On May 25, 2025, the New York Times published a piece by Erica Green, who “covers the White House and reported from Washington,” titled “For Trump, Civil Rights Protections Should Help White Men,” with the subtitle “Administration officials pick and choose which civil rights protections they want to enforce, and for whom.” My head nearly exploded reading this thing.
The featured photograph at the top of the article, showing President Trump walking towards Marine One, has the following caption: “President Trump has turned to civil rights protections in recent weeks to remedy what he sees as the disenfranchisement of white men.”
Yeah, and?
It’s not as if they even try to hide it anymore. They speak openly about choosing only people of color or women of color (Kamala Harris, anyone?) and get applauded for it. When you are making — dare I use the word “affirmative” — decisions to exclude white men or just whites in general, whites’ civil rights are being violated.
I cannot believe this even has to be explained, honestly. It’s so patently obvious to anyone who understands what words mean. The writer even goes on to cite examples then proceeds as if she didn’t understand what she typed. For instance:
On Monday, the administration said it had opened a civil rights investigation into the city of Chicago to see if its mayor or others had engaged in a pattern of discrimination…
…Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, praised the number of Black people in top city jobs [and] said some of his detractors had claimed he only ever talks about ‘the hiring of Black people.’
‘No,’ he continued. ‘What I’m saying is when you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else. We are the most generous people on the planet.’
All you have to do to show how racist this sounds is to shoe-on-the-other-foot it — imagine a white man had said the exact same thing — but that he hired a disproportionate number of whites because “What I’m saying is when you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else. We are the most generous people on the planet.”
We won’t even get into the problem of being overly “generous” with other people’s money.
Ms. Green begins this gravity-defying diatribe with this perversion of reality:
In his drive to purge diversity efforts in the federal government and beyond, President Trump has expressed outright hostility to civil rights protections.
How does she know? How does she know that eliminating DEI will result in a “whiter” workforce? Why would one assume that unless one has a low opinion of one’s fellow non-whites? (The author is a person of color.) One may very well end up with a rainbow of diversity. And everyone there would be there on their own merit. Nobody would wonder if the non-whites were “diversity hires” which DEI cannot help but engender, and everyone knows it.
She goes on:
He ordered federal agencies to abandon some of the core tenets of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that they represented a ‘pernicious’ attempt to make decisions based on diversity rather than merit.
Exactly. Those engaged in it have hardly been shy about it. “Civil rights,” the writer f
The pattern fits into a broader trend in the administration, as Trump officials pick and choose which civil rights protections they want to enforce, and for whom.
And just when I get done wondering how she types this dreck without bursting into flames, she turns up the heat:
Across the government, agencies that have historically worked to fight discrimination against Black people, women and other groups have pivoted to investigating institutions accused of favoring them.
That’s right, Ms. Green. You may not “favor” one race over another. (Though I note the capital “B” on “Black” but no capital “W” on “whites” throughout her piece, which is not only the journalistic standard nowadays, but a tell. Rather proves the point, doesn’t it?)
…Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an investigation at Harvard University, alleging that the school had engaged in discriminatory hiring because it showed a significant increase in the percentage of minority, female and nonbinary faculty earning tenure over the past decade while the rates for white men declined. …White men made up 56% of tenured faculty, [but] they represented only 32% of tenure-track faculty.
70% of the population of this country is white, Ms. Green. A result like this makes no sense, at least superficially.
In the same way that our liberty is prescribed by what the government can’t do to you, so too is equality. It is a “negative” right. Once you impose a “positive” a.k.a. “affirmative” right, that’s when things go sideways. Our liberty is ordered as natural, based on the limitless possibilities of what we humans can do if just left alone to do it. Trying to force it just doesn’t work, and sends the whole system off balance.
That’s all Trump is trying to do. Restore the natural order of things. Let people be who they are, and the natural order of things will help those who help themselves, and there’s no limit on what that rainbow of humanity can look like, should “looking” like something be important to you. It may well shake out very colorful. In fact, it’s more likely than not. Our country looks very different now than it did 60 years ago. So let people be who they are and let it happen.
Image: Pexels/Cottonbro Studios
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.