Richard Hanania: Ending the War on Woke
Anyone who has a contract with the federal government and all their subcontractors is required to have affirmative action. This means keeping track of the race and sex of employees and even potential hires, looking for disparities, and then setting goals and timetables to correct any disparities that are found. This is significant because it impacts a substantial portion of the private sector; approximately 25% of the workforce is affected since many large companies have government contracts or aspire to have them. The Trump administration ended these mandates, moving in the opposite direction by stating that government contractors could not engage in affirmative action. They also encouraged the government to investigate potential violations of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies within universities, the private sector, and non-profits. This broad action encompassed almost everything related to affirmative action, DEI, and associated “wokeness” issues.
In this context, I’d like to welcome everyone to the From the New World podcast. Today, I’m speaking with Richard Hanania, author of the Richard Hanania newsletter, “The Origins of WOKE,” “Public Choice Theory,” “Illusions of Grand Strategy,” and the forthcoming book, “Elite Human Capital.” We touch upon how the Trump administration dismantled DEI, what’s left of disparate impact law, Richard’s upcoming project, and what “Elite Human Capital” means, as well as how Ezra Klein could potentially rescue the Democratic Party from its current struggles.
If you enjoy this episode, spreading the word to friends or acquaintances, whether in person or online, would be greatly appreciated. Not only does it support us, but it also helps your friends discover something interesting and informative. Without further ado, here’s Richard Hanania.
I am here with the man who seemed to play a pivotal role in the dismantling of DEI, Richard Hanania. You are undoubtedly one of the best people to discuss this topic with. So, what did the Trump administration do to effectively end DEI?
The administration took a range of actions. They terminated DEI in government institutions, asserting that merit should dictate government decisions without the influence of DEI goals. This was a broad initiative. Additionally, they eliminated affirmative action in government contracting, a recommendation I made in my own writings. In essence, anyone with a federal contract—and all their subcontractors—was required to adopt affirmative action policies. The Department of Labor even articulated precisely what this entailed, including tracking the race and sex of employees, examining disparities, and establishing goals and timetables.
The implications of this decision were vast, infiltrating the private sector and affecting approximately 25% of the workforce. It marked a significant change, as many large companies engage in government contracts. The Trump administration’s termination of affirmative action meant they declared it unacceptable for government contractors to follow such practices. They even urged the government to identify DEI violations across universities, private sectors, and non-profits—essentially touching upon all aspects of affirmative action and DEI-related issues.
It raises the question of how this could be achieved through executive orders. I understand that some actions can be taken this way, but can an executive order effectively dismantle the entire affirmative action regime?
Yes, certain actions can indeed be executed through executive orders. The whole affirmative action framework was initially established by executive order 11246 during the Johnson administration and later solidified in the Nixon administration. While some aspects of these frameworks exist in legislative forms, many operate simply through executive actions. Consequently, those measures established via executive order can typically be revoked similarly. Interpretation of the law, particularly in civil rights, can shift significantly; what was once deemed obligatory can transition to being viewed as prohibited.
It’s indeed rather remarkable that a considerable chunk of this framework was created and maintained through executive orders, demonstrating how readily it could be undone.
I delve into this in my work, where I explore historical trends and rationales behind these shifts.
When it comes to the concept of “wokeness,” what remains after the changes made by the Trump administration? Disparate impact law stands out as a significant aspect that continues to persist. Essentially, this concept allows for discrimination to be identified even if the discriminatory actions aren’t overt.
That said, the current interpretation and handling of employment laws play a crucial role. To navigate the realm of disparate impacts effectively, it’s crucial to have the right judges and administrators. Within a Republican administration, you often don’t find a pervasive federal stance on divisive issues such as gun control or abortion, as their administrations typically don’t occupy those spaces. However, the federal stance on DEI was heavily instituted in government operations, indicating a deeper ideological commitment.
Would you say disparate impact laws continue to be influenced by the current governmental interpretations we have? Are there legislative efforts or executive actions that can still impact these policies?
There are indeed avenues to influence these policies through executive action. However, given the current direction under the Trump administration, which has largely directed against the affirmative action frameworks, it may replicate itself in federal agencies. While one may argue that there’s room for disparate impacts concerns under Title VII civil rights lawsuits in employment contexts, Republican sentiments generally resist correcting racial imbalances through disparate treatment of groups. Hence, the discourse surrounding disparate impact remains intact, even if much of the executive action has cratered the existing frameworks.
I wonder if there are significant challenges to affirmative action still underway. Specifically, I noted the recent students for fair admissions case and its implications regarding affirmative action; could this be a pivotal moment?
Those cases are inevitably complex; high-profile affirmative action cases often emerge in university contexts because they garner substantial media attention. For disparate impact claims, it requires individuals to catalyze action and demonstrate discrimination at institutional levels. However, pushing these narratives requires a dispelling of certain legal interpretations that characterize disparate treatment as illegitimate. Achieving the longevity of challenging disparate impact laws will necessitate sustained legal activism, and ensuring the courts engage appropriately is vital.
The convergence of various legal avenues could indeed bring about a transformative perspective on these laws and insights—understanding how the various players interact within the cultural dimensions of politics and economics would provide a richer understanding of their societal implications.
Transitioning to your next project, I gather you’re working on “Elite Human Capital”?
Correct. I’m contemplating various issues surrounding societal meanings in the context of education. It’s inherently linked to evolving dimensions of elitism, which I believe can be recognized as either a positive force or a detrimental one. I’m driven to examine how elite human capital can manifest, notably through various societal lenses—specifically focusing on how elites’ intellectual experiences might delve into themes surrounding incumbency, status, and social cohesion.
You proposed a comprehensive framework that carries both historical and future implications.
Yes, I hope so. It’s crucial to understand elite human capital not just in the present context, but in examining its trajectory throughout the 21st century. There’s potential for those setbacks to transform into more constructive pathways.
As you investigate elite human capital further, how do you view changes within academia? To what extent do you see academia producing foundational thinkers, and how do they weigh against issues related to personal biases?
I believe the evolving perception of academia showcases inherent tension between rigid structures and progressive ideologies. Sociocultural dynamics influence how knowledge is disseminated, and elitism often complicates genuine discourse. It becomes essential to navigate that landscape holistically, leveraging insights and reshaping narratives.
That sounds promising. Looking toward larger societal constructs like governance and social frameworks, is there a prevailing theme guiding your perspective on contemporary issues that relate to elite human capital?
Yes, I would argue that the quintessential struggle lies in fostering empathy within elite human capital while also instilling pragmatism and critical inquiry over mere adherence to ideological narratives. The fusion of empathy and inquiry becomes vital, as it may allow us to reevaluate approaches to policies aimed at fostering overall societal well-being.
This is insightful and captures a dynamic discussion, weaving through the implications of elite human capital across varied contexts. It leaves us with a broader understanding of how to approach contemporary societal challenges with renewed perspectives.
Thank you for this enlightening conversation. I look forward to exploring these themes further in your upcoming works!