School Board Walks Out in Virginia County As Parents Criticize Transgender Policy, Critical Race Theory

A School Board meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia, scheduled to discuss a proposed transgender policy, came to an abrupt halt Tuesday evening after the board ended public comment and proceeded to leave the room. 

The board moved to end public comments after the crowd of several hundred erupted into cheers following critical remarks by former state Sen. Dick Black. 

“It’s absurd and immoral for teachers to call boys ‘girls’ and girls ‘boys,’” Black said, referring to the School Board’s proposed transgender policy, which would require educators to call students by their “preferred” pronouns and name. 

“You’re making teachers lie to their students, and even kids know it’s wrong,” the Republican former lawmaker added. 

Black, 77, represented parts of both Loudoun and Prince William counties in the state Senate from 2012 to 2020, before retiring to spend more time with his family. 

Schools in Loudoun County, an exurb about 45 miles northwest of Washington, D.C., have made national headlines this year for promoting critical race theory and gender identity policies. In mid-June, concerned parents joined a rally in Loudoun to protest the school district’s implementation of critical race theory ideology. 

The School Board there came under increased scrutiny after physical education teacher Byron “Tanner” Cross was suspended for saying he would not abide by the school system’s proposed transgender policy, citing his religious beliefs.

During Tuesday evening’s meeting, public comments centered on critical race theory and the school board’s proposed “Policy 8040,” or the “Rights of Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students.” If passed, the transgender policy would allow students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on their “asserted gender identity.” The policy also would require school staff to allow students to participate on athletic teams that are “consistent with the student’s gender identity.” 

Parents and community members voiced their opinions for and against Policy 8040 and the teaching of critical race theory for about an hour before comments were ended. Each speaker was given 60 seconds to deliver their remarks. 

About 15 minutes into the public comments portion of the meeting, the crowd erupted after a woman said “hate” was “dripping from the followers of Jesus in this room.” The nine-member School Board adjourned for five minutes and returned to announce that another noisy interruption would result in the end of public comments. 

“We ask again that you respect each other, and everyone is allowed to speak,” board Chairwoman Brenda Sheridan said. 

About 45 minutes later, the crowd again erupted, but this time in support of Black’s remarks opposing the district’s proposed transgender policy and critical race theory. Board members promptly voted 9-0 to end public comment and proceeded to leave the room. 

Moments after the board members left, the crowd began to chant “Shame on you!” Since many individuals had not yet had a chance to express their opinions, members of the crowd organized themselves and continued delivering their remarks for about 15 minutes before officials declared the gathering an unlawful assembly and moved the crowd out of the building. Parents continued to make remarks outside using a portable speaker and microphone. 

Two attendees were arrested after the formal meeting concluded. One man was released for refusing to leave the meeting room after the gathering was declared an unlawful assembly. He was later released, according to a Fox News report.

Another man was arrested for “acting disorderly and displayed aggressive behavior towards another attendee,” a Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson told Fox News

About 250 individuals were slated to speak during the meeting, but only 51 got to deliver comments before board members left the room. 

Daniel Brubaker, a father of three, was one of the individuals who did have an opportunity to address the board. 

“I’ve noticed a pattern,” Brubaker, 50, said to the School Board members. “You treat your bosses—all of us—like children. You treat the woke mob—your employees and teachers unions—like your bosses. And you treat children who have not harmed you like pawns in your leftist social experiment.” 

Two of Brubaker’s children have graduated from Loudoun County Public Schools, and the third is a rising 10th grader. The Daily Signal spoke with Brubaker after the meeting regarding the school system’s proposed transgender policy. 

“Of course, you want everybody to be treated respectfully and to feel safe and so forth, and to my understanding, the policies already require that for everybody in the schools,” Brubaker said, adding:

If anybody assaults another person, that is punishable. If anybody attacks another person, that’s punishable. You don’t need an additional policy for that.

The school system’s proposed transgender policy gained significant attention a few weeks ago after Leesburg Elementary School teacher Cross spoke out against it at a public meeting May 25. Cross said he could not comply with the transgender policy, citing his faith, and explained that he refused to lie to his students about their gender. 

The Loudoun County School Board suspended Cross a few days later. Circuit Court Judge James E. Plowman Jr. subsequently ordered the county to reinstate Cross, but the School Board is appealing the judge’s ruling. 

Many parents and community members urged the School Board to drop its case against Cross at Tuesday’s meeting before public comments were ended. Some even wore T-shirts and held signs saying “Let Tanner Teach.”

A Loudoun Country School Board meeting attendee holds a sign in support of teacher Byron “Tanner” Cross, who had been suspended. (Photo: Virginia Allen)

“The [Loudoun County] School Board has numerous times shown themselves to be feckless, and I think they exemplified that tonight in the fact that they left the room [and] would not continue the public comment,” Tiffany Polifko, 39, told The Daily Signal after the meeting. 

Polifko is the mother of a rising fifth grader and an eighth grader in Loudoun County public schools. In March, she became concerned about what her middle-school son was being taught when he was given an English assignment related to critical race theory. 

The assignment included watching a “Ted Talk” delivered by a woman who told the audience “they were oppressors, that we needed to deconstruct the system, that we had to acknowledge our privilege, and my son was uncomfortable,” Polifko said. “He did not understand what he was being asked to do.” 

Polifko says she thinks the School Board members ended the public comments early because they “knew that they were wrong.”  

The Daily Signal reached out to the Loudoun County School Board seeking comment on Tuesday’s meeting. Wayde B. Byard, the county’s public information officer, responded with a prepared statement:

The Loudoun County School Board ended the public comment section of its June 22 meeting on a unanimous vote after Chair Brenda L. Sheridan repeatedly warned the attendees in the Board Room that loud public demonstrations violated the decorum of the meeting.

Sheridan had previously, and repeatedly, warned the public after introducing the public comment section with a reading of School Board Policy 2520. Earlier, the chair recessed the School Board meeting for five minutes due to disruptions before the unanimous vote to end public comment was taken. At 6:30 p.m., the business portion of the meeting resumed.

The school board did not vote on Policy 8040 on Tuesday night, and is not expected to vote on it until Aug. 10. 

Two mothers of young special-needs children expressed their concerns regarding the transgender policy to The Daily Signal before the meeting. 

Dana Laukhuf, 39, is the mother of a pre-K special-needs daughter who is currently nonverbal. Laukhuf says that if Policy 8040 passes, she will demand that someone always accompany her daughter to the restroom because she knows her daughter would not be able to defend herself against someone who “chooses to be a female that day.” 

Aimee Miller, 50, is the mother of a 7-year-old daughter with Down syndrome. Like Laukhuf, Miller is concerned that her daughter’s safety in the restroom would be at risk if Policy 8040 were passed.  

Loudoun County’s proposed transgender policy has gained national attention, even earning opposition from two radical feminist organizations. 

On Monday, Kara Dansky, steering committee member of the U.S. chapter of the Women’s Human Rights Campaign, and Lierre Keith, chair of the Women’s Liberation Front, sent a letter to the Loudoun County School Board warning its members of the dangers of the transgender policy. 

“We are the two leading radical feminist activist organizations operating in the United States,” Dansky and Keith wrote. “Our understanding is that the board is poised to obliterate single-sex spaces in schools throughout Loudoun County, Virginia. If this is correct, we are appalled and disgusted at the direction in which the county is headed.”

The feminists added that “[g]irls deserve privacy from boys, including boys who claim to ‘identify as girls.’ So-called ‘gender identity’ is a regressive movement to sanctify the destruction of everything that feminists have fought for.” 

Parents and community members vowed Tuesday to keep up the pressure on the Loudoun County School Board members. “They are going to face us again in the fall when their meetings start up again,” Black told The Daily Signal, adding that he is optimistic that “the pressure is just becoming unbearable on the School Board.” 

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The post School Board Walks Out in Virginia County As Parents Criticize Transgender Policy, Critical Race Theory appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Click here to see original article

‘Extreme Concern’: Oversight Republican Demands IG Investigation Into Biden Administration’s Hiring Practices

House Oversight Committee Republican Jody Hice demanded a watchdog investigation of the federal government’s potentially illegal hiring practices.

Hice, the ranking member of the subcommittee on government operations, asked Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Inspector General Mark Bialek to urgently open an investigation into reports that the agency has used illegal means to force senior officials out the door, creating “extreme concern,” in a letter Tuesday.

dailycallerlogo

The allegations stem from a recent GovExec report, which outlined how senior CFPB officials who served in former President Donald Trump’s administration have been offered generous incentives to resign their positions.

A CFPB official said the treatment of career executives at the agency is “terrible” while a former official confirmed that President Joe Biden’s administration was attempting to “get rid of top career people” at the agency, GovExec reported.

Multiple sources said the CFPB also opened a “frivolous” investigation into one official, forcing the official to go on administrative leave, according to the publication.

“The hypocrisy of the Biden Administration is rearing its ugly head,” Hice said in a statement. “The Consumer Federal Protection Bureau seems to be trying to create a patronage system by reportedly targeting career employees who served under President Trump.”

“It seems they believe any career civil servant who worked under President Trump at CFPB must be replaced with hires selected by Biden Administration officials,” he added.

Ousting career civil servants solely based on ideology runs counter to “merit-system protection principles,” Hice wrote to Bialek.

“The federal government is not a patronage system. It is supposed to be merit based,” his statement continued. “The inspector general must launch an investigation to stop this abuse.”

Hice is the latest Republican to call for an investigation into allegations the CFPB is forcing top officials out to replace them with activists. Last week, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey wrote to Bialek, asking the inspector general to review the “unusual and possibly unlawful actions” taken by the Biden administration.

Toomey also asked for a variety of information related to the matter in letters to acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio and Biden’s nominee to lead the agency, Rohit Chopra.

The CFPB said it had received Toomey’s letter and was working on a response in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation last week. The agency insisted it complies with all “applicable laws concerning federal personnel” and that the GovExec report contained factual errors.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The post ‘Extreme Concern’: Oversight Republican Demands IG Investigation Into Biden Administration’s Hiring Practices appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Click here to see original article

Supreme Court: Religious Liberty Prevailed in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Saturday is the six-year anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, in which the Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court’s decision has created questions of how it will treat of discrimination claims by same-sex couples and supporters of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Critics of proponents of traditional marriage erroneously compare them to opponents of interracial marriage.

In his Obergefell v. Hodges dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned, “Those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

Nowadays, Alito’s opinion especially rings true for marriage originalists. They are being sued for declining to bake custom wedding cakes and create flower arrangements and calligraphy invitations for same-sex couples.

In his Obergefell v. Hodges dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted these “hard questions,” including what would happen when “a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples.” As a result of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, this would have to be addressed in court.

On June 17, the Supreme Court answered this particular hard question by ruling in favor of religious liberty and faith-based adoption in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia dealt with Catholic Social Services, a two-century old foster care agency in Philadelphia. Catholic Social Services is one of 30 foster care agencies that has an independent contractor relationship with Philadelphia.

Two years ago, Philadelphia government officials discovered from a newspaper article that Catholic Social Services does not certify same-sex couples because the Catholic Church teaches that every child deserves a mother and a father. When a same-sex couple would apply to Catholic Social Services to foster a child, Catholic Social Services would refer them to other agencies. The petitioners in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia noted that zero same-sex couples have applied to adopt from Catholic Social Services.

After verifying this part of Catholic Social Services’ certification procedure, Philadelphia officials revised its Fair Practices Ordinance on public accommodations to include sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination clause. Officials argued that foster care constitutes a public accommodation despite the fact that foster care is a selective process and not a facility open to the public, like a pool or a gym.

Due to this ordinance, Catholic Social Services could not renew their contract without violating the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage. The city of Philadelphia, in turn, refused to work with Catholic Social Services or grant an exemption to them, although they granted exemptions for matching children with future parents based on race and disability.

The Supreme Court held that the Philadelphia statute violated the First Amendment and unanimously voted in favor of Catholic Social Services and, as a result, religious freedom.

The Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision reaffirmed the important distinction made by the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges between opponents of same-sex marriage and interracial marriage.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that rejecting same-sex marriage based on “decent and honorable religious [and] philosophical premises” should not be “disparaged” due to the First Amendment, the court said no such thing about disagreement with interracial marriage. In fact, the court established in Loving v. Virginia, “[T]here is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.”

As Alito similarly noted in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia , the Supreme Court cannot make such a statement because racism is neither decent nor honorable. “While CSS’s [Catholic Social Services’] ideas about marriage are likely to be objectionable to same-sex couples, lumping those who hold traditional beliefs about marriage together with racial bigots is insulting to those who retain such beliefs.” In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court cautioned against this “undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs.”

In Obergefell v. Hodges and now in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court has stated emphatically that the government should avoid likening support for the original definition of marriage with racism. Rather, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that respect and tolerance should be given to the original view or marriage and those who hold it.

Local and federal governments must remember that the First Amendment cannot be violated simply because people disagree with or are offended by others’ beliefs, including those pertaining to marriage. As Alito stated in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, “In an open, pluralistic, self-governing society, the expression of an idea cannot be suppressed simply because some find it offensive.”

Defending the freedom to disagree on same-sex marriage benefits qualified faith-based social service providers and the neighbors they serve. The Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision allows Catholic Social Services to serve many more generations of vulnerable children. Protecting pluralism is the American way.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 

The post Supreme Court: Religious Liberty Prevailed in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Click here to see original article

Biden Administration Undermines Women’s Equality Under Title IX

Rather than uphold the hard-won protections for women under the almost-half-century-old Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Biden administration continues to steamroll women’s equality and opportunity

Citing the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling, the Department of Education released a notice yesterday announcing it would interpret Title IX protections against discrimination on the basis of sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Such radical reinterpretation is a step back from “equality for all.”

Sadly, the Biden administration’s move is not a surprise.  

President Joe Biden launched what has become a full-scale effort to dismantle women’s equality. On his first day in office, Biden signed a divisive executive order that expands discrimination on the basis of sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. A few weeks later, he nominated Miguel Cardona for education secretary. Cardona refused to acknowledge the differences in biological sex for sports during his confirmation hearing.  

Biden then appointed Rachel Levine for assistant secretary of the Department for Health and Human Services. Levine refused to acknowledge the mutilation of children under the guise of “gender-affirming care.”  

Just over one month ago, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice reinterpreting Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The notice cited Bostock v. Clayton County to justify its reinterpretation.

The administration’s actions undermine equality for women achieved by Title IX and the meaning and scope of Bostock v. Clayton County.

Today, Americans celebrate Title IX’s 49th anniversary. Title IX created equality and opportunity for women in educational institutions that receive federal funding by requiring equal treatment of the sexes. This applied to all education programs and activities, including athletics.

Because of Title IX, women’s athletics programs were required to have equal resources for facilities, training, recruitment, and scholarships. As a result, women’s participation in sports exploded. Since 1972, the number of high school female athletes has grown from 295,000 to 2.6 million, and the number of female college athletes has quintupled. Title IX is also credited to have decreased dropout rates and increased the number of women who pursued higher education. 

Reinterpreting Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex to include gender identity will result in the loss of the hard-won equality, safety, and opportunity for girls and women in school athletics. A recent British Journal of Medicine study shows that trans-identifying biological males retain competitive advantage over females even after two years of taking estrogen.

Don’t believe it? Currently, nearly 300 US high school boys can beat Allyson Felix in the 400-meter sprint. Felix is the most decorated athlete in World Athletics Championships history and six-time Olympic gold medalist.

Trans-identifying biological males dominate girls’ sports and take away opportunities created for hardworking female athletes. In Maui, Hawaii, Margaret Oneal Monteleone, a sophomore at St. Anthony School, raced against a transgender athlete who effortlessly beat the female competitors. Had she only competed against girls, Monteleone would have won. Losing out on first place can mean losing out on athletic scholarships.

The Education Department’s reinterpretation of Title IX not only undermines women’s equality in sports, but it also misapplies and misunderstands the Bostock v. Clayton County ruling. 

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court’s ruling proceeded “on the assumption that ‘sex’ signified what the employers suggest, referring only to biological distinctions between male and female.” The ruling dealt with discrimination on the basis of sex in matters of employment according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It did not redefine sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation. It also did not apply its ruling to any other part of the Civil Rights Act beyond Title VII.

This is as it should be. Jobs may be performed equally well by qualified individuals regardless of sex. Unlike matters of employment, however, sexual differences are extremely relevant when it comes to health care and athletics. Amendments like Title IX were passed because biological differences matter when it comes to fairness and opportunities in sports. The Bostock v. Clayton County ruling acknowledges this legal distinction. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that Bostock v. Clayton County cannot be used to apply to matters beyond employment nondiscrimination under Title VII.

Despite its lip-service to equality, the Biden administration’s actions speak louder than words. As Americans celebrate Title IX’s anniversary, they must not rest on the accomplishments of the past. There is need for renewed efforts in the fight for women’s equality. Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction—and women’s freedoms are no exception.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state

The post Biden Administration Undermines Women’s Equality Under Title IX appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Click here to see original article

Woke Corporate Culture Is ‘Social Justice Scam,’ Author Says

What is “wokeness” in America today? How did we get here? 

Are “woke” corporations a threat to this country? What risk do we run if we don’t push back? 

Vivek Ramaswamy, the author of the forthcoming book “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam,” joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss wokeness and the dangers it poses to American society and beyond.

“If wokeism is a religion, then an employer can no longer force that religion down the throat of their employees any more than they could force down Christianity or Islam or any other religion. So, then, that raises the question of, well, ‘Is wokeism a religion or not?’” Ramaswamy said.

“And I think on the facts, the answer is abundantly clear … . There are certain words you can’t say, certain clothes you can’t wear, certain apologies you must recite, and an excommunication that follows, whether or not you recite it,” he added.

We also cover these stories:

  • The White House says it won’t meet President Joe Biden’s coronavirus vaccine goal of vaccinating 70% of American adults by Independence Day. 
  • In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., reaffirms her support for retaining the filibuster.
  • Black Lives Matter criticizes Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for his membership in an all-white beach club. 

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also can write to us at letters@dailysignal.com.

Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Vivek Ramaswamy, author of “Woke, Inc.” Vivek, thank you for joining us today.

Vivek Ramaswamy: Glad to be here.

Del Guidice: Can you just start off by telling us about your book “Woke, Inc.”?

Ramaswamy: Sure. What I talk about in the book is the new arranged marriage between the progressive movement and big business, which is turning on its head what we used to think of as the values of the progressive movement from 20 years ago.

And I tell the origin story that actually dates back to the 2008 financial crisis where, actually, in the wake of ’08, big business was the bad guy. Capitalism was under attack.

The marriage to wokeness actually became a defense mechanism against the old progressive left and Occupy Wall Street to give birth to this new hybrid, what I call the woke-industrial complex, that is today far more powerful than either big business or big government alone.

And liberals who used to be skeptics of corporate power were tricked into submission because of their love of woke causes that these companies are pushing.

But conservatives were equally duped into submission because their inner conscience tells them that the free market can do no wrong without recognizing that the free market that they idealized doesn’t exist today.

That’s effectively what cleared the path for the rise of what I consider to be America’s newest 21st-century leviathan, something far more powerful than we’ve seen over the course of American history. And something that neither side of the political spectrum is going to be able to deal with on its own.

Del Guidice: Vivek, you said that woke corporations are a threat to this country. What kind of risk do we run if we don’t push back?

Ramaswamy: Yeah, so, Milton Friedman 50 years ago might have worried that the risk was creating less efficient companies. That if companies are all so focused on pushing social values, they’re going to make poor products and poor products result in a less productive economy.

And I have to admit, I share those concerns to some extent, but my concern is actually the opposite. It is not the way in which politics infects capitalism, but rather the way in which capitalism risks infecting our democracy.

I think that that’s actually the biggest threat of all, is the integrity of American democracy itself at stake, where our democratic norms, our marketplace of ideas in a democracy is supposed to work according to a one person, one vote; one person, one voice system. Yet in a new marketplace of ideas, we’re actually converting to a $1, one vote system where the people who wield the greatest corporate and market power wield power not just over the marketplace of products—which, by the way, as a capitalist, I’m OK with—but also power over the marketplace of ideas—which, as an American citizen, I’m not OK with. So, that’s actually the real danger.

Del Guidice: Vivek, what can conservatives do to successfully push back against these woke corporations? Would you say, do boycotts ever work or are there other strategies that you think conservatives should use?

Ramaswamy: Yes. I’m not a huge fan of boycotts, and I can talk about why. I do think that there are a number of strategies we need to consider. Some are legal strategies, right? I think that right now the issue is so pressing that we need to litigate some of these forms of corporate overreach that are downright illegal in court.

One of the biggest areas that I’m focused on is Big Tech censorship—where, effectively, a small ideological cartel in Silicon Valley wields not just power over the marketplace of products, but power over the marketplace of ideas to determine what ideas do and don’t get aired.

And the reason they’re doing it is, of course, it’s a part of an unspoken backroom deal. Where again, in the wake of ’08, over the last decade, Big Tech effectively says, “We’re going to censor content that the woke movement disagrees with,” but in return, they don’t do it for free. They expect that the government overlords are actually going to leave their monopoly power intact.

Now, what we’re seeing in return is, especially as Democrats come to power in the United States, every few months they call these Big Tech CEOs to testify in front of them. And then when they show up to testify, what do they do? They said, “We’re going to regulate you. We’re going to break you up. We’re going to come after you and make it swift, unless you take down hate speech and misinformation by the way, as we, the party in power, define it.”

So when these guys go to the other coast and do the same thing, do exactly what the party in power told them to do by taking down so-called misinformation and hate speech—which is really just political speech that the party in power disagrees with.

My view is that those companies, that behavior ought to be governed by the First Amendment, the same way that the government is bound by the First Amendment, because the government cannot delegate to a private party to censor what it cannot censor directly.

That’s hardcore case law, going back through Supreme Court jurisprudence that you can’t use private parties as pawns to do what you can’t do directly under the Constitution. Yet, that is exactly what we’re seeing. State action in the guise of private enterprise.

So those are the kinds of legal solutions that I think we need to see in court. I personally think that, I don’t know if he’s going to do it, but I think President [Donald] Trump should be taking these companies to the Supreme Court—not the Facebook sham corporate “Supreme Court,” but the real U.S. Supreme Court.

And actually, legal theories that I think are well supported by the case law, not just in the case of Big Tech censorship, but now to sort of go to a different category, woke employee firings. Something that we’re seeing every day across the country.

My own views, this puts everyday American citizens in a particularly difficult position where they have to choose between either expressing themselves freely or putting food on the dinner table, but they cannot reliably do both.

And to me, if America is anything, it is a place where you get to have both the American dream and the First Amendment without having to make a choice between the two. So what I’d like to see is some Republican with a spine actually propose amending the Civil Rights Act and adding political belief as a protected class, right there next to race and gender and sex and sexual orientation. All encompassed in sex and religion and national origin.

I think if you can’t discriminate against somebody because they’re black or gay or Muslim or whatever, you should not be able to discriminate against them just because they’re an outspoken conservative either. And this is not an academic issue. If it can happen to the 45th president of United States, it can happen to anybody. And so those are the kinds of bold legal solutions that I think we need.

I can tell you more about it, that even in absence of Republicans stepping up, I think there are some legal theories that could potentially bring that case in court now, even under existing law. But I do think that the law, both through our court system as well as through potentially simple statutory changes, can help curb this tide a little bit. That being said, all of that is just symptomatic.

What I really think we need in this country is a deeper cultural cure where we fill the moral void in an entire generation. Maybe people my age and your age and younger, who ultimately lack the kind of spiritual void that would have been filled by notions like patriotism and religion in a prior era. As those have receded in public importance, that creates a moral vacuum in the minds of an entire generation that allows ideas like wokeism and its close cousin of scientism to be able to fill the void.

I think that’s what we’re seeing in the country right now, that the real right answer actually isn’t even to fight wokeism directly. It is to fill the void that wokeism fills with much more meaningful forms of identity. And if you’re asking me, I prefer shared American identity.

Del Guidice: You mentioned what can be done despite the lack of Republican leadership and majorities in House and Senate. You mentioned some legal recourses. What kind of things do you see right now that could be taken up in the absence of Republican majorities?

Ramaswamy: Well, look, I think that if somebody is at risk of either getting fired on their job for saying the wrong thing or failing to attend the right DEI—or so-called diversity, equity, inclusion—sessions, which you’re seeing today, people may be fired for that. People may not get their year-end bonus for that. I’m not making this stuff up. This is really happening to real people every day. I hear about it. I think they can bring legal recourse, even under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act today, which says that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

Now, I’m not saying that that just means that it’s the employee’s religion who’s protected and to say that I don’t want to attend a DEI session. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s my religion as an employee, but I’m making the opposite argument.

Because actually, a flip side of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says that not only can you not discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion, but you as an employer cannot force your own religion down the throats of your employees.

So if wokeism is a religion, then an employer can no longer force that religion down the throat of their employees any more than they could force down Christianity or Islam or any other religion.

Then that raises the question of, well, is wokeism a religion or not? And I think, on the facts, the answer is abundantly clear, both in a colloquial sense of the word. There are certain words you can’t say, certain clothes you can’t wear, certain apologies you must recite, and an excommunication that follows whether or not you recite it.

I mean, … in every colloquial sense of the word, I absolutely think wokeism is a religion. But it definitely meets the legal definition for the test of religion. The Supreme Court’s held that even secular humanism counts as a religion. That a religion called Creativity, which professes white supremacy as its main access, still counted as a religion—crazy as that religion may be.

If white supremacy counts as a religion under Supreme Court doctrine, then certainly anti-white supremacy, which is what wokeism claims to be, ought to count, too.

So, I think that there’s actually legal recourse available under existing case law today that somebody who feels threatened in their workplace, threatened of being fired in a hostile workplace environment, can bring a Title VII case today, even in absence of a Republican stepping up.

And I don’t think it’s just about winning the majority. I think it’s about Republicans actually being willing to be standard bearers in leading the way to the real threats to liberty and prosperity of everyday Americans today. Which is not just the liberty of businesses, but the liberty of everyday Americans not to be governed by this new government-industrial complex. That includes big government, big business, too.

So, it’s not just the majority. I actually think that the bigger problem might even be within the Republican Party of identifying leaders who are actually willing to become the standard bearers of conservative principles to meet this uniquely 21st-century challenge, rather than reciting some dogma that they memorized from 1980.

Del Guidice: Vivek, going back to your book for just a minute here, the subtitle includes the term “social justice scam.” Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Ramaswamy: Well, I think the social justice craze in the United States, especially in corporate America, is absolutely a scam. It is a greater way for companies to pretend like they care about something other than the pursuit of profit and power to aggregate more of each. And it works like a magic trick, but it is working masterfully for really everyone who’s a party to that trade.

If you’re Coca-Cola, it’s a heck of a lot easier to talk about a technical voting law in Georgia or to train your employees on quote-unquote “how to be less white,” things that they’ve done in the last six months, than it is to reckon with the impact of your products on the nationwide epidemic of obesity and diabetes, including in the black community that they profess to care so much about.

If you’re Nike, it’s easier to write a multimillion-dollar check to Black Lives Matter, a Marxist organization that professes to care about black lives, all the while sourcing your labor from slave labor in Asia to sell $250 sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can’t afford to buy books for school.

That is how this game is played. And it’s a lot easier to criticize slavery 250 years ago than it is to give up on slavery that you rely on today. That’s effectively what these corporations are doing to whitewash the kind of behavior that would have attracted scrutiny, by using this progressive smoke screen—what I call “woke smoke”—to cover it up.

And I do think that’s a scam. And I think that not only are they scamming us out of our money, but I think they’re scamming us. It’s a worse scam than that. It is a scam on your voice and your identity, which I think are even more valuable to each of us than the number of green pieces of paper in our bank account—though we’re losing those, too.

Del Guidice: You said it’s time to replace diversity, equity, and inclusion with excellence, opportunity, and civility. How can we do that?

Ramaswamy: Yeah. Well, look, I think that fighting wokeism directly is hard because you’re left being the bad guy fighting these great-sounding ideas, like diversity or equity or inclusion. Those sound pretty friendly. Except today in the definition of the modern woke left, diversity means anything but diversity of thought. … Equity means anything other than equality of opportunity. It means equality of results, even if that means negating equality of opportunity.

In the name of inclusion, we’ve created this new exclusionary political culture where certain points of view are just not welcome. And they have co-opted language in a way that makes it actually very difficult to fight directly without being alleged to be guilty of the same sin that they’re accusing you of in the first place. And so, that’s why I think the right strategy is actually not to fight wokeness directly and stamp it out.

… In the short run, we may need to do some of that in court and elsewhere. But in the longer run, the real answer is to dilute it to irrelevance with shared values that runs so deep that this wokeist nonsense seems silly by comparison.

So that’s where I’ve been thinking, giving some thought to what could fill that notion. And I’m not wedded to this, but one that I’m a fan of is the idea of excellence, opportunity, and civility rather than diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Diversity is great as a means to the end of achieving excellence, not in and of itself.

I prefer opportunity to equity because I know what it means. It means equality of opportunity to where we all begin, irrespective of where we all end up.

Inclusion is a hollow term that means the opposite of what it sounds like. Instead, I think we ought to focus on civility. Not to dilute the messages that we deliver to one another, or to dilute or pretend like disagreements don’t exist. But to be able to engage in those disagreements with the sort of civility in our discourse that we actually lose under the banner of inclusion, which is just another manner of silencing people in the way that that word is used today.

Del Guidice: You also talked about, and we each touched on this briefly in our discussion, but how if businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religious beliefs, how those businesses should not also be able to discriminate on the basis of political beliefs either. We talked about this a little bit, but can you touch on more why there’s a double standard here, if there’s a double standard? Because I think, as you mentioned, we’re seeing this happen everywhere.

Ramaswamy: I do think there’s a double standard. The best argument I hear from the other side is that … political beliefs are not inborn or native or inherited, and that our protected classes should only apply to those characteristics that are inherited, like race or sex or something like this.

I have two responses to that. First of all, religion is a protected class and it is not something that you’re born with. It is a choice. Faith, by definition, is something that you espouse rather than something that you inherit. On its own terms, that’s what faith is. So it’s actually an untrue premise that that’s the way we’ve conceived of protected classes in the past.

And second, I also think that there’s no obvious reason why the notion of protected classes should be limited to the characteristics you inherit anyway. They are protecting the kinds of categories of your identity that we think you should not be asked to trade off in order to be able to pursue your dream. And I think that the ability to express yourself politically is one of those things that you should not be asked to trade off in order to pursue your dreams.

Now, could a principle Libertarian make a compelling argument that actually the market should fix these problems on its own? I think the answer could be yes. The answer is that, well, look, if conservatives are being fired from company A, then couldn’t company B hire them and view that as actually a business opportunity? And in principle, that’s true.

Here’s my main issue with it, though, we can’t apply that argument unevenly. Because if you believe that, then you also ought to believe that the market ought to be able to police racial discrimination and sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination and religious discrimination. Yet nobody, from [Sen.] Susan Collins to [Sen.] Rand Paul, is interested in taking that up on the Republican Party. And certainly nobody in the Democratic Party or even the Libertarian Party is interested in taking up the idea of revisiting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its notion of protected classes.

And so long as we’re not willing to have a principle debate about whether we should have protected classes at all, which I personally am intellectually open to, so long as the political discourse isn’t open to it, then I think we at least have to apply that standard equally by adding political belief right up there next to race, sex, national origin, and religion.

Del Guidice: Something else we’ve talked about, Vivek, is how you think it’s time to stop saying “people of color.” Why? Tell us about that.

Ramaswamy: Yeah. Well, that expression has always irritated me and I reflected on why. I am a person who has higher melanin content than you do, I can tell by sitting here, but I don’t think that that is a defining feature of either of us.

And the idea of taking a group of people who are non-white, but are otherwise a diverse, polyglot, divided group of people on the basis of language and culture and religion and national origin and self-conceived identity, probably hundreds of different sub-identities, and to say that we’re going to lump all of those into one category, which we call “of color,” sounds like a cult that they belong to called “Color.”

And, by the way, pits them against the only other cult that’s left, which is the “White” cult. Which ultimately allows two groups to be pitted against each other and go to, effectively, civil war, which is where I think we’re ultimately heading.

So, that expression irritates me. I think it’s more than just a nitpicking at the phraseology. I think it says something about the moment that we live in and the kinds of identities that we latch onto. And the kinds of deeper identities within us that we abandoned in pursuit of these skin-deep identities instead.

Del Guidice: Vivek, to tie all this up, how would you say wokeism can be combated in classrooms as well as corporate America?

Ramaswamy: Yeah. I think that in the classroom is probably the most important place to start. I actually started with my focus in corporate America. It’s certainly a big part of what my book is about. But as I wrote my book, I ended up devoting more airtime as well to combating wokeism in education. And if I had to choose, I think, actually, the battle in our schools is even the more important one.

In fact, I had to choose between, from a conservative standpoint, taking back the White House or taking every school board seat in this country, I would in a heartbeat take every school board seat in this country. Could care less about who takes the White House by comparison. That is what’s really more important because we’re talking about the next generation here.

So, I do think school boards are really important. I think that conservative or even just independent-minded apolitical parents who want their kids to get a balanced civic education ought to speak up and raise the social cost for these teachers who ultimately may want to get home.

If they’re working a difficult job, they’d rather spend the extra time getting home rather than dealing with some sort of woke protest, just like a CEO. It’s the same thing, too. Make life easier by caving to the side that’s actually most likely to give you a hard time.

Well, we shouldn’t be able to give them a pass more easily on the other side as well to force them to actually make a normative decision rather than a decision that’s based on the human principle of laziness to do what is really the easiest thing to do and follow the path of least resistance.

So I think that the easiest thing to do is to increase the social cost of compliance with the far woke left. Because that has actually been a tool that they’ve used to their advantage to be a thorn and a pain and a thorn in somebody’s side that prevents them from getting home to see their kids in time. Well, they’re not going to get to see their kids in time any sooner than if they do or don’t cave to the woke left if there’s also an equal opposition on the other side.

So I think that’s where it begins. I think more people need to find the courage to be able to speak up when they believe that they’re the only person in the room. I mean, to anyone who’s listening to this, to you, I would say, if you’re the only person in the room who believes what you do, I think we live in a moment where you have a civic obligation to stand up and say what you believe in. And my commitment to you is that if and when you do, you will discover that you were not the only person in the room to hold that opinion.

Courage is infectious, but somebody has to start spreading it first. And that doesn’t start in the political sphere. It doesn’t start in on Capitol Hill. It starts in the everyday conversations that we have in our schools, in our places of work, in our diversity training seminars, in our universities, in our communities. That’s really where it begins.

Del Guidice: Vivek, thank you so much for joining us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” It’s been great having you with us.

Ramaswamy: Great. Thanks for having me.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The post Woke Corporate Culture Is ‘Social Justice Scam,’ Author Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Click here to see original article