NYC’s Socialist Mayoral Candidate Proposes Blatantly Racist Scheme
All the while framing himself as a victim
Trump deep-sixed DEI — but is it undead at major federal contractors like Lockheed Martin?
President Donald Trump has endeavored to ram a stake through the heart of the federal DEI regime.
He kicked off his second term by requiring that the head of every federal agency, department, or commission see to the elimination of all DEI offices, positions, initiatives, programs, contracts, and performance requirements; ordering the government to eliminate DEI discrimination in the federal workforce as well as in federal contracting and spending; tasking his inbound attorney general with preparing a civil rights-focused pressure campaign against DEI practitioners in the private sector; and rescinding numerous race- and identity-centered executive orders issued by Democrat presidents.
While Trump has since enjoyed tremendous success in eliminating various DEI initiatives across the government, it appears that there is still much work to be done.
The 1792 Exchange, a corporate bias watchdog seeking to restore political neutrality in the boardroom and to educate lawmakers about the dangers of woke corporate policies, recently released an analysis of the top 100 federal contractors by dollars obligated in fiscal year 2023.
The report highlights the apparent ideological capture and woke policies of a number of corporate juggernauts on the list, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the RTX Corporation, formerly Raytheon.
"The American people have the right to know if our hard-earned money is subsidizing any corporation's subversive ideological programs," 1792 Exchange CEO Daniel Cameron said in a statement.
"President Trump has taken bold action to remove DEI programming from federal institutions, including government contractors," continued Cameron. "This report empowers government agencies and legislators to align procurement decisions with that vision of neutrality and excellence."
RELATED: Behind the rainbow curtain: Who is funding the trans agenda targeting kids?
Of the 100 contractors that the 1792 Exchange analyzed, 36 were characterized as "high risk," 16 as "medium risk," and 46 as "lower risk," on the basis of "publicly documented alignment with DEI-driven policies and practices."
The watchdog noted that high-risk companies "have demonstrated a pattern of engaging in DEI practices that prioritize ideological conformity over merit-based considerations."
Examples of such practices include recruitment, hiring, and promotion on the basis of immutable characteristics and sexual preference; requiring employees to suffer through training sessions on gender ideology and critical race theory; and corporate alignment on philanthropy and marketing strategies with "progressive social agendas."
While some big organizations appear to have read the writing on the wall and reversed course on DEI — 1792 indicated that Accenture, AT&T, IBM, Booz Allen Hamilton, and IBM have rolled back at least some of their most divisive DEI policies — others have dug in their feet.
Seven out of the top 10 recipients of federal dollars on the 1792 Exchange's list of U.S. government contractors were labeled "high risk." They were, in order from biggest to smallest recipients of federal dollars obligated: Lockheed Martin, the RTX Corporation (formerly Raytheon), the Boeing Company, Northrop Grumman, Optum360, Leidos, and McKesson.
'Compliance with the CEI naturally leads to ceding nearly all facets of corporate governance to the HRC's influence.'
BAE Systems and Honeywell, though farther down the list, similarly appear to be big offenders in terms of DEI initiatives.
Lockheed Martin, at the top of the list, "yields to political activism in shaping corporate governance, potentially alienating consumers, dividing employees, and harming shareholders"; "implements race and identity-based policies that replace merit, excellence, and integrity with preferential treatment and outcomes"; and "embraces corporate initiatives that redirect its central focus from business goals to partisan policies and divisive issues," according to the 1792 Exchange.
Part of what gave the company away was its perfect score on the 2025 Corporate Equality Index from the non-straight activist organization Human Rights Campaign, as well as its receipt of the "Equality 100 Award: Leader in LGBTQ+ Workplace Equality" distinction from the activist group.
Many of the scoring criteria for both the 2025 CEI and the so-called equality award appear to require corporate violations of federal policy.
While the watchdog outfit did not go out of its way to put CEI scores as a top consideration when assessing risk, Dustin DeVito, the 1792 Exchange's director of corporate research, told Blaze News that "compliance with the CEI naturally leads to ceding nearly all facets of corporate governance to the HRC's influence."
"1792 Exchange's company ratings center around six criteria: ideologically driven cancellation, charitable work, employment policies, reputation, funding, and political action," continued DeVito. "The CEI touches on all of these."
When pressed for comment, Lockheed Martin referred Blaze News to its Jan. 23 statement, which claimed:
Merit-based talent management programs and compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and directives have always been central to this mission. We are taking immediate action to ensure continued compliance and full alignment with President Trump’s recent executive order. We will not have goals or incentives based on demographic representation or affirmative action plans. Additionally, our training offerings are compliant with Executive Order 13950 from President Trump's first administration.
The RTX Corporation was slapped with the same broad critiques as Lockheed Martin. A closer look revealed precisely why.
The company similarly rated high on the 2025 CEI partly because the company apparently "will not donate to non-religious charities unless they embrace controversial sexual identity policies"; requires employees to attend "multiple, controversial trainings on gender identity, sexual orientation, transgender issues, and divisive racial ideology"; covers medical transvestism costs for employees and their children; and publicly advocates for "controversial sex and gender ideology through local, state, or federal legislation or initiatives."
When pressed for comment, RTX directed Blaze News to a Jan. 24 company statement that said, "RTX is taking the necessary actions to comply with the presidential executive orders."
RELATED: Pride Month’s true competition? Faith, family, freedom
Both Boeing — whose executive compensation plan the 1792 Exchange claimed "devalued the weight of product and employee safety in its operational performance metrics, in order to include diversity, equity, and inclusion as a consideration" in recent years — and Northrop Grumman also scored 100% on the 2025 CEI, meaning that it likely jumped through many of the same hoops as other "high-risk" organizations.
Blaze News reached out to Boeing and Northrop Grumman as well as to top "high-risk" companies McKesson, Honeywell, Leidos, Optum360, and BAE Systems for comment.
Northrop Grumman directed Blaze News to another months-old statement indicating that work was under way to ensure the company was in compliance with the president's executive orders.
"We are actively reviewing our policies and processes and taking the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the presidential executive orders for the work entrusted to us," said the Northrop Grumman statement. "Underpinned by our values, we hire, promote, and pay based on merit and performance, resulting in the best team to deliver for our customers."
A company spokesperson for BAE Systems told Blaze News, "As a federal contractor, we continuously evaluate our policies and programs to ensure continued compliance with all applicable legal requirements, including executive orders, and we will continue to hire, promote, and compensate based on merit."
The other companies did not respond by publication time.
The 1792 Exchange has invited any companies on its list to submit corrections to the data if they have taken meaningful steps to comply with Trump's executive orders.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Stop trying to segregate the American founding
Race relations in the United States have unraveled in recent years, not only because of genuine disagreement, but because many Americans now grow up believing the nation is fundamentally unjust — racist to the core, perhaps even irredeemable.
This idea, once fringe, now enjoys institutional backing. Critical race theory and DEI ideology assert that the U.S. was founded on slavery and white supremacy. And they dominate schools, corporations, and government agencies alike.
Don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t divide what should unite us.
As a result, America has seen a quiet comeback of sanctioned segregation. Colleges increasingly host race-based graduation ceremonies. Society encourages people to define themselves first by racial identity, not shared citizenship. That should alarm anyone who once marched for equal rights in the 1950s and ’60s.
When Americans stop thinking of each other as fellow citizens, the glue that holds the republic together dissolves.
Juneteenth and the new segregation
Consider one example of this trend: the push for a separate “independence day” for black Americans.
On June 17, 2021, Joe Biden signed Senate Bill 475 into law, establishing a new federal holiday: “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” The bill commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Texas and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that slaves in the state had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation — two years after it was signed.
Former slaves in Texas celebrated, and in the years that followed, Juneteenth spread across the South. But it never held central importance in the broader civil rights movement.
Juneteenth did not abolish slavery. It merely marked the day slaves in one state learned they had been legally freed. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in 1863, applied only to states in rebellion — excluding Union-supporting border states like Kentucky and Delaware, where slavery remained legal until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.
A false independence narrative
Some activists now argue that Juneteenth should serve as “Black Independence Day.” That’s a mistake.
This view implies that African Americans have no rightful claim to the Fourth of July or to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But those ideas belong to all Americans — not just the descendants of the signers.
It’s true that many historical figures sought to exclude black Americans from the promise of the Declaration. Chief Justice Roger Taney made that argument explicit in the Dred Scott decision. Confederates like Alexander Stephens and John C. Calhoun claimed that “all men are created equal” never applied to African Americans.
They were wrong.
What Frederick Douglass really believed
Some cite Frederick Douglass’ famous 1852 speech — “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” — to support the idea that black Americans should reject the founding. But they ignore the full context.
Douglass, speaking two years after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, condemned the hypocrisy of a country that declared liberty while tolerating bondage. “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” he asked. “A day that reveals to him ... the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”
But unlike Taney, Stephens, and Calhoun, Douglass didn’t reject the Declaration. He upheld it.
RELATED: Frederick Douglass: American patriot
Douglass took hope from the principles it proclaimed and called on America to live up to them. He dismissed the Garrisonian claim that the Constitution was pro-slavery. “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”
He believed America’s founding held the moral resources to defeat slavery — and it did.
The universal promise of 1776
America’s founders didn’t invent slavery; they merely inherited it. At the time of the Revolution, slavery was a global institution, practiced on every continent and defended by every empire. Slavery, including African slavery, was a manifestation of the argument of the Athenians at Melos as recounted by Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Even Africans sold fellow Africans into slavery.
The Declaration of Independence marked a sharp break from that past. It asserted that all human beings possess natural rights — and that no one may rule another without consent.
Thomas Jefferson famously observed that humanity had long been divided into those born "booted and spurred” and those “born with saddles on their backs.” The founders rejected that model. They established a republic based on equality before the law, not the interests of the stronger over the weaker.
They also knew slavery contradicted those ideals. Many believed the institution would die out — an Enlightenment relic destined for extinction. Still, the political compromises they made to preserve the Union allowed slavery to persist, and it took a war to end it.
Why the founding still matters
The Civil War was not a rejection of the founding. It was a fulfillment of it.
As Harry Jaffa wrote, “It is not wonderful that a nation of slaveholders, upon achieving independence, failed to abolish slavery. What is wonderful ... is that a nation of slaveholders founded a new nation on the proposition that ‘all men are created equal,’ making the abolition of slavery a moral and political necessity.”
The Declaration of Independence lit the fuse that ultimately destroyed slavery.
So let Americans celebrate Juneteenth — gratefully, joyfully, and historically. Let the holiday recall the biblical jubilee it was meant to evoke.
But don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t segment America’s founding. Don’t divide what should unite us.
As Douglass said: “I would not even in words do violence to the grand events, and thrilling associations, that gloriously cluster around the birth of our national independence.”
He went on: “No people ever entered upon the pathway of nations, with higher and grander ideas of justice, liberty and humanity than ourselves.”
Douglass understood something too many have forgotten: The genius of the American founding lies not in who it excluded but in the promise that, one day, it would include everyone.
Why I won’t celebrate Juneteenth as a federal holiday
Expect a wave of corporate media pieces today, all aiming to elevate Juneteenth’s importance in the American consciousness. These articles are sanctimonious, astroturfed exercises in progressive virtue signaling — gaslighting the public into believing Juneteenth deserves equal or even greater recognition than the Fourth of July.
But Juneteenth neither marks the beginning of slavery nor its end. Activists have hijacked the holiday to undermine the moral clarity of Independence Day.
Juneteenth has been weaponized to fracture America’s identity through deception and denigration.
Juneteenth commemorates the day Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Texas on June 19, 1865, to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation and declare the end of slavery in the state. Early celebrations called it “Jubilee Day,” marking the delayed but welcome fulfillment of the Constitution’s promise and the Declaration’s revolutionary spirit — at least in Texas.
For decades, Juneteenth remained a Texas tradition. It held official status as a state holiday for 41 years and an unofficial one since 1866. But in recent years, radical activists have repurposed it as a tool to advance a racialist rewrite of American history.
A ‘George Floyd’ holiday
Before George Floyd's death in 2020, few progressives were even aware of Juneteenth's existence. But after Black Lives Matter-led riots caused over $1.5 billion in property damage and left at least 20 dead, the left seized the cultural moment. Activists bullied lawmakers into submission — both figuratively and literally.
That year, members of Congress knelt in kente cloth as a gesture of obedience. The Pentagon renamed military bases to satisfy a new moral order. Corporations slapped critical theory slogans on products. The so-called “black national anthem” was played at sporting events, eclipsing the actual national anthem.
And then came the crowning gesture: the creation of a new federal holiday. Juneteenth became the woke sacrament, signaling America’s supposedly unending racism.
It was ludicrous then. It’s borderline insane now.
Juneteenth is Texan — and that’s all
Texas has every right to honor Juneteenth. The holiday commemorates the fulfillment of America’s founding ideals and the abolition of one of humanity’s most enduring evils. But beyond Texas, it holds no national significance.
Juneteenth doesn’t fall on the date of the Emancipation Proclamation. It doesn’t mark the actual end of slavery in the United States. Activists howl in protest, but the truth remains: Juneteenth has been repurposed to challenge and eventually replace Independence Day.
Most of the people writing solemn op-eds about Juneteenth don’t know its history — and they don’t care. What they do care about is creating a “new” Independence Day, one that fits a progressive narrative. Its placement on the calendar — just weeks before July 4 — is no accident.
This is part of the left’s long march through American institutions. National holidays shape national identity. And Juneteenth now functions as a tool to fracture that identity under the guise of moral progress.
Under the Biden administration, some military installations flew flags calling Juneteenth “National Independence Day.” The Department of Defense distributed official guidance using that exact phrase. Nikole Hannah-Jones, architect of the historically illiterate “1619 Project,” uses Juneteenth to promote her claim that America’s true founding began with the arrival of African slaves, not the signing of the Declaration.
Divide, rewrite, replace
As a former Marine and combat veteran, I recognize these tactics: divide and conquer, rewrite and replace. They follow a playbook.
Juneteenth’s federal recognition aims not to celebrate American emancipation but rather to distract from the actual Independence Day. The broader goal is to erode national unity and advance a Marxist agenda: divide Americans by race, replace shared history with grievance, and erase what came before.
RELATED: We should scrap Juneteenth, aka George Floyd Day, for a holiday commemorating America’s 1865 rebirth
I lived in Texas for many years. I’ll celebrate Juneteenth as a Texas holiday. The end of slavery deserves celebration. I would even support a national holiday that commemorates the abolition of slavery, honestly.
But I won’t join in the farce that Juneteenth represents America’s independence. Too many Americans gave their lives to preserve our constitutional republic and the revolutionary idea that all men are created equal and endowed by God with unalienable rights.
Independence Day remains the foundation of this nation. It paved the way for emancipation, the defeat of fascism, the collapse of communism, and the rise of the most prosperous country in world history.
The radical left understands this. That’s why it has targeted Juneteenth as a cultural wedge. Leftists expect Americans to bow at the altar of wokeness and pretend not to notice. And if we object, they call us pro-slavery.
I reject that lie.
I refuse to bend the knee to a movement that seeks to destroy everything good and true about this country. The stakes are too high — and the truth is too important to surrender.
Trump reparations would be Dems’ biggest loss since the GOP took their slaves away
Donald Trump has a rare chance this Juneteenth to deliver Democrats their most painful political blow in 160 years.
The man hailed by supporters as a master dealmaker could throw the American system into upheaval by proposing a “MAGA-vellian” reparations plan — a bold mix of populist theater and strategic ruthlessness.
If Trump launched the MAGA Fund, he wouldn’t just rewrite political norms — he’d cement his place as the most disruptive figure in modern American history.
Call it the MAGA Democrat Slavery Compensation Fund.
This plan wouldn’t just shake up Washington. It would redraw the partisan map and deal a death blow to the race-peddling civil rights industry by exposing the fraud at the core of progressive politics. And coming from a president who has vowed to restore Confederate base names, the MAGA Fund would remind voters which party fought to keep slavery alive.
Timing is everything.
Trump acknowledged Juneteenth in his first term and pledged to make it a federal holiday during the 2020 campaign. Biden signed it into law in 2021, but the effort quickly became partisan theater. Critics said Democrats only embraced the holiday after the George Floyd riots, hoping to appease Black Lives Matter activists.
Candace Owens called Juneteenth “sooo lame” and “ghetto.” Charlie Kirk dismissed it as a “CRT-inspired federal holiday” meant to compete with Independence Day.
But now that Trump’s back in the White House — more popular among black voters than any Republican since the 1960s — he’s well-positioned to pull off a maneuver that could rattle his ideological base and neutralize his fiercest critics.
The MAGA Fund would benefit only the descendants of American slaves — not black immigrants, not “people of color,” and not members of the ever-expanding LGBTQIA+ rainbow coalition. It would expose the cynical way Democrats — whose party symbol is a donkey — have used black Americans as political mules for every new “civil rights” cause since the 1960s.
Duke economist Sandy Darity estimates full reparations would cost $10 trillion. The MAGA Fund? Just $855 billion. It would draw from corporate donations — a logical move, since more than 1,000 companies pledged more than $200 billion to “racial justice” causes in 2020.
The MAGA Fund would also weaponize the left’s favorite buzzword: equity.
Progressives insist policies must favor the disadvantaged. Why not apply that within the black community? Under this plan, Oprah Winfrey and LeBron James wouldn’t get the same payout as a Mississippi man working three jobs or a single mom raising four kids in the inner city.
Here’s how it would work:
- Black households earning over $100,000 (about 25% of the total) would receive a symbolic $345, referencing the 345 years between the arrival of African slaves in 1619 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Households earning $50,000 to $100,000 (roughly 30%) would receive $34,500.
- Families under $50,000 (about 45%) would receive $103,500.
The MAGA Fund would channel the populist energy dominating the right. It would highlight how Democrats, backed by elite institutions, claim to represent the oppressed while serving the powerful. It would force them to either support Trump’s plan or explain why the party of “equity” opposes targeted aid to poor black Americans.
RELATED: Like Black Lives Matter, DEI must die
Even critics like Ann Coulter might back the idea. She’s blasted Democrats for extending black reparations programs to every new “oppressed” group. She’s also listed the conditions under which she’d support reparations.
Of course, Republicans would need to manage their white working-class base. Conservative pundits would rage. But behind closed doors, they could frame the plan as a final settlement — a way to declare the race debate closed. The race hustlers would need a new line of work after Trump stamped the national debt to black Americans “Paid in Full.”
And it wouldn’t just be symbolic.
Put nearly a trillion dollars into circulation and watch what happens. Dave Chappelle joked in a 2003 sketch that reparations would send gold prices soaring, phone bills plummeting, and “8,000 new record labels” starting within an hour. The skit played off stereotypes — but behind the comedy was economic truth.
Studies of universal basic income show recipients typically spend on essentials like food and transportation. A Washington, D.C., program gave low-income moms $10,800. One woman used $6,000 to take her kids and their father to Miami. You don’t need a PhD to know that pumping money into poor communities stimulates demand.
If Trump launched the MAGA Fund, he wouldn’t just rewrite political norms — he’d cement his place as the most disruptive figure in modern American history. Who else but a twice-divorced real estate mogul and ex-Democrat could overturn Roe, win over evangelicals, survive two impeachments and an assassin’s bullet — and then sign big, beautiful reparations checks with a smile?
Will it happen? Probably not.
Politics is too polarized. Corporations would recoil at helping Trump. Professional race merchants would denounce the plan as pandering. The left would lose its mind. The right might lose its nerve.
Still, if the last decade taught voters anything, it’s this: Never bet against the Teflon Don.
Coco Gauff: ‘I’m proud to represent the Americans that LOOK like me’
Coco Gauff has become the first American woman to win the French Open since Serena Williams, but her press interview that followed left those patriotic Americans who supported her — but maybe don’t see the world the same way she does — feeling a little less than inspired.
“Obviously, there’s a lot going on in our country right now,” Gauff said, before explaining that she feels like “a representation” of “people that look like” her in America. She went on to say that those who look like her “maybe don’t feel as supported during this time period” and that her win can be a “reflection of hope and light for those people.”
“After the election, everything, it kind of felt down period a little bit and things like that, and my mom told me during Riyadh, ‘Just try to win the tournament just to give something for people to smile for,’ and so that’s what I was thinking about today when holding that and then seeing the flags in the crowd,” she continued.
“Some people may feel some type of way about being patriotic and things like that, but I’m definitely patriotic, I’m proud to be American, and I’m proud to represent the Americans that look like me and people who kind of support the things that I support,” she added.
BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock and BlazeTV contributor Steve Kim are among those Americans feeling a little less inspired by her win after her press interview.
“Let me just say this as someone that’s always proud to be an American, not a Korean American, not an Asian American, an American American,” Kim tells Whitlock. “I believe that she’s paying the guilt tax, that if you are proud to be an American and you’re a POC, the darker you are, you are expected to have some guilt and expected to do some finger wagging.”
“There’s a pressure, to number one, feel some guilt. Number two, with that expected guilt, to then point the finger at America, claim some sort of oppression, whether there is or not, and you just can’t be proud to represent this great country,” he adds.
“I like your guilt tax,” Whitlock agrees. “But it’s also part of holding onto your black authenticity. And so, to really be black, you have to wag a finger at America, or you’re not really black. You have to be a victim.”
Want more from Jason Whitlock?
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Supreme Court victory: DEI is dead
The left has claimed that it’s impossible to be racist against any majority group for years, and unfortunately, as DEI has gone mainstream, those in power have seemed to agree.
That is, they’ve agreed until now.
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who had twice lost positions to gay employees. The New York Times reports that the woman claimed “an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.”
“Who you have sex with, you can’t discriminate based on that, you can’t discriminate based on the color of your skin,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales explains. “I wish that they would add political party to that, because we all know there’s nothing worse than a Democrat who is discriminating against conservatives.”
“They do it all the time,” she adds.
BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden points out that being racist toward majority groups is still worded as “reverse discrimination.”
“I know, and that’s the irony of it all. Just discrimination. There’s no reverse racism,” Gonzales agrees.
“It was always dumb,” BlazeTV contributor Eric July chimes in. “Discrimination is discrimination, racism is racism or what have you now. My argument on this is that there shouldn’t even be any laws that are against any of that stuff.”
“Let people do with their private property whatever the hell they want. If that means discriminating against me because I’m black, put a sign out there, I don’t give a s**t. I know not to give you any money,” he adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Democrats’ KJP About-Face Shows How Leftists Use Identity Politics To Silence Critics
There once was a time when leftists viewed Biden White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as a “trailblazing” figure who possessed the unique “talent” necessary to field softball questions from sycophantic “reporters.” But now that she’s (supposedly) trading in her Democrat Party badge, some of these figures are suddenly willing to acknowledge that Ms. Incompetence […]Davis: SCOTUS Needs To Extend Reverse Discrimination Ban To Schools, Not Just Workplaces
'You can't say that it's OK to discriminate against someone because they're white, but not OK because they're black. We all know it's wrong.'School board tells teachers 'family' is a white supremacist term
A school board distributed the teachings of a faculty member who was hired through a race-based initiative to tell staff that families are a product of white supremacy.
The faculty member, Dr. Laura Mae Lindo, focuses her research on "addressing social justice" and was hired at a local university through what is known as a "black hiring cluster." The "equity-based" hiring initiative was for black and "Indigenous" people only, with Lindo being one of 10 ethnicity-based hires.
Given Dr. Lindo's past discourses on "race in comedy" and the "whiteness" of philosophy, her teachings on families should come as no surprise.
'The erasure of the family structure has objectively been a net negative for society.'
Internal training documents obtained by True North reporter Melanie Bennet showed that not only were staff at the Waterloo Region District School Board in Ontario, Canada, given materials that said "family" is a white supremacist term but also that ideas like "objectivity" and a "sense of urgency" are part of a white supremacist culture, as well.
The Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation distributed slides to district employees containing Lindo's curious wisdom, which said:
"Biases are the socialized teachings of the white culture," and "we use key words and phrases to promote the dominant culture."
RELATED: 'Gotta keep it quiet': Dean of students who kept DEI alive at UNC reaps the whirlwind
The word "family" puts males in an authority position, the document said, while a "nuclear family structure" is not the same for everyone, and therefore the term should not be used.
According to the report, another slide asserts that if one is to ask for evidence for claims of racism, this is simply a "characteristic of whiteness" that must be dismantled, as is acknowledging that racism against white people exists.
A slide titled "unpacking whiteness" listed a series of terms as "characteristics of white supremacy culture."
Those terms included: individualism, the right to comfort, worship of the written word, defensiveness, paternalism, and the fear of open conflict.
The source who provided the indoctrination materials chose to remain anonymous but provided a quote to Juno News about the staff's reaction.
"Teachers just want to get on with their job of teaching," the source said. "Ideology — if you will — is just something many teachers acknowledge as being present. They just want to get on with their jobs."
RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem
Reporter Natasha Biase, who lives near the region where the materials were distributed, called it "mind boggling" that educators are pushing such detrimental materials on children.
Biase told Blaze News, "The erasure of the family structure has objectively been a net negative for society, and we haven't even seen its full impact yet. Parents need to step in and stand up for their children by pushing back against this nonsense."
According to the insider who provided the documents, staff members have to "be careful" about who they share their training information with. They also said it was unclear how many staff members agreed or disagreed with the material.
"Whether [anyone within the administration] believes it or not is anyone's guess," the source added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com