Why do this?
Federal law will still apply, but why waste teh time money and effort to strip this language out of the federal contracting process?
Reminds me of the left pushing âsafe zonesâ in colleges for Minorities⌠And you canât trust NPR.
5 Likes
My trust in NPR is Zero.
2 Likes
If itâs not needed, why waste the time and effort to leave it in?
2 Likes
Why not? The language is symbolic and unnecessary.
Also the dems have had lotâs of power since LBJ, if they thought his EO was a big deal, they should have put it into permanent lawâŚ
" which repealed an executive order signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 regarding federal contractors and nondiscrimination."
1 Like
The effort is in removing it.
God forbid we leave in symbolic language that makes it clear our federal government wonât tolerate discrimination.
The effort is in putting it in, some contracting officer has to add it in to the solicitation when required.
You donât think they use templates?
You think they draft every contract from scratch?
NPR huh,
I bet the article has a tangential relationship to the truth.
Lemme read it and see.
1 Like
"(a) When a contract is contemplated that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, the contracting officer shall insert-
(1) The clause at 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities, in the solicitation and contract; and"
There you go.
Edit to add: the clauses are templates, the overall âcontractâ is put together by inserting the required clausesâŚthis memorandum now reduces that effort.
The article was solely intended to generate poutrageâŚnothing more.
You can tell as it focused on this particular clause without spelling out the other clauses that were removed or the clauses that were added.
1 Like
Thatâs exactly the issue with LIBs.
Itâs all about feelings.
1 Like
Well, I read the article (It did not have a single word from anybody who supported this idea, not anyone form the WH, not from the GSA, not from a GOP congressman, not from a conservative group etcâŚ
The article does say it was because of a specific Executive order, so I read that (I wonder if the author did.) It does not contain a word concerning what â>must<â be taken out of contracts.
Obviously taking out verbage was a choice GSA made after the verbage â>was no longer required.<â
The article shows once again that the left cannot find any actual examples of the racism that it wants us to believe is rampant ,and so once again it is stuck grasping at straws and making up phony examples.
.
.
.
.
Sec. 3. Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government. (a) The following executive actions are hereby revoked:
(i) Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations);
(ii) Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce);
(iii) Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); and
(iv) The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce).
(b) The Federal contracting process shall be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws. Accordingly:
(i) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), is hereby revoked. For 90 days from the date of this order, Federal contractors may continue to comply with the regulatory scheme in effect on January 20, 2025.
(ii) The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease:
(A) Promoting âdiversityâ;
(B) Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking âaffirmative actionâ; and
(C) Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.
(iii) In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nationâs civil rights laws.
(iv) The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:
(A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the governmentâs payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and
(B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.
(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall:
(i) Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance;
(ii) Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and
(iii) Terminate all âdiversity,â âequity,â âequitable decision-making,â âequitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,â âadvancing equity,â and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.
2 Likes
OMG BIDEN WAS RIGHT!!
All right now, youâve all had your little freedom for 160 years now BACK INTO THE COTTON FIELDS WITH YOU!!! (sound of whip cracking as conservatives twist the ends of their mustachesâŚ)
1 Like
Be a man.
1 Like
You put a great deal more effort into this than I didâŚor for that matter, more effort than it will take to enact this as far as government contracts go.
I read the âarticleâ, then read the memorandum, then glanced at acquisition.gov and came to the obvious conclusion that NPR was trying to gin up outrage over absolutely nothing.
The end.
2 Likes
Are you afraid if they remove the language youâre going to start discriminating?
5 Likes
But of course they wouldnât discriminate! Libs NEVER discriminate (Well, except against Christians and Jews⌠and anyone else who doesnât agree with them, but outside of those people, they are all about equality) but you know we have to do everything necessary to combat all the systemic racism in society. Because we white conservatives would put them right back in chains if that symbolic wording is removed donât you knowâŚ
Honestly Conan, what are you thinking?!
6 Likes
