DEI without the mask

DEI is under attack by the Trump administration and has lost its allure to the public at large. Its proponents, having therefore been pushed into a defensive posture, are presenting DEI as non-threatening — just a way to make sure everyone is treated fairly and has an equal opportunity, not an attack on “privileged” whites.

But this report in the Washington Post removes the mask. DEI is presented for what it really is — a raw effort to favor blacks over whites and Asian-American and, indeed, an effort to deny whites and Asian-Americans opportunities and benefits.

The report is about the DEI program in Erie , Pennsylvania, described by the Post as one of America’s poorest cities. In September 2020, during the height of George Floyd mania, Erie set up a program to fund entrepreneurs who are members of the “black, Indigenous, and people of color [“BIPOC] community.” As I read the Post’s report, whites are not eligible to receive funds.

The first point to make about the program is this: It’s illegal. The law bars government programs that exclude people from participation because of their race. The Post neglects to mention this.

The second point is that the program is unfair. The Post tries to obscure its unfairness by starting its report with the story of a sympathetic black beneficiary:

His mother raised 10 children in a three-bedroom house in this weathered industrial city on the shores of Lake Erie. A decade ago, Roberts’s younger brother was shot and killed on a street corner here.

Roberts bought a hot dog cart to take his mind off his loss and later opened Triple D’s Tasty Grill. Then in 2023, he received a $15,000 grant from a controversial Erie program that has invested millions into 50 minority-owned businesses, helping him expand his street-front restaurant when he didn’t qualify for bank loans.

The money Roberts received from Diverse Erie, a groundbreaking diversity, equity and inclusion program in response to Erie County declaring racism a public health emergency in 2020, helped him buy a new fryer. The 43-year-old Black entrepreneur now dishes out hamburgers and hot dogs with the city’s famous zesty Greek sauce.

Good for Mr. Roberts. But he didn’t get his grant because his mother had lots of children or because his brother was killed. He got it because he is black.

Roberts himself sees the unfairness of this. Deep into the Post’s report, we learn:

Although his grant sustained him during “the tough months,” [Roberts] doesn’t like the concept of DEI. “Now that Trump is removing DEI, I don’t think it’s a bad thing,” Roberts said. “We are all equal, and I don’t want to put myself in a position where I say, ‘Come support me because I am a Black business.’”

Exactly. We are all entitled to equal treatment, not just as a matter of law but also as a matter of basic fairness. Erie’s DEI program flies in the face of basic fairness.

The Post labors to justify Erie’s racially discriminatory DEI program by talking about the “legacy” of the city’s past discrimination, including redlining. From a legal standpoint, claims of past societal discrimination cannot justify racially discriminatory programs. That’s settled law.

From a fairness standpoint, the result is the same. The Post declines to tell us when illegal practices like redlining, which have been illegal for decades, ended in Erie. It also seems to assume that past discrimination and the poverty it may have caused are entirely, or at least largely, responsible for the disproportionately low number of black businesses in the city. But we know of many people who have come to America almost penniless and started successful businesses without handouts from the government.

As noted, Erie is one of America’s poorest cities. Blacks make up only 16 percent of the city’s population. It follows that there are plenty of poor people outside of the “BIPOC community” who could use a helping hand to start a business. Why should they be excluded from receiving one?

The Post suggests an answer — “white privilege.” It quotes a black religious leader who says:

DEI was designed to level the playing field, to give minorities in our country an opportunity to partake in the American Dream. There are people who don’t like it. People who fought against it who don’t understand the whole dynamic of White privilege.”

Erie’s struggling white population, plagued by poverty, unemployment, and the lack of opportunity that stems from the hollowing out of their city, can be forgiven for not “understanding the whole dynamic of White privilege.” The reality is that Erie’s whites and blacks are essentially in the same leaky boat. If the city throws a lifeline, both sets of residents, along with those of all other racial and ethnic groups, should have the opportunity to grab it.

The Post presents one more justification for Erie’s discriminatory program:

Don “Craig” Heidelberg, 48, received $5,000 in 2023 to help stabilize his Dapper Don’s Styling Lounge, a barbershop. . . He said the grants are needed because not enough Black Erie residents are taught the financial literacy needed to start a business.

“There are barriers, and it’s an information barrier,” said Heidelberg. . .“Someone who is Caucasian may have had parents, or friends in college, and been in situations where this was common knowledge so that gives them an advantage. ”

Right. But someone who is Caucasian may not have had this advantage. He (or she) is excluded from the program. And many immigrants, whose families may not even speak English, have not been taught financial literacy, yet are able to start businesses from scratch.

If financial literacy really is what’s preventing blacks in Erie from starting businesses, here’s an idea: Set up a program to teach it. Just make sure the program is open to everyone, not just “BIPOC” folk.

I want to make one more point. Deep into the Post’s article, we learn that some of the Erie businesses awarded money closed shortly after receiving it. In fact, the Post informs us that it “was unable to contact about half of the businesses that had received grant funding.”

Fraud is a hardy perennial of minority set aside programs. Who, really, belongs to a favored minority group and how do we know? For that matter, how do we know that the recipient of the money isn’t really a front for a member of an unfavored group?

Chief Justice Roberts was right when he said, “It is a sordid thing, this divvying us up by race.” Sordid, unfair, and unlawful.