Tag Archives: racism

DEI and the Rise of Ideological Tyranny During the Biden Years | The Gateway Pundit

Participants at a UC Berkeley rally hold signs advocating for equity, diversity, and inclusion, alongside a prominent display of the Black Lives Matter movement.
DEI and the Rise of Ideological Tyranny During the Biden Years

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, large-scale protests using slogans and manufactured concepts such as “systemic racism” prompted many major U.S. corporations to rapidly adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, embedding DEI goals into hiring, promotion, and retention policies.

These programs were framed as responses to public pressure and moral urgency, positioning DEI as both a social responsibility and a corporate priority. Over time, however, DEI moved beyond equal opportunity into ideological enforcement and introduced a new vocabulary that reinforced a specific political framing. Between 2014 and 2020, a series of slogans and manufactured concepts entered widespread use and were incorporated into mandatory training programs, corporate communications, and academic requirements.

Slogans such as “Black Lives Matter,” which became widespread after Ferguson, “Defund the Police,” “Believe All Women,” “Silence Is Violence,” “Say Their Names,” “No Justice, No Peace,” and “The Future Is Female” evolved from protest rhetoric into enforced speech norms. Corporations placed these slogans on their websites and in official communications to signal compliance and moral alignment, while companies and individuals who refused were often marginalized, ostracized, or professionally disadvantaged.

At the same time, a parallel set of manufactured concepts reshaped everyday language and institutional policy. Terms such as white privilege, white fragility, unconscious or implicit bias, microaggressions, intersectionality, positionality, racial humility, and systemic racism were embedded into workplace and academic life.

Other concepts, including anti-racism redefined as active ideological participation, cultural appropriation with an expanded scope, lived experience elevated above objective evidence, whiteness treated as a distinct moral category, and acronyms such as BIPOC, further codified the framework.

Language surrounding allyship, decolonization, centering marginalized voices, safe and brave spaces, trigger warnings, emotional labor, tone policing, and settler colonialism migrated from activist and academic contexts into corporate policy and professional evaluation. Together, these slogans and concepts functioned as compelled speech, shaping acceptable belief and expression within institutions.

Given so many slogans, concepts, and vocabulary, corporations needed to hire people to ensure that these agendas were being enforced. Chief diversity officer positions grew by 168.9 percent between 2019 and 2022. DEI job openings increased 55 percent in the first three months after Floyd’s death, and DEI-related positions rose 60 percent nationwide by 2020. NPR reported that 78 percent of its 2021 new hires were non-white. Condé Nast reported that in 2021 only 25 percent of new hires were male and 49 percent were white. Vox Media shifted from being 82 percent male and 88 percent white in 2013 to 37 percent male and 59 percent white by 2022. At the Los Angeles Times, only 7.7 percent of interns hired since 2020 were white men.

These changes were accompanied by restrictive policies and systemic injustices. Training programs compelled ideological conformity, with employees required to attend sessions teaching that they were inherently racist based on skin color and that America was systemically racist. Acceptance of concepts such as white privilege and racial guilt was often mandatory. Critics argue that such programs created hostile work environments for white employees.

Multiple legal challenges followed. At Pennsylvania State University, a white male professor sued over training that attacked race neutrality, equal opportunity, colorblindness, and merit. In Diemert v. City of Seattle, a former employee claimed diversity initiatives created a hostile work environment. In another case involving a Washington medical center, an employee alleged termination for failing to adhere to race-conscious DEI principles.

Documented hiring practices reinforced these claims. Wells Fargo was accused of conducting sham interviews with diverse candidates for positions that had already been filled, leading to shareholder lawsuits. The NFL faced accusations of conducting fake interviews with minority candidates. Disney’s Writing Program awarded 107 writing fellowships and 17 directing fellowships without a single award going to a white man.

Hiring managers quoted in multiple accounts stated openly that they were not hiring the best candidate and that excluding white men was routine. University hiring statistics in California reflected similar patterns. Since 2020, UC Irvine hired three white men out of 64 tenure-track positions. UC Santa Cruz hired two white men out of 59 humanities positions. Brown University hired three white American men out of 45 humanities and social sciences positions since 2022.

Racial segregation also expanded through the use of affinity groups. Conservative critics documented mandatory segregated training sessions organized by race and “whiteness accountability” groups required for white employees. At Stanford University, Jewish staff reported pressure to join whiteness accountability groups, effectively erasing Jewish identity by categorizing them solely as white. At the federal level, the Trump administration responded in September 2020 with Executive Order 13950.

The order banned federal agencies and contractors from conducting training involving “divisive concepts,” including teachings that one race is inherently superior, that individuals are inherently racist or sexist based on race or sex, that moral character is determined by race, or that merit and hard work are racist concepts. Enforcement mechanisms included the threat of contract termination and a hotline operated by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Contractors were required to certify compliance or risk losing federal funding.

The Biden administration immediately rescinded the order. Federal DEI requirements were expanded, and diversity officers were required across federal agencies.

Corporate environments increasingly restricted speech. Employees reported fear of questioning DEI policies, citing termination, blacklisting, public shaming, and career destruction. In Savage’s reporting, every interviewee demanded anonymity, fearing being labeled racist. Questioning diversity metrics became grounds for professional retaliation, and self-censorship became standard.

Meritocracy was abandoned in favor of explicit racial targeting that, while unofficial, was enforced in practice. Diversity was prioritized over qualifications, and white applicants were automatically disadvantaged. Procurement and supplier mandates reinforced the same framework. Retailers faced pressure to adopt policies such as the “15 Percent Pledge,” allocating shelf space to Black-owned businesses. Supplier diversity requirements expanded, with non-diverse suppliers increasingly excluded.

Education systems reflected similar patterns. K–12 schools and universities implemented mandatory courses on systemic racism and required students to acknowledge white privilege. In some cases, grading was influenced by adherence to ideological positions. States such as California and Washington enacted laws mandating diversity reporting, LGBTQ+ curricula, and other identity-based requirements.

These policies produced economic, social, and cultural harms. Institutions declined in quality, media trust eroded, and decision-making shifted from merit to race. Racial division increased, young men were excluded from career paths, family formation was delayed, and mental health crises intensified. Colorblindness was abandoned in favor of explicit racial consciousness, individual rights were weakened, and group identity replaced merit.

Corporations also engaged in performative actions, including mandated Black Lives Matter statements, black squares on social media, rainbow logos during Pride month, land acknowledgments, preferred pronouns in email signatures, and product rebranding campaigns affecting long-standing brands and media content.

These developments constitute violations of civil rights law, compelled ideological speech, collective guilt imposed on individuals, career destruction based on immutable characteristics, institutional corruption, and social engineering. The George Floyd moment triggered a moral panic that led to institutional overreach, discrimination against white Americans, particularly men, and long-term institutional decline.

The post DEI and the Rise of Ideological Tyranny During the Biden Years appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Charlie Kirk: The American People Have Had It With the Media’s Double Standard On Race | RealClearPolitics Videos

Charlie Kirk comments on reactions from the left, including sympathy for the murderer from CNN’s Van Jones, to the racial angle of the murder of a Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina. “In reality we’re asking a very simple question, Mr. Jones, will you apologize for all the criminal justice reform you pushed forward that allowed these 14-time criminal offenders to walk the streets? You are the architect and designer of constantly feeling bad for the criminal-criminals who then kill more people like Irina Zarutska,” Kirk said. “And by the way, I didn’t bring up race. The attacker said, quote, ‘I got that white girl.'” “People say, Why does race matter? Oh, it matters because you made us care about race in the summer of 2020,” Kirk said. “Looks like you’ve got to live up to your own rules. The second we make you live up to your ridiculous paradigm, you collapse like a house of cards.”
 
CHARLIE KIRK: Van Jones was talking about me, and there are so many lies involved in what he said.

First of all, I never said the first part of what he claimed. I did say the second part, but this is a very important thing to focus on. Van Jones is saying I should be ashamed of myself.

And just a reminder—the murder of Irina Zarutska. Did you know that the attacker said, quote, “I got that white girl”? The attacker racialized this, just for the record.

Now, do you notice that the media suddenly tries to play the moral high ground when we make them live up to the standard they created—the construct they forced, the paradigm they constituted under George Floyd? The moment we make them live up to their own standard, they start to cry foul. As soon as we do that, they say, “Oh, Charlie Kirk is racializing this.”

And by the way, Van Jones also has a major lie embedded into this whole thing. Listen carefully. Race hustler, Marxist Van Jones—by the way, Van, you’re welcome on my program. I’ll treat you well. I’ll give you an uninterrupted opening statement.

Van Jones, if you want to talk about black crime and urban decay, you’re always welcome here. Because even though you’re an expert in race hustling, I’ve been around the block a couple times. I know your tricks, and they don’t work here. Your magical spells don’t work here. Your little hocus-pocus—”you are racist”—that doesn’t work here. We’ve got holy water here.

VAN JONES: For Charlie Kirk to say, “We know he did it because she’s white,” when there’s no evidence of that—it’s just pure hate-mongering. It’s wrong. Then he says that if something like that had happened the other way, there would be sweeping changes imposed on society. Where is the George Floyd Policing Act? It didn’t pass, even when you had a white police officer kill a black man on live television, the whole world saw it. There were no sweeping changes. In fact, not one law was passed at the federal level. We don’t know how to deal with people who are hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people hurt people. What happened was horrible. Someone like Charlie Kirk should be ashamed of himself. No one mentioned race—white, black, or anything—except him.

CHARLIE KIRK: OK, so there’s a lot there. First of all, when Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota, was asked repeatedly by the media whether there was racial animus involved in Derek Chauvin’s actions against George Floyd, he said no. They dodged the question. There is no evidence Chauvin acted racially. If you think he did, then you’re a racist, injecting racial fantasies and mythologies into a situation where they don’t exist.

And by the way—just if you’re taking notes, Media Matters—George Floyd overdosed. You can write that down, take it to the bank.

Anyway, that’s not what this is about. Here is the tweet I sent out:

“If a random white person simply walked up and stabbed a nice law-abiding black person for no reason, it would be an apocalyptically huge national story used to impose sweeping political changes on the whole country.”

Of course, this is true. Everybody knows this is true. Our media thirsts for stories like this.

Imagine a white guy sitting on a bus, and a black woman is just on her phone. Suddenly, the white guy takes out a knife and stabs her in the neck repeatedly. How do you think the media would react? We’d have protests. I’ll tell you right now—there would be a hundred burned Wendy’s around the world — in every city. It would be so much, they’d start burning the Denny’s.

They use Emmett Till seventy years later because it was a horrifying murder of an innocent black person by hateful whites. It’s so rare they had to go back seventy years. But when a white person is murdered, we don’t burn down the country. But when George Floyd overdosed on drugs, it was Floydapalooza. But for the opposite? We only have to go back one day.

Literally, there was another. You know, several happened just last week. Another white girl was murdered by a black person in Alabama—a woman butchered walking her dog. There was also one in South Carolina, and one in Virginia. That is four white women in the American South recently butchered by black criminals.

So we step back and ask: what’s really going on here? Van Jones is acting like I said something I didn’t say, when in reality we’re asking a very simple question: Mr. Jones, will you apologize for all the criminal justice reform you pushed forward that allowed these 14-time criminal offenders to walk the streets? You are the architect and designer of constantly feeling bad for the criminal—criminals who then kill more people like Irina Zarutska.

And by the way, I didn’t bring up race. The attacker said, quote, “I got that white girl.”

People say, “What does race matter?” Oh, it matters because you made us care about race in the summer of 2020. Looks like you’ve got to live up to your own rules. The second we make you live up to your ridiculous paradigm, you collapse like a house of cards.

Source: Charlie Kirk: The American People Have Had It With the Media’s Double Standard On Race

Southern Poverty Law Center labels Focus on the Family a “hate group” | WINTERY KNIGHT

I remember a few years ago that many, many big corporations, including Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon were using groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to classify which people were motivated by “hate”. The SPLC had as much respect as other human rights groups. But then, the SPLC was linked to domestic terrorism, and internal scandals emerged.

First, let’s see the latest news from Christian Post:

The far-left civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center has added the conservative Evangelical parachurch ministry Focus on the Family to its list of “anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups,” joining similar organizations that advocate for traditional beliefs on sexuality and family.

You might remember how the SPLC labeled the Alliance Defending Freedom – a law firm that regularly wins civil rights cases at the Supreme Court – as a “hate group”. But they are not the only ones who got that treatment – the Family Research Council, Moms for Liberty, and the American Family Association are on it, too. Even former Republican presidential candidate BEN CARSON was on the list. Probably for being a non-white conservative – left-wing racists hate us the most.

You might remember the link between the SPLC and the Family Research Council.

The Daily Caller reports.

Excerpt:

The man accused of opening fire and shooting a security guard at the conservative Family Research Council headquarters last August plead guilty to three charges in a D.C. federal court Wednesday.

Floyd Lee Corkins, II of Herndon, Virginia entered guilty pleas to a federal weapons charge as well as a local terrorism charge and a charge of assault with intent to kill, according to news reports.

[…]Following the guilty plea the FRC issued a statement placing a large portion of the blame for the shooting at the feet of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, which had listed FRC as a hate group. FRC noted that prosecutors discovered Corkins identified his targets on the SPLC’s website.

That’s not the only link between the SPLC and domestic terrorism.

Here’s the story from Daily Wire:

An attorney with the far-left nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was arrested Sunday for allegedly committing domestic terrorism to stop a police facility from being built.

The Atlanta police department said Sunday night that Thomas Webb Jurgens was among the 23 people charged after a “group of violent agitators used the cover of a peaceful protest of the proposed Atlanta Public Safety Training Center to conduct a coordinated attack on construction equipment and police officers. They changed into black clothing and entered the construction area and began to throw large rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks at police officers.”

I could go on and on about the scandals, but since I want to be brief, let’s just see the kind of person who works for the SPLC.

Fox News has a good article about that:

The SPLC fired [SPLC co-founder Morris] Dees in March 2019 following accusations of unchecked internal racism and sexism. His ouster came after the SPLC faced two dozen employee complaints saying its workplace fostered an intolerable workplace environment, including mistreatment, sexual harassment and a lack of diversity based on race and gender.

The New York Times reported at the time that several employees were subject to “racially callous remarks” and that some on staff were sidelined because of their skin color – ultimately affecting their pay and advancement within the organization.

This part is funny:

“As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” SPLC’s then-president Richard Cohen said at the time. “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”

Cohen later stepped down from the organization amid the harassment and diversity allegations.

Big Tech has been judging you for years, using the opinions of the SPLC. It would be great if the Trump administration investigated them for it. Maybe we would get less domestic terrorism if they had to face a little legal scrutiny?

Two black economists explain how to end poverty in America | WINTERY KNIGHT

These days, everyone seems to think that being good to the poor means looking around to see what people are saying is good to the poor, then loudly shouting your agreement with it. People want to look good to others more than they want to help others. Besides, looking good by loud virtue signaling is free. If we really wanted to help people, though, we should tell them to do what will work.

So let’s talk about poverty in America, with help from famous black economist Walter Williams.

First, he says real poverty is not common in America:

There is no material poverty in the U.S. Here are a few facts about people whom the Census Bureau labels as poor. Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor”, report that 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. Poor Americans have more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. What we have in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare state.

Second, the “poverty” is not caused by racism, but by poor choices:

The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it’s 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn’t hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it’s 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts?

There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data “going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery … showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940”? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity?

Third, avoiding poverty is the result of good choices:

No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault.

If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. It turns out that a married couple, each earning the minimum wage, would earn an annual combined income of $30,000. The Census Bureau poverty line for a family of two is $15,500, and for a family of four, it’s $23,000. By the way, no adult who starts out earning the minimum wage does so for very long.

Fourth, what stops people from making good choices is big government:

Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the “need” to deal with some aspect of poverty. In a column of mine in 1995, I pointed out that at that time, the nation had spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, and with that princely sum, “you could purchase every U.S. factory, all manufacturing equipment, and every office building. With what’s left over, one could buy every airline, trucking company and our commercial maritime fleet. If you’re still in the shopping mood, you could also buy every television, radio and power company, plus every retail and wholesale store in the entire nation”. Today’s total of $18 trillion spent on poverty means you could purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some.

Regarding those last two points, here is another famous black economist, Thomas Sowell:

Economist Thomas Sowell blames welfare for killing the black family

Economist Thomas Sowell blames welfare for killing the black family

To illustrate this point, here’s a graph with some helpful data taken from the U. S. Census.

In fact, there is a whole video featuring Thomas Sowell to go with this graph:

Black women were more likely to be married before welfare programs

Black women were more likely to be married before welfare programs

And an article to go with it:

If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other “leaders” that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.

The rest of the article points out how even crime rates among blacks were caused by the implementation of soft law enforcement policies by progressives. Just look at the big cities if you want to know what it is like for blacks to be ruled by Democrats. It sucks!

If everybody started to read more Thomas Sowell books, we would be much better off as a country! Only good things happen when people stop watching TV and listening to music and watching movies, and instead settle down in a chair with a Thomas Sowell book. I recommended a bunch of them in a previous post.