now in their 20s and their 30s be penalized for that sad history?
LikeLike
They are not “being penalized” for what occurred in the past. The whole point of DEI is to level the playing field so that hiring would be equitable for all, so that instead of physical characteristics that people are born with (and have virtually no control over), like color or gender, hiring is based on merit, so that good jobs can be earned through education/training, and experience. That’s how millions of people have climbed to the top in their fields, including me, and they can put in the same hard work that we did –instead of assuming they deserve better and should just get rich quick.
LikeLike