Badly Treated White People

Another place I subscribe to is “Kareem Takes on the News.”

I can always find an interesting opinion being offered up by the former college and professional basketball player. Who would have thought such? Today or this day (older commentary) Kareem is discussing how “white people were badly treated.” Such mistreatment is being presented and supported by none other than President Trump. Why would this be anyone else taking such a stance.

This issue was reported by the New York Times. “Trump Says Civil Rights Led to White People Being ‘Very Badly Treated’” (New York Times) Who would have thought?

“White People Treated Badly”

Summary: In a New York Times interview, Donald Trump stated that “white people were very badly treated,” during the Civil Rights era. He went on to assert that “they [white people] did extremely well and they were not invited to go into a university to college,” referencing affirmative action. He described this as “reverse discrimination” and said it “hurt a lot of people, people that deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job were unable to get a job.” The Trump administration has ordered the dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion offices and halted enforcement of core tenets of the Civil Rights Act.

Derrick Johnson of the NAACP stated there is “no evidence that white men were discriminated against as a result of the civil rights movement.” In spite of this, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, led by chair Andrea Lucas, has issued video messages urging white men to file federal complaints about workplace discrimination. Vice President JD Vance and top officials have amplified these efforts.

My Take:

Alright, let me say this straight. This is a classic political move. You take a word that actually means something real, like “civil rights,” and stretch it until it covers the opposite of what it was meant to do.

First you hear, “civil rights accomplished some very wonderful things,” and then you hear the same people turn around and claim that white people were “very badly treated” because some of them supposedly “deserved” a job or a college seat and didn’t get it. It’s a neat little trick: you keep the halo of civil rights but use it to justify attacks.

I keep wondering if Trump actually believes this, or if he is simply relying on the fact that grievance sells. Either way, the claim lands with the thud of big consequences and zero evidence. The Times piece even points out the biggest problem: Trump and his administration have no data and no receipts. When someone declares that an entire era of policy has been hurting a specific group in a sweeping way, the responsible move is to ask for proof. Show the pattern, explain the mechanism, give us the numbers. Without that, it’s just a political line floating in the air, asking us to treat it like documented fact.

Then too, Jenny R. Yang, a former EEOC chair, says she’s never seen “a blanket request [to contact the office] to only one racial group and gender.” It’s the kind of outreach that seems designed to create a certain caseload and a certain public story about who needs protection right now, and from whom.

And the timing? Not accidental. This is happening while the administration is moving to dismantle DEI offices and telling agencies to back off enforcing core parts of the Civil Rights Act. Put those moves together and you see how attention and enforcement are being redirected just as protections are being weakened.

They wrap it all up in the language of “merit,” which sounds precise but is conveniently vague. Nobody except those with no skills would be against merit! But “merit” becomes a weapon when it’s treated like a neutral measurement that exists outside systems that actually distribute opportunity: legacy admissions, hiring networks, nepotism, geography, wealth. If you start from the assumption that diversity equals incompetence, “merit” becomes a code word for keeping gates closed while claiming fairness.

The EEOC was created in 1965 to handle workplace discrimination claims, especially for groups shut out for decades. So, when the agency’s platform is used to solicit a specific demographic, “Are you a white male…?” That’s a public signal about priorities. Sure, discrimination can happen to anyone. The real question is what the government chooses to spotlight, why, and when.

What’s depressing is that this argument keeps getting recycled like it’s new. Civil rights becomes a trophy on the shelf: “We did that.” Then any continued effort to enforce equality is painted as an overreach that hurts the “deserving.” It’s a way to hang on to the credit while stomping all over its current usefulness.

Bottom line? We need to ask for definitions and evidence. Read the original statements closely. Track agency actions after the speeches are over. And be skeptical of any political story that flips historical roles without showing how the system actually works today.