On Thursday, January 23, ABC’s “The View” experienced a heated exchange as co-host Sara Haines prompted a significant reaction from her colleague Sunny Hostin. The tension arose when Haines expressed her belief that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have failed to yield meaningful results and are largely a financial burden that fosters unnecessary bureaucracy.
This discussion was ignited by an executive order signed by Trump on January 20, which aimed to dismantle what he termed “radical and wasteful government DEI programs” and to eliminate affirmative action in federal contracting. Haines remarked that while DEI concepts are commendable in theory, the actual programs have devolved into ineffective bureaucracies that drain resources. She articulated her viewpoint by stating, “One of the criticisms against DEI is that while diversity, equity, and inclusion are all commendable ideals, the programs have not achieved their intended goals. They have become a bureaucratic drain on finances without producing results. When you suggest that people feel threatened, what do you believe the removal of DEI will mean for them?”
This assertion led to a vigorous debate between Haines and Hostin, with Hostin visibly distressed by Haines’ comments. In her response, Hostin argued, “I can assure you that the removal of DEI at this juncture… Furthermore, these executive orders are undermining protections against discrimination in government contracting, which will adversely affect women and businesses.”
In rebuttal, Haines clarified that her critique was directed at the efficacy of the DEI programs rather than the principle of diversity itself. She stated, “This is not merely a critique of diversity; it is an assessment of the effectiveness of the programs.” Hostin, however, countered without substantiating her assertion, claiming, “But they are indeed very effective.”
Haines remained resolute, stating, “That is not my interpretation. However, I would argue that the origins of this issue can be traced back to colleges and the recent changes to affirmative action. I would urge that legacy admissions be addressed immediately as well. If we are advocating for equal opportunity, it is essential to eliminate legacy admissions.” Observe Hostin’s reaction, which is visibly distressed.
Trump’s DEI Executive Order asserts, “Longstanding Federal civil rights laws safeguard individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These protections form a fundamental basis for ensuring equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn obligation to guarantee that these laws are upheld for the benefit of every American.”
The order further states, “Yet today, nearly 60 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, significant and influential institutions within American society—including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical sector, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education—have adopted and actively implement harmful, degrading, and unethical race- and sex-based preferences under the pretext of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA), which may contravene the civil rights laws of this Nation.”
It further emphasizes, “Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only breach the letter and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil rights laws, but they also threaten our national cohesion by denying, discrediting, and undermining the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and detrimental identity-based spoils system. Hardworking Americans who deserve an opportunity to pursue the American Dream should not be marginalized, belittled, or excluded from opportunities due to their race or sex.”
The statement criticizes DEI initiatives as unlawful and discriminatory, asserting their termination. It argues that these unlawful DEI and DEIA policies jeopardize the safety of American men, women, and children nationwide by undermining the significance of individual merit, skills, diligence, and resolve in the selection process for employment and services in crucial sectors of American society, including various levels of government, as well as the medical, aviation, and law enforcement fields. The American public has repeatedly observed the severe repercussions of such illegal and harmful discrimination, which has favored individuals based on their inherent characteristics rather than their abilities. The Federal Government is responsible for upholding civil rights laws, and this directive aims to ensure compliance by abolishing unlawful preferences and discrimination.
