Jan. 20 marks an unlikely pairing: President-elect Donald Trump‘s inauguration and the nation’s celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Trump’s rhetoric contrasts sharply with King’s heartfelt calls to transcend racial divisions and emphasize shared human values. It is difficult to imagine King voting for Trump. Nevertheless, when Trump ends divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion training, he could replace it with alternatives based on King’s philosophy of love. Further, Trump’s pledge to end the disparate-impact rule for determining discrimination would also align with the individualistic tradition that dominated the civil rights movement in King’s time.
Trump took little interest in these policies for most of his first term. He waited until the final weeks before the 2020 election to ban federal diversity training. His Department of Justice waited until Jan. 5, 2021, to issue a draft rule prohibiting the use of disparate-impact theory in the administration of civil rights law. Trump had lost the election, and the rule never went into effect.
Much has changed since 2020, and this time Trump is serious about ending DEI and the disparate-impact rule. Americans have soured on stereotype-based DEI in the workplace, and corporations face boycotts in response to DEI initiatives. Corporate lawyers also fear the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling against race-based college admissions set a precedent against employment preferences.
Fortunately, training programs emphasizing empathy and shared values are becoming popular alternatives. These programs draw inspiration from King’s philosophy of love.
Trump’s promise to end the disparate-impact rule has gotten less attention, but it will profoundly affect any institution receiving federal dollars.
Most people reasonably think discrimination requires intent. The disparate-impact rule is different; it applies whenever a race-neutral requirement produces unequal group outcomes even when unintended. For example, requiring a high school diploma for job applicants could result in more minority applicants being rejected.
Implemented after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rule turns the colorblind, individual-focused act upside down. Under the rule employers could face fines, loss of federal contracts, or lawsuits. It has of course sent employers, civil rights activists, and the government on the hunt for disparities. Until now, preferential hiring and contracting were the safest ways for companies to protect themselves.
The problem with disparate impact is it assumes disparities must be the result of “systemic racism.” As anti-racism guru Ibram X. Kendi puts it, “When I see racial disparities, I see racism.” But as economist Thomas Sowell has shown in Discrimination and Disparities, many disparities having nothing to do with discrimination exist, and they dramatically affect life outcomes. Being firstborn, having two parents, spending more hours on studies, or living in a prosperous area result in people who are more successful than others. According to fashionable groupthink, these people are “privileged,” and others are disadvantaged.
When Trump removes support for the rule, some employers may stay the course — affirmative action is ingrained, after all — but others will be free to evaluate candidates on their merits. This would return us to the individualistic tradition that once dominated the civil rights movement. In 1884, abolitionist Frederick Douglass stated, “I conceive that there is no division of races.” Author Zora Neale Hurston wrote nearly 60 years later that “races have never done anything. What seems race achievement is the work of individuals.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
In its brief in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, the case that struck down laws against interracial marriage, the NAACP stated that “classification by race based upon non-existent racial traits does not serve any valid legislative purpose.” More recently, echoing this tradition, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opined, “I am confident that the individual approach, not the group approach, is the better, more acceptable, more supportable and less dangerous one.”
Trump is no King-like figure. His divisive rhetoric and stereotyping of immigrants are out of touch with King’s approach. But DEI has been equally divisive, and it permeates society. Ending it will open the door for others to practice what King preached. Likewise, ending the disparate-impact rule will help us reimagine what civil rights means — with history as our guide.
Jonathan J. Bean is a professor of history at Southern Illinois University and a research fellow at the Independent Institute. He is the editor of the forthcoming book Race & Liberty in America (Updated Edition): The Essential Reader (February 4, 2025, by the Independent Institute).
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
