From Ronald Reagan’s boyish Wild West Hollywood cowboy image 40 years ago to Donald Trump’s privileged white male strongman concept today we find the American people are once again at odds to popularize a digestible national portrayal. For the moment however Trump has international appearance as a bully and a pouter. Nor does it help he has gone on record as been overtly lewd:
In the video, Trump described his attempt to seduce a married woman and indicated he might start kissing a woman that he and Bush were about to meet. He added, “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
And, like the brat that he is, Trump attempted to deflect attention by saying that Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton had “said far worse to me on the golf course”.
In what can only be described as a surprise counter-attack and diversionary tactic, Trump has, by the limited and noticeably sketchy means of high school debating skills, taken exception to DEI (diversity, equality and inclusion) programs in the federal government.
The phrase “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI)’” refers to a criticism of certain DEI programs, notably highlighted in President Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order, which argued that DEI initiatives could lead to illegal discrimination and undermine American values by favoring identity-based preferences over merit. This viewpoint frames DEI as a system that promotes division and unlawful preferences rather than true equality.
Key Arguments and Criticisms:
Violation of Civil Rights:
The core argument is that these DEI practices can infringe upon existing civil rights laws by promoting race- and sex-based preferences, which are seen as discriminatory.
Undermining American Values:
The phrase suggests that DEI policies contradict core American values such as hard work, excellence, and individual achievement, replacing them with an “identity-based spoils system”.
Perceived Inequity:
The criticism implies that instead of creating true fairness, DEI programs can lead to an unfair system where individuals are favored or disadvantaged based on their identity rather than their qualifications or merit.
In legal terms, to “hold an even hand” means that a trustee (that is, anyone in a position of confidence and reliability) must act impartially, treating all beneficiaries equally by balancing their interests, rather than favouring one over another
Redefining DEI policies as a violation of civil rights, undermining American values, perceived inequity or racism is in my opinion an inductive leap of the most preposterous and dangerous nature imaginable. Barring specific mandates to favour one person over another for purely “cultural “ or so-called “woke” purposes or contrary to superiority of estimated talent or merit, and keeping in mind the underlying equity maxim governing all those in a position of trust to preserve an even hand, I find it an extraordinarily perverse and specious assertion to suggest DEI is somehow racist or anti-American.
Unquestionably there are limits upon any refrain, whether political, spiritual, athletic, religious or otherwise. In our common law legal system (which forms the foundation of law inherited from England in both Canada and the United States) the concept of equity has been long entrenched.
The law of equity is a distinct branch of law, originating in the English Court of Chancery, that provides remedies and principles of justice where the common law is too rigid or inflexible to offer a fair solution. It focuses on fairness, justice, and individual circumstances to provide remedies beyond monetary damages, such as injunctions and specific performance and to correct wrongs that common law cannot address. Equity serves as a moral corrective to the strictness of law and is applied by courts to ensure that justice is met, often when there is no adequate remedy at law.
If, in keeping with the high school debating vernacular, I were in opposition to the resolution of the government, my argument is that the concept of equity underlies the entire legal system, going back to the Court of Chancery which emerged to handle matters that were unfair or unjust under the existing common law system.
Attempts at fusing the Chancery with the common law courts began in the 1850s, and finally succeeded with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, which dissolved the Chancery and created a new unified High Court of Justice, with the Chancery Division – one of five divisions of the High Court – succeeding the Court of Chancery as an equitable body.
In spite of the dubious vitality of the argument against DEI, there is no argument that it sits well with those who, not by nature of any legal entitlement but rather by virtue of perceived cultural entitlement, consider themselves iconic Americans who are deprived of the licence by DEI. This conclusion survives, not because of proof of violation of that allotment or prerogative, but because of the mere assertion of the privilege.
