Chronicling the creeping demise of Diversity™, Equity™, and Inclusion™, otherwise known as institutionalized racism.
Carnival modifies cruise rules, accusations of racism immediately ensue
Carnival Cruise Line recently instituted several rule changes — ones which I daresay most people would find reasonable — including a ban on narcotics and loud music from personal Bluetooth speakers in public areas.
For its efforts, the company now stands accused of systemic racism or whatever.
Via The Root (emphasis added):
Brawls, assaults, drunken fights, boots on the grounds and fans in hands just might have Carnival Cruise Line saying, "Enough is enough!" And some Black passengers are returning the favor, cancelling their existing reservations or cancelling the cruise line all together because they deem their new rules are racist. But some argue, "Are the new policies racist, or just restrictive?"…
Although Carnival Cruise Line has not officially announced a ban on hip-hop or rap music in their clubs, significant online chatter from some Black passengers say they noticed a reduction or absence of the genre in the clubs.
Some online discussions suggest that Carnival might be moving towards a more "pre-approved" song selection for DJs — who should reportedly decline passenger's requests. The perception comes in the context of Carnival's efforts to address "rowdy crowds" and disruptive behavior on board…
Carnival has reinforced rules against guests playing their own music loudly in public areas, including by the pools and hallways. While ostensibly for everyone's comfort, many Black passengers feel this rule is selectively enforced against them. They argue that other groups might play different genres of music without facing the same level of scrutiny.
Black women are mad, saying Carnival Cruises no longer want them on their boats, banning black music pic.twitter.com/oU6CyrLZjE
— Anton Daniels (@1antondaniels) July 1, 2025
Name somewhere you'd rather go on vacation this summer than a Carnival cruise like this 👇 pic.twitter.com/sFtrQYsA5Q
— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 25, 2025
Whether Carnival was racist in its intent when making the rule changes is impossible to know for sure without the power to divine what was in the executives’ hearts who made the call — both because the company would never admit it if that were the impetus and because professional DEI agitators who make their money off of uncovering racism under every stone reflexively call anything and everything racist, diluting the meaning of the term.
Related: WATCH: MSNBC Suggests Trump Plans to Deport African-Americans
One of the reasons for this modern quandary is that, as legally defined “public accommodations,” cruise lines are barred from discriminating against passengers on the basis of race.
Via Wikipedia (emphasis added):
In United States law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.
Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin." Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law as well as religious organizations. The definition of public accommodation within the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests" and so is inapplicable to churches, mosques, synagogues, et al. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws, but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.
Accordingly, if it wanted to target a particular demographic with rule changes, as some claim Carnival has, that entity is forced to come up with generic rules that may be intended for one race or another but which cannot ever be explicitly stated because the company would get sued into oblivion — not to mention have its headquarters picketed by an Al Sharpton-led mob until it coughs up enough cash for whatever “nonprofit” Sharpton and his comrades are currently milking.
So you get this hide-the-ball game instead, which could largely be resolved, in my view, at least legally if not socially, by the restoration of the antiquated notion of freedom of association — a right that the Founders erroneously neglected to explicitly elucidate in the Bill of Rights.
Related: MSNBC News Actor, Race Scholar ‘Confront the First Amendment’s Dark History’
If the Founders had included freedom of association in the founding document, the only way to circumvent that right would have been through a Constitutional amendment — which admittedly likely would have gotten nixed in the Civil Rights era but which at least would still leave a legacy in the legal canon that would make later reversals easier.
The state, still today, recognizes “freedom of association” — but only in narrow circumstances (“intimate associations” and “expressive associations”). Courts have repeatedly ruled and upheld that any organization engaged in commercial enterprise, like Carnival, are subject to anti-discrimination laws, meaning blacks can’t be banned from cruises.
Via University of Missouri-Kansas City (emphasis added):
The phrase "freedom of association" does not appear in the Constitution (although the First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble). Nonetheless, the Court has recognized to separate types of association that are constitutionally protected: (1) intimate association (protected as an aspect of the right of privacy) and (2) expressive association (protected as as an aspect of the First Amendment's protection of free speech).
Freedom of association cases are interesting in that they bring into conflict two competing views of the world: rights-oriented liberalism that holds that a person's identity comes from individual choices (and that government ought to create a framework of laws that remove barriers to choice) and communitarianism, that holds that a person's identity comes from the communities of which an individual is a part (and that communities are an important buffer between the government and the individual).
The leading case on the right of an association to establish and apply its own membership rules is the 1984 case of Roberts v. United States Jaycees. In Roberts, the Court recognized that the power to determine its own membership is central to the free speech rights of expressive organizations. (Imagine how the speech of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League might be affected if it could be forced to admit as members anti-Semites.) Nonetheless, the Court in Roberts upheld a Minnesota public accommodations law requiring the Jaycees to admit women as members, in contravention of that organization's rules. Justice Brennan, for the Court, found that Minnesota had a compelling interest in providing the women of Minnesota the economic benefits that came with membership in the Jaycees. Justice O'Connor, in a concurring opinion, found that the Jaycees were a commercial organization and therefore subject to state regulation of its membership. On the other hand, according to O'Connor, a predominately expressive association has an absolute right to determine its own membership. In subsequent cases in 1987 (Rotary International v Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 US 537) and 1988 (N. Y. State Club Ass'n v New York, 487 US 1), the Court concluded that state laws prohibiting sex discrimination could be applied to each of those private associations.
Why not normalize and codify the right for people and organizations, commercial or not, to do business with whomever they want? How does forcing these entities to engage with individuals or groups they don’t want to engage with foster a more harmonious society? What public interest does forced integration really serve if it can only breed simmering resentment?
