Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Racial and Identity Politics”

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson are Clueless about America

The Supreme Court’s left-wing minority, not its conservative majority, ignores the racial and ethnic reality of modern-day America.

In the Supreme Court’s landmark Harvard, UNC affirmative action case, left-wing Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson argue that because the Court’s conservative majority insists on a colorblind or race neutral legal standard, it is out of touch with modern-day America.

In truth, Sotomayor and Jackson have it exactly backwards. They are the ones who are out of touch with an America that is increasingly multi-racial and multi-ethnic. And they fail to appreciate that it is precisely because of this fact that our law and jurisprudence must, of necessity, be colorblind or race neutral.

Race Matters. First, let’s give the devil her due. Sotomayor and Jackson ague that race matters in America because America has always been stained and marred by racism. Therefore, the law, too, must be cognizant of the importance of race and take race into account.

American society “is not, and has never been, colorblind,” declares Sotomayor.

[Today’s] Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a Constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.

“Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” adds Jackson.

And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.

Sotomayor and Jackson seriously distort and exaggerate the prevalence and significance of racism past and present. Isolated and suspect incidents of alleged racism, for instance, are taken to be emblematic of a “deep-seated legacy of racial subjugation [that] continues to manifest itself in student life” today.

Multi-Racial and Multi-Ethnic America. But the bigger problem is that their understanding of America too simplistic and dated. It is based on a 19th Century vision of a country that no longer exists, and which hasn’t existed for many decades. Their America is, both literally and figuratively, black and white, and not much else.

Sotomayor and Jackson ignore the fact that an increasing number of Americans are neither black nor white. Asian Americans, in fact, are the nation’s fastest-growing demographic group and, not coincidentally, the biggest victims of affirmative action in college admissions.

Not surprisingly, then, the lawsuit against Harvard was spearheaded by Asian Americans, who allege that this august Ivy League institution systematically discriminated against them. Sotomayor and Jackson try to deny this reality and pretend that it doesn’t exist, but the conservative majority found conclusive evidence to the contrary.

The “First Circuit Court,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion, “found that Harvard’s consideration of race has led to an 11.1% decrease in the number of Asian Americans admitted to Harvard…

“Black applicants in the top four academic deciles,” he notes, “are between four and ten times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Asian applicants in those deciles.”

Rigged Admissions. Sadly, this is no accident. The Supreme Court found that Harvard, UNC (and, surely, other elite colleges and universities) are deliberately rigging their admissions processes to discriminate against Asian Americans and to establish quotas for the number of Asian American students.

Yet in their dissenting opinions, Sotomayor and Jackson pretend that Asian Americans are not a significant demographic group and have no real cause for complaint. Jackson mentions Asian Americans a mere three times, once in a footnote, while never pausing to consider or grapple with their victimization through affirmative action.

Sotomayor, meanwhile, says that Asian Americans benefit from affirmative action because although they represent only about 6% of the U.S. population, they now make up more than 20% of Harvard’s admitted class.

This statistic, of course, sidesteps the issue of discrimination and ignores the fact that Asian American applicants to Harvard may be more numerous and better prepared, academically, than members of other demographic groups. So the 20% figure stripped of this necessary context is not very telling or revealing.

‘Diversity‘. Nor is the moniker “diversity,” which has become the justification or rationale used for racial preferences in college admissions.

Justice Neil Gorsuch observes that Harvard, UNC, and other elite colleges and universities exhibit little interest in non-racial markers of diversity. And they employ racial and ethnic classifications that “rest on incoherent stereotypes.”

The racial categories the universities employ in the name of diversity do not begin to reflect the differences that exist within each group.

Instead, they lump together white and Asian students from privileged backgrounds with “Jewish, Irish, Polish, or other ‘white’ ethnic groups whose ancestors faced discrimination” and “descendants of those Japanese-American citizens interned during World War II.”

Reality. Again, Sotomayor and Jackson ignore this demographic reality because, like Harvard, UNC, and other elite colleges and universities, they see an America that is only black and white. They don’t see the America that really exists in the 21st Century: multi-ethnic and multi-racial.

These two far-left justices also ignore the discrimination in college admissions that results from treating Asian Americans, and members of other racial and ethnic groups, as expendable.

“Plainly,” writes Gorsuch, “Harvard and UNC choose to treat some students worse than others in part because of race. To suggest otherwise—or to cling to the fact that the schools do not always say the quiet part aloud—is to deny reality.”

Equal Rights. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, does not deny the reality of racism in American life:

I, of course, agree that our society is not, and has never been, colorblind. People discriminate against one another for a whole host of reasons. But, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the law must disregard all racial distinctions…

Thomas expounds upon this point:

I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination… [However], two discriminatory wrongs cannot make a right…

This vision of meeting social racism with government-imposed racism is thus self-defeating, resulting in a never-ending cycle of victimization…

We must adhere to the promise of equality under the law declared by the Declaration of Independence and codified by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Racial Spoils. Given that America has moved far beyond black and white to include a multitude of races and ethnicities, it is hard to argue with this point. The alternative is a racial spoils system that awards rights, benefits, and privileges based on race and ethnicity, not merit and achievement.

Of course, affirmative action as it is described by Sotomayor and Jackson is benign. It aims not to hurt anyone, but to help African Americans who have been burdened by the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

The problem with their approach is that it ignores the zero-sum nature of college admissions and the existence of other disadvantaged groups, principally but not exclusively Asian Americans, who are denied benefits and opportunity from this reverse discrimination.

Modern-Day Realities. In other words, what might have been feasible (albeit still Constitutionally suspect) in 19th Century America is no longer feasible in the 21st Century, when a myriad of races and ethnicities dot the nation’s demographic landscape.

For this reason, the jurisprudence of Sotomayor and Jackson is woefully out of date and disconnected from modern-day demographic realities. A colorblind or race neutral legal standard is the only kind of legal standard that can work and secure popular legitimacy in our multi-ethnic and multi-racial country.

Feature photo credit: Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor (L) and Ketanji Brown Jackson (R), AP/Getty images, courtesy of NBC News.

Why Are Some Conservatives Lukewarm about Juneteenth?

Juneteenth properly understood is a worthy American holiday. However, it also reflects the Left’s attempt to make victimhood central to our nation’s historical narrative so as to effect a radical political transformation. 

America’s newest holiday, Juneteenth, commemorates the end of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans. That is, obviously, a good thing and worthy of national commemoration. Yet, for reasons that are typically not well articulated, the holiday doesn’t sit well with many Americans, especially some political conservatives. Why?

Not, obviously, because these Americans are racists who support slavery or lament its demise. (Please. Let’s be serious.) Instead, the reason is inherent in the rationale put forth by many left-wing advocates for Juneteenth.

Racist Nation. To the Left, Juneteenth is another way to remind America of its sins and to heap opprobrium on the American founding. America, they insist, was founded upon slavery and genocide, and Juneteenth is another way to remind America of its allegedly racist founding and irredeemably racist past.

This, sadly, has become the dominant historical narrative in America today. It is what is taught in the schools, but it is far from universally accepted—and many of us on the Right beg to differ.

There’s also the fact that the Juneteenth is two weeks before July 4, Independence Day, and is officially called “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” For this reason, Charlie Kirk calls Juneteenth “a CRT-inspired federal holiday that competes with July 4th.”

CRT, of course, is Critical Race Theory, which is now being foisted upon young schoolchildren and it is pernicious.

CRT, as Andrew Sullivan observes, is designed

to cement the notion at the most formative age that America is at its core an oppressive racist system uniquely designed to exploit, harm, abuse, and even kill the non-white.

This can be conveyed in easy terms, by training kids to see themselves first and foremost as racial avatars, and by inculcating in them a sense of their destiny as members of the oppressed or oppressor classes in the zero-sum struggle for power that is American society in 2021.

“If Juneteenth is really about emancipation,” asks Kirk,

why not… September 22, 1862, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation? Or January 1, 1863, when the Proclamation took effect? Or December 18, 1865, with ratification of the 13th Amendment?

Because it’s not about emancipation, which is one of America’s great moral achievements. It’s about creating a summertime, race-based competitor two weeks before July 4th, which should be the most unifying civic holiday on the calendar.

Independence Days or Daze. National Review’s in-house historian, Dan McLaughin, says Juneteenth is a worthy American holiday. However, he acknowledges that the Left is trying to use the commemoration for illicit and nefarious purposes.

For this reason, he urges Congress to “change back the name of the holiday to take out the ‘National Independence Day’ part, which is agitprop.”

We already have an Independence Day, which was celebrated throughout the United States long before 1865. It is also not what the people who actually created the Juneteenth holiday and celebrated it for over a century called it. It is Juneteenth, and Juneteenth is all the name it needs.

That certainly would help, but the larger-scale problem will remain. To wit: the Left is intent on exploiting the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and racism writ large to condemn America as an illegitimate nation that must be “fundamentally transformed” and “reinvented” along Marxian and socialist lines.

Victimhood. That’s why victimhood is central to the Left’s narrative of American history. That’s why ethnic and racial history of official victim groups—blacks, women, Hispanics, Asian Americans, et al.—is the only real history that we publicly celebrate now.

Black History Month, for instance, is widely touted by federal agencies, corporations, and the media, but not Italian-American Heritage and Culture Month. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday is a widely celebrated holiday, but not Columbus Day. Why?

Because blacks are considered victims; Italian Americans are not. King is seen as an avatar against injustice; Columbus is seen as a perpetrator of injustice.

Group Hierarchy. Since the Left’s intent is to highlight America’s sins, real and imagined, blacks and other victims get pride of place in the American story; everyone else has to sit in the back of the bus—assuming, that is, they are lucky enough even to get a seat on the bus.

Juneteenth should be commemorated as an American triumph made possible by our nation’s founding principles and by the Judeo-Christian faith and goodness of the American people. But given that that is not how many Juneteenth advocates see it—to them, the holiday underscores our nation’s irredeemably racist nature—Americans can be forgiven for being lukewarm about the holiday.

Feature photo credit: Penn Today.

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Legacy was Political, Not Economic or Moral

King was a virtual socialist and probable sex offender, but that’s obviously not why we (rightly) honor him with a national holiday.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday illustrates how federal holidays are properly used for civic purposes—and how they are politically misused for partisan and ideological purposes.

For civic purposes, we recall why, exactly, our nation honors King with a federal holiday. For partisan and ideological purposes, we recall other, more unsavory things about King that have nothing to do with the reasons we honor him and his legacy.

King’s universally lauded legacy involves completing the second American revolution that began during the Civil War, but which was stunted and reversed by the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the disaster that was Reconstruction. A century of state-sanctioned and -enforced legal discrimination against blacks followed.

King ended this discrimination through his leadership of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.

In so doing, he harkened back to the promise of the American founding as articulated in the Declaration of Independence—the notion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

Thus, by championing equal rights under the law, King was leading a thoroughly American movement fully in concert with the (classically liberal) American political tradition. This is the man and the legacy that we honor with a federal holiday; and that is why, as Dan McLaughlin observes:

The collapse of legal and political defenses of segregation and disenfranchisement between 1965 and 1969 was, in retrospect, staggering in its speed and scope.

A nation that had legal discrimination in many states in the mid-1960s had a national system of affirmative action, endorsed by both political parties at the time, by the decade’s end.

Legal discrimination against blacks was swept away so quickly because it was so obviously discordant with the American promise of equality under the law. King was summoning America to “live out the true meaning of its creed,” and his summoning resonated with a nation conceived in the classical liberal tradition.

Problematic Aspects. But of course, King was a flawed human being, not a plaster saint. And so, there are other aspects of the man and his legacy that political partisans, both left and right, seize upon for their own rank purposes.

In the last few years of his life—after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution outlawing poll taxes as a requirement for voting—King moved radically left. He pushed for the redistribution of wealth and a guaranteed income, while denouncing America’s defense of South Vietnam as morally unconscionable.

This is the King that modern-day socialists and leftists in the Democratic Party embrace and champion; and from their political perspective, of course, that is understandable. But that is not the King whom we honor with a federal holiday; and that King is inconsonant with the American founding.

King also was a notorious womanizer and sex offender whose reputation never would have survived the modern-day “Me Too” movement. Partisans on the far right use this aspect of King to try and discredit him; but again: we honor King for a very specific reason, and that reason has nothing to do with his personal moral failings.

The bottom line: Martin Luther King, Jr., like many  American political heroes, was a great but flawed human being. Not everything that he said or did warrants praise and commendation.

But the pivotal role that he played in ending state-sanctioned and -enforced discrimination against African Americans absolutely puts him in the pantheon of our country’s greatest political leaders.

We rightly honor this aspect of King’s legacy with a national holiday; but we ought to summarily reject the attempt by political partisans, both left and right, to hijack the King holiday for their own noxious purposes.

Feature photo credit: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memorable words delivered during his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Aug. 28, 1963, courtesy of KPLC Action News, southwest Louisiana.

Why Does the West Embrace Ukraine, but Not Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Politics and culture, not race and ethnicity, explain why we in the West feel a real sense of kinship with Ukrainians. 

Does racism or ethnocentrism explain why we in the West identify with Ukrainians to a far greater extent than we ever did Syrians, Afghans, or Iraqis? That’s what many commentators would have us believe.

“We care more about Ukraine because the victims are white,” declares Newsweek columnist Michael Shank.

“The alarm about a European, or civilized, or First World nation being invaded is a [racist] dog whistle to tell us we should care because they are like us,” argues Nikole-Hannah-Jones, founder of the hugely influential 1619 Project.

‘The coverage of Ukraine has revealed a pretty radical disparity in how human Ukrainians look and feel to Western media compared to their browner and blacker counterparts,” adds MSNBC host Joy Reed.

The Racial Prism. Of course, it is not surprising that American and European leftists have fabricated a racial angle through which to view Russia’s war on Ukraine and thereby bash the West.

The Left, after all, has a deep-seated antipathy for the West and has long used racism, real and imagined, as a cudgel to try and delegitimize the West.

As usual, though, they are wrong, because they conflate race and ethnicity with politics and culture. They mistake a distinctive Western outlook or attitude with a determinative racial identity.

But the truth is that the West is not defined by race; it is multiethnic and multiracial; and it includes people of all hues, complexions, and colors.

True, most Westerners are caucasian and Christian, and the determinative political and cultural ideas that gave rise to the West originated in Christian Europe.

But that does not mean—and historically, it has not meant—that only European Christians can be Westerners or Western in their outlook.

To the contrary: Israel, Japan and South Korea, for instance, must now be considered part of the West; and these countries have relatively few Christians and few Europeans. But their commitment to liberal democracy and democratic civic engagement places them squarely in the Western camp.

America, likewise, cannot be well understood or appreciated without acknowledging the important contributions to our nation’s history made by Jews and African Americans.

And so, while it is undeniably true that we in the West identify with Ukrainians to a far greater extent than we ever did Syrians, Afghans, or Iraqis, the reason for this has nothing to do with race and ethnicity and everything to do with politics and culture.

Indeed, it is not because Ukrainians “look like us,” but rather because they think and act like us, that we feel a sense of kinship with them.

Ukraine, after all, clearly yearns to be part of the West—something that could never be said about Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

That’s why Ukraine seeks membership in the European Union and NATO. And that’s why even Russian-speaking parts of Eastern Ukraine are manifestly anti-Russian and reject Putin’s attempt to subjugate their country within a new Russian empire.

Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, likewise, speaks in Churchillian tones, invokes Shakespeare, and cites critical milestones in American and Western history—Pearl Harbor, 9/11,  World War II, Dunkirk, the Holocaust

Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. No political leader in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan ever spoke so movingly or so compellingly, or in with such fluency in the Western political and cultural lexicon.

And whereas Afghan President Ashram Ghani fled Afghanistan as the Taliban descended upon Kabul, Zelensky refused to leave Kyiv when the Russians invaded.

In other words, there are very clear and obvious reasons why we in the West feel a real sense of kinship with the people of Ukraine, and these reasons have absolutely nothing to do with race and ethnicity.

Instead, what we in the West identify with is the Ukrainians’ fighting spirit, their desire for freedom and independence, their will to win, and their desire to become part of our political and cultural patrimony.

Indeed, if the Ukrainians were all black or brown, African or Middle Eastern, and exhibited precisely the same Western outlook and behavior, we would feel the same sense of kinship with them that we do now.

Our bond with Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Ukrainians “look like us” (meaning caucasian Americans and caucasian Europeans). This is a truly ludicrous and farcical notion that defies the empirical evidence which shows otherwise.

What draws us to Ukraine is the country’s political idealism, the Ukrainians’ manifest commitment to liberal democracy and civic engagement, and  their overall (Western) cultural outlook. Race and ethnicity are obviously irrelevant.

Feature photo credit: The stark differences between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) and former Afghan President Ashram Ghani (R) go a long way toward explaining why the West has embraced Ukraine much more so than Afghanistan. Courtesy of Khaama Press.

January 6 Lies and Distortions

January 6 is a day that will live in infamy. So, too, will left-wing lies and distortions about that infamous day.

The January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol never should have happened; and Donald Trump bears responsibility for inspiring the assault, for failing to deter and prevent it, and then failing to help stop it once it happened.

This was more than enough reason to impeach and convict Trump, as I argued at the time.

However, Democrats and “progressives,” aided by the media, have since depicted the protest as something that it was not: an insurrection involving hundreds of “racists” and “white supremacists” intent on “hanging Mike Pence” and violently seizing control of Congress.

In truth, a few thousand protesters marched on the Capitol and a few hundred of these protesters violently clashed with the police. None of the protesters were found to possess guns or firearms; and, despite hyperbolic, martial rhetoric from some of the protesters, they had no plan or scheme to seize control of Congress.

The protest got out of hand and became a full-scale riot because the Capitol Police were, as Andrew McCarthy explains, “grossly undermanned [and] unprepared.” Weakness begot aggression.

Yet, today on Face the Nation, Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago repeatedly referred to protesters who “broke into the Capitol.” But in truth, as we’ve seen in real-time video, many of the protesters were allowed into the Capitol building by police who opened the door for them and let them in.

Nor is this surprising. The Capitol has long been welcoming  and hospitable to visitors. Ours is a democracy, after all; and those who foot the bill and elect our Congressional representatives have always been welcomed into the corridors of power.

For this reason, many of the protesters genuinely seemed to think they had a right to enter the Capitol. And the Capitol Police initially took a soft and relaxed approach to the protest because they seemed to view it as benign and non-threatening.

It was only after a small minority of protesters grew violent and viciously assaulted the police that things began to change.

Professor Pape also insists that “race is an element and race is a driver” of Trump’s January 6 protest. But he reaches this conclusion only through the worst possible interpretation of the evidence that he himself presents.

The evidence that Professor Pape presents is this: most of the 700+ indicted Trump protesters came from politically blue urban areas with declining white populations. This, he says, “dovetails with the right-wing conspiracy theory… called the great replacement.”

In short, these Trump protesters were racists and white supremacists angry that their communities are becoming more black and brown.

Blue State Politics. That’s one possible, albeit farfetched, interpretation. Here’s another more plausible interpretation:

These Trump protesters who live in blue enclaves have seen firsthand the damage wrought by “progressive” Democratic rule. Thus they are more politically engaged—and enraged—and more politically sensitive than ordinary red state voters.

In other words, politics, not race, is what drove these Trump supporters.

Because minorities vote Democrat in significantly greater numbers than white voters, it is all too easy to conflate race and politics. But we should avoid conflating these two factors unless we have clear and compelling evidence that race and not politics is at work. Professor Pape presents no such evidence.

The bottom line: we can and should condemn Trump and the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot. However, we mustn’t allow “progressives,” Democrats, and their media fellow travelers to use January 6 as a pretext to vilify all of the Trump protesters and especially all Trump supporters.

Most had peaceful intentions and were the misguided victims of Trump’s lies and demagoguery. Others were more malicious and sinister in their intent. Fair enough. However, the same can be said of Trump’s political opponents in the media and Democratic Party.

Feature photo credit: Political Science Professor Robert Pape (L) and Donald Trump (R), courtesy of Face the Nation and Ballotpedia, respectively.