Does the mandate to selectively 'advance equity' (for only some) violate the Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) The “Sec. 8. Affirmatively Advancing Civil Rights ... to prevent and address discrimination and advance equity for all” clause of the 2/16/2023 Presidential Executive Order! results in Russell's Paradox?, and it must be corrected as a logically unacceptable conclusion to a less deceitful “equity for some.” Is the mandate to selectively “advance equity” (for only some) Constitutional? 2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts aims to “double protect’ some citizens at the expense of revoking all protections from others, including Constitutional rights. Does “double protecting” some waive Constitutional protections for all? ' See 2 “The most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes,” see 3 See “State Constitutional Law Declares Its Independence: Double Protecting Rights During a Time of Federal Constitutional Upheaval” by Scott L. Kafker, Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, or hastings constitutional