today homela security secretaries christie noem mr. address employees after her confirmation and it is on the detainment and deportation of undocumented might go grts. we will have the full remarks at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. beg swap on the free c-span now video app or c-span.org. listening it programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker to play and listen to "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m., important public affairs events and catch washington today andisten any time. tell the smart speaker play c-span radio. created by cable.

c-span democracy unfiltered we're funded by these cable companies and more. cox is there to help bringing affordable internet it families in need, new tech it boys and girls clubs. everywhere and wherever it matters most we will be there. >> cox supports c-span with these other television providers giving you a fronts row seat to democracy. >> joining us now was my can solace from the heritage foundation. ograms. good morning to you. guest: good morning. great to be on with you. host: talk about the heritage foundation. from your perspective in the eei space, what is your perspective on it? guest: we are a conservative

think tank that formulate policies. one of the things that we do and one part of the process is to oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion. these words sound very mom and apple pie. who could be against diversity, equity, and inclusion? we have concluded that as they are now included -- interpreted, it means the opposite diversity means quotas that are illegal. equity is the functional opposite of equality. you have to treat the government and private sector, individual americans different we depending on their race. inclusion means language codes. if i wear a cap that says jesus saves to a mall, i could be thrown out in the name of inclusion. that's not inclusive language. that's the reason we chose to oppose these policies. for many other reasons as well, but i wanted to explain that. how could anyone be against it? for that reason. host: are there any government programs that practice what you

just said? guest: anything that requires -- all of -- anything that requires federal contractors to require or show that they have di trainings, that they hire, that they hire or promote preferentially on race or sex, any of these things. by the way, all of these things are illegal. in the federal government throughout the last four years, one of the first thing biden did was sign an executive order, 13589, which really spread diversity and inclusion throughout all the federal governments, doing all of these things that are illegal and i would add immoral. host: this is not a new concept as far as programs are concerned when it comes to the federal government. why focus on it so sharply now? guest: the reason for that is, yes, you are absolutely right,

these things have been building up over the last 10 years. since 2020, when we had the riots in the streets, biden gets elected behind that mayhem and covid-19, we had a huge push on the part of the comedy, the, the cultural gatekeepers in the corporate world and on the part of the biden administration because of executive order 13985. it said that all of the government, every agency and department must have a di program and enforce it, have an office and a director of di. -- d ei. that's the reason it was put on steroids. trump began to see some of this in september of 2020, just a few months before the election, two months before the election. he banned dei practices because

of what was happening in 2020. now he's gone back to the band. host: absent of those programs, how do you ensure that the government is diverse, equitable, and inclusive? guest: great question. one of the executive orders starts out by saying that we have civil rights laws that must be enforced. we have to treat every american with dignity. we have to hire on a colorblind and promote on a colorblind approach. we must actively enforce our nation's civil rights laws. everything is predicated on that. host: elaborate on that. guest: everything is predicated on the fact that we have a very robust set of civil rights structure and apparatus, that we have the civil rights act itself .

title vii. we have the 14th amendment of the constitution, saying that all americans must be treated and receive equal treatment under the law. if we apply that, if we make sure that the first use of affirmative action, the first use in the 40's, but not that, the first use by kennedy and 61 was an executive order that said that government contractors had to hire and promote without regard to race, without regard to race. we have to enforce that. the original meaning of affirmative action. it got turned around, unfortunately, post 65 into hiring and promoting with regard to race. host: you wrote a recent piece looking at the programs with a headline that said dei dei "the trump dismantling of his deeper

and bigger than you know." how so? guest: one of the things he did was rescind an executive order from lbj in 1965, 11246, which really said -- set the precedent for quotas. the executive order was signed only two months after lbj gave his howard commencement speech in which he turned around the meaning of civil rights from what i just said, hiring and promoting without regard to race to hiring and promoting with regard to race. it shows a degree of sophistication from the trump people that was not there at the beginning of the first term. i have come in and really done their homework. a colleague of mine has been writing extensively on 11246 and saying that anything done without rescinding this from

1965 will be for naught. lo and behold, in the trump order revoking dei, he revokes that. host: the labor department says that the executive order from lbj, september of 1965, establish requirements for nondiscriminatory practices in hiring and appointmentn e part of u.s. government contractor prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors who do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment decision on the base of national origin, religion, race, or sex. guest: it has been interpreted to mean quotas and is cited to mean quotas in the decades since. host: so, if that is gone, but make sure the principles stay the same? guest: we have the civil rights act, title vi, title vii. we cannot act -- we are a very diverse country, as evidenced by

you and i sitting here at this table. we cannot have the government act or make decisions based on race. this has happened under steroids under biden. this puts an end to that. enforce the civil rights act, enforce the constitution, the constitution of 1787, the only one we have. liberals like to think we have a living constitution. no, we have to live by that one, as it has been amended. well, it was amended after the civil war. the 14th amendment says all americans have to be treated with, you know, equal treatment under the law. we have to apply that. host: mike gonzalez of the heritage foundation joining us. he's their senior fellow. want to ask them questions about the programs, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 were republicans, and independents, (202) 748-8002 if you want to

text your comments or questions, do that at (202) 748-8003. the president talks about a merit-based approach. how does that work itself forward absent of the programs being eliminated or paused? guest: let's say for example university admissions. you admit people on the basis of their gpa, on the basis of their standardized tests, their sats, acts, on the degree of afterschool activities. they have demonstrated to have done. you admit that this person has the ability to do the academic work required at an institution of higher learning. because she has demonstrated in high school.

that is meritocracy. that is what all of us ask. we want to be, when we achieve something, we want to say i did that through my hard work. i didn't go to the party. i stayed home and did my homework. i really, i crunched the numbers. i deserve that job. i deserve that promotion. all americans have the right to claim that. i think we need to restore that. host: in the federal government can do the same, what about that? caller: guest: obviously -- guest: obviously, yes, the same thing is replicated to the federal government, through the private sector, a colorblind approach to does this person have the requirements to fulfill this job, is this person going to add value to my company? does he or she have the requirements to do right by the

american people in the case of the federal government? host: did you expect the president to enact so much in the first week? guest: no. i was elated. i expected dei, i actually expected it in education. i expected it to be all in. i don't think anybody expected 22 executive orders. no, 26, excuse me, in the first day. president bush, george w. bush did not issue a single executive order in his first or second term on his first day. barack obama issued i think two in his first day in first term. none in his second term. 22 is a record. i am glad to. they have been really crushing this in the transition. and before the transition. it shows a level of sophistication that really

differs from anything we have seen before in previous administrations, including the first trump term. this shows that they come in with experience and meaning to do business. host: let's hear from viewers. patricia, new jersey, democratic line, you are on with mike gonzales. heritage foundation. go ahead, please. caller: go ahead -- good morning, america. we've only had civil rights since the 60's. this is the reminder. all of the people who come to america have truly benefited from the fight. even from the 60's, the fight of natural, to make your life better, to make the life of other people come here better. even europeans from eastern europe, now. they lived great because of african americas fight. we do need some type of civil

rights being enforced. it's not happening, as we can see. thank you for letting me share. host: i think we need civil rights -- guest: i agree, we need civil rights enforce strongly. the federal government needs to make sure that all of the united states, anyone hiring or promoting by this structure that we have to make sure that americans are treated according to their ability and according to their actions, not according to some immutable characteristic they can do nothing about. these two are race and sex, immutable characteristics that you're born with. you cannot be judged on these traits. host: john, new mexico, republican line.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a first time caller. i've been watching the show quite a bit, like the last year. it's just beyond me, the gall of the democrats. i mean, the democrats, they were , they started off the backs of slaves. andrew jackson in mississippi. how come the democrats don't talk about their history. and then after the civil war, which the democrats were rebelling against america and wanted to start a new country of their own, i mean, how -- i am so sad that my country has devolved. host: ok, that's john in new mexico. guest: you don't have to go back to jefferson davis. the democrats of the previous

administration that just concluded january 20 violated the law in the sense that it is very plain that you cannot consider race or have racial quotas. the supreme court decided that in backing 1978, quotas were unconstitutional. all of the statutes i mentioned before made it clear that you cannot consider race in these decisions. it got to the point where "the new york times" called heritage in late 21 or early 22, i forget which, and said that the administration realizes that by having this raft of laws that are race based, it's violating the law and losing in the courts, so it's going to change the language. so, to do the same thing, that will change the language to serve those communities. they found euphemisms and continue doing it.

so yeah, i don't think that we have to go back to, too, to jefferson davis, awful as he was, disgusting as those democrats were, what we just saw it recently was bad enough. i agree with john. host: taking you back one week, hakeem jeffries spoke about the ceos targeting programs and he gave his perspective. i want to get your perspective on it. [video clip] >> diversity, equity, and inclusion are american values. it's about economic opportunity for everyone. we support merit for everyone. based on what you know, not who you know. the problem that seems to be unfolding is that there are some in this country who want an america of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the

billionaires. not for working-class americans. middle-class americans. or every day americans. a country of the billionaires, for the billionaires. diversity, equity, and inclusion are about economic opportunity for everyone. even if you are not wealthy, well off, or well-connected. these are values that everybody in this country should embrace. we are going to take this issue, working with the civil rights groups, head on. host: what's your assessment? guest: it was an outrageous comment. it reminded me, pedro, i told my colleague, andrew, in response to this, that it is outrageous they are now painting dei as mom and apple pie and part of the meritocracy.

it is the opposite of that. dei was the opposite -- it -- it -- it -- it promotes the opposite approach. you go back, dei is the operating system of a bunch of critical theories that emerged in the 80's and 90's. critical race, gender theory. all dei does is apply that. the trainings are a way to indoctrinate the country in the workplace or the schoolhouse into not liking the status quo, hating the status quo, hating history, hating the origin of america and adopting a completely different approach, a completely different race-based, race and sex-based preferential treatment, moral and dangerous, but now they are saying dei is about meritocracy. it's not. i can show you -- i didn't bring it with me -- reams of writings

by the pioneers of critical race theory in which they take issue with meritocracy. they say that meritocracy is a lie. that we cannot have a meritocracy and should not be seeking meritocracy. if that is the best they can do, we have the goods in the receipts. host: mike gonzalez of the heritage foundation, joining us. greg, north carolina, independent line, you are next up. caller: i'm a 21-year-old military veteran -- i'm a 21 year military veteran. you mentioned that there were riots in the street, but you omitted the fact that that was reaction from george floyd, giving the misleading perception of what he's speaking about to begin with. secondly, jim crow is a major reason for programs like dei, because of race-based hiring practices america was already participating in, which is insane for you to perceive it as

not being necessary now. lastly, dei practices trying to be implemented now, it takes away the ability for tuskegee airmen to be mentioned in air frace -- air force training, which my grandfather was one of. what is your response to that? guest: thank you for your service. you are quite wrong on several fronts. when you talk about the riots in 2020, i don't think that they were -- it was a manipulation of organizations founded by marxists who wanted to change the country and we had a great deal of violence for many months. you mentioned dei as a response to jim crow. no, this is a mistake that good-natured people, good americans of good will make

consistently. the response to jim crow was kennedy's original affirmative action executive order, 61, to say that the federal government and federal contractors will not anymore hire or promote with regard to race, ethnicity, or national origin. that was the original meaning of it. it was reversed in the years that followed. after lbj made comments with executive order 11246, and i want to make sure that i address the study of tuskegee. i believe that this is somebody inside, was the air force? host: yes. guest: somebody in the air force wants to sabotage this. just like librarians who are told not to have borne on the shelves will then ban romeo and

juliet to create a scandal and attract media attention, this is the same. whoever did that was probably sabotaging the intent of the order. yes, absolutely everybody should study what happened at tuskegee. host: recent reporting saying that the course that features the tuskegee airmen has been replaced. guest: of course. of course. i hope that person is talked to. host: the president when it comes to those employees involved in dei programs, reporting that those people should be laid off. what do you think of that step? guest: they will be put on unpaid leave, first. actually, i think that's, that's perfectly reasonable and what should happen. we will have a problem. a lot of them have studied really bad degrees.

ethnic studies, hispanic studies, gender studies, things that do not give you the skills to create value in the private sector or do right by the american people in the public sector. they have insane salary expectations. they are now going to be out there without their job. their job was, again, to repeat, illegal in many cases. illegal in many cases, creating a danger for the country. in my view, it was immoral. what happens to those people will be very interesting to follow. host: let's hear from bob in new york, democratic line, you are next, sir. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this di policy that you have was written into -- dei policy that you have was written into project 2025.

the man that wrote project 2025 is the head of the budget in this administration. my question to you is this, during the campaign many people here on this network had said that donald, president trump, had said that he had no association with this particular project. that he didn't know these particular people that put out this particular paper and that he was distancing himself from 2025. it's now in the playbook. my question to you is this -- did president trump, donald, lied to the american public during the campaign when he said he had no association with this particular program? host: bob, new york. guest: president trump speaks for himself. i don't pretend to speak for him or his administration. i wrote a chapter in project 2025 and it had nothing to do with dei -- well, it did,

tangentially, it was about dissolving pbs and c-span, which i think does a fantastic job. . i can tell you as a fact that the idea that i would have called anybody in the trump campaign or the transition to ask anything about what i was writing is ludicrous. they lie about us. they lie about the project. they lie about the intent of the project. they spend millions of it, for nothing, by the way, money they burned. no, i never, i wrote what i thought was right. i wrote according to my research . never called anybody to ask what they thought of it. host: randy, indiana, republican line. caller: i love the show, i kind

of have a perspective on the show. i am recently retired human resources. i can remember when we had to meet a quota for black, hispanic people in our office. it was very hard. there were times we had to overlook somebody who was well, but we had to change it for somebody else who was less qualified but because of the color of their skin. we had to do this every year. we got audited and it was ridiculous. my other side of this is two of my children are biracial and all through their school years i was always, i would always make a boxed, biracial, not black-and-white, but the school demanded and wanted me to put black because of more benefits. it benefits the school, it benefits this. when we got to college we had a long conversation, because they had to pay for college.

i told them, you do it however you want, this is up to you, but both of my children did not want to be in a victim boxed. they continued the biracial, this is what i am, you cannot make me choose one boxer the other. that probably costs them some grants and what have you. it has made people very upset. my kids, i always raised them, all of them. we are not victims, you will not be a victim. so that's just my kind of perspective on this. i just want to share that. again, thank you for taking my call. guest: brandy, thank you very much. you personify the tragedy of what we are discussing here. the fact that you had to hire people who were less qualified and not hire people who were, who met the qualifications, is a tragedy. it's a tragedy for all 330

million americans. we all benefit when the best people are doing their job. you know, when i, when i go on a bridge or go in a tunnel, i want that tunnel and that bridge to have been drawn and erected by architects and engineers who knew what they were doing. in fact, if that were not the case, i wouldn't want to go in that bridge or tunnel. hopefully, we could now go back to that kind of country. with regards to the way you raise your family, your children are extremely fortunate. you raise them right. the point that you make about wanting to write who they were, biracial, and the school saying no, that is a huge problem. you know, they say no, no, we will get all these benefits. we don't want to live in that kind of country. we don't want to live in that

type of country. i don't, and i don't know anybody, really, not anyone that i respect, who says to me, no, i do want things that i don't deserve because of my actions and my hard work, just merely because of a trait i had nothing to do with that i was born with. who really in the soles of their own bedroom believes that? thank you very much for your call. thank you very much for sharing your experience, which is very revealing. host: the latest executive order from the president targets transgender military members of the pentagon, saying that the order calls for the pentagon to update policies on medical or -- medical standards, stating that transgender people live in conflict with a disciplined and honorable lifestyle. guest: that was yesterday? i didn't take a look at that. it's not an area i don't -- i

lo