Tag Archive for: DEI

Why Every Republican Should Back Blake Masters’ War Against “Affirmative Action”

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A little over a week ago, rising Republican star Blake Masters dared to say what so much of the Republican base knows is obvious, but so few of their leaders are willing to say: That a major reason for the Biden administration’s ineffectiveness is its devout belief in hiring based on race, sex, and “LGBTQ+” status rather than ability.

Liberal press outlets immediately recoiled in horror, but Masters doubled down the following day with a declaration of war on the “affirmative action regime.”

Much like when Trump said the obvious-but-unthinkable about America’s border and its foreign wars, Masters’ statements about affirmative action earned a huge amount of free media from the left.

No doubt there are many Republican consultants and so-called “experts” pooh-poohing Masters for going “off-message” and taking aim at such a loaded topic. Doesn’t he realize it’s better to just focus mindlessly on the economy, stupid? Why talk about sweeping issues of critical importance to the American way of life when he could just fuss about higher gas prices and baby formula shortages?

If these consultants exist, they are wrong. Masters’ attack on affirmative is entirely merited and long-overdue. And more to the point, the entire Republican Party should be following Masters into a full-scale war against affirmative action, everywhere in American life. 

They greatest reason they should do this is on moral grounds. Treating people as members of demographic categories rather than as individuals is evil. The ever-widening use of affirmative action, coupled with anti-white and anti-male discrimination, is an affront to human dignity.

The second reason all Republicans should take on affirmative action is because it’s enormously destructive to America. As Masters’ tweet and video make plain, affirmative action is about far more than just college admissions slots or entry-level jobs. Affirmative action has become an elaborate patronage system touching every part of American life. The President picks his VP and Supreme Court nominees using affirmative action. Companies appoint board members based on affirmative action. Government contracts are awarded based on race and sex rather than ability. Police and prosecutors are openly pressured to enforce the law less harshly on blacks than on whites.

Any governing system that treats race as a priority rather than trying to ignore it entirely is asking for disaster…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Revolver News.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Why Every Republican Should Back Blake Masters’ War Against “Affirmative Action”

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A little over a week ago, rising Republican star Blake Masters dared to say what so much of the Republican base knows is obvious, but so few of their leaders are willing to say: That a major reason for the Biden administration’s ineffectiveness is its devout belief in hiring based on race, sex, and “LGBTQ+” status rather than ability.

Liberal press outlets immediately recoiled in horror, but Masters doubled down the following day with a declaration of war on the “affirmative action regime.”

Much like when Trump said the obvious-but-unthinkable about America’s border and its foreign wars, Masters’ statements about affirmative action earned a huge amount of free media from the left.

No doubt there are many Republican consultants and so-called “experts” pooh-poohing Masters for going “off-message” and taking aim at such a loaded topic. Doesn’t he realize it’s better to just focus mindlessly on the economy, stupid? Why talk about sweeping issues of critical importance to the American way of life when he could just fuss about higher gas prices and baby formula shortages?

If these consultants exist, they are wrong. Masters’ attack on affirmative is entirely merited and long-overdue. And more to the point, the entire Republican Party should be following Masters into a full-scale war against affirmative action, everywhere in American life. 

They greatest reason they should do this is on moral grounds. Treating people as members of demographic categories rather than as individuals is evil. The ever-widening use of affirmative action, coupled with anti-white and anti-male discrimination, is an affront to human dignity.

The second reason all Republicans should take on affirmative action is because it’s enormously destructive to America. As Masters’ tweet and video make plain, affirmative action is about far more than just college admissions slots or entry-level jobs. Affirmative action has become an elaborate patronage system touching every part of American life. The President picks his VP and Supreme Court nominees using affirmative action. Companies appoint board members based on affirmative action. Government contracts are awarded based on race and sex rather than ability. Police and prosecutors are openly pressured to enforce the law less harshly on blacks than on whites.

Any governing system that treats race as a priority rather than trying to ignore it entirely is asking for disaster…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Revolver News.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

A Skeptic Confronts False Prophets

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

John McWhorter has written an important book—a heretical book, really, because, in today’s America, black men are anathema if they believe what he believes, or write what he writes. McWhorter knows the bounds within which he is expected to live, but will not suffer the faux righteousness disseminated by the Elect of the Establishment Church of Wokeness. We will come to this church’s relationship, if any, to the Christian churches shortly; but supposing some linkage, we might, with respect to its understanding of race in America, be tempted to invoke Rom. 1:22, and say of this new religion: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Woke Racism is McWhorter’s account of its foolishness.

Why can men like John McWhorter not have a place in the ghoulish world The Elect has constructed, a world in which the necessary separation between politics and religion has collapsed, a world in which a self-assured and disconnected elite does immense harm to black America while professing to help it? Consider the term, diversity, one of the articles of confession of this new religion. In a country with a historic but never fully realized commitment to pluralism, diversity sounds like a noble idea. It is not. Diversity presupposes that persons must be treated in terms of their purportedly essential group identities. These group characteristics are monovalent. To be a woman, you must be a feminist; to be black, you must vote for the Democratic Party and shun conservative ideas, etc. 

Diversity claims to make visible those persons who heretofore have been invisible. It does that—at the cost of making invisible those persons who cannot in principle exist within the groups it purports to make visible: traditional women, black conservatives, etc. Pluralism demands that all voices be heard on account of their personhood; diversity demands that purportedly innocent victim groups be heard and ranked according to their victimhood. Those who have no standing as victims must be silent; victims alone may speak; victims alone count. The early twentieth century toyed with eugenics schemes that ranked races according to their strength; in the early twenty-first century, the Elect of the Establishment Church of Wokeness toyed with a spiritual eugenics scheme that ranks identity groups according to their victimhood. The higher the ranking, the less its members are held responsible for caring for themselves and the more they stand in need of a state-funded army of “helpers” to make them feel safe, supported, and celebrated. 

There should be little wonder that transgenderism is the leading edge of the outreach missionary work undertaken by the Establishment Church of Wokeness; it represents the maximal case thus far discovered of a purportedly monovalent innocent-victim identity group in need of a state-funded army of helpers—medical, psychological, and legal. The AMA, APA, and ABA have been the vanguard of missionary zeal for its cause. So much for our once-vaunted independent guilds.

For this diseased moral accounting scheme to work without impediment, members of so-called victim groups who refuse to be condescended to or treated as innocent victims must be silenced. Women, who mock the contention that traditional motherhood is an artifact of patriarchal oppression? Silenced. Black men with sober hope who believe in America notwithstanding its several-hundred-year history of slavery? Silenced. John McWhorter has such sober hope. He is not a victim. As such, he belies that category into which he is supposed to fit. That is why John McWhorter must be silenced.

McWhorter argues that woke racism is a new religion. Like other religions, woke racism has superstitions, a clergy, original sin, evangelical outreach, an apocalyptic vision, heretics, and an eagerness to supplant earlier religions.

One of the principal virtues of McWhorter’s book is its psychological acuity. Woke racism is a disease; but it is a disease whose symptoms are only intermittently displayed. Your friend, neighbor, or family member can appear perfectly rational one moment, then lose himself in a fit of cathartic rage directed at a convenient scapegoat, or perhaps grovel at the altar to an innocent victim. If parishioners of this new religion were continuously enraged or groveling, the contrast with healthy rational neutrality would be obvious. What makes a diagnosis of this illness difficult is that its practitioners are rational most of the time. The advantage—and disadvantage—that you, the outside observer, have is that you witness the episodic outbursts at a bemused distance, while the parishioners themselves are oblivious to the chasm between their rationality and their intermittent woke condition. They think the whole of their lives is rational; yet you notice that in the morning they are buying groceries at the local market like a normal neighbor, in the early afternoon they are watching CNN or MSNBC participating in collective rage toward President Trump, and in the early evening they are participating in white self-humiliation sessions overseen by white or black high priestesses who promise to exorcize the racist demons they harbor. This is strange. You can see it; they cannot.

Woke racism, in a word, is an outburst that appears within an otherwise rational framework, and is not to be confused with the complete destruction of such a framework. An emblematic literary depiction of this intermittency is the two-minute hate Orwell described in 1984. Oceania is a perfectly rational society, punctuated by the two minutes of cathartic rage its citizens undergo daily. Its citizens, like so many American citizens today, seem untroubled by the chasm that separates their everyday rationality from their intermittent cathartic rage or groveling. It is unclear how this disease, which intermixes with sanity, can be cured.

Is woke racism a new religion? How we answer this question gives some indication of the cure that will be needed. McWhorter argues that woke racism is a new religion. Like other religions, woke racism has superstitions, a clergy, original sin, evangelical outreach, an apocalyptic vision, heretics, and an eagerness to supplant earlier religions. If it is a new religion, then we might have several responses to it. We might say that like all religions, it satisfies an ineradicable longing in the human heart, and therefore, in light of Christianity’s decline, it will reign for a long time, perhaps centuries. Alternatively, we might say that mankind in the twentieth century had almost liberated itself from the religious superstition of Christianity, that a new religion, no less irrational has now arisen to take its place, and that we must resist its irrationality no less than we were called to resist Christianity. On this latter account, the antidote to woke racism is enlightenment. This is McWhorter’s position:

A new religion in the guise of world progress is not advance; it is detour. It is not altruism; it is self-help. It is not sunlight; it is fungus. It is time it became ordinary to call it for what it is and stop cowering before it, letting it make people so much less than they—black and everyone else—could be.

I am not so sure enlightenment in its generally understood sense can serve as an antidote. I say this because, in the Establishment Church of Wokeness, enlightenment is seen as one of the fruits of “Whiteness” and, so, far from being an antidote, it is seen as the very poison that must be purged. This is a profound problem, which Plato first wrote about in the Republic: when a soul or a city is sick, the medicine needed to cure it will be misconstrued as poison. An alternative account, which McWhorter does not consider, is that woke racism is in fact a deformation of Christianity, whose cure, therefore, cannot be enlightenment in the generally-understood sense, but rather a recovery of an undeformed Christianity, whose understanding of enlightenment predates the period of the Enlightenment in western history by some 1,700 years. If this is the real cure, then our cure will be found in the churches. Christianity can recover a healthier account of original sin than woke racism can possibly provide. Whatever our position may be, it should be clear that we are taking one or the other side of two possible positions: either a darkened religion is cured by enlightenment in the generally understood sense, or it is cured by recovery to the enlightened version of the religion of which the darkened version is a deformation.

What do white and black Americans get from participating in woke racism? Whites, McWhorter proposes, get to be members of The Elect, that special standing in America dating to the Puritans, that saves them from the loneliness of democratic anonymity, and distinguishes their purity from the stain of the irredeemably damned. They understand that America is systemically racist; only irredeemables would believe otherwise. That is why The Elect can say with certainty that the police are agents of white systemic racism and must be defunded. They know best what is best for the country as a whole, and for black Americans in particular. They know that they alone can save black Americans, by removing or lowering the bar on standardized tests, and ignoring grades, both of which are insidious constraints established to protect and fortify Whiteness.

It is worth mentioning that black political thought in America, until the race grievance industry got fully underway, was characterized by an immense range of ideas, united by the understanding that human agency mattered.

What do black Americans get from the Establishment Church of Wokeness? The black Elect, too, pride themselves on knowing with certainty something that others, especially whites, are too steeped in ignorance and sin to recognize, namely, that America is systemically racist. The Puritan Elect had special knowledge that “the world” did not and could not comprehend; the black Elect possess special knowledge that, regardless of what worldly evidence suggests, the world is racist. To doubt this is reveal that you lack such special knowledge. Black America as a whole receives something equally insidious, namely, the strange comfort, familiar in the period of American slavery, that they can do nothing to thrive and flourish, unless the Elect provides it for them.

That is why it is senseless to talk of personal responsibility. Nothing black Americans can do on their own, with their friends, with their families, and with their communities, can alter their fate. Confirming this contention has required nothing less than the erasure of the history of black success in America. In the wake of the Great Society Program, as a noble hope was transformed into the race grievance racket, precisely this was done. Now several generations later, the history of black success having been erased, young blacks and whites in America are taught that slavery was followed by Jim Crow, which was followed by systematic racism of an even more insidious form. Individual agency, mediating institutions of the sort Tocqueville had in mind for all of us, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitutional framework—none of these can be of any help to black America.

McWhorter does not make this point, but it is worth mentioning that black political thought in America until the race grievance industry got fully underway, was characterized by an immense range of ideas, united by the understanding that human agency mattered. What has been disheartening, even frightening, is the extent to which in the hands of The Elect, this view has all but disappeared. The hope for freedom has been supplanted by despair and resignation. Here, The Elect looms large, for they see clearly what the irredeemably stained cannot see, namely, that all of mankind looms small.

McWhorter’s proposed on-the-ground way of dealing with the Elect is of a piece with a growing chorus of thinkers on the right and even on the center-left. Zealotry can only be listened to and endured for so long before citizens close their doors and tell proselytizers to go away. The shame, here, for McWhorter, is that at its best, the political left brings forth new ideas about justice that all societies need from time to time, to be renewed. The Elect parishioners in the Established Church of Wokeness, who think they have found the key that unlocks the riddle of history, are in fact obstacles to the provisional achievement of justice that it is each generation’s responsibility to establish.

*****

This article was published by Law & Liberty and is reproduced with permission.

DEI at NAU: Making a Mockery of Diversity with Diversity

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Northern Arizona University joins the diversity bandwagon of group-think instead of scholarship.

 

As a defensive measure, I’m prefacing this commentary on diversity with the fact that throughout my career I was at the vanguard of equal rights, affirmative action, diversity, racial sensitivity training, and racial encounter groups, during an era when the battles were hard-fought, unpopular, and lonely. Not only that, but my extended family is mixed-race. 

That isn’t proof that I’m virtuous because I’m not.  It is to fend off some of the inevitable name-callings that result from criticizing what has become an article of faith in America’s major institutions.

Actually, the diversity that is worshipped today is akin to the golden calf worshipped by the Hebrews during their exodus from Egypt. It is a false idol.  In the name of diversity and inclusion, it stereotypes, discriminates, excludes, and divides.

Equally troubling, what passes for enlightened diversity programs on college campuses is woefully lacking in scholarship but abundant in sloganeering and sophistry.

Northern Arizona University (NAU), a state university in Flagstaff, is a case in point. Various lofty pronouncements about its 21-page Diversity Strategic Plan.

Here’s a key paragraph from one of the pronouncements:

The Diversity Strategic Plan focuses and prioritizes the university’s attention and resources around diversity, inclusion, and a culturally competent environment for all, with particular attention to underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved groups in higher education. The DSP aligns with the University Strategic Plan (USP that, in turn, aligns with the Arizona Board of Regents Strategic Plan, “Impact Arizona.”

The rest of the pronouncements are just as replete with emotionally-loaded, feel-good buzzwords and an absence of specific and measurable goals. As such, it is going to be impossible to hold anyone accountable for results. And it is highly probable that mischief will result from the vagueness and generalities.

Curiously, there is nothing in the strategic plan about maintaining high academic standards while lowering costs and student indebtedness so that students of modest means from all walks of life can graduate as learned citizens and have rewarding careers, with a return on their collegiate investment as high as the ROI at more prestigious universities.

Nor does the plan say that NAU is open to all Arizona residents who meet its entrance requirements, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, sex, gender, or disability.

And the plan doesn’t recognize that the best way of helping the disadvantaged is to give assistance to poor individuals, without regard to their race, ethnicity, national origin, age, sex, gender, or disability. This approach would result in a diverse student body without engaging in discrimination and divisiveness.

The silence suggests that NAU sees its mission as something else. Its focus on groups is a clue as to what that might be.

As NAU admits, the focus is on underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved groups, not individualsBut which groups specifically? And how does NAU determine if a group is underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved? Is the determination based on the group’s numbers on campus versus its numbers in the US population, on the group’s average income, or on its average education level, or how many representatives it has in Congress, or what?

Are Kurdish Americans one of the groups? Abkhazian Americans? Slovakian Americans? Walloon Americans?

These are serious and important questions, not glib ones. They are important because the answers determine who is included in diversity initiatives and who is excluded. Once a university or any other institution replaces equal opportunity for all individuals with special considerations for selected groups, it becomes necessary to ask such questions.

Answering the questions is complicated by the fact that there are hundreds of unique ethnocultural groups in the US and the world, encompassing wide differences in income, education, social status, political power, customs, and religion. A partial list can be found here.

So, what criteria should be used to establish which of the hundreds of ethnocultural groups are underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved? Income is one possibility.

Some of that work has already been done. For example, 106 ethnic groups are ranked by household income here.

The ranking shows that Americans of East Indian descent rank first in median household income. Is this evidence that they are not underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved in America? How about the fact that Indian restaurants can be found near just about every major American university, which suggests that the restaurants serve a large clientele of Indian students and faculty? Is this evidence that they are not underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved on campuses? Or how about the fact that they own a large percentage of independent motels and hotels across the country or the fact that they can be found in the executive ranks of many companies, especially tech companies?

In view of their success, should East Indians be excluded from diversity initiatives and be admitted in lesser numbers to colleges or hired in lesser numbers as faculty members?

At the other end of the ranking, Americans of Mexican descent rank ninety-fifth in income. This doesn’t mean that they have less innate intelligence or less industriousness than East Indians. Nor is it proof that they are underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved, especially given that they outnumber East Indian Americans by ten to one in the US population and thus have more political clout. 

A scholarly diversity program would ask such questions and delve into such complexities. But that’s not what colleges and other major institutions do. Instead, they take the rich diversity of the nation and world and reduce it to the six contrived categories of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American – all six of which are a strange agglomeration of skin shade, ethnicity, geographic origin, and the social construct of race. Equally specious, the categories are treated as if each one is discrete and homogenous, with no overlap or mixing between them.  At the same time, all of the groups but the White group are characterized as disadvantaged minorities eligible for diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Take the 30 million people of Italian descent who live in the Latin American country of Argentina. For the ones who have immigrated to the US, does NAU pigeonhole them as Latin American, Hispanic, Latino, Italian, White, minorities, or people of color, or what? Does NAU see them as underrepresented, marginalized, and undeserved?

The anthropological malpractice continues with the trope that all Whites are the same in privilege, wealth, and responsibility for oppressing other groups—and that no one categorized as White can be a minority, even if the person is a member of a tiny and impoverished ethnocultural group without political clout and without the ability to influence diversity programs in academia, government and industry.

That sure doesn’t sound like the “cultural competency” that NAU touts in its diversity plan. It sounds like cultural incompetency.

Incidentally, by some estimates, 40% of Americans living in poverty are non-Hispanic Whites. 

With that background, consider two hypothetical applicants at NAU: One is a poor Mormon from the remote, isolated and undeveloped Arizona Strip north of the Grand Canyon; the other is an upper-middle-class Hispanic from Scottsdale who is a descendant of Spanish aristocracy and has a Spanish surname.

Which one would have the better chance of being included in NAU’s diversity goals? There is little doubt that it would be the second one.

Such illogic and unfairness are what happens when group-think about diversity replaces scholarship and equal opportunity.  It has no place in an institution of higher learning.

 

 

 

Giving Our Money Away Again

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

President Biden thinks his real title is “Spender in Chief,” not Commander in Chief. He is always throwing our money around. It seems every answer he provides has him committing our money without any clear explanation of his authority. His recent failings have caused him to refocus his efforts on a new, but recurring subject – student loans.

Biden is not the only one who wants to spend wildly. He has gotten immense pressure from his party (particularly the Left). Now that the Build Back Better boondoggle has tanked, the Left and other Democrats feel compelled to spend money somehow. They want to relieve the debt from student loans, and they are using the pandemic as a front for their battle on the issue.

Student loan repayments have again been deferred until August 1, 2022, with no interest accruing during the deferred period. Biden had said the deferral to February 1, 2022, would be it, but that did not hold for long. This is the sixth time the repayments have been deferred during the pandemic with zero evidence that the people who owe the loans are not capable of repayment.

The drumbeat for relief rolls on. Katrina vanden Heuvel who writes for the Washington Post and is a darling of the Left wrote “But the move also raises the question: Why restart payments at all?” She states, “89 percent of borrowers reported they are not ‘financially secure’ enough to resume payments.” That is some new financial standard that has been created. Loans used to be based on whether someone had the financial capability to repay the loan, not their state of mind.

There is extensive duplicity being displayed by the people favoring loan relief.

While people argue to eliminate college loan debt, they likewise encourage people to attend college. They tell young adults how much more they are going to make than with only a high school degree. If you get a bachelor’s degree, it is estimated you will make on average 75% more over your lifetime — or roughly $1.2 million. Those with a master’s degree will earn an additional $400,000 above a bachelor’s degree and it gets even better for a Ph.D. who will earn $1.2 million more than a bachelor’s degree. Coming in at the top is a professional degree which will earn a stunning $1.9 million more over their careers than having a bachelor’s degree.

That begs the question: Why would we let any of these people off the hook for their student loans? It seems like people are making a conscious investment in their future. A lot are obtaining their degrees or advanced degrees with the idea they will make more money, and statistics prove that out.

My favorite Senator, Lizzie Warren, sponsored a resolution with Majority Leader Schumer and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass and Squad member) urging Biden to cancel up to $50,000 of student loan debt which supposedly would relieve 36 million people from their loans. This equates to $1.8 trillion. There is no mention of President Biden’s “authority” to cancel any student debt in the resolution. Once again Congress is shirking its own responsibility by not passing its own bill. Methinks the reason they sponsored the resolution is because they could not get a bill through Congress.

None of these proposals are accompanied by any procedures to change the accumulation of this debt in the future. As has been previously discussed in this column, colleges shovel these loans out to students with one concern – feeding the colleges’ coffers to pay the fat salaries of their overstuffed staff. There is no counseling by perhaps asking someone if it might be a bit nuts to get a master’s degree in sociology with no prospects for a job when you graduate that will allow you to repay the $150,000 you borrowed. There is no explanation that once you graduate from college with your $75,000 debt you will have to start making payments of $600 per month and how long it will take to pay off your debt. There is no mention of the fact that 40% of people with college degrees are working in positions that don’t require having a college degree.

There are three major objections to these proposals:

1. What about parents who went into debt to make sure their child doesn’t acquire these student loans? Or how about the many people who have paid back their student loans? Or the 70% of Americans who do not attend college who will be saddled with this debt.

2. These college graduates earn more than high school graduates. They made investments in their futures so why should they be relieved of their investment obligations?

3. If we relieve these debts if we piled that $1.8 trillion or more onto the national debt, what are we doing to stop the same situation from reoccurring ten years from now? We are doing nothing at present. We are not requiring these universities to be more financially responsible as evidenced by them loading up on average 45 staff for DEI. We are not requiring outside people to advise these students of the risks involved in taking on these loans.

This is a manufactured crisis to continue to feather the beds of a major constituency of the Left – university personnel. We are looking at relieving debts for people who by definition are the less needy of Americans. Relieving this debt will do nothing but put our national government in a bigger hole from which it cannot dig itself out. It is feathering the nest of special interest groups to get them to vote for Democrats for the remainder of their lifetimes. It is inherently un-American for someone to shift their debt onto the backs of other Americans when they are capable of repayment.

Call me when the problem has been fixed going forward by taming costs and properly educating borrowers by a disinterested third party. Until then this is the ultimate boondoggle.

*****

This article was published by FlashReport and is reprinted with permission from the author.

 

 

 

 

Jewish Parents Again Acting Stupid

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

If you have a conversation with Jewish parents of teenagers, typically their overwhelming focus is not just that their children attend college, but they must attend the “right” college. That college may have a history of educating children like theirs, but today it is more interested in two things: Extracting huge sums of money from parents and indoctrinating their children. When the college staff is espousing concepts inherently against you and your heritage, it is time to demand a change or to pull the plug.

A recent study was done of the personnel on college campuses. The study did not involve nebulous poll questions; it relied on the words expressed by the college personnel on twitter. Some will try to argue against the results of the study because it was done by a right-of-center think tank – The Heritage Foundation. That would be a classic case of attacking the messenger instead of disputing the findings.

DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is the issue. Since most Jewish parents are liberals or even further left, their initial thoughts are it is a good thing for colleges to address this subject. When you find out the average university has 45 staff people working on this issue, one might wonder what they all are doing. That is a lot of money to pay for positions that did not even exist five years ago. When you find out that those 45 people don’t consider you part of DEI despite being an interest group that has borne the burden of more oppression than any in recorded history, you might question what they are doing.

Heritage did a search of the twitter feeds from 741 DEI staff at 65 universities. The twitter feeds were the personal accounts of the subjects in the study versus the DEI staffers’ university accounts. They compared the nature and number of tweets regarding Israel to those by the same people about China.

First, let’s address the two countries. Israel is a democracy that has rights for women, gays, and Arabs. The one million Arab Israelis have the same rights as non-Arab Israelis. It has freedom of the press and an independent judicial system. China has none of these things. Women are often oppressed and forget about gays having any semblance of acceptance. China’s press is part of the ruling party’s operation. Don’t even discuss the courts in China – no freedom or rights there. Then there is the slave labor that is condoned by many and the ruling government. China just broke a treaty and is turning Hong Kong into a totalitarian island. Otherwise, there should be no comparison between the two countries at enlightened universities. In other words, kind comments about Israel and derogatory comments about China. As New Yorkers say, fuhgeddaboudit.

There were three times as many tweets about Israel as there were about China by the 741 DEI staffers with 96 percent of Israel tweets critical and/or negative. The smaller China tweet count produced 62 percent that was positive about China. As has been stated many times in this column, a disproportionate emphasis on Israel particularly in a negative manner is inherently anti-Semitic.

As was stated by the people who performed the study, “The evidence demonstrates that university DEI staff are better understood as political activists with a narrow and often radical agenda rather than promoters of welcoming and inclusive environments. Many DEI staff are particularly unwelcoming toward Jewish students who, like the vast majority of Jews worldwide, feel a strong connection to the state of Israel. The political activism of DEI staff may help explain the rising frequency of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses.”

If you don’t think this is a problem, consider the amount anti-Semitic incidents occurring on these campuses. How exactly are the immense amount of DEI staff addressing these incidents? In the 2020-2021 school year, Hillel reported there were 244 incidents despite the education experience being almost entirely virtual. That is a significant increase from the 181 in the prior year when there was on-campus instruction.

The findings are the findings, and they need to be confronted. Do not wait for anyone such as the ACLU or ADL to do something. Those organizations are lost. Organizations like Stand With Us are confronting this situation as well as some of the on-campus Hillel’s. This is something every parent of a college-age student needs to address before their children are harassed at the very campus for which their parents paid a fortune to attend.

To read further on this, click here, Inclusion Delusion: The Anti-Semitism of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion staff at Universities.

The Consequences of Obsessive Category Disorder

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

In the name of diversity, America’s racial classifiers obliterate diversity.

Long ago, long before the diversity movement and the sprouting of departments of diversity and inclusion in academia, government, media, and industry, I lived in a San Antonio barrio, where my friends and neighbors who were Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans, referred to themselves as “Mexican,” and where I referred to myself as “Italian.”

Since then, I’ve lived in Phoenix for 30 years and am now living in Tucson, where Mexicans still refer to themselves as Mexicans, unless they’ve had the misfortune of being miseducated in college and/or working as a programmable automaton in Big Media, Big Academia, Big Business or Big Government. 

In these big institutions of conformity and appalling ignorance of history and anthropology, Mexicans are agglomerated with other distinctly different nationalities and ethnocultural groups and plastered with the labels of “Hispanic,” “Latino,” or the latest linguistic monstrosity of “Latinx.”

This labeling is done by people who see themselves as educated, enlightened, and open-minded, but prove otherwise in their thoughtless parroting of utterly ridiculous “racial” concoctions. (The penultimate word in the preceding sentence is in quotes because today’s racial categorization is mostly anti-science, in that it has little basis in evolutionary science, genetics, or anthropology.)

Inanity, and possible insanity, also can be seen in the other “racial” labels that have become the lingua franca of those with a pathological need to reduce the rich diversity of the nation and the world to six categories that are an incongruous mix of skin color and geographic origin. In addition to the official and specious category of Hispanic are the official and specious categories of White, African American, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander.

Given current trends, it may come to pass someday that people will be required to wear their assigned label on their backside, like a bumper sticker for humans.  

I’ll return to the other catch-all categories momentarily but will first finish the discussion on Hispanics (aka Latinos, Latin Americans, or Latinx).

The word “Latinx” was masterfully ridiculed in a December 19, 2021, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. I can’t do a better job than the op-ed and letters in exposing the silliness of such nouveau terms as “Latinx,” so I won’t try; but I will mention some facts about Latin America apparently not known by those inflicted with Obsessive Category Disorder, or OCD.

One fact is that an estimated 30 million people of Italian descent live in Brazil, which is the largest country by population in Latin America. To that point, here are questions for those with OCD:  How should these Italian Brazilians be classified—as Hispanic, White, Latino, Latinx, or Latin American? And for the millions of Italians who have intermarried with black, Spanish, and indigenous Brazilians, are their offspring considered to be people of color, and if so, what color? (If you’re not sure what color is produced from mixing the colors of olive, black, brown, beige, and white, you can call a color expert at Sherwin-Williams or your local hardware store.)

Even miseducated college graduates might know enough to understand that the Romance languages spoken in Latin America have their etymological roots in the Latin language, which is how Latin America got its name. (Given that I studied Latin for four years in high school, I’m an honorary Latin American.)

Another explanation for how Latin America got its name can be found in the wonderful work of history, The Last Emperor of Mexico, by Edward Shawcross. Unfortunately, directors of diversity and inclusion won’t read the book, because it’s three standard deviations above the average IQ for the “profession.”

Anyway, Shawcross explains that in the 1850s, under the reign of Napoleon III, French thinkers invented the term “Latin America” to rally southern Catholic peoples against a feared onslaught from northern Protestant peoples. He goes on to write, “Soon after a French journalist used it in print in 1856, a Columbian living in Paris wrote a poem warning that the Anglo-Saxons, as he referred to the United States, were the mortal enemies of Latin Americans.”

This dovetailed with a belief of Catholic monarchs that due to cultural and historical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, Anglo-Saxon nations were better suited to democracy and liberalism while Latin nations were better suited to monarchies. In turn, this became a pretext for French, Spanish, and Habsburg monarchs, who, fearing republicanism and American hegemony in the New World, to attempt to recreate their own hegemony, by taking the side of Mexican rebels who wanted to overthrow the fledgling Mexican republic and restore the monarchy.

On a personal note, although I am not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant or an apologist for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and colonialism, I’ve long held that the parts of the Americas where Latin-Catholic culture is more dominant than Anglo-Saxon-Protestant culture are less free, less prosperous, and less liberal, in the classical sense. This also applies to certain parts of the United States, which I won’t identify here, because it’s too easy to be misunderstood without writing a long dissertation on the subject.

Having covered the official category of Hispanic, let’s turn now to the other official categories of White, African American, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander. As with the Hispanic category, those inflicted with OCD have reduced a large number of distinct nationalities and ethno-cultural groups to this handful of categories. Then, in violation of equal rights and equal opportunity laws, they discriminate against those in the concocted White category, and more recently, against those in the concocted Asian category, in college admissions and in hiring and promotions, in the name of diversity and inclusion.

Note the incongruous and inconsistent way that the categories are organized. Only one of the categories, the White category, refers to skin color. The rest refer to the geography of origin: Africa for African Americans, Asia for Asians, the Americas for Native Americans, the Pacific Islands for Pacific Islanders, and Europe’s Hispanic Peninsula, or the Iberian Peninsula, for Hispanics. The only exception is when African-American category is called the Black category.

Whoever coined these categories should be arrested for committing a crime against the field of anthropology. The crime has resulted in absurdities, in people having their heritage overlooked or insulted, and in much political mischief.

Take the Asian category, where scores of unique nationalities and ethnocultural groups are lumped together as if they are homogenous. 

To see firsthand how absurd this is, try convincing Filipinos and Koreans that they are the same as the Japanese. Or, following the lead of corporations, appoint a Han Chinese or East Indian Hindu to a board of directors or senior management position to represent all peoples who hail from Asia, including Uyghurs, Mongolians, Eastern Russians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, and many others.

This is as ridiculous and insulting as believing that Boston Brahmins or the Pilgrims or the Chesapeake Bay colonists were no different from my poor Italian ancestors or the ancestors of Albanian Americans, Iranian Americans, Jewish Americans, Walloon Americans, and so on for hundreds of other groups force-fitted into the White category and stereotyped as privileged, bourgeois, racist, and oppressive.  Yes indeed, that certainly describes my immigrant grandfather, who worked as a coal miner in southern Illinois; or my wife’s grandfather, who worked as a field hand in the oil fields of western Pennsylvania.

To circle back to the subject of diversity on corporate boards, a board would need thousands of directors to represent all of the world’s peoples. To get an idea of how many peoples there are, go to the following link, scroll through the list of ethnic groups that come up, and click on the names of the various ethnic groups to get the names of the sub-groups within each one.

Only those with Obsessive Category Disorder can believe that they are furthering racial enlightenment and diversity by obliterating this rich diversity and by using such fatuous words as “Latinx”.

 

 

 

 

 

How To Remedy The Campus Groupthink That Targeted Us

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Academic freedom, free thought and free speech are under assault on our nation’s college campuses. And it’s not just conservative white men, or the Federalist Society at Ivy League schools such as Yale University, that are under attack. It is also women, including women of color, who are caught up in this new “cancel”-meets-“consequence” culture.

We are college professors/scholars who have experienced cancel culture’s swift and ugly rage, and we both suffered professional damage as a result. One of us is white. The other black. It doesn’t matter if you teach at a private Christian university like Baylor in Texas, where Dr. Crenshaw taught, or at a public university like Christopher Newport (pictured) in Virginia, where Professor Nelson taught and is currently a scholar in residence (the first black woman to hold such a vaunted title in the school’s 60-year history).

Both of us share a common Christian faith and more socially conservative viewpoints, but we are also champions for women’s rights, we believe in the necessity of discussing gender and race as it intersects for us as women, and we have been respectful and engaged for years in dialogue with other marginalized groups including the LGBTQ+ community, even when our respective values or opinions are in conflict. Yet, both of us were attacked by that very community for asking a simple question on Twitter (Nelson) and making a statement of biological and genetic fact (Crenshaw). We will address our stories further down in this piece.

The important point here, however, is that we are in the middle of a seriously flawed sociological and generational shift that has redefined the way we have courageous conversations (or not) on our college campuses. Free speech no longer exists if you do not lock, stock, and barrel embrace diversity and inclusion statements or the LGBTQ+ community.  We both have been told that we may have “free speech” but that there will be “consequences” to us professionally and personally for said speech. With all due respect, if those are the new rules of free speech in America, we don’t want to play the game.

This has been a decade-long slide as our nation bows to the power of the PC police and “wokeism.” In 2018 and 2019, we had the #metoo and #timesup movements, which highlighted the kinds of sexual assault and harassment contemporary women still combat in patriarchal systems like Hollywood, Fortune 500 companies and yes, in academia. In 2020, after the horrific George Floyd murder, we collectively recognized a need for increased national conversations on racial injustice, policing and racial reconciliation. But 2021 just might be the year that cancel culture defined the future of diversity of thought and opinion in academia. A brand new report by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) spotlights “speech codes” on over 500 college campuses across the country. And the findings are troubling and chilling, to say the least.

Many American universities and some in the U.K. (see Sussex University) have embraced a culture of compulsory groupthink regarding certain “marginalized” groups and points of views; if we differ we can be publicly protested, threatened, harassed, slandered and demeaned by the very groups who loudly demand respect and acceptance from the rest of us. It’s hypocritical, and it must be challenged openly.

Let’s break down how campus cancel culture works because both of us are intimately familiar with the toxic experience. It usually starts with a professor or scholar who has a very visible social media presence or public profile. They innocently ask a question on said platform, as Scholar Nelson did on Twitter about a bisexual comic book character, or offer commentary on something controversial, as Dr. Crenshaw did by talking about transgender bathroom policies. Both of us were respectful and reasonable by all standards. But then a small but vicious mob retaliates first on social media with outraged responses, doxxing, and threats. And then they take it out of the public square and into the workplace at the university where none of what was said originated or has anything to do whatsoever with our students, the faculty, or staff.

The aggrieved use words like “unsafe,” “violence,” “triggered,” and it matters not if the accused offender apologizes, welcomes dialogue, or the like. The apology is attacked as insufficient. Then they destroy the professor’s professional reputation on campus, on the Internet, and to the media. They create damning online petitions, or actual campus petitions to have the “offender” fired and worse (they threaten your physical safety and that of your family, as was the case with Dr. Crenshaw). The mob eventually moves on to another target of their wrath but not before wreaking havoc on their canceled victims’ professional and personal lives. It is a very effective way to silence dissent.

If we are going to preserve “diversity” along with free speech and free thought, here are some recommendations for America’s college campuses:

  1. Redefine the language of inclusivity to be for all, not just so-called marginalized groups. The LGBTQ+ narrative demands inclusivity and espouses tolerance, but it does not reciprocate. That must change and all faculty and students must be protected and defended by university officials.
  2. We need to stop conflating the race and sex conversations; they are not the same. Segregating people on the basis of skin color is racist. Separating people on the basis of their biological sex is safe and honors our immutable differences apparent at birth.
  3. Work on free speech policies: Speech is not violence. Colleges have elevated micro-aggressions over macro-aggressions. There is a difference between speech that expresses an opinion and speech that levels a threat, and we have to discern the difference and respond accordingly. Not everyone can affirm or capitulate to every facet of the LGBTQ+ narrative or that of other groups. For many people of faith, for example, narratives around sexuality and gender identity infringe upon their religious interpretation and expression (as well as common sense and science).
  4. Develop campus dialogues that include all voices. Professor Nelson was silenced for weeks as a half-dozen forums were held without her being present and faculty/students publicly ranted and labeled her a racist, homophobic bigot. Dr. Crenshaw was called transphobic over sound comments she made as a parent about basic biology. The trans identity movement contradicts biology, but it has been protected by institutions such as the CDC, which now refers to pregnant mothers as “birthing people” who “chest feed.” Additionally, the ACLU had to apologize for revising the words of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to eliminate female pronouns and make them gender inclusive. This is how far we have shifted to protect groupthink.
  5. We need to practice correction versus coddling. Irate students and faculty have changed the culture on campus to one of compliance or consequences — faculty are now terrified, particularly conservative faculty, to speak out, get on social media or otherwise express opinions when they can be ruined for not holding fast to diversity, equity and inclusion policies. It’s thought control at its worst. What are we teaching students? Not how to dialogue and argue, but how to destroy other people’s reputations for disagreeing or sharing a faith position.

In the final analysis, we are teaching a new generation of students to attack good people rather than bad arguments. We are teaching them to destroy professional reputations and careers when their feelings get hurt. That is not a formula for success once they leave the college campus. Instead, we need to teach them how to make good counter-arguments, state their case beyond emotion, and make room for good people to disagree on the basis of freedom of religion and free thought.

Sophia A. Nelson is a scholar in residence at Christopher Newport University.

Christina Crenshaw is an associate researcher at Dallas Theological Seminary and a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.

*****

This article was published on December 16, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the Independent Women’s Forum.

DEI Initiatives Create Environment Where ‘inclusion does not apply to Jewish students on campus’

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

A study published by Heritage Foundation showed a spike of anti-Semitic incidents occurring on college campuses at the same time DEI faculty continue being hostile to supporters of Israel.

 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs have become popular on campus to expand student comfort and inclusivity on college campuses. These centers serve as a space for students to connect and feel appreciated among their fellow peers, guided by experts and academics at the highest level.

But what happens when a specific group of students is left out of the mix?

It is not a question that college campuses and universities are not always the safe space for academic freedom and self-expression that they claim to be. Repeatedly, students with a specific point of view are criticized and intimidated to maintain a quiet disposition during their four-year journey through higher education. 

Who are these students? Those that are Jewish or are supporters of Israel.

DEI programs cannot fix the prejudices embedded in the swamp that is higher education; in some cases, these initiatives actually compound the discrimination already present.

244 anti-Semitic incidents were reported during the 2020-2021 school year, according to the Heritage Foundation’s report this month.

That number represents a 34.8% increase from the previous academic year. 

But how – or perhaps why – did that dramatic rise occur during a school year largely shunted to virtual attendance during COVID-19?

As Campus Reform has reported, Jewish students and supporters of Israel face intimidation and discrimination whether online or on campus. Incidents this year such as the chancellor at Rutgers University issuing an apology for condemning a “resurgence of anti-Semitism” does not help matters.

One University of Michigan student told Campus Reform in July that “[i]t is scary to be a Jew in America right now.”

In August, a person at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville desecrated the Star of David by eating a sticker depicting the Jewish symbol to protest the state of Israel.

Heritage Foundation’s December 2021 report, “Inclusion Delusion: The Antisemitism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Staff at Universities,” strongly suggests that DEI staff’s pretense to inclusivity actually makes campuses less tolerant environments for Jewish students and non-Jewish supporters of Israel. 

“What we found in our most recent paper is that higher education diversity bureaucrats—who are paid to promote inclusion—have a strange way of showing it on Twitter. DEI staffers tweet so inordinately and hyperbolically about Israel, relative to China, that they cross the line into antisemitism,” James Paul, a doctoral fellow at the University of Arkansas and the report’s co-author, told Campus Reform.

“Apparently ‘inclusion’ does not apply to Jewish students on campus,” Paul added. 

Heritage analyzed the Twitter feeds of 741 DEI faculty representing 65 universities to determine any favorability when it came to discussions surrounding Israel. The same analysis was conducted for China, in comparison.

Of the tweets, 96% expressed criticism of Israel, while a stark 62% were expressed positive opinions about China. 

“The overwhelming pattern is that DEI staff at universities pay a disproportionately high amount of attention to Israel and nearly always attack Israel,” the report states.

At the average university, Heritage finds that there is an average of 45 DEI staff tasked with the responsibility of creating an inclusive environment. The industry has become extremely profitable for these staffers, as well, and at the expense of the college community.

Ohio State University, for example, pays $10,097,051 to employ 131 diversity administrators.

Thirty of those employees earn more than $100,000 per year, and of the 99 salaried employees, the average salary calculates to $89,168.

Statements made about Israel included accusations of “genocide, apartheid, settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and other extreme crimes,” according to Heritage.

These phrases were non-existent in the language used to refer to China, spare for the favorable use of the word “colonialism.”

Though the Heritage study did find minimal criticism of China for its human rights violations against Uighur Muslims and African residents, it also found that such critiques were less severely worded than language reserved for anti-Israel posts.

[RELATED: POLL: 50% of Jewish students feel they ‘need to hide their identity’ on campus]

“It would be impossible to review the inordinate attention that DEI staff pay to Israel relative to China, the nearly universal attacks on Israel and China without concluding that DEI staff have an obsessive and irrational animus toward the Jewish state,” the study states.

Paul told Campus Reform that the findings only support the claim that DEI staffers are not committed to fostering a true inclusive environment.

Jay P. Greene, a senior research fellow at Heritage and the report’s lead author, agreed with Paul’s assessment.

“After publishing three reports on DEI bureaucracy in K-12 and higher education, we find little evidence that DEI promotes inclusive environments or closes achievement gaps,” Greene told Campus Reform.

The bottom line is that students have a right to feel safe and secure on the campus of their choosing. They should not be subjected to pressure to hide or conform their worldviews to meet the standards of those claiming to provide an inclusive experience.

The prevalence of DEI staff and facilities on American campuses cannot and should not be a vehicle for the woke, liberal mob to continue their suppression of viewpoint diversity under the false banner of inclusivity.

The tweets featured throughout the study bear witness to the biased discrimination being waged on college campuses, and it is hindering students’ abilities to pursue an education in a truly free academic space.

*****

This article was published on December 19, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Campus Reform.