Ben Carson Removes Anti-Discrimination Language From HUD Mission Statement
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hud-mission-statement_us_5a9f5db0e4b002df2c5ec617
It will no longer reference “inclusive” communities “free from discrimination.”
WASHINGTON ― Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson is changing the mission statement of his agency, removing promises of inclusive and discrimination-free communities.
In a March 5 memo addressed to HUD political staff, Amy Thompson, the department’s assistant secretary for public affairs, explained that the statement is being updated “in an effort to align HUD’s mission with the Secretary’s priorities and that of the Administration.”
The new mission statement reads:
HUD’s mission is to ensure Americans have access to fair, affordable housing and opportunities to achieve self-sufficiency, thereby strengthening our communities and nation.
“An organization’s mission is never static,” Thompson wrote in the memo, which was shared with HuffPost by a HUD employee. “A mission statement describes an organization’s purpose, what it intends to do, and whom it intends to serve. Most importantly, an organization’s activities must be embodied in its mission.”
She said the mission statement had been developed with input from both Carson and his deputy. It’s not clear whether the new language is final. Thompson asked the political staff to send along any “comments or suggestions.”
The Carson mission statement is quite different from the current one, which is still up on HUD’s website . That one promises “strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.” It also says these communities will be “free from discrimination”:
HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination, and transform the way HUD does business.
HUD did not immediately return a request for comment on the change.
HUD is not the only federal agency changing its mission under President Donald Trump. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director recently informed employees that it was removing the phrase “ America’s promise as a nation of immigrants ” from its mission statement.
Are you at a federal agency that is changing its mission statement as well? Email us at scoops@huffpost.com .
Under President Barack Obama, HUD made advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer rights a priority . Shaun Donovan, who served as Obama’s first HUD secretary, was the first sitting Cabinet official in history to publicly support marriage equality.
The agency worked to prohibit discrimination by HUD-funded housing authorities, recognized state and local laws that are more LGBTQ-friendly than federal ones and raised awareness of resources available to the LGBTQ community.
Carson has a long history of making comments opposing equal rights for the LGBTQ community. New York Magazine recently reported that under Carson, HUD has pulled projects meant to help the LGBTQ community , which included online training materials for homeless shelters to ensure equal access for transgender people.
“Self-sufficiency” has been a major focus of Carson’s. Last year, he said he didn’t want low-income Americans receiving federal assistance to feel too “comfortable” in their housing because it might make them say, “I’ll just stay here. They will take care of me .”
In December, he announced an new initiative that would put “ EnVision Centers ” near federal housing developments that to help train people in character and leadership, educational advancement, economic empowerment, and health and wellness.
Carson recently came under scrutiny for the revelation that his office was set to be redecorated with a $31,000 dining room set . The secretary has claimed he knew nothing about the order .
"Last year, he said he didn’t want low-income Americans receiving federal assistance to feel too “comfortable” in their housing because it might make them say, “I’ll just stay here."
I don't think there is a better man for the job he really hit the nail on the head.
It is against the law to discriminate, correct? So why does the mission statement need to reflex what is already against the law? I am not a fan of Carson nor his religious beliefs etc .. yet is this not just another 'the sky is falling' moment? Does not the LGBTQ community have the same resources available from the federal government as everyone else?
Ben is such an evil bastard, how dare he ... From the link:
“balance a checkbook or unclog a toilet,” - seems that some people do not understand, these are real issue for some. I do not volunteer my time to teach 'unclogging a toilet' .. yet I do volunteer my time educating young, low income individuals (couples mostly) how to make a budget, balance a check book, make a grocery list and even shop in order to stay within a budget .. these EnVision Centers sound wonderful to me, an excellent use of tax payers money!
Please cite the federal law which you're fantasizing about, particularly a relevant one regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.
FYI there are no federal laws which prohibit discrimination on that basis in regards to housing, employment or public accommodation. The Republicans in Congress have refused to allow any such laws like ENDA to be passed. There were only a small handful of administrative policies which were enacted during the Obama administration, something which our new Fuhrer and his anti-LGBT appointees have been actively revoking.
Sorry but you cited no federal laws, you merely cited a few court rulings in relatively liberal circuits. Perhaps you should check out what the 11th Circuit ruled on the same kind of employment discrimination issue? None of these involve housing discrimination anyway.
The GOP-controlled Congress has refused to pass any such laws, and it's a guarantee that our bigoted Fuhrer would veto them if they did. Such is the nature of Republican party today.
How many specifically written laws are needed - discrimination is against the law .. and sex is a part of said law, seems like a no brainer to me .. but then I already treat individuals as I would like to be treated, therefore I do not judge based on 'gender identity and ones sexual orientation' race, colour, religion etc etc ......................... sorry if you see that as fantasizing - but discrimination is against the law ... [exclamation point!]
Half of the problem is that everyone seems to think all the seperate laws need to be written - enforce the laws already on the books ... anti discrimination laws say 'sex' does not even state male or female - so orientation and identity are covered under 'sex' ... my opinion of course
(wish I knew how I was messing up the font in my comments)
As I've pointed out there is no such law at the federal level. The GOP refuses to allow such a law to be passed even though there are likely enough votes to pass things like ENDA.
.
Ummmm......that federal appeals court ruling only exists BECAUSE there is no federal law which prohibits this kind of discrimination. And of 11 federal court circuits only 2 have found that "sex" under the 1964 CRA covers sexual orientation and gender identity. While I think that it's logical and inevitable that the same will eventually be found by SCOTUS and by other liberal circuits, so far all the conservative federal circuits have determined that it does not (most recently in the 11th Circuit).
In fact even in the liberal circuits like the 2nd and the 7th the doctrine until very very recently was that it was not covered. The ruling you cited was a reversal of the existing court doctrine. Until 2017 all the federal courts allowed that kind of discrimination despite the passage of the CRA in 1964.
And once again there is no federal law which explicitly prohibits this kind of discrimination being common throughout the country, especially in the red states and in all the states in conservative federal circuits. Most conservatives erroneously assume there is such a law.
Moreover the Trump regime is fighting AGAINST the interpretation these two federal circuits have adopted and which the Obama admin had adopted.
In fact they have. That's the only time these bills have passed one chamber or the other, when the Dems control that chamber. Every time these bills have come up virtually all the Republicans vote against it, making passage in the Senate more difficult than the House. When the GOP is in control they usually kill the bill in committee and never allow a floor vote. As a consequence of Congressional gridlock due to the GOP's bigotry and their efforts to insert poison pills into the bill, Obama enacted a version of ENDA which impacts only federal contractors......and Trump revoked that shortly after he was inaugurated.
Those votes are on the Congressional record and prove the GOP for the party of bigots it truly is. It's not a surprise that the only Republicans to have ever authored such legislation were two classic Rockefeller Republicans in the north east, and usually only one or two Republicans ever signed on as cosponsors of any version of ENDA or the Equality Act, despite hundreds of Dems signing on regardless of the author's party. Given how extreme and theocratic the GOP has become it's no surprise that no Republican has authored one of these bills since 2004.
On a very fundamental basis Republicans today simply don't believe in equal rights or non-discrimination laws. That explains everything about why a dumb bigot and racist like Trump became the party's nominee.......hatred of minorities and special rights for straight white Christian men are a core part of the GOP's platform.
The bigoted Republican voting record and the GOP's bigoted platform speak for themselves. Seriously, your party platform freely admits that it seeks to deny equal rights to LGBT folks and to harm them.
That would explain why the GOP wins any elections at all, the fact that conservatives are so willing to believe obviously false statements like the one you made at # 3.2.1.
So why is it perfectly legal in the 5th Circuit to fire someone because they're LGBT? Are you saying that federal laws don't apply in the confederate states?
um.. you do realize this is in the 2016 Republican Platform, right ?
from
what are your thoughts on this ? do you support the Republican Party ?
so you openly support the discrimination and advocation for denial of equal civil rights of Marriage to same sex couples as outlined in their party platform ? why do you support denying equal civil rights of Marriage to same sex couples ?
i support neither party
ok... so you support the GOP for the most part then and not the part for advocating to deny equal civil rights of Marriage to same sex couples ? which parts of the GOP platform do you actually support ? (i'm just trying to get an idea, that's all, it's why i'm asking questions. Many people on here [on both sides] don't specifically state their stances on topics and like to remain ambiguous on purpose so they can catch others in those "aha ! gotcha ! i didn't say that !" moments in order to "win" their debates)
ah, ok
thank you for providing that information for me 
i appreciate it. I personally think we all could probably have more meaningful conversations if we actually communicated better with each other (even if we disagree, "understanding" is a key that seems to be missing with so many things in today's world), unfortunately there are many who would rather just engage in trolling etc, which doesn't help anything at all. once again, thank you, i do appreciate it !
"It will no longer reference “inclusive” communities “free from discrimination.”
GOOD !
There is no such thing anyway. Was Gov. supposed to be policing speech in these communities too ?
"Accidents will happen in the best regulated families."
- John Dos Passos
While I myself do not understand any need to remove this particular text from the statement, I also feel it may be time to have our supposed betters stop categorizing, sorting and slotting us into assigned pigeonholes.
The problem is that there are no federal laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. There were only Obama-era administrative policies which Drumpf and his bigoted cronies are revoking.
Oops....it looks like HUD needs to update another part of its website to remove a non-discrimination policy:
The reason I bring that up is because that was the position of the attorneys in the Obama administration based on several court rulings including the 1989 SCOTUS ruling in Price Waterhouse v Hopkins.
However our new Fuhrer and his Department of "Justice" have explicitly taken the opposite view in several current court cases , including such recent cases like Zarda v Altitude Express. The official policy of Drumpf and his cronies is that neither gender non-conformity nor "sex" as defined under the CRA has any implications for sexual orientation or gender identity.
"Self sufficiency"
The two most hated words in the English language to liberal ears. How dare the unwashed masses think they can survive without massive, bloated, wasteful and expensive big government guiding them throughout their dependent lives.
It seems like it should go without saying that any government agency is inclusive and free from discrimination. The new mission statement is on-point and free from unnecessary distractions. This is what a truly post-racial government should look like.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has over 8,000 employees and a budget of over $32 billion a year. I just can't even the fathom the depth of stupidity/lunacy required to genuinely believe that the cabinet secretary, who oversees it all, has any direct involvement in purchasing the furniture .
He ordered it didn't he?
got it
You would be surprised how expensive furniture is these days.
so?
My office furniture was built by prisoners. And it cost less than $500. Why don't government people look at those options?
Do I have to do everything myself?
I like that idea and bringing back chain gangs.
It's good solid oak and the workmanship is outstanding. I would rather prisoners learn a skill than sit around dreaming up new and different ways to break the law.
No, of course not! Someone else does it. And, as a matter of fact, when it was brought to his attention, he's the one who canceled the order.
Still, I understand they are trying to replace furniture that is over 50 years old and said to be beyond repair. If you want quality furniture that's going to get used every day (or close to it) by a lot of people for 50 years, you are probably going to be spending several thousand dollars for the table and chairs.
It's typical for a simple conference room chair in an office to cost $1000 or more. I think it's also typical that when these stories break, there is no context supplied as to use and actual costs. People compare the cost of something like this to the piece-of-crap kitchen table they bought at IKEA or Target and are horrified at the disparity.
It's possible that HUD can find a table and chair set for less money, but it will still be several thousand dollars.
So somebody just ordered his dining room table....riiiiggghhhhtttt.....
Where the fuck are republican standards here? That table was fine, the department he runs is GETTING BUDGET CUTS! While HE AND HIS STAFF order a NON-ESSENTIAL piece of furniture that costs TENS OF THOUSANDS! Somehow, you defend this. Before we continue debating all these republican lapses of propriety, can you all please explain to everyone why you have no standards or different standards for your party? Think Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, deficit, the original healthcare plan of the GOP, straight from the Heritage Foundation, that became Obamacare. Golfing. Spending on trips out of WH. Family working in WH. No security clearances. Breeches of security by Trump himself. A liar. A cheater. Trying of PROFIT OFF THE OFFICE. So many, and more. Explain.
It was for the dining room in his office suite
He tells everyone
(no reason to disbelieve him)
that he eats in the cafeteria - to be with his people - to boost morale.
So most of this was done without Mr.Carson's "input".
He would have to be dense not to have been aware of Mrs. Foster's complaints and demotion.
But Mr. Carson has finally indicated that he wishes to cancel the as yet undelivered new furniture.
The question now, is, can the contract be voided.
Interestingly, last week's stories all said he cancelled it.
This week's stories said he's 'trying' to cancel the order.
Since Mrs. Carson picked it out and insisted on it
it would be nice of her to pay the balance over $5,000.00 ( from Ben's salary ) then donate it to HUD.
(duplicate comment deleted)
Ben Carson is a bizarre individual. Does everyone forget his sleepy, incoherent, answers at the Republican presidential debates? He has a large painting in the foyer of his house of Jesus looking down approvingly on him (Carson). It is strange, at best.
He may have been a great surgeon, but he is inappropriate for any other activity.
Considering his multiple (6) mal practice suits, I don't think great is a word to describe him as a surgeon.
He was a decent surgeon who made himself famous by taking on risky projects that no other surgeon would attempt.
His team attempted to separate 5 Siamese twins conjoined at the head.
Only one pair of twins was truly successful.
The original pair were both institutionalized.
In total 5 died, 2 were normal, 2 were institutionalized and one was brain damaged but functioning.
The average success rate of all such surgeries since 1920 is 50%.
The part I like best is that he's a black guy who belongs to a racially segregated cult which was originally started as a white supremacist cult.
According to his cult's founder, black folks like him are the product of sex between humans and non-humans.