DEI concepts promote sound educational policies and practices in public schools
Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon just living their best lives and breaking things. (Photo by)
Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are now unwelcome across education. Under new federal guidelines and procedures (some of which were paused by a pair of court rulings last week, but only temporarily), schools, colleges and universities are being inspected for any DEI programs and policies. If the administration's proposals stand, federal funding will be withheld to enforce the elimination of DEI.
DEI concepts promote sound educational policies and practices in public schools. Diversity requirements are protections, not guarantees. Equity ensures fair consideration for admission, scholarships and programs regardless of race or ethnicity. Inclusion means that students from all backgrounds have access to public education.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited segregation and discrimination in schools and colleges. It was not enacted to produce quotas, but to provide equal opportunities. DEI initiatives are used to enhance and preserve this legislation.
Backpedaling on these guarantees will bring us back to Brown v Board of Education and the Little Rock Nine. Most have grasped the notion that 'separate but equal' is not acceptable, but bigotry and racism are still with us.
Our history should not be whitewashed or have past acts of prejudice diminished. Students hold no responsibility for the actions of their ancestors.
Analyzing historical and Constitutional cause and effect relationships creates knowledge, not guilt or remorse. It is not indoctrination to receive an unvarnished account of the progression of women's and civil rights or learning that race is a social construct with no scientific merit.
It was illegal to educate slaves due to the fear of exposing fallacies of racial superiority. Despite the legal end of slavery and Constitutional guarantees (13th, 14th, and 15th amendments), Jim Crow laws and overt discrimination kept non-whites as second-class citizens, including limited access to education.
Students should know that white resentment triggered race riots across the country when Jack Johnson beat a white boxer (1910), destruction by white mobs of affluent black communities in Tulsa (1921) and Rosewood (1923) and bitterness from white players and fans as Black players were integrated into Major League baseball.
Effects of racism and bigotry have not been limited to Black Americans. Students should understand the systematic destruction of the Native American population and culture, and comprehend prejudice and hatred against those with Asian and Jewish backgrounds, and conflicts over religious beliefs.
Ironically, it is now illegal in some states (but not Nevada, fortunately), to teach some of the content in the three previous paragraphs. 'Enola Gay' scrubbed from the picture of the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan. Really? Should the identity label 'WASP' be back en vogue?
Viewpoint diversity on college and university campuses need not include opinionated nonsense; just rational, evidence-based discussions without invented facts lacking no causal relationships. Emotional expressions based on race/ethnicity or hollow concerns about gender lack academic worth.
Competence and merit cannot be determined when there is exclusion before consideration. DEI also includes accommodations for the disabled, pay equity, parental leave, having a job after the birth of a child, rejection of workplace harassment. Imagine public education without any DEI.
Is this assault on DEI warranted and will it improve student outcomes? The answer to both questions is no. So, what drives this backlash?
Described as lacking ethics and having inferior intellectual ability by his former cabinet members and government officials, the president's push against DEI policies and practices should not be a surprise. He has exhibited life-long racist behavior and education has not always been kind to his followers.
From housing discrimination, calling for the death penalty for wrongly accused black teenagers, not wanting blacks to count money at his casinos, birther assertions against political opponents, claims of bias from a Mexican judge, Muslim bans, retweeting racist messages from white supremacists, stating white nationalists are 'very fine people,' kneeling NFL players 'shouldn't be in the country,' and Haitian immigrants 'all have aids,' suggesting that immigrants from Norway are superior to those from Africa and telling congresswomen of color they 'should go back to the countries they came from.' This is only scratching the surface.
Reducing and eliminating DEI initiatives makes perfect sense politically. It protects a large part of his political base; undereducated white males who lack the talent and ambition to compete for positions in society. As the president declared after winning the Nevada Republican Presidential Caucus in 2016, 'I love the poorly educated.'
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, 'If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.'
Johnson knew all too well the white grievance that seems to be driving part of our politics today. DEI backlash is just the latest version of what Johnson saw in the 1960's.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Embassy in Kyiv warns of continued risk of Russian attacks
The US Embassy in Ukraine issued a warning on 4 June about the growing risk of large-scale Russian attacks. Source: a statement on the embassy's website, as reported by European Pravda Quote: "Russia has increased the intensity of its missile and drone attacks against Ukraine in recent weeks, and there is currently a continued risk of significant air attacks. The US Embassy in Kyiv urges US citizens to exercise appropriate caution. As always, we recommend you be prepared to shelter immediately in the event an air-raid warning is issued." Details: While no specific reason is provided for the warning, it came after a special operation by the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), codenamed Pavutyna (Spider's Web), during which dozens of Russian aircraft were hit. The last similar warning from the US Embassy was issued on the evening of 9 May, citing the risk of a large-scale air attack "over the next several days". Background: On 1 June 2025, the SSU carried out a special operation codenamed Pavutyna, one of the largest and most complex sabotage operations against Russian military aircraft. The SSU reported that the operation resulted in the destruction of 41 Russian strategic aircraft, including Tu-95, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 strategic bombers, as well as an A-50 long-range radar detection aircraft. The North Atlantic Alliance has hailed the SSU operation targeting Russian strategic aircraft as highly successful. NATO reported that at least 40 aircraft had been damaged. Between 10 and 13 aircraft were completely destroyed. On 4 June, US President Donald Trump said he had had a "good conversation" with Russian ruler Vladimir Putin, though not one that would "lead to immediate peace". Trump added that Putin "did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields". Officially, Putin has not commented on the successful Ukrainian special operation Spider's Web. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
NEWT GINGRICH: Pay less, know more — Trump is slashing red tape and lowering your healthcare costs
One of the boldest and most consistent themes in President Donald J. Trump's healthcare agenda is his determination to reduce the role and power of middlemen. From insurance companies to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – and even hospitals –these intermediaries profit from the inefficiencies of our bloated health system. The result is higher costs for American families. As I explain in my new book, "Trump's Triumph: America's Greatest Comeback," the U.S. healthcare system isn't expensive just because care is costly. It's expensive because the system is complex – by design. The third-party payment structure, whether public or private, adds layers of bureaucracy. This opens the door for middlemen to offer supposed solutions that serve their own bottom lines – not patients. It's a vicious cycle: more rules lead to more middlemen, which lead to even more rules, red tape, and rising costs. President Trump understood this – and he took action. In his first term, he issued a groundbreaking executive order on price transparency. For the first time, hospitals were required to disclose the real cost of procedures, enabling patients to compare prices before receiving care. While the Biden administration weakened enforcement, Trump doubled down in his second term with an even stronger push for what he called "radical transparency." Radical transparency is the antidote to healthcare's worst inefficiencies. When patients and employers can see wide price differences for the same procedures – even within the same hospital system – the games played behind the scenes get exposed. These inflated prices often have little to do with quality and everything to do with how well insurers negotiate – or how many middlemen take a cut. The same is true for prescription drugs. PBMs – giant corporations that control which drugs are covered and at what cost – use their market power to inflate prices. Three PBMs control 80 percent of the market. They're often subsidiaries of major insurers, forming vertically integrated monopolies. New data from the Pacific Research Institute shows that most PBMs skim more money off high-cost prescriptions than European countries charge. It's no wonder Americans are paying more. Hospitals play a role as well. Many exploit a well-intentioned federal program known as 340B, which allows them to purchase drugs at steep discounts. Instead of passing the savings to patients, they bill insurers full price and pocket the difference. The program was meant to expand care for low-income patients, but there's little oversight to ensure this happens. President Trump's recent executive order on drug pricing targets this broken system. By creating a pathway for manufacturers to sell directly to patients, health plans, pharmacies, and clinics – without the markup – he's offering a way to bypass the middlemen. This isn't theory – it's already working. When insulin makers launched direct-to-consumer programs, they sold the same drug at one-fourth the price patients were paying through insurance – while still making a profit. That's the power of real market competition – without a single government price control. This stands in sharp contrast to the Left's top-down vision. Whether it's price controls, centralized purchasing, or government-run insurance, the left's answer is always more bureaucracy. But more bureaucracy means more complexity – and more room for middlemen to thrive. Perhaps the most visionary part of President Trump's health care agenda is his call to Make America Healthy Again. For decades, we've operated a "sick care" system focused on treating illness after it strikes. Trump's approach is different. It emphasizes prevention, lifestyle, and personal responsibility – turning Americans from passive recipients into active participants in their own health. In this model, the government's role isn't to run the system but to create an environment in which patients and doctors can lead – with access to better tools, more transparency, and useful information. That means clearer labeling for ultra-processed foods, ensuring gold standard scientific data free of conflicts of interest, and addressing environmental factors that contribute to chronic disease. These kinds of structural reforms empower people to make informed choices and live healthier lives – without mandates or micromanagement. It's a model that eliminates the ultimate middleman: the system itself. President Trump's leadership has laid the groundwork for a transparent, patient-centered, free-market healthcare system. But the job isn't done. Congress should join him in continuing this fight – not just to lower costs, but to restore power to the American people. America deserves a healthcare system that benefits Americans – not industry middlemen.
Fast Company
44 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump's big bill will add $2.4 trillion to deficit and leave 10.9 million more uninsured, CBO warns
President Donald Trump's big bill making its way through Congress will cut taxes by $3.75 trillion but also increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO also estimates an increase of 10.9 million people without health insurance under the bill by 2034, including 1.4 million who are in the United States without legal status in state-funded programs. The package would reduce federal outlays, or spending, by nearly $1.3 trillion over that period, the budget office said. 'In the words of Elon Musk, this bill is a 'disgusting abomination,'' said Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, reviving the billionaire former Trump aide's criticism of the package. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he called Musk late Tuesday to discuss the criticism but had not heard back. 'I hope he comes around,' Johnson told reporters. Trump pushing Congress to act The analysis comes at a crucial moment in the legislative process as Trump is pushing Congress to have the final product on his desk to sign into law by the Fourth of July. The work of the CBO, which for decades has served as the official scorekeeper of legislation in Congress, will be weighed by lawmakers and others seeking to understand the budgetary impacts of the sprawling 1,000-page-plus package. Ahead of the CBO's release, the White House and Republican leaders criticized the budget office in a preemptive campaign designed to sow doubt in its findings. Republicans criticize the CBO White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the CBO has been 'historically wrong,' and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the CBO was 'flat wrong' because it underestimated the potential revenue growth from Trump's first round of tax breaks in 2017. The CBO last year said receipts were $1.5 trillion, or 5.6% greater than predicted, in large part because of the 'burst of high inflation' during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. White House Budget Director Russ Vought said when you adjust for 'current policy' — which means not counting some $4.5 trillion in existing tax breaks that are simply being extended for the next decade — the overall package actually doesn't pile onto the deficit. He argued the spending cuts alone in fact help reduce deficits by $1.4 trillion over the decade. Democrats and even some Republicans call that 'current policy' accounting move a gimmick, but it's the approach Senate Republicans intend to use during their consideration of the package to try to show it does not add to the nation's deficits. Vought argued that the CBO is the one using a 'gimmick' by tallying the costs of continuing those tax breaks that would otherwise expire. Leavitt also suggested that the CBO's employees are biased, even though certain budget office workers face strict ethical rules — including restrictions on campaign donations and political activity — to ensure objectivity and impartiality. 'When it comes time to make prognostications on economic growth, they've always been wrong,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said at a press conference. Asked if it's time to get rid of the CBO, Scalise did not dismiss the idea, saying it's valid to raise concerns. Alongside the costs of the bill, the CBO had previously estimated that nearly 4 million fewer people would have food stamps each month due to the legislation's proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. What's in the bill The bill, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act after the president's own catch phrase, is grinding its way through Congress, as the top priority of Republicans, who control both the House and the Senate — and face stiff opposition from Democrats, who call it Trump's 'big, ugly bill.' All told, the package seeks to extend the individual income tax breaks that had been approved in 2017 but that will expire in December if Congress fails to act, while adding new ones, including no taxes on tips. It also includes a massive buildup of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security. To help cover the lost revenue, Republicans want to slash some federal spending. They propose phasing out green energy tax breaks put in place during Democrat Joe Biden's presidency. New work requirements for some adults up to age 65 on Medicaid and SNAP would begin in December 2026 and are expected to result in less spending on those programs. Republicans argue their proposals are intended to make Medicaid and other programs stronger by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. They want the federal funding to go those who most need health care and other services, often citing women and children. But Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said those claims are bogus and are simply part of long-running GOP efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as most states have expanded Medicaid to serve more people under the program. 'They just want to strangle health care,' Schumer said. The package also would provide a $4 trillion increase to the nation's debt limit, which is now $36 trillion, to allow more borrowing. The Treasury Department projects the debt limit will need to be raised this summer to pay the nation's already accrued bills. CBO aims for impartiality Now in its 50th year, the CBO was established by law after Congress sought to assert its control, as outlined in the Constitution, over the budget process, in part by setting up the new office as an alternative to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Staffed by some 275 economists, analysts and other employees, the CBO says it seeks to provide Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues. Its current director, Phillip Swagel, a former Treasury official in Republican President George W. Bush's administration, was reappointed to a four-year term in 2023.
