If you are interested in being a regular contributor for The Lens, please apply by clicking this link.
Last week’s response
Mischa Lan, 13, Po Leung Kuk Choi Kai Yau School
The recent lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore, alongside several organisations, against US President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes pinpoints critical concerns about the ramifications of dismantling such initiatives.
Trump’s campaign rhetoric targeted programmes designed to assist women, ethnic minorities and LGBTQ individuals in securing government jobs, framing them as unfair advantages.
However, civil rights advocates contend that these programmes are vital for addressing ongoing discrimination and serve as a deterrent against systemic inequities.
The lawsuit claims Trump’s actions represent an overreach of power that contests Congress’s exclusive control over federal spending.
Under-represented groups often rely on DEI initiatives for equitable access to job opportunities and resources. Without these programmes, systemic inequities may be amplified, resulting in a workforce that lacks diversity and inclusivity.
Moreover, the lawsuit says that Trump’s orders could harm free speech within institutions. Individuals and organisations may self-censor their advocacy for diversity by threatening penalties for supporting DEI initiatives.
The backlash against the dismantling of DEI programmes is largely justified.
Advocates argue that these initiatives are essential for correcting historical injustices and stimulating an inclusive environment reflecting core values of American justice.
As this legal dispute progresses, it is important to consider both the constitutional implications and the societal consequences. The outcome may determine whether diversity remains a priority in federal policies or is relegated to the past.
Read up on the issue in last week’s The Lens
Read and observe
When Sarah* told her supervisor at a security company that she was transitioning to become a woman, his immediate response was to use an expletive and ask if she had cut off her genitalia.
Sarah, a 29-year-old Singaporean, was then asked to wear a company shirt and track pants to work, remove her manicured nails and cut her hair, while her colleagues had no such dress code.
Sarah is one of around 65 per cent of transgender people who took part in a recent survey and said they had negative experiences in the workplace in Singapore.
Thirty six per cent had received comments and questions about their lifestyle, sexual orientation, gender identity or sex life.
The study findings come after Singapore passed a bill legislating against workplace discrimination. Firms found guilty of showing bias against protected characteristics, such as age, nationality, sex, race and disability, can be ordered by the court to pay a civil penalty.
During the parliamentary debate before the bill’s passage, MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party and opposition Workers’ Party took issue with how legal protections under the new law were not extended to individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Hareenderpal Singh, managing director of HRS Security Services, urged management to implement policies that would allow transgender workers not to feel discriminated against.
Aside from the workplace, the study looked at the treatment of transgender people in school. It found that 55.1 per cent of the respondents reported verbal abuse, 14.5 per cent encountered physical abuse, and 8.9 per cent experienced sexual abuse while in school.
* Name changed at interviewee’s request
Staff writers
Research and respond
-
Why do you think gender identity and sexual orientation were not included in the new workplace anti-discrimination law?
-
What steps can the Singaporean government and companies take to create a welcoming and inclusive environment for transgender and gender-fluid individuals?
