With a stroke of the pen, President @DonaldTrump signed an executive order that removed President Lyndon Johnson’s executive order 11246 —which established Affirmative Action — from the books.
— Eli Steele (@Hebro_Steele) January 22, 2025
The damage done to our nation was profound.
🧵 pic.twitter.com/5rbnTlf6jI
Why did he do this?
Reevaluating Executive Order 11246 From a Conservative Perspective
Let’s look at the conservative arguments for rescinding Executive Order 11246, which mandates affirmative action in federal contracting. From a conservative viewpoint, the order is seen as an overreach by the government, potentially leading to reverse discrimination, economic inefficiencies, and undermining merit-based employment practices.
Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Executive Order 11246 aimed to combat discrimination in employment by federal contractors through affirmative action. However, from a conservative standpoint, the policy has outlived its necessity, and its rescission could foster a more equitable, merit-focused employment landscape.
Merit-Based Employment
Conservatives argue for a system where hiring decisions are based solely on an individual’s skills, experience, and performance. They contend that affirmative action can inadvertently lead to reverse discrimination, where less qualified candidates might be chosen over more qualified ones to meet diversity quotas. This, they argue, dilutes the principle of meritocracy, which should be central to American work culture.
Government Overreach
Critics within the conservative community view EO 11246 as an example of government overreach into the private sector. They assert that while non-discrimination is a laudable goal, the government should not dictate specific hiring practices to private businesses beyond basic legal protections. This stance reflects a broader conservative philosophy advocating for minimal government intervention in business affairs.
Economic Efficiency
There’s an economic argument against EO 11246, suggesting that affirmative action might not always lead to the most efficient workforce composition. Businesses, left to their own devices, are believed to naturally select employees who will best contribute to productivity and profitability. Mandated diversity considerations might, according to this view, limit this efficiency.
End of Discrimination
Many conservatives argue that the era requiring affirmative action has passed. They believe that overt discrimination in employment has significantly diminished in many sectors, rendering affirmative action policies unnecessary or even counterproductive by potentially creating new discrimination avenues.
Individualism vs. Group Identity
EO 11246 is critiqued for encouraging a focus on group identity rather than individual merit. Conservatives assert that American values should emphasize personal achievement and responsibility, not demographic categorization. The order, they argue, might inadvertently promote a culture where individual capabilities are secondary to one’s group identity.
Legal and Social Harmony
The legal implications of affirmative action are also under scrutiny. Conservatives argue that rescinding the order could reduce litigation over workplace discrimination claims, both from those who feel disadvantaged by affirmative action policies and those who believe they’ve been unfairly treated. This could lead to a more harmonious work environment based purely on merit.
Cultural Shift
Lastly, there’s a call for a cultural shift towards a ‘colorblind’ society where race or other demographic factors do not influence employment decisions. Conservatives argue that removing EO 11246 would symbolically and practically encourage judging people based on their character and abilities.
While EO 11246 was designed to address past injustices its rescission could reaffirm principles of meritocracy, reduce government overreach, and promote a society where individual merit trumps group identity in employment.