Tuesday, October 04, 2022

Kamala Harris Remains True to Doctrine of Unequal Treatment

How is it that equity, a doctrine that tells government and the private sector to treat Americans differently because of their race, is becoming so pervasive in the Land of the Free?

One reason is the deliberate obfuscation of its meaning. Fortunately, every once in a while Kamala Harris comes along to remind us of what it truly is.

Displaying her inerrant tin ear and bad timing, the Veep chose this time the devastation that Hurricane Ian has caused to say that aid would be distributed according to race. Florida officials had to rush forward to deny that this was the case, lest already horrific conditions be made worse by confusion.

Harris left little room for misunderstanding, saying on Friday that, “It is our lowest-income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making. And so we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place.”

She added, “And if we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work.”

“This is false,” tweeted immediately the rapid response director for Gov. Ron DeSantis’s reelection campaign, Christina Pushaw, referring to the idea that race would play a role on how aid was handed out. “[Harris’] rhetoric is causing undue panic and must be clarified. FEMA Individual Assistance is already available to all Floridians impacted by Hurricane Ian, regardless of race or background.”

Florida’s senior senator, Rick Scott, also took to social media to clear the air. “This is wrong and dangerous. Aid is distributed based on need, period. FL is strong and ready to undertake the long journey of rebuilding. We are in this together, and won’t let politicians like @KamalaHarris use race to divide us as we work to recover our lives and communities. Even Elon Musk felt the need to call out the injustice included,” tweeted Scott.

As indeed, the founder of Tesla had indeed had his own comment: aid, he said, “should be according to greatest need, not race or anything else.”

The Biden administration has, however, made race-conscious benefits the hallmark of its term, even though it is unconstitutional. Last week was not by no means the first time that Harris drew a sharp distinction between equity and the American ideal of equality. “There is a big difference between equality and equity,” she wrote fewer than two years ago.

It is indeed a core belief of Critical Race Theory that, because racial disparities exist, aid and benefits should be race-based and not limited to means-tested criteria. The foundational writings of CRT are filled with the promotion of racial-conscious policies that fall under the umbrella label of “equity.”

“This belief in color-blindness and equal protection,” writes Kimberle Crenshaw in a 1988 essay, “…make no sense at all in a society in which identifiable groups have been treated differently historically and which the effects of this difference in treatment continued to the present.”

Neil Gotanda goes right to the heart of the CRT argument when he writes in 1991, “Color-blindness strikes down Jim Crow segregation but offers no vision for attacking less overt forms of racial subordination. The color-blind idea of the future society has been exhausted.”

One problem for CRT enthusiasts such as Harris is that American society has decidedly moved away from having government or private enterprises dole out benefits or rights based on race. Race-conscious policies are dismally unpopular, with racial preferences university admissions polling at best 26% versus 74% against and other similar policies largely rejected.

The other problem is that policies based on race are clearly immoral and violate the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.

And yet, businesses, schools and professional associations are falling all over themselves to compel their employees and members to conform to this ugly and unpopular views, by for example forcing them to sign Diversity, Equity and Inclusion statements, or face disciplinary measures, or worse.

Americans are fighting back. Last week, Jonathan Haidt, a liberal who is a professor at New York University, announced he would resign from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the only professional organization he belongs to, because it has instituted a requirement that everyone presenting research explain how their work advances “equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals.”

Haidt wrote that he found he found the demand problematic in an academic institution supposedly devoted to seeking truth. He quoted a well known passage from a book by Ibram Kendi, who earns a great deal of money from training Americans on equity activities: “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.”

Haidt wrote, “I explained why I thought the claim was incorrect from a social science perspective because there are obviously many other remedies. And I explained why I thought the claim was incorrect morally because it requires us to treat people as members of groups, not as individuals, and then to treat people well or badly based on their group membership. That’s exactly the opposite of what most of us who grew up in the late 20th century thought was a settled moral fact.”

It takes courage for Americans to buck the tide of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), but they shouldn’t be alone. Until the federal government is in different hands, the 50 states should be passing bills which make it clear that discrimination is illegal, as is compelling a belief on such discrimination, and prosecuting violators.

Until then, we can rely on Harris to remind us occasionally what exactly equity entails, and why it must be opposed.


To Understand a Memorial's Leftist Turn, Follow the Money

Claims are a video now being shown at James Madison’s Montpelier is on slavery’s lasting legacies and features protesters carrying “I can’t breathe,” “Stop police brutality,” and “Black Lives Matter” signs and others waving Confederate flags.

As detailed in a recent Heritage Foundation report, Montpelier today has numerous exhibits on race and slavery, yet none on James Madison’s accomplishments. Mr. Madison’s contributions are discussed only during the house tour and through a brief video in the visitors center.

This is not giving Mr. Madison his due. As the Father of the Constitution, author of the Bill of Rights and many of The Federalist Papers, Mr. Madison’s legacies include the oldest written constitution in history and the first nation committed to self-government. Still, the video on slavery’s lasting legacies is longer than the one on Mr. Madison’s ideas, America’s “moments of triumph” diminished with Mr. Madison himself.

Why? It helps to follow the money. Consider who Montpelier worked with—and who gave it funding.

First is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum calls “a left-wing hatchet group, using its accumulated prestige to go after legitimate organizations and individuals.” They are “a hugely rich institution with a formidable reputation lacking a raison d’etre or even a moral conscience.”

Montpelier invited SPLC associates to develop the video, serve on their board of directors, and help produce a set of standards for how slavery should be taught at historical sites. According to their recommendations, “it is not enough simply to discuss the humanity and contributions of the enslaved. It is imperative that these institutions also unpack and interrogate white privilege and supremacy and systemic racism.”

The nongovernmental organization that owns Montpelier, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, oversees 27 historic sites. The trust was established in 1949 by an act of Congress and received $4.2 million in government grants during the 2020 tax year to add to its $412 million in assets.

Though they enjoy tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3), in 2020, they issued the following statement: “Black Lives Matter. Black History Matters. Historic places of all types and periods should be places of truth-telling and inclusivity. Historic preservation must actively advance justice and equity for all people. Historic preservation organizations have an obligation to confront and address structural racism within our own institutions. …”

Their subsidiary, the African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund, is funded by corporations like Ford, Hewlett, Mellon, and the Open Society Foundations, George Soros’s group. Mr. Soros is a Democratic donor with immense influence. He recently poured tens of millions of dollars into local district attorney elections, in jurisdictions that are now experiencing a surge in violent crime.

Of these players, David Rubenstein, a billionaire “patriotic philanthropist” and co-founder and co-chairman of The Carlyle Group, seems the least political. According to his book, The American Story: Conversations With Master Historians,” he has given significant donations to numerous historical sites to enhance “interest in learning more about American history.” At Montpelier, his funding made possible the exhibit “The Mere Distinction of Colour.” A panel there recognizing Rubenstein’s contribution also features a quote from critical race theory practitioner Ta-Nehisi Coates, a journalist who referred to 9/11 responders as “menaces of nature” who were “not human” and portrayed Dr. Jordan Peterson as a Nazi.

While interested in American history, Mr. Rubenstein is contributing to its distortion. Mr. Rubenstein claims that when Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal,” he “really meant all white men who were Christian are equal if they have some money.” Men refer to mankind, and Jefferson was a staunch advocate for religious freedom.

Finally, Montpelier received funding from the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In 2019, Montpelier obtained a federal grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services for work that included a children’s exhibit to foster “conversations about fairness, justice, and race between children and their caregivers.”

In 2020, they were awarded funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia for major projects and for “curriculum development for anti-racist curriculum that would be available for use in public schools throughout Virginia.”

If conservatives refuse to engage and ignore spaces like Montpelier, we leave that void to be filled by others: in more places. The National Trust oversees 27 historical sites, and Rubenstein recently gave $10 million to the National Park Foundation for new exhibits at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial that will bring an “inclusive spirit” and “provide a broader, more multi-faceted understanding of President Jefferson’s impact.”

The project at Montpelier, aided by the above individuals and organizations, has been ambitious. They have restored Mr. Madison’s mansion to tear down our history.

The American story is not one based on slavery and oppression but a chronicle of striving toward freedom against the odds dictated by the history of humanity, of the contributions of generations that moved us toward a fuller realization of our principles. James Madison was an essential actor in that story. He deserves better at Montpelier.


Christian nurse sues controversial Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust for 'forcing racist ideology' on students in lecture entitled, 'whiteness - a problem of our time'

A Christian nurse, who is suing an NHS Trust for discrimination, has claimed that the healthcare service forces a 'racist ideology' onto its students. Amy Gallagher, 33, is taking legal action against the Portman Clinic in North London, part of The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust.

The nurse, who is in her final stages of a two-year course in forensic psychology at the trust, claims she has been discriminated against on the basis of race, religion and philosophical belief.

The mental health nurse took issue with the trust when she was allegedly forced to take part in a lecture titled 'whiteness - a problem of our time' in October 2020.

The online presentation then said, 'the problem of racism is a problem of whiteness' and encouraged attendees to confront 'the reality of whiteness'.

At a meeting with her course leader Ms Gallagher explained she did not consider herself racist and that she took a 'colour-blind' approach, meaning she did not judge people by their skin colour.

Ms Gallagher claims she was told that such a colour-blind approach is now 'outdated'.

Ms Gallagher then filed a formal complaint to the Tavistock Trust in January last year.

In March the legal case was escalated after an external speaker complained to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, claiming that Ms Gallagher had 'inflicted race-based harm' and as a result could not work with 'diverse populations', The Telegraph reports.

Ms Gallagher said she believes it will be the first legal case for 'lack of belief' that argues that a white Christian woman cannot believe in Critical Race Theory.

The theory says racism is institutional and rejects the colour-blind approach.

She told The Telegraph: 'They are forcing Critical Race Theory onto people - you're not allowed to disagree with it, or they will bully you for two years.

'I'm bringing this legal case to protect my career but it's also the in the courts.

'The NHS is forcing someone to adopt a racist ideology and it needs to be stopped.'

The nurse who will be represented by Andrew Storch Solicitors, filed court documents in the Central London County in March.

Shakespeare Martineau law firm, representing the trust, plans to file its defence this week.

Ms Gallagher, who has worked for seven years, enrolled on the Portman Clinic's D59F Forensic Psychodynamic Psychotherapy course in September 2020 to finish her clinical training. She had already completed the Tavistock's foundation psychotherapy course.

She said she initially enjoyed the two-year, part-time course, which will qualify her to set up her own private psychotherapy practice.

But became concerned when, in November, students were given a compulsory lecture on race and racism by forensic psychoanalyst Dr Anne Aiyegbusi.

Ms Gallagher claimed that the lecturer 'spoke negatively about Christianity while no other religions were mentioned'.

In August 2021, the nurse set up a Go Fund Me page titled '#StandUpToWoke Tavistock discrimination Lawsuit'.

On the site, she said the money would help fund the initial lawsuit, class action lawsuit and an application for a Judicial Review.

It has raised £27,518 in the last year.

The nurse previously said that the Trust had threatened to suspend her from her final year of the course to become a psychotherapist, which cost more than £20,000.

She previously told MailOnline in January: 'On the basis of my experience there, what they describe as anti-racism is racism. What they describe as tolerance is an intolerance of anyone who thinks differently to them.

'Left unchallenged, such institutional bullying will only be emboldened. 'I feel passionate about this. I hope my case will prove that teaching these discriminatory ideas – as though they are factual and true – within the NHS or within academia is wrong.'

A spokesman for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust said: 'We cannot comment on an ongoing legal case. 'As a trust, we have made a public commitment to work to become an anti-racist organisation.'

In July, the NHS Trust's controversial child transgender clinic was forced to shut down after a report found that it was 'not safe' for children.

The gender identity service will instead be replaced by regional centres at existing children's hospitals, which will provide more holistic care with 'strong links to mental health services'.


Ugly truth behind dating apps revealed in key statistic

I am very sad to hear this. I have been using advertisements to find partners for most of my adult life and have had excellent results. I have had 4 marriages and some good long-term relationships out of it. And all four marriages ended amicably. So the system can work well. And just this year I have acquired a new partner via a dating site who is both smart and good-looking -- despite the fact that we are both now in our 70s

I think it is all up to the people involved. Men who are selfish will be nasty however they are encountered. The key is to approach with caution. Meet somewhere safe initially and learn as much as you can of the other person's background as soon as you can. Google can be a help there but old-fasioned reputational enquiries also have a place.

Milieu is important too. I always insist that a lady I take an interest in should like classical music. So I am moving in a very civilized milieu there. There are however many milieus and moving in an unsafe one must have its problems. I think there of women who date men with criminal records. No matter how good-looking and manly the man may be, he is high risk. So choose your milieu carefully. Low educational achievement is another red flag. The jails are full of poorly educated men

Most people who have used dating apps have also experienced some level of sexual violence via the increasingly popular medium, a new survey has revealed.

The study by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) released on Monday found three in every four respondents had been subjected to sexual violence through dating apps in the past five years.

The most common form of behaviour reported was sexual harassment, with abusive and threatening language and unsolicited sexual images also commonly experienced by those seeking love online.

In a troubling sign, the study also found sexual violence via dating apps was experienced far more frequently by LGBTIQ+ men and women compared to heterosexual participants.

Problems didn’t end when users of dating apps met face-to-face, with one in three survey respondents saying they experienced in-person sexual violence such as sexual assault or coercion, reproductive and sexual health related abuse and in-person image-based sexual abuse.

AIC deputy director Rick Brown said steps needed to be taken by dating app developers to improve user experience and safety. “The high levels of online and in-person DAFSV in this report demonstrate the need to embed safety by design principles in their development processes,” he said.

Despite the exponential explosion in popularity of dating apps over the past 10 years, few studies have been done exploring technology-facilitated sexual violence.

“This study aims to address these gaps in knowledge and provide valuable information that can assist in the development of policies and practices to prevent this kind of violence from occurring,” Dr Brown said.

Last year, dating app Bumble launched an initiative to provide free online trauma support to users who had experienced sexual assault or relationship abuse.

Earlier, the company also introduced an AI driven feature, which automatically identifies and blurs lewd images, leaving it at the recipient’s discretion if they want to view them.

A spokesperson from Bumble said they were saddened by the latest findings and that the company was taking steps to combat the specific types of abuse mentioned in the report.

“We hold everyone on Bumble accountable for their actions,” the spokesperson said.

“Any instance of violence, harassment or abuse is unacceptable to us and we do not hesitate to permanently remove perpetrators from our platform.

“We take our block and report tool very seriously, and have made it easy for our members to report any behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe to us so that we can take action.”


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's time to start calling Critical Race Theory as what it truly is. It is RACISM, I would say it's purely racist but no, it's built out of racism, greed and envy. It's ONLY proper place in society is to be mocked for the stupidity it is.