Judge strikes down Trump administration guidance against diversity programs at schools and colleges

[Independent thinker]

“A federal judge on Thursday struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland found that the Education Department violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that continued with DEI initiatives.

The guidance has been on hold since April when three federal judges blocked various portions of the Education Department’s anti-DEI measures. The ruling Thursday followed a motion for summary judgment from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which challenged the government’s actions in a February lawsuit.”

Judge strikes down Trump administration guidance against diversity programs at schools and colleges

A federal judge has struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities.

apnews.com

“…a campaign to end practices the Trump administration frames as discrimination against white and Asian American students.”

Trump is lying, as usual – DEI programs do not ‘discriminate’ against white and Asian students; in fact, Trump’s campaign against DEI programs is itself racist, bigoted, and hateful.

They do discriminate. The Supreme Court will decide it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They do discriminate. The Supreme Court will decide it.

False. In fact, DEI counters discrimination.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump and Republicans are "colorblind".

Democrats always try to play the race card.

Taking away DEI takes away that race card. Color it gone, sooner or later.

Anti-D.E.I is racist and anti-ethnic and anti-female.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anti-D.E.I is racist and anti-ethnic and anti-female.

The white wing noise machine has convinced the MAGAts that their own life failures are caused by a brown person or a woman or a gay succeeding.

 

[SmokeALib]

“A federal judge on Thursday struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland found that the Education Department violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that continued with DEI initiatives.

The guidance has been on hold since April when three federal judges blocked various portions of the Education Department’s anti-DEI measures. The ruling Thursday followed a motion for summary judgment from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which challenged the government’s actions in a February lawsuit.”

Judge strikes down Trump administration guidance against diversity programs at schools and colleges

A federal judge has struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities.

apnews.com

“…a campaign to end practices the Trump administration frames as discrimination against white and Asian American students.”

Trump is lying, as usual – DEI programs do not ‘discriminate’ against white and Asian students; in fact, Trump’s campaign against DEI programs is itself racist, bigoted, and hateful.

Sounds like this judge wants sexual perversion in our schools. She should be disbarred immediately for the sake of our children.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The white wing noise machine has convinced the MAGAts that their own life failures are caused by a brown person or a woman or a gay succeeding.

When whites have failed because of their inadequcy, not because of the system.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When whites have failed because of their inadequcy, not because of the system.

What's sad is that, no doubt, a lot of them dont care about DEI and know it isnt a threat.

But their programming requires them hop on the Trump wagon. Like the scene in Beetlejuice, where everyone dances at the table.

It's the type of behavior that makes us put big cones on dogs after surgery. They know it hurts when they chew the wound. But their programming makes them do it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

And yet another judge assumes illusions of grandeur fancying herself to be the elected President of the United States and therefore authorized to make such rulings. No court in the land is authorized to say what the government is or is not required to spend the taxpayer's money on.

The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress and President alone.

I hope hope hope SCOTUS puts an end to this kind of unconsitutional lawfare soon.

I have a question because I see you all saying this all of the time.

As an example, if a person, or any other entity wants to do something that is currently not lawful but goes ahead and does it anyway AND they get sued, it's the COURTS who say whether or not what they did was a violation of the law or the U.S. Constitution. And if they did indeed violate the law, then generally the person who was harmed is awarded damages in an amount that attempts to restore them to where they would have been if not for the violation(s) against them which the legal system refers to as "making them whole". This is how our court system operates.

You all seem to be saying that when the person who wants to violate the law is the president of the United States or more specifically, Trump, then the courts are WRONG for finding that the actions he's taken are a violation of current law or the U.S. Constitution simply BECAUSE they refuse to allow him to run roughshod over everyone due to SCOTUS having given him blanket immunity.

So, would it be accurate to say that you all believe that because the violator is Trump and Trump is the current POTUS that it's a violation of his rights or the rights of the office of POTUS, for the courts to rule that he is in violation of the laws he's trying to get rid of via execute order when he doesn't do thing properly. For example, the way he fired en mass many civil servants (federal government workers) without doing it in accordance with established policy, such as giving proper notice, the workers having the right to challenge their firing, etc.

 

[WEATHER53]

Presidents have always presided
Not solo judges

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a question because I see you all saying this all of the time.

As an example, if a person, or any other entity wants to do something that is currently not lawful but goes ahead and does it anyway AND they get sued, it's the COURTS who say whether or not what they did was a violation of the law or the U.S. Constitution. And if they did indeed violate the law, then generally the person who was harmed is awarded damages in an amount that attempts to restore them to where they would have been if not for the violation(s) against them which the legal system refers to as "making them whole". This is how our court system operates.

You all seem to be saying that when the person who wants to violate the law is the president of the United States or more specifically, Trump, then the courts are WRONG for finding that the actions he's taken are a violation of current law or the U.S. Constitution simply BECAUSE they refuse to allow him to run roughshod over everyone due to SCOTUS having given him blanket immunity.

So, would it be accurate to say that you all believe that because the violator is Trump and Trump is the current POTUS that it's a violation of his rights or the rights of the office of POTUS, for the courts to rule that he is in violation of the laws he's trying to get rid of via execute order when he doesn't do thing properly. For example, the way he fired en mass many civil servants (federal government workers) without doing it in accordance with established policy, such as giving proper notice, the workers having the right to challenge their firing, etc.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The difference is between adjudicating whether a law was broken when you have a claimant and defendant, or a judicial ruling that usurps Presidential or congressional authority.

There is no law that says the Department of Education cannot set the policy for conditions for funding. It always has. The Biden Administration demanded that DEI be the policy and education institutions received mega bucks in grants to implement DEI.

The Trump Administration says that destructive, harmful, and racist DEI will not be the policy. Those education institutions wanting federal funding will not have a policy of DEI or they will need to look elsewhere for that funding.

The court oversteps its authority by attempting to dictate what the policy must be.

Elections have consequences.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS and the federal judiciary are neither apples nor oranges.

They preside over how the law works, not the President.

The law sets the guidelines for its operations, and the judiciary is the judge.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

To those bleating about racism, it’s not about racism or an aversion to diversity and inclusion or even because Trump is against it. It’s about pushing DEI for its own sake.

Speaking for myself, I was against the idea from the beginning before Trump ever said a word about it. I was against it because I knew that for many, it was just an excuse to point fingers and say “Look what whites did”. And I was right.

As for diversity and inclusion, I have no problem with either of those as long as everyone there is competent and has a strong work ethic.
I’ve worked with minorities and whites my entire career and never found either of them to be any more or any less competent than the other.

As for equity, I’ll never agree with that one as long as it’s promoted as equal outcomes. I think equal opportunity is the only way to go.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

For you, it is about racism,

Ghost of a Riderm​

because D.E.I. is not.

 

[Hafar1014]

“A federal judge on Thursday struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland found that the Education Department violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that continued with DEI initiatives.

The guidance has been on hold since April when three federal judges blocked various portions of the Education Department’s anti-DEI measures. The ruling Thursday followed a motion for summary judgment from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which challenged the government’s actions in a February lawsuit.”

Judge strikes down Trump administration guidance against diversity programs at schools and colleges

A federal judge has struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities.

apnews.com

“…a campaign to end practices the Trump administration frames as discrimination against white and Asian American students.”

Trump is lying, as usual – DEI programs do not ‘discriminate’ against white and Asian students; in fact, Trump’s campaign against DEI programs is itself racist, bigoted, and hateful.

DEI is illegal the SC will overturn this dumb decision

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

DEI is illegal the SC will overturn this dumb decision

No, it won't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet another judge assumes illusions of grandeur fancying herself to be the elected President of the United States and therefore authorized to make such rulings. No court in the land is authorized to say what the government is or is not required to spend the taxpayer's money on.

The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress and President alone.

I hope hope hope SCOTUS puts an end to this kind of unconsitutional lawfare soon.

Trump's Third term: he resigns as POTUS Jan 19, 2029 and is appointed as a Federal Judge

 

[wamose]

There's the dumbest talking point ever heard.

Again.

That's high praise coming from you, Qdog.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump's Third term: he resigns as POTUS Jan 19, 2029 and is appointed as a Federal Judge

LOL. Well judges usually have a law degree which he doesn't so he would need an army of clerks to research the law for him, but he could have a lot of fun with that.

 

[Hafar1014]

LOL. Well judges usually have a law degree which he doesn't so he would need an army of clerks to research the law for him, but he could have a lot of fun with that.

Judges often do not have law degrees

 

[Foxfyre]

Judges often do not have law degrees

Not true that it is often. Possible yes. Often no.