Hunter College Prof: White Families Foster White Supremacy



download-6The professor of sociology is under fire for a series of tweets that began after SUNY-Stony Brook Associate Professor of Sociology and Africana studies, Crystal Fleming, tweeted about coping with people who have “lost family and friends for challenging white racism.”  Daniel’ response included her observation that “Part of what I’ve learned is that the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy.”  She did not stop there. She explained that white supremacy is fostered by white people having children which in turn results in the “transfer of wealth” and the “outright worship of ‘the sanctity of the family’ which pervades pop culture.”In yet another screed, Daniels tweeted:

“I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy, but + you’re forming a white family + reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping + not part of the problem?”

It appears however that dumping your white spouse for a non-white spouse is equally problematic:

if you’re white + forming a family w/ multiracial children + not dealing w/ your own racism or systemic white supremacy, how’s that helping?

That would seem to leave the instructions that, if you really oppose white supremacy as a white person, you need to avoid any procreation. It is clear that Daniels is not a fan of families, railing in one tweet that the NBC hit drama “This Is Us” as showing “how f-cking sacred the family is.”

I fully support the protections of free speech and academic freedom for Professor Daniels.  While I strongly oppose her views (and frankly find her work simplistic and sensational), these are provocative theories that are part of a diverse discussion over the role of race in our society.  However, once again, it is not hard to imagine what would happen to an academic saying such things about the need to deter African-American or hispanic families – or the value of reducing minority procreation or families.

Ironically, I am more concerned about Daniels’ statements that she used progressive stacking in classes, which actively seek to minimize the participation of white male students based on their race and gender.  Daniels’ simply dismisses the obvious discrimination by rejecting its premise that we is favoring women above men: “That gets it the wrong way around. This is a way of dealing with discrimination that we as professors can introduce into the classroom. It’s a good strategy, if you can do it.”

Indeed, she expresses her avoidance of calling on white males as dealing with her own bias in favor of males:

“If I have a class of 40 students, since Hunter is predominantly young women, I may have four or five young men in class. There’s still implicit bias, where we value men’s voices more than women’s voices, or men’s voices are deeper and carry more in a class. So I’m always trying to overcome my own bias to pick on men in class more than the women.”

My chief concern, which I have expressed repeatedly over the years, is the double standard applied by universities over such statements and practices.  It is difficult to discern an objective standard in these cases while universities continue to engage in content-based speech regulation.  Hunter College has made no statement about Daniels’ use of progressive stacking or her comments about white people. In the meantime, various schools have held meetings and investigated the appearance of signs that say “It’s Ok To Be White” on some campuses this week.

As we have previously discussed (including the recent controversies involving an Oregon professor and a Drexel professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. The incident also raises what some faculty have complained is a double or at least uncertain standard. We have previously discussed controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor.  As a free speech advocate, I would like to see speech protected across the board for faculty and students alike.  That is why I support the courageous stand of the University of Chicago and a few other schools on free speech and academic freedom.

As for Daniels’ rather unhinged view of white families as little engines of white supremacy, I can only say that such a view is not just grossly unfair but decidedly uninformed.  I am not sure if this is part of her academic work in either the sociology or the Africana department, but it seems to substitute stereotypes and generalities for serious intellectual analysis.

What is disturbing is that Daniels rails against implied racism and insensitivity while showing little empathy or sensitivity herself.  For example, she is quoted in denouncing controversial conservative speakers like Milo Yiannpoulus on campuses and saying “That kind of viciousness is characteristic of the alt-right movement. It’s a kind of sadism where the more someone suffers the more they get off on it. It’s a really disturbing cultural moment that we’re living in.”

That “disturbing cultural moment” would seem to extend to Daniels’ own insulting and stigmatizing tweets.


151 thoughts on “Hunter College Prof: White Families Foster White Supremacy”

  1. If academics like this Hunter College person could focus on “advantages”, and just ignore race, they could be teaching success factors that are actionable by every young person. I know there are post-racial professors and many of them…the media is ignoring them.

  2. No Professor Turley, these are not “provocative theories that are part of a diverse discussion over the role of race in our society.”

    It’s just a load of plain old stupid, f–king bullsh-t.

    However, it does fit right it with my discovery a few days ago of the most egregious example of White Privilege out there! The most terrible example which we are all familiar with, which definitely proves that White Privilege exists in the United States! An example which I dare not talk about lest it be taken up by the Democrats and SJWs to forever drive a stake in the heart of the right wing!

    I sure hope nobody twists my arm on this forum and forces me to say what it is!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. It’s just a load of plain old stupid, f–king bullsh-t.

      You’ve called it. This stuff thrives in academe because of mentalities like Prof. Turley, which treat ‘peers’ with the utmost deference and everyone else like pairs of hands. Prof. Turley does not realize the extent to which he is part of the problem.

      1. I recently ordered a book online, and the wrong book was sent me to me. It was “Begin Here” by a guy named Jacques Barzun, who I had never heard of. (Because. Youth.) But I scanned thru it, and decided to keep it, and maybe you should look into him if you don’t already know about him. Some of his books are on education, and what is wrong with it. From his Obit in the NYTs:

        But his admirers were legion. In 1959, Daniel J. Boorstin wrote in The Times that Mr. Barzun’s book “The House of Intellect” was “the most important critique of American culture in many years.”

        In that book, Mr. Barzun argued that egalitarianism, which he celebrated in the political sphere, had no place in the university. He objected to educational “philanthropy,” which he defined as “the liberal doctrine of free and equal opportunity as applied to things of the mind.”

        By the 1960s, he wrote in “The American University,” the university was being mistakenly expected to “provide a home for the arts, satisfy divergent tastes in architecture and social mores, cure cancer, recast the penal code and train equally for the professions and for a life of cultural contentment.”

        He also objected to attempts to politicize the academy, whether in support of governmental policies or in opposition to them. In the 1968 student demonstrations at Columbia, for example, protesters took over administration buildings and held a dean hostage, objecting not only to the Vietnam War but also to the roles the university played in the defense establishment and in its own Upper Manhattan neighborhood. In his critique of the protests, Mr. Barzun accused the faculty of failing in its educational responsibilities and commitments to students. And the protesters, he wrote, were guilty of “student despotism.”

        In his 2000 book, “From Dawn to Decadence,” he argued that one of the great virtues of the West was its character as a “mongrel civilization”: over the course of its development, it was resiliently constructed out of dozens of national cultures.

        He traced periods of rise and fall in the Western saga, and contended that another fall was near — one that could cause “the liquidation of 500 years of civilization.” This time the decline would be caused not by scientism and absolutism, he maintained, but by an internal crisis in the civilization itself, which he believed had come to celebrate nihilism and rebellion.

        And yet, in the cycles of history, he believed another renewal would come.

        “It is only in the shadows,” he wrote, “when some fresh wave, truly original, truly creative, breaks upon the shore, that there will be a rediscovery of the West.”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. That sounds like a good book, sort of Marshal McCluhan, who was a law enforcement officer in the 1960s, and also a poet (who also para-translated “If You Go Away” aka Nes Me Quitte Pas, and sang it!), and a writer who thought the media had become the message. He was ahead of his time, and his son and him have just come out with a new book called The Tetrads, which I may buy.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

    2. Squeeky, is guessing allowed??? How’s about a game of Twenty Questions??? I’ll go first. Is the most egregious example of White privilege that you discovered a few days ago bigger than a bread box???

        1. Squeeky, the hints are intriguing–a common action without tangible existence that’s both bigger and not bigger than a bread box. Hmmm . . . Is it an exclusively White privilege??? Or can non-White people do it, too???

            1. Squeeky, that sounds more like an answer than a hint. It can’t be that easy, since I haven’t twisted your arm yet. Am I doing it now???

              1. Yes, OUCH!!!, you fiend!!! Uncle! Uncle!

                OK, here it is. When somebody like a bank or credit card company or anybody else, asks you what is your mother’s maiden name. Because isn’t that the very Ultimate Epitome of White Privilege to assume that your mother was married when she had you, or even married at all? Among our darker skinned brethren only about 1/4 of the chicks are married, and only about 1/4 of the current crop of black kids are born in wedlock.

                Now you just watch, Now that I have let the cat out of the bag, the Left will take up the Battle Cry, and try to eliminate that question, nay even that concept, from our lexicon. Or is it rubicon? Comicon? Oh, whatever.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Squeeky, I never would’ve guessed that one. I was way off track. Out of curiosity, don’t the banks et al pose the same question to African Americans? OMG, the federal government asks that question on almost every form you have to fill out. Maybe they could just drop the “maiden” part and just ask people what their mother’s father’s name was. That way they could keep the male privilege.

                  1. You just can’t let go of White Privilege, can you??? Asking someone their mother’s father’s name implies that their mother knows who the father is. Which, in the “Community” is not a given by any stretch. To make it even worse, you exhibited some more White Privilege by referring to the dude as a “father” thus implying that there is something wrong with the term, “baby daddy.” The proper, non-racially-demeaning way to phrase the question is “Who be yo momma’s baby daddy?”

                    You need to go to one of those White Privilege Workshops post haste.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Squeeky, the turkey has settled into your trap, but it appears the head has already been removed.

                    2. LOL! It really wasn’t a trap. Somebody asked me the other day what my mother’s maiden name was and LIGHT BULBS WENT OFF!

                      I will bet you if somebody on the Left reads this, asking that question will become the newest accused witch in the Salem Trials.

                      Hmmm. I wonder if I can snooker poor old enema-in-black into it???

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    3. Squeeky, I shouldn’t have called it a trap since that implies you coerced someone or something into a spot they wouldn’t be able to get out of. You didn’t. In this case, the turkey kept walking forward hitting a wall and didn’t have enough sense to walk around it.

                      You have a fantastic mind and that lightbulb moment leads to ideas much deeper than many recognize.

                      “Enema” is a problem for he has memorized the scenarios along with the answers even when the answers don’t make sense or he doesn’t understand them. He works from a sitting position in a ‘whinery’ and levels blame all around whether or not the blame makes sense.

                    4. Allan

                      I love Poor Old Enema’s usual reply which runs in the form of “Yes, I will consider the bad effects of high illegitimate birth rates on the black community as long as you will first admit that it is mass incarceration and institutionalized racism and White Privilege that causes all that!”, even though, the high illegitimate birth rates PRECEDED the mass incarcerations, and other ills.

                      He’s like an alcoholic or druggie who can’t quite break thru to the stage of “Oh my! It’s me taking drugs/booze that is causing all my problems!” because he is still busy blaming everybody else in the world for his own bad behavior. Like, “Well maybe I shouldn’t shoot up with heroin all the time, but what do you expect me to do when employers keep firing me and landlords keep evicting me over unpaid rent?”

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    5. Paul CS:

                      That is a nice term, but maybe we should opt for the default answer to who’s the daddy with “John Doe”??? You know like “John” the slang name for a hooker’s customer. I suspect that would be an appropriate answer a surprising amount of the time.

                      Tommy Sotomayor has pointed out that “de facto” incest happens all the time in the black community because nobody is really sure whose baby daddy is whose.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    6. Squeeky, your argument commits a fallacy of relevance known as the genetic fallacy.

                      The origin of the mother’s maiden name in the social customs of European peoples is irrelevant to the request from a bank or an insurance company for one’s mother’s maiden name for the purpose of distinguishing a customer or beneficiary from an imposter attempting fraudulently to steal the customer’s money or the beneficiary’s benefits.

                      Businesses require means for protecting the assets of their clients from theft and fraud. And the racial identity of that business’s client is also irrelevant to the need to protect that client’s assets.

                      Consequently, the request for one’s mother’s maiden name is not an instance of White privilege, since one’s mother’s last name at the time of one’s mother’s birth can just as readily protect the assets of African American clients as the assets of European American clients.

                    7. Allan said, “Squeeky, the turkey has settled into your trap, but it appears the head has already been removed.”

                      Allan also said to Squeeky, “You have a fantastic mind and that lightbulb moment leads to ideas much deeper than many recognize.”

                      Allan evidently concludes that Squeeky’s logical fallacy is light-bulb moment illuminating her fantastic mind. Perhaps Allan also regards a business’s request for his mother’s maiden name to be an instance of White privilege in the same genetically fallacious manner that Squeeky does.

                      Assuming that Allan and Squeeky are White [???], one wonders how many other White people besides Allan and Squeeky also fail to perceive the utility and fiduciary responsibility of businesses protecting their assets and the assets of their African American neighbors from theft and fraud by means of requesting one’s mother’s maiden name.

                      Do Allan and Squeeky want the rest of us to regard them as having been awarded the privilege of knowing their own mother’s maiden name?

                    8. “Allan evidently concludes that Squeeky’s logical fallacy is light-bulb moment illuminating her fantastic mind.“

                      No, Diane, I conclude that you act like a turkey aimlessly running around without its head. That is evident by your answers to both Squeeky and me. The recognition of the usefulness of one’s mother’s maiden name is evident to all of us because we recognize white privilege for what it is, garbage. Apparently you think it is real so you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to justify the use of the maiden name. A bit idiotic, but that is what a turkey without its head looks like.

                      …And yes, Squeeky does have a fantastic mind

                    9. To: Late for Supper: (“dinner” is sooo a White Privilege-y term!)

                      You miss the point. People ask for the mother’s maiden name because in a civilized Western society, that name is different from the child’s last name. Therefore, John Smith or Muffy Jones’s mother’s maiden name will be different from theirs, and more difficult for an identity thief to guess. John Smith’s ma may have been Edna Snuffleheimer before she got married, and Muffy’s mom might have been Ethylene Snodgrass. Sooo, like what ID thief is going to guess Snufflkeheimer or Snodgrass???

                      But in the black community, it is a different story altogether. There is a 75% chance that Dequarius Washington’s mother’s maiden name will be Washington, and that Towannadonna Daniels’ mums maiden name is going to be – – – wait. . . hold your breath. . .Daniels!

                      Because most black women don’t get married, even when knocked up. So technically, 75% of them don’t have maiden names. As Merriam Webster defines “maiden name”:

                      the surname of a woman before she marries

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    10. Allan said, “The recognition of the usefulness of one’s mother’s maiden name is evident to all of us because we recognize white privilege for what it is, garbage.”

                      Squeeky said, “People ask for the mother’s maiden name because in a civilized Western society, that name is different from the child’s last name.”

                      Squeeky also said, “But in the black community, it is a different story altogether.”

                      So basically Allan and Squeeky alike claim that White privilege is garbage because it’s simply more useful for one’s mother to have been named after her father rather than HER SLAVE OWNER.

                      Are Allan and Squeeky demented or depraved, or both demented and depraved???

                    11. Diane – it is clear you do not have a bank account. If you get, you would have to answer all of these questions that would include having to have your mother’s maiden name. Although, your mother’s maiden name is an option. You can often substitute that with the name of your first car. Or, the name of your first dog, or the name of your first love, most people go is something that they can remember.

                      I am going to go with Allan and Squeeky on this one and say that you are the demented one.

                    12. Today, the burden of white privilege so deeply professed by Diane caused her to have a meltdown of unreadable thoughts ending in Zits. Maybe the Zits represents the last letter of the alphabet, Z, but who knows. I’ve tried to make sense of what her most recent words were as she lashed out at multiple people, but apparently, her guilt is too great for her to carry. I think it is time for us to all chip in for a rubber room for Diane or at least one of those fine jackets that keep a person in the proper position. Make sure its color is white.

                    13. Squeeky, I’ve heard a few jokes about the moon, but I rarely remember any jokes. So go ahead on a tell me a joke about the moon.

                      BTW, it’s rather early in the morning for you, Squeeky. But fits the lunar theme well enough.

                    14. Squeeky, I get it. The moon is over my head. Very clever. Like one of those light-bulb moments.

                    15. Schulteacher said ,”Diane – it is clear you do not have a bank account. If you did, you would have to answer all of these questions that would include having to have your mother’s maiden name.”

                      L4D had previously said, “Businesses require means for protecting the assets of their clients from theft and fraud. And the racial identity of that business’s client is also irrelevant to the need to protect that client’s assets. Consequently, the request for one’s mother’s maiden name is not an instance of White privilege, since one’s mother’s last name at the time of one’s mother’s birth can just as readily protect the assets of African American clients as the assets of European American clients.”

                      Ergo, either Schulteacher is attempting to refute L4D by paraphrasing L4D, or Schulteacher didn’t read what Schulteacher is attempting to refute.

                      Either way it is but an echo of Allan’s attempted refutation by paraphrase.

                      L4D is wrong for saying “the request for one’s mother’s maiden name is not an instance of White privilege,” because “[t]he recognition of the usefulness of one’s mother’s maiden name is evident to all of us because we recognize white privilege for what it is, garbage.”

                      Meanwhile Squeeky said, “OK, here it is. When somebody like a bank or credit card company or anybody else, asks you what is your mother’s maiden name. Because isn’t that the very Ultimate Epitome of White Privilege to assume that your mother was married when she had you, or even married at all?”

                      To which Allan said of Squeeky, “You have a fantastic mind and that lightbulb moment leads to ideas much deeper than many recognize.”

                      Top which Schulteacher now says, “I am going to go with Allan and Squeeky on this one and say that you are the demented one.”

                      Now hear this: All three of your heads are zits. Go pop them already.

                    16. Diane – whoa, now you hurt me. Zits is really it. I will have to probably go lie down for a couple of hours and recover. I have not been this severely wounded in years.

                    17. L4D said the use of the mother’s maiden name is not a White privilege.
                      Allan said the use of the mother’s maiden name is not a White privilege.
                      Allan claims that he refuted L4D’s argument that the use of the mother’s maiden name is not a White privilege, because the use of the mother’s maiden name is not a White privilege.
                      Allan’s head is far too thick to be a zit. Instead it is a puck.
                      Yes. Allan is a Puckhead.

                    18. “Allan is a Puckhead”

                      That is your response? Is that the type of intellect your parenthood transmitted to your children? I hope not and doubt it. What you have done is suddenly adopted an idea of white power that has been used in a discriminatory fashion against a racial group. The more some of you guys talk the more racist you sound. You guys are moving backward and creating a society of tribes that are constantly at war.

  3. Let me clarify the problem.

    1. Certain components of academe have degenerate institutional cultures. That includes the President’s office, the Dean of Students and staff. the Provost and staff. the bulk of the arts and sciences faculty, the bulk of the performing and studio arts faculty, the bulk of the communications faculty, the bulk of the teacher-training faculty, the bulk of the social work faculty, and the bulk of the law faculty. It has infected other faculties as well.

    2. State legislatures do nothing to repair matters. Democrats run interference if anyone suggests it, as does the judiciary. As for the Republicans, it’s alternating bouts of cud chewing indifference, trivia, and failure theater all around.

    3. Since 1945, the concatenation of law and policy had entrusted the task of sorting the labor market to higher education even as the institutional cultures in higher education have grown increasing rancid and silly.

    4. Other than tut-tutting, what are you going to do about it? This is ongoing because it is status lowering among rank-and-file academics to actively oppose the scoundrels in academe. People who value academic life will advocate a Kenesaw-Mountain-Landis solution. Academic life is bad because rank and file academics acquiesce in it. Rank-and-file academics are properly punished along with everyone else. Once they get the idea there’s a penalty to be paid for fecklessness, they might actually do their f****g jobs and set some boundary conditions in their departments other than ‘don[t hire Republicans’.

    5. The Kenesaw-Mountain-Landis solution is obvious and simple: a vote of the trustees of Hunter College to dissolve the sociology department, cease offering degrees in sociology, and put all of the faculty out on the curb. If the trustees won’t do it, the New York State Legislature should. Of course they will do nothing. Of course, the New York State legislature will do nothing. The lower house is controlled by Democrats and the upper house is controlled by Republicans of whom the modal type is the skeezy careerist.

    6. Another thing we could do is put an end to the position higher education occupies in sorting the labor market.

    a. Repeal employment discrimination laws. Give judicial freebooters and their co-conspirators in the public interest bar no tools to second-guess private employers. None.

    b. Limit the applicability of employment-discrimination ordinances in public employment to post-termination reviews and grievance hearings. Even here, there would be a bar to clear to open proceedings.

    c. Strip the judiciary of any franchise to review civil service examinations.

    d. Require hiring and promotion in the civil service be according to the results of timely examinations undertaking for specific openings.

    e. Be sparing about requiring certain educational credentials as a pre-requisite for sitting for civil service and occupational licensing examinations.

    f. Require school teachers, administrators, and ancillary professionals be hired from guild pools composed of those who have passed written examinations. End any state requirement that aspirant teachers be drawn from the ranks of graduates of teacher-training programs.

    g. Restructure by force of law the curriculum at teachers’ colleges. Every teaching certificate should consist of a menu of methods courses (which would vary by certificate type), an internship, and a stipended apprenticeship. Admission to the program would be according to the results of a general baccalaureate examination supplemented with other examinations for certain certificates. Academic high school teachers, vocational high school teachers, art teachers, music teachers, and coaches would have to compile x # of credits in a discrete subject (not a full bore BA degree and certainly not an irrelevant BA; you want to teach English, lets see 12 course in English and world literature on your transcript). While we’re at it, eliminate ‘educational leadership’ programs. School administrators should be school teachers who’ve received supplementary degrees and certificates in administration and psychology in faculties devoted to public and philanthropic administration and to professional psychology. Leave the teachers’ college to train teachers.

    7. And take a meat axe to higher education itself.

    a. End all subsidies to private higher education. No grants, no loan guarantees. Nothing.

    b. Finance public higher education by a special income tax levied on the most affluent 40% of the population. Such a tax would fill a state fund to finance voucher redemptions. State colleges and universities would be prohibited from charging tuition, fees, or room-and-board. Enrolled students would turn over vouchers to them, they turn in the vouchers to the state funds, and that’s their revenue stream apart from donation and endowment income. NB state institutions would receive no discretionary appropriations from the state legislature under such a scheme. Public commitment to higher education would be restricted to a discrete share of the personal income passing through the state.

    c. End the baccalaureate degree. Have for academic subjects and the arts a series of 1, 2, 3, and 4 year degree programs wherein the course work is in that subject and that subject alone. For some subjects, there would be dissertation programs for those who’ve completed the 4th year. For vocational subjects, have an array of degree and certificate programs of varying length, with some requiring a preparatory certificate in arts-and-sciences and / or business, but nothing like a BA degree. The longest such certificate should not exceed two academic years (60 credits).

    d. Require specific curricular changes by state law.

    i. Limit global degree-granting authority to subjects nominated and given capsule descriptions in state law. No more ‘women’s studies’ degrees or ‘integrated arts degrees’. It’s in the statute, or you’ve got no degree program, no certificate program, no subdepartmental concentration program.

    ii. Require state institutions to apply to a supervisory commission of the state board of regents before setting up programs.

    iii. Dismantle social work as an independent profession, and close social work programs. Limit museum and library administration to certificate programs in discrete aspects of that trade.

    iv. Apply the foregoing to private institutions under the rubric of consumer protection.

    8. Modify institutional governance.

    a. Have quadrennial elections to boards of trustees for all institutions not granted a special exemption. The elections would be conducted by postal ballot and supervised by the state board of elections. The electorates would be those holding degrees or certificates from the institution in question who are also registered to vote in the state in question. This would not apply to community and technical colleges, whose boards would be elected by the general public co-incident with school board elections.

    b. Limit faculty governance to academic questions, aspects of faculty employment, and admissions standards, and have that the authority of faculty committees is no more and no less what trustees are willing to concede.(Make that the law).

    9. End tenure. Have faculty hired and retained on contracts whose duration would be between 1 and 12 semesters.

    10. Have admissions to graduate and professional programs (and the equivalent) be determined by impersonal indices and examinations. Grant faculty discretion only over the distribution of fellowships (if that).

    1. AAWG, can you elucidate your reference to “impersonal indices” in your 10th recommendation? Does this refer to name, race, and gender blind admissions policies?

      1. GRE scores, MCAT scores, GMAT scores, LSAT scores, scores on special baccalaureate examinations. Admission should properly be limited to those who had completed a lower degree in a cognate discipline or who had completed a special preparatory certificate.

        1. GRE subject tests are more discriminating than the general test for applicants in grad programs in the biological sciences (the general test is too easy). WRT your recommendation #10, so far so good. Having said that, I found that undergrad research, more specifically designing, executing, analyzing and presenting the results of an independent research project, was more indicative of aptitude and success in grad school labs. Assessment of such experience on a grad school application could be race/sex blind, but it would require involvement of a faculty review board. I believe that retention in most (if not all) grad school science programs is still predicate on passing a competency exam or series of exams sometime within the first 1-2 years of study.

    2. Very interesting. I am curious though about dismantling social work as an independent profession. I worked for a county facility and 3/4 of the positions required a degree in social work (many at the master level). I wasn’t very impressed with any of the positions, and at times felt more harm was done than good, but would still like to know your thoughts on how one would be trained for this type of work. Social work is a pervasive and growing field. I can honestly say in my 67 years I have never needed the assistance of a person with a women’s studies’ degree. Give me a plumber, electrician, etc. any old day.


        1. Build a child-protective inspectorate from the ranks of working sheriff’s deputies sent out for supplementary course work. Supplement them with nurses and junior grade clinical psychologists.

        2. Again, train counselors and junior grade therapists in schools of professional psychology.

        3. Open Schools of [non-Business] Administration. Have them offer specialized courses of study: general public administration, general philanthropy, educational institutions, social services, criminal justice administraiton, &c.

        4. Train liaison officers in hospitals and nursing homes on the job.

        5. Again, place residential child care in the hands of the issue of nursing schools, teachers’ colleges, schools of psychology, &c. Social workers are 5th wheels.

  4. I am Osage. I do not follow all this apCray about White privilege. On my Reservation they have none.

  5. These words and actions are the underpinning of Ethic Cleansing..why doesn’t the good Professor Daniels just come out an say it? Insert the word “JUDEN” where you see the word “WHITE” and you can easily figure out the end game.

  6. Of course if you avoid her classes like the plague she is, you must be a racist.

    She is the Margaret Sanger of our age; just against Whitey.

  7. I wonder how many college professors there are in the United States–all told. I also wonder how many lunatic left-wing fringe-job college professors Turley has brought to the attention of his blawg since . . . whenever he started doing so. Finally, I wonder what the ratio might be between the second sample population versus the first. Could it be as high as ten percent? More than ten percent? Is Turley the sole surviving college professor in the United States who is not a lunatic left-wing fringe-jobber? He must be under incredible stress and strain. Maybe Turley could use some slack. Hmmm . . .

  8. Professor Daniels is smart and bold and dangerous. But she knows that there’s a groundswell of support for her ideas at this time, and that she’s protected because of that. Whether this anti-white movement grows or not is a coin toss. She’s seen the demographic charts that see whites as a numerical minority in a few years; so why not get the jump on it?

    As a white male, I’m perfectly satisfied with the race-and-sex free meritocracy I’ve inherited, but, hey, the numbers tell the story. I see this as a long-haul conflict, like the Cold War. Perhaps they’ll take over a country, Soviet-style. The former “underclass” will get an education then for sure. It will take having to live in such a place for them to wake up to the fact that the future that Professor Daniels is promising them will make them more miserable than anything they ever felt under the “domination” of the white race.

    1. I await breathlessly when her own POC turn on her white privilege.

      I will have my popcorn ready.

  9. Who wants to hear about what could be done to improve the standard of living for most Americans and how our taxes are being used to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries – when we can be distracted by stories like the subject of this post – even if it’s being published by an Establishment Law professor?

    1. billmcwilliams, we’ve discussed those things in previous threads:
      How to improve your standard of living: 1. graduate from high school; 2. Get married before you have kids; 3. Wait until you are 20 before popping out a kid

      Interfering in the policies of foreign countries with our tax dollars: this happens irrespective of the occupant of the WH. What recommendations do you have to remedy this that can be accomplished by the single voter? My Congresscritter, a Democrat, cares nothing about my opinions on the matter, and he votes to support war and political interference at every opportunity. One of my Senators, also a warmonger, just deigned to venture outside her financial wheelhouse (such as it is) to offer her wisdom in the area of gun control and the NRA. I live in a highly-regulated state WRT gun control: to wit, the state assembly & senate just recently sent a bill to Gov. Baker which banned bump stocks and trigger cranks, with penalties for ownership of such ranging from probation to LIFE in PRISON. Bump stocks decrease one’s aiming accuracy, but let’s not let facts affect our emotional need to regulate.

    2. bill, it occurs to me I could have more fully addressed your criticism in my earlier response. JT’s covering this topic IS addressing how to help people’s standard of living, only not in an overt way.

      Dr. Daniels, and those of her ilk, directly promote through their teachings a mentality of victimology, which is insidious, and persuades people of color and other minority protected groups that conditions are set against them from birth, and they have absolutely no chance to improve their lot in life. Based on what I’ve seen, I believe this teaching has an ulterior motive, which is the resurgence of Communism in this country—if people cannot do for themselves, they readily accept, and enthusiastically vote for, increased social support from the state, with a concomitant erosion of natural and Constitutional rights, which then can be easily manipulated into full-blown Communism. Data WRT the financial success of Asians and other minorities in this country, as well as the educational dominance of women (white and black) in the US puts paid to the lie that individuals are powerless to get ahead, but such data are never presented in classes by these SJWs.

      Numerous academics and non-academic personalities on youtube and other social media outlets have lectured on the adverse effects of victimology, including but not limited to: Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Summers, Larry Elder, Dave Rubin, Thomas Sowell, Stefan Molyneux, Adam Corolla, Janice Fiamengo, Dennis Prager, Jonathan Haidt, Victor Davis Hanson, Stephen Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Carl Benjamin, and Tommy Sotomayor.

      Here is a representative video with Dr. Sowell:

      1. Great list, Cape Cod! I know a fair number of the names and enjoy their writing/podcasts, but not all. I will have to look them up. Thank you for sharing!

      2. Cape Cod, great video. Thanks. Unfortunately, those that need to listen to this video the most won’t and those that need it the least may.

        Those on the left or those interested in the welfare of our minority populations should listen to this video or read his books where he talks about the world he grew up in and the world that exists today.

        At 6 minutes Sowell answers the question as to why African Americans support the left. It’s a simple answer that applies to other groups and countries.

        1. Prairie Rose and Alan, thanks! Alan, WRT Sowell’s comments on leftie support….yeah, everybody wants free stuff……

  10. JT, I wondered if you were ever going to get around to the “It’s Okay to be White” events.

    Post-modernist loons suffering from white guilt need to be exposed for what they are every time they pop their idiotic heads up.

  11. This woman is the Margaret Sanger of the 21st Century. Does she really think that having kids is conducive to leaving a large estate? In addition to formal education, colleges and universities should require a certain amount of life experience before hiring someone for a teaching position. Otherwise, it is the naive leading the naive.

  12. “Associate Professor of Sociology and Africana studies……” Another made up job, in which socialist/Communist educators earn a big salary sucking at the public teat while working to destroy the people who pay the taxes for their salary.

  13. If you don’t think the radical Left is engaged in racial cleaning strategies agianst whites, you’re not paying attention. Axademic freedom is the cover. Fire her, fire her now.

    1. Mespo, how many White families have thus far been ethnically cleansed by radical-leftist paramilitary groups raiding in the middle of the night under the cover of academic freedom?

      The professor at issue appears to be a lunatic baying at the full moon without a stitch of clothing to cover her lunacy and should probably be fired for intellectual vacuity, instead.

      Besides, I’m still tired of agreeing with Turley. There’s no point to it. After all, and once again, it’s not hard to imagine that Turley is quite perfectly capable of agreeing with himself whenever he really buckles down and puts his imagination to it.

      1. Well, that final phase hasn’t been tried yet where corrupted authority is arrayed en masse against disfavored groups. We’re in a preliminary phase of normalizing the demonization of the dominant Culture and acceptance of violence as a valid method of change. We’ve already seen legitimization of cultural cleansing via attacks on bedrock icons like the Declaration of Independence, National Anthem, military statuary and the legacy of the founders. It’s all very Mao or South African. Take your pick. My advice: keep your powder dry.

        1. But Mespo, I can’t think of a single revolution that started with The Ivory Tower as its fifth column. Unless you count the French Revolution whilst straining credulity a far stretch. The cultural revolution in the PRC took place well after the communists came to power in China; and the denizens of the Chinese grove of Academe were well represented amongst the victims of that purge. Besides, I do believe they still have White people in South Africa. Maybe you could make a case for . . . [O! Confounded brain] . . . whatever country it was that Mobuto Seisei Seko terrorized. AAWG claims we’re starting to resemble Spain during its Civil War. I refuse to believe that a bunch of college professors could inspire their students to shed as much blood as to precipitate either a civil war or a revolution in the good old US of A.

          1. I can’t think of a single revolution that started with The Ivory Tower as its fifth column.

            Manuel Azana was a lapsed literary scholar.

            1. Well . . . If we go with your academic incubator theory, then we might as well add Pol Pot and the Paris Student Group of the Khmer Rouge to the list. Except that they were exiled to the mountains with the Khmer Loeu for about twenty years or so before they took over Cambodia. They weren’t exactly students anymore at that point.

              Besides, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge espoused an extremely xenophobic nationalism based on something they called primitive Marxism that sought to impose upon people an agrarian self-sufficiency of the type the Khmer Loeu had supposedly been practicing up in the mountains from time immemorial. (You can almost hear the banjo music playing in background on that thesis)

              It seems quite the historical taffy pull in comparison to professor what’shername . . . Daniels. As far as I can tell, there’s only one ethnic group that Daniels disfavors; namely, Whites. And even then she seems to be advocating the voluntary extinction of Whites via abstinence from procreation. If ever there were a rhetorical thrust devoid of conceptual coherence, surely voluntary extinction fits the bill.

              1. Unfortunately, Diane, you seem to have a thinking process similar to that of the Khmer Rouge, dictatorial in nature.

    2. I agree, I think it should not be an acceptable use of any public funds or institution to promote institutionalized racism or ethnic cleansing.

  14. Sociology is a soft science, meaning there isn’t a whole lot behind it. You can make it up as you go along. This woman is both racist and sexist and needs to be removed from the classroom. The university needs to take a firm stand on classroom stacking and make sure that it is enforced. And this woman needs an early sabbatical (if she has tenure) and not allowed back into the classroom without a monitor for at least two years. All her lectures are recorded and all her grading is done again by a 2nd professor (one who is not racist and sexist).

    1. Sociology is a soft science, meaning there isn’t a whole lot behind it. You can make it up as you go along.

      There’s plenty behind it if you have integrity and know what you’re doing. The trouble is that in a seminal period it acquired a critical mass of advocacy professors who have self-replicated and ruined the discipline. Individual projects and articles may be valid, but the discipline as a whole is an apologetical exercise and suffers as well from low in the classroom.

      A crisp way for institutional trustees to effect repairs would be to limit instruction and research in sociology to those faculty members who make use of quantitative methods and put the rest out on the curb.

      The situation is as bad in anthropology. An analogous reform in anthropology would be to limit instruction to physical and palaeo antropology and dispose of the rest (or limit the rest to faculty who’ve actually done fieldwork in the countryside of the 3d world).

      1. “There’s plenty behind it if you have integrity and know what you’re doing.”

        Absolutely. I think one of the problems is that it is a soft science that soft brains migrate to. People are impressed by their oral and written skills while having great difficulty evaluating the content. I wonder if a great improvement in the field would occur if those students came from places like the physics or chemistry department where specific metrics define who excels and who doesn’t.

        1. Allan – have you ever seen how crappy the hard science people write? It is enough to make you weep.

            1. Allan – in high school I had an English teacher who I used to terrorize whose husband was a coach at the school. He caught me on the street one day and threatened my life if I kept it up. It didn’t stop me. 🙂

                1. George – she was a horrible English teacher. As a sophomore, I knew more than she did so what I would do was to verbally walk her out on a limb and then cut it off, making her look bad. She would then throw me out of class. 🙂 However, she knew I won and she lost. 🙂 At the end of my junior year no English teacher would have me for senior English, but we got a foreign exchange teacher for Honors English Lit. He knew more than I did and I learned a lot. 🙂 We read a lot of great literature in a short space of time. He had a Ph.D. in World Lit which was worlds ahead of my former teachers. And he was a formidable adversary in a discussion, but not adverse to kicking me out of class when I won. 🙂

                  1. “You got to gamble on your story
                    You got no guts, you get no glory
                    And I’m bettin’ my money on an ace in the hole
                    Think I’m gettin’ out of control”

                    Glen Frey – 1973
                    “Out of Control”

                  2. “As a sophomore, I knew more than she did so what I would do was to verbally walk her out on a limb and then cut it off, making her look bad.” – PCS

                    Is this the same illusion that caused you to think that her husband (the coach) threatened to kill you when he ‘caught’ you on the street?

                    What illusions of grandeur you’ve carried forward from your sophomore year in high school!

                    It’s a shame that your further readings in high school have not effected your adult, yet juvenile, intellect; as so exposed in your post above.

                    1. WWAS – sadly, I did know more about English and Literature than she did. I used to sit in the back of the classroom with my lit book open and a novel I was reading hidden it. That is how bored I was. Got several novels read that year in that class. I would usually have two or three books going at a time depending on which classes I was taking. Plus, I usually had a couple of books from the public library I was working on at home. So, I would have anywhere from 3 to 5 books that I was reading at the same time. Even today, I try to read three at the same time, unless I binge a book. Right now I have two histories, one non-fiction that I am reading.

              1. You’re so brave, PCS.

                A teacher’s husband threatened your life — in high school — and you carried on.

                I’m so proud of you; for carrying such a fantastical burden for so long.

                1. WWAS – actually, thinking back on it, I should have reported him, but it was my word against his. Still, nothing scared me, I wasn’t a shrinking violet. Even if he had carried out his threat it would not have stopped me.

                  BTW, I got the sarcasm of your comment but chose to ignore it. I thought continuing the original story would be more instructive for you, in the long run. I am nothing but a teacher at heart.

                  1. PCS, did she say “illusions of grandeur?” Were you “illusionating” in high school? My daughters had a black “teacher” who once defended herseff by declaring that she “…have went to college.” We transferred our daughters the next semester. Education can be challenging in many respects. That’s why the Dept. of Education and teachers unions are so appropriate…NOT!

                    1. George – the math, science and history departments at my school were strong. We had a great music program and great sports program. It was just the English program that was weak. And I would have had to transfer to the Catholic school where my mother was teaching. One of us would not have survived that. 🙂

  15. It is truly a sad event when a few but increasing number of universities are becoming the face of racism in America.

    I hope eventually this will reverse itself, but it is not going to be at the behest of many liberals and democrats who instead act as enablers of these outrages.

    Of course, we cannot expect this professor to relinquish all her income and tenure and live at the poverty line, setting of course the example. Like other tyrants, she expects to pull in the fruits of everyone else’s suffering and toil.

  16. She has admitted to engaging in discrimination based on race and gender in the work place. In most places of employment, that would be grounds for termination.

    In addition, her opinions seem entirely lacking in logic, ethics, or critical thinking. That, alone, should place her job as a professor in jeopardy. Since she is adamantly opposed to white people procreating, as well as nuclear families in general, does that belief extend to violence? How far will an unstable person go when she truly believes she is “fighting the good fight”? Is her antipathy to nuclear families really a marked hatred of males?

    Parents, do not send your children, and your hard earned money, to a university where they will be openly discriminated against, and the act bragged about publicly.

    1. Autumn – watched that yesterday along with other Styx videos (he is addictive). His comments are spot on. Thanks for putting it up. I love this movement, mostly because it is driving everyone else crazy. 🙂

      1. Paul, I agree – even though he commonly refers to Bernie as a “socialist crackpot” =) Styx is very insightful and he gives me the Libertarian / Indie POV.

    2. Autumn posted, “It’s okay to be White.”

      Oh! Thank heavens. I was almost beginning to believe George.

    3. I was listening to Skip Gates being interviewed about Ken Burns’ “Jackie Robinson” documentary, and he says that the same “guilt” is felt by successful, affluent black Americans who over two generations have escaped poverty and crime-infested neighborhoods.

  17. The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.”

    The American population is being imported.

    In 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America.

    Who the —- thought this bit of genius up?

      1. The Kennedy’s had a winter home in Palm Beach. That great civil rights leader Ted Kennedy never protested the special green card blacks had to carry when working in Palm Beach. Funny how Liberals close to home can be the biggest racists.

        1. I think you’re referring to this

          “Some cities actually had laws delineating the African-American neighborhood and forbidding its residents from being outside its boundaries at night. A Miami Herald janitor had to carry a letter attesting to his employment that he could show to police if stopped for being in the “wrong” area after dark. ”

          Which refers to Palm Beach County but not necessarily Palm Beach.

          The house was owned by Joseph P. Kennedy. His son would have been in town seasonally and for short stints. I’m not sure why you’d expect Ted Kennedy, who in 1954 was a private citizen in-and-out of town while in school and in the Army, to be staging protests.

          1. The Kennedy’s owned that Palm Beach Mansion until at least the mid 90’s when the mother died and then perhaps afterward for some time. That would place Teddie not in his 20’s, but in his 60’s + when the home was sold, but Teddie and the rest of the family were well aware of the racist policy when Kennedy was President and after his assassination. They all met on Palm Beach Island intermittently and though they talked about civil rights said nothing about the home in Palm Beach. I think the policy extended near or into the 70’s.

            I was not referring to your article nor was I was referring to Palm Beach County.

            1. Allan, I have news for you. Blacks didn’t need a letter of reference from their employer in order to shlep around Palm Beach in 1995, so, no it was not ongoing when he was ‘in his 60s’.

              Ted Kennedy’s actual sins are quite voluminous. Blaming him because his father owned a house in a locus with insulting public policies is a pointless waste of attention.

              “Palm Beach” is a municipality within Palm Beach County. The article is specific that it was a municipal level policy and not omnipresent.

              1. Read my reply again. I didn’t say that the need for the green card lasted until his 60’s. I said the home wasn’t sold until that time. Your use of 1954 as the timeline was very misleading.

                What I did say was “I think the policy extended near or into the 70’s.” Ted was born in 1932. You can figure out his age at that time. I don’t blame him for his father’s “hometown”. I blame him for speaking out only when there was discrimination in someone else’s “hometown”.

                I think I told you I was talking about Palm Beach the city and what I was saying was not based on your article or the rest of Palm Beach County. “I was not referring to your article nor was I was referring to Palm Beach County.”

                His sins were voluminous and he used to prowl with a zipper that was probably down more than it was up.

    1. There is no death spiral. The total fertility rate has bounced around a set point of 1.9 for about 40 years. Some improved incentives for child-bearing should be enacted. The U.S. is not facing a social crisis like Germany or Japan.

      1. The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.” The hyphenate birthrate is doing just fine. The same is true of Europe and Australia. Japan does not count hyphenates and foreigners and is not being invaded into extinction. I have no clue what you are referencing other than an arbitrary and deleterious insinuation of foreigners into America, diluting Americans out of existence, AKA “fundamentally transforming” America. Americans are vanishing and the population of the landmass referred to as America is being imported. Interestingly, the parasites are so confident of their victory over the host, they declared today that it is time to abolish every last vestige of anything American, including the national anthem.

        “Res Ispa Loquitur”

        You might be interested in the depiction of Americans above, which may prove edifying for you.

        1. The total fertility rate for the white population and the aboriginal population is 1.8. That for the black population is 2.1. Go away.

          1. To reiterate the facts you seem to be deprived of:

            The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.”

            The hyphenate birthrate is doing just fine.

            The same is true of Europe and Australia.

            1. Repeating nonsense George does not make it something other than nonsense. Time for your thioridizine.

              1. DSS – George is correct, The hyphenates are increasing in numbers, but whites are not even duplicating their numbers. And CA should consider selling itself to Mexico, it has so much of its population.

                1. You’re not paraphrasing what he did say correctly and he is not correct.

                  1. DSS – I have been following this silly food fight most of the day and you could both be better spending your time doing something else, like writing the Great American Novel. I was paraphrasing what you said he said, so there. 😉 It is still Much Ado about Nothing. Now, if I am saying that, you know you are in trouble. 🙂

                  2. The problem DSS is in order to make a point you intentionally leave certain facts out.

                    1. No salient facts have been left out. The problem here is that George and Paul throw around the term ‘death spiral’ without knowing what it means or what sort of demographic metrics would indicate it.

                    2. DSS – well, as my Jesuit professors used to say, define the term and its limits.

              2. Wiki –

                Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the United States (Percentages) Between 1910 and 2010

                Race/Ethnic Group


                1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

                88.9% 89.7% 89.8% 89.8% 89.5% 88.6% 87.7% 83.1% 80.3% 75.1% 72.4%

              3. TIME

                By Josh Sanburn November 29, 2016

                “More white Americans are now dying than being born in a third of U.S. states, according to a study released Tuesday, which shows white deaths outpacing births in a record 17 states stretching from California to Maine.

                The study, by the University of New Hampshire, found natural decreases in the white population across 17 states in 2014, including Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which together comprise 38% of the U.S. population. That’s a big shift from 2004 when only four states had more white deaths than births. The declines, exacerbated by the Great Recession, are largely driven by an aging white population, fewer women of childbearing age, and lower fertility rates overall, according to researchers.”

              4. “…once the natural decrease in the white population begins, there is little prospect of it reversing.”


                “Will America Remain White?”

                More Non-Hispanic Whites Died Than Were Born in U.S. Last Year

                By Jason Le Miere On 6/22/17 at 10:53 AM

                “The overall trend toward a less white population has been some time in the making. In the most recent Census, taken in 2010, the non-Hispanic white population was found to have decreased as a percentage of the total U.S. population, to 65 percent from 70 percent. Studies have repeatedly suggested that once the natural decrease in the white population begins, there is little prospect of it reversing.”

              5. Joe Louis –

                “You can run (spin) but you can’t hide”

                You can reconfigure the permutations but you can’t hide the truth of “fundamental transformation” by the conquerors.

                On the Titanic, the band played on.

                I appreciate prevarication as much as the next the guy but I defer in the presence of a professional.

                Please carry on.

              6. “…births to White…mothers were the lowest in the last 25 years…”

                University of Nebraska Omaha 2015/11/24
                Charley Reed – University Communications

                “- (All) U.S. births peaked at 4.3 million in 2007 and have declined each year since, to 3.9 million in 2013.

                U.S. births to White non-Hispanic mothers were the lowest in the last 25 years at 2.1 million.”

              7. AroundandAroundWeGo (or whatever bizarre, childish moniker you’re hiding behind), let’s throw in the abortion factor and get this equation started.

                To wit,

                March 19, 2016
                Can America survive the coming population death spiral?
                By Dennis M. Howard

                “After 48 years of abortion on demand and over 50 years of America on the Pill, is the United States on the verge of an inevitable population death spiral similar to that currently facing Europe, China and the former Soviet Union?

                From the latest trends in births, it certainly seems that way. Since 2007, births have been declining by 1.1% a year while abortions have been dropping by 3% a year.

                The 1.9% difference between the two trends reflects the success of the pro-life movement in saving lives and discouraging abortion. That is certainly good news.

                The bad news, however, is that both trends reflect a decline in the number of young women in their child-bearing years. That’s a direct consequence of 59 million abortions since 1967 plus 50 years of America on the Pill.

                It’s called “the echo effect.” Babies aborted and births prevented 20 to 40 years ago are simply not around to give birth to a new generation. And that means a steady decline in new births that could last for years based on a detailed analysis of trends done by our researchers at Movement for a Better America.

                The 20-40 age group are currently in their peak child-bearing years, but 30.1 million of them – or 35.9% – were lost to abortion from 1975 to 1995. Now – thirty years later – that reduces births to that same generation by a stunning 1.4 million per year.

                Without those abortions a generation ago, births in 2014 would have been 5.4 million instead of the 3.985 million actually born – or 35.5% higher. Add in a million current abortions, and the difference is a shocking 60% higher.

                The problem with aggressive population control measures is that they echo down the centuries. They not only prevent a big chunk of one generation from being born, but they also eliminate future children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

                And that’s what triggers a population death spiral.

                The echo effect also gives prophetic meaning to the biblical reference about “visiting the sins of the father on the children, and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.” Exodus 34:7.

                Nothing fits that description more precisely than the sin of abortion. America is literally aborting itself out of existence.

                The imminent slide into population decline is confirmed by other data. For example, deaths among white, non-Hispanic Americans already exceed births. In other words, our non-Hispanic white population is already in a state of steady decline.

                Moreover, deaths will exceed births for the first time in our history for the country as a whole by 2025 – just 9 years away. The same research suggests that by 2050, births will drop by another 1.6 million a year from recent levels.

                Meanwhile, death rates are rising because of the aging Baby Boomers – 15% of whom don’t even make it to age 65. The leading edge of that group is now 71.

                By 2050, 1.66 Americans will die every year for every American who is born, which means a big jump in America’s rate of natural decrease. By then, America will be in a population free fall.

                There are only two things that can avert this. One is another Baby Boom and the other is even more immigration. Since 1970, our choice has been clear. We’ve offset 59 million abortions by admitting 61 million immigrants. In effect, we have been giving away the country one abortion at a time.

                Judging by the mood of the country, that has to end. If America is to grow, we have to start having babies again the way we did during the Baby Boom. In fact, that was the answer to the birth dearth that occurred from 1926 all through the Great Depression, when America’s birth rates were the lowest in our history.

                It is time to revise our concept of “ideal family size” from “a boy for you and a girl for me” to larger families with 3 and 4 children. There is no other way to offset today’s imminent population death spiral.

                Meanwhile, the Muslim world is still growing while America’s population is shrinking. That makes this a major, long term national security issue. Abortion can no longer be seen as just a little social issue that we can safely ignore.”


                1. George cited Dennis M. Howard as stating that, “[t]he problem with aggressive population control measures is that they echo down the centuries.”

                  George, in the first place, and FTR, AroundandAroundWeGo is staunchly pro-life, as in adamantly opposed to abortion.

                  In the second place, George, the decision in Roe v. Wade was not a “population control measure” of the type the communists in the PCR imposed upon their citizens.

                  In the third place, George, the best that Stalin could do was award medals to Russian women who bore ten children over the course of their child-bearing years.

                The Cable

                “Here’s Who Will Lament — and Celebrate — the Plummeting U.S. Birth Rate”

                There’s nothing like a good population crisis to stir up civilizational angst.

                By Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian | July 3, 2017, 4:09 PM

                The birth rate among women in the United States just hit a historic low, leading some demographers to worry that population decline may lie in our future.

                New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that in 2016, there were just 62 live births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That’s a one percent decrease from 2015, and the lowest rate on record. Blame the millennials, say demographers — they’re not having kids. Some commentators have worried this may become a “national emergency” if the rate were to drop below population replacement levels.

                What’s so bad about fewer babies? That depends on who you ask — and, often, their political leanings.

                A population that fails to replace itself means a growing elderly population sustained by a shrinking workforce, creating social anxiety, economic troubles, and a general sense of cultural malaise.

                William Frey, a population expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, suspects that a still-recovering U.S. economy is to blame for the dip, rather than more permanent factors. “Every year I say when the economy is getting better then we’ll start having more children,” Frey told the Washington Post, “and I’m still expecting that to happen.”


                1. George, as I’m sure you know, one way to increase the Total Fertility Rate for non-Hispanic Whites in the US would be to decrease the Human Development Index for non-Hispanic Whites in the US. Conversely, If the HDI for non-White Americans were increased, then the TFR for non-White Americans would decrease.

                  Thus, if you want to reverse the supposed “American birthrate in a death spiral,” George, you have to figure out how to make non-Hispanic White Americans live shorter, poorer, less-educated lives at the same time that you socially-engineer longer, wealthier, more highly-educated lives for non-White Americans.

                  That sort of social-engineering might entail some “role-reversal” for the respective populations, George.

                  1. Diane – the other thing would be to make abortion and the morning after pill illegal. Fertility rates among non-Hispanic Whites would implode.

                    1. Paul, natalist policies backfired in Italy and are still having long term disastrous consequences for Roumania.

                    2. Diane – you are going to need more than a blanket statement and bad spelling. 😉 Some detail would help.

                    3. Paul, it’s coin-toss time again; the following sentence comes from Wikipedia:

                      “In Italy, for example, natalist policies may have actually discouraged the Italian population from having more children. This “widespread resistance” was the result of the Italian government, at one point, taxing single persons and criminalizing abortion and even contraception.”

                      Conversely, there are other, more successful examples of natalist policies such as family and medical leave laws that encourage child-bearing by supporting it rather than taxing abstinence or outlawing abortion and contraception.

                    4. Diane – the USA criminalized abortion after WWII and we ended up with a baby boom. I don’t think they can prove their statement in Wikipedia, which is probably one of the 50% of articles that is wrong. or at least partially wrong.

              9. NPR

                Census Finds A More Diverse America, As Whites Lag Growt
                June 22, 20179:25 AM ET
                Bill Chappell

                America’s diversity remains on the rise, with all racial and ethnic minorities growing faster than whites from 2015 to 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau says in a new snapshot of the national population. The agency also found the U.S. median age has risen to nearly 38.

                Asian and mixed-race people are the two fastest-growing segments of the U.S. population, the U.S. Census Bureau says. Both groups grew by 3 percent from July 2015 to July 2016. In the same 12 months, the non-Hispanic white population grew by just 5,000 people.

                Non-Hispanic whites remain the only segment of the U.S. population where deaths outpace births, the agency reports.

                “While all other groups experienced natural increase (having more births than deaths) between 2015 and 2016,” the Census says, “the non-Hispanic white alone group experienced a natural decrease of 163,300 nationally.”


          2. I believe that 1.8 represents non-Hispanic whites which include more than just Caucasians and that number is propped up by white families born elsewhere.

            1. No, Allan, non-Hispanic whites are caucasian. And, no, it isn’t propped up by ‘white families born elsewhere’. The only part of the globe wherein you find ‘white families’ with fertility rates appreciably higher than they are in the United States would be in a selection of Arab countries. Arab countries form a small rivulet of the total immigration flow.

              1. Immigrant families have a higher fertility rate than families that were born as citizens.

                “1. Lower birth rates. Non-Hispanic whites are having fewer children relative to other groups. Preliminary 2012 data show that non-Hispanic whites have a total fertility rate of 1.76 children per woman, compared to 1.90 for non-Hispanic blacks, 2.19 for Hispanics, and 1.77 for Asians.[17]”

        1. One more Wikipedia coin-toss citation for Paul C Schulteacher–in widescreen.

          From the article Sub-Replacement Fertility:

          “One of the most notorious policies of forceful attempts to increase the TFR occurred in communist Romania between 1967 and 1990. Communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu adopted a very aggressive natalist policy that included outlawing abortion and contraception, routine pregnancy tests for women, taxes on childlessness, and legal discrimination against childless people. This period was depicted in movies and documentaries (such as 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Children of the Decree). These policies increased birth rates for a few years, but this was followed by a decline due to increased illegal abortion.[47][48] Ceaușescu’s policy resulted in over 9,000 women who died due to illegal abortions,[49] large numbers of children put into orphanages by parents who couldn’t cope with raising them, street children in the 1990s (when many orphanages were closed and the children ended on the streets), and overcrowding in homes and schools. In addition, Ceaușescu’s demographic policies are feared of having very serious effects in the future, because the generations born under Ceaușescu are large (especially the late 1960s and the 1970s), while those born in the 1990s and 2000s are very small. This is believed to cause a very serious demographic shock when the former generations retire, as there will be insufficient young people in the workforce to support the elderly.”

          FTR, I’m not–repeat NOT–pinning Ceausescu’s tale onto George’s donkey. I’m just answering Schulteacher’s question.

            1. Schulteacher said, “Diane – you are going to need more than a blanket statement and bad spelling. Some detail would help.”

              Schulteacher now asks, “Diane – why mention it at all since it really is a one-off?”

              FTR, I will not–repeat NOT–ask Paul if he’s been diagnosed with memory loss, since he’s just being wily in his Western way as usual.

              1. Diane – since you seem to have forgotten, I have not had any memory loss since my last doctor’s visit. I would worry about my own memory if I were you. 😉

  18. ““I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy, but + you’re forming a white family + reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping + not part of the problem?””

    Is she really proposing Ethnic cleansing through eugenics?

    1. bigfatmike, many years ago I read an article by an animal rights activist whose name I can’t remember but who advocated the voluntary extinction of the species homo sapiens sapiens for the sake of saving planet Earth. I’m guessing that variations on that theme may have been breeding like rabbits in certain warrens every full moon since and all the way down to this current professor advocating the voluntary extinction of the White race. It lends a twisted type of credence to the previous lunatic professor who claimed that White people were supposedly fomenting a White genocide myth–which they very well might now do.

        1. Either him or one of his colleagues. That group brings to the public some weird ideas.

        2. Autumn, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Had it been an article by Singer, I would’ve remembered that author’s name. Believe it or not, but the article at issue was written by someone even more provocative than Singer or PETA. And I seem to remember, now that you mentioned Singer, that the author claimed that Singer and PETA were not going far enough in their approach. Who ever the author may have been, he or she was either an irretrievable misanthrope or just another ironic imposter of a misanthrope, like Professor Daniels.

Comments are closed.