In the beginning, way back before Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion became a thing called DEI, there was a struggle for Civil Rights in the United States.
As a preliminary account of how things got to the point where we find them today, we could begin a modern history of DEI with Executive Order 10925, signed by US President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961.
Kennedy’s order was intended to improve the effectiveness of his predecessor’s order on nondiscrimination in federal contracting. Executive Order 10479, signed by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower on Aug. 13, 1953, established a Government Contract Committee because “practices and procedures relating to compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions must be revised and strengthened to eliminate discrimination in all aspects of employment.”
Discrimination was not supposed to be happening, but it was happening, and Eisenhower was establishing a committee to revise and strengthen “compliance with nondiscrimination provisions.”
In 1954, the Supreme Court would strike down school segregation.
In 1955, the Montgomery Bus Boycott initiated the classic Civil Rights Movement, also known as the King Years. While the boycott was most famous for its effort to abolish racist seating practices, a key demand of the movement included hiring Black drivers, at least to serve predominantly Black routes.
On Sept. 9, 1957, President Eisenhower signed the first Civil Rights act of the 20th Century* and soon followed it up with an Executive Order on Sept. 23 that federalized the Arkansas National Guard to protect the Little Rock Nine.
Kennedy’s Executive Order of 1961 was an effort to improve on Eisenhower’s attempt to diversify federal contracting. The term “affirmative” appears three times in the Kennedy order. First, the order established a presidential committee that would “consider and recommend additional affirmative steps which should be taken by executive departments and agencies to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination within the executive branch of the Government.”
Second, on the matter of federal contracting, the order said:
The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
Third, the order empowered the president’s committee to:
direct that any bidder or prospective contractor or subcontractor shall submit, as part of his Compliance Report, a statement in writing, signed by an authorized officer or agent of any labor union or other workers’ representative with which the bidder or prospective contractor deals, together with supporting information, to the effect that the said labor union’s or representative’s practices and policies do not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, creed, or national origin, and that the labor union or representative either will affirmatively cooperate, within the limits of his legal and contractual authority, in the implementation of the policy and provisions of this order or that it consents and agrees that recruitment, employment, and the terms and conditions of employment under the proposed contract shall be in accordance with the purposes and provisions of the order. In the event that the union or representative shall refuse to execute such a statement, the Compliance Report shall so certify and set forth what efforts have been made to secure such a statement.
The thrice-used term “affirmative” conveys the sense that nondiscrimination requires something beyond “not doing.” And right there is the heart of the issue that divides opinions today.
Does the practice of nondiscrimination require something more than “not doing”?
To sum up our findings, the debate over DEI today reflects a divided opinion over the question of whether affirmative action, affirmative steps, or affirmative cooperation are necessary to any successful program of nondiscrimination. We can see that multiple uses of “affirmative” in President Kennedy’s 1961 order reflect a judgment that effective nondiscrimination requires something more than “not doing.”
Meanwhile, it appears that re-establishing the primacy of “not doing” is the strategic goal of today’s anti-DEI campaigns.
*Note: The Civil Rights acts of the 19th Century deserve another post. Meanwhile, here’s a Wikipedia on the 1875 act.
DEI Sanctuary 
Leave a comment