By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Federal employees received mandatory emails Wednesday demanding they report colleagues in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) roles, or face unspecified consequences. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued this directive, citing efforts to conceal DEIA programs through coded language and setting a ten-day reporting deadline. This action follows President Trump’s executive order dismantling federal DEIA initiatives, which he deemed divisive and wasteful. The OPM provided a template email to agency heads, though any alterations are unknown.
Read the original article here
Federal employees are being told to identify colleagues working in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) roles, facing “adverse consequences” for non-compliance. This directive, delivered via email, has sparked outrage and fear among federal workers. The demand to name colleagues feels like a blatant attempt to purge individuals associated with DEIA initiatives, creating a climate of suspicion and distrust within the workplace.
Federal employees are understandably concerned about the implications of this mandate. The vague nature of “adverse consequences” leaves them vulnerable and uncertain about their job security. This uncertainty is further amplified by the aggressive tone of the email, leaving little room for interpretation or refusal. The pressure to comply creates a chilling effect, potentially silencing dissent and discouraging employees from engaging in DEIA work.
Federal employees are expressing deep unease at the parallels to historical authoritarian regimes. Comparisons to the Gestapo and Stasi are being drawn, highlighting the perceived similarities between the current situation and the suppression of political opposition in totalitarian states. The chilling effect of this policy is not lost on anyone, particularly given the specific targeting of individuals associated with DEIA work. This is seen by many as an attempt to stifle any form of dissent or progressive social change within the federal government.
Federal employees see this as a direct attack on efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. DEIA roles are crucial for creating a more equitable and representative workforce, and this action seems designed to undermine these essential functions. The focus on identifying and potentially punishing individuals involved in DEIA work is viewed as a blatant attempt to dismantle existing efforts to promote diversity within the government. Many are expressing concerns about a return to a less diverse and inclusive workplace.
Federal employees are questioning the legality and ethics of this directive. The demand to report colleagues is perceived as a violation of privacy and trust. The act of forcing employees to act as informants against their peers is generating significant backlash and is raising concerns about the potential for abuse of power. The ethical implications of this type of internal surveillance are undeniable, causing many employees to question the underlying motivations.
Federal employees are worried about the broader implications for civil liberties and free speech. The “see something, say something” mentality being promoted encourages fear and suspicion, creating a climate where even seemingly harmless conversations can be reported. Many fear this will lead to self-censorship, as employees may hesitate to express their views or opinions for fear of reprisal. This stifling of open dialogue has significant implications for a healthy and productive work environment.
Federal employees are also concerned about the potential for this directive to be weaponized against specific groups. While ostensibly targeting DEIA roles, there’s fear it could be used to unfairly target individuals based on their political beliefs or other protected characteristics. The lack of clarity and the broad language used in the email leave room for subjective interpretation, allowing for potential bias in the selection of targets. This raises serious concerns about fairness, equal opportunity, and the potential for discriminatory practices.
Federal employees are reacting to the directive with a range of emotions, from anger and fear to disbelief and defiance. Many are considering legal action or filing complaints. Others are using social media and other platforms to raise awareness of the situation and organize resistance. The reaction is widespread and reflects a significant level of concern and opposition to the directive. The uncertainty surrounding the consequences of non-compliance is adding fuel to the fire, prompting both active and passive forms of resistance.
Federal employees’ concerns aren’t simply based on fear; they stem from a deep-seated belief that this policy runs counter to democratic principles and the values of a just and equitable society. This is not just about job security; it’s about the erosion of trust in the government and the potential for further authoritarian actions. The widespread opposition shows that many view this as a significant threat to the foundations of American democracy. This isn’t a mere workplace policy change; it’s perceived as a broader assault on fundamental rights and freedoms.