“We have become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams.”
— Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States
“We are a nation of communities ... a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.”
— George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States
It was not so long ago that presidents from both major political parties believed in celebrating and encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusion in our country’s civil society. Doing so was wise, just, and beneficial in many ways. There was a broad, though not unanimous, consensus in the United States that much of our global cultural and economic influence stemmed from the diversity of our people.
While modern diversity, equity, and inclusion policies are not legal mandates, they are rooted in the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act made discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin illegal in employment, leading to efforts to increase and expand inclusivity in each ensuing decade.
The second half of the 1960s saw the rise of affirmative action policies. These policies, while not without controversy, were implemented to proactively address the historical underrepresentation of certain groups, primarily focused on race. In the ’70s, the focus expanded to encompass gender, with the rise of the feminist movement, the passage of Title IX, Shirley Chisholm’s run for president and the unsuccessful attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ’80s saw expansion of inclusivity and equity efforts beyond racial issues and gender equality. Advocates began to recognize a broader spectrum of diversity. DEI initiatives started to address more groups, including those of people with differing ethnic and religious backgrounds, various physical and cognitive abilities, and LGBTQ+ identities.
Starting in the 1990s, dedicated diversity professionals became more prevalent within organizations. These individuals were crucial in leading diversity initiatives and tailoring them to their organization’s specific needs. They often held titles like “chief diversity officer” or “vice president of diversity.” The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed to improve accessibility, which was recognized as a critical part of a diverse and inclusive workplace. The 2000s saw a sharp increase in workplace diversity training programs. The goal of these programs was to educate employees about different cultures, biases, and inclusive practices. Early training focused on sexual harassment, unconscious bias, and sensitivity to differences.
By the 2010s, most businesses recognized the need to mirror the diversity of society within their workforce to remain competitive and successful. Diversity programs focused on multicultural marketing, community engagement and inclusion training. The #MeToo movement gained momentum and support for the idea of women and men as allies in the fight against sex discrimination. And the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was a major legal win in the broader struggle to increase legal equity and civil rights for LGBTQ+ people. In the present decade, social movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #StopAAPIHate responded to violence, and there was a renewed focus on addressing social injustices and bringing these discussions into the professional world.
Undoubtedly, DEI efforts have faced public criticism and legal setbacks. Affirmative action became perceived as an attempt to impose artificial quotas rather than treat all people equitably. DEI programs were characterized (sometimes accurately) as disingenuous and ineffective public relations efforts, rather than sincere and robust. The U.S. Supreme Court constrained a number of equity initiatives and laws, including voting rights, abortion access, affirmative action, LGBTQ+ freedoms, and more.
Now, the very concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion work is under direct attack by the federal government. Trump has signed a series of executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the public and private sectors.
In the public sphere, these orders terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, positions, and programs in the federal government; terminate equity-related grants and contracts; direct federal agencies to contractually obligate federal contractors and grantees to certify that they “do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws”; and issue guidance that may seek to limit what state and local educational agencies and institutions of higher education can do to ensure equal access to education.
While Trump does not yet claim the authority to outlaw DEI work in private organizations, the executive orders challenge these private efforts by arguing they themselves may violate, rather than advance, federal laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The orders repeal prior executive orders designed to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, including a decades-old executive order from the Johnson Administration that required contractors receiving federal funds to take active steps to prevent discrimination and address barriers to employment opportunities. They challenge the programs of publicly traded corporations, large nonprofits, philanthropic foundations, professional associations, and institutions of higher education that are designed to advance equity, including by threatening legal action, with the obvious goal of chilling their programs.
Bar associations are on Trump’s target list. Pamela Bondi, the current attorney general, recently issued a memorandum ostensibly providing “guidance” to direct and indirect recipients of federal funding as to what her office considers unlawful discriminatory actions that may be subject to scrutiny. The memo lists examples of practices the federal government now considers discriminatory, including race-concious scholarships and programs, hiring programs that “prioritize[] candidates from ‘underrepresented groups,’” and the provision of safe spaces for vulnerable communities. It also explains that Trump considers discussion of “cultural background” and “lived experience” to be “potentially unlawful proxies” for protected characteristics that also may not be used.
After reviewing Trump’s executive order targeting bar associations, the KCBA Trustees voted unanimously to retain KCBA programs, its mission statement, and policy language surrounding anti-racism and equity efforts intact. KCBA is committed to following the law, and considers efforts to decrease systemic racism and increase inclusion and equity to be fully compatible with U.S. law.
The King County Bar Association’s mission is to connect and serve our diverse legal community, promote professional and judicial excellence, engage in public policy, and increase access to justice. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
