Overview
Title
Federal Management Regulation; Art in Architecture; Planned Rescission
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to take away some rules about including art in buildings. This change means they won't focus on things like making sure everyone feels included and treated equally when choosing art.
Summary AI
The General Services Administration (GSA) has announced plans to finalize the cancellation of the Federal Management Regulation Case 2021-02, known as "Art in Architecture," originally issued on February 2, 2022. This action is part of the implementation of recent executive orders aimed at removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language and programs from government operations. The GSA will update the Art in Architecture program to exclude DEI language, preferential treatments, and related data collections. The document provides contact information for further inquiries and can be accessed online for review.
Abstract
GSA plans to issue a final rule rescinding the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2021-02, "Art in Architecture," published on February 2, 2022.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The General Services Administration (GSA) has announced plans to cancel a regulation known as the "Art in Architecture" program. This regulation, originally released in February 2022, falls under the broader Federal Management Regulation. The cancellation aligns with two recent executive orders: Executive Order (E.O.) 14148 and E.O. 14151, aimed at removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) elements from government operations. The changes will involve updating the Art in Architecture program to exclude DEI language, preferential treatments, and related data collections.
Summary of the Document
The document outlines GSA's intention to rescind the Art in Architecture regulation and explains that this action is in response to recent policies seeking to eliminate certain DEI practices from government programs. The document provides details on where to find more information and who to contact if clarification is needed. It also references specific executive orders that guide this decision.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues emerge from this document:
Financial Implications: The document does not provide specific financial details about the cancellation, leaving it unclear whether rescinding the regulation will lead to cost savings or incur additional expenses.
Lack of Rationale: The reasons for removing DEI language and programs aren't fully explained, which could lead to misunderstandings about the necessity or impact of such changes.
Complex Language: The references to the executive orders are somewhat complex and lack sufficient explanation, potentially confusing those unfamiliar with the specific content of these orders.
Unclear Terminology: Terms like "preferencing" are not clearly defined, which might cause confusion regarding their impact on the program.
Potential Impact on the Public
Broadly, the cancellation of the Art in Architecture regulation could lead to decreased emphasis on diversity and inclusion in federal projects. This might affect how public art programs are implemented across government buildings. For the general public, this may alter the representation and cultural significance of art displayed in public spaces.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For artists and cultural organizations, the removal of DEI language could mean fewer opportunities for diverse artists to participate in government commissions. This might limit the diversity of perspectives and creativity reflected in public projects.
For those advocating for reduced government spending, the rescission may align with their goals, especially if DEI programs are perceived as unnecessary or wasteful.
Conversely, communities that have benefited from diverse art commissions might find the change negatively impacts cultural representation and inclusivity in public artworks.
Overall, the decision to repeal aspects of the Art in Architecture regulation could have varied implications, affecting stakeholders in different ways based on their engagement with or reliance on DEI initiatives within public art programs. The lack of clarity in the document about specific outcomes adds to the uncertainty surrounding these potential impacts.
Issues
• The document does not provide specific information on the financial implications of rescinding FMR Case 2021-02, which may make it difficult to assess whether there is any potentially wasteful spending associated with the rescission.
• The rationale for removing 'diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language, preferential treatments, and DEI data collections' is not clearly explained, which could lead to ambiguity in understanding the necessity or impact of these changes.
• The language related to the Executive Orders (E.O. 14148 and E.O. 14151) could be considered overly complex, as it references the orders without providing a summary or explanation in this document.
• The term 'preferencing' in the context of 'Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing' is not clearly defined or explained, which may lead to confusion regarding its implications or application in the context of the Art in Architecture program.