By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) removes the explicit prohibition of segregated facilities in federal contracts. This alteration, prompted by President Trump’s executive orders on diversity and gender identity, rescinds a clause dating back to the 1960s that mandated integrated workplaces for federal contractors. While existing state and federal laws against segregation remain in effect, legal experts deem this change symbolically significant, potentially undermining decades of progress toward racial and gender equality. The removal of the clause occurred without the typical public comment period, raising concerns about transparency and due process.
Read the original article here
Segregated facilities are no longer explicitly banned in federal contracts. This recent change, enacted after a shift in administration, has sparked considerable concern and debate. The removal of this explicit prohibition is alarming, suggesting a potential rollback of hard-fought progress in civil rights.
The absence of a direct ban doesn’t inherently authorize segregation. Many argue that existing laws already prohibit discriminatory practices in workplaces and public spaces, rendering the explicit ban in federal contracts redundant. However, the symbolic significance of the removal cannot be ignored.
The timing of this change fuels suspicion. It follows other actions perceived as undermining progress in racial equality and voting rights, raising concerns about a broader agenda to dismantle protections for marginalized groups. The removal of this clause is seen by many as a calculated step, carefully timed to avoid immediate public outcry but still sending a clear signal.
Economic arguments suggesting that contractors wouldn’t pursue segregation based on cost alone are countered by concerns about symbolic action. The mere removal of the explicit ban sends a message, legitimizing discriminatory practices for those who are inclined to implement them. The cost may be low, but the moral implications are not.
The lack of transparent public discussion around the change is troubling. The decision-making process surrounding the removal of the clause lacks transparency, fueling mistrust. The government’s failure to engage in the usual public comment period is viewed as an attempt to push the change through without accountability.
The claim that the removed language was redundant is unconvincing to many. While other laws cover segregation, the explicit ban provided additional protection and served as a clear statement of federal policy. Its removal signals a willingness to allow potential loopholes to exist.
This action isn’t solely about facilities; it’s about a pattern of behavior. This is part of a broader trend of actions perceived as discriminatory and aimed at diminishing the rights and protections of marginalized communities. The significance of this decision extends far beyond the issue of segregated facilities itself.
The removal is also seen as a possible effort to undermine gender identity protections. Adding a gender identity component to anti-discrimination clauses in the past may have motivated this change. The potential for discrimination against transgender individuals is seen as a serious consequence of this action.
Concerns extend beyond the explicit removal of the clause and delve into broader political motivations. The change is viewed as a strategic move to roll back progress made in civil rights, echoing similar actions perceived as weakening voter protections.
The potential for a return to discriminatory practices is viewed with alarm. The removal of the explicit ban, while seemingly minor on its own, creates an opening for companies to engage in discriminatory behavior, potentially justified by the lack of a clear federal prohibition.
The current situation raises doubts about the rule of law. The administration’s seeming disregard for established procedures and established legal protections leaves many questioning their commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and equality. Actions such as these erode public trust and suggest a prioritization of partisan agendas over the public good.
The issue extends beyond the bounds of federal contracts. The removal of the clause is seen as part of a larger strategy to undermine democratic processes and roll back important protections for minority groups. The symbolic significance far outweighs the potential economic impact of maintaining an explicitly stated ban.
In conclusion, the removal of the explicit ban on segregated facilities in federal contracts, despite claims of redundancy, signals a troubling shift in policy, sparking fears of a return to discriminatory practices and a disregard for established procedures and principles of equality. The lack of transparency and the potential for increased discrimination make this a significant development with far-reaching consequences.