Race

Here's What Happens When Diversity and Non-Racism Collide on Campus

Left-wing attitudes hurt the cause of individual justice.

|

If you're a college student who has been steeped in the values of the modern academy, then you know two things with every fiber of your being: (1) diversity is good and (2) racism is bad. Most of the time, it's pretty easy to reconcile these two positions. A club that admits only white men as members, for instance, offends both of those principles.

From time to time, though, the values of diversity and non-racism collide—as they did recently at Stanford. Molly Horwitz, a Jewish student, was running for student government. She had an interview with the Students of Color Coalition, hoping to win its endorsement. During the course of the interview, she says, she was asked: "Given your Jewish identity, how would you vote on divestment" from Israel?

Horwitz said she was shocked, and the head of the campus NAACP, Tianay Pulphus, denies that anyone asked such a question. But, as The New York Times noted in an article about the episode, "this is not the first time the roiling debate on college campuses over divestment from Israel has led to charges of anti-Semitism. Earlier this year, students at the University of California, Los Angeles, asked a Jewish student who was a candidate for a campus judicial committee" if Rachel Beyda's Jewish identity would warp her perspective: "Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?"

In that UCLA case, the students who interrogated Beyda wrote a letter of apology to the student newspaper: "As individuals committed to social activism and advocating on behalf of underrepresented communities," they wrote, "we understand the importance and urgency of wearing our identities as a badge of honor. Integral to this is respecting and celebrating identities other than our own."

But here's the odd thing. While the questions put to Horwitz and Beyda sounded vaguely racist or anti-Semitic, they did not constitute a failure to live up to the values of diversity. The questions were perfectly consistent with those values.

After all: the entire premise behind diversity is that people's backgrounds color their perspectives. A deliberative body that lacks racial, gender, and religious diversity will, necessarily, lack a diversity of perspective. A committee with no women will fail to take women's interests into sufficient account; a board with no black members will be insensitive to black concerns. But this is far less likely to happen if the panel includes a black representative. Unless of course the black representative is Clarence Thomas; all good people know "Uncle Thomas" is the white man's lawn jockey. Hence Sen. Harry Reid's comment after the Hobby Lobby decision that women's lives were being "determined by virtue of five white men," one of whom was Thomas.

You see comments like that all the time. In January, after a subcommittee of the Virginia Senate voted to require mandatory reporting of sexual assault, a recent U.Va. graduate remarked, "What just happened was five older white men decided how Virginia's colleges and universities have to handle assault cases without hearing anything from their female colleagues or student representatives."

And there is the heart of the argument for diversity: Old white men think one way. Young black women think another way. LGBT Latinos think differently from the other two groups, and so on. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously said, a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The student questioners at Stanford and UCLA got into hot water because their questions carried an obvious implication: All Jews think alike, don't they? Or, if not alike, at least in broadly similar ways, at least about certain topics. When you put it that way, it sounds—well, pretty baldly racist. You can put it in ways that sound nicer—"We need to make sure we have a representative from the African-American community"—but the different wording can't erase the sameness of the underlying rationale.

Another conundrum showed up three years ago in the debate over whether to appoint Tracy Thorne-Begland to a judgeship. Republicans in the General Assembly balked because Thorne-Begland is gay. Democrats were, quite properly, furious. "The only criteria legislators should apply when selecting judges are that person's ability to fairly and impartially weigh the law," as Sen. Donald McEachin put it, echoing many. It seems fair to say that he, and many others, would have made exactly the same argument if Republicans had rejected Thorne-Begland for being black, or an immigrant, or what have you.

But if merit is the only benchmark against which a candidate should be measured, then it cannot matter if a given body is composed of five old white men, five young Latino women, or any other homogenous cohort. It makes no sense to say an individual's demographic identity should always count for him but never against him.

And that's the dilemma advocates of diversity can't seem to reconcile. They want to treat people as indelibly marked by their demographic profile, but not be seen themselves as treating people that way. And that is rather hard to pull off.

Advertisement

NEXT: Patriot Act Gets New Lease on Life From McConnell Bill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lit the Bo/MNG Troll Signal! Jooooooooos!

    1. Bo’s got his hands full today. It’s Earth Day, and somebody needs to call us SoCons for mocking it.

      1. Earth Day movie marathon: I’m thinking Independence Day to kick it off. WELCOME TO ERF

        1. “Knowing” with Nicholas Cage.

        2. “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. How many shows have the Earth getting destroyed?

          1. I always had a problem with it. A bunch of aliens Eminent domain our fucking planet! We should’ve kicked their asses!

    2. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. More cognitive dissonance from the left. It’s not about what makes sense. It’s about what makes them feel good about themselves.

    1. I’ve watched with amusement as the powers that be in my workplace have stumbled all over themselves to define a “diversity strategy.” In a meeting last month, someone thinking out loud said something to the effect of “But wait, guys, isn’t it racist for us to assume that someone has had a certain experience just because of the color of his skin?” Crickets.

      1. Yeah, kinda like this *Students of Color Coalition* all by itself isn’t racist. But it’s the good kinda racist, right?

      2. It’s not so amusing after a few years. Especially when it has been affecting your own work life because you are not a member of one of the chosen tribes.

        I’ve spent the last 19 years in local government dealing with this. Amusing it is not!

    2. In order to have cognitive dissonance, you need cognition. All they have is feelz.

    3. It’s about what furthers their power.

  3. And that’s the dilemma advocates of diversity can’t seem to reconcile. They want to treat people as indelibly marked by their demographic profile, but not be seen themselves as treating people that way. And that is rather hard to pull off.

    I think it’s rather generous to assume that they want to reconcile the dilemma. They just want people to accept them as Superior Beings. We’re all just supposed to sit down and shut up as our betters lecture us on the error of our ways, in spite of the fact that they’re not superior to the lint in my navel.

  4. Integral to this is respecting and celebrating identities other than our own.

    Bull. Shit.

    1. Well obviously they shouldn’t celebrate identities like those hillbillies bitterly clinging to their guns, or soldiers, or a devout Catholic. That’s just obvious.

      1. They love diversity, but…

  5. White men think this way, black men think that way, latinos think another way.. blah blah blah. The thinking behind modern diversity sounds a lot like the thinking behind old school racism.

    1. You see, white people drive like this…and black people drive like this…

      1. White people have names like Lenny and black people have names like Carl.

      2. And Asians, they can’t drive at all.

        1. “YOU BLAKE TOO FAST!!!”

        2. Is it racist if it is true?

          /3 years in China

      3. And women be shoppin’!

    2. I’ve tried to define “racism” given how often it seems people talk past each other on the issue.

      “Racism is expecting another person to behave or believe in a certain way because of their race.”

      Not terribly elegant. I’m sure it could be worded better, but I’m settling on the basic idea.

      1. I thought the fundamental trait of racism wad the belief of ones superiority or inferiority based solely on ones race.

        Your definition would seem more applicable to racial profiling than racism as it focuses on behavior.

  6. This is why I’m glad I’m a white male. I don’t have to worry about all this diversity jockeying. I’m both an ignorant hill-billy and manipulating the world to keep everyone else down at the same time.

    1. Sometimes I wish I had the power to oppress the world that I’m constantly told I have. Just for one day. Or maybe a week.

      1. I’m still waiting for that sweet, sweet, Koch Bros cash!

      2. I keep checking the mail for my privilege, but it never seems to arrive.

        1. Your mailman delivery person probably stole it.

          1. Ive never had a mailman delivered

      3. The irony is if I had that power the first group I would crush would be our government, which is full of white men.

        1. I don’t know, it seems that bureaucracies exist on the backs of women.

      4. Yeah. I like to say that I missed the annual convention where we voted to keep the oppression going.

        But, I don’t find it funny when someone tells me that I only got to where I am – wherever the hell that is – because of my white male privilege.

        Although I’ve certainly experienced true bigots in my day, I’ve never been told I was the chosen recipient of anything because of my whiteness. Or maleness.

        On the other hand, I’ve flat out been denied jobs, inclusion in certain groups, etc. because of that same whiteness and the people doing that felt very free to tell me so.

        The first few times that happened, when I was interviewing for jobs right out of college in 1979, I was furious. But, over time, I’ve turned 180 degrees. I’ve actually been on the decision making side of such choices where I was instructed to decline well qualified while white male candidates in favor of a preferred gender, race or religion based on diversity analysis of the group by some affirmative action departments. Or even CEOs worried about appearances. One can be “too white” you know?

        Now I actually appreciate the candor when I’m told of my being shoved aside in favor of a non-white or non-male. It’s better than the lies they use to try and sell me on a rejection in favor of the “candidate of color” claiming they were more qualified.

        1. That white male privilege seems to be more cultural. More the expectations of behavior that lead to success rather than any actual privilege. Not to worry though as those expectations are being eroded. In pop culture white men now fall into the old out of touch white guy or the stupid comic relief stereotypes.

    2. The way it works is, if you’re a white male, no matter how poor, the poorest son of a toothless hillbilly in West Virginia, then you are an oppressor who’s holding everyone else back and keeping them from having anything. If you’re a whiny malcontent white girl from an upper class family from an all white neighborhood, you’re being oppressed, along with all people of color, except for Asians, we can’t talk about them.

      1. I wouldn’t mind “oppressing” some Asian ladies. Wink. Wink.

        1. That won’t get you into too much trouble. It’s not bad when the oppressors are only oppressing those other oppressors who can’t be spoken of.

          1. My wife thinks Asian ladies steal white men, which is odd because she is Latina. So I would in fact get into a lot of trouble for that kind of oppression.

            1. Is she wise, though?

              1. Eh. I joke, she is college educated and works full time, which is good enough for me.

                1. Pics please.

            2. she is Latina

              You have good taste my friend. Latin ladies are the best. Although my wife doesn’t like being called Latin. Brazilians are funny like that.

              But if you want to oppress some Asian ladies, just put on your Godzirra costume and walk around Tokyo, you might score, (;

              1. My wife is half Guatemalan and half Peruvian. The best part is the food. Peruvian food is awesome. She isn’t too picky on Hispanic/Latin/Spanish thing because she was born here.

                1. My girlfriend in college was half Mexican, half Peruvian. Her dad looked like a little Japanese guy.

                  1. There is a large Japanese population in Peru. They went there after ww2. This is where chifa comes from, a South American fried rice.

                    1. I know that. She didn’t.

                      A lot of their dishes are stir fry. Lomo Saltado, for example. It’s stir fried beef with soy sauce and vinegar.

                  2. Peruvians eat guinea pigs.

                    1. Pan Flutes Guinea Saurus Rex

                    2. Pan Flutes .GT. Guinea Saurus Rex

                      sheesh…

                    3. I grew up in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood and then spent the largest majority of my adult life in Asia. So my experience has been almost exclusively Hispanic and Asian women to the extent that I really don’t understand the average white American female.

                      Works for me.

                    4. Who does?

    3. In the words of Sargon of Akkad: Worst. Patriarchy. Ever.

  7. “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    It’s pretty depressing that this didn’t immediately result in a landslide vote against her appointment.

    1. Only this version would result in opposition:
      “wise Latina woman white man with the richness of her his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male minority woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

      1. You just used my standard test for racial bias. Take any news article mentioning “white” in reference to race and substitute any other racial label. If it won’t pass the PC test, then the article is obviously racist.

        Works every time!

        But, don’t tell the non-whites that. They have an “oppressed” comeback for everything. 🙁

    2. Maybe there was some confusion about the “wise Latina” in question? Maybe they were thinking someone like this…

      1. It’s like Salma Hayek and Sotomayor are not even the same species……

      2. Her last name is Hayek…

        1. She’s half Lebanese.

          1. Getting too close to Kardashians for comfort here.

        1. A woman after my own heart

          1. She gets better and better!

        2. I think Selma might be the bird of true love…the swallow.

          1. I’ve seen her naked!

      3. Sofia Vergara for SCOTUS!

        Now that would really put the royalty in the robes.

    3. She’s basically said that she would judge the laws based on how it effects the hispanic community and now whether they are constitutionally authorized or not, which is all that should matter in the supreme court. That admission should have disqualified her immediately, but the Supreme Court has become a tool for activists to hammer home their agendas in a way that is very difficult to overturn.

    4. She’s basically said that she would judge the laws based on how it effects the hispanic community and now whether they are constitutionally authorized or not, which is all that should matter in the supreme court. That admission should have disqualified her immediately, but the Supreme Court has become a tool for activists to hammer home their agendas in a way that is very difficult to overturn.

  8. Internal consistency is not a requirement.

    Also, Tainay Pulphus… *chuckle*

  9. “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

    That question isn’t vaguely racist or anti-Semitic. It is flat out anti-Semitic because it implies that the women is a fifth column committed to Israel at the expense of every other value. Just what is an “unbiased opinion”? Granted the person asking the question is probably so stupid she thinks any opinion different from hers is “just biased”. What it really means is an opinion based on prejudice rather than reason, which when you think about it is the entire fucking point of the identity whores like these people. What is “wearing ones identity as a badge of honor” if not making all of your judgements and decisions based on it?

    1. Doublethink!

    2. What’s antisemitic about it? It’s a legitimate question. I’d be curious about what obligations toward Israel a Jewish presidential candidate felt he had.

      Divestment is a dumb, feel-good policy, to be sure, and vilifying Israel is a dumb, feel-good gesture, but it stems from being sheltered college students steeped in progressive sentimentality.

      1. No its not. Asking it implies that the fact that she is Jewish means you can’t trust her. If you want to know what she thinks about Israel, ask her that question. Asking her to justify her opinion in light of her being Jewish is just saying you can’t trust Jews unless they show you otherwise.

        I’d be curious about what obligations toward Israel a Jewish presidential candidate felt he had.

        I would think you would be curious about any candidate’s opinion about Israel. Do I get a free pass on the issue because I am not Jewish?

        1. I certainly wish someone in 2007 had asked what our current president thought about Israel. Not that it matters, he’d have lied.

          1. Why bother even watching the debates? There is nothing binding a politician to stick to their campaign promises. The election process is legalized fraud. The politicians make promises, explain their stands on the issues, and the electorate chooses the politicians they want to represent them based on those stances. When the politician changes those stances in the middle of their term, they commit fraud against those who elected them.

            1. You’re one to talk!

            2. Well, they are lawyers for the most part.

              I spent some time around lawyers years ago. Until then, I didn’t realize that lawyers can lie with impunity, so long as it’s in the best interests of their clients. It was mind boggling to watch them make up and, frequently try out on me, “alternative scenarios” that they could propose to the jury to create reasonable doubt.

        2. Do I get a free pass on the issue because I am not Jewish?

          Hell, no! Everyone knows right-leaning, professional white males who drive Porsches are extremely pro-Israel and will not be able to maintain an unbiased view.

          You will be subject to the standard interrogation!

          1. Shows how much you know. “John” is actually a wise Latina, and is unemployed.

        3. You are just over-correcting. People’s experiences do shape their opinions, and it’s not unreasonable to think that someone with a Jewish background is more likely than the average non-Jewish person to have a favorable opinion towards Israel. That’s not anti-Semitic, it’s just part normal human social interaction.

          1. No I am not. If you want to know what she thinks about Israel, ask her. Why does she have to justify why her being Jewish? Ask her what she thinks and judge accordingly. The only reason it would matter to the questioner that she is Jewish is if the questioner thinks he can’t trust her answers unless she explains how her being Jewish hasn’t affected them. And that is most certainly anti-Semitic.

            1. If you want to know what she thinks about Israel, ask her

              So if someone’s heritage colors your first impressions of them but you keep it to yourself, it’s not racist, but if you say it out loud, it is?

              If you want to argue that it’s racism anytime someone forms a first impression about someone else based on qualities like ethnicity or race, then make that argument. But I would describe that as bias, and it is something that is inherently human. It may also be undesirable and worth trying to counteract, but it is not malicious in the way we usually think of racism as being.

              The only reason it would matter to the questioner that she is Jewish is if the questioner thinks he can’t trust her answers unless she explains how her being Jewish hasn’t affected them

              Or, you know, the questioner was just vocalizing their full thought process.

              1. So if someone’s heritage colors your first impressions of them but you keep it to yourself, it’s not racist, but if you say it out loud, it is?

                If I see that someone is Jewish and assume they must be pro Israel without even asking them, yes I am being racist whether I say it or not. Not being racist means taking people’s word without wondering whether their race or religion means you can’t trust them.

                Or, you know, the questioner was just vocalizing their full thought process.

                Which is racist. Me saying “how can I trust you on the subject of Israel given that you are Jewish” is racist. It is saying that the fact that you are Jewish means you are liable to support Israel at the expense of our organization and the country at large and also lie about doing it.

                1. You are funny when you get like this. Here is the question that was asked:

                  Given your Jewish identity, how would you vote on divestment

                  Not “How can I trust you?” or “How do I know you’re not lying?”

                  Again, what you are describing is bias. If you want to argue that all bias arising from race/ethnicity is racist or wrong, then make that argument. But I for one thinking defining racism that broadly is nonsensical and counter productive. And this isn’t just useless semantics. Word’s matter, especially when you are tossing around a term as loaded as racism.

                  1. Given your Jewish identity, how would you vote on divestment

                    Which part of “given that you are Jewish” do you not understand? You are not funny when you are being dense. How would you vote on divestment is the question. The fact that she is Jewish is only relevent if you are racist and think it matters.

                    Maybe you missed it, but questioning the loyalties of Jews is a big fucking deal and one of the most prominent areas of antisemitism.

                    1. I’m not being dense. I’m disagreeing with you, and articulating the reasons why pretty clearly.

                    2. I completely agree with John on this. Thanks John.

                      I am Jewish. I dont like the idea of having my loyalties questioned based on a coincidence of my birth.

      2. Hell, if nothing else it could be construed as a sign of self-awareness on the asker’s behalf. Of course the girl’s obsessively preoccupied with her cultural heritage and its implications. She’s a college student running for a spot in the student body government. Identity obsession is what people like her do. And yes, her perspective is warped by it, as betrayed by the pissing contest she immediately jumped into with the identity-obsessives at the campus NAACP.

        1. Okay. Then I guess it would be fine to ask a black candidate something like

          “This committee often deals with issues involving the campus police, given that you are a black student and very active in the black community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

          Think that would ever be asked? In bizzaro world maybe. Or would a Muslim student get asked the same question about Israel? Of course not. Only Jews get asked to justify how they can overcome their evil Jewishness when dealing with Israel.

          The question was anti-Semitic.

          1. The anti-Semitic part isn’t asking what are her views on Israel. It’s all the other crap they added to the question like “unbiased” and “as a Jewish student”. (I would also say it’s anti-Semitic if she’s the only candidate they asked about the subject)

            1. Exactly. That is my point. If you want to know about Israel, ask her.

          2. I like your style, John. Throwing their absurd allegations of bigotry back in their faces. It’s satisfying. But I don’t think they care about appearing antisemitic any more than the press or progressives generally do. I don’t think they see it as antisemitism any more than I do. Israel is in a position of power over the Palestinians, and enjoys the imprimatur of the American right. For the left, Israel has committed a serious breach of etiquette. They’re reveling in their privilege.

            This is just another case of college students identity politicking and concern trolling. Of course a Jewish candidate for the student body judiciary (or whatever) would be hit with a question about divestment. The progressive logrolling effort has no beef with Muslims.

            1. Jews and Israel are “privileged” and thus subject to special scrutiny. Subjecting Jews to special scrutiny is known as “antisemitism”. They are totally anti-Semitic. They just dress it up in the bullshit language you describe.

              1. You give them too much credit. Actual bigotry would give their derision a patina of authenticity and, dare I say it, legitimacy. They’re anti-Israel because it’s important to signal their feels about Palestine. They’re anti-Israel because Jews aren’t derided in flyover states by nasty conservatives as much as Muslims. They’re anti-Israel because they’re sheltered, ahistorical twits.

                1. “because they’re sheltered, ahistorical twits”

                  Nope. It’s gotta be white privilege.

            2. They don’t care about being antisemitic. Jews aren’t victim enough for them. You’d think that something like the holocaust and the overall hatred of Jews by so many people would make them a victim. But that’s not the focus. Jews are not victims because they are too successful and don’t sit around trying to be victims all of the time. In order to get into the victim club, you have to try harder to be a victim.

              1. IN addition to being anti-Semitic, they are also racists. They hate Asians and white people.

          3. Dude, Jews are different. They’re like Asians in that even though they are not white per say, well a lot of them are very white, but they are not the EVIL caucasion type whiteys, since they didn’t originate in Europe and then sail around the world stealing land from peace loving indigenous folks.

            Ok, let me finish that sentence. Joos are sort of like Asians in that even though they are not white, a lot of them have managed to become very successful despite the fact that they are also most assuredly being oppressed by whitey, because whitey oppresses all.

            So, it’s ok for SJWs to hate Jews and Asians, because they refuse to be victims.

            1. They don’t hate Jews, not as a cultural effort. They hate Israel. Israel makes life difficult for the Palestinians. Palestinians are victims. So Israel is an oppressor. Their worldview is defined by concern trolling.

              1. A lot of them hate Jews, period. In Europe, the antisemitism is getting quite scary again.

                1. I hate it when people speak of race and then throw Jews into the mix as though that is a monolithic race.

                  That last time I looked, Judaism was a religion. And, it encompassed many races after it spread from its original roots. Not unlike Christianity and other religions.

                  Sammy Davis Jr., great entertainer that he was and all around good sport, could have a field day with this kind of categorizing.

                  1. I hate it when people speak of race and then throw Jews into the mix as though that is a monolithic race

                    That’s not the fault of “people”. Judaism itself links together religion, culture, geography, and ancestry, and people who play the right wing version of identity politics love to conflate these issues to score points in debates.

                    Sammy Davis Jr., great entertainer that he was and all around good sport, could have a field day with this kind of categorizing.

                    His statements on his conversion to Judaism don’t suggest to me that he was motivated by a deep spiritual belief, but by identity politics: he identified with the Jewish image of a permanently persecuted minority. He liked to refer to himself as “handicapped” because he was a “one-eyed Negro Jew”. If you have other sources suggesting a deep spiritual need to convert, please share them though.

                2. I love the term “anti-semitism”. It was coined by 19th century “intellectuals” because judenhass carried too much baggage. A great example of rebranding the same old crap to put out as the new product.

            2. Model minorities.

              God bless ’em!

          4. The question was anti-Semitic.

            If you run for political office and you choose to identify as a member of a religion, it is entirely legitimate to ask you how you would vote on political issues on which your religion takes a stance. Judaism itself takes strong positions on ethnicity (“chosen people”), land, and politics, and those beliefs are driving a lot of current politics. Of course, it is legitimate to ask about them, and even to disagree with them.

            You bet that a student that identifies as believing in Islam would be asked the same question about Israel by Jewish student groups. And a student that identifies as conservative Christian would be asked about his positions related to homosexuality and abortion. Religion isn’t this magic shield that lets you take political positions without criticism or disapproval.

            People like you cry “wolf” too many times over anti-Semitism; increasingly, the rest of us don’t give a f*ck anymore about being accused of it because the term has lost its meaning.

            1. You bet that a student that identifies as believing in Islam would be asked the same question about Israel by Jewish student groups.\

              But this isn’t a Jewish student group. And no way in hell would such a question be asked by this group of a Muslim.

              People like you cry “wolf” too many times over anti-Semitism; increasingly, the rest of us don’t give a f*ck anymore about being accused of it because the term has lost its meaning.

              No it hasn’t. It means the same thing. You just don’t like it because you are in fact one but are not honest enough to admit it. You clearly hate Jews and Christians. That is your business of course but that doesn’t prevent other people from calling you on it.

              1. But this isn’t a Jewish student group. And no way in hell would such a question be asked by this group of a Muslim.

                Of course not: African Americans tend to be supportive of Islam.

                You just don’t like it because you are in fact one but are not honest enough to admit it. You clearly hate Jews and Christians.

                I make no secret out of the fact that I oppose, all the Abrahamic religions because I consider them fundamentally morally wrong; that, of course, includes Judaism. Whether you are ethnically Jewish makes no difference to me.

                Feel free to call me “anti-Semitic” because of that; as I said: I don’t care. The term has become meaningless.

            2. Judaism itself takes strong positions on ethnicity (“chosen people”), land, and politics, and those beliefs are driving a lot of current politics. Of course, it is legitimate to ask about them, and even to disagree with them.

              No, it is legitimate to ask them whatever you want to know. What is not legitimate is to assume that the fact that they are Jewish or Christian makes their answers suspect. And if they don’t make their answers suspect, it doesn’t matter what they are. If you suspect someone is not sufficiently affirming of the blessed homos, fucking ask them that. There are people out there who are not Christians who don’t like homos. The question is what is their opinion not “justify to me why I can believe you” or “sufficiently repudiate your evil religion or identity”, which is what you are doing.

              You are an anti Semite and the rest of us don’t give a fuck if you don’t like being called such. The truth hurts.

              1. What is not legitimate is to assume that the fact that they are Jewish or Christian makes their answers suspect.

                Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all take strong moral and political positions. If you claim to be a member of one of those religions, it is legitimate to question your honesty when you state that your political positions differ from those advocated by your religion.

                You are an anti Semite and the rest of us don’t give a fuck if you don’t like being called such. The truth hurts.

                As I was saying: I don’t care whether you call me an “anti-Semite”, the term has lost all its meaning. I treat individual decently if they treat me decently and I don’t hurt people; that’s where my obligations to other people begin and end.

          5. The equivalency with a black candidate would be to ask if they thought they could be unbiased when dealing with an issue specific to blacks, say admission quotas based on race.

            Whereas, your putting “the campus police” and a “black candidate” shows your own bias. You see relations with the police as being a problem for all blacks.

      3. Did anyone ask Obama about what obligations……………..oh, never mind.

  10. “If you’re a college student who has been steeped in the values of the modern academy, then you know two things with every fiber of your being: (1) diversity is good and (2) racism is bad.”

    Diversity is good = taking people’s race into account is good

    Racism is bad = taking people’s race into account is bad

    Ahhhh…ok. I get it now.

    1. ^^^^^^^

      Beautiful!

  11. “As individuals committed to social activism and advocating on behalf of underrepresented communities,” they wrote, “we understand the importance and urgency of wearing our identities as a badge of honor.

    “Badge of honor”? Honor nothing, it’s just a badge. You wear it on your sleeve. That’s why you get away with flogging others.

    1. They don’t need no steenking badges.

      1. Joking aside, they really do. It’s why aspiring social justice activists, whose single credible complaint about growing up in middle-class white families is that their parents were maybe more religious than they care to be, work so hard to craft their minority credentials. They turn sexual proclivities and psychological deficiencies into defining characteristic. They need a badge of victimhood to validate their existence.

    2. You know who made people wear badges on their sleeve? Hint: some badges wearers were murdered…

      1. FDR?

  12. It makes no sense to say an individual’s demographic identity should always count for him but never against him.

    This is why they are so obsessed with the idea of privilege. Identifying with a privileged group will always count against you while identifying with an unprivileged group will always count for you. Because the unprivileged need to be lifted up and the privileged knocked down in the name of fairness.

    That is their resolution.

    1. No one is lifted up. They only knock people down. Equality is the lowest common denominator.

    2. ^ Why does that sound like a prayer in church?

  13. “As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously said, a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.””

    Still waiting for that Wise Latina. Does Sotomayor know any?

    1. She seems to appear on 4th Amendment cases, which is a lot better than I expected.

      1. Yes, she has been a pleasant surprise in that respect.

        1. OK, she found a nut. Good work!

          On other cases, not so much.

      2. Funny thing though. You don’t have to be a wise latina or have any of those experiences to judge whether or not a law is authorized by the constitution or not. The constitution either says the government can do something, forbids it, or leaves that function to the states or the people.

  14. It’s racist if an intolerant person makes assumptions based upon race, but not if a tolerant person does.

    Principals, not principles.

    1. It’s racist if an intolerant person makes assumptions based upon race, but not if a tolerant person does.

      This isn’t making assumptions based on “race” (i.e., guesses based on physiognomy), it is making assumptions based on identity that the person themselves chooses to display. You can’t tell whether someone is Jewish by looking at them unless they identify as such by choosing to display religious symbols.

      If you choose to identify yourself towards others as Jewish, Christian, gay, atheist, progressive, Democrat, Republican, whatever, it is entirely legitimate to use the identity you choose to make assumptions about you: that’s the whole point of displaying your chosen identity and your membership in that group in the first place!

      1. “Molly Horwitz, a Jewish student, was running for student government.”

        Jesus Christ, her name is MOLLY HORWITZ. How on Earth can you argue that no one would have been able to tell she’s Jewish unless she publicly identified as such when her last name is Horwitz? That’s about the most Jewish last name this side of Goldstein.

        1. Moses, Sam, and Jerome.

        2. Enlighten me on that Jewish last name thing please.

          Don’t assume by appearances or last names, the faith or ethnic heritage of anyone. There are too many variables at play.

          And, in the bigger scheme of things what does it matter?

        3. Well, lets see. In my college days, there was this active organization known as “Jews for Jesus”.

          Go figure.

        4. How on Earth can you argue that no one would have been able to tell she’s Jewish unless she publicly identified as such when her last name is Horwitz?

          They didn’t ask her these questions because of her last name. They asked her these questions because she herself repeatedly talked about her “Jewish identity” and because she is active in Jewish campus groups, which have taken positions on divestment, Israel, and other political and social issues.

          The premise that it is somehow bigoted to ask questions about political questions related to someone’s religious beliefs is ludicrous. As a voter, you can and should ask Catholics about abortion, Jews about Israel, and atheists about charity and compassion. Any politician, student or adult, should answer those questions patiently, politely, and carefully.

      2. So if you self identify with a group then you want people to assume things about you, except that you don’t if you don’t like the assumptions or the person making the assumptions.
        Or something.

  15. Here’s an idea, let’s stop assuming that any level of thought is behind all proclamations from this crowd. Thoughts are irrelevant where feelings are concerned. It’s all about how they feel AT THAT MOMENT.

    1. Yes. They are nasty, brutish children. We should treat them as such. Stop trying to reason with them. The only thing they understand or respect is force.

      1. The only thing they understand or respect is force.

        Which is why the personal is the political. When things become political then they are backed with force.

      2. Treating college students like adults was a noble cause, but its obviously failed. Might as well bring back en loco parentis. Along with sorority paddling and…wait, what was I talking about?

      3. Hi john,

        Do you know what the NAP is? Can I link to your post whenever someone accuses me of being a violent fascist because, yes, I think people who don’t pay their taxes should ultimately face some consequences? Thanks, man.

        1. The part where he berates social justice dweebs for coveting violence?

        2. You are not accused of being a violent fascist, you are one. And people like you put good people like the ones on this board in the dilemma of either following our principles and being stomped by violent fascists like you or abandoning our principles and fighting back.

          It is funny that the thought of people fighting back gets you so angry. You so want to be able to practice violence against the defenseless. You must drool at the thought of it. You are truly a loathsome and evil human being.

          1. +1, sad for our nation and the world that your post is spot on.

        3. Hi Amsoc

          A sarcastic post versus the actual murder of tens of millions by your heros Mao and Stalin? Are you serious? Sarcastic post = words. Mao + Stalin = tens of millions of people actually murdered.

          Were you able the cancel the mortgage due to intellectual deficiency?

    2. They’re malcontents. That is all. They’re also useful idiots for the left. The left is using them as a tool to shut down free speech.

      All the left need is complete control of the media and academia, a large surveillance state and a militarized police force already in place just waiting for them to finally shut down any free speech or debate on their goals.

      They’re almost there. We really do not have long to stop this insanity. I’ve talked to a few libertarian leaning friends of mine lately who have pretty much given up hope that we stop them. I’m not quite that pessimistic as there is still a lot of resistance. But if you look at how they’ve just completely taken over academia and completely shut down any debate, then you have to wonder just how long it will be until they achieve the same with media, including the internet which they’ve already started to ‘regulate’. It really cannot be that long before the slightest words spoken in protest will get you hauled off by the state.

      1. There has also been quite a bit of talk from the left promoting the idea of a constitutional amendment so they can regulate speech. Of course they call it “getting dirty money out of campaigns/politics”.

        1. Well, yeah. It’s immoral that people voluntarily contribute money to political causes. All political causes should be funded with money that was obtained by coercion. That’s the only way to make it moral.

          1. Except for unions. Unions voluntarily giving money is just fine.

          2. All political causes should be funded with money that was obtained by coercion.

            Yep. Give every declared candidate $50K of taxpayer money to spend as it chooses.

            Of course, that’s *all* the money that could be spent.

      2. The only way to stop them is to kick them in the head. Violence and intimidation is the only thing they understand. So your choices are, give up your principles and stand up or keep your principles and allow them to put a boot on your face. This is the dilemma that evil people create for good people.

        1. Well sure, you can only beat them if you join their game.

        2. Being nice to them will not get you anywhere. Well, it will eventually get you to the gulags.

          Look what decades of Republicans being nice to them has achieved. A steady march to the left.

          They understand nothing but strength and force when necessary.

          1. This is why they are willing to throw passive Christians to the lions for not baking gay cakes, but won’t even go near that same topic with Muslims. They’re total cowards once you call their bluff.

        3. Also, it’s pretty funny that a lot of them hold up the Joker from The Dark Knight as a kind of hero. I’ve seen the line about chaos being fair quoted in so many places.

        4. You sound like a violent fanatic. Maybe what you need is less limited government and more anger management.

          1. american socialist (raising cudgel for another swing): “QUIT RESISTING!”

          2. “Those people just want to take your freedom away, there’s no need to get angry about it.”

          3. Here is one of the typical tricks of fascism. They threaten you with violence and when you fight back they call you the fanatic. American Socialist provides a valuable service in showing us what evil and pig ignorance actually looks like.

            1. Yeah, whatever… fuck off mate. You’re the one talking about kicking people’s heads in.

              1. You, like the rest of socialists, lie to yourself and others daily.

              2. Amsoc

                You’re the one that deifies people that oversaw the murder of tens of millions of people.

      3. “as there is still a lot of resistance.”

        Oh is there? I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen nothing here but a lot of whinging by folks who lack the courage and commitment to even comment under their own names.

        1. Haven’t I seen your work on CNN’s website?

          1. “CNN’s website”

            Not a part of the Internet I visit.

            1. My mistake. There is a frequent poster there who regularly berates everyone else for being too cowardly to post using their real names.

              1. Anonymity has its place. But I suspect here it allows people to say things that they feel might get them into trouble at the workplace. ie get fired, lose business etc. This is why I find Reason’s constant hammering away at the free speech on campus issue so strange. The work a day world is where we spend our most productive time, decades instead of a handful of years as a student. I’ve yet to see any article here to address the concerns of those who fear retribution in the work place and feel the need to hide themselves behind pseudonyms.

                1. The work a day world is where we spend our most productive time, decades instead of a handful of years as a student. I’ve yet to see any article here to address the concerns of those who fear retribution in the work place and feel the need to hide themselves behind pseudonyms.

                  Reason’s posted plenty of examples of mob tactics in social media. It’s hardly an ignored phenomenon.

                  1. “Reason’s posted plenty of examples of mob tactics…”

                    In academia, yes, they proliferate daily. Free speech for employees in the corporate world? I don’t see it, even though it’s a big enough concern that most people here feel the need to hide their identities over fears that someone will expose them to employers.

                    1. I’ve told my boss I’m libertarian. (no more raises for mwah)

                    2. Free speech for employees in the corporate world? I don’t see it,

                      Maybe you aren’t looking hard enough:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..witch-in-a

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..l-tweeting

                    3. “Maybe you aren’t looking hard enough”

                      Very likely. I’m going by my own idiocyncratic reading habits here. I bet you I could find two college free speech exposes for each corporate counterpart you come up with. Disproportionate, don’t you agree? Consider the consequences of whatever discipline a college can dole out to the consequences of a run in with your boss. The later entails a loss of livelihood.

        2. “courage and commitment” to even comment under their own names.
          I’d say we’re perfectly justified in our anonymity considering that one of the leftist cowards’ favored means of suppression these days is to contact the employers of those who disagree with them to try to get them fired – often successfully. When they can’t refute their opponents, they just engage in a little letter writing campaign, and problem solved.

          Also considering some are now actively trying to get some views they oppose criminalized, anonymity seems appropriate.

          “You’re too much of a coward to walk up and spit in the face of a gestapo officer!” Why yes, yes I am. But that hardly vindicates the Gestapo.

          1. My advice: don’t work for someone whom you fear. Then you feel obliged to hide yourself from them. It comes down to a question of how much you value your freedom.

            1. That advice hardly mitigates the fact that I could easily lose a non-tenure position at almost a public university if it were found out that I, say, support due process for people accused of sexual assault, or oppose affirmative action. Even those views are routinely portrayed as “hate speech.” Even if they can’t dismiss you outright for your opinions (and we are talking about opinions not the least relevant to my field, btw), once they are known, you can be denied tenure for “unrelated reasons.” Universities being totalitarian in nature, they feel perfectly justified in ridding themselves of someone for reasons not at all related to their qualifications, because they don’t jive with the ‘campus environment’ or some bullshit.

              So that’s one sector of the job market that’s of questionable availability. And believe me, I intend to avoid academia, largely because of how polluted it has become, but it doesn’t change the fact that the situation is unacceptable.

              1. “I could easily lose a non-tenure position at almost a public university if it were found out ”

                The cruelest law of the universe: adapt or die.

                Look on the bright side. Before say, 1970, gays could have said much the same as my quote of yours. They lived a life of secrets too. But they’ve managed to change that. If you’re willing to resist like the gays did, you can be successful. And a ginormous IF, if you are willing to club together and work as a collective to some degree. Atomized individuals whinging on boards isn’t going to be enough.

  16. “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

    FTFY

    1. Given that you identify as a member of a group/organization that advocates policies that differ from those we prefer, how do you see yourself being able to represent us?

      FTFY

    2. “Given that you are a woman, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view of abortion?”

      “Given that you are black, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view of police brutality?”

      Do those count?

  17. It’s an indicator of true higher-level brain function that these people literally organize people using the same skill-set as a toddler with a set of painted blocks.

  18. Does anyone remember the passage from Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead’ in the last section of the book (entitled Howard Roark) where the boy on the bike sees the beauty of Monandock Valley and realized that all the bs he had been taught in college that made him numb inside was just that?

    It’s a beautiful passage and really describes how I felt after graduating from a large leftist public university a while back.

  19. you know two things with every fiber of your being: (1) diversity is good

    I knew a guy who proposed a scientific study of the “diversity is good” presumption in his organization. He was told it would be the end of his career.

    1. They should have let him do the study. I think diversity is a good thing as long as it is voluntary. Plugging in X diversity requirement to check a box is probably counterproductive.

      1. To be more specific, it was a basic research group, and he thought “diversity” was in fact counterproductive.

      2. Diversity is good provided that you mean ‘we’re looking for the best person and don’t give a shit what their race, religion, or politics might happen to be.’

        Any diversity that results from color and ideological blindness is good, any diversity that results from desperately searching for a person with a particular skin color is not.

        1. Right, that’s why I put voluntary. To be more specific I also mean a diverse set of life experiences. So if you only hire people from X school, I think you are handicapping yourself.

        2. Someone actually did do a study that supposedly “scientifically” demonstrated that a ‘diverse’ group solved problems better than a non-diverse group even when the latter had higher average intelligence. Thecollegefix reported on it a while back, including a refutation of it:

          http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20375/

          The study operated from a set of absurd assumptions and curiously made no effort to validate the hypothesis empirically. But it’s too late. It’s been published and, much like the thoroughly refuted Card and Kruger pro-minimum wage study, it has been accepted as received knowledge by the academic ‘elite’ as proof that meritocracy should be abandoned. After all, it’s a study, and studies are always right.

        3. +1,000,000

  20. Of course the girl’s obsessively preoccupied with her cultural heritage and its implications. She’s a college student running for a spot in the student body government.
    .
    She needs that checked box on her law school application. Then, juris doktor in hand, she can go to work for the ACLU, suing the pants off suburban school districts which allow track stars to cross themselves in the starting blocks.

  21. “And that’s the problem.”

    SO TRIGGERING

  22. If you self-identify as a member of some protected group or group many of whose members pursue a political or social agenda, I think these questions are perfectly legitimate.

    1. How does this “Self-Identify” game work again?

      Do I really have a ‘choice’ in the matter? If I actively deny participation in any ‘agenda’, are you required to accept that? Or are you free to declare that my mere being associates me with your declared interest-group?

      1. Identity groups are only opt-in. There is no opt-out option.

        1. Disagree. Jeremiah True opted out, spectacularly.

          1. I’ve been trying to opt out of being white for years in order to get access to those minority-exclusive government contracts, but the NAACP never returns my letters.

            Got it figured out though: I’m going to start “identifying” as a woman. Not gonna dress one, or even change my name. I will act exactly as I already do, but I will simply check the ‘woman’ box on surveys, and of course change my facebook gender. There, now I’m oppressed and I get free stuff. What are they gonna do, tell me my hair cut is too masculine? That’s sexist!

            1. I’ve seen this very thing done only, with race. An outwardly appearing white guy – toe headed like me – filled out the required equal opportunity paperwork and checked the “black” box. The clerk who took it from him, read it and then proceeded to grill him about the response.

              The applicant’s response was well metered when he calmly said he was black and that the counter clerk had no right to question it. The clerk became enraged and eventually demanded the guy leave, which he did.

              I was impressed.

              Fast forwarding some forty years since I witnessed that event, my step-daughter and her husband recently adopted a baby girl. The girls parents are a half white/half black mother with some native American in her background and a lily white father. Furthermore, my step-daughter was raised Catholic while her husband is Jewish.

              My new granddaughter is in for an interesting ride in life. I hope I’m around to see it.

              Because her situation is not all that uncommon in the U.S. today, I see hope that we’ll move away from this “diversity” BS and towards just being people. I’ve seen that many young people I work with refuse to be classified by such labels and we’ve seen the emergence and use of a “mixed” box on all those ethnicity forms.

              Maybe ultimately, we’ll just drop the whole issue and move on. There is hope!

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

    1. Not for long sucker. Google is going to let the EU kick it in the nuts and steal its money. Then where will you be? Back to getting $68 per hour from Yahoo?

  24. “But here’s the odd thing. While the questions put to Horwitz and Beyda sounded vaguely racist or anti-Semitic, they did not constitute a failure to live up to the values of diversity. The questions were perfectly consistent with those values.”

    Um…no.

    Spin it however you want, they expressed reluctance to endorse her because she’s a Jew.

    Refusing to endorse a specific candidate because she’s a Jew is not consistent with diversity–not even the garbage the left is selling on campus these days as diversity.

    1. Exactly Ken. The entire premise of the question was “given that you are a Jew, how can you be trusted to be loyal and think what we tell you to think about Israel”.

      1. I seriously doubt these people would have accepted a question along the lines of ‘Given that you’re a Muslim, how do you feel about Al Qaeda and ISIS?’

        By their own logic their argument was horribly racist.

        1. They’re not going there, they’re terrified of Muslims.

          1. I’m not particularly terrified of Muslims. I have a few friends who are of that faith.

            But Al Qaeda and ISIS? They scare the shit out of me. Worse than the progressives that get denigrated here.

        2. I’ve always insisted Jews are as white as Italians and Poles and as rich and powerful as WASPS and Irishmen so I don’t consider them a victim group. Apparently somebody over there was listening to me.

          Incidentally, Arab Americans also earn on average higher incomes than the American average, which in my view also earns them the ever so dubious award of being honorary white people. Same goes for East Asians and Indians, naturally.

          1. WTF are you talking about?

            1. I was referring to the fact that they seem confused as to whether they regard Jews as a minority group a la blacks, Muslims, etc. or not. The point was that they wouldn’t ask a Muslim a comparable question (because they are categorized as a ‘victim group’). So SJW-types have to struggle with the inconsistency between the historical of Jews qua oppressed victim group and the more recent notion of Jews qua members of the ‘oppressor’ class (sometimes as relates to Israel or simply as being basically the same as white people: on average wealthier, better educated, than other groups).

    2. In Horwitz’s case, the organization expressed reluctance to endorse her because her policies may differ from the policies of the organization. What is shocking about this?

      1. If they’d simply asked what she thought about “divestment politics” and accepted her answer, there would be no issue.

        The point was that they were skeptical *she could have any opinion they’d accept*, because they attributed political motives to her very identity.

        subtle distinction, but that’s why its called “Racism”

      2. I didn’t say it was shocking.

        “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

        I said it wasn’t representative of any standard of diversity since it’s explicitly questioning the appropriateness of a candidate based on the fact that she is a Jew.

        By itself, “How do you feel about divestment from Israel?” is probably an appropriate question for people to ask of a candidate if they want to divest from Israel.

        But “Given that you’re a Jew”?

        That’s another ballgame.

    3. I guess I don’t see the purpose to playing their “interpret how this statement is racist dogwhistling” game.

      a)Bigotry is morally indefensible, but it’s akin to retardation: it mitigates to an extent the culpability of the bigot. Whatever trauma they endured, whatever background they came from, imprinted on them a reprehensible view from which they cannot be divorced without serious psychological intervention. It renders them incapable of passing credible judgments or even engaging in good faith. I’m not willing to exempt college students from any culpability for holding contemptible beliefs. It’s so much worse that they’ve talked themselves into their execrable positions.

      b)They do, in fact, behave like white supremacists. Social justice mania elevated bigotry from a pass? tendency found on the margins of society to an insidious, pervasive, unstoppable menace. Their moral panic victimizes minorities to a degree actual bigots could only dream of. Their bias isn’t one of contempt but of condescension.

      c)It just lends legitimacy to the notion that bigotry is the overriding concern of our era, to which all other questions defer. It’s the rationale they use to discount critics of the president as secret racists. It’s the rationale they use to get people fired from jobs not even tangentially related to their online behavior.

  25. Does anyone know if there’s a name for the common figure of speech,

    As a ___(insert Identify Politics Signal)__, I/we believe (insert statement that has no necessary logical connection to the aforementioned statement about identity politics)

    Im interested in whether there’s an actual ‘term’ for this kind of assertion that beliefs/values/political ideas are a natural outgrowth of your assumed identity-class.

    the example above =

    “As individuals [ha!] committed to social activism and advocating on behalf of underrepresented communities, …we understand the importance and urgency of wearing our identities as a badge of honor.”

    (what is so remarkable about this statement is that its actually supposed to be the beginning of an *apology*)

    If you strip away all the self-back-patting language, its actually almost entirely self-contradictory.

    Its basically saying, “We think our socially constructed identity is super-important”. No “why”, just that it is. If you actually take the ‘individuals’ word at face value, the rest of the statement is entirely contradictory. So all you’re left with is the last bit of the statement = “wearing our identities is a big fucking deal”

    1. “Im interested in whether there’s an actual ‘term’ for this kind of assertion that beliefs/values/political ideas are a natural outgrowth of your assumed identity-class.”

      I believe that term is ‘racism based on ethnic stereotypes.’

      1. You’re actually missing the point

        The form of the expression doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘racist’ or ‘ethnic’.

        It merely requires an assertion of a connection between some ‘identity characteristic’ and a consequential belief/opinion/view.

        e.g. “As a steelworker, I empathize with all industrial workers of the world, believe that the US government should end all trade with countries that restrict labor unionization.”

        “As a redhead, I understand social stigma, and believe that bigotry against Albinos is far too common and under-reported”

        I’m not interested in the ‘content’ of the expressions, but rather the technical form. Yes, it is probably most often applied to appeal to some racial element, but that’s not the point at all.

        1. It merely requires an assertion of a connection between some ‘identity characteristic’ and a consequential belief/opinion/view.

          I think what you are describing is simply bias.

          1. “bias” is not a figure of speech

            1. Ah, you mean the exact sentence structure? It does seem common but I’ve never heard it called out by name.

              1. Yeah, its not even a ‘figure of speech’ either, so much as a common structure.

                The best i can find is a reference to “a front-loaded, modified subject”.

                Rather than say, “I believe X, because Y”….

                ….they change “I” into = “As a (insert characteristic you want to emphasize)….”I believe X”

                The “why” is actually omitted most of the time, because the presumption is that the “identity” modifier justifies that opinion by itself, sans any further rationale.

                The “As” changes the subsequent “opinion” that was supposed to be from “I or We” from just belonging to the subject, to now belonging to an entire ‘class’ of being. Be it racial, related to your profession, or your sexual orientation, or whatever.

                1. a front-loaded, modified subject

                  This makes me think of fake boobs.

                  I have nothing else to contribute to this thread.

      2. This, btw, is my favorite example so far

        1. Having a name for this format would require the most common users of it to stop and think about it for a moment. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

          It just seems to be becoming SOP on Internet boards because your opinion is only important as it relates to your identity group. If you put your chosen group at the beginning, anyone who sees your post can more quickly decide that you should be ignored or berated.

  26. The whole debate is a crock. Bias and point of view are the same. Essentially what they were setting them up for… How are you going to abandon your Jewish heritage and values to assimilate into secular progressive humanist culture? This is the progressive trap. If you have any values contradicting them… you are racist, bias, homophobic, etc etc etc.

  27. Outside of it being a stupid question from an individual group that is a little too concerned about representing Black people is there anything I can learn from this event? You know, other than how White people are being oppressed?

    Why do libertarians care if a student group makes a fool of themselves. I thought this was a website dedicated to the principles of limited government and not White man’s burden.

    1. You know, other than how White people are being oppressed?

      Because it is not like oppression of Jews has ever been a problem. And of course you say that sarcastically because white people being oppressed if of course a good in your eyes. \

      What is to be learned from this is, is that people like you are horrific and evil and must be fought at every turn and can never be trusted with any authority. You actually manage to be a more loathsome and sickening human being than shreek.

      1. You should probably breathe in and out a little more deeply and get laid, john

        1. You’re about as clever as a 5th grader.

        2. “I can’t, your wife’s been too busy lately.” Is what I would say in response if my name were John.

    2. Why are leftists utterly incapable of condemning anti-white racism? It’s curiosity really. I bet if Al Sharpton incited another anti-white/anti-semitic riot that left several Jews dead, you’d probably give the standard leftists non-response of “well, now they know what it’s like to suffer.” And all is fair.

      Perhaps you need to be reminded why racism is bad, AS; it’s got fuck all to do with “white people” and “black people” as “communities”, or vague notions of “oppression.” It’s bad because an *individual* is unfairly treated on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic. An *individual* is unfairly treated.

      So yeah, if that individual happens to be white, then it’s still bad. And go fuck yourself.

      1. Quit lighting the Bo signal

  28. I thought this was a website dedicated to the principles of limited government and not White man’s burden.

    We also like to consider actions in terms of actual outcomes, and not merely stated intent.

    1. He’s a socialist, so outcomes are invisible. If he can’t see what’s wrong with the stacked corpses of 30 million dead Chinese peasants or a million unmarked graves scattered across Siberia, he’s not going to see anything.

  29. Here is a bit of further reading that I googled…

    here…

    The article actually says she scrubbed her Israel references from her FB page before election time. But the article doesnt give a reference for that info.

    Furthermore, why is a question of divestiture from Israel coming up in a school election Q&A session? Not like these people are executing foreign policy.

    1. College politicians always like to believe they’re more important than they are. Plus, if they decide to run for real office in the future you know someone is going to go digging through their college records.

      1. Yeah, they act like the politicians on Capitol Hill… meddling in shit they have no business dealing with at the time.

        They may as well have asked this girl an irrelevant question regarding the possibility of life in the Andromeda Galaxy.

        Everyone wants to be an activist now days…ugh

  30. “Why do libertarians care if a student group makes a fool of themselves.”

    The idea that people feel themselves to be part of larger groups, especially groups from which we might be excluded, is threatening. The burden on the White Man here is keenly felt. It’s the inability of an individualist to take pride in a group identity.

    1. So, as an individualist I’m threatened by the fact that people choose to group themselves? Deep down inside I’m really angry that people won’t let me be in a group that I have no desire to join?

      Why is it that people who are only capable of defining themselves by what groups they belong to are completely unable to comprehend that not everyone is like that?

      1. “So, as an individualist I’m threatened by the fact that people choose to group themselves?”

        This is not a question I feel I can answer. But I don’t mean the fact that people choose to identify with a group is threatening. I mean that the groups are threatening in a way that a bunch of isolated individuals are not threatening. Just look at the Libertarians if you have any doubts.

        “Deep down inside I’m really angry that people won’t let me be in a group that I have no desire to join?”

        I can’t answer for you, but personally, I feel somehow hurt by what I would see as being arbitrarily excluded from something, even without a desire to join it. Issues of fairness etc. I don’t think my feeling is so unusual and it’s probably what makes these issues so thorny and difficult.

        “Why is it that people who are only capable of defining themselves”

        I think the number of people who are only capable of seeing themselves as members of some group are vanishingly small. I wouldn’t worry about them too much.

        1. As an individual, the only groups that I feel threatened by are the ones who want to force me to behave a particular way. For my own good, of course. For example, I don’t believe in a god, but I don’t feel threatened by those who do. Until I’m faced with the option to go to church or go to jail.

          I don’t live my life based on what other people think of me. Being arbitrarily excluded from a group has zero effects on my self esteem. There are always other things to do, and if I’m really interested I can start my own group.

          I think you have your last statement backwards.

          So maybe you can take away from this the idea that projecting your feelings onto others isn’t really a sure bet.

          1. “the only groups that I feel threatened by are the ones who want to force me to behave a particular way”

            That’s pretty much any politically oriented group. Even Libertarians see a place for police and judges in their society.

            “Being arbitrarily excluded from a group has zero effects on my self esteem.”

            It has an effect on your freedom, ie not being free to associate with a certain group. Do you take this so lightly?

            “I think you have your last statement backwards.”

            Maybe so. Not so sure who exactly you have in mind here. Any individual’s name?

        2. Right, it can’t possibly be the fact that every fucking academic job in this country now says “minorities and women are preferred” which often amounts to “white males need not apply.” Or the fact that I have to pay taxes to fund their group therapy sessions.

          Nor can it possibly be the fact that these identity groups are not cultural bonding organizations; they’re grievance factories who’s unifying theme is not shared cuisine, religion, custom, but rather fear of or hatred of maligned perpetrator groups.

          And being a member of a ‘perpetrator group’, I’d say I’m right to worry about the racial revanchism one finds increasingly common in academia and government today. Just see Toni Morrison’s recent plea for more white people to be killed. Or the attorney disavowing the very concept of the color-blindness of the law in favor pro-black racism.

          1. “that every fucking academic job in this country…”

            Other jobs, other countries. Oh the burdens of freedom to choose.

            1. Really? When did I get to choose whether to pay taxes to public universities so they can discriminate against me?

              1. “When did I get to choose whether to pay taxes…”

                Presumably when you got a job, or at the latest when you received your first pay cheque and decided to keep on working despite the tax rip off.

  31. Institutional racism (affirmative action) is full blown on colleges across the entire USA.

    1. Don’t worry though, affirmative action is only temporary.

      …meanwhile, 50 years later…

  32. In short, Diversity as is now implemented and defined is old school one drop of blood racism. But that’s ok, because we’ve redefined racism as power structures so only white men can be racist.

    Being ‘prejudiced’ in the name of Diversity is DoublePlussGood, as it keeps those evil cis-heteronormative racist white people in their place.

  33. Liberals don’t believe in individual justice, and in fact aren’t concerned (politically, at least) about individuals at all. Their concern is group identity, and they judge those groups (and the rights and wrongs of any inter-group altercation) on the basis of relative status as victim groups.

  34. To me the key point isn’t diversity but ‘unbiased’. What is unbiased? Is anyone? Is the student group? Clearly they are not as unbiased to them actually means ‘whatever WE think and nothing else’. How does one pretend to set the bar to the point that either people can’t have opinions or, that only having one point of view at all is ‘unbiased’?

  35. Diversity is all about pageantry in this country. The schools and government observe ethnic holidays while making everyone write appreciative essays, wear traditional attires, do a little song and dance, etc. Then there are all those ethnic student clubs, which do nothing. I belonged to them to fill out my college applications.

    But if it’s Friday night….. you and your buddies ain’t gonna watch a subtitled Asian film or fold origami figures. No one celebrates Kwanzaa, even though the MSM insists it’s a real holiday.

    If you’re not white and you get on the “It’s a Small World” Ride in Disneyland, you’ll snicker at the corny, “World Book” representation of your culture. That’s how I feel about America’s diversity obsession. I’m already ethnic at home, enjoying non-Americanized Asian food and entertainment white progressives would never touch. I don’t need these people to celebrate my Asianess by enacting corny things that they got off on the internet.

  36. Identity politics thrives on diversity! What better way to divide the people and conquer them? Appeal to people’s tribal instincts by promoting the “wearing” of labels so as to undermine the feelings of oneness and community among all citizens.

    This began with the various hyphenations of “American”, such as African-American, Chinese-American, Indian-American, etc. As Bobby Jindal recently opined, we need to drop the hyphenations; the American dream is for America to be a great melting pot, not a compartmentalized accumulation of disparate tribes…

    1. “As Bobby Jindal recently opined…”

      I don’t know exactly how you expect a Libertarian to read this with a straight face. The conservatives who make up the bulk of this board’s commentariat are obviously a different story.
      What business is it of yours or even Bobby Jindal’s how I refer to myself?

  37. “A club that admits only white men as members, for instance, offends both of those principles.”

    Does it? Really? You honestly think that a private club that only allows white men to join is somehow inherently racist or anti diversity? That’s absurd. No one calls all black clubs, all black fraternities for instance, racist or against diversity because they have made a decision to only allow a certain type of person into their *private* club. Outside of their club they may be the most inclusive and anti racist people you would ever meet.

    This racism card BS is being played far too often lately. From the idiotic term ‘islamaphobia’ to calling people of a certain race that wish too only, in their own organization, interact with members of that same race, racist.

  38. “A deliberative body that lacks racial, gender, and religious diversity will, necessarily, lack a diversity of perspective.”

    That is a completely “ist” statement. It ASSUMES that race, gender and religion define us based on some tribal norm.

    As a government worker, I chafe at this type of overlord labeling every day. I’ve known a lot of people of various races, both male and female and many religions and one thing that remains perfectly clear to me is, people are people. Classifying them this way is the tool of the overlords to maintain their lofty positions and control over us.

    People are too diverse to make broad assumptions about their perspectives based on race, gender and religion. Those all influence who each of is but they do not define us. More importantly, there is a large, standard deviation within each grouping.

  39. Always realize that any argument that comes out of the Progressive Theocracy is only a maneuver to rationalize greater power, and it only applies in the particular context it is used.

    “Diversity” means “more privilege for the identity groups who further our power, less privilege for the identity groups that oppose our power”.

    For the purpose of divestment from Israel, a Jew, and even a female Jew, may not be on board with the empowering of those who would exterminate Israelis, and therefore she is on the outs with the Progressive Theocracy for this issue.

    1. “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

      “Given that you are a black person, how can we count on you to keep an open mind when we vote on whether or not to have fried chicken and watermelon for chow tonight?”

      Geez-um, I wonder how well that would go over…

      1. Actually, I don’t give a hoot what we have for chow tonight. If it is edible and does not taste like shit, I will eat it. I’m not a foodie.

        What I do give a shit about, is freedom, including freedom from our Overlarding Overlords of Diversity Schmiversity! So what I’d REALLY like to ask of ANY candidate for ANY office, if they are of a “protected class”? And the more protected they are, the more so?

        “Given that you are a member of XYZ protected class, how can we count on you to NOT vote for more goodies for your protected class, at the expense of the rest of us?”

  40. It makes no sense to say an individual’s demographic identity should always count for him but never against him.

    But if the individual in question is white…

    1. “But if the individual in question is white…”

      I get it. You’re the real victim in all this. Congratulations.

      1. I see you’ve successfully managed to dodge the point. Congratulations. I’d like to believe that beneath what you supposed to be witty and cute avoidance you might actually agree that discrimination is wrong and unacceptable, even when against “perpetrator groups,” but unfortunately ‘qui tacet consentire videtur’ does not seem to apply to progressives.

        1. Is it possible for a white person to be a “race-hustler?” I’ve only seen the term and variations applied here to blacks. Would you say this Free Society character was probably a race hustler of the white variety? I understand if you’re reluctant to commit yourself given the brevity of his comment. Perhaps he’ll see fit to expand upon his views. That will give everyone here something to look forward to.

          1. Joe Biden, a privledged white male, engaged in race hustling when he told Danville, Virginia residents of Mitt Romney/Republicans desire: “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

            1. I call that vote hustling. Not to be prejudiced or anything but there’s absolutely nothing exceptional about a priviledged white male engaging in vote hustling.

              1. Uh, no. Because he didn’t do the same to a white crowd (suggesting that blacks may want to put them in chains). So it stands as race hustling by a white dude.

                1. “So it stands as race hustling by a white dude.”

                  So Joe Biden is race hustling because he’s talking about black people, and Free Society’s comment is not race hustling because he’s talking about white people? That appears to be how it works.

      2. Hey wait a minute! I am the biggest victim around here, because I have not often enough successfully claimed to be a victim!

    2. Maybe we should strive to see that EVERYONE is in an equally protected class… THEN we could go about being equal!

  41. Jeremiah . even though Laura `s stori is impressive, last week I bought Citro?n DS from earning $8539 thiss month and also 10-k this past-month . it’s certainly the most-rewarding I’ve ever had . I started this nine months/ago and almost immediately got me at least $77 p/h .
    visit this site…. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  42. Fail, the real question is why would they ask the question to begin with? The proper response from should have been “Of course not, I’m Jewish. Why would I support disinvestment from Israel? You prove to me why disinvestment from Israel is good?”

    1. Fail, you didn’t mention the holocaust.

  43. There is no “non-racism”. To the diversity pimps, it’s racists all the way down, except those who are part of their little Borg collective.

  44. There is a much simpler fix to all of this but the whining left will never consider it.
    We need to completely stop looking for ANYONE’S perspective and start being guided by principles. Not my principles or her principles, but some immutable truths and lofty ideals that get their authority from some place higher than any of us!
    If only there was something like this we could defer to…..ah well….

    1. It may or may not exist, depending on who you ask… He/She/It is called “God”, maybe “Allah” or “Yahweh” or “Nirvana” or “Operating Thetan”, or who knows what, alternatively “Government Almighty”… If it is “God” or some flavor thereof, then, sad to say, He/She/It sure as Heaven and Hell combined, does NOT seem to speak very directly at all, except to total whack jobs. Even more sad to say, “God” in such cases, more often than not, seems to be saying “Go ye and smite the unbelievers, so as to protect your image of Me (otherwise Me, Almighty Master of Space, Time, and Dimension, am left defenseless; YOU must defend ME!)”, as opposed to, “Go ye and try your best to love everyone first, and THEN when your conscience can stand no other, THEN you may criticize, and when there are no other choices, in extreme conditions, hurt or kill in defense of justice.” … Me? I think the latter message is far more palatable, but if it is being given to us, it is internally, through our conscience, and it IS a sad day, when WAY too many slobs buy the first message, and not the second. MeThinks their hearing needs checked…

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  46. So, libertarians are now against freedom of association? Not surprised. Libertarians are easily intimidated by commies.

  47. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  48. Thorne-Begland is a militant activist…his crusade for gay rights dates back to the 90’s, when he tried to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Anybody with militant viewpoints on any issues, should not be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Further, Thorne-Begland is a great actor…I have been in front of that “Judge” in Court, and I felt that as a straight, white male, he treated me very differently than the woman and minorities, at least that day. He fined me the max for my offense… and it was my first offense. I represented myself, and he was objecting to my questions to the witness. He is obviously someone with an agenda.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.