what does executive order 13985 dissmiss

Natashya

2 min read

·

02-02-2025

29

0

Share

Executive Order 13985: Dismantling Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives?

Executive Order 13985, titled "Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping," signed in September 2020, sparked significant controversy. Its core aim, as stated by the administration, was to prevent the use of divisive concepts in federal training programs. However, critics argue that it effectively dismantled crucial diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives within government agencies. This article explores the order's provisions, its impact, and the ongoing debate surrounding its implications.

What Does Executive Order 13985 Prohibit?

The order targets what it defines as "divisive concepts." These include, but aren't limited to, trainings that:

• Suggest that any race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex. This directly challenges the idea of systemic inequalities based on race or gender.
• Assert that an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. This provision has been interpreted as limiting discussions on unconscious bias and implicit prejudice.
• Teach that individuals should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment based on their race or sex. This clause seems aimed at preventing any form of discrimination training.
• Promote the concept of “white privilege” or other concepts that suggest that individuals, by virtue of their race or sex, bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. This point has been particularly contentious, with critics arguing it stifles essential conversations about historical oppression and its ongoing impact.

The Impact of Executive Order 13985:

The order's immediate impact was a significant chilling effect on diversity and inclusion training programs across federal agencies. Many agencies suspended or modified existing programs to avoid potential legal repercussions. This resulted in:

• Reduced training on unconscious bias and implicit prejudice: Crucial training aimed at promoting a more equitable workplace was curtailed.
• Limited discussion of systemic racism and sexism: Conversations about the structural barriers faced by marginalized groups were significantly restricted.
• Increased hesitancy to address diversity and inclusion issues: Employees became wary of initiating or participating in discussions related to these sensitive topics.

Arguments For and Against Executive Order 13985:

Supporters of the order argue it prevents the indoctrination of government employees with divisive ideologies and promotes unity. They believe that focusing on individual merit rather than group identity is crucial for a fair and equitable workplace.

Critics, on the other hand, contend that the order undermines crucial efforts to address systemic inequities. They argue that it stifles open discussion, prevents meaningful dialogue about race and gender, and ultimately harms efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable workplace. They emphasize the importance of acknowledging historical injustices and addressing present-day biases.

The Ongoing Debate:

The legacy of Executive Order 13985 continues to be debated. Its impact on diversity and inclusion initiatives within the federal government remains a significant point of contention. The order highlights the complex challenges of balancing the promotion of unity and the need to acknowledge and address systemic inequalities. The debate underscores the ongoing struggle to define the appropriate role of the government in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Further analysis and discussion are needed to assess its long-term effects and inform future policies. The order serves as a stark reminder of the complexities surrounding diversity training and the political sensitivities involved.