Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: Affirmative action

Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

CHarvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Shapiro, a freelance journalist, was a newspaper editor for 30 years in California, Illinois and Iowa, including 21 years as executive editor of the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The most celebrated passage in American history is honored in textbooks as a “self-evident” truth about equality.

We are schooled “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is a lofty proposition, but as the brainchild of two slaveowners — written by Thomas Jefferson at the behest of Benjamin Franklin — inherent contradictions exist.


The inspiration was English philosopher John Locke, who wrote more hypothetically, “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Genesis 1:27 simply stated: “Men and women are created in God’s image; therefore they are equal in worth.”

But a quote attributed to former University of Oklahoma and Dallas Cowboy football coach Barry Switzer is perhaps more on point: “Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.”

To mix sports metaphors, the supporters of Project 2025 — a blueprint developed by the Charles Koch-funded Heritage Foundation for a second Donald Trump presidency — were born on the 1 yard line, first and goal.

The manifesto harkens back to the good old days of the Founding Fathers, when some humans were property and many — notably women — weren’t allowed to own property or have basic rights.

The U.S. Constitution left voting to the discretion of the states, which bestowed it primarily on property-owning white males. New Jersey was an exception, allowing women and free Blacks to vote, if their worth was “50 pounds of clear estate.” That lasted until an 1807 “reform” gave all white men the vote, but rescinded it for women and Blacks.

Course corrections — a Civil War, women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement among them — have attempted to level the playing field.

Alas, according to Project 2025, these changes begat modern day “woke diversificrats” who believe the federal government can produce a greater semblance of equality. Instead, it invokes “states’ rights” — the path initiated by Southerners who championed slavery and segregation. Project 2025 wants to ”dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people” and “secure our God-given individual rights to live freely — what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”

Affirmative action, Project 2025 concludes, is “affirmative discrimination.” As Trump told Time in April, “There’s absolutely a bias against white [people], and that’s a problem.” (Fifty-eight percent of his supporters agree, according to a November 2023 CBS News poll, but only 9 percetnt of Biden backers do).

More articles about Project 2025

    Read More

    White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

    The rise of book bans and erasure of Black history from classrooms emotionally and systematically harms Black children. It's critical that we urge educators to represent Black experiences and stories in class.

    Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

    White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

    When my son, Jonathan, was born, one of the first children’s books I bought was "So Much" by Trish Cooke. I was captivated by its joyful depiction of a Black family loving their baby boy. I read it to him often, wanting him to know that he was deeply loved, seen, and valued. In an era when politicians are banning books, sanitizing curricula, and policing the teaching of Black history, the idea of affirming Black children’s identities is miscast as divisive and wrong. Forty-two states have proposed or passed legislation restricting how race and history can be taught, including Black history. PEN America reported that nearly 16,000 books (many featuring Black stories) were banned from schools within the last three years across 43 states. These prohibitive policies and bans are presented as protecting the ‘feelings’ of White children, while at the same time ignoring and invalidating the feelings of Black children who live daily with the pain of erasure, distortion, and disregard in schools.

    When I hear and see the ongoing devaluation of Black children in schools and public life, I, and other Black parents, recognize this pain firsthand. For instance, recently, my teenage granddaughter, Jaliyah, texted me, asking to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., because she had heard that the President planned to close it. For what felt like the millionth time, my heart broke with the understanding that too many people fail to rally on behalf of Black children. Jaliyah’s question revealed what so many Black children intuitively understand—that their histories, their feelings, and their futures are often treated as expendable.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

    equity, inclusion, diversity

    AI generated

    Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

    Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

    What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Two people in business attire walking into an office.

    Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

    Getty Images, Marco VDM

    How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

    “Do you have a moment?”

    I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

    Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

    Getty Images

    So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

    It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

    Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

    Keep ReadingShow less