The Washington Post

Why did Obama refuse executive order?


If President Obama had issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors against gays and lesbians, he would have followed a proud tradition set by Democratic and Republican presidents.

Instead, he punted.

Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about federal government and workplace issues that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. View Archive

At least five previous presidents issued anti-discrimination directives, according to a count by the American Civil Liberties Union, but those did not cover gays and lesbians in companies doing business with the government. Seventy-two members of Congress sent the president a letter last week urging an order prohibiting discrimination against that group.

When the administration decided not to go that route, it issued a statement that made no mention of the proposed order, instead focusing on an unlikely legislative fix.

The president “has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employers across the country from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman. “The president is committed to lasting and comprehensive change and therefore our goal is passage of ENDA, which is a legislative solution to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) employment discrimination.”

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the 15th Annual Human Rights Campaign National Dinner at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2011. Obama told the largest U.S. gay-rights group that the progress made on policies that have benefited the gay community still is threatened by opponents who want to “turn the clock back.” (Kristoffer Tripplaar/Bloomberg)

But no one expects that legislation to pass anytime soon.

“There is no way the ENDA . . . will pass this Congress,” said Winnie Stachelberg, an executive vice president of the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the White House.

So why not issue the order now?

Gay activists blame election-year politics.

Tico Almeida, founder and president of Freedom to Work, a national LGBT advocacy organization, and other gay activists attended a meeting with top White House officials who provided a rationale for declining the order, explanations Almeida found “completely unconvincing and shallow.”

“This is a political calculation that cannot stand,” he said.

“Absolutely not,” replied White House press secretary Jay Carney. “The approach we’re taking at this time is to try to build support for passage of this legislation, a comprehensive approach to legislate on the issue of non-discrimination.”

If the calculation is to avoid upsetting some voters by pushing for gay rights, it’s too late now. The Human Rights Campaign has a document called “Obama Administration Policy, Legislative and Other Advancements on behalf of LGBT Americans” that is six typed pages long.

“This is an administration that is fully committed to LGBT equality and has worked tirelessly” for it, Stachelberg said.

That’s why the administration’s refusal to issue an order that would have been mild compared with its other positions is confusing. Obama’s advocacy for gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and his opposition to a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples for federal purposes have been much more controversial.

An executive order is needed, “even if Congress were to defy the political odds and pass ENDA today,” says a paper on the Center for American Progress Web site. An executive order, the paper by Jeff Krehely and Crosby Burns explains, would cover more people than the legislation, which would apply to firms with at least 15 employees. An executive order also could provide an additional enforcement mechanism and another level of compliance evaluation, the authors wrote.

Those arguments, however, apparently weren’t persuasive enough for the president.

“I hope this decision will be revisited,” said Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who signed the letter, “especially since the American people don’t want their federal tax dollars used to support discrimination.”

EEOC resignation

Stuart J. Ishimaru, who joined the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2003, will resign this month. He was the EEOC’s acting chairman during the first 15 months of the Obama administration, from Jan. 20, 2009, until April 7, 2010. His second term expires July 1.

As a commissioner, he moved “to reinvigorate the agency’s emphasis on race discrimination issues,” according to a commission statement. As acting chairman, Ishimaru “worked to rebuild the EEOC, which had become under-funded and under-staffed,” the statement said. “He dedicated substantial agency resources to a multi-million dollar training effort — the largest the agency had conducted in at least a decade.”

EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien called him “a tremendous colleague” whose “accomplishments as a member of the Commission and Acting Chairman have been exceptional.”

“We will miss his fervent commitment to civil rights law enforcement,” she said.

Gabrielle Martin, president of the American Federation of Government Employees’ National Council of EEOC Locals, also praised Ishimaru.

“In my view, he was a really good commissioner,” she said in an interview. Ishimaru was “almost fearless,” she added, in engaging in “public dialogue with people who had opposing views” to reach a beneficial conclusion.

Ishimaru was not available for comment.

Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at Follow the Federal Diary on Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debate Thursday. Get caught up on the race.
The big questions after New Hampshire, from The Post's Dan Balz
Can Bernie Sanders cut into Hillary Clinton's strength in the minority community and turn his challenge into a genuine threat? And can any of the Republicans consolidate anti-Trump sentiment in the party in time to stop the billionaire developer and reality-TV star, whose unorthodox, nationalistic campaign has shaken the foundations of American politics?
Clinton in New Hampshire: 2008 vs. 2015
Hillary Clinton did about as well in N.H. this year as she did in 2008, percentage-wise. In the state's main counties, Clinton performed on average only about two percentage points worse than she did eight years ago (according to vote totals as of Wednesday morning) -- and in five of the 10 counties, she did as well or better.
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.