DEI And Civil Rights Are Not The Same
The Act required the removal of Whites Only signs, outlawed discrimination in hiring, and otherwise demanded the breakdown of legally sanctioned racial segregation in America. One section, Title 4, was reserved specifically for education. The Southern Education Foundation (SEF) worked to have that section included, advancing the Supreme Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) to allow African-Americans equal access to quality public education which they had previously been denied.
In enacting Title 4, Congress funded regional Desegregation Assistance Centers to provide school districts with technical support to dismantle the structures and practices that limited educational opportunities for generations of African-American students.
In 2022 SEF received an Education Department grant, authorized by Title 4, to direct the center for the southern region, which serves 11 states and the District of Columbia, comprising more than a third of the nation's public-school students and over 1 million students of color.
Earlier in 2016, the centers' name had been changed from Desegregation Assistance Centers to Equity Assistance Centers (EAC), no trivial change because, in February, the Trump administration falsely claimed that the work to help school districts comply with federal civil rights laws violated those very laws by focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and terminated funding of the centers.
I could not disagree more with this decision, or with its rationalization, which recklessly blurs the lines between civil rights enforcement and DEI. The EAC for the southern region has violated no law, and the centers are not DEI programs. These centers are authorized by Congressional mandate to uphold Title 4 of the Civil Rights Act, while DEI policies, however laudable, are not. The current administration either doesn't understand the difference or pretends not to, and SEF has filed a federal lawsuit to halt this assault on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Let's return to that name change, which reflects the Education Secretary's proposal to revise the program — 'revise' in this case meaning 'to remove the regulations that govern the State Educational Agency Desegregation (SEA) program, authorized under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'
Between the lines, this suggests that all the impediments to educational opportunity that historically were directed against African-Africans are now neatly addressed, that segregation practices no longer harm anyone. Changing 'Desegregation' to 'Equity' suggests that education inequalities plaguing Black students are so under control that federal funding designed to address these inequalities can be extended beyond the Congressional intent and into the expansive arena of DEI. This could not be more wrong. Vestiges of the practice of lawful segregation still harm Black students to this day.
It is important to note that desegregation did have its pros and cons. Education attainment levels soared for African-Americans during the nation's efforts at desegregation. Unfortunately, desegregation, or more precisely resistance to desegregation, caused the unsettling of many communities due to disinvestment, 'white flight' and divisive politics. It should also not be forgotten that thousands of Black teachers and administrators were wrongfully terminated during the desegregation processes. Nonetheless, better and more informed practices are available to address the continued presence of racially segregated and unequal public education.
As for those regulations, many would find it astonishing that in 2025, 132 U.S. school districts remain under federal desegregation orders, 130 of them in the South. It's not uncommon to see one side of a district receive funding for STEM courses, music programs, and technology, while Black students across town do not. Several of these districts have sought assistance from SEF in the past two years, underscoring the ongoing impact of racial segregation.
There is a grave inconsistency between these 132 open court orders and the termination of the very funding designed to address them. The Department of Education is wrong to label Title 4 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a DEI program, and much as I may admire some DEI policies, the Civil Rights Act's historic step toward desegregation did not have DEI as a goal. Confusing a congressional edict to end segregation with DEI policies that have no genesis in the Black Civil Rights movement to end Jim Crow is historically ignorant, disrespectful, and harmful to the urgent need to focus on resolving continuing racial inequalities in public education.
It is my hope that this lawsuit brings clarity to the conversation around the differences between civil rights and DEI. This issue deserves national attention because it requires us all to believe three essential truths, without which democracy cannot work for everyone.
Words matter. Facts matter. History matters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Are you ready for ‘Hawley Bucks'?
There is no public policy idea so dumb to preclude some member of Congress from whole-heartedly supporting it. And the latest example is a proposal to hand out billions of taxpayer dollars to taxpayers to offset taxpayers paying billions of dollars in taxes — that is, tariffs. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has just introduced the American Worker Rebate Act. Consider it a plan to rob Peter in order to pay … Peter. President Trump's tariffs are forcing American businesses and consumers to pay billions of dollars in tariffs, which are taxes. So far this year, the U.S. government has collected about $150 billion in tariffs. Normally, the federal government collects between $75 billion and $80 billion for the whole year. The White House is ecstatic about all this increased revenue. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'In reality, tariffs are a source of massive revenue.' But that 'massive revenue' is a result of new taxes coming from Americans. In years past, Republicans went to great lengths to avoid passing anything that could be construed as a tax increase. And, in fairness, no Republican currently in Congress voted for these tariffs. They exist because one Republican, Trump, has unilaterally imposed, then unimposed, then reimposed, then delayed, then reimposed the tariffs. And while many Republicans quietly grumble about Trump's tariffs, they hedge their public remarks so as not to 'poke the bear.' Now that Trump's tariffs are extracting billions of taxpayer dollars from Americans, Hawley proposes to have the government hand out checks to most Americans. Let's call them Hawley Bucks. According to The Hill, Hawley's proposal would offer $600 'tariff rebates.' Children are included, meaning that it 'would give a family of four $2,400.' The senator says, 'Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' What a stupid statement. That 'wealth' Hawley's referring to belonged to Americans, and the money isn't 'returning' to America because it was already here. Trump's tariffs took that wealth away from Americans by forcing them to pay the tariffs. Why does the government need to return the money? The Hill reporter nails it: 'The payments are designed to offset higher prices resulting from tariffs.' Just consider some of the many problems with this proposal. First, the renewed inflationary pressure leading to higher prices is self-imposed by Trump's tariffs. Bizarrely, Hawley is modeling his rebates on the COVID-19 stimulus checks, which helped ignite a years-long inflation battle that consumers are still feeling and the Federal Reserve Bank is still fighting. Second, tariffs, like sales taxes, are regressive. They tend to hit lower-income families harder than higher-income families. So, Hawley plans to means-test the rebates. 'The payments would be reduced for households that earn $150,000 or more, a head of household who earns more than $112,500 and individuals who earn more than $75,000.' That's a form of income redistribution. Everyone pays the tariffs, but higher-income families won't get the rebates. There was a time when Republicans strongly opposed income redistribution, while progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) strongly supported it. Now a Republican, with Trump's backing, is proposing income redistribution. Third, some tariff supporters claim the increased revenue will help reduce the current federal budget deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will be $1.9 trillion for 2025. But the tariffs won't reduce the budget deficit if the government is rebating the tariff revenue to Americans. Fourth, the tariff revenue will vary, in part because Trump keeps shifting the tariff rates on various countries. But Hawley's rebates aren't variable. So, if tariff revenue comes in low and the rebates remain the same, the rebates could add to the federal deficit. Finally, progressives have long supported a universal basic income (UBI), in which the government hands out checks to everyone — a guaranteed income for every American. Republicans have opposed proposals that would create a new entitlement program. But Hawley's tariff rebate takes us very close to a UBI. Of course, a new president entering office in 2029 may repeal the tariffs. Or the U.S. Supreme Court may decide that Congress never gave the president the power to impose sweeping new tariffs on any and all countries for whatever reason or for no reason. In that case, tariff revenue would decline sharply. Yet the public would be very reluctant to see their Hawley Bucks eliminated. Although Hawley's proposal is terrible policy, you can appreciate its politics. He is trying to limit the negative consequences of another terrible policy. But rather than create a new entitlement program, Republicans should take steps to eliminate the cause of the problem: Trump's tariffs.
Epoch Times
28 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
LIVE NOW: Transportation Secretary Duffy Holds Press Conference on American Drone Dominance
LIVE NOW: Transportation Secretary Duffy Holds Press Conference on American Drone Dominance U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy holds a press conference on American drone dominance at 11:15 a.m. ET on Aug. 5.
Los Angeles Times
43 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Russia says it no longer will abide by its self-imposed moratorium on intermediate-range missiles
MOSCOW — Russia has declared that it no longer considers itself bound by a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate range missiles, a warning that potentially sets the stage for a new arms race as tensions between Moscow and Washington rise again over Ukraine. In a statement Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry linked the decision to efforts by the U.S. and its allies to develop intermediate range weapons and preparations for their deployment in Europe and other parts of the world. It specifically cited U.S. plans to deploy Typhoon and Dark Eagle missiles in Germany starting next year. The ministry noted that such actions by the U.S. and its allies create 'destabilizing missile potentials' near Russia, creating a 'direct threat to the security of our country' and carry 'significant harmful consequences for regional and global stability, including a dangerous escalation of tensions between nuclear powers.' It didn't say what specific moves the Kremlin might take, but President Vladimir Putin has previously announced that Moscow was planning to deploy its new Oreshnik missiles on the territory of its neighbor and ally Belarus later this year. Asked where and when Russia could potentially deploy intermediate-range weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that it's not something to be announced in advance. 'Russia no longer has any limitations, Russia no longer considers itself to be constrained by anything,' Peskov told reporters. 'Therefore Russia believes it has the right to take respective steps if necessary.' 'Decisions on specific parameters of response measures will be made by the leadership of the Russian Federation based on an interdepartmental analysis of the scale of deployment of American and other Western land-based intermediate-range missiles, as well as the development of the overall situation in the area of international security and strategic stability,' the Foreign Ministry said. The Russian statement follows President Trump's announcement Friday that he's ordering the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of Dmitry Medvedev, who was president in 2008-12 to allow Putin, bound by term limits, to later return to the office. Trump's statement came as his deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal in Ukraine approaches later this week. Trump said he was alarmed by Medvedev's attitude. Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council chaired by Putin, has apparently sought to curry favor with his mentor by making provocative statements and frequently lobbing nuclear threats. Last week. he responded to Trump's deadline for Russia to accept a peace deal in Ukraine or face sanctions by warning him against 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia' and declaring that 'each new ultimatum is a threat and a step toward war.' Medvedev also commented on the Foreign Ministry's statement, describing Moscow's withdrawal from the moratorium as 'the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy.' 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with,' he wrote on X. 'Expect further steps.' Intermediate-range missiles can fly between 310 to 3,400 miles. Such land-based weapons were banned under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Trump withdrew from the pact in his first term, citing Russian violations, which Moscow denied. It, in turn, alleged the U.S. had committed violations. The treaty was terminated in 2019, but the Kremlin declared its self-imposed moratorium on their deployment until the U.S. makes such a move. The collapse of the INF Treaty has stoked fears of a replay of a Cold War-era European missile crisis, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent in the 1980s. Such weapons are seen as particularly destabilizing because they take less time to reach targets, compared with intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning. Russia's missile forces chief has declared that the new Oreshnik intermediate range missile, which Russia first used against Ukraine in November, has a range to reach all of Europe. Oreshnik can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Putin has praised the Oreshnik's capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds up to Mach 10 are immune to being intercepted and are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack. Putin has warned the West that Moscow could use it against Ukraine's NATO allies who allowed Kyiv to use their longer-range missiles to strike inside Russia.
