School District Decides Asians Aren't Students of Color

The absurdities that result from overreliance on semi-arbitrary race-based categories


One school district in Washington state has evidently decided that Asians no longer qualify as persons of color.

In their latest equity report, administrators at North Thurston Public Schools—which oversees some 16,000 students—lumped Asians in with whites and measured their academic achievements against "students of color," a category that includes "Black, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Multi-Racial Students" who have experienced "persistent opportunity gaps."

Most indicators in the report show that the achievement gap between white/Asian students and "students of color" is fairly narrow and improving over time. It would probably be even narrower if Asian students were categorized as "students of color." In fact, some indicators might have even shown white students lagging behind that catch-all minority group. Perhaps Asians were included with whites in order to avoid such an outcome. (The superintendent did not respond to a request for comment.)

What the equity report really highlights is the absurdities that result from overreliance on semi-arbitrary race-based categories. The report also measured "students of poverty"—those who qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches—against non-poverty students, and unsurprisingly found a much more significant achievement gap. Students of poverty perform 28 percent worse on math tests, for instance. That socioeconomic category captures something real and meaningful in a way that the gerrymandered race category does not.

Outside public-school bureaucracies, these kinds of race-based classifications seem less popular than ever. In the 2020 election, California voters decisively rejected Proposition 16, which would have allowed public employees to consider race as a factor in university admissions, employment, contracting, and other decisions. Race-based admissions have been forbidden in the state since 1996, when voters outlawed them via ballot initiative by a margin of 54 percent to 45 percent. Proposition 16, which would have reversed this, lost by an even larger margin, despite receving enthusiastic endorsements from top Democrats in the state.

As The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf notes:

California political and media elites overwhelmingly favored ending race neutrality by passing Prop 16. It was endorsed by Senators Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein; former Senator Barbara Boxer; at least 30 Democratic members of the U.S. House, including Nancy Pelosi; and Governor Gavin Newsom, Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, State Controller Betty Yee, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, and hundreds of other local officials. It was also supported by many of the state's newspapers, including the Los Angeles TimesThe Mercury News, the San Francisco ChronicleThe San Diego Union-TribuneLa Opinión, the East Bay TimesThe Sacramento BeeThe Fresno Bee, and The Modesto Bee. And proponents of Prop 16 raised nearly 20 times more money than its opponents.

California is among the bluest of blue states, and yet voters there have decisively rejected the race-based codifications beloved by progressives. As liberals grapple with an election outcome that was less favorable for Democrats than expected, they should bear these things in mind. Proposition 16 was as close a proxy for cultural woke-ism as one could find on the ballot this year, and it lost badly.

NEXT: Don't Buy the Debunked Dominion Voting Machine Conspiracy Theory

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Robby, surely there’s other places you could go at this point. You share no views with these sad excuses for journalists and libertarians. You’re the only one left with any integrity. Grab the leather jacket (the jacket, not the senile guy who gave up long ago) and GTFO.

    Start a patreon or something. Stop being the only real journalist here. This ship needs to sink.

    1. “I’m taking your jacket, Gillespie. Be grateful I do not also take your head!”

      1. Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments… Read More.

        1. MAGA 2020!!!
          Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 fexs months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do………work92/7 online

    2. Oh, I think Gillespie does pretty well still too. Robby is definitely the star right now, though.

      1. Start making money this time. Spend more time with your family & relative 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 $65 to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now I am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here… WORK24HERE

      2. Don’t forget Rommelman.

        Really though, Robby, Gillespie and Rommelman should head over to Substack to join Greenwald and Taibbi (and burned simps like Yglesias and Sullivan). Never look back.

        Leave Welch, Ward and the B and S teams running the show Reason will finally be the Vox farm team they want it to be.

        The Volkh and Stossel are kind of their own brand, and could even survive by blogging independently.

        1. Vox farm team lol. That’s beautiful man.

      3. Hey. F⁣⁣i⁣⁣n⁣⁣⁣d⁣⁣ ⁣ a⁣ ⁣⁣⁣s⁣e⁣⁣x⁣⁣ ⁣⁣⁣p⁣⁣⁣a⁣⁣⁣r⁣⁣⁣t⁣⁣n⁣⁣⁣e⁣⁣⁣r⁣⁣ ⁣⁣n⁣⁣⁣e⁣⁣a⁣⁣r⁣⁣ ⁣⁣y⁣o⁣⁣⁣u⁣⁣⁣r⁣⁣ ⁣⁣⁣a⁣⁣⁣r⁣⁣⁣e⁣⁣a⁣⁣ ⁣⁣⁣—⁣⁣-⁣⁣⁣>…

        1. Pimp

      4. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join yesthis link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

        Follow Instructions Here……. Home Profit System

    3. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here………. USA PART TIME JOB.

    4. I amm now making more 760 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

      Follow Instructions Here…….. Home Profit System

  2. So they’re defining “people of color” as “those doing poorly academically”?

    And **we’re** the racists?

    1. Democrats haven’t really changed since the 19th century.

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 moniths back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        What I do……… Click here

    2. “Poor kids can be just as bright as white kids.”

      1. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”

        But we’re the racists?

        1. Er, ah…….. who said that ????

    3. Are you starting to get the impression the racists are the good guys in all of this?

    4. Hey poor kids can be just as smart as white kids!

      1. Or Asians.

    5. As Comrade Joe taught us, “Poor people can be just as smart as white people.”

      If we have a “Yellow Privilege” problem, we can always re-open Manzanar as a “Truth and Reconciliation Camp.”

  3. The absurdities that result from overreliance on semi-arbitrary race-based categories

    If Reason were to do a better job, and return to their roots of… you know, “Reason”, they would be running harder hitting stories about where all this stuff comes from and just what a toxic and unfortunately, pervasive philosophy this is.

    For anyone who’s curious about this toxic ideology, I strongly recommend a book called Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose. She’s an academic who’s previously done works on women in the medieval Christian era. She was someone who recognized something was very, very wrong in the academies and decided to do some deep-dive research into the “theories” aspects of study. She does an excellent job of describing and yes, deconstructing the narratives of of these areas of studies and just how dangerous they are.

    1. I want to be clear, I’m happy Robby is doing this story, but it feels very surface, like “Hey, look at this silly situation!” But the reason we got here runs very deep and has been slowly simmering since the late 1980s, then exploded over the last 7 to 10 years. This stuff needs to not just be pointed out, but aggressively engaged with and countered.

      There are some really great thinkers and polemicists working on this topic right now. I strongly suggest everyone seek them out.

      1. Thanks for the book recommendation. Always welcome. I will look for it.

        1. I will check out your book as well. I assume it goes into a lot more depth on these topics than blog posts.

        2. Definitely appreciated:

          Since the 2016 election, college campuses have erupted in violent protests, demands for safe spaces, and the silencing of views that activist groups find disagreeable. Who are the leaders behind these protests, and what do they want? In Panic Attack, libertarian journalist Robby Soave answers these questions by profiling young radicals from across the political spectrum.

          Again though, this is a description of the tip of the spear, not who’s behind it. Pluckrose does a fantastic– albeit fairly dry and academic– deep dive into the thought processes that got us to 2016 and “the age of Trump” starting back in the 1960s– the evolution of Post Modernist thought as it came from thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, et. al., how those thinkers were ultimately rejected by more modern writers in areas such as Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Post-Colonial Theories etc., but their core argumentation was retained because it was useful for “academic research as activism”.

          Talking to a campus radical may give you insight into what they’re blathering about, but it probably won’t enlighten us about a highly influential body of work that has its origins in the French philosophy of the 1960s in obscure corners of academia– and is now rattled off as ‘accepted fact’ by your HR department.

          1. how those thinkers were ultimately rejected by more modern writers in areas such as Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Post-Colonial Theories etc., but their core argumentation was retained because it was useful for “academic research as activism”.

            ^ This is the thing a lot of people miss about this history. Derrida, for example, became a persona non grata in academia in the early ’90s after the double whammy of defending Paul de Man’s pro-Nazi editorializing in the ’40s and publishing a deconstructive take on Marx that came out and said that all the stuff about ‘no absolute truths’ applies to Marx, as well.

            One famous snark was that per Derrida’s reading, even Mein Kampf isn’t anti-Semitic, since there’s no such thing as Jews.

            Likewise, one of the things Foucault is most famous for in academic circles is his dismissal of Marxism as just another “grand narrative.” A discourse trick passing off ideology as “knowledge.”

            The CRT and Social Crowds were interested in the challenge to traditional narratives of power, but not in giving up the stance of “ideological truth.” They’ll acknowledge that logic is almost always used for rationalizing rather than reasoning, but only when you do it.

            1. One famous snark was that per Derrida’s reading, even Mein Kampf isn’t anti-Semitic, since there’s no such thing as Jews.

              Likewise, one of the things Foucault is most famous for in academic circles is his dismissal of Marxism as just another “grand narrative.” A discourse trick passing off ideology as “knowledge.”

              Yes! Yes! Yes! This is exactly it, and why, in the late 1980s, Post Modernism in its pure form was rejected in the academies. Through its “playful, deconstructive language” it was ultimately self-refuting and therefore… “useless”.

              But the modern Marxists realized the power in the… “meta narrative” of Post Modernism: That society was a series of ‘power structures’ that produced “power knowledge”. This was tailor fucking made for Marxism. And it’s part-in-parcel as to why modern Marxists have mostly abandoned “class” in the West, and have no settled on Race/Gender and Trans as their primary focal point.

              Ever wonder why the word “problematic” has become such a well-worn mainstream phrase starting about five years ago? Now you know.

              1. Through its “playful, deconstructive language” it was ultimately self-refuting and therefore… “useless”.

                Which Derrida agreed with 100%. In grad school in the late ’90s I ‘lucked’ into a critical theory seminar (we were required to take one) with a guy who was actually an old friend of Derrida’s where I was the only grad student with the only other two students being undergrads, so it was pretty much a ten week debate between he and I with two undergrads watching. The funnest moment was trying to pin him down on whether or not OJ killed Nicole.

                Anyhoo, he was quite clear with us that Derrida understood the lack of utility of what he was doing, and that he saw himself first and foremost as a teacher who published because he had to in order to keep his job. He just thought that what everyone else was doing was also self-refuting and useless, and he liked to make fun of them.

                And it’s part-in-parcel as to why modern Marxists have mostly abandoned “class” in the West, and have no settled on Race/Gender and Trans as their primary focal point.

                Yes – you begin by abstracting to “structures of oppression,” and mix in a strong dose of the “post-structuralist” observation that structures are constantly in flux and voila structures of oppression are ever in flux. You just need to figure out where they are right now.

          2. I actually got to experience a lot of this firsthand in my alma mater’s east asian studies department. I took a lot of electives there and I learned a lot about these cultural theories. I must admit that I like certain aspects of the umbrella of post-modernism, mainly the rejection of grand narratives. A lot of people try to tell a story and wrap it up and put a bow on it and those stories often create the dangerous groupthink that sees everyone as interchangeable units and not as individuals. Narratives frequently eliminate nuance and try to assign a reasoned, logical storyline to a series of truly chaotic events that did not really occur for any particular collection of reasons that one could justifiably create a narrative about. I think it could pivot to become a very libertarian base for future generations, but obviously it has been taken the opposite direction, being used as an excuse to question anything and everything, even basic scientific laws.

      2. He does, however, continue to use ‘Latinx,’ which most Latinos think is a fucking stupid word made up by, and for assholes.

        1. It was inside of a quote.

          1. Yes, I came here to say that. Robby didn’t use the term, he quoted from the University guidelines.

        2. How DARE a language that oscillated and formed in to what we know as Spanish over the course of a couple thousand years go against modern white, American leftist sensibilities?!?!

    2. I’m reading that, and concur, it’s a good book.

    3. Check out
      It is done by James Lindsey… one of the members of the Grievance Studies hoax along with Pluckrose. She has some stuff there, too. Lots of long-form articles that track through the philosophical underpinnings and (il)logical conclusions that stem from Critical Theory (Critical Race Theory often more specifically). It isn’t updated as often as I would like… but it is good. Also has some podcasts there too.

      1. Yes, that’s how I became aware of Pluckrose.

        And Robby wrote an article that was somewhat dismissive of this tactic:

        My point is that I’m not sure this proves what Pluckrose, Boghossian, and Lindsay think it proves. They seem to believe they have shown that academic journals will accept complete garbage as long as it’s intersectional progressive garbage. But at least in the case of the dog park study, this was well-disguised garbage.


        But it’s also true more generally that if you work very, very hard at fooling people, you will often succeed—and not just in academia.

        Robby missed the point by a country mile here. Again, surface level stuff. Well, some people fooled some people… people get fooled all the time!

        No, the critical theories end of academia is particularly susceptible to this kind of hoax because it’s impenetrable and confusing prose, self-contradictory arguments and just plain bullshit is part of the philosophy… by design.

        Several of these authors have openly admitted that their argumentation is supposed to be confusing and self contradictory because its purpose is to sow discontent, confusion and ultimately, destabilize Western Hegemonic and Scientific Reasoning. Seriously.

        Bottom line, they’re not even trying to be “correct”, they attempting to foment a destructive revolution whose entire purpose is to eliminate Western Liberalism and replace it with something else.

        1. Bottom line, they’re not even trying to be “correct”, they attempting to foment a destructive revolution whose entire purpose is to eliminate Western Liberalism and replace it with something else.

          “Waging war on the level of the Signifier,” as Kathy Acker put it in Empire of the Senseless.

        2. Greenwald is a leftist that seems unaware that leftism always results in tyranny and totalitarianism. His latest website investigative post was on the ACLU defense of banning author Abigail Shriner. The marriage of the largest corporations on earth and the identity based political disaster unfolding is interesting indeed.

          1. Abigail Shrier

    4. James Lindsay (who works with Pluckrose) is another person with a very good view of this and who explains it very well. A bunch of good interviews with him on YouTube.

      1. The two books I recommend people read is Murray’s The Madness of Crowds. Murray does an excellent cultural critique of modern identity politics as it relates to several main areas: Race/Gay/Trans. He subdivides the book in to a section describing each area of cultural friction. However, his book is predominantly cultural. It’s very well researched, but he only goes about 6′ deep on the ‘theories’ academic stuff– at one point quoting passages from Judith Butler and noting that her impenetrable prose seems to be less interested in imparting information than it is in obscuring something. Murray’s a terrific writer who’s able to provide much-needed biting cultural commentary on these subjects.

        Pluckrose’s book is far more academic and as such, is a bit dry. She digs down to bedrock on these subjects and does an excellent job of not only critiquing, but informing the reader about the history of these modern thought processes. She does very extensive quoting and references in the book.

        I recommend reading Murray’s book first, because it’s more… should I say… enjoyable because it’s primarily cultural. Move onto Pluckrose’s book next. Murray’s book is more infuriating, and therefore more “fun” to read. Pluckrose’s book is actually less infuriating, but highly informative.

        If you really wanted to know what ‘intersectional’ means without a dismissive mocking tone, Cynical Theories is your book, because it gives you the understanding behind the ideas, which let you better understand what it is you’re arguing against.

        And to be fair, Pluckrose’s book can lead you to believe that each of these intellectual groups are “not on to nothing”. Way down at the bottom of it all, there’s a grain of ‘reasonableness’ to their goals. But their process is awful, toxic and entirely racist.

        1. Lastly, Pluckrose’s book will explain, in detail, why Nick Gillespie is flat fucking wrong– that Marxism and Post Modernism “have nothing to do with each other”.

          Yes, the old, dusty tweed-sporting, peasant hat-wearing Marxists didn’t like Post Modernism, because the Derrida/Foucault view was that Marxism was just another ‘meta-narrative’ which was, ultimately a product of dominant discourses and power structures (as was Post Modernism) and therefore had no empirical truth that could be realized.

          Modern Marxism also dismisses this idea– that there is no identifiable truth– but they held on to the deconstructive argumentation used by Derrida et. al. because it was useful in deconstructing Western Capitalism. Without Post Modernism, you wouldn’t have trigger warnings, safe spaces, intersectional hierarchies, power knowledge, problemetized language and discourse… I could go on. All of that was born out of Post Modernism- while rejecting its ultimate conclusions.

          1. And both Derrida and Foucault rather pointedly rejected the term “Post-Modernism” as meaningless. Back in the day, you could tell someone who studied critical theory but didn’t really get it by them calling themselves “Post Modernists.”

            This was an open topic of conversation back in the ’90s – I was neck deep in critical theory at the time and reading all the Derrida and Foucault I could get my hands on, and one of the central “problems” that was being addressed in academia was “what does this mean to Marxism?” Because, of course, Marxists saw what a threat it was, and a lot of academics saw what Derrida and Foucault were doing as distinctly “right wing.”

            It was people like Frederic Jameson, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Terry Eagleton who started to learn how to do the dance around salvaging Marxism (or “Marxisms” as it became) from deconstruction. Now whether or not what you’re saying is true depends on your “situatedness within the dominant culture.”

            1. This is why I really appreciate Cynical Theories. She did what seems like about three years of reading so I didn’t have to.

              1. I still think Foucault is worthwhile – The Order of Things, Madness & Civilization, and Discipline and Punish are classics. Madness & Civilization in particular is fairly prophetic in being about how power is to be had by taking responsibility for “public health,” which started off with the newly-forming bureaucracies rounding up the sick and insane off the streets in the eighteenth century for stashing in the first “hospitals.”

                Derrida can be funny, but is a struggle to read and he never makes a point (obviously), so in the end it suffers a relevancy problem for how much work it is to understand what he’s talking about.

                Those other guys aren’t worth it at all.

                1. I tried to read some Derrida in college (it was assigned reading). I either didn’t finish or have completely forgotten it. I wrote a paper about Heidegger instead.

        2. I have been meaning to read The Madness of Crowds for a while. I want to get the new edition that came out this year with updates about some of the insanity of 2020. I like Murray a lot.

          1. Dude, get it. Like I say, it’s more fun to read that Pluckrose’s book. Get the audio book. Murray does the read and listening to his diction is like pure flowing honey.

    5. Thanks for the recommendation DRP.

  4. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do….. Read More.

  5. How do you pronounce Latinx? Is it Lah-tinks? Or Latin-ex? And why isn’t Latino sufficient?

    1. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you….. Here is More information.

      1. LATIN EQUIS, Like the cerveza. I don’t always hang out with Latinos, but when I do……

        Mejor dicho simplemente latino o latina. Los presumidx y pendejx dicen x.

    2. You can’t pronounce it in Spanish, to be sure. Reason being:
      A) to do so would be cultural appropriation
      B) it’s unpronounceable in Spanish anyway
      C) Both A and B

      1. And probably the funnest irony is that Spanish has a neologism – Latine – that addresses this exact “issue.” But you would have to have engaged Spanish-speaking culture in some way to know that, rather than just be a douchey white person who enjoys lecturing other people about their problematic cultures.

        1. A douchey woke intersectionalist would instruct you the “x” rhymes with Kotex.

    3. I asked my Central/South American co-workers and they just laughed. Perhaps some white college educated people could help you out on that pronunciation, people of Spanish speaking origins are just no help on the subject.

      1. Latin-equis? Like in Dos Equis? It’s very hard to keep a straight face around anyone who says Latinx unironically.

      2. Their betters know better.

    4. I asked a latin american friend, who thought it was dumb but gave it her best shot. She said it would be something like “latineques,” with “que” being pronounced like “risque”.

    5. I’ve heard La-TEE-necks. As if to rhyme with Kleenex.

      Why the word should or shouldn’t exist is further than I can go. Languages that have gendered endings on nouns are using language to treat genders differently, baked in, just by using the words. To a reader not accustomed to genders in language like that, saying “Latino” seems to mean only male people of Latin American descent. If this hypothetical English-speaking reader doesn’t want to indicate only the male people, but wants to include the female people or all genders, they feel the need to also specify Latina. For a while editors were writing Latina/o but I think academics decided that was clumsy. It was the era of “S/he” and “his/her.” Latinx solves the problem this subset of people have, the English-speaking readers and writers, how to sound gender inclusive in English while using a group’s term of address for themselves which happens to have gendered endings in their language: Latina and Latino.
      It is not a widely shared problem linguistically.

      1. Well, and “latinx” is also explicitly intended to not only include male and female but neuter, binary, trinary, elven, otherkin, and Apache-attack-helicopter identifying individuals.

        1. Are attack helicopters of non-indigenous

      2. Latinx solves the problem this subset of people have, the English-speaking readers and writers, how to sound gender inclusive in English while using a group’s term of address for themselves which happens to have gendered endings in their language: Latina and Latino.

        ^ This.

        Which some chin-stroker I read recently about “where did we go wrong with the Latins?” opined may actually have the effect of alienating those people whose native language you’re saying needs to be corrected by you.

        1. I heard some talk about people starting to use “ellos y ellas” for example in Spain, rather than just “ellos”. Fortunately it doesn’t seem to be catching on as far as I can see.

          1. I suspect that most people who speak gendered languages actually see less of a connection between grammatical gender and biological gender than people who speak “ungendered” languages like English.

            1. I suspect so too. I’m pretty sure spanish speakers don’t go around thinking that shoes are male and socks are female.

              1. Even the physics of that are uncomfortable.

          2. Hmm, I’m skeptical. I grew up along the border and speak enough Espanish to be muy peligroso… and you’d occasionally hear “Hola Muchachos y Muchachas” fairly regularly. But I don’t know if that applies.

            Unfortunately, ellos/ellas/muchachos/muchachas still presumes gender. So yea, highly problematic.

            1. I think that particular formation “muchachos y muchachas” was kind of a normal phrase when addressing children for whatever reason, but not so much a PC thing. Like how people cutely say “boys and girls” in English. My experience is mostly with Castilian Spanish.

            2. I assume that anyone who’d say muchachix would get slapped. I assume the border is where the bad hombres roam. (Unless you are referring to that kitchy South of the Border monstrosity in South Carolina off I-95).

      3. There’s a perfect word without a gender (which happens to be preferred by the actual people in question): “hispanic”.

        Or just call them “la gente latina” and then you can use the feminine ending if all the masculine stuff makes you uncomfortable.

        1. The vast majority of my hispanic / latino friends and family refer to themselves by their family’s country of origin, rather than be lumped all together. So, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoreño, etc.

          1. Yeah, even better. Or just be American. I’m interested in my family heritage, but I don’t go around “identifying” as a Ukranian/Norwegian/English-American.

            1. i applaud you. one of my bigger pet peeves is the propensity for 3rd and 4th generation white americans to go around talking about how they’re this ethnicity or that when they’ve never set foot in or even met a living relative from whatever country.

              the biggest offenders seem to people descended from Ireland and Italy, but maybe thats just because of the people i grew up around.

    6. “Lat-*snerk*”.

    7. How do you pronounce Latinx?

      The short answer is “don’t.”

      The longer answer is you just say “Latino” like a normal person and if some noodle armed, probably lily-white lickspittle with a B.A. in Victimhood Studies gives you any grief about using “gendered language” you punch them in face as hard as you can and then move on with your life.

    8. I thought it was some new synthetic fiber.

    9. I just avoid even trying. The masculine form is also the neutral one. Get over it.

    10. I just point out that it’s use makes the speaker either a white colonialist oppressor, socially, culturally and intellectually irrelevant, or both. Like saying ‘mail’ should be pronounce ‘ma-eel’ so as not to be confused with the gender. Good luck with your inoperable brain tumor.

    11. Lah-teen-eh-kees?
      lah-teen-(i have no idea how to spell sounding out an h at the end of the word)

    12. People who want to use Latinx seem not to realize that they could use Latin American and be completely inclusive without making up a new and unpronounceable word. They probably also don’t think about the fact that Latin America and Latin Americans also sometimes include the French and Portuguese-speaking countries and their people. They could also use Hispanic, another inclusive word, except that that term gets criticized for leaving out non-Spanish-descended groups, like those with African, Asian, or indigenous roots.
      Of course, if they really want to respect the wishes of the people they are referring to, they should refer to people by their country of origin, rather than lumping them all into one group that they then treat as monolithic. A guy I knew, when asked whether he considered himself to be Latino or Hispanic, said, “I don’t consider myself either of those. I’m Puerto Rican. I’ve got nothing in common with a dude from Peru, except that we both speak Spanish, and he doesn’t even do that very well.”

    13. Honestly I just say kleenex every time I see it.

    14. Latino is insufficient because it’s male. The challenges facing intersectionalists double in countries with gendered languages.

      Latinx actually sounds like a cartoon cat, drawn by 1940s American cartoon houses for distribution south of the border.

  6. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Here… Click here.

  7. But do they IDENTIFY as ‘students of color’, the way Warren does?

  8. Identity politics at it’s worst.
    As a 13 year old in 1969 I was sure that racism would be gone by the time I was an adult. Now 51 years later we are still dividing up children by their skin color.
    But now it’s done under the banner of “racial equality”
    It is despicable and disheartening

    1. But now it’s done under the banner of “racial equality”
      It is despicable and disheartening

      And also really, really stupid, which is why I think it will be short lived.

      1. Which part of 51 years is short lived? Progressive stupidity has no ground floor.

        1. I think he means this particular stupid, racist policy, not stupid, racist policies in general.

          1. Yes.

      2. A new era of racism under the banner of anti-racism. Awesome.

    2. What you mean “we”, white man?

    3. Racism will only disappear when everyone is so mixed race, there are no more categories.

      I recently saw two little light skinned girls with blue eyes and blond nappy hair with African facial features.

      The Democrats may fade into irrelevance when we all look mixed like that.

      1. Mulattx?

      2. One might hope. Unfortunately however, they don’t really care about race, just like they didn’t really care about class. They care about power, and will likely look for another class of useful idiots to pit against “the system” in hopes that it will help them gain it.

      3. Heard about the Hutus and the Tutsis?

        If race disappeared tomorrow, it would immediately be replaced with religion, political preference, familial original country of origin, bust measurement, or something else.

  9. Are they just making a racist assessment of intelligence and lumping that into “white”? And if so, how do they sleep at night?

    1. Are they just making a racist assessment of intelligence and lumping that into “white”?


      And if so, how do they sleep at night?

      Probably quite well, unfortunately. Secure in the belief that they’re totes not racist, because “woke.”

    2. But just try mentioning that black people have lower IQ scores on average. Such ridiculous hypocrisy.

  10. “The absurdities that result from overreliance on fully semi-arbitrary race-based categories”

    1. “Asian” is totally a race, man.

      1. Yeah, Turks and Indians and Koreans are practically indistinguishable.

        1. As opposed to san, somalis, algerians and cameroonians

          1. Hmm. Maybe the whole idea of classifying people by race isn’t a good one.

  11. Well, I guess I’ll have to stop referring to Asians as “Schrodinger’s POCs.”

    Congratulations, Asians, you’re now officially white. Your prize is a lifetime of hatred and opprobrium directed at you by white land whales with Cool-Aid in their hair who have appointed themselves spokespersons for all the POCs that you’ve allegedly victimized over the past 200 plus years. Enjoy.

    1. “Asians need to make reparations for enslaving black people in the American South.”

    2. Well, I guess I’ll have to stop referring to Asians as “Schrodinger’s POCs.”

      We still have the Jews, though.

    3. Why do you think Californian’s Asians and Indians (who are also Asians, but “South Asians” seems to be the term now) voted against bringing back affirmative action? They don’t want their kids (from oppressed minorities, but from a family culture that emphasizes educational achievement) to go to the back of the line again for college admissions.

    4. I guess Hitler was pretty forward thinking about the whole “honorary Aryan” thing. Ironic that Democrats would prove him right.

  12. Joe Biden was right, haters. Poor kids can be just as bright as white kids.

    1. Or as bright as Asians.

  13. That’ll teach you darn Asians for messing up the “oppression” narrative! You keep succeeding like that and we’ll classify you as white! Which means you’re Nazis!

    1. I recently heard an Anti-Racist explain that one of the most pernicious things “White Supremacy Culture” does is to grant POCs access to Whiteness in order to steel itself against charges of racism.

      1. Every day it becomes more and more clear that “anti-racism” is another word for racism.

        1. Yup.

        2. It was obvious to me when I realized that the federal government had finally arrogated to itself the exclusive right to ask race-based questions on official forms, finally turning the constitutional right of freedom of association entirely on its head.

      2. That makes my head hurt.

      3. Almost as bad as Hispanics who voted for Trump.

        The are traitors to the cause and will be treated as such.

        1. So then you are in favor of dividing people up by race and ethnicity.
          No freedom to choose you’re own views. Just get in the same line as everyone else with the same skin tone or ethnicity.
          Yeah, I’m sure that is definitely the world we all want to live in

    2. If we could re-classify the Italians we could have a new age Axis of Evil!

  14. It always amuses me that whites are taken as so genetically fragile that the slightest drop of non-white blood turns them into piss-poor copies of the original pure strain. Like a white canvas, the slightest splatter ruins it.

    And yet here the actual color itself, the undiluted full awful non-white pollution, suddenly becomes white by association!

    What is it, racists? White can’t be both all-powerful and fragile.

  15. a category that includes “Black, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Multi-Racial Students”

    So, what about white-asian multiracial students? Do they get to be students of color or do they get counted as Double Oppressors?

  16. Biden’s America – coming to the federal government near you!

  17. So… Asian is a monoculture? I never knew that Japanese people historically considered Koreans or Chinese their equivalent. I guess that whole Rape of Nanking thing was just ethnic masochism. Who knew? Glad I have these woke whities around to teach me these things about… well I was going to say non-whites but I guess that doesn’t apply anymore.

    1. And Japan and Korea were at least somewhat in the Chinese cultural sphere, though clearly quite culturally distinct. There are also Turks and Arabs and Indians and all the other central Asian ethnic groups.

      1. You forgot Russia.

        1. Right. Armenians, Persians, Azerbaijani, and Khazaks are all Asians as well.

          1. How could he forget the actual caucasians and actual aryans?

          2. What am I an Encyclopedia? Central Asian.

            1. Or central Eurasian. You get my point, I’m sure.

          3. I worked with a woman in Toronto who referred to herself as “Siberian.”

    2. Well, if the French, British, Poles, Germans, and Jews are all lumped together as “white oppressors” despite killing each other by the millions, why not Asians too?

    3. Right. Like blacks, Asians don’t have as much diversity in their culture as Hispanics do.
      I’m not Joe Biden, and I’m reproving his message.

  18. Quote from a Latino friend of mine. He said nobody likes “latinx” and many might become disagreeable with you for saying it.

    Also lol on the Asians are white people (aka people of mostly European descent I presume here). Fucking stupid woke assholes who vote for dumbass idiots like Inslee. You get what you deserve fucktards.

  19. What about those Asian people with really dark skin? Can they still qualify, if they want to?

    1. The entire concept of “asian” is completely ridiculous. Anyone who lumps thais and koreans in the same bucket is smoking the good stuff. Those people have less in common with each other than and are more physically separated than an englishman and an egyptian.

    2. No. Those people are mostly Indian and they also do too well in school.

  20. Watch out, students of color…if you study too hard, like those Asians, you might lose your racial identity, too. (Or even worse, you may be cast into the outer darkness with the whites)

  21. All part of the new SecEd’s soon to be revealed plan titled, “No Child Gets Ahead”.

    1. And the Title IX reform rollbacks, titled “No Child Gets Head”.

      1. You mean they all get married?

        1. Reminds me of a joke:
          “What’s the difference between a job and a wife?”

          Answer: After 30 years, the job still sucks.

    2. There are two ways to equality. You can drag those who are behind forward or you can hamstring those who are ahead. The latter is much easier, so guess which people tend to opt for.

      1. The latter is gives the appearance of being much easier, so guess which people tend to opt for.


        60 yrs. of trying to hold blacks up and whites back has provided a lot of make-work for SJWs and Civil Rights advocates and not much else.

  22. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome all Asians into the world of white racist supremacy. You’ll be receiving your welcome package in the mail shortly, which lists your newfound privileges, that a large number of you have already gained through responsibility, education, and hard work.

    1. Sans the guilt. ‘Til now…

      1. The good news is, should you choose to comply, you just have to act like you feel guilty. Otherwise, as you were.

      2. Asians have plenty to feel guilty for: slavery, genocides, oppression, wars.

  23. “This group of students achieves highly and generally works hard in school.”

    “They must be white, then.”

    Fuck off, you racists.

  24. Race can be a service: marginalize yourself! Show us who you prefer to obey!

  25. School District Decides Asians Aren’t Students of Color

    Blatant lacism.

  26. Earth 2019 – Global racial majority: Asian
    Earth 2020 – Global racial majority: White

    Personally, I’ve got a little bit of schadenfreude about missing out on all the baby-making that was going to be required to put whites back on top but, I suppose, as long as white people are the majority, I don’t really care how.

  27. Asian is the new white meat, and for identity politicians across the spectrum it’s what for diner.

  28. “Race-realist” Robbie, throwin’ down some white supremacy.

  29. It just kills public sector elites when no matter how much tax dollars they spend they can’t get equal results. They fear that what they fight might be true..maybe some groups just are not as smart as others….that makes them feel “guilty,” Anything to make excuses or blame others for what in the end is a cultural issue. It used to be about equal opportunity but then the “groups” didn’t do as well so it became bias in testing and so on. Here’s the root of the issue..race doesn’t exist but culture does and some cultures do a better job over time with opportunity/reward. Those that work harder and have smarts are allowed to succeed and have more kids…after a few generations you have increased average smarts…moving the curve. Its funny how the wokes change the “game” in order to always make excuses for imposing penalties on those that do well.

  30. Start making extra income Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by working just online. I have made $28K in this month by working online. Its a simple and easy home job and even a little child can do this job online and makes real money… Here is More information.

  31. I made 10k dollar a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing Please visit this site… Here is More information.

  32. I made 10k dollar a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing Please visit this site…<a href= Here is More information.

  33. Over 40% of those in California voted to support race based standards. Rather than a win it shows racism is alive and well and we are a long way from judging people on merits and not race. A win on the issue and a disgusting statement that it was even that close.

  34. Apparently the better your grades, the ‘whiter’ you get. How racist is that? So if some really dark skinned Indian from Mumbai gets a perfect SAT score, is he suddenly white? How about Ben Carson? He is a black neurosurgeon? Is he now white? Do stupid white people suddenly become ‘people of color’? Just trying to get a grip on the ‘new normal.’

    1. Stupid white people are deplorable rednecks. No one white will ever get into the oppressed class. And now Asians are excluded too. Along with any person of color who doesn’t fit the narrative.

      1. The approved term, according to LAPD sergeant Cheryl Dorsey on MSNBC, is “skinfolk.” Skinfolk is the new Uncle Tom.

  35. Well they’re of no more or less color than their pale pink peers, so consistency-wise it’s a wash.

  36. I don’t see anything absurd about that. Objectively, Chinese, Native Americans, and Arabs have white skin color.

    1. Don’t know any personally, eh?

      1. I’m not stating my opinion, I’m stating biological fact: melanin levels in native populations are determined by the latitude where that population evolved, not by continent or ancestry. Furthermore, dark and light skin color traits exist in all human populations and populations adapt rapidly to latitude. Read the literature.

        To get a quick illustration of that, just look at average faces around the world. Mongolians and Vietnamese appear lighter skinned than Germans. Clearly dark skin tones primarily exist in Africa and South East Asia.

  37. If you belong to a group that, at least on appearances, can be considered “successful” you don’t get to be in the oppressed class; instead you will have to cross the hall to the oppressor class.

    And according to intersectionality you only have two choices.

  38. Interesting article, but now I wonder what these findings make me? My father is white and my mother is asian. I was not particularly good in school. I did as little as I possibly could to get by, because there were things more important than school. I grew up in white neighborhoods where none of my friends considered me to be white. And when I went to high school, which was far more ethnically mixed than the other schools I went to, the asian FOB’s told me I was mexican.

    So now I’m a network engineer, so I can’t be that undereducated, but I’m not a tech billionaire, so I ain’t that smart either. But I’ve always thought of myself more of a freak than anything else. But this article is still very interesting.

  39. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do…. CLICK HERE FOR FULL DETAIL

  40. And I as a Japanese-Brazilian, which category would I be in?
    Latin American, Asian, Latin-Asian, Portuguese-Asian? …

  41. I am Japanese Brazilian and I have a hard time trying to understand the American system of “racial categories”.
    Putting Indians with East Asians in the same group does not make any sense, as they are completely different.
    On the other hand, separating Asians from other “POCs” is equivalent to granting Asians only burdens, depriving them of compensatory measures for discrimination by whites.

    1. You are close to the intersectionality jackpot. Just get a sex change and become a trans lesbian and you’re the ideal Democrat target demographic.

  42. I am happy to hear this news that there are no social disparities, especially educational issues concerning skin color.

  43. All gimme dats and special treatment must go to blacks. The POC stuff was just to make you think it included more than blacks. Sorry it is just blacks.

  44. Minorities are ranked. Model minorities and other such nonsense. Reminiscent of animal farm, some are more equal than others.

  45. Well, yes, of course. Asians are too smart… You must be on the lower end of the bell curve for left wingers to consider you a minority.

  46. Be honest. Most of us whites have darker skin than Asians. But EuropeanAmerican is not on questionnaires. But African-American is; go figure. And they call whites racists?

    1. Not really, no. Though skin lightening products are very popular in parts of Asia, so there are a fair number trying to be whiter than white people.
      I have a friend who lived in Vietnam for a while. Said she couldn’t find any facial creams there that didn’t bleach your skin.

      1. You certainly won’t find any in Bill Maher’s bathroom. His bleach EVERYTHING.

  47. Simple even a four year old can understand — two wrongs don’t make a right. Those who believe the best answer to racism is more racism have over-thought the problem and lost all moral standing.

  48. Schools should end race based profiling and focus more on student achievement, they should encourage more parental involvement especially from low income students and special needs students.
    They should not allow failing students to get into the next grade. In my junior high, you had to pass health gym and the constitution test to get to the next grade even if you failed other classes. So many industrial nations are ahead of the USA in education.

  49. Free quiz night at Heber Springs library

    Heber Springs Library, 201 W. Vine St., will host a free Tuesday Night Question & Answer session from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on July 11. Participants will be able to meet other local readers and get some quick reading suggestions. Light refreshments will be served. For more check this website

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.