Latest news with #equityandinclusion
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
3 ways the government can silence opinions it disagrees with, without using censorship
When most people think of how governments stifle free speech, they think of censorship. That's when a government directly blocks or suppresses speech. In the past, the federal government has censored speech in various ways. It has tried to block news outlets from publishing certain stories. It has punished political dissenters. It has banned sales of 'obscene' books. Today, however, the federal government rarely tries to censor speech so crudely. It has less blatant but very effective ways to suppress dissent. The current actions of the Trump administration show how government can silence speakers without censoring them. My quarter century of research and writing about First Amendment rights has explored the varied tools that governments use to smother free expression. Among the present administration's chosen tools are making institutions stop or change their advocacy to get government benefits; inducing self-censorship through intimidation; and molding the government's own speech to promote official ideology. The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment bars the government from conditioning benefits on the sacrifice of free speech. Government employers may not refuse to hire employees of the opposing political party, nor may they stop employees from speaking publicly about political issues. The government may not stop funding nonprofits because they refuse to endorse official policies, or because they make arguments the government opposes. The First Amendment, however, works only if someone asks a court to enforce it, or at least threatens to do so. The Trump administration has issued orders that withdraw security clearances, cancel government contracts and bar access to government buildings for law firms that have opposed the administration's policies or have advocated diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Some law firms have sued to block the orders. More firms, however, have made deals with the administration, agreeing to end DEI programs and to do free legal work for conservative causes. The administration similarly has withheld funding from universities that embrace DEI or that, by the administration's account, have fomented or tolerated antisemitism. Harvard University has resisted that pressure. But Columbia University has capitulated to President Donald Trump's demands that include cracking down on protests, giving university officials more control over controversial academic programs and hiring more conservative professors. The Supreme Court may ultimately declare the administration's gambits unconstitutional, but it has already succeeded in leveraging government benefits to make major institutions change their speech. First Amendment law also restricts government actions that deter or 'chill' expression rather than squarely banning it. That means the government may not regulate speech through vague laws that leave lawful speakers uncertain whether the regulation reaches them. For example, the Supreme Court in 1971 struck down a Cincinnati, Ohio, ordinance that criminalized any public assembly the city deemed 'annoying.' Likewise, the government may not make people disclose their identities as a requirement for acquiring controversial literature or for supporting unpopular causes. In the classic case, the Supreme Court during the civil rights era blocked Alabama from making the NAACP disclose its membership list. Chilling of speech is hard to detect, but the current public climate strongly suggests that the Trump administration has plunged the thermostat. College and university campuses, which rumbled in spring 2024 with protests against the Gaza war, have gone largely quiet. Large corporations that challenged the first Trump presidency have fallen into line behind the second. Big liberal donors have folded up their wallets. Some of that dampening likely reflects fatigue and resignation. Much of it, though, appears to reveal successful intimidation. The administration has proclaimed that it is deporting noncitizen students, using their lawful speech as justification. While those expulsions themselves are classic censorship, their hidden reach may stifle more speech than their immediate grasp. Noncitizens are legally attractive targets for government censorship because courts largely defer to the president on matters of national security and immigration. The Trump administration could not lawfully treat U.S. citizens as it is treating, lawfully or not, foreign nationals. But most citizens don't know that. The vivid spectacle of punished dissenters seems likely to chill other dissenters. The First Amendment only bars the government from controlling private speech. When the government speaks, it can say what it wants. That means people who speak for the government lack any First Amendment right to replace the government's messages with their own. In theory, then, every new federal administration could sweepingly turn government institutions' speech into narrow propaganda. That hasn't happened before, perhaps because most governments realize they are just temporary custodians of an abiding republic. The Trump administration has broken this norm. The administration has ordered the purging of ideologically disfavored content from the Smithsonian museums, implemented book bans in military libraries and installed political supporters to run cultural institutions. None of those actions likely violates the First Amendment. All of them, however, have significant implications for free speech. In what may be the most quoted line in the First Amendment legal canon, Justice Robert Jackson declared in 1943 that government should never 'prescribe what shall be orthodox … in matters of opinion.' A 21st-century federal government can dramatically skew public discourse by honing government speech with the flint of official ideology. Trump has assigned Vice President JD Vance, who sits on the Smithsonian's board, the role of 'seeking to remove improper ideology.' If Vance decides what the Smithsonian can and cannot say about slavery and Jim Crow, then the Smithsonian will teach people only what Vance wants them to learn about those subjects. That influential source of knowledge will push public discussion toward the government's ideology. When government beneficiaries agree to say what the president wants, when the government intimidates speakers to silence themselves, and when the government sharpens its own speech into propaganda, no censorship happens. But in all those scenarios, the government is doing exactly what justifies fear of censorship and what First Amendment law exists to prevent: using official power to make speech less free. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Gregory P. Magarian, Washington University in St. Louis Read more: Americans love free speech, survey finds − until they realize everyone else has it, too From defenders to skeptics: The sharp decline in young Americans' support for free speech What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US Gregory P. Magarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Los Angeles Times
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Three ways the government can silence speech without banning it
When most people think of how governments stifle free speech, they think of censorship. That's when a government directly blocks or suppresses speech. In the past, the federal government has censored speech in various ways. It has tried to block news outlets from publishing certain stories. It has punished political dissenters. It has banned sales of 'obscene' books. Today, however, the federal government rarely tries to censor speech so crudely. It has less blatant but very effective ways to suppress dissent. The current actions of the Trump administration show how government can silence speakers without censoring them. My quarter century of research and writing about 1st Amendment rights has explored the varied tools that governments use to smother free expression. Among the present administration's chosen tools: making institutions stop or change their advocacy to get government benefits; inducing self-censorship through intimidation; and molding the government's own speech to promote official ideology. As to the first of those tools, the Supreme Court has made clear that the 1st Amendment bars the government from conditioning benefits on the sacrifice of free speech. Government employers may not refuse to hire employees of the opposing political party, nor may they stop employees from speaking publicly about political issues. The government may not stop funding nonprofits because they refuse to endorse official policies, or because they make arguments the government opposes. The 1st Amendment, however, works only if someone asks a court to enforce it, or at least threatens to do so. The Trump administration has issued orders that withdraw security clearances, cancel government contracts and bar access to government buildings for law firms that have opposed the administration's policies or have advocated for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Some law firms have sued to block the orders. More firms, however, have made deals with the administration, agreeing to end DEI programs and to do free legal work for conservative causes. The administration similarly has withheld funding from universities that embrace DEI or that, by the administration's account, have fomented or tolerated antisemitism. Harvard University has resisted that pressure. But Columbia University has capitulated to President Trump's demands, which have included cracking down on protests, giving university officials more control over controversial academic programs and hiring more conservative professors. The Supreme Court may ultimately declare the administration's gambits unconstitutional, but the White House has already succeeded in leveraging government benefits to make major institutions change their speech. The Trump administration's second form of indirect speech suppression is even more subtle — intimidating speakers into silence with actions that deter or 'chill' expression without squarely banning it. That means the government may not regulate speech through vague laws that leave lawful speakers uncertain whether the regulation reaches them. For example, the Supreme Court in 1971 struck down a Cincinnati ordinance that criminalized any public assembly the city deemed 'annoying.' Likewise, the government may not make people disclose their identities as a requirement for acquiring controversial literature or for supporting unpopular causes. In the classic case, the Supreme Court during the civil rights era blocked Alabama from making the NAACP disclose its membership list. The mechanisms of chilling speech make it hard to detect, but the current public climate strongly suggests that the Trump administration has dialed down the thermostat. College and university campuses, which rumbled in spring 2024 with protests against the war in Gaza, have gone largely quiet. Large corporations that challenged the first Trump presidency have fallen into line behind the second, as evidenced by the tech leaders who donated to and attended the president's inauguration. Big donors to some liberal causes have folded up their wallets. Some of that dampening likely reflects fatigue and resignation. Much of it, though, appears to reveal successful intimidation. The administration has proclaimed that it is deporting noncitizen students, using their lawful speech as justification. While those expulsions themselves are classic censorship, their hidden reach may be much more effective at stifling expression, even among U.S. citizens. The Trump administration could not lawfully treat citizens as it is treating foreign nationals. But most citizens don't know that. The vivid spectacle of punished protesters seems likely to chill the speech of others. The administration's final tool of indirect speech suppression is propaganda. The 1st Amendment only bars the government from controlling private speech. When the government speaks, it can say what it wants. That means people who speak for the government lack any 1st Amendment right to replace the government's messages with their own. In theory, then, every new federal administration could sweepingly turn government institutions' speech into narrow propaganda. That hasn't happened before, perhaps because most governments realize they are just temporary custodians of an abiding republic. The Trump administration has broken this norm. The administration has ordered the purging of ideologically disfavored content from the Smithsonian museums, implemented book bans in military libraries and installed political supporters to run cultural institutions. None of those actions likely violates the 1st Amendment. All of them, however, have significant implications for free speech. In what may be the most quoted line in the 1st Amendment legal canon, Justice Robert Jackson declared in 1943 that government should never 'prescribe what shall be orthodox … in matters of opinion.' A 21st-century federal government can dramatically skew public discourse by honing government speech with the flint of official ideology. Trump has assigned Vice President JD Vance, who sits on the Smithsonian's board, the role of 'seeking to remove improper ideology.' If Vance decides what the Smithsonian can and cannot say about slavery and Jim Crow, for example, then the Smithsonian will teach people only what Vance wants them to learn about those subjects. That influential source of knowledge will push public discussion toward the government's ideology. When government beneficiaries agree to say what the president wants, when the government intimidates speakers into silence, and when the government sharpens its own speech into propaganda, no censorship happens. But in all those scenarios, the government is doing exactly what 1st Amendment law exists to prevent: using official power to make speech less free. Gregory P. Magarian is a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He is the author of 'Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment.' This article was produced in partnership with the Conversation.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
DOJ targeting DEI campus initiatives under fraud law
The Department of Justice on Monday announced a new initiative aimed at going after university campuses for antisemitism and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. DOJ said the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative will use the False Claim Acts, a law which previously has rarely been used against universities, to investigate if schools knowingly violated civil rights law while receiving federal funding. 'Institutions that take federal money only to allow anti-Semitism and promote divisive DEI policies are putting their access to federal funds at risk,' said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. 'This Department of Justice will not tolerate these violations of civil rights – inaction is not an option.' Schools that are found to violate the False Claim Acts could receive hefty fines, according to a staff memo, but extreme cases could lead to criminal prosecution. The initiative will be a combination of the department's Civil Fraud Section and Civil Rights Division. 'America has watched a tidal wave of anti-Semitism sweep our universities and seen public institutions codify inherently divisive policies like DEI at an unprecedented rate,' said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. 'The days of using federal funds to further discrimination are over,' he added. The Justice Department is encouraging anyone with 'knowledge of discrimination' to file a complaint under the False Claims Act. The initiative comes a week after the Justice Department announced it was investigating Harvard under the False Claims Act for its admission policies. It is also part of the Trump administration's larger campaign to pressure universities to eliminate DEI as it takes away billions of dollars in funding to institutions.
Newsweek
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
DOJ's Civil Rights Division Sees Mass Exodus of Attorneys
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Lawyers have resigned from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division en masse as its mission has shifted to promote President Donald Trump's agenda, according to the newly appointed head of the division. "No one has been fired by me … but what we have made very clear last week in memos to each of the 11 sections in the Civil Rights Division is that our priorities under President Trump are going to be somewhat different than they were under President Biden," Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, told conservative commentator Glenn Beck during an appearance on his show at the weekend. "And then we tell them, these are the President's priorities, this is what we will be focusing on—you know, govern yourself accordingly. And en masse, dozens and now over 100 attorneys decided that they'd rather not do what their job requires them to do." Harmeet Dhillon prepares for her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on February 26, 2025 in Washington, DC Harmeet Dhillon prepares for her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on February 26, 2025 in Washington, DCWhy It Matters The DOJ's civil rights division, founded after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, initially focused on protecting the voting rights of Black Americans. But Congress later expanded its responsibilities to include protecting Americans from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and military status. But Dhillion reportedly issued a series of memos earlier in April detailing the division would be focusing on priorities laid out in Trump's executive orders, such as the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports, combating antisemitism and ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. What To Know Since Dhillon took over the unit, at least a dozen career attorneys—including those who managed offices investigating police abuse and handled violations of voting and disability rights—were reassigned, Reuters reported earlier this month. Meanwhile, the flurry of departures accelerated in recent weeks as more employees have accepted a second buyout offer from the Trump administration that allows them to resign and be paid through September. The offer for those who work in the division expired Monday. There were around 380 lawyers in the civil rights division when Trump returned to office in January, according to The New York Times. The newspaper, citing unofficial estimates of the number of people planning to resign by Monday's deadline, reported the division would soon have about 140 attorneys or possibly even fewer. The Department of Justice have been contacted for comment through its website. Dhillon told Beck that she thinks it's "fine" that so many attorneys chose to resign. "Because we don't want people in the federal government who feel like it's their pet project to go persecute, you know, police departments based on statistical evidence or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence," she said. "That's not the job here. The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology." What People Are Saying Dhillon also told Beck in the interview: "What we now need to do once all the dust settles and people are off the books is we are we are looking at resumes of lawyers who want to do that work. I don't care what their politics are, it is not relevant. I do care that they're willing to take direction and zealously enforce the civil rights of the United States according to the priorities of this president." Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed alarm about the changes and departures in a letter to Dhillon, Attorney General Pam Bondi and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. They said: "We have also heard alarming reports that you authorized a second voluntary buyout for Division employees immediately before issuing the previously mentioned directives. Taken together, these measures appear to be an attempt to cajole career officials at the Division to leave voluntarily in order to fundamentally transform its work." What's Next Democrats have called on Dhillon to schedule a briefing for the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution on changes to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division since January 20. They have also requested she provide information on the directives issued and an accounting of all personnel-related changes as well as details of the buyout offer issued to employees of the division by May 1.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Defunding DEI: Here's how the Trump administration has undone Biden's very prized programs
President Donald Trump shut down all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices across the federal government during his first week in office and signed a number of executive orders to quickly undo former President Joe Biden's efforts. The president, just hours after taking the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, signed an executive order to eliminate all DEI programs from the federal government. He also quickly signed an order making it "the official policy of the U.S. government to only recognize two genders: male and female." White House Opm Orders All Dei Offices To Begin Closing By End Of Day Wednesday A day later, the president directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to notify heads of agencies and departments to close all DEI offices and place those government workers in those offices on paid leave. That move quickly forced those offices to take down all outward facing media — websites, social media accounts, and more — for those DEI offices, and required the withdrawal of any final pending documents, directives, orders, materials and equity plans. Trump also canceled current and impending contracts focused on DEI initiatives, with Elon Musk, who heads up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), saying that move saved the federal government $420 million. Read On The Fox News App The president also issued two other executive actions that day targeting DEI. One was an executive order to end discrimination in the workplace and higher education through race and sex-based preferences under the guise of DEI. The other was a memo to eliminate a Biden administration policy that prioritized DEI hiring at the Federal Aviation Administration. In the memo rolling back Biden's DEI hiring practices at the FAA, Trump ordered the secretary of transportation and FAA administrator to immediately stop Biden's DEI hiring programs and return to nondiscriminatory, merit-based hiring. Trump Vows 'New Era Of National Success,' Says America's 'Decline Is Over' In Inaugural Address Trump also required that the FAA administrator review the past performance and performance standards of all agency employees in critical safety positions and make it clear that anyone who fails to demonstrate adequate capability is replaced by someone who will ensure flight safety and efficiency. "Illegal and discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring, including on the basis of race, sex, disability, or any other criteria other than the safety of airline passengers and overall job excellence, competency, and qualification, harms all Americans, who deserve to fly with confidence," the memo read. The memo stated: "All so-called DEI initiatives, including all dangerous preferencing policies or practices, shall immediately be rescinded in favor of hiring, promoting, and otherwise treating employees on the basis of individual capability, competence, achievement, and dedication." Trump also rescinded Biden's order on diversity initiatives, "Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government," which he signed on his first day in office in 2021. In February, the Department of Education also warned state education departments that they must remove DEI policies or risk losing federal funding. That move came after Trump signed executive orders directing agencies to provide a plan to eliminate federal funding for "illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology." Major University Medical Center Accused Of Hiding Dei Programs, Influential Senator Calls Them Out The president's efforts to end DEI across the federal government also prompted the cancellation of such programs across the private sector. Meta, in January, canceled its DEI programs, as did McDonald's. And after the 2024 election, Walmart, Ford Motor Co., John Deere, Lowe's and Toyota also ended DEI programs. As recently as April, according to Forbes, IBM, Gannett, and Constellation Brands Inc., made changes to DEI policies. Earlier in 2025, UnitedHealth Group, MLB, Victoria's Secret, Warner Bros. Discovery, Goldman Sachs, Paramount, Bank of America, BlackRock, Citigroup, Pepsi, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Coca-Cola, Deloitte, PBS, Google, Disney, GE, PayPal, Chipotle and more scaled back or canceled their DEI programs. Meanwhile, in March, the National Institutes of Health rescinded the agency's "Scientific Integrity Policy" implemented during the last few weeks of Biden's term, to peel back any DEI requirements. That Biden-era policy said that DEI was an "integral" part of "the entire scientific process," and pushed NIH's chief scientist and top scientific integrity official to "promote agency efforts regarding diversity, equity and inclusion." It also instituted agency-wide policy directives ordering supervisors at the NIH to "support" scientists and researchers who are "asexual" or "intersex," while imploring NIH leadership to "confer with relevant offices" when additional DEI expertise is needed. Multiple Federal Agencies End Linkedin Contracts Over Dei "The Biden administration weaponized NIH's scientific integrity policy to inject harmful DEI and gender ideology into research," said Health and Human Services Department spokesperson, Andrew Nixon. "Rescinding this (scientific integrity) policy will allow NIH to restore science to its golden standard and protect the integrity of science." The Biden administration also funded grants related to DEI, such as one for roughly $165,000 that was focused on "queering the curriculum" for family medicine doctors to guide them in their treatment of transgender patients. Those grants have been canceled. And earlier this week, multiple federal agencies told Fox News Digital that they have dropped millions of dollars in contracts for LinkedIn services over the business social network's embrace of DEI. The Departments of Treasury, Interior and Veterans Affairs dropped LinkedIn — a move to comply with the president's executive orders banning federal agencies from contracting with companies that embrace DEI policies. "Every American taxpayer should be angry that the Biden administration wasted so much money on contracts like these," an Interior Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "Under the leadership of President Trump, we have been combing through hundreds of thousands of contracts here at the Department alone and are canceling wasteful, woke, and downright ridiculous contracts that do not align with the will of the American people." A LinkedIn spokesperson told Fox News Digital, in response, that: "Like every business, the organizations that use our products change, often driven by shifts in their budgets and priorities. We're keeping our focus on helping our customers achieve the objectives they've set." Fox News Digital's David Spector and Alec Schemmel contributed to this report. Original article source: Defunding DEI: Here's how the Trump administration has undone Biden's very prized programs
