First, It Was DEI, Now SVI, And EI, All Spell “Whites Out”

If a Democrat or liberal utters the words equity or equitable, you can safely assume that those who were born white are about to be discriminated against. The left uses the term to replicate Robin Hood’s deeds, with the exception that the left justifies their robbery based on race.

The tale of Robin Hood, like every Democrat’s scheme, sounds noble. The idea of robbing the rich and giving to the poor sounds like an honorable thing to do, except if you think about it for more than a few seconds, you realize that nothing about it is virtuous.

Who’s to say that some or all of the rich in the story who are being robbed weren’t upstanding, wonderful people? On the other side of the equation, some of the poor may be worthless takers who contribute nothing redeemable to society, yet they are the ones who benefit from the hard work of others.

In the Democrats’ version, they’re not content to just take money. With DEI, they stifle careers and learning by ignoring merit and experience in the workplace and universities, replacing them with either skin color or sexual orientation. In the leftist universe, if you are a minority or, better yet, lying to yourself about your biological sex, hiring or admitting you looks better on the scorecard rather than a person who’s deserving.

In some respects, it seems paradoxical that President Trump recognizes the injustice of DEI while promoting the Social Vulnerability Index. Then again, liberals are great at turning something with good intentions into something racist and spiteful.

In a letter to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Acting Director Jim O’Neill of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) wrote:

“The CDC created the SVI as a tool to measure geographic “vulnerability” by calculating negative factors such as unemployment, poverty, inadequate housing, or poor educational outcomes. Currently, the SVI uses 16 U.S. Census variables to identify communities in need of support. Unfortunately, the SVI relies heavily on race: one of the four main categories in the SVI is “racial & ethnic minority status.” This turns an otherwise helpful measurement into a racialized DEI tool, steering benefits and programs to non-white neighborhoods based on the crude racial stereotype that all non-white people are “vulnerable.”

In a town named Hales Corner, which reminds me of Bedford Falls in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the Milwaukee County Parks Department has run a large, deep-water pool since 1968. The pool is one of the gems in the small town, but it has fallen into disrepair, and the cost for restoring it is around $600,000.

Given the pool’s history, it was surprising when a new “Aquatics Study” recommended closing the pool rather than repairing it. The sinister reason for this call is pure liberal reasoning; too many white people live there.

Since 90 percent of the population is white, it reduces its priority for repair. “Equity is a central consideration,” according to the department. “Consideration should be both user equity needs as well as equitable aquatic offerings.”

Translation: The left has another tool to justify their racism. 

The report makes clear that the “Equity Index” (EI) is the primary metric for these decisions. The EI is a mathematical formula that ranks every park in Milwaukee County, and, unsurprisingly, a significant part of the calculation is the racial composition of the surrounding area. Hence, parks in black neighborhoods score higher than parks in white neighborhoods. 

Similar to other predominantly white areas, the Hales Corners pool received a low ranking, ranking 128th out of 153 parks in Milwaukee County. It earned an “Equity Index” score of only 3 out of 10, indicating that the park should be deprioritized because of the village’s lack of diversity.

This type of excuse that allows the left to justify its bigotry spreads like wildfire throughout cities and states run by Democrats. Connecticut ranks drinking-water projects based on the SVI. California uses the SVI to determine which communities will receive disaster assistance grants. Arizona employs the SVI to decide where to allocate health-related grants. Cook County, Illinois, prioritizes broadband grants for communities with the highest SVI scores in the state. Additionally, residents in predominantly white neighborhoods in Boston may face challenges getting sidewalk repairs, as the city prioritizes safety spending based on the SVI scores of different areas.

These examples illustrate the widespread use of the CDC’s SVI, which enables a practice known as DEI redlining. This refers to prioritizing certain neighborhoods over others based on racial demographics while masking these decisions through geographic delineation.

Of course, all of this constitutes clear violations of the law. Using proxies for race, such as geographic location, is a form of racial discrimination. Attempting to balance spending or benefits based on race is also racial discrimination. Relying on racial stereotypes, like the idea that “all Black individuals are vulnerable,” is discriminatory as well. Furthermore, using race as a disadvantage for one group or an advantage for another is a form of racial discrimination. Cities, counties, and states are obligated to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, racial discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional, regardless of the claimed “equitable” intentions.

Race cannot be used to justify priority setting. The Trump administration must recognize this obvious oversight and correct it as soon as possible. Currently, WILL has five pending lawsuits against the administration concerning race-based policies. Other conservative legal groups have also taken action by suing the administration. Additionally, states, counties, and cities may face legal consequences if they continue to allocate funds based on the racial composition of specific neighborhoods.

The constitution requires that decisions on benefits and services be made on a colorblind basis. These policies are divisive and do nothing but widen the racial divide and stimulate resentment.