Yes, Rufo is an activist, and he is transparent about his intentions and strategies.
I have a JD and passed the bar. I know that a “protected class” is for all people and all manifestations of a trait, not specific identity groups.
It was plain to me that DEI, HR, and Legal teams were not explaining the law, but rather using their position as experts-with power and good intentions-as a pretext to conduct activism through ambiguity and deniability that look virtuous to them and Orwellian to me. And that it was working, because my managers and teammates were positively convinced that “protected class” means exclusively “minority.”
I went through HR training that said “only a manager can discriminate under the law - anyone can engage in harassment.” This is insane as a statement of law, because harassment _is_ discrimination [1]. But it makes sense when they’re trying to get unwilling ICs to endure pervasive “anti-racist” discrimination that isn’t intended as harassment. Flag the misstatement to Legal and it’s “huh, we don’t know how that happened, we’ll look into it.” (Read: we already signed off on the risks of this wording.) Rinse and repeat every training cycle, where it’s a full rewrite of the module with no continuity.
One of my first questions in trying to make sense of seemingly-insane trainings was “wait, is this that ‘CRT’ thing I heard about that everyone says is just a right-wing bogeyman that doesn’t actually exist?”
And it sure is easier to just call it “CRT” and laugh it off than to argue whether it’s even a thing that happened.
If the corporate activists were transparent like Rufo, they’d say “hey, we think discrimination laws are behind the times, and we can’t just wait around for them to change. We need to combat demographic disparities by shifting our culture in hiring and conflict resolution. Here’s how we expect you to promote that, and we’re prepared to indemnify you and defend these values in court.” I expect many people would get behind that, and I would truly respect their honesty in it.
Instead they try to have it both ways, and polarize people with irreconcilable values into each thinking the company has their back.
If you’re on the receiving end of a discrimination suit and try to say you were following company policy, the lawyers will hang you out to dry: “That wasn’t company policy, it was a peer exercise with no managerial oversight or involvement. That wasn’t a required training, it just had an attendance goal (of 90%) and your manager wasn’t authorized in pushing it. As a ‘safe space,’ it wasn’t even recorded for us to know what went on there. It was led by an external contractor who is obviously not an agent of the company. Of course cis white men are a protected class, and anyone who treats them differently is illegally discriminating.”
[1] “Harassment is a form of employment discrimination” https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment