SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
racial discrimination
Protecting the Dream by Fighting Back Against the Racist ‘DEI Hire’ Slur
This term has become a dog whistle for those who wish to diminish the accomplishments of Black women like VP Kamala Harris, wrongly suggesting that they are unqualified for their well-earned positions.
Aug 28, 2024
August 28, 1963 marks one of the most significant events in our nation’s history. On that day, more than a quarter million people assembled to participate in the historic “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,” where Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech and demanded the civil and economic rights of Black Americans that were promised in the founding documents of this nation. That call to action, shared by many gathered in the nation’s capital, is one that still reverberates today.
The origins of this march trace back over two decades to 1941, when labor organizer A. Philip Randolph, along with activist Bayard Rustin, created the March on Washington Movement, which was designed to place pressure on the federal government to establish employment protections for Black people. Randolph and Rustin were both motivated to end segregation and racial discrimination that denied Black Americans fair opportunities in employment. Randolph eventually became the director of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, while Rustin became one of the central organizers of the 1963 march. Through their efforts, Randolph, Rustin, and many others brought people from all over the nation to Washington, D.C., to use their collective power to foster lasting change. The impact of the March on Washington contributed to the eventual signing of the Civil Rights Act the following year.
While this may be well-known—and for some, distant—history, some of the same social ills that the marchers sought to eliminate are still with us with renewed intensity. And the progress and equality they have fought for is once again under attack, this time by conservative organizations who are using hard-fought civil rights laws and anti-discrimination legislation against the very people these laws were designed to protect.
On August 28, 2024, I share this pledge once again with our nation, with the hope that we as a society will continue to uphold this promise and stand against that which threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Our nation is once again fighting against a wave of race-based attacks against marginalized communities, this time under the guise of opposing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. So far this year, at least 37 federal lawsuits targeting DEI programming have been filed. The year before that, at least 65 bills were introduced to limit DEI in higher education across 25 states. This coordinated campaign aims to rid our nation of DEI offices and programs, end anti-bias trainings, and stop funding for the support for diversity. As studies have consistently shown, employers and educational institutions that emphasize and encourage diverse workforces and student bodies regularly outperform their counterparts among various measures.
Although many in this anti-DEI movement claim that racism no longer exists in our nation and thus nullifying the need for diversity, there is no denying the facts: Racial wealth divides persist, and people of color continue to endure systemic discrimination. Yet, some flatly reject the myriad data on the clear benefits of having diverse workforces and classrooms, and the pressure campaign launched by the conservative movement has caused many businesses to fold and abolish their DEI commitments and efforts completely.
And this movement is now becoming more blatant with its racist motivations, not only attacking universities and businesses, but also directly attacking people of color. We see it in the grotesque attacks on the first woman of color nominated for president, Vice President Kamala Harris, where right-wing activists have pejoratively labeled her as a “DEI hire.” This term has become a dog whistle for those who wish to diminish the accomplishments of Black women, wrongly suggesting that they are unqualified for their well-earned positions, and that but for their race and gender, they would not be where they are. Make no mistake: Right-wing organizations and activists are now using the term “DEI hire” as a slur to strip away the achievements of people of color who are in positions of power.
It is vital that we fight back against unfounded and dangerous attacks on DEI. Our nation cannot achieve the equality we hold as a moral imperative if we allow the progress we’ve made to be eroded. We can all look to the past as a road map to chart a better future where we fight for a nation–and world–free of discrimination and inequality. Following Dr. King’s speech, A. Philip Randolph invited those in attendance at the march to take a pledge:
Standing before the Lincoln Memorial on the 28th of August, in the centennial year of emancipation, I affirm my complete personal commitment to the struggle for jobs and freedom for Americans. To fulfill that commitment, I pledge that I will not relax until victory is won. I pledge that I will join and support all actions undertaken in good faith in accord with the time-honored Democratic tradition of nonviolent protest, of peaceful assembly, and petition, and of redress through the courts and the legislative process. I pledge to carry the message of the march to my friends and neighbors back home and arouse them to an equal commitment and equal effort. I will march and I will write letters. I will demonstrate and I will vote. I will work to make sure that my voice and those of my brothers ring clear and determine from every corner of our land. I pledge my heart and my mind and my body unequivocally and without regard to personal sacrifice, to the achievement of social peace through social justice.
As we commemorate the March on Washington, let us reflect on the past so that it emboldens us to fight for the future. And so, on August 28, 2024, I share this pledge once again with our nation, with the hope that we as a society will continue to uphold this promise and stand against that which threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is up to us to ensure that the progress made by those who marched is not undone by those who seek to divide us, and that the labor and freedoms of all Americans remain protected.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bluelining Is the New Redlining
Bluelining occurs when insurers raise their prices or pull out of areas that they perceive to be at greater environmental risk. These tend to be minority or low-income areas made vulnerable by historic discrimination.
Aug 24, 2024
On July 21, the world experienced the hottest global temperature on record, only to surpass that record the next day. However, not everyone experiences the impacts of this heat and other climate-exacerbated disasters equally. As summer intensifies, the impacts of climate change—especially extreme heat—are becoming more severe, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority populations.
In the U.S., a history of racial discrimination in finance and housing policies has left Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities more susceptible to the impacts of climate change and less equipped to recover from extreme weather disasters. Today, home insurers are pulling out of areas they perceive as risky to climate hazards, once again leaving BIPOC communities behind.
From Redlining to Bluelining
The disparate impact of climate change on property and infrastructure in U.S. minority communities is the result of nearly a century of discriminatory home lending and insurance policies.
In the 1930s, the U.S. federal government used a rating system in its low-cost home loan program to assess lending risk. Assessors created maps ranking the perceived risk of lending in certain neighborhoods, with race often used as the determining factor in assessing a community’s risk level. Black and immigrant neighborhoods were typically rated as ‘hazardous’ and outlined in red, warning lenders that the area was a perilous place to lend money. This practice became known as redlining, and the term is often used today to refer to racial discrimination in any government or corporate financial policies.
In many U.S. cities, maps from the 1930s showing redlined neighborhoods could be used as modern flood risk maps.
Redlining and other discriminatory practices, such as racial profiling in the provision of home insurance, led to a lack of investment in minority and vulnerable communities. This lack of financial access resulted in shoddy construction and poor infrastructure that has made minority neighborhoods less resilient to climate change.
Though redlining is now illegal, its legacy endures. These neighborhoods’ growing exposure to climate-related damage has left them vulnerable to other financial risks. Not only are homes in these areas more likely to be damaged by climate hazards, but insurers are more likely to increase insurance rates if they determine that properties are more likely to suffer environmental damage. This new financial practice is known as bluelining, and it occurs when insurers raise their prices or pull out of areas that they perceive to be at greater environmental risk.
While not illegal, bluelining disproportionately impacts minority and lower-income residents. Bluelining—the ‘new’ redlining—is now placing both the physical and financial burden of climate change on those least equipped to deal with its impacts.
How Past Redlining Created Climate Vulnerable Communities
In many U.S. cities, maps from the 1930s showing redlined neighborhoods could be used as modern flood risk maps. A Redfin study reveals that $107 billion worth of homes in formerly redlined neighborhoods face high flood risks—25% more than in non-redlined, predominantly white neighborhoods. Other studies have found that formerly redlined neighborhoods are more vulnerable to extreme heat and more likely to experience prolonged power outages during a storm. These disparities are a direct result of nearly a century of divestment and restricted access to capital, which deprived these neighborhoods of critical climate resilience infrastructure such as sewers and levees to capture flood waters and green spaces to absorb rising heat.
As a result of this lack of infrastructure, minority and vulnerable communities in the U.S. face the most severe and direct effects of climate change. In a 2021 study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed that “racial and ethnic minority communities are particularly vulnerable to the greatest impacts of climate change.”
As climate change exacerbates natural hazards like hurricanes and wildfires, widespread access to insurance will be necessary to help vulnerable communities survive.
This vulnerability and racial disparities are evident when climate disasters strike. For example, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 4 out of 7 zip codes that faced the costliest flood damage were at least 75% Black. Similarly, Hurricane Harvey in 2017 hit historically Black neighborhoods in Houston the hardest, and many residents there lacked a safety net to recover. Winter Storm Uri, in February 2021, brought persistent subfreezing temperatures to the southeastern U.S., resulting in electricity and water outages, substantial personal property damage, and increased mortality rates. The impact of the winter storm was likewise “disproportionately concentrated among low-income communities and communities of color.” Communities that are mostly Black, Latino, or Native American also experience 50% greater vulnerability to wildfires compared with other communities.
Despite these patterns, many cities have done little to bolster climate resilience in minority-dominated neighborhoods. For instance, Black communities from “Texas through Florida to Virginia” are projected to see at least a 20% increase in flood risk over the next 30 years.
This increased vulnerability not only exposes minority communities to damage from climate hazards, but also to bluelining from insurers. When a disaster strikes in a neighborhood, rates are likely to go up the following year. This affects both homeowners and renters, who often bear the costs of a landlord’s rising insurance costs.
Access to Insurance Is a Key Factor in Climate Change Resilience
Discrimination in the insurance sector extends beyond bluelining. Studies suggest that insurance claims following a disaster in areas with a higher Black population are less likely to be paid and, if they are paid, are likely to settle for less than other claims. A New York Times article supports these findings, presenting evidence of race discrimination in insurance company payout decisions for homeowners following disasters.
This racial discrimination, combined with bluelining, limits access to property insurance for vulnerable communities—a critical tool for climate resilience. Studies show that households with insurance are more likely to rebuild, face less financial hardship, and recover more quickly than households without insurance. As climate change exacerbates natural hazards like hurricanes and wildfires, widespread access to insurance will be necessary to help vulnerable communities survive.
Insurers must end their hypocritical and unconscionable conduct of investing large portions of their increasing premium income in fossil fuel companies, the undisputed drivers of climate change.
The climate change-induced insurance crisis and bluelining seriously undermine the ability of minority and vulnerable communities to access affordable insurance. Without insurance, minority communities are less able to adapt to climate change and less resilient when confronting these climate change-induced severe weather events. More importantly, minorities are hindered in their efforts to rebuild, particularly in rebuilding climate-resilient structures.
The compounded effects of the insurance crisis, rooted in past discriminatory insurance practices, perpetuate systemic inequities. The cycle of divestment from redlining to bluelining will increase systemic inequities and embed the disproportionate impact of climate change on minority and vulnerable communities for generations.
A Call to Action
Insurers should financially support and actively engage in community efforts addressing climate risk, community impact, and creating equitable solutions. Simultaneously, insurers must end their hypocritical and unconscionable conduct of investing large portions of their increasing premium income in fossil fuel companies, the undisputed drivers of climate change, and underwriting new oil and gas projects while turning away homeowners in high-risk climate zones. Public funding or support from local, state, or national government for the insurance industry must be contingent on the industry reducing investments and insurance commitments in carbon emissions causing climate change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The GOP Must Choose: Pro-Business or Anti-Woke?
The House Anti-Woke Caucus appears to be somewhat out of step with a majority of Republican leaders and right-wing organizations on the issue of federal support for small disadvantaged businesses.
Apr 18, 2024
In March 2023, a group of House Republicans launched a new Anti-Woke Caucus to “root out all far-left political programs from the federal government”—including those focused on ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, in both hiring and workplace practices. The group wants to “protect taxpayer’s [sic] from being forced to fund woke and divisive ideologies.”
Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) chairs the caucus, which has 26 members, half of whom are also members of the far-right, obstructionist House Freedom Caucus.
The major difference between the two special interest groups is that the more radical Freedom Caucus seeks to completely change the direction and approach of the House GOP, which it believes is too accommodating to Democrats and the few moderate Republicans still in office.
Calling for the total elimination of any preferential treatment based on race, color, or national origin—part of the so-called “leftist” agenda—may make for good GOP rhetoric and energize a receptive base of Christian white nationalists. But it also has real-world implications that conflict with the positions of other Republican interest groups.
In contrast, the Anti-Woke Caucus includes members who are willing to work with party leaders and only want to focus on a single cause: exposing and eliminating programs it considers “far-left” or too progressive throughout the federal government.
The first action the caucus undertook last year was to endorse the Fairness, Anti-discrimination, and Individual Rights Act (FAIR Act) sponsored by Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-Wis.), which prohibits the federal government, federal contractors, or any state or private entity that receives federal funding from “discriminating” by barring them from “giving preference to” any person or group based on “race, color, or national origin.”
Last year the caucus also backed a House amendment Banks added to the FY 2024 appropriations bill for the Department of Defense (DOD), which would have prevented federal funds from being used to hire or pay employees to develop, refine, and implement DEI policies. Since the Senate rejected the amendment, the restriction on DEI initiatives within the military did not make it into the final DOD appropriation.
Targeting Support for Minority-Owned Business
Calling for the total elimination of any preferential treatment based on race, color, or national origin—part of the so-called “leftist” agenda—may make for good GOP rhetoric and energize a receptive base of Christian white nationalists. But it also has real-world implications that conflict with the positions of other Republican interest groups.
The FAIR Act’s prohibition on preferences based on race would, for example, eliminate programs to encourage the growth and expansion of minority-owned businesses—also known as “set-aside” contracting. Through the Small Business Administration (SBA) and other agencies, the federal government is actively amping up its support of these businesses.
Dozens of studies have shown that minority-owned businesses are more likely to be denied credit in the private sector and are less likely to apply for loans due to fear of rejection.
The GOP had generally supported federal government contracting with minority-owned businesses, not as a means of addressing historical disparities but as a way to attract more Black, Latino, and Asian-American voters.
They “are likely to pay higher interest rates” on loans, according to Minority Professional: 7.8% on average versus 6.4% for businesses run by non-minorities. In addition, minority-owned businesses are “less likely to receive loans” and when they do, “they receive lower loan amounts.” Since state and federal government leaders have long recognized this disparity, they have created minority business set-aside programs as a counterbalance to these unfair practices.
Bipartisan support for minority-owned business contracting began as long ago as 1969 when Republican President Richard Nixon established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise. Today, that office is known as the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce.
In addition, the SBA offers counseling, training, and funding for minority-owned businesses. President Joe Biden has greatly expanded outreach and access to small disadvantaged businesses (SDB)—those owned by one or more individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged—while also increasing the percentage of government contracts going to these businesses.
GOP Waffles on Its Position
The Anti-Woke Caucus appears to be somewhat out of step with a majority of Republican leaders and right-wing organizations on the SDB issue. During his first year in office, former President Donald Trump proposed eliminating the MBDA, but minority-owned businesses and groups representing them got so outraged that he backed down. Up until then, the GOP had generally supported federal government contracting with minority-owned businesses, not as a means of addressing historical disparities but as a way to attract more Black, Latino, and Asian-American voters.
The U.S. Black Chambers (USBC) called Trump’s proposal to eliminate the MBDA “another failure to recognize the impact of Black business owners.” It pointed out that the MBDA actually “accounts for less than 0.001% of federal spending [yet it] supports business centers throughout the country and has helped secure $36 billion in contracts and capital for minority-owned businesses, retaining 125,000 jobs.”
Given the pushback—including bipartisan support in Congress and from the Congressional Black Caucus, in particular—Trump reversed course, kept funding for the MBDA in the proposed budget, and even went so far as to welcome winners of an MBDA enterprise development award program to the White House in October 2017.
Trump and the far Right can’t seem to land on a consistent position on the value of minority-owned business support.
“The work you do and the products and services you bring into this world generate new prosperity across America,” Trump congratulated the attendees. “For that, we are in your debt.”
Right-wing organizations also recognize that the Commerce Department’s longstanding agency enjoys broad, bipartisan support. Even The Heritage Foundation, speaking on behalf of more than 100 right-wing groups supporting its Project 2025 “presidential transition” playbook, recommends keeping the agency if Trump is elected to a second term.
At 900 pages, the Heritage playbook lays out the Right’s agenda for reconfiguring the federal government during a second Trump administration, with line-item eliminations of hundreds of programs in the federal budget. It envisions a country with a significantly weakened role for the federal government—which would no longer take action on climate change, for example, or provide protections based on race or sexual identity—and calls for replacing a nonpartisan, apolitical civil service with far-right political appointees.
Heritage admits that using race as an explicit criterion for federal funding is problematic for conservatives (see Project 2025, p. 716). But since it acknowledges that one-third of the total businesses in the U.S. are owned by non-whites, the numbers are too large to be ignored.
Even though Trump reversed course on MBDA in 2017, he could, of course, change his mind again if he regains office. Last month, the Trump-appointed Judge Mark T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas ruled in a lawsuit filed by the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty that MBDA discriminates against white business owners and violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.
Arguing that even saying minorities are at a disadvantage denies the rights of whites, Pittman ordered the MBDA to accept applications for loans and grants from white businesspeople as well. He acknowledges that the agency is meant to help “alleviate opportunity gaps” for minority entrepreneurs, but says that it is wrong to presume that racial minorities are inherently disadvantaged and that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
The Biden administration is likely to appeal the decision.
Trump and the far Right can’t seem to land on a consistent position on the value of minority-owned business support. But given its popularity among business groups and many politicians, it seems unlikely that the Anti-Woke Caucus will get its way—at least on this particular issue.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular