PIEN HUANG, HOST:
Just days into his second administration, President Donald Trump has signed several sweeping executive actions to end federal DEI programs - diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. Trump has called DEI illegal, immoral and discriminatory, but the history of these programs spans decades, rooted in attempts to address inequalities and bolster equal opportunities for employment. To learn more about the history of federal DEI policies, I spoke with Timothy Welbeck. He's director of Temple University's Center for Anti-Racism, and he started with the basics.
TIMOTHY WELBECK: DEI is an acronym. It stands for diversity, equity, inclusion, and if you add the A, it also stands for accessibility. And these are a set of policies that first began in part with the federal government to ensure that federal employment was making an effort to ensure that there was no discrimination against people on the basis of their race, their color, creed, national origin, things of that nature. President Kennedy issued an executive order in 1961. That's what many people signal as the beginning of the affirmative action era because he literally used the phrase affirmative action in that executive order. And then President Johnson issued a similar order in 1965. And both of which can be surmised to say that the federal government or federal contractors were not to discriminate against employees or potential employees based on their race, their national origin and other things that we now refer to as protected classes.
HUANG: Yeah, say a little bit more about that. Like, what is the philosophy behind DEI at the federal level?
WELBECK: At the federal level, it begins with, in part, tackling our history of racism and discrimination and ensuring that the federal government is no longer a proprietor of discrimination, particularly on the basis of race. And so these executive orders that launched much of this conversation in many ways were stemming from what we refer to as the Civil Rights era and the freedom era, which brought to the forefront of our nation's attention many of the grievances of segregation and how it impacted people's lives. And so as it relates to that, the federal government has taken at times, based on various administrations, efforts to try to undo some of the harm of this segregation, much of which in prior eras was propagated by the federal government.
HUANG: President Trump has called DEI programs illegal. He says they violate federal civil rights. But for a long time and for a lot of people, DEI programs are seen as the necessary and logical extension of civil rights laws. So how can both of these things be true?
WELBECK: Well, both of them aren't true. President Trump has mischaracterized DEI initiatives in part because he has antagonism towards them. And as he signaled during his presidential campaign, this is something - this was a priority of his, but these efforts are seeking to tether the spirit of the law with the letter of the law. So much of the equal protections that we see in clauses like the 14th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the ADA and other types of legislation were seeking to not only undo historic and systemic harm, but it was also seeking to ensure that, going forward, there would be no further types of discrimination in that vein.
HUANG: Trump has said that he wants to, quote, "forge a society that is colorblind and merit based," which, I think, you know, is sort of the spirit of it. And critics say that the idea that someone's success is, you know, based solely on their accomplishments is just an idea that does not work. But still, you know, baked into the American dream is the whole idea that you can accomplish anything if you study hard and work hard. What are your thoughts on sort of, like, you know, how these things kind of exist together?
WELBECK: The United States cannot say that it's fully been a meritocracy when we have 249 years of slavery, 90 years of racialized segregation and barred women from entering into the workforce in meaningful ways for much of our nation's history. That's not a meritocracy, denying people access and opportunities regardless of whether they're qualified. When we look at this conversation around merit, it's often thinly veiled attempts to try to undo various ways that have opened up opportunities for those who historically were denied them. And so whether it's this conversation here or talking about color blindness as a whole, a lot of it has its roots in trying to undo the progress that has been made with some of these initiatives.
HUANG: I mean, there has been this long history of DEI programs, and that has, you know, brought us to a place where there are lots of people of different colors and beliefs in positions of, you know, prominence and power. So why do we still need these programs?
WELBECK: First, we still need these programs because we haven't given them adequate time to work. We're only a generation and a half into these policies, and they have met opposition literally from their inception. So whether there is litigation, whether there is rhetoric emanating from opponents, there's been opposition from the beginning. So one, we haven't given them enough time to fully actualize their mission and their goals. Secondly, we've seen that when there is a regression in these protections, the need for the protection becomes more pronounced. If we continue to roll back some of these protections with DEI, we're going to see increases in discriminations because there will no longer be the types of protections that are in place to ensure equal access and opportunity.
HUANG: So I want to sort of take stock of where we are and where we're going. So, you know, throughout history, groups of Americans outside of the government have pushed leadership to acknowledge racism and sexism and biases against disabled people and the LGBT community and to really push leadership towards policies like DEI. This is something that has taken tremendous effort, and in many cases, it's not something that the government has done willingly. So where do things go from here if these measures are rolled back?
WELBECK: What I would continue to encourage people across the nation, particularly the private sector and those at the state and local level, is to hold diversity, equity and inclusion as a value and to remember that these are policies that are aimed at offering meaningful opportunities to all people. At times there may need to be creative ways to implement that, but I would encourage people not to shy away from that going forward. It's a necessary thing, and it's also something that we should celebrate. We should value the idea of multi perspectives when we are trying to solve problems. We should value the idea of including as many people as possible. And so, yes, there are shifts in the federal government that are happening right now, but I would encourage people to deepen their resolve and commitment to these values.
HUANG: That is Timothy Welbeck, director of Temple University's Center for Anti-Racism. Thank you so much for joining me today.
WELBECK: Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
