Pernicious executive order 13950 revoked,yet structural racism looms large

“Uniformed Services should not teach our heroic men and women in uniform the lie that the country for which they are willing to die is fundamentally racist…The participation of contractors' employees in training that promotes race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating similarly undermines efficiency in Federal contracting” (Federal Register - National Archives, 2020). Executive Order 13950.

Executive Order 13950—Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping threatened to seriously restrict (1) federal diversity trainings (e.g., for those in uniformed service, universities, and health care corporations) and (2) federal research funding that addressed structural racism, implicit bias, or sexism. Executive Order 13950 (EO 13950) was signed by former president Trump on September 22, 2020; halted on December 22, 2020, due to multiple lawsuits (Abrahams et al., 2020); and revoked by President Biden on January 20, 2021—his Inauguration Day (The White House, 2021). Such starkly different responses by the two presidential administrations should give us pause and encourage us to continue questioning the intentions behind decisions made by our leaders.

Some political leaders, like many within the Trump administration, deny decades of scientific findings and the strong consensus within the academic community that racism remains a problem within the United States (American Public Health Association, 2020; Chae et al., 2015; Leitner et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2014; Schwelb, 1966; Williams and Mohammed, 2009). EO 13950 would have prohibited the promotion of evidence-based trainings on structural racism (i.e., the convergence of institutions, culture, history, and practices that foster racial discrimination and inequity (Krieger, 2014)) and implicit racial bias (i.e., automatic associations and reactions to someone based on their race (Eberhardt, 2020; Lai et al., 2014)), and also sexism (which is not addressed in the current discourse, but is also of critical importance). This political agenda can only be interpreted as pernicious, considering the fact that structural racism is linked to chronic stress, adverse birth outcomes, greater risk for chronic disease and illness, and reduced lifespans among Black, Indigenous, and other other communities of color (Bailey et al., 2017; Chae et al., 2015; Lewis et al., 2014; Polanco-Roman et al., 2016; Seaton et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2019). Indeed, the timing of EO 13950 could hardly have been worse for members of other communities of color, as health disparities due to structural racism have skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic (Bhala et al., 2020; Tai et al., 2020).

EO 13950 also states that “research also suggests that blame-focused diversity training reinforces biases and decreases opportunities for minorities” (Federal Register - National Archives, 2020). Beliefs underlying this false statement within EO 13950 may extend to other contexts; there may be a misconception that trainings and policies focused on improving equity will increase racial biases or hinder economic prosperity. Such beliefs are unfounded (Fitzgerald et al., 2019; Turner, 2016). In actuality, there are multiple effective ingredients of implicit bias trainings (Fitzgerald et al., 2019). Data from college students, corporate leadership, and professionals in the justice system suggest trainings that promote awareness and concern about one’s implicit biases meaningfully impact attitudes, knowledge, and empathy toward people from different racial backgrounds (e.g., Devine et al., 2012; Fix, 2020; Okonofua et al., 2016). People can reduce or change implicit racial biases and related behavior by slowing down their decision-making processes (Eberhardt, 2020) and by viewing media in which racial groups are represented in ways that counter their typical stereotypic presentations (Lai et al., 2014). Research among health care providers demonstrates that providers’ levels of implicit bias can be changed through intervention and are significantly related to improved patient health (Hall et al., 2015; Zestcott et al., 2016). Ultimately, implicit bias trainings/interventions can reduce experiences of racial discrimination (Eberhardt, 2020), and make new mental space to lay the groundwork for policy change with countless health and social benefits for people of color.

Policies across systems marred by structural racism (e.g., educational, housing, and justice) reify racial discrimination and reinforce racial inequities (Bailey et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2019). EO 13950 is an example of such a policy. In an underhanded way, language within EO 13950 recognized the interconnectedness of implicit bias and structural racism (and sexism) by simultaneously targeting these problems. Such statements warrant our attention and not dismissal, as structural racism proliferates through discrete acts of racial discrimination rooted in our implicit racial biases.

The history of structural racism in the United States is long and multifaceted (e.g., Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014; Alexander, 2020)—and we should use this history to guide research and policy development to address structural racism. The Biden Administration employed ethical and scientific principles in revoking EO 13950. But simply undoing EO 13950 is not enough. Organizations across sectors and contexts can develop anti-racism committees, use health equity frameworks, mandate trainings and professional development specific to anti-racism, and evaluate outcomes following anti-racism efforts (Boston Public Health Commission, 2019). Altogether, an integrated approach using implicit bias trainings focused on structural solutions to racism might be best suited to reduce inequity (Saul, 2018).

Political leadership is now tasked with reversing racist policies enacted under previous leadership, and with being more proactive in developing anti-racist policy. Leadership should examine existing policies using a racial impact statement (Mauer, 2008). The racial impact statement process includes an evaluation of whether policies promote structural racism and subsequently revising or revoking those that do. Additionally, exemplary policies can help frame new policies (Williams and Mohammed, 2013). Yes, reversing racist policies and shaping new proactive policies is a big ask and a daunting task; yet it is necessary. It is essential that those in key leadership positions demand policy-level change.

Lastly, EO 13950 would have discontinued federally funded research on implicit bias and structural racism. Language therein specified the heads of all federal funding agencies must retract grant funding associated with any “divisive concepts” within 60 days of this order (Federal Register - National Archives, 2020). By halting research and targeted trainings that name implicit bias and address how to change systems supporting structural racism, EO 13950 could have adversely impacted public health (e.g., Bailey et al., 2017; Chae et al., 2015). Nationwide, leadership in government, community organizations, business sectors, and other public institutions have a duty to support and use research findings to implement and evaluate changes in policies and practices.

The data are clear. Structural racism exists and has dire consequences, particularly for Black and Indigenous communities (e.g., Williams et al., 2019). Increasing health disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic should push leadership toward recognition of structural racism as a real problem in the United States (Bhala et al., 2020; Tai et al., 2020). In arguing for the removal of “divisive concepts”, EO 13950 promoted divisive thinking and propagated the anti-science rhetoric characteristic of the former Trump administration (Frickel and Rea, 2020). Now that President Biden revoked EO 13950, it is time to take bold action and move toward equity. Research—which we should continue to fund—demonstrates that promising trainings and interventions could meaningfully contribute to more equitable systems-level care (Bailey et al., 2017) and a more prosperous economy (Turner, 2016). I urge us to support leaders working to reduce racial disparities and push them to further this work. We must insist upon the moral and scientific responsibility of leadership to promote rational policies and sound practices that address structural racism and implicit racial bias.