RUTHFULLY YOURS

Perhaps you are confused by so much talk lately about racism being all around you, particularly talk about variants going by names like “systemic racism” or “structural racism.” You yourself don’t seem to see much behavior that you think is racist, at least not in any overt or observable way. Are you missing something?

The answer is, you are not looking nearly closely enough at the world of left-wing colleges and their professors and administrators. That is where the really, really bad racism is pervasive.

But wait a minute, you say. Isn’t academia the central headquarters of the high priests of the woke, “anti-racist” religion? Aren’t these professors and college presidents the very same people who presume to lecture the rest of us endlessly about how to be “anti-racist” and how to atone for our sins of “oppression” and “white supremacy”? What makes the Manhattan Contrarian think that these left-wing academics and their institutions may be the worst racists of all?

The main reason we can be sure that these left-wing academics are the worst racists is that they admit it. Indeed, they regularly fall all over themselves either to confess their own grievous racist sins, or to accuse their colleagues and institutions of such sins. Also, these institutions and their leaders and faculties are constantly accused of vile racism by the black, indigenous and people of color (“BIPOCs”) in their midst, and when so accused, they invariably offer no defense, abjectly concede the wrongdoing, and promise forms of penance that become ever more extreme with each new accusation. This is not the behavior of innocent people.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/25/end-the-systemic-racism-of-affirmative-action/

The U.S. Supreme Court has a real chance to deliver a grievous blow to a system that blights one of the nation’s leading institutions. Let’s hope it doesn’t blow it.

As the nation’s incipient racial reckoning following last May’s killing of George Floyd morphed into the summer’s riotous anarchy, the term “systemic racism” emerged as a fixture of our public discourse. What began as a somewhat arcane dialogue about purported police “militarization” and the “qualified immunity” legal doctrine soon took on a much more insidious tone. America, those like the New York Times‘ “1619 Project” fabulists told us, was rotten to its very core, blemished by the indelible taint of “systemic racism.”

In reality, as many courageously pointed out amid unprecedented “cancel culture” headwinds seeking to stifle all dissent, there is no such thing as “systemic racism” that afflicts all of America’s leading institutions. Despite the claim attaining mythological status, there is no factual basis to support it. There will, sadly, always be individual racists from all backgrounds and all walks of life, but American society in the 2020s simply does not have anything remotely resembling a legally enshrined regime under which its racial majority “systemically” oppresses its racial minorities. America in the year 2021 is not Germany in 1936; it is not South Africa in 1985; it is not—after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the Jim Crow South. This ought to be astoundingly obvious.

But while the notion of sprawling, multi-institutional “systemic racism” is a lie, there is at least one major American institution that does suffer from legally codified racism that tarnishes the institution’s integrity, sullies its legitimacy, and is so widespread that it might earnestly be dubbed “systemic.” I speak, of course, of affirmative action admission policies in American higher education.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/moral-vacuity-pro-palestinian-social-justice-richard-l-cravatts/

In August, Florida State University was one of several universities to have adopted the now widely accepted IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, signaling that university leaders and others outside of academia have begun to see the wisdom of having guidelines by which to identify and, hopefully, eliminate hate from their respective institutions. Not surprisingly, some progressive groups—including even Jewish ones—have condemned the IHRA definition, claiming that it will chill their speech and punish their ideology, even though the use of the definition does nothing of the sort. Israel-haters and anti-Semites can still continue to defame the Jewish state and single it out for opprobrium, condemnation, and slander but now they can be called out for their behavior.

Something called the Progressive Israel Network (comprised of Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror North America, Hashomer Hatzair World Movement, Jewish Labor Committee, J Street, New Israel Fund, Partners for Progressive Israel, and Reconstructing Judaism and T’ruah, left-leaning groups all) felt compelled to announce that, while, of course, they were all for defeating the world’s oldest hatred, they found the IHRA definition to be particularly unhelpful in their relentless quest to demonize Israel and critique the Jewish state. The IHRA definition, they announced ominously, is actually being weaponized to suppress progressive efforts to attack Israel, that the definition “is being misused and exploited to instead suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights.”

IfNotNow, another group whose mission seems to be to hector lawmakers into distancing themselves from Israel and embracing the Palestinian cause without question or conditions, even hosted an event in January to discuss “how the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been destroying the progressive movement” by “criminalizing the BDS movement and “squashing free speech” of progressives obsessed with signaling their loathing of Israel and their tireless efforts to fight for social justice for the ever-aggrieved Palestinians.

That has meant that students, and left-leaning faculty, as well, are urged to advocate for social and economic goals described in decidedly liberal intellectual formulations such as “social and economic justice,” “distributive justice,” and “the global interconnections of oppression,” this latter view ideal for conflating, at least in liberal imaginations, the shared complicity of America and Israel in their long-term oppression of the indigenous people of the fictive nation of Palestine and the alleged “occupation” of their land.