– Impact of Deregulation on Racial Integration –
Rolling Back, Setting Precedence, The Effect
Executive Order No. 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 28, 1965, is a significant piece of legislation. It mandates Equal Employment Opportunity for all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It was issued to promote fairness and prevent discrimination in the hiring, promotion, and treatment of employees in businesses and organizations that are contracted with the federal government.
Simply put, this executive order requires that federal contractors and subcontractors provide equal employment opportunities to all qualified individuals and take affirmative action to ensure that discrimination does not occur in their workplaces.
Key Points:
- Non-Discrimination: Federal contractors and subcontractors cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
- Affirmative Action: Employers must actively take steps to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in the workplace.
- Applies to Federal Contractors: Any company that has a contract with the federal government must comply with this order.
Effects of the Change:
Reduced Regulatory Burden for Businesses:
The removal of this explicit requirement was part of a broader deregulatory agenda, which aimed to reduce the compliance burden on businesses, especially small businesses. The idea was that eliminating certain requirements could make it easier and less costly for companies to do business with the federal government.
Potential Impact on Racial Integration:
While the broader anti-discrimination policies are still in place, the removal of this specific prohibition might raise concerns that it could lead to a softening of efforts to enforce racial integration in workplace facilities. This may be a particularly sensitive issue because segregated facilities were historically associated with racial discrimination during the Jim Crow era in the U.S.
Mixed Reactions:
Supporters of the change argued that it was a move toward less government intervention in business practices and a step toward deregulation.
Critics, particularly civil rights advocates, argued that the change might weaken the government’s commitment to enforcing racial equality in government-contracted workplaces. They feared that by removing the explicit prohibition on segregated facilities, there could be a backslide in racial integration efforts.
Enforcement Concerns:
Despite this change, federal contractors must still comply with civil rights laws that prevent workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, critics are concerned that without the explicit mandate to avoid segregated facilities, it might lead to less consistent enforcement of these protections.
Overall:
The removal of the prohibition on segregated facilities did not abolish anti-discrimination policies; however, it signified a change in the enforcement of these policies, especially within the realm of federal contracting. This change sparked concern among those who feared it could have a negative impact on efforts to maintain racial equity and integration in government-contracted workplaces, while others saw it as part of a broader effort to reduce governmental regulation on businesses.
Setting a Precedent for Other Employers
Private Employers Might Follow Suit:
While the rule specifically applied to federal contractors, other businesses and employers may see the federal government’s reduced regulatory oversight as a signal that they, too, can ease up on certain regulations around workplace integration and anti-discrimination policies. Some private companies could interpret this shift as an opportunity to loosen workplace integration standards, potentially affecting workplace environments, especially in industries that are already less regulated or have less scrutiny over diversity practices.
Potential Erosion of Workplace Diversity Initiatives:
Decreased Focus on Diversity and Inclusion Programs: In the absence of strong federal mandates or prohibitions, businesses that are not bound by federal contracts may feel less pressure to maintain strict diversity and inclusion standards. Without the clear guidelines or expectations from federal contracting policies, businesses may scale back efforts to integrate their workplaces racially and socially, potentially leading to segregated or less inclusive work environments in certain industries.
Retreat from Affirmative Action: The change could embolden critics of affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies. If businesses interpret this as a signal that certain diversity practices are unnecessary, there could be a reduction in voluntary affirmative action efforts, which could affect the hiring and promotion of minority groups in the private sector.
Impact on Local and State-Level Policies:
Shift in Local Government Practices: While the federal government’s role is significant, local, and state governments also have their own non-discrimination policies. If the federal government is seen to back off from enforcing certain workplace integration rules, local or state governments may decide to revisit or relax their own civil rights protections and workplace integration efforts. This could result in a piecemeal approach to anti-discrimination policies across the country, leading to inconsistencies in how companies treat race, ethnicity, and other diversity factors.
Cultural and Social Influence:
Normalization of Reduced Oversight: The change at the federal level could also have a cultural effect by signaling that segregation-related concerns are less important in the workplace than they were in the past. This could subtly influence public attitudes toward race relations and diversity. If the government is not seen as strongly enforcing desegregation in workplaces, there may be less public pressure for businesses or other institutions to uphold these standards.
Decreased Public Accountability: Without explicit federal guidelines, the public may find it more difficult to hold organizations accountable for discriminatory practices or segregated workplaces, especially if the government is not actively involved in enforcing these protections.
Legal and Court Interpretations:
Potential for Legal Challenges: The absence of clear federal regulations about segregated facilities in federal contracting could inspire legal challenges in other contexts. For example, businesses that previously adhered to non-segregation rules could challenge their own state’s or city’s laws that require similar standards. If courts interpret the change as a broader trend toward less regulation, it could influence judicial decisions that undermine workplace integration efforts outside the federal government.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Impact:
Reduced Corporate Pressure: Companies that pride themselves on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and public commitment to diversity may face less pressure to prioritize racial integration and workplace inclusivity if federal guidelines are perceived as less stringent. This might lead to a reduction in CSR investments or a shift away from policies that actively promote diversity, especially if the economic incentives are no longer tied to compliance with government regulations.
Public Backlash and Push for Accountability:
Backlash and Calls for Stronger Action: The move to reduce certain regulations could also provoke a backlash from civil rights organizations, advocacy groups, and communities that see the change as a step backward. In response, there could be calls for stronger action at the state or local level, or even within companies, to maintain high standards of inclusivity and non-discrimination. This could lead to grassroots efforts to enforce stronger workplace diversity measures or to push for policies that ensure the avoidance of segregated or unequal facilities.
In Summary:
While the Trump administration’s change directly applied to federal contractors, it could ripple outward, potentially influencing corporate practices, local governments, and public attitudes on racial integration in workplaces. The effects could include a backslide in workplace diversity efforts, greater inconsistency in anti-discrimination policies across the country, and a shift in the public’s expectations of businesses and institutions when it comes to racial equality. Conversely, it could also spark efforts for change in the opposite direction, as public and community pushbacks lead to renewed emphasis on inclusion and equality, especially in the private sector.
Resources:
EEOC – Executive Order No. 11246
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Executive Order No. 11246. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved March 23, 2025, from https://www.eeoc.gov/history/executive-order-no-11246
USA Today – Trump Order on Segregated Facilities
Levenson, E. (2025, March 19). Trump order eliminates prohibition on segregated facilities clause in federal contracts. USA Today. Retrieved March 23, 2025, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/19/trump-order-prohibition-segregated-facilities-clause/82542389007/
Greer, C. (2019, May 17). How do executive orders work? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOf3g-PJ94
Inspiring2BMore 