Project 2025 calls for establishing a government that would be imbued with “biblical principles” and run by a president who holds sweeping executive powers. Christian nationalism believes that the Christian Bible, as God’s infallible law, should be the basis of government and have primacy over public and private institutions. Its patriarchal view does not recognize gender equality or gay rights and sanctions discrimination based on religious beliefs. Also, supports the elimination of the Head Start childcare program despite the fact that for nearly six decades the program has helped low-income children and families with nutrition, education, and high-quality, affordable day care to prepare children for school and enable low-income parents to work. It recommends banning abortion, ensuring that only pro-life government policy prevails, and outlaws the mailing of abortion-inducing medication. The major means to bringing about such deep and lasting change is by eviscerating the federal civil service; loyalists would be hired in their place.1
The Scopes Monkey Trial, a 1925 event centered on the teaching of evolution in schools, is sometimes connected to discussions about DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) due to its historical context of religious fundamentalism versus scientific inquiry, which can be seen as a precursor to modern debates about diverse perspectives and inclusion. In 1925, John Scopes, a high school teacher in Tennessee, was put on trial for teaching evolution, violating the state’s Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of evolution and mandated the teaching of the biblical account of creation. The Scopes trial continues to resonate today because it raises questions about the role of science and religion in education, as well as the importance of diverse perspectives and critical thinking. The Scopes trial’s legacy can be used to advocate for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in education and society, ensuring that all voices are heard and that different viewpoints are respected.2
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people. The concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has roots in the social justice movements of the 1950s and 60s, particularly in the US, focusing on civil rights and combating discrimination based on race, gender, and other factors. Inclusion, as a core component of DEI, emphasizes creating environments where individuals feel valued, respected, and included, regardless of their background. DEI encourages organizations to welcome and promote a diversity of perspectives, actively empowering all individuals to make significant contributions. Project 2025 expresses a special contempt for the LGBTQ+ community. The Project outlines deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights.
The scientific foundation for DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives lies in understanding how diverse perspectives, inclusive environments, and equitable access to opportunities lead to better outcomes in various domains, including research, education, and the workplace. Diverse teams bring a wider range of experiences and perspectives, leading to more innovative solutions. Diverse perspectives can help identify and address problems more effectively. Inclusive environments create a sense of belonging and value, leading to higher employee engagement and retention. Diverse perspectives can help organizations make more informed and balanced decisions. DEI initiatives can help to address unconscious biases and create a more equitable environment for all. Diverse and inclusive organizations are better able to build strong relationships with the communities they serve. DEI initiatives can help to address systemic inequalities and create a more equitable society. Encouraging open dialogue and collaboration across different groups can help to build understanding and trust.3
On the other hand, “DEI became shorthand for something very complex,” explains Aisha Leach, Chief People Officer at The Last Mile. “It was treated as a quick fix – a way to signal values without grappling with the deep, systemic changes that true equity requires.” DEI initiatives face challenges including resistance to change, lack of accountability, and a focus on surface-level changes rather than addressing systemic issues. Many employees resist DEI initiatives, perceiving them as threatening to established organizational norms and processes. A culture that values homogeneity or is resistant to change can stifle DEI efforts, even if leaders are committed. Some DEI training programs focus on identifying unconscious biases but fail to provide actionable steps on how to address them. DEI efforts may focus on surface-level changes without addressing the underlying systemic issues that perpetuate inequality.
Some diversity efforts lost momentum after GOP President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s backed corporate deregulation policies asserting companies should address discrimination internally, Hollins said. Then, George Floyd’s murder in 2020 renewed the push for DEI leadership roles and initiatives at major corporations. Some critics argue that DEI efforts can lead to reverse discrimination, where individuals or groups are disadvantaged based on their race, gender, or other characteristics. DEI initiatives can unintentionally exclude certain perspectives or voices, particularly if they focus on specific identities or groups. These efforts can result in tokenism, where individuals from underrepresented groups are hired or promoted to meet quotas rather than based on merit. Adequate resources, including funding, training, and staff, are crucial for successful DEI implementation. Without institutional support and leadership, DEI efforts may not be sustained or prioritized.
Evolutionary psychology explains the appeal of religious fundamentalism in terms of social functional behavior, since it promotes coherence and predictability among individuals within religious groups. Fundamentalism requires a departure from ordinary empirical inquiry: it reflects a rigid cognitive strategy that fixes beliefs and amplifies within-group commitment and out-group bias. Recent studies have linked religious fundamentalism to denial of scientific progress, and reinforced its role in prejudice towards out-groups. Although people may think subjectively of religious belief as a true or false representation of how the world is, it is notable that certain religious beliefs do not generally update in response to evidence, and that conservatism is especially notable in the case of fundamentalist beliefs. Empirical beliefs are indications of how the world appears to us and are updated according to accumulated evidence. Fundamentalist religious beliefs, in comparison, do not track and predict variation in the world. Rather, they appear to track, and predict, social group-level commitments.4
Among the many ironies at the Scopes trial, two surrounded the textbook at the center of the controversy. First, Tennessee mandated that George W. Hunter’s A Civic Biology (1914) be used statewide to teach biology, but the text endorsed evolution, effectively requiring biology teachers to violate the Butler Act. Second, Hunter’s endorsement of evolution – a doctrine championed by Scopes’ supporters as the enlightened view – was derived from his embrace of eugenics as a means of protecting the white race, which he deemed superior, through hereditary selection. However, civic boosters recruited a teacher to challenge the law. The trial, which lasted eight days, attracted national media attention and became a spectacle, with William Jennings Bryan, a prominent figure in the anti-evolution movement, prosecuting the case and Clarence Darrow, a renowned defense attorney, representing Scopes. The jury found Scopes guilty after deliberating for less than ten minutes and fined him $100.
In 1859, British naturalist Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which explained his theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Darwin’s theory was seen as a direct challenge to the biblical story of creation by many fundamentalist Christians at the time. That contention came to a head in the 1920s when state lawmakers began considering outlawing the teaching of evolution in public schools. While the jury sided with the prosecution, the case generated more attention and interest in the theory of evolution. Did we move forward? Most recently in Texas, new state curriculum has sparked criticism due to its inclusion of biblical references, a lesson that asks students to repeat the phrase that starts the creation story in the Book of Genesis and an activity requesting that children remember the order in which the Bible says God created the universe. Basically, the issue did not go away.
Project 2025 wants to make faith the government’s job. A well-funded coalition wants to put the Bible ahead of the Constitution. Right-wing groups do not want to ensure all Americans have religious freedom, but want to impose conservative Christian views on a religiously-diverse country. Project 2025 would jeopardize federal scientists’ independence and undermine their influence. In addition, Project 2025 – the sweeping right-wing blueprint for a new kind of U.S. presidency – will sabotage science-based policies that address climate change, the environment, abortion, health care access, technology and education. It would impose religious and conservative ideology on the federal civil service. “The independence of science is being attacked across the board in this document,” notes Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the Climate and Energy program at the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists. “The importance of this science is that’s how we can ensure people’s health and the environment are being safeguarded.”5
The plan is authoritarian and Christian nationalist and threatens separation of powers (as created by the U.S. Constitution), separation of church and state (created by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and civil liberties. Project 2025 would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an autocracy. Project 2025 is rife with bad ideas that, if enacted, would inflict harm on students and schools across the country. It is not just a policy wish list – it’s a plan to dismantle unions and erode workers’ rights. It seeks to fundamentally reshape federal government policies across various sectors, including social safety nets, civil rights, and environmental protection. When we realize that 100 million Americans, one way or another, depend on or benefit from social safety net, environmental, and civil rights protections, managed by the “administrative state,” we can see how devastating dismantlement – and far-right micromanagement – of these departments could be.6
As human beings, we owe each other basic respect, kindness, and fairness, forming a foundation for a positive and harmonious society, and striving to be helpful and supportive when someone is in need. We need a better social contract that recognizes our interdependencies, supports and invests more in each other, and expects more of individuals in return. Whether we realize it or not, all of us participate in the social contract every day through mutual obligations among our family, community, place of work, and fellow citizens. Caring for others, paying taxes, and benefiting from public services define the social contract that supports and binds us together as a society. A new social contract should be based on key principles including stakeholder capitalism, skill development, economic security and a transition to net zero. The best way forward to a new social contract is to defeat Trump and his Project 2025 initiatives at the ballot box. 7
1 https://kettering.org/project-2025-the-blueprint-for-christian-nationalist-regime-change/
3 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=science+behind+DEI
4 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5500821/
7 https://questioningandskepticism.com/rousseau-and-freedom-a-renewed-social-contract/