Jim Crow and Segregation Might be Returning to Plague the USA, Reveals NPR!

army judge

Super Moderator
1742321241193.png

A sign in Jackson, Miss., in May 1961. The contract clause deleted from federal regulations last month dated back to the mid-1960s and specifically said entities doing business with the government should not have segregated waiting rooms, drinking fountains or transportation.
William Lovelace/Hulton Archive/Getty Images




After a recent change by the Trump administration, the federal government no longer explicitly prohibits contractors from having segregated restaurants, waiting rooms and drinking fountains.

The segregation clause is one of several identified in a public memo issued by the General Services Administration last month, affecting all civil federal agencies. The memo explains that it is making changes prompted by President Trump's executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion, which repealed an executive order signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 regarding federal contractors and nondiscrimination. The memo also addresses Trump's executive order on gender identity.

While there are still state and federal laws that outlaw segregation and discrimination that companies need to comply with, legal experts say this change to contracts across the federal government is significant.

"It's symbolic, but it's incredibly meaningful in its symbolism," says Melissa Murray, a constitutional law professor at New York University. "These provisions that required federal contractors to adhere to and comply with federal civil rights laws and to maintain integrated rather than segregated workplaces were all part of the federal government's efforts to facilitate the settlement that led to integration in the 1950s and 1960s.

"The fact that they are now excluding those provisions from the requirements for federal contractors, I think, speaks volumes," Murray says.

Deleted mentions of drinking fountains, transportation, housing


The clause in question is in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, known as the FAR — a huge document used by agencies to write contracts for anyone providing goods or services to the federal government.

Clause 52.222-21 of the FAR is titled "Prohibition of Segregated Facilities" and reads: "The Contractor agrees that it does not and will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not and will not permit its employees to perform their services at any location under its control where segregated facilities are maintained."

It defines segregated facilities as work areas, restaurants, drinking fountains, transportation, housing and more — and it says you can't segregate based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin."

Several federal agencies, including the departments of Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, have notified staff who oversee federal contracts that they should start instituting these changes.

A recent notice from the National Institutes of Health shows that the change is already in effect. The notice, regarding a maintenance agreement for scientific freeze dryers, cites the GSA memo and reads, "FAR 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities and FAR 52.222-26 — Equal Opportunity will not be considered when making award decisions or enforce requirements."

In effect immediately

One federal worker who works on contracts says they were "shocked" when they received notice about the FAR changes from their agency. NPR has agreed not to identify the worker because they fear being fired for speaking to the media without authorization.

They said that the process used to institute these changes, without a typical public notice or comment period of 45 to 90 days, is usually reserved for national emergencies.

"The way that they're implementing this in the contracting field is essentially subverting democracy — you're supposed to allow agencies to comment on this, contracting officers to comment on it, and think through the implications carefully," the worker said. "By doing this, they're essentially ramming things through hoping no one's going to notice."

The General Services Administration did not answer NPR's question about why the agency did not follow the usual public notice and comment procedure, or a question about why the "segregated facilities" clause was removed.

In a statement, GSA spokesperson Will Powell wrote: "GSA has taken immediate action to fully implement all current executive orders and is committed to taking action to implement any new executive orders."

Recent history

Kara Sacilotto, an attorney at the Wiley law firm in Washington, D.C., which specializes in federal contracts, speculates that the provision was flagged because it was revised under the Obama administration to include "gender identity." That change was made, she says, "to implement an Obama era Executive Order 13672, and that executive order from the Obama administration is one of the ones that President Trump, in his second term, rescinded," she explains. "And so, along with [Trump's] other executive orders about gender identification, I would suspect that is the reason why this one got identified on the list."

The memo does not say to exclude just the "gender identity" part of the clause, however. It says to exclude the whole thing.

Murray, the law professor, says racial segregation is not as far away in history as it may seem. She remembers a trip to Washington, D.C., in 1985, when her father, a Jamaican immigrant, took her to Woodward & Lothrop, a department store where he had worked when he'd been a student at Howard University.

She'd thought he had been a salesman at the store, which closed in 1995. "He's like, 'No, no, no, I only worked in the back because Black people weren't allowed to be on the sales floor,'" she recalls. When it comes to segregation in America, she says, "it's not far removed at all."



 
The employee quoted in the article is confusing the requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) with the rules that apply to executive orders (EO). The APA addresses agency rulemaking and agency judicial processes. When an agency proposes a regulation the APA requires a notice to the public and an opportunity for the public to submit comments unless the rule is an emergency rule. Emergency rules only last a limite period of time.

An EO is not a rule as defined by the regulation because it doesn't impose any mandate on the general public. An EO is the federal equivalent of a corporate CEO sending a memo to all its employees changing how things are done internally in the company. There is no notice and comment period required for an EO before it takes effect.

Agencies still must follow the federal laws regarding employment discrimination. The EO doesn't change that. Notably the Civil Rights Act 1964 outlawed discrimination by employers on the basis of race, including the federal government in its role as employer. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 providing separate facilities for White and Black employees was inherently discriminatory as it was pretty much impossible to not racially discrminate when you divide up people up into different groups on the basis of criteria like race. I don't see the Supreme Court today reversing that position even though the court is presently comprised of a majority of conservatives.

Trump's EO changes none of that. President Johnson's EO that went further in tackling racism in the federal government did not have the force of law. An employee violating the EO might get fired, but that's about it. Here, Trump is taking away the extra administrative protection that Johnson instituted.

As one of the person's quoted in the article said, the EO is largely symbolic because today federal law on government employment has advanced to include many of the protections that Johnson's EO provided. Trump is signaling his distain for equal opportunity programs with this EO. It will delight many of his supporters, and that's Trump's main target audience for this.
 
I don't believe that TC, he is removing DEI to signify that it doesn't matter there should be no protected class with differential treatment. There should be Americans and decisions should be made based upon qualifications and not skin tone, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

That is all, I agree with Trump on immigration and equal opportunities. I do not agree with Trump on DOGE and Musk taking a chainsaw to the probationary federal employees who work hard and have good performance being terminated. I also do not agree with a lot of the legislation Republicans are doing but with unlimited power comes the ability to abuse it.
 
I don't believe that TC, he is removing DEI to signify that it doesn't matter there should be no protected class with differential treatment. There should be Americans and decisions should be made based upon qualifications and not skin tone, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

For what its worth, I agree with your assessment 1,000%!!!!!!
 
Of course, the entire reason such policies were implemented in the first place was to ensure that women and minorities got a fair shot. NOT to hire or promote lesser qualified minorities and women, but to see that qualified minorities and women did not get passed over for lesser qualified white men. Which even today, they still are.

I do not disagree that decisions should not be made on the basis of skin tone, nationality, gender, etc. That is obviously the case. I disagree STRONGLY that eliminating DEI will cause that to happen.
 
As one of the person's quoted in the article said, the EO is largely symbolic because today federal law on government employment has advanced to include many of the protections that Johnson's EO provided. Trump is signaling his distain for equal opportunity programs with this EO. It will delight many of his supporters, and that's Trump's main target audience for this.
That said, one of the problems is the fear among many that, while federal law may provide those protections, there is no guarantee that following federal law would protect against T***p (or one of his flunkies) placing a target square on their backs. We've seen this already with the EO targeting Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton, and threats towards universities. Columbia has already shown it will bend the knee (which disturbs me, as an alum), although for a different reason. Once the institutions with significant reserves cave, those without will obey in advance.

To reiterate cbg's point - DEI policies were put into place to even the playing field. For the most part, I believe these policies have generally worked. Are they perfect? Of course not. But fixing the system doesn't necessarily include tossing the baby with the bath water, as this administration seems to prefer. (for example - firing "non-essential personnel, then realizing that they were, in fact, essential. Oops! Maybe taking a beat before applying a chainsaw would result in better results and spare the embarrassment.
 
a lot of DEI practices do the exact opposite of what its intentions are or were to equal things out. It generally doesn't lead to equality but rather reverse discrimination and lower standards.

This is or was never the intention of DEI hence why it has been reversed and ended in a lot of cases.
 
lol, what does it look like when standards are lowered, the people do not make as high of marks as the white male and when white males are passed over just because they are white but worked harder than their colored counter parts but still lost out? If you are have TRUE equality then you will need to eliminate any race based admission conditions. This wouldn't work in your world though.
 
Well, getting rid of DEI in appointing T***p's Cabinet sure got the best & brightest! Why are heads not rolling over the "war plans" chat? Hegseth and Waltz at minimum.
 

Ask a Question

Back
Top