EEOC Chair, VP Vance Urge White Men to Sue Over Discrimination
“Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws.”
Last week, Compact published a widely read article titled The Lost Generation, examining the effects of DEI initiatives on white men over the past decade. The piece was written by an aspiring Hollywood screenwriter who, in 2016, believed he and his writing partner, both of whom were white, were on the brink of a career breakthrough. A showrunner had informed them that their pilot script had been submitted to the network executive in charge — who “loved” it and “wanted to hire us” to join the show’s writers’ room.
Those hopes were soon dashed. The executive, who was white, later apologetically explained, that the writers’ room was small and that the higher-level writers were all white men. An all–white-male room, he said, was not possible. Perhaps, if the show were renewed for another season, they might be considered then.
The article in Compact Mag about "The Lost Generation" is right-on in almost all ways, something we have been documenting and challenging for many years @CriticalRaceOrg and @ProtectionEqual, but misplaces blame mostly on white male Boomer executives and professors – certainly… https://t.co/IbkSKCB9TY
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) December 18, 2025
Last Wednesday, Vice President J.D. Vance shared the article in a post on X, writing, “A lot of people think ‘DEI’ is lame diversity seminars or racial slogans at NFL games. In reality, it was a deliberate program of discrimination primarily against white men. This is an incredible piece that describes the evil of DEI and its consequences.”
A lot of people think "DEI" is lame diversity seminars or racial slogans at NFL games. In reality, it was a deliberate program of discrimination primarily against white men. This is an incredible piece that describes the evil of DEI and its consequences:https://t.co/fMiIfvz0qz
— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 17, 2025
Elon Musk weighed in on Vance’s post, calling DEI “a great wrong.”
But it was Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas’s response to Vance’s post that made liberals’ heads explode: In a brief video, she urged white men who believe they’ve been discriminated against to report their stories to her agency.
Lucas asked, “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the @USEEOC as soon as possible.” She encouraged them to visit the EEOC website to read “our one-page explainer about DEI-related discrimination.”
Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?
You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the @USEEOC as soon as possible.The EEOC is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating ALL race… pic.twitter.com/BYjbld5zdv
— EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas (@andrealucasEEOC) December 17, 2025
Lucas also responded to Vance’s post directly: “Absolutely right @JDVance. And precisely because this widespread, systemic, unlawful discrimination primarily harmed white men, elites didn’t just turn a blind eye; they celebrated it. Absolutely unacceptable; unlawful; immoral. @USEEOC won’t rest until this discrimination is eliminated.”
On Thursday evening, Lucas doubled down on her remarks:
The gaslighting surrounding what DEI initiatives have entailed in practice ends now. We can’t attack and remedy a problem if we refuse to call it out for what it is — race or sex discrimination — or acknowledge who is harmed.
The EEOC’s doors are open to all, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects everyone, including white men.
The Associated Press reported:
Since being elevated to acting chair of the EEOC in January, Lucas has been shifting the agency’s focus to prioritize “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” aligning with President Donald Trump’s own anti-DEI executive orders. Trump named Lucas as the agency’s chair in November.
Earlier this year, the EEOC along with the Department of Justice issued two “technical assistance” documents attempting to clarify what might constitute “DEI-related Discrimination at Work” and providing guidance on how workers can file complaints over such concerns. The documents took broad aim at practices such as training, employee resource groups and fellowship programs, warning such programs — depending on how they’re constructed — could run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and gender.
Those documents have been criticized by former agency commissioners as misleading for portraying DEI initiatives as legally fraught.
Apparently, it’s never dawned on the Left that discrimination against white people was even possible. Their reactions to Lucas’s public outreach have been highly critical.
The Associated Press reached out to David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University School of Law, who said, “Lucas’s latest social media posts demonstrate a ‘fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI is.'”
He continued, “It’s really much more about creating a culture in which you get the most out of everyone who you’re bringing on board, where everyone experiences fairness and equal opportunity, including white men and members of other groups.”
Naturally, Glasgow said he was unaware of “any kind of systematic evidence that white men are being discriminated against.”
After noting that “Fortune 500 CEOs are overwhelmingly white men, and that relative to their share of the population, the demographic is overrepresented in corporate senior leadership, Congress, and beyond,” he added, “If DEI has been this engine of discrimination against white men, I have to say it hasn’t really been doing a very good job at achieving that.”
The Associated Press also spoke to Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair who found Lucas’s singling out of one demographic group “unusual” and “problematic.” According to Yang, “It suggests some sort of priority treatment. That’s not something that sounds to me like equal opportunity for all.”
Yang argued that the EEOC “has done the opposite for transgender workers, whose discrimination complaints have been deprioritized or dropped completely.”
She said it worries her that “a message is being sent that the EEOC only cares about some workers and not others.”
What Lucas’s critics ultimately reveal is not a flaw in her argument, but an unwillingness to confront an uncomfortable reality: anti-discrimination law cannot function if certain groups are treated as categorically incapable of being victims.
Title VII does not carve out exceptions based on political fashion, and equal opportunity cannot mean selective enforcement. By insisting that race- and sex-based exclusion is wrong no matter who is targeted, Lucas is not dismantling civil-rights protections — she is reaffirming their original purpose. The backlash she faces only underscores how necessary her clarity has become. If equal protection under the law is to mean anything, it must apply to everyone, even when acknowledging that fact unsettles long-held assumptions on the Left.
"WE'VE BEEN SOLD A LIE": The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is urging white males to report possible workplace discrimination caused by DEI. In the #BigCloseUp @andrealucasEEOC reveals how the EEOC is protecting workers' rights. What do you think about DEI initiatives? pic.twitter.com/h57uMIaOCR
— The Big Weekend Show (@BigWeekendShow) December 22, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They absolutely should. Make the marxists play by their own damn rules.
The delicious thing about this is that the most likely defendants are the most deserving: HR departments, tenured social science professors, Hollywood grandees, and all their enablers. Should be quite the show to watch.
It would be interesting to track what now happens with all the DEI consultants and corporate departments.
Where will they end up? They will not convert from their obsession after their reign in power.
I’d expect growth in mandatory consciousness raising sessions stressing the importance of not discriminating, and a new growth industry for DEI types.
“apologetically explained, that the writers’ room was small and that the higher-level writers were all white men. An all–white-male room, he said, was not possible.”
And why? Could it have been because the exec was “self-censoring,” fearing retribution from administrations which for at least the past 40 years would happily have crucified him on the altar of “disparate impact?” The “guidelines,” that I’m not saying were quotas, but… they were quotas.
And now suddenly the rules have changed 180° because there’s a new sheriff in town?
I’m not choosing to defend this executive, just to make you realize that he might, in fact, be worth defending.
This might be another case of chasing flipflop government rules — like the southern shopkeepers who were ripped out of a society in which serving black customers was forbidden by law, and plunged into a new one in which serving black customers was mandatory by law, without ever passing through a society where anybody gave a damn about their preferences as free men to do whichever they pleased.
Although a private citizen has a right to discriminate with regard to his personal associations, there are damn few actual “private” businesses. Most are licensed by the government. When a business owner has a government license, he must play by government rules. This means serving whoever has the money to buy what’s being sold, unless the government specifically allows/requires a particular exclusion (such as an age limit for purchase of cigarettes).
Not making a judgment on this situation. But it’s the situation whether I like it or not.
And who says you have to obtain a license from government just to make a living? That’s stinkin’ thinkin’ from day one.
While I agree with your premise, it shows how the government inserted itself into private business by mandating a license issued by the state to conduct that business.
Just because the government issues me a driver’s license does not mean that I am a government employee. Why should the issuance of a license make a business a government entity?
Government makes rules for crossing the street, when to cross the street, where to cross the street. That should not make everyone subjects and serfs to the government.
Amen.
An ordinance which… makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.
–SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM AL, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
The acceptance of a license under state law does not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or any regulations prescribed by state authorities that are repugnant to the Constitution of the US.
–US WW CARGILL CO V. MINNESOTA EX REL RR&W COMM, 180 US 452
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’
–MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
This isn’t correct. It doesn’t matter whether your business needs a license; you are not required to serve all comers, and may refuse a customer for any reason or none at all, except for those reasons specifically forbidden by law.
Sure that’s true yet in the real world if you annoy the ruling class by asserting your rights the zoning variance you applied for may mysteriously become repeatedly lost, the meter maid might be extra vigilant enforcing on street parking in front of your business.
Good luck finding an attorney that will take the case.
Not a lot of David’s willing to take on the Goliaths. At best you can show a chink in your “white privileged career”
“Naturally, Glasgow said he was unaware of ‘any kind of systematic evidence that white men are being discriminated against.'”
This guy sounds like he shouldn’t be in charge of a ham sandwich, much less any part of a law school.
IANAL but even I know that ‘systematic’ discrimination is not required to break Title VII. In fact, exactly one instance of discrimination based on any race for any position in the country, including ditch digger, is sufficient to justify a civil violation of the law.
I hope tens of thousands of men sue
Hell, as a white woman I can tell you, if a black woman gets in a position of authority, you’ll never see a white woman promoted by her again, at least not in the health fields, HR and many offices.
Look into any government agency in Washington DC. There are many departments that are structured just as you describe.
I anticipated this development when she came on board in January but my complaint, though rock solid, was stonewalled. These commission and agency heads do not seem to really control the day-to-day activities of their minions.
Here’s the thing.
Gen X has been screaming about this for decades. They too, wrote articles about it.
And they did it WHILE millennial males were still happily spreading DEI from their cushy college lives.
And here they are AGAIN, whining about something they were warned was going to happen as if they’re the only ones it happens to.
But it gets better.
Read it. Read into it.
They don’t really want DEI gone– diversity is a strength after all– they want an exception made for THEM, for millennial males of the white persuasion because they’re the good ones.
But they’re not. None of us are. Not to DEI. Not to the left.
Why?
Because they can do this to us and we’ll keep working–because things HAVE to get done.
Ayn Rand saw this. It’s the point of Atlas Shrugged.
They treat us like crap and they can keep treating us like crap because we’ll keep trying to make the world work
For them.
You’re not special. You’re getting screwed like we all are– all white men.
And it’ll keep happening until we stop.
Take our toys and go home.
“Take our toys and go home.”
A woman got hired to fill the position I expect to promote into when the incumbent retired.
A few months later, I inherited more than I expected to from my Mom, became eligible to retire, and also to collect Social Security, so I left and it took two people to replace me.
“Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws.”
“Operators are standing by! Call this number NOW:
[entirely different voice] One, eight-eight-eight…”
(Yes, I watch a lot of 1:00 AM TV.)
When I graduated from college I went for an interview with The Forest Service for a position as a wildlife biologist. I was told flat out by 2 really nice guys that despite being the most qualified who walked in the door, being a Vet, graduating Summa Cum Laude and having the most intern experience in the field of anyone that walked in they couldn’t hire me because I was a white male in my 20’s and they had to hire women and minorities. I thanked them for telling me why. Sucked for sure.
Leave a Comment