Category: Race

Another police shooting

Duante Wright, a 20 year old black man, was shot to death by police in Brooklyn Center, MN last Sunday. As noted in the article cited below, while executing an arrest a police officer is alleged to have accidentally deployed their service firearm rather than their taser as intended. This resulted in Mr. Wright suffering a fatal gunshot wound as he tried to drive away from the police encounter.

Who is Daunte Wright, the 20-year-old Black man killed in officer-involved shooting in Minnesota?

This tragedy could have been prevented if the officer had more training in high-stress encounters, where this kind of mistake can be fatal. But it also could have been prevented if Duante Wright had not been driving a car with expired registration; if Duante Wright did not have a warrant from a failure to appear before the court for a previous firearm-related arrest; if Duante Wright had heeded the lawful orders of the police officer as he was being placed under arrest; if Duante Wright had not jumped back in the car and attempted to drive away. But you’ll hear none of this in defense of the officer; you’ll only hear that another young black man was needlessly shot by police.

In fact, support of any kind for the officer – even support for allowing the justice system to proceed before passing judgement – will result in an immediate attack by the far-left cancel culture squad. It’s already happened; Curt Boganey, the city manager of Brooklyn Center MN, was fired for the following statement regarding whether or not the officer involved should be immediately fired:

“All employees working for the city of Brooklyn Center are entitled to due process with respect to discipline,” Boganey said.

The city manager did not condone the officer’s actions; he did not blame the victim. He only requested due process – something we all expect from the law. And for this statement he became collateral damage of this tragic incident.

I agree that shooting Mr. Wright with a firearm under the conditions noted was an inappropriate use of force. A taser would have acceptable, but mistakes happen in tense situations – and this officer will pay for that mistake for the rest of their life. But the high-stress situation from which the mistake arose was solely the responsibility of Mr. Wright. We should not forget this fact when condemning the officer.

Cancel away; I’m ready.

PS: Can someone explain how looting local retailers serves as a suitable protest against police use of excessive force? I just don’t get it…

Another one bites the dust

Cancel Culture:   2,134,974
Common Sense: 0

‘The Talk’ going on hiatus following Sharon Osbourne’s defense of Piers Morgan

So remember: if you as a third party do not enthusiastically agree with a first party’s claim – no matter how little proof or detail is provided – that a second unnamed party is racist then you must be a racist, too.  And, apparently, if your friend as a fourth party does not enthusiastically agree with the label of “racist” being assigned to the you the third party for not enthusiastically agreeing with the first party’s assertion – no matter how little proof or detail is provided – that the second unnamed party is a racist then you, too, are a racist…

Where does it end? I don’t know. The whole mess is kind of like a trick question: “Have you stopped being racist?” Replying “I am not racist!” is unacceptable because the question categorically states that you are (Duh!).

We will never conquer racism by accusing each other of being racists. People can disagree and not be racists, even when discussing racism. Really.

Kill the messenger

The claim is that a professor made a racist statement about her black students, but I’m not convinced. She instead seemed to be sharing her worry that, at the end of the course, the students at the bottom of the performance curve would be black. It was not a disparaging statement meant to denigrate a race, but rather a statement of concern based on previous observation. For verbalizing this observation, the university fired her.

Georgetown Law fires professor who made ‘reprehensible statements’ about Black students on viral video

Here are the highlights of her conversation with another professor, from the above linked article:

Professor Sandra Sellers speaking to Professor David Batson over Zoom about students’ academic performance. 

“You know what? I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks,” Sellers says. “Happens almost every semester and it’s like ‘oh come on.'”

“I get some really good ones but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom, it drives me crazy… so I feel bad.” 

But what if her observation is true? What if black students really are under-performing in her classes? Would the correct response be to ignore it and blame the professor for making the observation, or to investigate and – if necessary – fix the root cause?

If her observation is true, it could simply be that she is a racist and thus grades her black students more harshly than others. If so, maybe replacing her is the right response. But it could also be that years of affirmative action have effectively lowered the bar for black students, and they’ve simply risen to the level expected.

Unfortunately, the real-world is not so forgiving. Sending under-prepared students into the workforce will result in their not being able to obtain or keep gainful employment. What will we do then? Force employers to hire people of color commensurate with their representation of the population, even if they are not as competent as their education suggests? How do you think this will affect their performance in the workplace, or the public’s opinion of their capabilities? Do you think this will reduce racism, or increase it?

In any event, the correct response is to investigate and find the root cause of her observation. Only then can meaningful change be implemented to insure the true long-term success of these students.

Woke Coke?

Coke allegedly wants it white employees to “…be less white…”:

Coca-Cola, Facing Backlash, Says ‘Be Less White’ Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion

I saw a response on one of the social media sites that I thought was funny (I’m paraphrasing because I can’t find the original response):

“I’m not sure I know how to be ‘less white’, but I do know how to buy less Coke.”

I think I’ve had enough of the “woke” cancel-culture mentality for the year. Next topic, please…

Crying wolf

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass), one of AOC’s “squad”, has implicated as racist the longstanding tradition of the Senate filibuster by claiming that it is a Jim Crow remnant. She is either intentionally lying to garner support for its dissolution or she is woefully ignorant of the filibuster’s origins. Either way makes her unsuitable as a member of the United States House of Representatives.

Pressley is quoted in a recent news article (via a Twitter post) of the following:

“It’s long past time to end the Jim Crow Filibuster,” the Massachusetts “Squad” member wrote on Twitter. 

Only the filibuster’s origins have nothing to do with “Jim Crow” laws. In fact, the rule change that allowed for the filibuster originated in 1806, and it’s first use was in 1837 – long before the post-civil war era that led to the development of Jim Crow laws. But, to be fair, former President Obama made the same claim recently. However, this endorsement of her idea does not excuse Rep. Pressley from investigating the origins of the filibuster before making such outlandish claims.

Making false claims of racism is the equivalent of crying “Wolf!”, and at some point the people will tire of these invented claims. But how many traditions and rights will be trampled in the mean time by such incorrect assertions?

Racism by any other name…

Lake Superior State University has published its list of words to be banished in 2021. Yeah, I’ve never heard of this school either, but cancel culture and censorship tends to make one famous.

But it’s not so much the list itself that peaked my interest as it is the explanation for certain words being on the list. Here’s an interesting snippet from a Fox News article regarding the list:

The university also wanted to banish the term “Karen,” which “began as an anti-racist critique of the behavior of white women in response to Black and Brown people,” but has now been turned into “a misogynist umbrella term for critiquing the perceived overemotional behavior of women,” the announcement said.

Anti-racist? Are you kidding me? “Karen” is a derogatory term applying only to people of a certain race; that’s the very definition of racist. Worse, it’s a racist word contrived for revenge as a form of retaliatory racism. If this word must be on your “list” place it there not only because it is misogynistic, but because it is racist, too.

Acceptance of retaliatory or revenge racism will never take us in the direction we want to go; it will only expand the void between us and make racists out of everyone.

Oh – and banning words is stupid. Really.

Fighting non-racism with racism?

These students want to abandon non-racist policies and replace them with racist versions. Their argument is essentially that racist policies are acceptable if they help under-represented people.

Cornell faculty-student group demands racial quotas, criticizes ‘colorblind’ practices

They are buoyed by Dr. Ibram Kendi, the leader of Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, who is touted in the same article supporting discrimination as a tool for creating racial equality. However, such discriminatory quotas will not resolve the root cause of the problem, and will introduce their own negative consequences.

Many universities have a race-neutral admissions policy. Why then is it assumed that race is the cause of admission disparities? It is not race that is preventing students of color from being admitted to these schools but rather readiness as measured by coursework, grades and standardized test results. If universities adopt a racial quota system for admissions then student readiness will not have to improve, since students would only have to compete within their own race for admissions. Readiness will not rise, and could actually fall. Would this be good for students?

And how should we deal with the disparity of readiness between students that a race-based quota system might cause? Should we have different classes based on preparedness? Would these classes likely fall among racial lines? How do you think this would impact race opinions on campus?

And what if we take this to the extreme, where students of some races have a generally different course set and grading criteria, all in the name of graduating more under-representing students? Do you think that this will go unnoticed by employers? What effect do you think this might have on their hiring practices? Do you think this will foster inclusivity – or racism?

The correct solution for under-represention in universities is not to establish racial quotas; it is instead to find the root cause of the under-representation and attack that problem directly. If readiness is an issue then we need to find out why and provide resources likely to overcome it. This will bring students up to the expected level, rather than having different levels based on race, and eliminate the potential negative consequences of a racial quota admissions system.

The fact of the matter is that racial quotas – like affirmative action programs – can establish a disparity between the qualifications of some students or graduates, creating an opportunity for racial bias. This is the exact opposite of the stated goals of such a quota system, and as a result these quota systems should be avoided. We should work instead to find the root cause of admissions disparities and then solve those issues directly.

On confederate monuments

Ok – let’s be serious: How would you feel if you were wondering around and noticed that there were many statues honoring Hitler? Or Mussolini? Or that teenagers were painting Nazi swastika flags on the roof of their cars to commemorate the 3rd Reich? While each is a form of speech protected by our constitution, we’d consider the maintainers of these monuments idiots and shun them for their views.

The reality is that maintaining monuments honoring the losing side of a war, particularly a civil war fought over a now universally-despised practice such as slavery, is just plain dumb. At the time I can imagine that the purpose of these monuments was to act as a balm, something to ease our pain and heal the wounds of the nation. But the time for reconstruction is over; we need to move on. We should recognize the idiocy of maintaining monuments for those whose ideas we now find abhorrent.

That being said, destroying the monuments is rather dumb, too. It will not change history; in fact, removing these monuments entirely – and their reminder of what we’ve been through – would only leave us vulnerable to making the same mistakes again. These monuments should be preserved in museums to remind us of how far we’ve come – and the perils of ignoring our past.

Fighting racism with racism?

Yeah; that’ll work.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot calls White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany ‘Karen’ in latest round of vitriol

For those who don’t know, the pejorative term “Karen” has been developed to describe an overbearing middle-aged white woman.  A racist term by definition, I wonder why its creator thinks that there are no overbearing middle-aged women of any other race. Does anyone doubt how people would react if the term had been developed for a group of minority women? Why then is there no outrage now?

When the mayor of a major U.S. city and representative of the progressive wing of the Democratic party uses a decidedly racist term to refer to a political counterpart, it becomes very hard to take them seriously when they call out others for racism.

[1] Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls White House Spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany ‘Karen’ in Latest Round of Vitriol. https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-calls-kayleigh-mcenany-karen-20200717-jiepxhfdjrba3ivuhqu5it6nq4-story.html. Accessed 17 July 2020.

 

The descent into McCarthyism

It’s one thing to support a cause; it’s quite another to silence the opposition using dubious legal theory:

California pair charged with hate crime after Black Lives Matter mural cover-up: authorities

The vandals were clearly wrong in their actions. The original artist had a permit for the banner, and the vandals had no right to deface it. However, charging them with a hate crime for expressing their disagreement with BLM will have a chilling impact on free speech. They should be charged with the appropriate level of crime for their actions, but not be used as a soapbox to advance the political career of a District Attorney.

What about a competing group placing a flier over a BLM poster? A comment posted in dissent on a BLM discussion thread? A face-to-face discussion disagreeing with the BLM message? Will all of these be charged as hate crimes, too?

The DA in this case is quoted as follows:

“We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.”

Unless, of course, your opinion differs from theirs…

When the press talks about our descent into McCarthyism, note that it is actions like this that are leading the charge.

Editor’s note: I find it interesting that the above case is treated as a hate crime, when the following admitted false claim of racism is not:

Oregon politician confesses to penning ‘anonymous’ racist letter to himself