A planned production of “Dreamgirls” will have to be canceled after the owners pulled the rights because too many white actors were cast in the show.
According to <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/culture/theatre-dance/article/urlschool-dreamgirls-show-banned-tfnfvqldv">The Times of London</a>, Gillian Banks Theatre School in Yorkshire was granted permission to stage &#8220;Dreamgirls&#8221; by the agency that manages the show&#8217;s rights. But that permission was revoked after it was discovered that only one black actor would be participating.
The musical was written by Tom Eyen and Henry Krieger in 1981 and opened that same year at the Imperial Theater on Broadway. It was nominated for 13 Tony Awards, including Best Musical, and won six. It became even more popular following the release of the 2006 film adaptation starring Beyoncé. 
The storyline follows a fictional group of black female singers, the Dreamettes, on their path to superstardom beginning in the 1960s.
The theater school responded to the controversy, defending their casting by saying they were open to a “diverse” cast but did not have enough black actors audition.
“We are just a little dance school in one of the most deprived areas of Rotherham trying to give experiences to our students on a very small scale,” it said, per The Times.
The school reportedly only has around 200 students and said there was “never any intention to ‘whitewash’ this production.” Gillian Banks Theatre School had already started selling tickets when the permission to perform was revoked.
Concord wrote in a letter to the school, “Dreamgirls is a show about a time in black American music history when rhythm and blues blended with other styles of popular music, creating a new American sound.”
“It tells the story of the Dreamettes and celebrates their rise to fame, echoing similar trajectories of iconic black girl and boy groups of the time like the Supremes, the Marvelettes, the Temptations and the Shirelles. Your production should be appropriately cast to represent and reflect these artists and their history.”
This update comes as the topic of race-swapping traditionally white characters continues to make headlines. The upcoming Christopher Nolan epic, “The Odyssey,” has drawn criticism for the casting of Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy, among other stylistic choices. 
It was also just announced that actress Quinta Brunson will star as Betty Boop in an upcoming film adaptation. Disney’s big flop “Snow White” included Colombian actress Rachel Zegler in the titular role despite her not physically resembling the character’s description in literature.

Dreamgirls

Agency Yanks ‘Dreamgirls’ Over School’s Mostly White Cast

School Casts Too Many White Kids In 'Dreamgirls,' Agency Yanks Rights To The Show

Entertainment

Race

Racial Discrimination

Theater

United Kingdom

There is one thing we can say for certain about the hysterical claims made in the weeks since the Supreme Court’s decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf">Louisiana v. Callais</a> that the majority “gutted” the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and is reimplementing “Jim Crow”: those claims are false and dishonest, intended to disguise the partisan — and patronizingly racist — objectives and motivations of the critics.
They believe the color of your skin delineates your political views and how you vote, and they want to use race as the determining factor in drawing up the boundary lines of legislative districts for one purpose, and one purpose only: to elect Democrats. The Court’s majority properly held that misusing race in such a manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — the one person, one vote standard — as well as the Fifteenth Amendment.
Both of those amendments were designed and written to stop racial discrimination. It is about time we lived up to those amendments in full measure. The only thing the majority “gutted” was the abusive, partisan misuse of the Voting Rights Act.
Amidst all of the inflammatory rhetoric from the denizens of the Left and their allies in the media, you may have lost track of what this case was about. After the 2020 Census, the Louisiana legislature redrew its six congressional districts with little change, once again including one district in which black voters were a majority. But in 2022, a federal judge told Louisiana that its failure to add a second black majority district was likely a violation of Section 2 of the VRA, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301">52 U.S.C. §10301</a>. A second set of voters then sued, claiming that using race to draw up that second district violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court said they were right in a 6-to-3 decision.
Section 2 prohibits the “denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen” to vote “on account of race or color.” It is probably the most successful law ever implemented by Congress. When it passed in 1965, there was systematic discrimination being practiced against black Americans to prevent them from registering and voting in places like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and, yes, Louisiana.
But the VRA ended those malicious practices. As Justice Samuel Alito points out in the majority opinion, “vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South,” although you’d never know that from the critics who act like it is still 1965.
The machinations used to discriminate are all gone: “voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers,” as Alito notes. And a “full-blown two-party system has emerged,” including in those areas where the discrimination was the worst.
In fact, it is easier to register and vote today than at any time in our history, including online registration in many states. Racial discrimination that prevents anyone from registering or voting is extremely rare, almost nonexistent.
But with the disappearance of those barriers, Section 2 started being used by left-wing activists to claim that the votes of certain racial minority groups were being “diluted” if they couldn’t elect their “candidates of choice.” Section 2 began to be misinterpreted and misapplied not to stop actual racial discrimination, but to ensure that minority voters who align with the Democrat Party were guaranteed the ability to elect Democratic candidates.
In other words, it was used to secure electoral success based on political affiliation, but only for one side of the political aisle. There was, of course, no concern about the minority of Republican-aligned voters in blue states like Massachusetts who were unable to elect their “candidates of choice.”
As Alito wrote, Section 2 ensures that all voters — regardless of their color — have an equal “chance to achieve a desired result.” It “does not guarantee equal outcomes.” But that is how it was applied by federal judges, specifically the federal judge in Louisiana in 2022, who told the state it had to create a second black majority district that would guarantee that black voters could elect their candidate of choice.
The only evidence that Section 2 had been violated was evidence of intentional racial discrimination that had occurred in Louisiana before the VRA was passed in 1965. The plaintiffs offered no evidence of any current or even recent discrimination in the state. Moreover, the judge relied on the fact that blacks make up about a third of Louisiana’s population, and therefore, the judge reasoned, they were “entitled” to one-third of the congressional seats. But Section 2 bars such proportionality claims, explicitly providing that the VRA does not establish “a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
What the Supreme Court did in Callais was to reaffirm that Section 2 bans intentional racial discrimination in voting, which can be proven with evidence that raises a “strong inference” that such discrimination has occurred. It also quite properly updated the 40-year-old factors used to evaluate whether such discrimination occurred, including that to establish a Section 2 violation, evidence of discrimination must be based on “present-day intentional racial discrimination regarding voting,” not what happened decades ago.
Moreover, the Court warned lower-court judges that they must “disentangle race from politics” and ensure that when individuals are voting based on party affiliation, that is not confused with race. Otherwise, Section 2 will be abused by party activists who will repackage partisan gerrymandering as racial gerrymandering: “Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting … can allow plaintiffs to undo a State’s legitimate, nonracial decisions under the banner of § 2.”
Rather than gutting the VRA, this decision reinforces the validity of the Voting Rights Act. It says the VRA is to be used only to remedy racial discrimination in voting in the now increasingly rare instances where it occurs. The holding prevents Section 2’s misuse by partisans to achieve political objectives.
As Alito says, Section 2 “was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s § 2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
Hopefully, that will now end.
***
Hans von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom. He is the former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.

Voters Cast Ballots On Final Day Of Early Voting In North Carolina

The Left Uses Racist Tactics To Determine Political Representation

Civil Rights

DW Opinion

Voting Rights Act

The Trump administration sued the New York Times for anti-white discrimination on Tuesday, saying the newspaper giant passed over a male employee because of the color of his skin. 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said that The Times “chose” not to promote a white male employee with “extensive experience in real estate” journalism, leaving him out of the final interview process in 2025. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, pointed to the Times’ DEI policies as the source of its bias. 
“Every candidate who advanced through to the final interview process was not a white male,” the commission said. “The company ultimately hired an outside candidate for the role — a non-white female with little to no experience in real estate journalism, despite such experience being a requirement for the real estate editor position.”
The complaint said that the minority candidate was ultimately hired outside the standard interview process and chosen despite two internal candidates being rated more favorably by the interview panel. 
“As a White male, Charging Party did not match the race and/or sex characteristics NYT sought to increase in its leadership through its diversity actions and aspirations,” the suit said. “The four candidates advanced to the panel interview stage matched the race and/or sex characteristics NYT sought to increase in its leadership. Specifically, the final pool of candidates was composed of a White female, a Black male, an Asian female, and a multiracial female.”
In 2021, the Times <a href="https://www.nytco.com/2021-new-york-times-diversity-and-inclusion-report/">published</a> a “Call to Action” saying that it was committed to making itself more “diverse, equitable and inclusive” and increasing “racial diversity of leadership.” Since 2017, the newspaper has also published the racial and gender demographics of its staff, and various subsequent reports have talked about making “progress” in increasing minority and women employment. 
“A decrease in the percentage of White male employees (whether new hires, existing employees, or those in leadership, as appropriate) was a necessary consequence for the NYT to achieve these results,” the lawsuit said. 
Internal company Slack messages from May 2024 show that Deputy Managing Editor Monica Drake and Assistant Managing Editor for Strategy, Operations and Finance, Jonathan Galinsky, were concerned about not enough “people of color” being hired in leadership positions, according to the lawsuit. 
“The May 2024 conversation between Drake and Galinsky, who were senior editors, shows that NYT top leadership discussed ‘targeted efforts’ and were ‘alarmed’ about the trends in the percentage of Whites in leadership reflected in that data, and shows NYT intended to act to increase the numbers of non-White leaders,” the lawsuit said. 
Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha told The Daily Wire the complaint was &#8220;politically motivated.&#8221; 
&#8220;Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world. We will defend ourselves vigorously,&#8221; she said. &#8220;The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative. Neither race nor gender played a role in this decision — we hired the most qualified candidate, and she is an excellent editor.&#8221;
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said that there was no “diversity exception” to race-based hiring or programs. 
“No one is above the law — including ‘elite’ institutions. There is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful, according to long-established civil rights principles,” she said. “Federal law is clear: making hiring or promotion decisions motivated in whole or in part by race or sex violates federal law. There is no diversity exception to this rule.”

The New York Times Entrance

Trump Admin Sues NYT For Anti-White Discrimination

anti-white

The New York Times

Trump Administration

Florida will no longer recognize or defend dozens of affirmative action programs ingrained in state law, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said Monday in a legal opinion first obtained by The Daily Wire.
These programs violate both the Florida and United States constitutions, Uthmeier said, by setting aside opportunities for non-white people.
&#8220;Racial discrimination is wrong. It is also unconstitutional. Yet Florida maintains several laws on its books that promote and require discrimination on its face,” Uthmeier wrote. “Any laws requiring race-based state action are presumptively unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment&#8217;s Equal Protection Clause” and the Florida Constitution.”
Included in an appendix to the legal opinion were state programs that illegally gave preferences based on race, Uthmeier said. That includes programs that mandated doctor&#8217;s offices to hire and retain minority doctors and another that requires the state&#8217;s Commerce Department to promote minority businesses.
One major example cited in the opinion is a law that mandates state agencies to implement &#8220;programs of affirmative and positive action” and requires the heads of executive agencies to “develop and implement an affirmative action plan.”
Agencies were also required to post demographic information about how many non-white people they had hired to indicate compliance with affirmative action policies.
“These laws do not further a compelling governmental interest because none of these laws identifies any of the limited, recognized constitutional justifications for race-based classifications — namely, remedying specific instances of past discrimination or avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety,” the Republican attorney general wrote. “These laws further fail strict scrutiny because none are limited in duration and because they preclude race-neutral alternatives.”
Another implicated program requires a specific number of construction, architectural, commodity, and contractual services be awarded to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women.
“Any Florida law that seeks to compel race-based discriminatory provisions through government contracting is unconstitutional,” Uthmeier said.
Uthmeier also pointed to racial quotas implemented for certain boards, councils, and similar entities.
“My office, therefore, will not defend or enforce any of these discriminatory provisions,” he wrote in the opinion.
Throughout the opinion, Uthmeier pointed to the recent Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that struck down the ability of colleges to admit students based on race. That ruling has proved monumental for challenges nationwide to racial preferences embedded at the federal and state level.

US-NEWS-FLA-AG-TRUMP-ENDORSEMENT-OS

Florida Identifies Dozens Of Programs That Illegally Mandate Racial Preferences

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Equality

Florida

Racial preferences

The Justice Department will no longer pursue civil rights lawsuits based on “disparate impact theory,” the Trump administration announced Tuesday.
The move comes after 50 years of government policy that encouraged lawsuits against “race neutral” policies without showing evidence of actual racial discrimination, the department <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-rule-restores-equal-protection-all-civil-rights-enforcement">said</a>. Disparate impact theory is a framework that often assumes discrimination when there are different outcomes for different groups of people, even if there is no explicit discriminatory practice in place.
“For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi. “No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.”
The Justice Department issued a rule removing disparate impact from consideration under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prevents entities that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin from receiving federal money or support.
“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.”
The change comes after President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-takes-sledgehammer-to-dei-in-latest-round-of-executive-orders-targeting-education">signed</a> an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/">executive order</a> in April that directed the federal government to stop using disparate impact theory in government policy and regulations. The order defined disparate impact theory as the “presumption” that “unlawful discrimination exists where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.”
Trump said that this theory undermines America’s values of meritocracy and a colorblind society while also violating the Constitution.
“It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals,” Trump wrote.
Last year, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department was <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/notice-injunction-louisiana-v-epa-wd-la">blocked</a> from enforcing disparate impact claims against Louisiana.

Justice Department Holds Press Conference On Complaint Filed Under FACE Act

Justice Department Ends Policy That Promoted Dubious Racial Discrimination Suits

Department of Justice

Executive

Harmeet Dhillon

Pam Bondi

Politics

Republican Governor Henry McMaster moved to end race-based government contracting in South Carolina and called for lawmakers to take action to codify his executive actions. 
McMaster signed an <a href="https://governor.sc.gov/sites/governor/files/Documents/Executive-Orders/2025-12-03%20FILED%20Executive%20Order%202025-40%20-%20Prohibiting%20Race-Based%20Discrimination%20in%20Government%20Contracting.pdf">executive order</a> on Wednesday calling for state agencies to stop awarding contracts based on race. Under current state law, each state agency is required to propose a budget that awards 10% of spending to minority-owned businesses. 
“Today, I have ordered state agencies to halt all future spending, procurement or contract decisions that are based on race. The state laws requiring these quotas and racial set-asides are unconstitutional and discriminatory. Business with state government should be awarded based on merit and value to the taxpayer,” McMaster <a href="https://x.com/henrymcmaster/status/1996273026841682158">wrote</a> on X. “Senate President Alexander and House Speaker Smith have agreed to lead the effort to repeal these laws when the General Assembly returns next month.”
South Carolina’s Department of Transportation is also required to hand out a minimum of 5% of its awards for certain contracts to minority-owned businesses. 
In his executive order, McMaster said that the state laws mandating race-based contracting “call for unlawful racial discrimination” and that they are policies that “rest on the false assumption that the solution to perceived historical wrongs is to racially discriminate against individuals in the present.” 
McMaster also said that the policies may violate President Donald Trump’s executive actions taking aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. 
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander and House Speaker Murrell Smith, both Republicans, said they would move in January to codify the governor’s actions. 
“We are a nation and a state dedicated to the principle that ‘all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator,’ as reflected in the Constitution’s requirement of equal protection of the laws,” Alexander said. “When existing laws no longer align with that constitutional command, it is our duty to correct them. I am confident my colleagues in the Senate share my belief that state government must reflect equality under the law in all its endeavors and ensure our statutes fully comply with the Constitution.”
South Carolina Congressman Ralph Norman <a href="https://x.com/RalphNorman/status/1996286119034454330">praised</a> McMaster’s action and called for the state legislature to pass a “full DEI ban.”
Amid Trump’s war on DEI at the federal level, some lawmakers have turned to the state level to challenge programs that favor minority businesses. In October, Texas <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unless-youre-white-you-qualify-texas-suspends-business-program-that-excludes-white-males">suspended</a> a statewide program that prioritized non-white male businesses in state contracting. 
This was done through the Historically Underutilized Businesses, which received about 11% of state spending total. The total awards given to the businesses are over $4 billion, including $1.45 billion for women-owned businesses and $1.6 billion for Hispanic-owned businesses.

US-NEWS-SC-WILDFIRES-EMERGENCY-CS

Red State Governor Ends Race-Based Contracting, Calls For Lawmakers To Make Move Permanent

Republicans

South Carolina

Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro headed to a West Philadelphia hair salon to sign a bill that would prohibit “hair discrimination” in the state.
The CROWN Act, which stands for &#8220;Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,&#8221; explicitly calls for protections for &#8220;natural&#8221; hairstyles, including locs, braids, twists, afros, and more. The legislation passed the state Senate with a 44-3 vote.
&#8220;Real freedom means being respected for who you are — no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to,” Shapiro <a href="https://www.pa.gov/governor/newsroom/2025-press-releases/governor-shapiro-signs-crown-act-into-law">said</a>. &#8220;For too long, many Pennsylvanians have faced discrimination simply for hairstyles that reflect their identity and culture — that ends today.&#8221;
House Speaker Joanna McClinton and U.S. Democratic Rep. La’Tasha D. Mayes have been working to get the CROWN Act implemented since 2019. 
Both women said the motivations were personal. 
&#8220;I never wore braids from law school to being a public defender for seven years in this city, because I always had a perception that it would not be respected,&#8221; McClinton said. &#8220;They will not look at your hair and say you cannot work here. They will not look at your hair and say you do not belong.&#8221; 
&#8220;Hair discrimination has taken confidence from our children, but that ends today,&#8221; Mayes added. &#8220;Hair discrimination has taken dignity from workers, but that ends today. It has taken access to economic opportunities, hopes and dreams, but that begins to end today.&#8221;
The CROWN Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2021 and was approved in 2023. It was reintroduced in both the House and Senate last year, but has not passed.
Twenty-eight other states have similar legislation on the books.
Black hair has been a hot topic of conversation lately, especially during former first lady Michelle Obama’s book tour. 
Obama said that black women are “trapped” by societal pressure regarding their looks and feel compelled to keep their hair straight, meaning they can’t participate in everyday activities.
“Let me explain something to white people. Our hair comes out of our head naturally in a curly pattern,” the 61-year-old said earlier this month. “When we straighten it to follow your beauty standards, we are trapped by the straightness.”
“That’s why so many of us can’t swim, and we run away from the water. People won’t go to the gym because we’re trying to keep our hair straight for y’all! It’s exhausting, expensive and takes up so much time.”
Obama concluded by effusively telling society to “get out of&#8221; her hair.
“So why do we need an act … an act of law to get white folks out of our hair? Don’t tell me how to wear my hair. Don’t wonder about it. Don’t touch it. Just don’t. It just is.”
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-becomes-first-state-ban-racial-hair-jeffrey-cawood">California Becomes The First State To Ban Racial &#8216;Hair Discrimination&#8217; Against Braids, Cornrows, And Dreadlocks</a>

Josh Shapiro

Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Signs Bill Banning ‘Hair Discrimination’

Pennsylvania Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting 'Hair Discrimination'

Beauty

Discrimination

Pennsylvania

Social Issues

A Texas GOP official has suspended a statewide program that prioritized non-white male businesses in state contracting. 
Acting Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock <a href="https://comptroller.texas.gov/about/media-center/news/20251028-historically-underutilized-business-certification-process-under-review-by-acting-texas-comptroller-1761686774358">took action</a> this week to suspend new approvals for companies to be certified as a Historically Underutilized Business, giving them benefits in competing for state jobs. Hancock said that the program was constitutionally questionable because of its emphasis on race. 
“In Texas, we don&#8217;t want to discriminate against anybody, and what this program does is literally discriminate against those that are white,” Hancock told The Daily Wire. “It&#8217;s just been around for a long time, and we&#8217;ve just kind of accepted it and not looked at the constitutionality of it.”
To be defined as a Historically Underutilized Business, the company must be more than 50% owned by black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Native Americans, service-disabled veterans, or women. The program has been in place since 1991. Hancock explained the requirements as “unless you’re white, you qualify.” 
Advantages of being classified as a Historically Underutilized Business include opportunities to bid for contracts from around 300 state agencies that must make a “good faith” effort to reach out to them. 
For example, the Texas Department of Agriculture has <a href="https://texasagriculture.gov/About/Contracting/Historically-Underutilized-Business-HUB">set goals</a> that aim for it to use so-called underutilized businesses for 11.2% of heavy construction jobs, 21.1% of building construction, 32.9% of special trade construction, 23.7% of professional service contracts, 26.6% of other service contracts, and 21.1% of commodities contracts. 
Currently, about 21% of Historically Underutilized Businesses participate in state contracts as prime contractors or subcontractors, receiving 11% of all state spending in total, according to the comptroller’s office. The total awards given to the businesses are over $4 billion, including $1.45 billion for women-owned businesses and $1.6 billion for Hispanic-owned businesses. 
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Hancock said that he was concerned about the process of verifying that one had experienced economic discrimination. 
“How do we audit that somebody was economically discriminated against?” he asked. “How do we verify the information of somebody being economically discriminated against? It&#8217;s got to be more than just skin color.”
He said that contracts should be awarded on the basis of merit, not race or ethnicity. 
The suspension of the program comes after Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order prohibiting race and sex-based preferences when awarding government benefits.

Texas Governor Abbott Signs ERCOT Reforms Legislation Into Law

Billions On The Line: Texas Suspends DEI Program That Excluded White Males

'Unless You’re White, You Qualify': Texas Suspends Business Program Excluding White Males

Greg Abbott

Texas

The Department of Justice opened up an investigation into George Mason University on Thursday over employment practices that may discriminate against white people and men.
In a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1408276/dl">letter</a> to the university, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division stated that the investigation would focus on whether the university had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which addresses employment discrimination.
“It is unlawful and un-American to deny equal access to employment opportunities on the basis of race and sex,” Dhillon said. “When employers screen out qualified candidates from the hiring process, they not only erode trust in our public institutions — they violate the law, and the Justice Department will investigate accordingly.”
Dhillon’s letter said that the actions of University President Gregory Washington were the focus of the investigation.
“The investigation stems from statements and policies made by the University’s president, which indicate that race and sex are motivating factors in faculty hiring and other employment decisions to achieve ‘diversity’ goals,” the Justice Department <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-launches-investigation-employment-practices-george-mason-university">said</a>. “Multiple emails and internal documents suggest preferential treatment of certain races and sexes in hiring and other employment practices, including promotion and tenure of faculty members.”
In an email from July 23, 2020, Washington said he wanted to “develop” a “renewal, promotion, and tenure process” to help “faculty of color and women in their professional work.”
In that same email, Washington said that he was working to “develop specific mechanisms in the promotion and tenure process that recognize the invisible and uncredited emotional labor that people of color expend to learn, teach, discover, and work on campus.”
Dhillon also said that the university would intentionally list race on faculty member hiring panels “to ensure greater non-white participation in the hiring process.”
Last week, the Department of Education also <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-opens-title-vi-investigation-george-mason-university">launched</a> a Title VII investigation into George Mason over its hiring policies. The investigation was launched after the department received a complaint from multiple professors alleging racial discrimination.
The university denied any wrongdoing in response to the Education Department investigation.
“I can assure you that George Mason has always operated with a commitment to equality under the law, ever since our inception. It is simply the Mason way, and in my experience, it has not discriminated based on race, color, national origin, or otherwise,” Washington <a href="https://www.gmu.edu/news/2025-07/update-university-response-investigations">said</a>. “Our diversity efforts are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence – not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully.”

Statue of George Mason on campus of George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

Justice Dept Probing Another University Over Racially-Based Hiring Goals

Education

George Mason University

U.S.

A leftwing group dedicated to dismantling “structural racism” in finance has raked in millions of dollars in federal grants. But now its federal funding and non-profit status could be in jeopardy, as the group discriminates against white internship applicants in violation of President Donald Trump’s executive order.
The North Carolina-based Croatan Institute touts its allegiance to the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda on its website, promising to tackle “structural racism in finance” even as it imposed race-based selection criteria on its paid internship program. The program appears to violate President Trump’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/">executive order</a> barring DEI policies and discrimination among federal grant recipients.
Now, a legal expert tells The Daily Wire that the program jeopardizes the federal funds currently en route to the organization, as well as any future funds that the Croatan Institute might hope to garner.
The Croatan Institute <a href="https://croataninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/BLAISE-1-Pager.pdf">boasts</a> the BLAISE internship program, which stands for &#8220;BIPOC Leaders Advancing an Inclusive and Sustainable Economy.&#8221; The program seeks to increase the representation of specific demographic groups in the financial industry.
The internship program’s eligibility requirements detail the race-based selection process. “Priority given to students of color or first-generation students from underserved communities,” the site reads. The group attempts to justify its racial preferences by writing that “in the world of finance, there is a dearth of people of color.”
The program could land the Croatan Institute in hot water, Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow GianCarlo Canaparo told The Daily Wire.
“Any entity that receives federal funds is prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act from discriminating on the basis of race and other protected categories,” Canaparo explained. “Giving priority to certain races, as the BIPOC internship does, is textbook discrimination.” He added that the discrimination could be remedied by way of a federal lawsuit.
The Croatan Institute has <a href="https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/93c07c39-40a4-c537-677c-326962e00582-R/latest">garnered</a> more than $4 million in federal grants since fiscal year 2022. Included in that sum is a <a href="https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_25CA11083150101_12C2">$1.9 million grant</a> from the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2025, of which just under $470,000 has already been paid out. The organization was also slated to receive <a href="https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_5850903013_12H2">$40,000</a> from the Department of Agriculture to host a “financial health workshop series for BIPOC farmers and landowners.”
“If Croatan continues to receive federal funds, those funds are absolutely in jeopardy,” Canaparo explained. “And if Croatan hopes to receive more federal funds in the future, it will have to terminate this discriminatory internship program or it&#8217;s likely to <a href="https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/understanding-the-liability-risks-posed-by-trump-s-dei-order-1">face False Claims Act liability</a> in addition to all the other sorts of liability,” he added, highlighting yet another legal risk that the organization appears to have exposed itself to.
The organization appears to have held the internship program for several years as it was raking in the federal money. The Croatan Institute announced the internship’s <a href="https://croataninstitute.org/blaise-pilot-launches-for-bipoc-students-2/">pilot program</a> in 2022 and stated even more blatantly that applicants “must identify as black, indigenous, Latinx, or person of color.”
The program could threaten more than just the organization’s federal funding, however. Canaparo pointed out that the discriminatory program “jeopardizes its nonprofit status,” adding that “the IRS can revoke the tax-exempt status of a nonprofit that engages in race discrimination.”
The organization&#8217;s internship program is part of a <a href="https://croataninstitute.org/reefs/">broader initiative</a>, called &#8220;Racial Equity, Economics, Finance and Sustainability,&#8221; which seeks to &#8220;advance opportunities for greater representation of underserved communities.&#8221; The <a href="https://croataninstitute.org/BIPOC-Financial-Health/">initiative</a> includes one project, called the Financial Health Investment Project, which seeks to promote &#8220;the financial resilience and long-term success of Black and other minority farmers and landowners&#8221; by offering online financial coaching. The program was <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy-2023-2501-funded-projects.pdf">funded</a> by Department of Agriculture to the tune of $731,000.
The Croatan Institute isn’t the only federal grant recipient that’s discriminated against whites as it&#8217;s pursued the DEI agenda. A music ensemble <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/music-ensemble-hosts-bipoc-internship-barring-white-applicants-citing-systemic-allyship">investigated</a> by The Daily Wire received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts and held a “BIPOC internship” that explicitly barred whites from participation on account of their race.
The group even posted the demographic breakdown of their intern classes, further proving that it had excluded white applicants. The organization <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/non-profit-freezes-internship-that-discriminated-against-whites-after-daily-wire-investigation">froze its internship program</a> in the wake of The Daily Wire investigation.
The Croatan Institute did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump Executive Order

Go Woke, Go Broke: Nonprofit Could Lose Millions In Federal Funds Thanks To DEI Program

Diversity

Trump

The global economy is no longer years, months, or weeks away from the artificial intelligence revolution.
From <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/12/metas-new-ai-system-tackles-harmful-content/">Meta</a> utilizing it for social media content moderation to <a href="https://about.starbucks.com/press/2025/meet-green-dot-assist-starbucks-generative-ai-powered-coffeehouse-companion/#:~:text=Green%20Dot%20Assist%20is%20a,in%20delivering%20exceptional%20customer%20service.">Starbucks</a> employing AI to assist baristas with everyday tasks, AI is here. For some job-seekers, AI&#8217;s role in a company could even be affecting them during the hiring process, selecting some candidates over others without any human intervention.
But can be trusted to select the most qualified candidates for a job opening? New research suggests it can&#8217;t — because some of the most popular AI language models used by many companies in the hiring process could be discriminating against certain candidates based on race and sex.
A <a href="https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2506.10922">study</a> published earlier this month by independent researchers Adam Karvonen and Samuel Marks shows that the &#8220;leading commercial &#8230; and open-source [AI language] models&#8221; used by major companies insert &#8220;significant racial and gender biases&#8221; in the hiring process. The research found that AI language models such as Chat GPT-4o, Claude 4 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, along with open-source models Gemma-2 27B, Gemma-3, and Mistral-24B, &#8220;consistently favor Black over White candidates and female over male candidates across all tested models and scenarios.&#8221;
Karvonen told The Daily Wire that their research should raise red flags for companies using AI to hire employees. He said that it&#8217;s possible for companies to add their own &#8220;safeguards&#8221; to prevent AI from discriminating against people simply based on their race or sex, but added, &#8220;Since companies generally do not disclose the details of their internal safeguards, we cannot independently verify that these systems are fair and robust.&#8221;
&#8220;Our work shows that standard resume anonymization may not be a complete solution,&#8221; Karvonen said. &#8220;For example, we found that models would infer a candidate&#8217;s race from their college affiliation and become biased as a result. Even if you remove obvious identifiers like names, bias can still creep in through other background details. This is another reason why a technical fix like ours, which prevents the model from processing these concepts at all, can be more robust than simply hiding surface-level information.&#8221;
The study found that asking AI models to consider &#8220;real-world contextual details&#8221; and to focus on &#8220;a highly selective hiring process&#8221; can cause the AI to become biased and discriminate against white people, especially white men, who received &#8220;up to 12% differences in interview rates.&#8221;
&#8220;Even if everything else is the same — the resume is the same, the experience is the same — stereotypically white names are less likely to pass through the interview process,&#8221; Jason Hausenloy, an independent AI safety researcher, told The Daily Wire.
Hausenloy added that the AI language models favored minority job candidates, even if a company&#8217;s diversity pledges and statements were completely removed from the scenario.
&#8220;Just the very act of making the hiring scenarios more realistic meant that they are more likely to be biased,&#8221; he said.
The Daily Wire reached out to the companies running the AI language models highlighted in the study, which include Google, OpenAI, Claude, and Mistral. An OpenAI spokesman told The Daily Wire that &#8220;AI tools can be useful in hiring, but they can also be biased. They should be used to help, not replace, human decision-making in important choices like job eligibility.&#8221;
&#8220;OpenAI has safety teams dedicated to researching and reducing bias, and other risks, in our models,&#8221; the spokesman added. &#8220;Bias is an important, industry-wide problem and we use a multi-prong approach, including researching best practices for adjusting training data and prompts to result in less biased results, improving accuracy of content filters and refining automated and human monitoring systems. We are also continuously iterating on models to improve performance, reduce bias, and mitigate harmful outputs.”
None of the other companies responded to The Daily Wire&#8217;s request to comment.
It&#8217;s not just a few mega corporations using AI to weed out job candidates. A <a href="https://www.resumebuilder.com/7-in-10-companies-will-use-ai-in-the-hiring-process-in-2025-despite-most-saying-its-biased/">study</a> published by Resume Builder last October found that half of all companies are already using AI in the hiring process and predicts that this will increase to 70% by the end of 2025. The study surveyed 948 business leaders who work at a company with more than 21 employees.
&#8220;Today, 82% of companies use AI to review resumes, while 40% employ AI chatbots to communicate with candidates. About 23% use AI to conduct interviews, and 64% apply AI to review candidate assessments,&#8221; Resume Builder reported. &#8220;Additionally, 28% of companies use AI for onboarding new hires, and 42% scan social media or personal websites as part of the hiring process. Only 0.2% of companies report not using AI in their hiring practices.&#8221;
Hausenloy told The Daily Wire that no one really knows what could be causing these leading AI language models to be discriminating against people based on race and sex.
&#8220;I would very strongly suspect that the companies are not trying to optimize this behavior,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think OpenAI is saying, &#8216;You must be biased against white males.'&#8221;
&#8220;We actually don&#8217;t know why this happens, but it is a consistent finding,&#8221; Hausenloy added.
He said that there are some &#8220;promising&#8221; findings in the new study, adding that companies could easily fix the AI&#8217;s tendency to discriminate against white men.
&#8220;You can use certain technical techniques to remove the concept of race and bias from the language models if you edit the internal concepts within the models,&#8221; Hausenloy said.
AI discrimination in hiring, however, could be part of a larger issue with the new technology.
The Center for AI Safety <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAzSj24Fp0O6GfkskmnULmI1Hmx7k_EJ/view">published a study</a> earlier this year that could shed some more light on why these AI language models are opting for blatant discrimination. According to the findings, AI models value certain people more than others, preferring people from Africa and the Middle East over people in Europe and the United States.
&#8220;We’ve found as AIs get smarter, they develop their own coherent value systems,&#8221; wrote Dan Hendrycks, the director for the Center for AI Safety. &#8220;For example they value lives in Pakistan &gt; India &gt; China &gt; US. These are not just random biases, but internally consistent values that shape their behavior, with many implications for AI alignment.&#8221;
&#8220;Internally, AIs have values for everything. This often implies shocking/undesirable preferences. For example, we find AIs put a price on human life itself and systematically value some human lives more than others,&#8221; he added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Internally, AIs have values for everything. This often implies shocking/undesirable preferences. For example, we find AIs put a price on human life itself and systematically value some human lives more than others (an example with Elon is shown in the main paper). <a href="https://t.co/YmlFmSLnXc">pic.twitter.com/YmlFmSLnXc</a>
&mdash; Dan Hendrycks (@DanHendrycks) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanHendrycks/status/1889344079890358588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Artificial Intelligence

Most Large Companies Are Using AI For Hiring. The Leading AI Models Discriminate Against White Men.

Economy

Jobs

The Trump administration&#8217;s war with Harvard University continued on Monday as the Education Department and the Department of Health and Human Services launched a probe into the university&#8217;s law journal over its treatment of white contributors.
The investigation will focus on reports of the Harvard Law Review evaluating journal membership and article publication on the basis of race as opposed to merit. Civil rights law prohibits federal dollars from going toward entities that practice racial discrimination.
“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “Title VI’s demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. No institution—no matter its pedigree, prestige, or wealth—is above the law. The Trump Administration will not allow Harvard, or any other recipients of federal funds, to trample on anyone’s civil rights.”
The Trump administration specifically cited reports that a Harvard Law Review editor said it was &#8220;concerning&#8221; that four out of five individuals who wanted to reply to an article on police reform &#8220;are white men.&#8221; Another exampled listed by the administration was an editor at the journal saying “that a piece should be subject to expedited review because the author was a minority.”
Anthony Archeval, the acting Director of HHS Office for Civil Rights, said that these kinds of actions could set back students.
“Law journal membership and publication are crucial achievements that build momentum for law students’ careers and shape legal scholarship,” he said. “This investigation reflects the Administration’s common-sense understanding that these opportunities should be earned through merit-based standards and not race.”
In a statement, a spokesman for Harvard Law School noted that the Harvard Law Review was &#8220;a student-run organization.&#8221;
&#8220;Harvard Law School is committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the law school,&#8221; the spokesman told The Daily Wire.
The Trump administration has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-calls-harvard-an-anti-semitic-threat-to-democracy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">battling with Harvard</a> over its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and handling of anti-Israel protests. Earlier this month, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard.
Last week, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Harvard was a &#8220;Far Left Institution&#8221; and &#8220;a threat to Democracy.&#8221;

Supreme Court Rules Affirmative Action Is Unconstitutional In Landmark Case With Harvard And UNC

Trump Admin Launches Probe Into Harvard Law Review Over Treatment Of White Contributors

Donald Trump

Harvard

Harvard University

Menu