Segregation Isn’t Back — But the Ban Just Got Deleted: Guidance for DEI Leaders in Light of the FAR Clause Change

By Effenus Henderson

The recent decision by the federal government to eliminate the “Prohibition of Segregated Facilities” clause (FAR 52.222-21) from federal contracts marks a significant shift in how the federal apparatus engages with issues of civil rights and equity. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related laws still prohibit segregation and discrimination, the removal of this explicit clause sends a symbolic and operational signal: that direct, proactive enforcement of equity and inclusion in public-private partnerships is no longer a given.

For those of us in the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) space, this moment is a clear call to action.

A Brief History: Why Clause 52.222-21 Mattered

Originally enacted during the post-Civil Rights Movement era, this clause was part of the broader federal commitment to eradicating segregation in any form, especially among entities doing business with the government. It barred contractors from operating segregated facilities — from waiting rooms to drinking fountains — based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and, later, sexual orientation and gender identity.

This wasn’t just symbolic; it was enforceable. Contractors had to affirm their compliance to win federal bids. Removing it does not make segregation legal — but it does remove a federal enforcement tool tied to government funding and contracts, which historically has been a powerful lever for change.

What This Means for DEI

1. A Shift Away from Government-Led Accountability

The removal of this clause reflects a larger federal rollback of DEI-focused mandates. Executive orders that previously promoted inclusive hiring, LGBTQ+ protections, and racial equity have been rescinded. Without these structural commitments, DEI professionals can no longer rely on government policy to uphold baseline standards. We must now rely more heavily on internal leadership, values-based governance, and collective accountability.

2. The Undermining of Symbolic Protections

Symbols matter. The presence of this clause, even if “redundant” with existing civil rights laws, reinforced the seriousness of anti-discrimination commitments. Its absence may embolden entities already resistant to DEI efforts — not by encouraging overt segregation, but by suggesting that the federal government no longer sees this as a priority. For DEI leaders, this creates an environment in which values-based work may be more contested.

3. Potential Legal and Cultural Gray Zones

While explicit segregation is still illegal, the erosion of protections opens the door for cultural and procedural re-segregation — for instance, exclusionary practices in hiring pipelines, lack of accommodations, or informal “separate but equal” arrangements that disproportionately burden marginalized communities. Organizations must double down on equity audits and climate assessments to ensure that informal discrimination does not take root in the absence of formal barriers.

Guidance for DEI Leaders and Practitioners

1. Reassert Internal Commitments Now is the time to reaffirm your organization's own anti-segregation, anti-discrimination, and inclusion policies — not just legally, but morally and culturally. Publish clear statements of commitment to equitable treatment and inclusive environments, especially in contractor, vendor, and partner relationships.

2. Strengthen Contractual Language Even if the FAR no longer mandates this clause, organizations can adopt equivalent or stronger language in internal procurement policies and external vendor agreements. Consider adding equity criteria into your RFPs and evaluations, especially when dealing with public contracts.

3. Educate and Communicate Leverage this moment to educate stakeholders — employees, leaders, boards — about why these protections existed in the first place. Use it to deepen understanding of structural racism and the role that public policy plays in shaping organizational behavior.

4. Monitor Risks and Reactions Pay close attention to how vendors, partners, and internal decision-makers respond to this change. Are there shifts in tone or compliance? Are previously committed leaders now less invested? Document and respond to these shifts proactively.

5. Advocate for Reinstatement This rollback was done without a public comment period, undermining democratic norms. DEI leaders, especially those in public institutions or civil society organizations, should consider joining advocacy coalitions calling for the restoration of these provisions — or at minimum, for a more transparent process moving forward.

A Critical Inflection Point

This moment is not merely bureaucratic. It touches on the very foundations of civil rights enforcement in the workplace and the role that government should play in modeling justice. For DEI leaders, it is both a challenge and an opportunity — to lead with clarity, to push for accountability even when laws retreat, and to remind our organizations and communities that equity is not a trend, but a necessity.

We are called to do more than react. We are called to build and protect inclusive structures even when others dismantle them — to ensure that justice is not a clause to be removed, but a commitment that endures.

Effenus Henderson