Backlash
Even the most superficial glance through history reveals a pattern: progress is followed by backlash.
Rather obviously, the definition of what constitutes progress is contested. What I consider progress--greater civic and social equality for women and previously marginalized groups--is viewed with alarm, if not hysteria, by defenders of the older order. American history teaches us that every effort at inclusion has sparked a ferocious response. Reconstruction is probably the best example (I would argue we’re still living with the vestiges of Jim Crow), but there are plenty of others.
That cycle of progress and backlash goes a long way toward explaining support for Donald Trump and his merry band of bigots. The voters who felt personally insulted by the increasing participation of women and Blacks, whose version of “morality” was offended by same-sex marriage and increasing acceptance of gay folks, responded enthusiastically to Trump’s barely-veiled promise to turn back the clock to a time when straight White “Christian” men ruled the roost. (That’s also why they shrugged off his sexual assaults, because that was what “the boys” did in the “before times.”)
And they were all-in on his war on “woke-ism” and DEI. Diversity? Equity? Inclusion? Those were just words for the assault on White male privilege. In their eyes, efforts to mitigate years--centuries!--of discrimination were the real discrimination, part of the effort to diminish the dominance that their God had intended.
Should you think I’m exaggerating about the extent of what I’ll call “White guy backlash,” allow me to cite a recent lawsuit brought by Trump’s administration.
The Washington Post recently reported
“As company networking events go, it was unremarkable: About 250 female employees of a Coca-Cola distributor gathered inside the ballroom of a Connecticut casino for a day of speakers and team-building exercises, preceded the night before by cocktails and dinner. The theme: “Embrace Your Authenticity.”
The event, held in late 2024, offered the women a chance to mingle with higher-ups and bond over their shared challenges in a male-dominated workplace, said one participant. It was fun, energizing and useful, she said
According to a new lawsuit from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it was also illegal.”
Trump’s EEOC has sued Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, the regional bottler, alleging that the women’s event was unlawful discrimination against male employees under federal civil rights law, and it’s seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The suit is described as part of a “sweeping effort by the Trump administration to stamp out what it describes as illegal discrimination.”
There are signs that more of these cases will be filed. The agency is reportedly investigating Nike and Northwestern Mutual, among others, over their corporate diversity initiatives.
According to the article in the Post, barely a month after Trump designated her EEOC chair, Andrea Lucas issued a public appeal, asking White men who believe they’ve been discriminated against at work to contact the agency “as soon as possible.” She has been quoted as saying that women-only networking events would create “new girls clubs” that operate like the “old boys clubs” before them, and comparing them to racially segregated employee social events of the 1970s.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on their “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” based on sex, race, religion or national origin. It was passed--over violent objections--in order to remedy longstanding forms of racial and gender discrimination. That’s not to say that a White man cannot be the object of discrimination--there are certainly situations where such an assertion would have merit--but such situations were not the focus of the Act.
The Trump administration has been waging a ferocious war on accurate history, but the long history of employment discrimination matters--especially when it comes to the law. The inconvenient reality is that straight White Christian men have rarely been discriminated against in the workplace (more often, they were the ones doing the discriminating). Perhaps some day, efforts to level the playing field will operate to tilt it the other way, and will actually generate incidents of “reverse discrimination.” But we definitely aren’t there yet.
We also need to work on our definition of employment discrimination. As a friend asked, when I shared this article, if the owners of a strip club hire only women, are they discriminating against men? If a Christian nonprofit fails to employ atheists, Jews and Muslims, is that employment discrimination?
Common sense sure is uncommon in the age of Trump...