Tag Archive for: race

DHS Official Worked With Anti-Israel Group Tied to Embattled Biden Judicial Nominee

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia also has a history of pushing for relaxed immigration laws.


A top Department of Homeland Security civil rights official has previously unreported ties to a Rutgers University think tank that congressional investigators are calling a “hotbed of radical antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist activity.”

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia served as a faculty affiliate of the Rutgers Law School Center for Security, Race, and Rights until she joined the Department of Homeland Security last year as officer for civil rights and civil liberties. In her current role, Wadhia advises DHS leadership on the civil rights ramifications of agency policies and leads investigations into civil rights and civil liberties complaints from members of the public.

But Wadhia’s affiliation with the Rutgers center could call her fitness for the job into question. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce launched an investigation this week into Rutgers’s failure to address anti-Semitic activities on campus. The investigation focuses on the Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights, which has come under scrutiny amid the confirmation process for Biden judicial nominee Adeel Mangi, who served on the center’s advisory board until last year.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said Wadhia’s “ties to pro-terrorist groups should be completely disqualifying.”

“Either the Administration isn’t vetting its employees and nominees, or it simply doesn’t care about their anti-Israel connections,” he told the Washington Free Beacon.

Months before Wadhia joined the center, it hosted an event, marking the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, that featured Sami al-Arian, who was convicted of providing material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group.

The center blamed Israel’s “colonial violence” and “decades of oppression” against Palestinians for the October 7 Hamas attack, which the center called “Hamas’s October 7th operation.” After the group’s 9/11 event with al-Arian in 2021, Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) called to “castigate and alienate” the think tank for providing a platform to speakers “with ties to militant terrorist organizations.”

That didn’t deter Wadhia, who joined the center in early 2022, according to an archived version of the center’s website.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Rutgers center did not respond to requests for comment.

RELATED VIDEO: Donald Trump – ‘Oct. 7th wouldn’t have happened if I was president’

EDITORS NOTE: This UNITED WITH ISRAEL column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Is It So Difficult To Define Anti-Semitism?

Even among those who condemn it, there is little consensus about what constitutes antisemitism. Is it disdain for Jews as a faith community or as a people? Is it motivated by hatred of doctrine or ethnicity?


Antisemitism has been around since the dawn of Jewish history and yet the mainstream media only found it newsworthy after October 7th. Since then, it has become ubiquitous in universities and pro-Hamas demonstrations – where progressives celebrate terrorism and demand the destruction of Israel and the Jews – and in a Democratic Party where progressive radicals demonize the Jewish State.

But even among those who condemn it, there is little consensus about what constitutes antisemitism. Is it disdain for Jews as a faith community or as a people? Is it motivated by hatred of doctrine or ethnicity?

Those who mistake it simply as prejudice against a faith do not understand the nature of Jewish identity, which is at once religious, ethnic, and national. The definition of hatred, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.

Some antisemitism is religious to be sure, particularly among other Abrahamic faiths that must disparage Jews and Judaism to justify their pretensions to be the fulfillment of Jewish scripture and prophecy. Christians and Muslims both acknowledge the holiness of Tanakh and yet deviate significantly from it. To rationalize their divergence from Hebrew scripture, they must claim they supplanted Judaism or that the Jews corrupted their own scriptures.

Christianity

The Christian gospels, for example, are replete with anti-Jewish invective, associating Jews with darkness, evil, lies, deceit, and Satan (e.g., John 8:37-39; 44-47), blood libel and murder of the Prophets (e.g., Matthew 23:31-33; 1 Thessalonians 2), and hereditary blood guilt (Matthew 27:25). Assertions of insidious influence and control are central to the myth that the Jews compelled Pontious Pilate to kill Jesus at a time when Rome occupied Judea and the Sanhedrin had no leverage or authority to impose or even demand the death penalty. The passion narratives likewise contain demonic anti-Jewish caricatures that inspired persecution and massacres throughout Christian Europe.

Furthermore, the New Testament alters Tanakh (e.g., misstating the number of people who accompanied Yacov to Egypt and the burial place of the Patriarchs), misquotes the psalms and Prophets, and decontextualizes passages from Torah.

Islam

Despite the myth of Muslim tolerance, Islamic scripture is not much better. Indeed, the Quran is equally unflattering when it accuses the Jews of “unbelief” and murdering their Prophets (as does Christian scripture): “So, for their breaking the compact, and disbelieving in the signs of God, and slaying the Prophets without right, and for their saying, ‘Our hearts are uncircumcised’ – nay, but God sealed them for their unbelief, so they believe not, except a few…” (Sura 4:155).

It also accuses the Jews of corruption and deceit:

“And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Book: ‘You shall do corruption in the earth twice…So, when the promise of the first of these came to pass, We sent against you servants of Ours, men of great might, and they went through the habitations, and it was a promise performed. Then We gave back to you the turn to prevail over them…Then, when the promise of the second came to pass, We sent against you Our servants to discountenance you, and to enter the Temple, as they entered it the first time.’” (17:4-7)

Moreover, Jews are frequently accused of scriptural corruption. “People of the Book, now there has come to you Our Messenger, making clear to you many things you have been concealing of the Book, and effacing many things…” (5:15); “God assail them! How they are perverted…They have taken their rabbis and their monks as Lords apart from God.” (9:31.) Claims of textual manipulation seem necessary for explaining away fundamental discrepancies with Tanakh, for example, that Yishmael, not Yitzchak, was bound by Avraham on Moriah.

Racial and ethnic components

Christians and Muslims often misstate Jewish text, doctrine, and history. But conceding deviations from the original Hebrew would undercut their doctrinal narratives. So, both their traditions must accuse the Jews of corruption and deceit, using themes and stereotypes that have fueled Jew-hatred throughout Christendom and the Islamic world for centuries.

Historically, the aim was not merely to disparage Jewish belief, but to devalue or subjugate the Jews as a people; and this is illustrated by the persistence of antisemitism against those who submitted to Christianity or Islam (usually on pain of death). The ethnic and racial components of antisemitism are evidenced by its continuation even after the outward elimination of doctrinal differences.

Catholic antisemitism always had a racial component. On the Iberian Peninsula, for example, people of Jewish heritage were often banned from professions and public office because of ancestry, not belief. Even before the Jews were exiled from Spain per the Edict of Expulsion in 1492 (and later from Portugal), those who were forcibly baptized and designated “New Christians” were identified by their tainted blood. This was first codified in 1449 by the “Statute of Blood Purity” in Toledo; and while some church leaders denounced such enactments, the Inquisition embraced them when it infiltrated Spain in 1478, and later Portugal, Peru, and Mexico in 1536, 1570, and 1571, respectively.

Clearly, racial antisemitism existed long before the Nazis; and it also infected Protestantism.

In targeting Jews through “friendship evangelism,” missionaries strenuously deny Protestant complicity in antisemitism by blaming Catholicism for the most pernicious forms of Jew-hatred. However, Martin Luther embraced the Church’s racial antisemitism and incorporated it in his vile screed, “On the Jews and their Lies,” which advocated expulsion, enslavement, and extermination. These tropes were later adopted by other non-Catholics, many of whom were complicit or complacent during the Holocaust.

Then there are doctrines like replacement theology and evangelical fronts like the Lausanne Movement. Whereas replacement doctrine seeks to displace actual Jews (defined by ancestry and their relationship with G-d) with a faith community of self-defined “spiritual Jews” who falsely claim covenantal status, Lausanne and similar movements actively engage in Jewish evangelism while claiming to love Israel and the Jews. Though antithetical to Torah, both recognize the Jews as a people, not merely a faith community.

And this recognition had parallels in the Islamic world, where forcibly converted Jews often stayed connected to their heritage, married among their own, continued observing Jewish rites and customs in secret – and remained under lingering suspicion. Like the Anusim (Conversos) of Christian Europe, many of these forced converts forgot their heritage while paradoxically maintaining it through rituals and marriage restrictions they continued to observe but no longer understood.

Xenophobia

When the fathers of European Enlightenment rejected the primacy of faith and national allegiances, they were offended by the Jews’ continuing embrace of their religious, ethnic, and national identity. The refusal to assimilate rendered them strangers wherever their migrations took them, arousing xenophobia with religious and racial overtones. And their image as quintessential outsiders was reinforced by their faithfulness to Torah, Jewish language, and ancient blood ties – all of which distinguished them from their host societies and reinforced stereotypes that continued to fester and mutate.

Denial of connection to Israel

A unique form of antisemitism today is the denial of the Jews’ history and connection to Israel. Progressives often maintain that Jewish identity is “only religious” to delegitimize it compared to Palestinian national identity. This theme is echoed in the PA Charter, which denies the Jews’ national history and deems them colonial occupiers.

The claim that Jewishness is “just a religion,” however, is contradicted by the scriptural, historical, and archeological records, which confirm Jewish ethnicity, national heritage, and origins in Israel. The record does not similarly validate Palestinian Arab identity, which is a modern political construct.

Jewish children

Whereas the roots of antisemitism are disparate, they are not mutually exclusive, whether based on religion, ethnicity, racial theory, or xenophobia; and regardless of ideology, it is exacerbated by the Jewish refusal to assimilate. Unfortunately, many opponents of antisemitism unwittingly help perpetuate it through ignorance of its historical and theological foundations.

Even Jewish children understand this.

My generation was born less than twenty years after the Holocaust. Though my family lost collateral relatives to the Nazis and their Ukrainian accomplices, many of my friends’ parents were Holocaust survivors who constituted a significant portion of our community. And they informed our understanding of antisemitism as simultaneously religious, ethnic, national, and racial – which colored our self-perceptions and even our sense of play.

I grew up in a neighborhood where the streets had storm-sewers with removeable grates that we could crawl through. While other kids played “cops and robbers,” we often navigated our way underground playing “escape from the ghetto.” And the brutal kidnapping of the Bibas family brings that “game” to life.

Clearly, even children experience existential angst, and ours was shaped by an awareness of antisemitism in all its manifestations – something adult academics, politicians, and media personalities never seem to grasp.

But then again, perhaps it takes the untainted sensibilities of a child to recognize the nuanced complexities of Jew-hatred and understand its scope.

Copyright 2024. Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

This Gov’t Program May Be Next On The Chopping Block In The Aftermath Of Landmark SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

The Biden administration’s Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is currently facing a legal challenge for giving assistance to Americans based on race, and it may suffer the same fate at the Supreme Court as colleges and universities did earlier this year in the court’s affirmative action ruling.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed the suit in March in a federal court in the Northern District of Texas, representing three different clients from Texas, Wisconsin and Florida, according to an announcement from WILL. The suit alleges that the MBDA, which helps minority-run businesses apply for federal grants and get other forms of capital, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by giving some races preferential treatment and will likely win in court, following similar rulings like the Supreme Court’s decision in June to end the practice of race-based admissions at both public and private higher education institutions in a pair of cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, according to experts who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The agency was enshrined into law in 2021 through the Minority Business Development Act (MBDA) under the Biden administration but has been around since 1969 through an executive order issued by former President Richard Nixon, according to the Washington Post. Judge Mark T. Pittman, appointed by former President Donald Trump, is overseeing the case and has already issued an injunction, noting that the case is likely to succeed.

The final ruling from Pittman is expected to determine the constitutionality of the MBDA and whether the agency will be blocked from using racial categories to determine eligibility and the use of the word “minority” in its name, according to The Washington Post.

“The Minority Business Development Agency, its Business Center Program, and their differential treatment of Americans based on race are extremely vulnerable in WILL’s ongoing litigation,” Dan Morenoff, lawyer and executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, told the DCNF. “I expect that the Court will rule them unconstitutional when it issues a final opinion. The agency and its program expressly classify Americans by race and treat them differently based on that classification. At least eight of the nine justices of the Supreme Court have held that the Constitution bars the federal government from discriminating to exactly the same extent, and under the same analysis, that the equal protection clause bars the states from discriminating.”

The MBDA reports that it helped minority businesses receive $1.6 trillion in contracts in 2022, with $319 billion coming from the federal government, $860 billion from the private sector, $75 billion from state governments and $306 billion from local governments, according to the agency’s 2022 performance summary. Black Americans received the most in contracts, with $680 billion going to the group, followed by Hispanic Americans receiving $526 billion, Native Americans receiving $243 billion and Asian Americans receiving $138 billion.

“I fully expect the District Court to maintain in its final ruling the substance of its ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, that the program unconstitutionally ‘provides services to certain races and ethnicities but not to others,’” William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, told the DCNF. “The District Court rendered the preliminary injunction about three weeks before the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions ruling on affirmative action. That Supreme Court ruling buttresses the District Court’s ruling on the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, so I would not expect the District Court to back off its preliminary ruling.”

The agency also touts creating 7,904 jobs and retaining another 7,514 jobs in 2022 for minorities, according to the report. Minority companies in the construction sector reaped 43% of the monetary benefits, followed by the services sector and the finance and insurance sector at 19% and 12%, respectively.

“Either this case or one of the many parallel cases contesting intentional discrimination by the Biden administration will eventually make it to the Supreme Court,” Morenoff told the DCNF. “Those cases (and I’m not speaking comprehensively) have already seen lower courts ban racial discrimination in the distribution of: COVID-aide to farms, loans to small businesses, and — here — a myriad of business coaching supports. Each of these cases reiterates the legal point that the federal government cannot pick winners and losers based on race.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based admissions in higher education, conservatives have set their targets on companies’ use of racial preferences and quotas, with a group of Republican attorneys general sending letters to dozens of employers warning them that they were violating the law in August.

A federal court in 2021 put a hold on a similar program that would have provided $4 billion in debt relief to minority farmers but was later forced to be reworked to include white farmers, according to NBC News. Another case in 2021 stopped the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, which aimed to give $28.6 billion in aid to restaurants, from prioritizing applicants based on race and gender, according to The New York Times.

“America must continue to advance towards a colorblind society where every person is judged on their merit and not the color of their skin,” Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at WILL, said in the announcement. “The Biden Administration’s choice to create this race-based agency is a step back for civil rights, and we aim to correct that misstep.”

The Department of Justice and the MBDA did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dem Senators Earmark $1 Million For LGBT Center Hosting ‘Anti-Capitalist’ Financial Planner

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Critical Race Theory And Gender Ideology Are Ubiquitous In U.S. Schools, New Study Shows

Last month, the Manhattan Institute released a groundbreaking new study, titled “School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education.”

The study presents survey results of a representative sample of over 1,500 Americans aged 18-20. Their primary finding was that “Ninety-three percent of American 18- to 20-year-olds said that they had heard about at least one of eight [Critical Social Justice] concepts from a teacher or other adult at school, including ‘white privilege,’ ‘systemic racism,’ ‘patriarchy,’ or the idea that gender is a choice unrelated to biological sex.'” Also included on the list of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) concepts are the ideas that discrimination is primarily responsible for disparities, that America is built on stolen land, and that there are many genders.

This study is significant because, over the past two years, debates about education policy have occupied an increasingly prominent place in political discourse. In particular, ideas on the proper way to instruct on subjects like race and gender have been hotly disputed. Backlash over perceived indoctrination into extreme theories of race and gender — as well as the exclusion of parents in the educational process — have decided major elections in some states.

However, up to this point, there has been a glaring issue with these debates: they have been largely based on anecdotes. The findings of the Manhattan Institute’s study are important because they represent the first time we have been able to put some real numbers to phenomena that many have only observed anecdotally.

Thus, we should examine the findings in more detail to find out how we ought to move forward.

Ever since journalists such as Christopher Rufo and Bari Weiss began highlighting examples of “institutional capture” of the education system by politically-driven actors, skeptics have often claimed that CSJ concepts are not being taught in schools. This assertion has been promoted by the leaders of teacher unions, cable news hosts, and politicians.

The issue is, and this study confirms, that their claim is simply not accurate. As noted, 93 percent of respondents affirmed that they had heard at least one CSJ concept “from a teacher or other adult at school.”

If these concepts were being introduced as one perspective among many, then there would be no issue with the fact students have been exposed to them. After all, if one wishes to give students an accurate picture of the competing visions of society, then it would be dishonest to exclude all CSJ concepts.

The issue is that the Manhattan Institute study confirms that K-12 schools are effectively indoctrinating students into radical — revolutionary, even — political ideologies. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said that, when taught, “These concepts are introduced as the only respectable approach to race, gender, and sexuality in American society.” This means various perspectives were not weighed against one another, but rather kids are being led to believe that only one view is legitimate. When one considers how impressionable K-12 students are, along with the fact teachers have a fair amount of sway over the way their students think, the issue here becomes apparent.

Click here for Deltapoll Survey results.

This is also concerning because CSJ presents a vision of America that is at best unorthodox and at worst destructive. In Critical Race Theory: An Introduction — which is among the most influential textbooks on the subject — the authors write that “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” In other words, critical race theory opposes the basic tenants of the American founding. Ibram X. Kendi, a leading “anti-racist” author — whose writing has been brought into many schools — has written that “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

There is simply no justification for schools across the country to present this as the only viable perspective.

The study demonstrates that the prevalence of CSJ concepts — and the way they have been introduced — is having real effects on students. Data presented in the report show that the more CSJ concepts kids have been exposed to, the more left-wing they are in their politics — as measured in a variety of ways in the study.

It should be clear that this approach is an improper use of the state — which should be educating, not indoctrinating, students. It not only gives children an incomplete picture of the world around them, but also creates a civil society that is more prone to intolerance of dissenting views. After all, if one was led to believe only one perspective was legitimate, then it is natural to then believe that it is important to shut out all “illegitimate” views — both socially and maybe even legislatively. This is concerning because pluralism and tolerance are indispensable to a healthy and vibrant political culture.

Critics of the educational approach detailed above often assume their enemies are the traditional public school system and public sector teacher unions. One thing that this study demonstrates, though, is that this problem is by no means exclusive to traditional public schools. Rather, this type of instruction on race and gender has made its way into private schools, parochial schools, and even homeschools; indeed, CSJ was shown to be just as prevalent in private schools as it is in public schools.

This observation is why the title of the study is “School Choice Is Not Enough.” The authors recognize that this issue is not relegated to traditional public schools, which means that advancing choice and privatization will not make the problem go away.

This is true, but it does not mean school choice should not still be promoted. After all, studies show that school choice programs are associated with better educational outcomes. Additionally, public sector teacher unions inflict considerable damage on the traditional public school system — and, by extension, the children in those schools. This means that we should recognize school choice as beneficial, but not as a panacea.

The fact that these ideas are being taught everywhere — not just in traditional public schools — suggests a deeper problem than is often assumed. It is not just about the traditional public school structure, but about an ascendant culture that — much like the instruction outlined — assumes that CSJ concepts are the capital-T Truth. Thus, in order to fight against it, and remove indoctrination in schools, it is important to address it on a cultural level. Private and parochial schools will only stop if, culturally, the tide turns decisively away from these ideas and towards those that have traditionally characterized American philosophy — ideas of liberty, virtue, pluralism, and meritocracy.

The significant exception to this “cultural argument” is when it comes to public schools. The reason is simple: the government decides the curriculum. Taking action on this front would therefore be a way of correcting government overreach. In particular, impartiality laws, curriculum transparency laws, and audits of existing instruction and employee training — as the study recommends — are reasonable measures to ensure the government is not being used as a tool of indoctrination for CSJ.

This would hopefully, in turn, help shift the culture towards a more balanced classroom in all schools.

This issue has been brewing for a long time, but only now do we have the data to back up our suspicions and anecdotal understanding. This study represents a comprehensive statement of the problem.

Now it is our job to fight back.

AUTHOR

Jack Elbaum

Jack Elbaum was a Hazlitt Writing Fellow at FEE and is a junior at George Washington University. His writing has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The New York Post, and the Washington Examiner. You can contact him at jackelbaum16@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @Jack_Elbaum.

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Do The Woke Hate Clarence Thomas So Much?

Justice Clarence Thomas, being African American, is seen as a traitor to the woke cause.


After the overturning of Roe v Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas has been a particular target of venomous attack from the woke mob. Why do they hate him so much? One might be forgiven for thinking that it is due to his staunch anti-abortion views. But that explanation does not work.

Pope Francis has long expressed that opposing abortion is “closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right”, and yet, the Left is not obsessed with him (in fact, many even take a liking). At some point, even Joe Biden supported letting States overturn Roe v Wade, and again, the Left did not go ballistic on him.

Not behaving as expected

So, why the animus against Thomas? There can only be one explanation: race. In 1991, as he was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill, Thomas countered that he was the victim of “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.”

This was loose talk, as it trivialised the suffering of real lynching victims in America’s troubled history of race relations. But Thomas did have a point in arguing that in the United States, any black person who dares to deviate from the official narrative of how blacks are supposed to act, will face severe harassment.

In 1991, he anticipated a trend that would become mainstream in our times: if you are born with a particular skin colour, you are supposed to behave in a certain way, and uphold a specific ideology. If not, you are a race traitor. As Biden so neatly phrased it:

“[I]f you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Any competent scholar of the history of racism would immediately recognise this as race essentialism. As Angelo Corlett explains in his book Race, Racism and Reparations,
“proponents of race essentialism define human races by a set of genetic or cultural traits shared by all members of a ‘racial’ group.”

Who are the neo-Nazis now?

In the first half of the 20th Century, this view was popular amongst proponents of so-called “racial science”. They believed that racial biological traits determine how people behave. Hitler believed that no matter how much a person with Jewish ancestry tried to assimilate to German society (even converting to another religion), he or she would still be a dangerous Jew, because it was in his or her essence.

Race essentialism is abhorrent, and one might think that after 1945, the world learned a lesson. And yet, race essentialism is alive and kicking, but this time, under the guise of woke progressivism. As per today’s woke rules, if you are black, you must embrace the whole woke mindset.

White people (such as Pope Francis) may occasionally be forgiven for having anti-abortion views, but if you are black and you deviate from the woke line (such as Clarence Thomas), you are a race traitor, an Uncle Tom. Unsurprisingly, Thomas has been called “Uncle Clarence” multiple times.

If you are black, not only do you have to act a certain way, but you must also have a special sexual preference. The woke pay lip service to interracial relationships, but amongst them there is a sense of unease when they contemplate a successful black man marrying a white woman.

For example, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds wrote: “Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.” Russell Adams, chairman of African American studies at Howard University, said that Thomas “marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community.”

Truly racist

Frantz Fanon is a figure beloved by the Left. In 1952, he published Black Skin, White Masks, a canonical text of wokeness. In that book, he also scorns black men who fall in love with white women. Fanon castigates himself for, at some point, having had these thoughts: “Out of the blackest part of my soul, across the zebra striping of my mind, surges this desire to be suddenly white. I wish to be acknowledged not as black but as white… I marry white culture, white beauty, white whiteness.” The implication of this passage is that loving a white woman is an act of racial treason.

Fanon felt disdain for black people who embraced Western values. He claimed they were wearing white masks, as if somehow, they were deviating from their real essence, and were therefore living an inauthentic life. Therefore — so Fanon believed — Western civilisation must be rejected entirely. As he explained in The Wretched of the Earth“When the colonized hear a speech on Western culture, they draw their machetes or at least check to see they are close to hand.” He who admires Western values is a sellout.

Ever since Fanon, racial essentialism in the name of progress has only grown worse. People of color are now encouraged not to honour punctuality, because being on time is part of whiteness. Black kids who are academically talented run the risk of being told they are “acting white”. Analysing things objectively is an act of white supremacy. And so on.

Consequently, Clarence Thomas is not allowed to have anti-abortion views. Nobody cares about his anti-abortion arguments, because he is not supposed to make them in the first place. Other jurists, philosophers or theologians will be allowed to oppose abortion, but only if they are white. Thomas is hated not because of his views, but because of his skin colour. He upsets the arbitrary racial classifications that the woke are so eager to embrace.

As per woke taxonomy, black people cannot be conservative, and if they are, they are only wearing a “white mask”. To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, “identity politics poisons everything”. We can no longer have a meaningful discussion about anything as vital as the ontological status of a fetus, because the race of the discussants will determine who is allowed to uphold a particular view. It’s time to push back against this madness.

AUTHOR

Gabriel Andrade

Gabriel Andrade is a university professor originally from Venezuela. He writes about politics, philosophy, history, religion and psychology. More by Gabriel Andrade

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WC4BL: Doctors Stop Practicing Medicine Now Treat Patients Based Solely on Race

“I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation—to reckon him who taught me this Art equally…”Hippocratic Oath (c. 400 BC) as translated from Greek by Francis Adams (1849).

“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.” –  Dr. Josef Mengele German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician, as quoted in Surfing the Tao : A Revolution of Free Will (2004) by Angela V. Michaels.

“White Coats for Black Lives (WC4BL) aims to dismantle racism in medicine and fight for the health of Black people and other people of color.”WC4BL website.


We now are seeing doctors and other medical professionals who only treat patients based on their race and not on the patients’ medical needs. Equality is gone in medicine. How do we know this?

Let’s look at a group calling themselves White Coats 4 Black Lives (WC4BL). The mission of WC4BL, according to their website, reads:

To dismantle racism and accompanying systems of oppression in health, while simultaneously cultivating means for collective liberation that center the needs, priorities, and self-determination of Black people and other people of color, particularly those most marginalized in our communities. [Emphasis added]

We were astounded when we read the WC4BL values and vision document. The WC4BL document reads in part:

Medical practice in the U.S. is informed by race as a political system, and works to legitimize race through false biological arguments. The very existence of American chattel slavery relied on scientific and medical justifications for Black inferiority. Race was created as a tool for exploitation by white people who placed themselves at the top of their invented racial hierarchy, in opposition to Blackness in particular. [Emphasis added]

After reading the WC4BL values and vision document we were reminded of the words of President John F. Kennedy given at a Commencement Address at Yale University on June 11 1962:

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

Are the leaders and chapter members of WC4BL engaged in spreading myths that are persistent, persuasive and unrealistic?

WC4BL Chapters in American Medical Schools

WC4BL website states: Active White Coats for Black Lives chapters are listed below, along with their contact information. Want to start a chapter at your medical school or hospital? Check out our Chapter Guide to learn more.

Here’s the list of WC4BL Chapters:

Bastyr University (Kenmore, WA) – bukwc4bl@gmail.com
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA) – bidmc.wc4bl@gmail.com
Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine (University Park, NM) – bcomwc4bl@gmail.com
Chicago Health Coalition for Black Lives (Chicago, IL) – chc4bl@gmail.com
Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University (North Chicago, IL) – rfuwc4bl@gmail.comhttps://sites.google.com/my.rfums.org/rfumsalliesforblacklives/home
College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI) – msuchmwc4bl@gmail.com
College of Osteopathic Medicine at Kansas City University (Kansas City, MO) – KCUWc4bl@gmail.com
Creighton University School of Medicine (Omaha, NE) – creightonwc4bl@gmail.com
East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine (Greenville, NC) – brodywc4bl@gmail.com
Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, VA) – evmswc4bl@gmail.com
Florida State University College of Medicine (Tallahassee, FL) – fsuwc4bl@gmail.com
Frank H. Netter School of Medicine (North Haven, CT) – netterWC4BL@gmail.com
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (Hanover, NH) – dartmouthwc4bl@gmail.com
Georgetown University School of Medicine (Washington, D.C.) – georgetownwc4bl@gmail.com
GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences (Washington, D.C.) – gwuwc4bl@gmail.com
Kaiser Northern California (CA) – kaisernorcalwc4bl@gmail.com
Kansas University School of Medicine (Kansas City, KS) – KUMCwhitecoats4blacklives@gmail.com
Lincoln Memorial University DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine (Harrogate, TN) – lmudcomwc4bl@gmail.com
Louisiana State University School of Medicine (New Orleans, LA) – lsu.nola.WC4BL@gmail.com
Loyola University Chicago Stricht School of Medicine (Maywood, IL) – whitecoats4blacklives.stritch@gmail.com
Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston, MA) – MGHWC4BL@gmail.com
McGill University – Faculty of Medicine (Montreal, Quebec) – mcgillwc4bl@gmail.com
McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas at Houston Health Science Center (Houston, TX) – uthwc4bl@gmail.com
Medical College of Georgia (Augusta, GA) – mcgwc4bl@gmail.com
Meharry Medical College (Nashville, TN) – meharrywc4bl@gmail.com
Morsani College of Medicine at the University of South Florida (Tampa, FL) – usf.wc4bl@gmail.com
New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (Old Westbury, NY) – nyitcom.wc4bl@gmail.com
Northwestern Medicine (Chicago, IL) – NorthwesternMedicineWC4BL@gmail.com
Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale (Fort Lauderdale, FL) – novaftl.wc4bl@gmail.com
Oregon Health & Science University (Portland, OR) – orwc4bl@gmail.com
PCOM South Georgia (Moultrie, GA) PCOM SGA – pcomsga.wc4bl@gmail.com
Penn State College of Medicine (Hershey, PA) – pscomwc4bl@gmail.com
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (Philadelphia, PA) – pcomwc4bl@gmail.com
Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine (Iowa City, IA) – uiowaWC4BL@gmail.com
Rush University Medical College (Chicago, IL) – rushuniversitywc4bl@gmail.com
Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Newark, NJ) – rwjmswc4bl@gmail.com
School of Medicine – University of Mississippi Medical Center (Jackson, MS) – mississippisomwc4bl@gmail.com
Sidney Kimmel Medical College – Thomas Jefferson University (Philadelphia, PA) – jeffersonwc4bl@gmail.com
Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (Tempe, AZ) – scnmwc4bl@gmail.com
St. George’s University (True Blue, Grenada) – st.georgeswc4bl@gmail.com
TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine (Fort Worth, TX) – tcu.unthsc.wc4bl@gmail.com
Texas Tech Health Science Center El Paso (El Paso, TX) – FosterSOMWC4BL@gmail.com
The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine (Chicago, IL) – wc4blpritzker@gmail.com
Touro College of Medicine (New York, NY) – tourocomharlemwc4bl@gmail.com
Tufts University School of Medicine (Boston, MA) – tuftswc4bl@gmail.com
UAB School of Medicine (Birmingham, AL) – uasom.wc4bl@gmail.com
UC Davis School of Medicine (Sacramento, CA) – wc4bl.ucdsom@gmail.com
UMass Medical School (Worcester, MA) – wc4blumms@gmail.com
UNC School of Medicine (Chapel Hill, NC) – uncsomwc4bl@gmail.com
University at Buffalo Residency Programs (Buffalo, NY) – ubresidentswc4bl@gmail.com
University of Arizona College of Medicine (Tucson, AZ) – uacompwc4bl@gmail.com
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (Little Rock, AR) – uamswc4bl@gmail.com
University of Colorado School of Medicine (Aurora, CO) – cusomwhitecoats4blacklives@gmail.com
University of Illinois College of Medicine – Chicago (Chicago, IL) – UIWC4BL@gmail.com
University of Kentucky College of Medicine (Lexington, KY) – ukcom.wcfbl@gmail.com
University of Maryland School of Medicine (Baltimore, MD) – umaryland.wc4bl@gmail.com
University of Michigan Medical School (Ann Arbor, MI) – ummswhitecoats4blacklives@gmail.com
University of Minnesota Medical School (Minneapolis, MN) – whitecoats4blacklivesumn@gmail.com
University of New Mexico (Albuquerque, NM) – wc4bil@gmail.com
University of Pennsylvania Residencies (Philadelphia, PA) – pennresidentswc4bl@gmail.com
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (Pittsburgh, PA) – UPSOMWC4BL@gmail.com
University of Rochester School of Medicine (Rochester, NY) – urochesterwc4bl@gmail.com
University of the Pacific (California) – uop.wc4bl@gmail.com
University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences (Toledo, OH) – utcomwhitecoats4blacklives@gmail.com
University of Utah School of Medicine (Salt Lake City, UT) – uusomWC4BL@gmail.com
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine (Madison, WI) – UWSMPHWC4BL@gmail.com
Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University (New York, NY) – columbiawc4bl@gmail.com
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, RI) – whitecoats4blacklivesams@gmail.com
Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis, MO)
Weill Cornell Medicine (New York, NY) – wcmwc4bl@gmail.com
Westchester Medical Center (Valhalla, NY) – wmc.wc4bl@gmail.com
Western University of Health Sciences (Lebanon, OR) – WesternUPomWC4BL@gmail.com
Western University of Health Sciences (Pomona, CA) – WC4BLLebanon@westernu.edu
Wright State University – Boonshoft School of Medicine (Fairborn, OH) – WC4BLwsubsom@gmail.com
Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University (Hempstead, NY) – zsomwc4bl@gmail.com

It appears that WC4BL is creating the next generation of doctors bent on using race as a primary goal of practicing and giving healthcare.

The Bottom Line

WC4BL believes:

Our job is two-fold: 1) dismantling dominant, exploitative systems in the United States, which are largely reliant on anti-Black racism, colonialism, cisheteropatriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism; and 2) rebuilding a future that supports the health and well-being of marginalized communities.

Doctors are trained in their specialty to provide their services to all of their patients regardless of race. When healthcare becomes political, healthcare suffers and patients suffer. When healthcare becomes a weapon to “dismantling dominant, exploitive systems in the United States” then medicine and doctors have become “fundamentally transformed” into political activists. We have seen doctors become agents of the state before, think of German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician Dr. Josef Mengele who became the Nazi Party’s “angle of death.”

Hate for America, hate for those who believe that gender is binary (male and female), hate of capitalism, hate of whites are not about treating those who need treatment. There appears to be a Marxist based movement that’s now taking over the medical profession and some medical schools.

This movement is dangerous, unhealthy and can only lead to the destruction of the medical profession.

Medicine has become weaponized for political purposes.

In our column “The Rise of the Bio-Medical Security State” we wrote:

In February 1920, Hitler presented a 25-point Program (the Nazi Party Platform) at a Nazi Party meeting. In the 25-point program, Nazi Party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from “Aryan” society and to abrogate Jews’ political, legal and civil rights.

Fast forward to January 2022 and we now see a Democrat Party Platform, enforced by federal bureaucrats, Democrat members of Congress and party leaders, to segregate the “unvaccinated” from “American” society and to abrogate the political, legal and civil rights of the unvaxxed.

Now, sadly, we can add doctors to the ranks of the Bio-Medical Security State.

Next time you visit your doctor ask if they are a member of WC4BL. If their answer is yes then you may want to find another doctor.

Sad, but true.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Watch: CDC Made It Official Policy to Withhold Covid Vaccines on Basis of Race

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why the Bastardization of the Scientific Method Is so Dangerous

‘White Coats for Black Lives’ Calling the Shots at America’s Medical Schools

Biden Administration Cuts Florida’s Weekly Monoclonal Shipment in Half

Where I Come From We Judge People by the Content of Their Characters

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Character: The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

After having served in the U.S. Army for 23-years I have learned to judge individuals by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

I served in a military where men of all colors swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Those with whom I served, and all those who have served honorably, are my brothers for he who sheds his blood with me is forever my brother.

As an officer, and commander of multiple units, I was responsible to judge the characters of those who served under me. I had the authority, under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, to be the judge, jury and punisher of those soldiers who broke military laws and regulations. Just as I was subject to the same codes, laws and regulations.

Having served in combat I know about the content of others, and my own, characters. There is nothing like the heat of battle to bring out both the best and worst in men, and now women, in our military.

Understanding the character of individuals is a fundamental key to effective leadership.

Sadly today, character has taken a backseat to the color of one’s skin.

Today:

  • If you are white you are automatically labeled a racist.
  • If you are black you are automatically given a free pass on the content of your character.
  • If you are neither white or black, you are considered to be irrelevant or marginalized.

In a column titled “The Vague Grounds of ‘Systemic’ Racism” David Carlin asks:

Is “systemic racism” real?  Or is it an abuse of language, stretching the meaning of the word “racism” beyond its legitimate bounds?

The Oxford English Dictionary‘s first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.

Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.

Racism has become a construct that has been turned into an effective weapon used by some to create racial division both in America and globally.

Their goal isn’t to unite Americans but to divide us. Their goal isn’t to unite the world it’s to divide it.

A divided people are easily manipulated and controlled.

It is an easily used word to win an argument with someone whom you disagree with. If you want to shut down any discussion with a white, black, Hispanic, oriental or American Indian then just call him or her a “racist.”

Racism is the ultimate political club.

When we judge people by what they do, by their character, then we are judging outcomes, not the color of one’s skin. Do good, do well and you are contributing to yourself, your family, your community, your state and the nation.

Do badly and you harm yourself and others.

You see, character has a moral basis. It is a religious construct.

1 Corinthians 15:33 warns,

Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

Character is a choice between doing good or doing evil.

Without character what are we but mere animals?

How do you judge people?

Where I Come From by Alan Jackson

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Leonydus Johnson – An Advocate for Post Racial Identity

The popular woke notion that a white person has no right to express their opinion to a black person is a preposterous canard. Of course whites can speak out, because year after year, the Democratic party relies on black voters to change the outcome of every close election in America. When someone is altering your future, sending it careening into an abyss, you have the right to try to talk them out of it.

Nonetheless, it is always a relief to find another black influencer who is willing to challenge the Democratic machine. At the risk of playing the same game at which the woke Left excels, we’ll just state for the record that of the 348 records now populating the Winston84 directory, 58 of those individuals are black. That’s almost 17 percent. And today we proudly add another, Leonydus Johnson, who bills himself on Twitter as “an advocate for post racial identity.”

Until the next wave of cancellations, influencers like Leonydus Johnson may not be boosted by the big platforms, but they’re making their presence known. With 111,000 followers on Twitter, and a growing presence on the other mainstream venues – FacebookInstagram, and YouTube – Johnson is a man to watch. It would be a shame if he had to move onto the alternative platforms, but how he has been harassed so far is an indication of how the threshold for tolerable speech is being relentlessly lowered.

For example, on his Instagram account, Johnson has a screenshot of a Tweet where he wrote “How can Americans be so arrogant as to believe that what happened in places like Maoist China cannot possibly happen here?” Good question! And for his trouble, Twitter notified Johnson that “Your post didn’t follow our Community Standards on hate speech. No one else can see your post.”

Are you kidding?

Johnson’s website is called “Informed Dissent,” where he discloses that “His sociopolitical and economic views are heavily influenced by the likes of Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman, and Jordan Peterson.” His content is fact based, rational, and delivered with a controlled passion that will move the uncommitted.

People like Leonydus Johnson are going to save America. Because they are rising up, as post-racial individuals, and demanding that “Who I am has very little to do with my skin color.” These awakened warriors against the woke Left are a sleeping giant. They are the heart of America, they are united, and they will prevail.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why I Painted Over the BLM Mural in NYC.

This new episode of The Glazov Gang features Bevelyn Beatty, a Christian evangelist who is co-Founder of atwellministries.org.

Bevelyn explains Why I Painted Over the BLM Mural in NYC, revealing the war we’re in – and why she’s on the frontlines.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

RELATED:

Homosexuality Is the New Black

In order to have a fully functioning society, we must have some common baseline of beliefs that join us together, whether it’s a fraternity, a church, or a political party. Without this commonality, belonging to a group or a society is impossible.

We hold these trues to be self-evident: the Earth is round, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Barack Obama is the president of the United States, and if you are born with a penis you are a male. If you are born with a vagina you are a female.

Oh-oh! These last two are going to get me in trouble. Now I will be called homophobic, hateful, un-Christian, a divider, not fit for public service, unfit for management in corporate America, etc., but the question is, “Why?”

In God’s senility, he has become so old and feeble that he is making a lot of mistakes. He is mistakenly putting penises on girls and vaginas on boys. As the philosopher Protagoras argued, “Man has become the measure of all things.” This was the essence of the philosophy called relativism.

Many Christians and conservatives have willingly bowed at the altar of political correctness for political gain. Why do we feel the need to apologize for not wanting a man going to same bathroom as our 14 year-old daughter? Why do we feel the need to apologize for not wanting a woman going to the same bathroom as our 16 year-old son?

Spineless corporate America has never shown in any principles when it has come to issues of right and wrong. They respond only to profit and liberal orthodoxy. Why would a business oppose legislation describing those born with a penis as male and those born with a vagina as female?

These orbiters of “moral hypocrisy” have come out of the closet, literally, against the state of North Carolina because their governor, Pat McCrory, recently signed legislation codifying the biological principle of male and female.

How this bill, HB2, is being described as hateful and discriminatory is baffling to me. Singer Bruce Springsteen has made this his cause célèbre by cancelling his upcoming concert in Greensboro, North Carolina. Bruce seemed to have gotten laryngitis when it came to the lack of any Black actor nominees for the past two years for the Academy Awards, but I digress.

If the corporate community showed the same amount of outrage over the “real” discrimination towards the Black community, we would have more Blacks in the executive suites and on their corporate boards.

According to 2013 research by Richard L. Zweigenhaft of Guilford College, the board of directors of Fortune 500 companies are 87.2 percent White (about 75 percent male), 6.8 percent Black (5.3 percent male), 3.1 percent Latino (2.4 percent male), and 2.4 percent Asian (2 percent male).

Now let’s look at sports.

Based on 2013 research from Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, 19 percent of NBA players are White, but 98 percent of majority owners and 64 percent of the league office staff is White. In comparison, Blacks account for 76 percent of NBA players, and roughly 2 percent of majority owners and 18 percent of league office staff. In the NFL, Whites account for 30 percent of the players and 97 percent of majority owners. Even though 66 percent of NFL players are Black, not a single majority owner in the NFL is African American. When it comes to diversity in ownership, coaching positions and league office staff in the NBA and the NFL, Hispanics and Asians often fare worse.

Blacks account for 13.2 percent of the U.S. population, Hispanics make up 17.4 percent of the population and Asians account for 5.4 percent of the population. Homosexuals are estimated to be 3 percent of the U.S. population, but corporations are more aggressively seeking diversity based on sexual preferences than other measures of diversity.

Based on the above numbers, corporations, the NBA and the NFL should focus more on the lack of diversity among Blacks and Latinos on their corporate boards and the ownership and management of professional sporting teams;, not on this radical leftist agenda to allow confused people to go into bathrooms with people of the opposite sex.

The homosexual community has done a masterful job at the old art of bait and switch. They have portrayed their issue as one of equality, but their real goal is to obtain “legal status” as a protected class in order to get their radical agenda codified into law. All this other stuff is simply background noise.

Isn’t it amazing that former homosexual football player, Michael Sam, recently told Attitude Magazine, “It’s terrible. You want to be accepted by other people, but you don’t even accept someone just because of the color of their skin? I just don’t understand that at all. How are you saying that, “oh, I want people to accept me because I’m gay, but I don’t accept you because you’re Black or because you’re White or because you’re Asian.”

But yet, the corporate community throws millions of dollars at the white homosexual community despite their well-known discrimination of Black homosexuals. Can someone please reconcile this fact for me?

These same corporations that are criticizing HB2 in North Carolina are actively doing and pursuing business in countries that are the most repressive in the world in their treatment of homosexuals.

The NBA plays several exhibition games in China and spends millions of dollars advertising in this country. Google, PayPal, Facebook, Delta Airlines, Hilton Hotels, and Coca-Cola do millions of dollars of business in Saudi Arabia, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.

So, if they are so concerned about the treatment of homosexuals, why do they do business in these repressive countries?

This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with the politics. Homosexuals don’t deserve special treatment based on their sexual preferences, but they do deserve equal treatment based on their humanity.

RELATED VIDEO: Homosexuality – Persons with same sex attractions deserve our respect and compassion. But the militant gay movement’s message that ‘gay’ is good is completely false. This lie is confusing society and hurting the individuals themselves.

RELATED ARTICLE: What goes on at a school “gay straight alliance” club event? Here’s the horrific truth.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

U.S. Census Bureau: Demographic and Economic Profiles of Iowa’s Electorate

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each state’s voting-age population and industries. This is the first in a series of such profiles for all the states holding primaries or caucuses. Statistics include:

cb16-tps09_graphic_voting_iowa

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov

The Rampant Racists of Tinsel Town by Ivan Betinov

37270-Whats-black-and-never-works---Racist-meme

Graphic by Navigator.

It’s official, movie fans: all of the cinema celebrities, heretofore the paragons of Progressive thought, are actually a sinister conspiracy of racists.

For the SECOND year in a row, not a single actress actor performer of color was nominated for ANY of the top slots in the Oscars. This can obviously be due to ONLY one thing: RACISM!

Of the some 2,900 films released in 2015, only eight were nominated. And not one of those eight were primarily about Black topics or starred black actors in the lead. This means that some TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY-TWO films were denied nomination. And the ONLY cause a film can be denied nomination is RACISM!

There are over 7,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Twenty performers were nominated, total, for best actor or actress, or supporting actor or actress. Not ONE of them is an actor or actress of color. That means that THOUSANDS of actors and actresses DID NOT RECEIVE A NOMINATION for these awards. And the only reason an actor or actress can be denied a nomination is RACISM!

The only possible way to remedy this situation is to mandate that at least one out of every three nominations goes to a person of color, and that at least one award in each category go to one of the nominees of color.

This mandated win will affirm that black actors, actresses, and film makers will know that their peers truly respect their talent on the basis solely of their race, as that is the important thing.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

University to Hold ‘Segregated’ Diversity Workshops on Race

This month, to relatively little outrage or public notice, Oregon State University is holding segregated “diversity” sessions for students, staff, and faculty. At “retreats,” students and faculty will learn about identity and micro-agressions (for example: expressing a belief in merit, wearing an offensive Halloween costume, or having someone feel like she does not belong).

The Daily Caller reports that a total of four workshops will be held: one for non-white students, another for white students (to educate them about their “white privilege”), one for multi-racial students, and one for white faculty and staff called “Examining White Identity.”

The testimonials at the university’s website indicate that the sessions are sure to foster more “cry-bullies,” as we saw on campuses across the country in 2015. And it seems that among Oregon State’s 30,000 students, none raised significant objections to funding being spent on segregated sessions.

This same outrage almost happened in 2013 at Hamilton College, too. But that proposed segregated “dialogue” never went forward, thanks to students affiliated with the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization (AHI).

In 2013, from the lavishly funded on-campus Days-Massolo Center (ironically founded “to embrace the importance of supporting a diverse and inclusive community”), an email was sent inviting students to participate in a “dialogue about internalized racism.” The “dialogue,” however, was for “people of color” only. Another dialogue for white students and faculty was promised for the following semester, and the program would have culminated in a non-segregated session.

AHI students, led by senior Dean Ball, got the administration to back down.

Ball described what happened in a blog post at Legal Insurrection, a site run by Cornell law professor William A. Jacobson, a Hamilton College alum who has been dismayed by what’s been going on at the small elite liberal arts college.

Ball described speaking to Amit Taneja — Hamilton College’s “Director of Diversity & Inclusion” — and expressing dismay at this new form of segregation. Taneja, without any evidence, told Ball that his views were in the “minority” of the student body.

Ball pointed out that Taneja’s job description was to protect minorities.

Ball was a leader of the 150-member student body at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, an independent non-profit education corporation founded by three Hamilton College faculty members: history professors Robert Paquette and Douglas Ambrose, and economics professor James Bradfield. The three were concerned about the decline of academic standards and loss of freedom. As Paquette puts it, AHI upholds the “ethos of a liberal arts education,” countering the all-too common liberal arts college’s “political agenda that masks a totalitarian impulse in a utopian illusion.”

The AHI offers students educational opportunities they rarely get in college: exposure to Augustine, Plato, and Leo Strauss through reading groups; lectures on and off campus by distinguished scholars and writers; the opportunity to write for a student newspaper, Enquiry, that respects their opinions; and internships, directed readings, and social gatherings at the AHI building on the village square, about 1.5 miles from the campus on the hill.

The center was originally to be on campus, but found itself the target of a faculty-led hostile takeover attempt. The story is related in the New Criterion; I now live in the building as one of two resident fellows.

The AHI students contacted the media, prepared a petition for Hamilton’s board of trustees, and wrote an op-ed for the student newspaper. They also sent out a campus-wide email with the heading “RACIAL SEGREGATION AT HAMILTON.” The email stated:

“The Alexander Hamilton Institute believes that no safe zone is worth the price of segregation. All are welcome to join us for a conversation on race.”

That was enough to get Taneja to open the “dialogue” to all races. That victory, however, marked the beginning of the harassment of Ball and other AHI students.

That very night, Ball was threatened with violence and accused of white supremacy, almost entirely by students he had never met. His Twitter and Facebook feeds were filled with “both fury and support over what the AHI had done.”

The following Monday, September 23, his character was attacked at the Student Assembly meeting, which, according to the SA president, drew more students than he’d ever seen. The next morning Ball found the campus littered with “hundreds of pieces of paper posted on trees, windows, doors, and everywhere else imaginable” with sayings about social justice from luminaries like Tupac Shakur.

Ball concluded:

“Hamilton’s campus was no ‘safe zone’ for me or anyone sympathetic to what the Alexander Hamilton Institute did.”

Now manager of state and local policy at the Manhattan Institute, Ball recalls those days. Although it was a student-led initiative, “[w]e always knew we had the full-throated support of [Executive Director] Professor Paquette and everyone else at AHI.” The agreement was implicit: “Professor Paquette and I had been through enough of these incidents at this point that this dynamic between us was understood.”

Paquette had challenged Taneja from the time of the self-identified social-justice activist’s hiring. Paquette recalls sending the trustees a lengthy letter in 2011 that used Taneja’s own words to describe who he was and to inform of what he intended to do as director of the “so-called cultural education (indoctrination) center.” Although the trustees and administration did not heed Paquette’s words in 2011, in 2013 AHI students forced Taneja’s hand.

To be sure, places like AHI can’t cure political correctness on our campuses. But when 19 year olds are surrounded by guest speakers like performance artist Rhodessa Jones, are ridiculed by their professors in class, and are punished for failing to complete assignments to their political specifications, it just takes a professor or two and a handful of peers to give them the confidence to face down the mobs of angry students and hostile administrators. Per Dean Ball:

“The AHI connected me to all of the like-minded students on campus and the AHI gave me the intellectual firepower I needed in the first place to effectively counter the administration’s tactics.”

In 20 years of teaching college English, I’ve rarely seen such poised, polite, well-rounded, and confident young people. They are polished writers and public speakers. I also recognize the students giving testimonials for the Oregon workshops, ending statements on question marks and repeating slogans like zombies. Sadly, they are far more common and their numbers have increased in recent years.

It looks like there is a need for something like the AHI in Oregon. Surely, there must be enough students there to confront this new form of Jim Crow: campus brainwashing sessions.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PJMedia.com.

How Affirmative Action Backfires by Richard Sander

Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court again this week, as it rehears arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas. (I’ve discussed the legal issues in Fisher here.)

But perhaps the most important question about racial preferences is one that’s not directly raised by the case: do they even work? Do they help underrepresented minorities to achieve their goals, and foster interracial interaction and understanding on elite campuses? Or do large preferences often “mismatch” students in campuses where they will struggle and fail?

Scholars began empirically studying the mismatch issue in the 1990s, but in the past five years the field has matured. There are now dozens of careful, peer-reviewed studies that find strong evidence of mismatch.

None of the authors of these studies claim that mismatch is a universal or inevitable consequence of affirmative action. But in my view, only demagogues (of which there is, unfortunately, no shortage) or people who haven’t read the relevant literature can still claim that mismatch is not a genuine problem.

It is helpful to think about mismatch as three interrelated phenomena that could affect a student of any race — let’s call her Sally — who receives a large admissions preference, so that she attends a college where her level of academic preparation is substantially below that of her peers.

First, “learning mismatch” occurs if Sally learns less than she would at a less competitive school, because the pace is too fast or her professors are pitching their material at a level that’s not ideal for her.

Others and I have argued that learning mismatch occurs on a massive scale in American law schools, where African-Americans (and some other students) tend to receive very large preferences and then, very often, are never able to practice law because they cannot pass bar exams.

Our best estimate is that only about one-third of black students who start law school in America successfully graduate and pass the bar exam on their first attempt (see my September 2006 blog post here).

A second form of mismatch — “competition” mismatch — occurs when students abandon particular fields, or college itself, because of the practical and psychological effects of competing with better-prepared students.

Suppose that Sally dreams of becoming a chemist, does very well in a standard high school chemistry course, and receives a preference into an elite school where most of her classmates have taken AP Chemistry. Even if Sally does not experience “learning” mismatch, she may nonetheless end up with a B- or a C in chemistry simply because of the strength of the competition.

A long line of studies (e.g., this excellent study by two psychologists) have shown that students receiving large preferences, facing these pressures, tend to abandon STEM fields in large numbers. Competition mismatch thus appears to have large and damaging effects on the number of African-Americans, in particular, graduating with science or engineering degrees.

The third type of mismatch — “social mismatch” — is in some ways the most intriguing.

Several studies have now found that college students are much more likely to form friendships with students who have similar levels of academic preparation or performance at college. The phenomenon operates even within racial groups, but when a college’s preferences are highly correlated with race (as they are at many elite schools), social mismatch can lead to self-segregation by minority students.

The result is decreased social interaction across racial lines. That’s particularly relevant to the Supreme Court’s deliberations because its tolerance of racial preferences has been based on the idea that a diverse racial campus promotes interracial contact and learning.

But if preferences promote substantial social mismatch, then race-conscious admissions actually decrease interracial contact and learning — not only at the school where the preferences are used, but also at the college that the preferenced minority student would have attended in the absence of preferences.

Of course, new studies of higher education come out all the time, and one can point to some study to argue almost any point. What makes the evidence of mismatch so compelling is the large number of very high-quality studies that have appeared in the past few years, performed by a wide array of scholars and appearing in the strongest academic journals that exercise the most stringent peer review.

For example, the highly-respected Journal of Economic Literature last year commissioned two economists to summarize the state of research on higher education mismatch. To ensure an impartial study, the two economists JEL selected started out with different views of mismatch: one was a skeptic, the other the author of research that had found evidence of mismatch. JEL also asked seven other economists, again representing a wide range of perspectives, to peer review the article when it was drafted.

The resulting article is circumspect, but unequivocal in finding that much of the evidence on mismatch (especially in law school and the sciences) is compelling.

The American Economic Review — one of the three or four top journals in the social sciences — also recently announced that it is publishing a comprehensive study of mismatch in the sciences. It takes advantage of an unusually large database from eight campuses of the University of California, covering the period before and after California voters, through Prop 209, made it illegal to consider of race in public college admissions.

The study could thus examine how UC students who, through racial preferences, attended the most elite UC campuses before Prop 209 compared with very similar students who attended less elite campuses after Prop 209.

Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban Aucejo, and Joseph Hotz conclude unequivocally: “We find less-prepared minority students at top-ranked campuses would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower-ranked campuses.”

The gold standard for empirical research is a genuine experimental design, where a group of subjects are randomly assigned to “treatment” and “control” groups. While random experiments are routine in medical research, they are still uncommon in the social sciences. A revealing study of that kind was recently conducted by three economists working with the Air Force Academy. 

Based on other work, the researchers hypothesized that students entering the Academy with relatively weak academic preparation would learn more and do better if they were assigned to squadrons with particularly academically strong cadets, thus creating opportunities for mentoring and tutoring. The Academy agreed to do a large randomized experiment, assigning some of the targeted students to the experimental squadrons with strong peers, and other students to “control” groups comprised of more typical students.

Again, the results were unequivocal: academically weak students in the experimental group learned less and got worse grades. Having much stronger students in the same squadron increased the weaker students’ tendency to form study groups with other weak students — a strong demonstration of “social mismatch.”

All this impressive research — and much more in a similar vein — has had little impact upon educational institutions. Even though many educational leaders will admit in private that the research is compelling, they believe that any public admission that racial preferences are counterproductive would be met with the sort of campus reaction that routinely drives college presidents from office.

For the same reason, university presidents and other educational leaders aggressively block the release of information vital to mismatch research — data which could, for example, help determine the border between small, safe preferences and large, harmful ones.

All of this should give the Supreme Court pause in assessing racial preferences. Past Court decisions have invoked a traditional deference to the independence of educational institutions. But colleges and universities have demonstrated that they are politically incapable of acting as good fiduciaries for their most vulnerable students.

A version of this post first appeared at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Richard Sander
Richard Sander

Richard Sander is an economist and law professor at UCLA, where he has taught since 1989.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Mismatched’ black students pay the price of affirmative action – The Boston Globe

Student Demands: Conformity, Thought Police, Show Trials by Walter Olson

Of the demands being made by protesters in the current wave of unrest on American campuses, some no doubt are well grounded and worth considering. Some of them, on the other hand, challenge academic freedom head on.

Some would take control of curriculum and hiring out of the hands of faculty. Some would enforce conformity of thought. Some would attack the rights of dissenters. Some would merely gut the seriousness of the university.

Last night I did a long series of tweets drawing on a website which sympathetically compiles demands from campus protests — TheDemands.org — and noting some of the more troublesome instances:

  • From Dartmouth: “All professors will be required to be trained in not only cultural competency but also the importance of social justice in their day-to-day work.”
  • From Wesleyan: “An anonymous student reporting system for cases of bias, including microaggressions, perpetrated by faculty and staff.”
  • From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “White professors must be discouraged from leading and teaching departments about demographics and societies colonized, massacred, or enslaved under white supremacy.”
  • From Guilford College: “We suggest that every week a faculty member come forward and publicly admit their participation in racism inside the classroom via a letter to the editor” in the college paper.

My series drew and continues to draw a strong reaction. Now I’ve Storified the tweets as a single narrative, including some of the responses. Read it here.

Cross-posted from Overlawyered.

Walter OlsonWalter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.