In the current political climate, it’s become increasingly common to witness the appointment of candidates who lack the requisite qualifications or who fundamentally oppose the objectives of their respective government departments. The Trump administration has seen a number of such appointments, including Ben Carson, who once expressed doubts about his qualifications for leading Housing and Urban Development; Betsy DeVos, lacking experience in education, as Secretary of Education; Rick Perry, who initially sought to eliminate the Energy Department, appointed as energy secretary; and Scott Pruitt, a known climate change skeptic, to oversee the Environmental Protection Agency.
However, the administration’s recent selection may be particularly notable. Betsy DeVos has appointed attorney Emily Carter to head the Office of Civil Rights, despite her limited background in civil rights law. Carter now oversees a staff of 550, tasked with investigating numerous civil rights complaints, and her role does not require Senate confirmation.
Carter is recognized for her opposition to initiatives designed to support students of color, her claims of experiencing discrimination due to her race, and her negative stance towards feminism. Additionally, she has referred to women alleging sexual assault against Donald Trump as “false accusers.”
Her history includes a strong animosity toward the Clintons, having previously organized for Bill Clinton’s accusers to appear at a presidential debate. Following her law school education, she worked with Judicial Watch, a conservative organization known for its persistent legal battles against the Clintons since the 1990s. Carter authored a book titled Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, critiquing what she perceives as an excessive focus on women and minorities. She argues that current sexual harassment laws fail to address the complexities of unwanted advances and fears they may lead to self-censorship among men.
In a stunning display of inconsistency, she labeled the women accusing Trump of misconduct as “fake victims,” asserting they were fabricating stories for political purposes. On social media, she claimed, “evidence is piling up that shows these recent accusers against Trump are, frankly, fake victims.” Ironically, part of her responsibilities include overseeing Title IX and sexual assault cases on college campuses.
Days before the presidential debate, she established the Their Lives Foundation, which purportedly aims to amplify the voices of victims of female abusers of power, though it seems her focus may primarily target those accusing Democratic figures. Carter has been vocally against affirmative action and other race-based support systems. She has previously expressed admiration for an economist who labeled the 1964 Civil Rights Act as “monstrous” and who opposed the concept of public education. She has also penned articles alleging discrimination against herself due to her race.
In her writings, Carter has criticized feminism, asserting in a college article that women today enjoy equal opportunities as men and that gender-based advocacy is regressive. She believes many women are inherently conservative but are led into feminism before discovering conservative ideals.
Given this track record, one might question the suitability of Emily Carter for leading the Office of Civil Rights. A piece in New York Magazine characterized her as someone with “two decades of dedicated service to undermining the mission of the office she now directs.” It seems she will fit right in with the broader trends of the Trump administration.
For those interested in exploring the intricacies of insemination and fertility, you might find valuable insights in our post about couples’ fertility journeys. Additionally, if you’re considering at-home options, check out BabyMaker’s home insemination kit, an authority on this topic. For comprehensive support on pregnancy matters, Mount Sinai offers excellent resources for those navigating infertility.
In summary, Emily Carter’s appointment as the head of the Office of Civil Rights raises significant concerns given her previous statements and actions that directly contradict the office’s mission. Her history of opposing civil rights initiatives and promoting controversial viewpoints suggests a troubling direction for the office under her leadership.
Leave a Reply