Why Planned "Anti-Racism" Training Is Actually Indoctrination In Being Racist
Being a decent human being by living by Martin Luther King's moving words to judge people not by the color of their skin but the content of their character is way out the window these days.
In fact, calls for that will get you deemed racist on Twitter, with "original sin" of being born white and white shaming all in vogue.
These trends are seeping into all sorts of places in society, including policy areas, and I think they are warping thinking and behavior in ugly ways -- making us hyper-conscious of race in ways that breed resentment and discrimination based on skin color. (Oh, and I mean, try to hire an uber-qualified white man if you work in government or in a business trying to show its "progressive" cred. Of course, this is racism same as keeping people out by skin color.)
Lawyer Hans Bader writes at Liberty Unyielding about why it's a bad thing that 150 law school deans ask ABA to mandate "anti-racism training":
As lawyers like Barack Obama have noted, law school is already a year too long, with lots of nonessential classes. As a result, law students often graduate with over $150,000 in student-loan debt. Yet law students may soon be required to take more unnecessary classes.150 law school deans have asked the American Bar Association to require that "every law school provide training and education around bias, cultural competence, and anti-racism." That includes the deans at Harvard, Yale, the University of Virginia, the University of Richmond, and the College of William & Mary.
...The deans, most of whom are left-leaning, don't define "bias" or "anti-racism." That is unfortunate, because "bias" is often in the eye of the beholder, to the point where left-wing law professors accuse people of bias or racism just because they disagree with them. So training law students in "bias" or "anti-racism" might amount to ideological indoctrination, and students might have to parrot left-wing ideology to show "anti-racism" or lack of "bias."
...Requiring students to espouse "anti-racism" could violate the First Amendment, and lead to discrimination. As Professor Blackman notes about 'anti-racism,' "this phrase doesn't mean you simply oppose racism." On campus, it means supporting racial discrimination against whites, to remedy past discrimination against blacks. As the guru of anti-racism, Ibram X. Kendi, wrote in his book, How To Be an Antiracist:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.That violates the Constitution, which regards discrimination as a "last resort," not the "only remedy." To the Supreme Court, the remedy for "present discrimination" is to compensate the victim or punish the discriminator, not to discriminate against whites in the future. Past discrimination is not supposed to be "remedied" by discrimination against whites, except in unusual circumstances (i.e., if the discrimination was recently committed by the government, and was widespread). Discrimination against whites is never the "only remedy" -- states can ban race-based affirmative action if they feel like it. (See Schuette v. BAMN (2014)).
...Kendi teaches that "racial disparities" are only due to "racism." That's wrong, and ignores reality. Asians typically make more money than whites. That's not due to racism. Hispanics live three years longer than whites, on average. That's not due to racism, either. Racial disparities exist everywhere, for reasons other than racism, as the black economist Thomas Sowell explains in his book Discrimination and Disparities.
But these days if you have views like mine, like that people should be taken as individuals and that we are responsible for our behavior alone, well, you're probably not going to pass those law school tests or do very well if you voice those views.
The unfair discrimination whites and men suffer today are the deliberate results of the enemy's "long march through our institutions." We can only beat that by making our own "long march" and taking them back.
In other words, if your workplace or school sends you to "anti-racism training," file a complaint saying it IS racism and creates a hostile work environment. And if you get a brushoff, take them to court. Especially now, while we have more good judges than you'll ever see during a Democratic administration.
jdgalt at August 10, 2020 5:38 AM
So, instead of implementing this policy at their law schools and showing the world how valuable it can be, they want the governing body to require everyone to implement the policy? Instead of persuading other deans that this is the right thing to do voluntarily, they want it to be mandated by a governing body?
They want their viewpoint to carry the force of law and enforced by the governing body. And these are the people responsible for teaching our new crop of lawyers? No wonder we have too many laws.
Conan the Grammarian at August 10, 2020 6:05 AM
Let me add: Instead of asking the other law school deans what they think, asking the ABA what its governing body thinks, or calling for a vote on the issue, these deans want their viewpoint mandated by the governing body without a debate or vote or any consideration of opposing views. And these are the people responsible for training the defenders of our democracy?
Conan the Grammarian at August 10, 2020 6:08 AM
Is the US not a signee of the Geneva Conventions? Because I am pretty sure collective punishment is illegal.
NicoleK at August 10, 2020 8:20 AM
For a century Jews could not get into the ivy league colleges so they went to state schools and still got a disproportionate share of Nobel prizes. I have friends who came here from Iran with nothing and barely speaking english. They are dentists and shop owners and carpenters and plumbers.
Thomas Sowell has a good way to decide if punishment is warranted: could you have stopped the crime or injustice? I certainly wasn't around during slavery. Blaming whites for the past is what is called blood libel. An example is Europe for hundreds of years blaming the jews for killing christ 2000 yrs ago. Look how that turned out.
cc at August 10, 2020 8:29 AM
Hmm turns out the Geneva conventions only apply during war, so I guess that the US can go at it with the collective punishment.
NicoleK at August 10, 2020 8:42 AM
"every law school provide training and education around bias, cultural competence, and anti-racism."
Excuse me, I have a question. By the time these children get to law school, haven't they've already gotten this sort of indoctrin...brain wash...I mean, education?
I R A Darth Aggie at August 10, 2020 11:17 AM
No wonder we have too many lawyers.
And these are the people responsible for training the ambulance chasers of our democracy?
Fixed them for you. You're welcome. I'm olde enough to remember when the line first, we kill all the lawyers was spoken by a villain.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 10, 2020 11:23 AM
Me, too. Or at least I'm old enough to remember when Shakespeare was taught in schools.
When I say we have too many lawyers, it's in relation to the amount of paying work we have available for them - too many ambulance chasers are running after a big payday to make up for the extra 3 years in college and the attendant debt.
I don't think too many lawyers these days got into the profession to defend people's rights, but to implement social justice; or in pursuit of a big paycheck. Those that didn't find the big paycheck chase ambulances; the rest go into politics.
Way too many of our politicians started out as lawyers, most of them prosecutors. It's on us, the voters, that we've allowed the DA's office to become a political stepping stone instead of a law enforcement office. Just ask Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Tom Udall, and a host of other former prosecutors still in office how nice a career stepping stone being a prosecutor was.
Conan the Grammarian at August 10, 2020 12:16 PM
The problem with being a lawyer these days, is that a good part of it, the grunt work so to speak has been automated by computers, and readily available statutes on the net.
The tricky stuff like tax law, patents and multinational corporations still pays big bucks, but the people doing this, are the brain surgeons of the lawyering world, and they have the specialized skills and experience to match.
The root of the problem, is that public service, in almost all of its manifestations pays too much compared to the private sector. Engineering seems to be a notable exception because the government deliberately underpays its engineers and over pays its lawyers, for the diversity bean counters.
Being a county commissioner should be *almost* a volunteer job,
I know the reasoning was that giving these people a decent salary would help prevent graft through influence pedaling. But it really doesn’t work that way, does it? The crooked ones just double dip.
Isab at August 10, 2020 12:55 PM
Leave a comment