Displaying posts published in

September 2017

Harvard Takes Top Honors in WSJ/THE College Rankings Schools in the Northeast dominate the top 10, with six Ivies making the cut By Douglas Belkin and Melissa Korn See note please

Other rankings, although Harvard, Yale, Princeton still dominate, vary in their judgements. The fact is that you can go to any of the top colleges and graduate a functional illiterate, ignorant of history and literature, but replete with bogus social justice and “progressive”notions, and political opinions force fed by peer pressure and openly biased professors and political correctness and fashionable “socialism” without even having to read crib notes on the depredations of Marxism….rsk

Silicon Valley is rising. Mobile Americans are flocking to the Sunbelt. But most of the best colleges and universities in the U.S. remain rooted in the Northeast.

Harvard University topped this year’s Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings, and about a mile down the street in Cambridge, Mass., the Massachusetts Institute of Technology earned a tie for third place. Columbia, Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton and Cornell—all of which sit within 400 miles of Harvard Square—took five of the top 10 spots. Stanford, Duke and the California Institute of Technology rounded out the top 10.

“There are a lot of perceptions of Harvard you have before you arrive,” says Chris Cruz, who left his home in California to attend school there and graduated last year. “At least for me Harvard exceeded all of my expectations.”

Keep Students Safe From the Heckler’s Veto Colleges encourage more violence when they appease mobs. By Robert Shibley

Jeff Sessions has joined the debate over censorship on campus. At Georgetown Tuesday, the attorney general criticized institutions that capitulate to the heckler’s veto—when “administrators discourage or prohibit speech if there is even a threat that it will be met with protest.”

It’s been a banner year for hecklers, including violent ones. The University of North Carolina says that it “is not willing to risk anyone’s safety” to allow white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak on campus. He’s banned at Michigan State “due to significant concerns about public safety,” and at Texas A&M, though he spoke there last December.

At Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., professors had to hold classes off campus in a park while police politely asked radical students to stop arming themselves with bats and “patrolling” campus.

Social scientist Charles Murray was literally chased out of Middlebury College in Vermont, then disinvited from Assumption College in Massachusetts. Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos still hasn’t spoken at the University of California, Berkeley, where Antifa extremists rioted to stop his appearance in February. Neither has Ann Coulter, leading her would-be student hosts to sue.

A recent Associated Press report claims colleges are “grappling with how to balance students’ physical safety with free speech.” But the idea that free speech is in opposition with safety is nonsensical.

You are not safe if you are under threat of physical attack for expressing or listening to political views. Debate and dissent are normal parts of living in a free and diverse society, and that should be especially true at an educational institution. Silencing dissenters in the name of physical safety simply punishes the victims of wrongful, sometimes criminal behavior.

In no other situation do colleges simply throw up their hands and say that student safety is an unreachable goal. Campuses have vast bureaucracies dedicated to combating sexual assault, eliminating discriminatory harassment, and discouraging alcohol abuse. Emergency phones, designated drivers and safe-escort programs are thick on the ground. Colleges even attend to students’ “emotional safety” by setting up “bias response” teams that “intervene” when somebody says something hurtful.

Yet colleges have allowed the heckler’s veto to flourish, which only encourages more violence. Under its new chancellor, Berkeley reportedly spent up to $600,000 to ensure that commentator Ben Shapiro was able to speak on campus two weeks ago. Critics moan about the expense, dismissing such speeches as stunts unworthy of academia and not worth the price. But the cost of bowing to mob rule is far higher.

Making the statement that violence will not be allowed to substitute for debate will save far more in the long run—and, more important, teach the coming generation about how a free society resolves its differences.

Mr. Shibley is executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

LIGHTS IN THE “DARK CONTINENT” BY RUTH KING

Africa, mysterious and mostly unknown to the West was called the “Dark Continent” in the late 1800s. In fact, many Jews found beacons of light in African nations.

Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Rhodesia, Nigeria, South Africa, Congo and Ivory Coast had Jewish populations, some dating back centuries, largely unknown in the diaspora but clinging to an ancient faith.

Some migrated from the really dark corners of entrenched anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe.

Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, had a thriving Jewish population in Salisbury (now Harare) and Bulawayo where Jews from Lithuania migrated in the 1800s. A close friend of mine recently showed me a movie of children in the Bulawayo synagogue marching with stars of David embroidered on their shirts singing songs about Palestine in the 1940s.

I was in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia in the 1950s where large cities like Meknes, Fez, Casablanca. Rabat, Marrakesh, Oran and Djerba, had prominent synagogues, attended by thousands and local shops sold menorahs, candelabras and religious clothing.

When the Arabs declared war on the nascent Jewish State, Arab governments in Africa sponsored harassment of their Jewish populations and a large exodus of Jews began. Most of the small number who remained fled after the Six Day War of 1967. In many non-Arab and non-Muslim countries, decolonization unfortunately heralded coups, revolutions and tribal wars, prompting a Jewish exodus from the continent.

In the early years of decolonization, Israel reached out with targeted aid programs to what became known as the “emerging continent.” But when in the wake of the 1973 war OPEC threatened African states with economic punishment if they did not follow orders to isolate Israel, most fell in line, severing or sharply curtailing relations with Israel. Indeed, African nations joined in the anti-Israel fulminations at the United Nations.

From 1984-1988 Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israel’s Prime Minister, was his nation’s Representative to the United Nations. During his tenure he met many representatives from Africa ex officio and established cordial relations with some. One of his goals was to reestablish relations with African nations by offering agricultural, technical, medical and scientific cooperation. And he has been overwhelmingly successful.

Israeli involvement in Africa has been transformational aiding in control of epidemics, treatments for infectious diseases, crop management with innovative irrigation, water purification, computer education–the list is endless. Israel has improved millions of lives in virtually every nation in Africa.

African students travel to Israel to learn new modalities and technology and Israeli experts assist on site in building and maintaining facilities.

If It Weren’t for Israel… By Elise Cooper

September marked the beginning of the Jewish New Year and ends with Yom Kippur, known as the “Ten Days of Awe,” a period of introspection. People throughout the world, not just Jews, need to consider: if it weren’t for Israel, the world would be a much less safe place.

No one should forget that in June 1981, a surprise Israeli air strike destroyed an Iraqi nuclear power plant. If not for this courageous attack, al-Qaeda could have gained control of a nuclear arsenal in 2014 when it asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah, as it raised its flag over government buildings and declared an Islamic state in this crucial area. Then, in 2007, it was déjà vu as Israel destroyed the Syrian nuclear plant. As Vice President Dick Cheney previously told American Thinker, after seeing the photographs taken by Israeli intelligence, he pushed for U.S. air strikes to destroy the Syrian reactor, the al-Kibar complex. But the Bush administration refused to act, forcing Israel to go it alone and destroy the reactor.

Consider that ISIS still controls large portions of eastern and central Syria. It seems that without Israel’s existence the world will have to deal with not only the nuclear rogue regime of North Korea, but also many countries in the Middle East.

As Nikki Haley, the U.N. ambassador, pointed out, the Iranian regime has twice exceeded the amount of heavy water (a form of water in nuclear reactors) it was allowed to have. Iran has refused to allow international inspectors to check all of its military facilities, and there are hundreds of undeclared sites that have suspicious activity that inspectors haven’t looked at. In addition, the Iranians have tested ballistic missiles, continue to support terrorism, and have engaged in smuggling arms.

Although America is known as the “policeman of the world,” Israel should be known as the “policeman of the Middle East.” The Gulf States are recognizing Israel’s role in deterring Iran. These states know they need to work closely with Israel to confront Iran and are stepping up their cooperation with the Jewish State. They are considering moving from mainly secret intelligence-sharing with Israel to steps that would include setting up direct telecommunications links over flight rights and the lifting of some restrictions on trade.

It is not just the Gulf States, but also the world that relies on Israel’s intelligence and sees this small country, the size of New Jersey, as a role model on how to deal with terrorism. In recent years, Israel has provided intelligence that has prevented dozens of major terrorist attacks around the world, saving countless lives. Governments are working closely with Israel to keep their countries and citizens safe.

Florida Islamist’s “Human Rights” Organization Needs to Be Investigated for Possible Terrorism Ties by Joe Kaufman

“WE WILL OVERTHROW them ALL. US WILL PAY FOR ITS CRIMES” — Nidal Mohamed Sakr.

Sakr is a prime example of a radical Islamist taking advantage of the freedoms that the United States has to offer all its citizens, in order to undermine its existence — in the name of “human rights.”

Although voicing his enmity is precisely one of those rights, membership in a terrorist group is not, particularly if he is using his March of Justice organization as a front. A serious investigation into Sakr and his operations needs be launched to determine whether and to what extent he is a threat to US national security.

On March 19, 2014, Nidal Mohamed Sakr, an American citizen from Providence, Rhode Island, was detained by Homeland Security upon his arrival in the United States from an extended stay in Egypt, the country of his mother’s birth. Although Sakr is an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood and former al-Qaeda associate, he was released and has been operating freely in the U.S., traveling back and forth between Florida and California as the head of a Miami-based, self-described “human rights” organization called The March for Justice.

This was not the first time that Sakr, who describes himself as “US born from Palestinian origin,” had been interrogated by American authorities. According to an account he posted on the March for Justice website, he was questioned by Palm Beach police in January 2002 about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. This occurred as he, Sakr, left an event held by a Jewish organization to express unity and solidarity in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which had taken place less than four months earlier. At the time, he penned a letter to President George W. Bush complaining that he was being victimized by anti-Muslim Jews.

Prior to 2014, when he was temporarily detained at a US airport, Sakr had spent time in Egypt, where he actively participated in the eruption of the “Arab Spring” — which led to the ouster and imprisonment of then-President Hosni Mubarak and the rise of Muslim Brotherhood chief Mohammed Morsi as Egypt’s president. While in Egypt, Sakr gave a lecture in which he recounted how he was recruited by al-Qaeda co-founder and bin Laden mentor Abdullah Azzam to a Palestinian terrorist cell operating out of Jordan in the 1970s and ’80s. He also spoke about having gotten to know bin Laden and his family.

In the aftermath of the July 2013 military coup against Morsi, which led to the current presidency of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed and anyone associated with it became a target. Thousands of people were arrested and hundreds sentenced to death, including Morsi — whose sentence was later reversed, but recently reinstated for a term of 25 years in prison.

Sakr was allegedly among 529 Muslim Brotherhood members sentenced to death by an Egyptian court “for murder and other offenses.”

Islam in Switzerland: The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Jihad by Bruce Bawer

What you would never know, from all this hand-wringing about “Islamophobia,” is that only a few weeks before the conference, the country’s media had reported on a popular imam in Biel who, in his sermons, “asked Allah to destroy the enemies of Islam — Jews, Christians, Hindus, Russians, and Shiites.”

The imam in question, Abu Ramadan, preached that Muslims who befriended infidels were “cursed until the Day of Judgment” — which, of course, is not radical at all, but is straight out of the Koran.

The crisis is real. But, says Swiss Muslim author Saïda Keller-Messahli, Swiss politicians, “especially on the left,” refuse to address it. Instead of trying to defend their country from radicalism, they think their job is to “protect minorities and multiculturalism.”

Mosque kindergartens and youth groups, too, are “places of religious indoctrination” for Swiss Muslims. So are the German-speaking public schools, in which imams are permitted to teach classes in Islam using instructional materials from Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

If you listen to some of Switzerland’s pollsters and government officials, the country is suffering from a serious and ever-intensifying crisis — anti-Muslim bigotry.

In August, a study concluded that Swiss Muslims “are generally well integrated into Swiss society.” Their main problem? They face “Islamophobia.”

Another study the same month found that the percentage of Swiss non-Muslims who feel “threatened” by Islam had more than doubled since 2004, from 16% to 38%.

At a September 11 conference, Switzerland’s Federal Commission against Racism (FCR) issued an explicit alert: “hostility toward Muslims,” it warned, was rising – and was “fed by facts that have nothing to do with Muslims themselves.”

Conference organizers blamed this “hostility” on online “propaganda”; Interior Minister Alain Berset accused Swiss citizens of erroneously holding “Islam responsible for all the extremist acts committed in its name.”

What you would never know, from all this hand-wringing about “Islamophobia,” is that only a few weeks before the conference, the country’s media had reported on a popular imam in Biel who, in his sermons, “asked Allah to destroy the enemies of Islam — Jews, Christians, Hindus, Russians, and Shiites.” The imam in question, Abu Ramadan, preached that Muslims who befriended infidels were “cursed until the Day of Judgment” — which, of course, is not radical at all, but is straight out of the Koran.

Abu Ramadan has been living in Switzerland for almost two decades. In 1998, he came to the Alpine country from Libya as an asylum seeker, but over the years has returned home several times — in addition to visiting Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. This fact should have automatically negated his right to asylum and resulted in his expulsion. But the years went by, and the government, ignoring the evidence right there on his passport, did nothing.

On the contrary: over the years, in fact, the Swiss state had given Ramadan the equivalent of $620,000 in welfare payments.

Reportedly, some public officials were well aware of his hate sermons — but until the content of those sermons surfaced in the media, nobody in the government had made any effort to do anything about him. Instead, people such as Interior Minister Berset and the members of the FCR had kept busy going to conferences and tarring the general public as “Islamophobes”.

At least one high-profile individual in Switzerland has long rejected the official line about successful Muslim integration and unfounded infidel Islam-hatred: Saïda Keller-Messahli. Of Tunisian descent, living in Zurich, she has spent years investigating institutional Islam in Switzerland and urging politicians to take action against it. Asked in a recent interview whether Abu Ramadan is an isolated case, Keller-Messahli said no: such preaching, she explained, is common in Swiss mosques, part of an international strategy to plant a “discriminatory” and “violent” Islam in Switzerland and elsewhere in the West.

Keller-Messahli has just published a book entitled, Switzerland: An Islamist Hub (“Islamistische Drehscheibe Schweiz”). It is sort of a field guide to Islam in Switzerland. The country’s mosques belong to various networks based here and there in the Muslim world; many of the imams have been trained in Egypt or Saudi Arabia; many of the mosques receive funding — and take orders — from organizations in Turkey. In her book, Keller-Messahli draws all the connections, follows all the money trails, and spells out the poisonous articles of faith. And she prescribes strong medicine: monitor the mosques, cut off the foreign cash, and expel the preachers of jihad.

Cornel West: Trump Disrespects The American Flag When He Scapegoats Black And Brown People Posted By Tim Hains

Via Dose Of Dissonance: Philosophy professor at Harvard, Dr. Cornel West, debates Trump supporter Paris Dennard on Tuesday’s edition of CNN’s ‘Anderson Cooper 360’ about the president’s feud with NFL and what role race plays in the culture war.

CORNEL WEST: I think the president needs to get off the symbolic crack-pipe. And have a sense of reality. The reason why these courageous young people are standing up is because they have a love for black people, a love of justice, and they are concerned about a racist criminal justice system.

And it is a beautiful thing to see this kind of moral and spiritual awakening taking place among the athletes, so they represent not just athletic excellence, but they are now aspiring to spiritual and moral excellence. Excellence is about unarmed truth, unapologetic love, you step down in order to let the world know you have a love for these people who are not being treated right. You have a love for these people who are being treated unfairly.

You know, I am a Christian, so every flag is under the cross for me. The cross signifies unarmed truth, unapologetic love.

Patriotism is fine, but when it scapegoats, Mexicans, Arabs, Jews, gays, lesbians, trans, etc. When it scapegoats black people and brown people, there is a critique to be brought to bear in the name of truth and in the name of love.

It’s clear President Trump has a disrespect for the American people, he has a disrespect for the flag, when he scapegoats American people, and when he lies to the American people.

Mendacity is a form of violation, in patriotism. It is a form of violation in the face of truth, and in the face of love.

So the question becomes: How wonderful to see the white brothers and sisters, all the different colors standing up out of a love for black people who are being victimized too often by a racist criminal justice system.

I Used to Sit for the National Anthem Too But here’s the question: Is the ‘police brutality’ that NFL players are protesting based in reality? Jason Riley

As a youngster, I didn’t salute the flag or stand for the national anthem. It ran against my religious teachings.

Each year, my mother would take me to the principal’s office on the first day of school and explain that we were Jehovah’s Witnesses, which meant that I would remain silent while my classmates recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. When my father, who was divorced from my mother and not a member of the church, took me to sporting events, he stood for the national anthem while I sat. He never said anything to me about it. He respected my mother’s desire to raise her children in the faith of her choice.

Growing up, I was taught that the flag was an idol and that saluting it was a form of idolatry, which was forbidden. Indeed, all forms of patriotism were discouraged. No joining the military. No running for office. No voting or taking sides in political debates. Even membership in civic groups, such as the Boy Scouts, was frowned upon. Over the decades, Witnesses endured fierce opposition for holding such beliefs. They were tried for sedition. Their homes were vandalized and their businesses were boycotted. In the 1930s and ’40s, church members were physically attacked by angry mobs of people who prided themselves on their loyalty and patriotism. The Witnesses turned to courts for protection and were mostly successful in obtaining it, whether the issue was door-to-door proselytizing, conscientious objection to the draft, or mandatory flag salutes.

The reason the principal had to accede to my mother’s wishes is because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), that forcing children to salute the flag violated the Constitution. The court held that saluting the flag is a form of utterance and that the right to not speak is as equally protected under the First Amendment as the right to free speech. “The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own,” wrote Justice Robert Jackson for the 6-3 majority. “Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.” The decision was handed down on Flag Day.

To my mother’s chagrin, the religion didn’t stick and I left the church voluntarily in my teens. I still remember attending a college basketball game with my father and standing for the national anthem for the first time. He did a little double take as I rose beside him. Then he put his arm around me and pulled me closer to him. I’ve been a political commentator for more than 20 years now. I vote. I take sides. A large framed reproduction of Jasper Johns’s “Flag” hangs above the fireplace in my living room. But when I see, as we all did on Sunday, professional athletes catching flak from the president on down for taking a knee during the national anthem, it takes me back to my childhood. I can’t help but feel for them.

Westerners: Guilty of Reading the News by Douglas Murray

If the public are asked whether Arabs should be profiled for security reasons, why should it be surprising if a very slight majority of the public think they should be? A large number of terrorist incidents have occurred in the Arab and Western world in recent years.

If, at some point, large numbers of, say, Czechs, Poles and Hungarians had started to export terrorism across the planet, a majority of the public in a country such as Britain might be relied on to call for increased security checks on people of Eastern European origin. In the meantime, the public would appear to be guilty of nothing other than reading the news.

Few newspaper commentaries bothered to wonder whether the people who had decapitated a soldier on the streets of London might not be responsible for the negative sentiments that followed. For Arab News, any such explanation would be an impossibility.

In August, the polling company YouGov conducted an opinion survey among 2,000 members of the British public. The poll, carried out in partnership with Arab News, the Saudi paper owned by a member of the Saudi royal family, was published September 25.

As might be expected from such a publication, the questions asked of the British public, and the answers received, suited a particular line of argument: the survey evidently sought to find evidence of “Islamophobic” attitudes. It duly found that 41% of the British public polled said that Arab immigrants and refugees had not added anything to society and 55% agreed in principle with the profiling of Arabs for security reasons. The Arab News/YouGov poll also found that 72% of the British public think that “Islamophobia” is getting worse in the UK.

Alongside this report came the surprising finding that a similar number of British people (7 in 10) believe that “the rise in Islamophobic comments by politicians and others are fuelling hate crime.”

All of this presents a fascinating as well as slightly confused picture. Why should the same percentage of the public believe that “Islamophobia” is getting worse but that politicians in Britain are fuelling it? Let alone that politicians are fuelling an alleged rise in “hate crime” — the upsurge in which is constantly promised yet mercifully never occurs? It is clearly the aim of Arab News — as with many other media companies from the same region — to present Britain as a bigoted and unenlightened place — a country filled with primitive and medieval views of “the other”. As opposed to, say, an enlightened and welcoming family fiefdom like that of Saudi Arabia, where attitudes towards foreigners and incomers are renowned the world over for their tolerance and good humour.

If it was possible to have genuinely free and fair polling in Saudi Arabia, carried out by a foreign newspaper and without any government interference, then doubtless the world would learn only of the amount that outsiders had brought into the country, and the extent to which security checks on any people coming to the country from outside Saudi should be entirely absent.

The idea, of course, is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous still is the idea — consistent from a range of opinion polls over recent years — that the British people, like those across Europe and America, are in the grip of some profoundly irrational mania. If the public are asked whether Arabs should be profiled for security reasons, why should it be surprising if a very slight majority of the public think they should be? A large number of terrorist incidents have occurred in the Arab and Western world in recent years, and despite the considerable diversity of the perpetrators of Islamist attacks across the globe, a larger number of terrorists in recent years have emerged from the Arab world than, say, Eastern Europe. If, at some point, large numbers of Czechs, Poles and Hungarians had started to export terrorism across the planet, a majority of the public in a country such as Britain might be relied on to call for increased security checks on people of Eastern European origin. In the meantime, the public would appear to be guilty of nothing other reading the news. The central conceit of a poll such as this, however, is, of course, to present the whole issue of terrorism as a misunderstanding by the general public.

Self-Described “Progressive, Mainstream” Muslim Groups in America Are Homophobic and Racist by Samantha Mandeles

According to Muslim feminist bloggers, who write regularly for the site muslimgirl.com, MAS, ICNA, and ISNA are blatantly racist.

If Sarsour and her fellow Islamists in the United States are to be believed, they work to “make America better…” “…out of love” for fellow Americans. Yet, their behavior tells another story — one of closeted bigotry and deceit — all for the purpose of legitimizing their own false claims to the leadership of mainstream Muslims.

In an interview published on ISNA’s website, Muzzammil Siddiqi called homosexuality a “moral corruption,” and explicitly stated that he supports laws in countries that execute homosexuals. ISNA’s annual convention included Yasir Qadhi, dean of academic affairs at AlMaghrib Institute, who has been recorded teaching students that killing homosexuals is part of Islam.

“Islam is a religion of peace, but you can’t have peace without justice,” said self-styled “civil rights activist” Linda Sarsour at the Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America (MAS-ICNA) convention in December 2016. Sarsour, who describes herself as a “Palestinian-American feminist,” is but one example of a radical Muslim in the West who has carefully cultivated an image of herself as righteously preoccupied with liberal values and social justice — and Islamist organizations, such as MAS, ICNA and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), have tried to do the same.

A highlight reel from the MAS-ICNA convention features author Yasmin Mogahed declaring, “We have to care about the pain and struggles of others,” as well as a prominent imam, Omar Suleiman, asking, “What have we done for the marginalized in this country?”

In a promotional video released in 2016, the organization’s president, Azhar Azeez, boasts of “bringing a very positive impact to our communities across the nation.”

According to Muslim feminist bloggers, however, who write regularly for the site muslimgirl.com, MAS, ICNA, and ISNA are blatantly racist. One such observer, in a piece titled “Mainstream Islamic Conferences Have a Longstanding History of Normalizing Anti-Blackness,” writes:

“When I look at mosques that perpetuate patriarchal violence, I see it as powerless men trying to feel in control. Conferences are no different. Often times, it’s non-Black Muslims (mostly Arab and Desi) who organize these tone-deaf conferences, and use them as tools of oppression to silence the voices and contributions of those who are more marginalized (mostly Black Muslims).”

She continued:

“Remember last year when ICNA asked participants in a speed dating event what skin color was preferred for their potential partner? The fact that they didn’t understand why that was problematic the first time is enough of an indicator.”

Another blogger on the site recounts attending the April 2017 ICNA convention in Baltimore — “one of the most historically black cities in our nation” — and discovering that not even a panel on “America’s Original Sins: Racism and Social Inequality” included a black, Latino, or female speaker.