Cornell Faculty Demands Removal Of “Colorblind” Policies While Chicago Will Only Accept Applicants For “Black Studies” In English

The Cornell Faculty Coalition has issued a  letter  with a long list of supporting faculty that calls for massive anti-racism measures including the elimination of “colorblind” policies in various areas.  It is a reversal of decades of struggle to guarantee colorblind policies, which are now being portrayed as themselves the means of racism. The University of Chicago English Department has announced that it will not even consider applicants who have any interest other than “Black studies.”

I previously wrote about denouncing purportedly “informed commentary” as racism in criticizing the means or demands of recent protests.

In addition to asserting that the Cornell campuses belong to the “Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫ’ (the Cayuga Nation), and . . . likely every Indigenous Nation in the state,” the professor attack all programs that are colorblind: “Yet every “colorblind” event, mechanism, and process at the university — from new faculty orientations to selection of endowed positions — perpetuates racial disparities and reinforces an unjust status quo.”

Yet, it is this demand that particularly stood out for many who have criticized the letter:

“LT8. Abolish colorblind recruitment policies and practices in partner/spousal hiring and replace them with intentionally anti-racist policies and practices. In particular: a) offer partner/spousal hires to all BIPOC faculty, including assistant professors; b) create a centralized funding pool for partner/spousal hires instead of taking lines from departments; c) make data on racial demographics of partner/spousal hires publicly available; d) provide housing assistance to faculty as is done at Cornell’s peer-institutions.” (underlying added)

The coverage has said that Cornell faculty is demanding the “publication of the race of faculty spouses.”  I do not see that in the list.  This refers to the race of “partner/spousal hires.”  I may have missed something but it would seem focus on spouses and partners added to the faculty.

The list itself however does raise serious questions over the abandonment of all colorblind policies, which took decades to secure to end racial discrimination. It also raises questions over the impact on practices designed to achieve high levels of scholarships from the proposed elimination of all standardized testing to required hiring quotas by race.

The University of Chicago is facing a similar controversy this week after its English Department announced that it will only take students focusing on black studies this year. It announced: “For the 2020-2021 graduate admissions cycle, the University of Chicago English Department is accepting only applicants interested in working in and with Black studies.”

(For full disclosure, I am a Chicago alum.) The policy bars this leading department to any students who have other academic interests and bars faculty from working with such students in their chosen areas of intellectual pursuit. It is in my view a well-intended but ill-conceived effort as social justice.  It is wrong to bar fellow academics and students from pursuing their areas of intellectual interest. There was no bar on students pursuing this focus but this would bar all others from pursuing other areas of focus.

The policy is Orwellian in denying diversity in concentrations of study in the name of achieving diversity.  There are students this year who have profound interest in pursuing other areas of study at one of the world’s most premier institutions.  They are not racist because they have a deep interest in subjects ranging from Asian literature to Greek classics.  It is also saying that no matter how brilliant a student may be in pursing something like South American or French writers, they will not be even considered for admission. UChicago is telling them that they must either focus on “Black studies” or go somewhere else. That is wrong for UChicago and wrong for academia as a whole.

I am a strong advocate for faculty governance but I fail to see how a department can categorically exclude every other intellectual focus or concentration in admissions.  I commend the faculty for its commitment to social justice and anti-racism efforts but this is not an appropriate means to those worthy ends.

 

89 thoughts on “Cornell Faculty Demands Removal Of “Colorblind” Policies While Chicago Will Only Accept Applicants For “Black Studies” In English”

  1. If one reads Charles Murrays book “Coming Apart” one sees that the elites that graduated from elitist schools like Cornell and the Ivy League schools marry and get jobs from other elitists. That creates two classes of citizens and creates a different type of discrimination than we are twisting ourseles into knots to avoid. Because of that I don’t buy the “Just don’t go” theory rather I think that as a nation we have to look closer at those elitists that run our education system, government etc. who are trying to force us into submission.

  2. How’s this for a “commitment to social justice”:

    Work with black community leaders to emphasize the importance of education, waiting to have kids until they are married, and most of all, the expulsion of gangs? Destroy the sub cultural idea that turning in gang members who murder innocent bystanders, including children, is “snitching.” Create a feeling of caring for the community and environment. Instead of tagging and shoplifting, help the elderly get their shopping done. Organize child care of women who are trying to complete high school, trade school, college, or job training, or working mothers. Help clean up the place. Take pride in the neighborhood and each other. Make sure kids have a safe place to play.

    There are many subcultures in the black community. It might be news to Joe Biden, but black Americans ARE diverse. The particular subculture of black poverty needs help, not laurels or a resistance to change.

    Imagine the immense changes in the prosperity of not only blacks, but the poor of all races, if such measures were taken.

    Finally, a war against poverty that could actually be won.

    1. Are you totally ignorant about the tons of programs and individuals currently working to accomplish those goals? Maybe you only watch the MSM and crime stats to find out what’s going on within “the particular subculture of black poverty”. Sad.

      1. Brad, apparently those programs aren’t working in the large democrat controlled cities and the shootings and killings in minority neighborhoods are incredibly high. What they really need along with families and all the other simple things mentioned all the time is a better education and Charter Schools is one answer. It was proven in NYC that charter schools with the same demograpics, in the same buildings as the public schools that the Charter Schools performed much better than the public schools where the failure to meet proficiency standards occured in unbeleiveably high numbers.

  3. The Left has become increasingly racist. How many racists do these policies create, both black and white? I don’t consider these good intentions. Deliberately engaging in racism against whites and Asians is a bad intention. Democrat policies based upon the belief that blacks, and apparently only blacks, are inferior and cannot take care of themselves, excel in school, get an ID or drivers license, or compete with any other race unless all those other races are deliberately oppressed, is one of the most adamantly racist screeds ever encountered. This is a throwback to the days of phrenology and genetic race theory. Yet slick politicians have large segments of the black community clamoring, even threatening, for the majority whites to take care of them. They need to get off the Democrat Plantation and #Blexit. Blacks who follow the statistically proven steps towards success – the conservative values of valuing education, studying hard, working hard, staying in school, and waiting to have kids until they get married, succeed. They move away from (black flight) high crime impoverished areas. The culture of failure is not black culture. It’s failure culture, regardless of whatever race to which its members belong. Whites follow the steps to failure just fine, too. Why do BLM, academics, and activists not hold up the culture of middle class and upper class successful blacks as “black culture”? Why do they select only the subculture that leads to poverty as representative of the entire race?

    A colorblind society was the goal of MLK, Jr. His desire that his children be judged by the content of their character is now listed as an aspect of white supremacy.

    We are watching the seeds of yet another self destructive Leftist tyranny unfold. These are the years before the Holodomor, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Holocaust, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Red Army.

    The Left targets a people or a class as the scapegoat of an entire nation or world’s ills. Targets them for destruction.

    America is the most free nation on planet Earth. No where in the world does a woman have more freedom to speak her mind without fear of punishment.

    Capitalism means YOU own the product of your mind and labor. You decide to accept a job for wages, or sell a good or service. Customers decide whether to buy it or hire you. That’s the freest human economic system possible.

    Socialism is a form of slavery, with government as master. Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. In order for it to take over industry, it has to seize it from private businesses, which means that individual rights must be destroyed. Under socialism, the government owns the product of your mind or labor. It is illegal for you to profit from your own ideas or work. The government dispenses what it decides you need, as far as a stipend, clothing, food, and even housing.

    Do not confuse a nanny state with socialism. A nanny state is a lush benefits system paid for with high taxes on a capitalist economy. At some point, those taxes prove too onerous, and the economy folds. Economic socialism requires the government to run industry.

    What has a socialist government ever produced? Capitalism produced the automobile, airplane, personal computer, telephone, cell phone, smart phone, organic food, and humane animal husbandry. All had its market.

    Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty, globally, than any other economic model.

    We are fools to throw this freedom and prosperity away.

    1. Karen: you are a Trump supporter and Fox News disciple. You admittedly have only a high school education, which shows, as none of the drivel you spout is well-informed, especially your endless diatribe against “the Left” and claims that Democrats are racist. Trump, your hero, is overtly racist, making all sorts of false, inflammatory claims that the suburbs will be overrun with low-income people who are “coming for you”, that there will be rioting in the streets if Biden is elected and he praises White Supremacists, so where do you get claiming that Democrats are scapegoating blacks for all of society’s ills? That would be your fat hero. Your claim that black leaders demand that blacks be taken care of by society is groundless slop without any basis in fact. What black leader has ever demanded these things? Name one. Demonstrating for an end to police brutality, for equal opportunity, and for an end to voter suppression is not socialism. Again, you are either a troll or just another delusional Trump Chump.

      1. Kamala Harris is passing as black and is saying all those things you claim she is not saying. BTW, I have more than a high school diploma, Natacha.

      2. Natacha:

        I hardly recognize you without “Russia” peppering your comments. I wonder, did you acknowledge you were wrong about Russia, or do you still cling to the fallacy?

        Identity politics are inherently racist. There is no other way about it. Under this paradigm, one’s worth, and that of their opinions, is judged based upon their race, gender, and sexual identity. This, by definition, is racist. Democrats have embraced identity politics, as well as racism against whites, misandry against men, misogyny against conservative women, and racism against conservative blacks.

        Many are in denial about this. I can do nothing if they are unwilling to reason through why identity politics is racist, or why slurs against conservative women and blacks is wrong.

        Who is the racist? Is it Donald Trump, who gave minority women access to the upper management echelons in his companies long before the glass ceiling shattered, or Joe Biden, who wrote, on record, opposing desegregating schools? In his own words, he said he did not want his children attending a school that was a “racial jungle.”

        Is it Trump, who said some illegal immigrants were good people, while others are criminals? Or is it Biden, who said that Obama should be fetching him coffee?

        Is it Trump, who was applauded by the NAACP, and adored by rap artists, prior to running as a Republican and the inevitable accusations he’s a fascist racist? Or is it Biden, who only recently said if you don’t vote for him, “you ain’t black?” Note, that he affected an ignorant accent. Apparently, that’s what he thinks of his black audience.

        Then there was Biden who claimed that unlike the black community, Latinos are very diverse.

        It appears that you are greatly struggling with denial. I have taken note of the absence of the Russia claims, that were so ubiquitous for years. At some point, you must at least subconsciously know that you’ve been wrong. Terribly wrong. That’s hard to deal with. Like Russia, the propaganda that Trump praised white supremacists has been so thoroughly debunked that even the mainstream media admitted it. Like Russia, one day you, too, will eventually fall away from repeating the lie.

        If trolling a stranger on the internet, slurring her with all sorts of false accusations, such as repeatedly claiming I never went to college, makes you able to forget your own failings, then it makes you appear extremely vulnerable. I do not enjoy watching you unravel in hysteria. It’s excruciatingly uncomfortable to see. But you’re determined to do it.

      3. I never said Democrats “are scapegoating blacks for all of society’s ills.” They are doing that to whites, men, the cis gendered, straight, the patriarchy, etc.

        What have Democrats done for the communities they serve? Vote for me, and I’ll solve all your problems. At what point do voters come to the realization that things are worse than ever under Democrats? That it’s all false promises. Heck, based on all these campaign promises, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the entire state of CA should be Nirvanna. Instead, there are regular gangland shootings, poverty, good jobs get chased out of cities and states leaving behind go-nowhere jobs, and society crumbles.

        What has Trump done for the black community?

        1. Lowest black unemployment ever recorded. It took a global pandemic that has bashed a wrecking ball through world economies to set us back. Do we want Democrats, infamous for chasing businesses out of their states, in charge, or the guy who broke employment records?
        2. Biden was responsible for crime bill that targeted black communities. Trump signed crime reform bills.
        3. Trump created “Opportunity Zones” in undeveloped, underserved communities to target private investment and grow jobs where they are needed most
        4. First Step Act – helps prisons focus on reducing recidivism and reformation programs.
        5. Gave a record $360 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, more than any other president before him. More than Obama gave.

        Democrats have conditioned their voters that Republicans are racist, Trump is racist, and that if you’re black, you have to vote Democrat. But Democrats have let blacks down in every city they control. They don’t lead blacks to prosperity.

        Trump was doing that.

        But it’s hard to compete with Biden’s promise to dangle money for votes, and that intense pressure on blacks to keep voting for the Democrat party that takes their vote for granted. Dems don’t think much of their black constituents. Out of all the races, Dem politicians believe blacks aren’t even capable of getting the ID that is required to be a fully functioning member of the United States. Dems believe blacks should not be held to the same standard of behavior on crime, rioting, and looting as any other race. Think it’s not true? Would Democrats call Republicans looting, rioting, and burning just expressing their feelings?

        I believe that Dems realized they had ignored the black vote for too long while they courted Latinos. In my opinion, this is why they regularly, falsely reported the nature of police interactions. They spread the false narrative that cops are out hunting blacks, in direct contradiction to DOJ facts, in order to create a false crisis for them to declare themselves savior. They falsely characterize the few police interactions that do lead to violence and death, ignoring the fact that the vast majority involved people resisting arrest or on drugs. They claim the justice system is not enough, to deal with accusations of police misconduct.

        After all, they had no platform before the pandemic. How in the world could they compete with the lowest black unemployment ever recorded? So they had to claim that the pandemic was Trump’s fault. They had to ignore rising numbers in France, Italy, the rest of Europe, Latin America, etc, and claim it is only America’s problem. They had to ignore the fact that the lack of initial testing was squarely the CDC’s fault, and that Trump throwing it open to private industry is what finally created reliable test assays. And they had to repeat the fallacy that the US is a racist country. Anything, as long as they can claim there is a crisis that only Democrats can solve.

        How have Democrats done solving the crisis they have promised to solve in the past? Did voting for Obama make climate change concerns obsolete? Did voting Democrat stop the poverty, crime, and homelessness defecating on sidewalks? No. It’s like voters don’t even expect them to keep a promise anymore, give them a pass, and keep rubber stamping them.

        Maybe 2020 will be the year the US votes for its own demise, voting in farther, extreme, self destructive Leftist policies. After all, it is a dystopian year. My state of CA already has moved to abolish civil rights protections so that it can discriminate against whites and men with impunity. Maybe we should stock pile, and create our dystopian chic fashion statements now, in preparation.

        https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/trump-not-biden-has-helped-make-black-lives-better/

  4. I am a strong advocate for faculty governance but I fail to see how a department can categorically exclude every other intellectual focus or concentration in admissions.

    It’s a corrupted department. Shut it down and fire them.

    I commend the faculty for its commitment to social justice and anti-racism efforts but this is not an appropriate means to those worthy ends.

    This is humbug. There is no such thing as ‘social justice’ and faculty are nothing if not self-centered poseurs. They have no altruistic motives.

    1. Humbug is right. Brainwashing even better. But con artists do get into power history shows. All it takes is millions of sheep to follow.

  5. 1. In re Chicago, they’re telling you that none of them have an authentic research program in which they’d like to school a student of the next generation.

    2. Just out of curiosity, what % of faculty members belong to the ‘Cornell Faculty Coalition’?

    In both circumstances, the response from the trustees should be about the same, as follows:

    A. This is a research university, but we don’t offer research degrees in every subject here taught. The graduate division of the Department of English is eliminated. Any faculty member who has not in the last six years undertaken any undergraduate teaching is terminated. All graduate students therein are discharged. We will offer refunds and indemnities to the suckers we’ve recruited who’ve yet to finish their dissertation.

    B. We notice a majority of the faculty in your department belong to the ‘Cornell Faculty Coalition’. Your department is eliminated, your subject will not longer be taught here, and you don’t work here anymore.

    The corruption of academe has two sources: (1) the social and cultural feedback loop which has made each cohort of faculty grosser than the previous cohort and (2) trustee nonfeasance. If the trustees took strong corrective action in the course of these controversies, the problem would go away. They.Just.Do.Not.Feel.Like.It.

  6. Having multiple degrees does not equal smart or common sense. The faculty, students, and those in administrative positions that advocate these policies have no life experience and lack the awareness to recognize the implicit dangers in establishing racial standards, which they are ostensibly are against.

  7. Fortunately we have choices. Don’t go to Cornell or U of C. Don’t pay for your children or grandchildren to go there.

  8. Johnathan Turley wrote, “It is a reversal of decades of struggle to guarantee colorblind policies, which are now being portrayed as themselves the means of racism.”

    Martin Luther King Jr. wanted our society and culture to be completely colorblind.

    Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…” This dream is actively being destroyed by irrational social justice warriors who are trying to judge everything based on the color of skin and ignore the content of character.

    I know it’s a bit defeatist but after the societal changes I’ve seen in the last twenty years I’ve really lost hope that our society will recover from all this irrational emotionalism within my lifetime. It’s infected so much of our society and permeated the thinking of so many people that I think it’s going to take a few generations to correct. I think far too many parents in the generation(s) between 50 and 75, and society as a whole, have failed follow up generations by not properly teaching their children how to instill logic, reason and respect in their children and we’re now just starting to reap the consequences of our own failures. Yes, I think this is just the beginning. Does anyone really think the behaviors we’re seeing are going to just fade away? Remember; the irrational people protesting, rioting and those openly rationalizing these behaviors are going to be or are already parents, what’s that got to say about the future of our society?

    I think we are on the cusp of a new reality dominated by emotionally driven irrational thinking adults and it’s going to be a long hard ride to come out with rationally thinking people on the other side.

    1. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted our society and culture to be completely colorblind.

      I would wager King’s views on that subject were inchoate. There is rhetoric and there is action. Note, aside from Bayard Rustin, I don’t think there was anyone in King’s circle who was a notable critic of racial preference schemes. Rustin wasn’t an influential figure in black politics after 1965.

    2. Steve, it is not defeat it is liberation. The liberation of the combined strength of the people and the wisdom of our ancestors comes. First we must witness the defeat of empty Enlightenment era bromides. Reason is good of course but it has become mere rationalism. This rationalism and its frequent companion individualism have been ever channeled for centuries by plutocratic forces. We may have benefited in the past but now we are on the wrong end of the stick.

      Is the idea of a neutral state devoid of any positive norms and ideals really viable?

      I think now it is not. It is dying before our eyes.

      The state must champion some set of positive social norms and ideals.
      Negative political “freedoms” are not enough

      the painful rebirth of the notion of positive law as normative ideal for the state begins

      here is one viable alternative.

      https://uscatholic.org/articles/201910/what-is-catholic-integralism/

      “What is Catholic integralism?
      One of the oldest ideas in Christianity has come to renewed prominence.
      CATHOLIC VOICESSTEVEN P. MILLIESPublished October 14, 2019
      I had an opportunity recently to sit in on a discussion of Catholic integralism among a number of scholars who have been at work promoting the movement. Catholic integralism has come to renewed prominence recently, although it is among the oldest ideas in Christianity. (Importantly, we should note—integralism is not as old as the gospels.)

      Catholic integralists believe that, “rendering God true worship is essential to [the] common good, and that political authority therefore has the duty of recognizing and promoting the true religion.” Contemporary integralists include Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist. (quoted here), Patrick J. Deneen (Notre Dame), Gladden Pappin (University of Dallas), and Adrian Vermeule (Harvard). The movement has been endorsed in the pages of First Things, Notre Dame’s Church Life Journal, and its online home is a website called The Josias.

      But for all that recent exposition and publication, Catholic integralism is little different in substance from the enthusiastic expressions of Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century. Eusebius styled Constantine, the first Christian emperor of Rome, as “invested…with a semblance of heavenly sovereignty…and fram[ing] his earthly government according to the pattern of the divine original, feeling strength in its conformity to the monarchy of God.”

      The aim of the Catholic integralist is the integration of religious authority and political power. And, if this seems like a strange idea in the 21st century, we should perhaps pause over that. Popes were crowned with triple tiaras to signify the unity of their heavenly and earthly authority as recently as Paul VI’s coronation in 1963, and Pope Francis remains a head of state today. Still less than a century ago, the popes made claims to the Papal States that challenged the legitimacy of the Italian national government. Like so much in the traditionalist imagination, these things have lingered into our time. It seems almost forgivable. A century is not very long in the lifetime of the church.

      ADVERTISEMENT

      Still, there is something else. In 2018, Patrick J. Deneen wrote Why Liberalism Failed to explain…well, why he thinks liberalism failed. I should say that Deneen offers a poor account of what he means by “liberalism” in the book, and probably he doesn’t mean what you think he means. Deneen’s complaints certainly encompass the political positions of people like Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden. Yet, if you are sensing that there are important differences between Warren and Biden, you’re beginning to see some of the problem.

      Deneen is untroubled by that. He means liberalism in a larger sense, one that encompasses the whole project of modern philosophy and politics. For Deneen, the critique of liberalism is an argument with “A political philosophy conceived some 500 years ago, and put into effect at the birth of the United States nearly 250 years later.” In other words, Deneen’s argument with what he calls “liberalism” really is an argument with the separation of church and state, our whole way of life, and everything most readers probably assume is true about the world—such as, that the political presuppositions of American politics are good and true…..”

    3. Steve, you write:

      “Remember; the irrational people protesting, rioting and those openly rationalizing these behaviors are going to be or are already parents, ..”

      Steve, it night help your argument to distinguish between protesting and rioting and those supporting these acts. Virtually everyone – and I hope you – supports protesting as an act of free speech guaranteed by our constitution while almost everyone opposes rioting as destructive law breaking. It seems there are very few of the latter and your alarmist argument falls flat on it’s face.

      1. I am not Steve, but I don’t support fake protests that quickly degenerate into riots. Nor do I support fake protests that are in most instances a screen for pre-planned criminal activity.

        Those are not protests those are racketeering activities of corrupt organizations. Those who plan these contrivances in their ongoing quest to extort donations should be imprisoned and their assets stripped by RICO prosecutions.

        The abuse of the First Amendment is not an old tactic it just has a new form.

    1. And what will remain will be the insane effluence of academia and the besotted results of decades of progressive’s “Great Society” detritus. Good luck with that.

  9. “The policy bars this leading department to any students who have other academic interests and bars faculty from working with such students in their chosen areas of intellectual pursuit. It is in my view a well-intended but ill-conceived effort as social justice. “

    I disagree with the professor. It is not well intended. It is based on stupidity or ill intentions similar to the intentions of those that foment riot by groups such as BLM in the form of killing policemen and other people but then turn the other cheek to announce they are against violence.

    Professor, your children and grandchildren will have to live in the mess we are creating while we hypothecate.

    1. Agree. Further, I fail to see how this promotes anti-racism. It rather promotes reverse-racism & intellectual confinement. Welcome to Winston Smith’s world where slavery is freedom!

      1. Thanks Lisa. This is something I continuously think about. One of the definitions of slavery is ” submission to a dominating influence”. When BLM tells normal folk eating at a restaurant to repeat Black Lives Matter and threatens them if they say any other lives matter they are requiring submiision to them and that is slavery. PC is a road to slavery. Democrats refuse to rid their heads of the idea that they should be slave masters.

    1. The first couple of minutes are slow. I almost clicked it off. But it’s good after that. Glad I watched it. Sargon and Jesse are right, of course.

  10. >> The list itself however does raise serious questions over the abandonment of all colorblind policies, which took decades to secure to end racial discrimination. <<

    Academia abandoned MLK's vision for a colorblind society decades ago. The college administrators and others in the so called "cultural elite" chose to embrace post-modernism, Critical Race Theory, and "social justice" as their new secular religion. They invented all kinds of garbage courses with "Studies" in the name to facilitate the indoctrination necessary to prevent a colorblind society from ever being possible: African-American Studies; Latino Studies; Chicano Studies; Feminist Studies; Queer Studies and so on.

    Those courses are taught by far left political activists. They are designed to amplify our differences, not to unite. They are designed to stoke resentment, grievance, and hatred against Western Civilization, traditional America, free enterprise, and white heterosexual Christian men.

    In addition, affirmative action and other forms of racial discrimination in admission preferences, hiring, etc. have been around even longer than the garbage "Studies" courses invented by far left anti-American academics.

    The idea of a colorblind society died with MLK. It was explicitly rejected by your colleagues in academia and elsewhere. You know this. Your statement that I excerpted above strikes me as disingenuous.

    1. Ordinary people lambasted for not being as oppressed as the most oppressed while the privileged class who do most of the oppressing push the agenda and millions of mugs fall for it. If you want social equality focus on the most privileged. Stop looking in the wrong direction as directed by your “superiors” and their mindless puppets.

  11. What in the name of God does this statement mean??? “It is in my view a well-intended but ill-conceived effort as social justice.”

    Huh??? Funneling people into some ridiculous Black Studies crap is well-intended??? Geeesh, This is the Liberal mindset that has clobbered the black community ever since The Great Society programs. And no, I don’t think any of this was well-intended. It was meant to create dependent black welfare class.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Is it possible to be in the black studies program and work on research demonstrating that systematic racism does not exist the US?

    1. “Is it possible to be in the black studies program and work on research demonstrating that systematic racism does not exist the US?”

      Sure — if you don’t mind a “D” on your papers.

  13. Firstly, colorblind was, like affirmative action, a good starting point. However, when colorblind equates with ignorance of reality one must revisit the issues. Racism, to be dealt with, must start with race related. One cannot be sensitive to race related issues and colorblind at the same time.

    Next, for an English department to restrict graduate students to perhaps less than five percent of the spectrum of literature by accepting only students interested in Black studies/authors, is beyond ludicrous. The university does more harm to society than good.

    Old Bill Shakespeare is spinning in his tomb.

    This reminds me of a Philosophy 100 course I took in 1969/70. The university imported a professor from Berkeley to shake things up. The radical professor appeared in logging shirt, work boots and jeans. His first lecture was to throw all the books: Aristotle’s Ethics, Plato, etc in the trash and then after spending a brief moment on Marcuse and Genet, organize a series of workshops focused on getting rid of inhibitions. We all got Gestalted by visiting professors. There were ‘encounter in the dark naked’ experiences. And everyone got an A. What is often times forgotten in our society is that high achievers: Phds, Lawyers, Politicians, and other people who have had razor sharp focus on narrow paths, are more often than not devoid of the ability to see the whole. This professor from Berkeley was indeed a high achiever, but a short several bricks when it came to putting the whole picture together. Somehow to him everyone had an upbringing where they were forced to focus on one thing only and never developed as a well rounded being. With high achievement comes ego and with ego comes a certain blindness. When you get a bunch of this sort in a faculty, viola, Chicago U, Black only.

      1. Have always been thinking for myself. That’s why I could never be a Trump duped supporter. There are the extreme lefties and the extreme righties. They are the extremes found in every position. I hang around the center, mostly left but some right. As for Trump, he is best placed in an institution where they use the jackets with the really long sleeves. Don’t forget to take your meds.

        1. You are a FOREIGNER so you can not vote. Much as we love our Canadian cousins, your anti Trump jibber jabber here Isaac is just another foreigner

          “MEDDLING IN OUR ELECTIONS!”

            1. AW CRAP. Now I have to stop yanking your chain.

              ahem. I celebrate your right to vote my fellow American Isaac. Feel free to continue spewing forth your drivel, I will no longer accuse you of meddling. You are part of the national family of our great nation!

        2. That’s why I could never be a Trump duped supporter.

          Since the Canadian electorate has on two occasions handed the prime minister’s chair to a man whose accomplishments in life begin and end with remaining employed as a drama teacher for seven years, you’re really not in a position to instruct anyone else.

          1. Actually the party chooses the leader and the people choose the party. The Prime Minister stands for election only in his or her riding. This way, if the party sees fit to oust their leader they may do so and replace him or her, while retaining control of the government. The ruling government is a result primarily of the intent of the voters of each riding, added up. If only the US had this option, Trump would have been bounced on a number of occasions. The GOP were almost as disgusted with him as the Dems. Then they all crawled up Trump’s leg, little by little.

            1. Actually the party chooses the leader

              Yes, and people cast ballots for Liberal Party candidates knowing full well who would land in the prime minister’s chair.

              You might do something more useful with your life than to require everyone be patient with you if they’re not going to ignore you entirely.

              1. People cast ballots for their preferred local representative, not the Prime Minister, whether they know who it will be or not. The appeal of the leader is a factor but more importantly if the local candidate is preferred and the result is that the favorite for Prime Minister does not make it, so be it. There is no equivalent in Canada for electing a king or a queen as in the US. If a Prime Minister is so because he or she both won their riding and were head of the dominant party and works out to be the wrong choice for PM, the party can replace him or her without losing power. Trump would never have survived a Parliamentary system. Case closed.

          2. If you read enough plays, drama teachers see the whole scope of humanity. Although, I will give you that Trudeau is a twit.

        3. In interest of courtesy, why must you refer to anyone who supports Trump as “duped?” It gives away your list of talking points.

        1. I stand corrected. Isaac is one of these dual national guys. An American AND a Canadian all 7 days of the week.

          I never quite figured out how that works but I welcome his opinions now which are just wrong and not meddling.

  14. Professor, how can you “commend” the UChicago faculty for having good “intentions” in light of this insane proposal? Please recall that the road to hell is paved with those “good intentions”. Full disclosure, I am a Cornell alumnus and think the faculty there is just as nuts as the faculty at Chicago. I don’t give either one any credit for “good intentions” when their obvious intent is to bring down our Constitution and form of government, drive wedges between the races and classes and push us down the slippery slope to Chinese-style authoritarianism.

    1. “their obvious intent is to bring down our Constitution and form of government, drive wedges between the races and classes and push us down the slippery slope to Chinese-style authoritarianism.”

      There was a Democratic Congressman named Larry McDonald who repeatedly said that exact same thing decades ago, and correctly laid the blame at the feet of the Rockefeller-Rothschild Trillionaire elitists.

      He was rewarded for that with KAL flight 007.

        1. He was not a kook, he was a true American. If you mean that he advocated the quack cure laetrile, yes, that was error but consider his conservative legacy. A Democrat, too! We need more Democrats like Larry McDonald.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald

          “In 1974, McDonald ran for Congress against incumbent John W. Davis in the Democratic primary as a conservative who was opposed to mandatory federal school integration programs. McDonald criticized Davis for being one of only two Georgia congressmen to vote in favor of school busing. He also attacked Davis for receiving thousands of dollars in political donations from out-of-state groups which he said favored mandatory federal programs that used busing to achieve school integration.[5]

          McDonald won the primary election in a surprise upset and was elected in November 1974 to the 94th United States Congress, serving Georgia’s 7th congressional district, which included most of Atlanta’s northwestern suburbs (including Marietta), where opposition to school busing was especially high. However, during the general election, J. Quincy Collins Jr., an Air Force prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, running as a Republican, nearly defeated him, despite the poor performance of Republicans nationally that year due to the aftereffects of the Watergate scandal. However, McDonald would never face another contest nearly that close.

          McDonald, who considered himself a traditional Democrat “cut from the cloth of Jefferson and Jackson”, was known for his conservative views, even by Southern Democratic standards of the time. In fact, one scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[6] named him the second most conservative member of either chamber of Congress between 1937 and 2002 (behind only Ron Paul).[7] Even though many of McDonald’s constituents had begun splitting their tickets and voting Republican at the federal level as early as the 1960s, the GOP was still well behind the Democrats at the local level, and conservative Democrats like McDonald continued to hold most state and local offices well into the 1990s.

          The American Conservative Union gave him a perfect score of 100 every year he was in the House of Representatives, except in 1978, when he scored a 95.[8] He also scored “perfect or near perfect ratings” on the congressional scorecards of the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Security Council.[9] McDonald was referred to by The New American as “the leading anti-Communist in Congress”.[9]

          McDonald admired Senator Joseph McCarthy[10] and was a member of the Joseph McCarthy Foundation. He took the communist threat seriously and considered it an international conspiracy. An admirer of Austrian economics and a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he was an advocate of tight monetary policy in the late 1970s to get the economy out of stagflation, and advocated returning to the gold standard.[11]

          McDonald called the welfare state a “disaster”[12] and favored phasing control of the Great Society programs over to the states to operate and run.[13] He also favored cuts to foreign aid, saying, “To me, foreign aid is an area that you not only can cut but you could take a chainsaw to in terms of reductions.”[13]

          McDonald co-sponsored a resolution “expressing the sense of the Congress that homosexual acts and the class of individuals who advocate such conduct shall never receive special consideration or a protected status under law”.[14]

          He advocated the use of the non-approved drug laetrile to treat patients in advanced stages of cancer[15] despite medical opinion that the promotion of laetrile to treat cancer was a canonical example of quackery.[16][17][18] McDonald also opposed the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,[19] saying the FBI had evidence that King “was associated with and being manipulated by communists and secret communist agents”.[20] A firearms enthusiast and game hunter, McDonald allegedly had “about 200” guns at his official district residence.[21]

          In 1979, with John Rees and Major General John K. Singlaub, McDonald founded the Western Goals Foundation. According to The Spokesman-Review, it was intended to “blunt subversion, terrorism, and communism” by filling the gap “created by the disbanding of the House Un-American Activities Committee and what [McDonald] considered to be the crippling of the FBI during the 1970s”. McDonald became the second president of the John Birch Society in 1983, succeeding Robert Welch.[20]

          McDonald rarely spoke on the House floor, preferring to insert material into the Congressional Record.[20] These insertions typically dealt with foreign policy issues relating to the Soviet Union and domestic issues centered on the growth of non-Soviet and Soviet sponsored leftist subversion. A number of McDonald’s insertions relating to the Socialist Workers Party were collected into a book, Trotskyism and Terror: The Strategy of Revolution, published in 1977.[22]

          During his time in Congress, McDonald introduced over 150 bills, including legislation to:

          Repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.
          Remove the limitation upon the amount of outside income a Social Security recipient may earn.
          Award honorary U.S. Citizenship to Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.[23]
          Invite Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to address a joint meeting of Congress.[24]
          Prohibit Federal funds from being used to finance the purchase of American agricultural commodities by any Communist country.
          Create a select committee in the House of Representatives to conduct an investigation of human rights abuses in Southeast Asia by Communist forces.
          Repeal the FCC regulations against editorializing and support of political candidates by noncommercial educational broadcasting stations.
          Create a House Committee on Internal Security.
          Impeach UN Ambassador Andrew Young.
          Limit eligibility for appointment and admission to any United States service academy to men.
          Direct the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the gold held by the United States annually.
          Increase the national speed limit to 65 miles per hour (105 km/h) from the then-prevailing national speed limit of 55 miles per hour (89 km/h).
          Abolish the Federal Election Commission.
          Get the U.S. out of the United Nations.
          Place statues of Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver in the Capitol.[25]”

          1. He was not a kook, he was a true American.

            He was President of the John Birch Society. Not only a kook, he was the Kook-in-Chief.

              1. Robert Welch referred to Dwight Eisenhower as ‘a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy’. Birch Society members were Robert Welch’s votaries. “A little misguided” is an anodyne way of putting.

            1. Was the former Dean of Notre Dame Law School Dan Manion, also a Democrat, and one of the founders of JBS, a kook?

              His son Dan Manion is a 7th circuit court of appeals judge. Not a BIrcher, but a Democrat appointed by Reagan. No kook he, either

              https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-07-24-8602230262-story.html

              Here’s a blast from the past, 1986. Guess who wouldn’t vote for Dan, because, he approved of Larry McDonald’s book?

              Joe Biden. You running with Joe on this one Absurd?

              from the link:

              “AN OBSCURE HOOSIER NO MORE
              Glen Elsasser, Chicago Tribune
              CHICAGO TRIBUNE

              Daniel Manion was an obscure Indiana lawyer when President Reagan nominated him last February to the federal appeals court in Chicago. Five months later, Manion had become a nationwide figure in the continuing dispute over the administration`s selection of federal judges.

              Manion had impeccable conservative credentials. As an Indiana state senator, he supported legislation that gave school boards the option of teaching ”creationism” and posting the 10 Commandments in public school classrooms.

              His father, the late Clarence E. Manion, was dean of the University of Notre Dame Law School and founder of the Manion Forum, which produced conservative radio and television commentaries. The elder Manion was also a founder of the John Birch Society.

              Before completing law school at Indiana University in 1973, Daniel Manion had appeared on his father`s programs. In one appearance on the Manion Forum, he spoke approvingly of a book highly critical of the Supreme Court by the late Rep. Larry McDonald (D., Ga.), an outspoken anticommunist and former John Birch Society official.

              ”I think you are a decent and honorable man,” Sen. Joseph Biden (D., Del.) said at the April 30 Judiciary Committee hearing, ”but I do not think I can vote for you because of your political views.”

              DEMOCRAT PARTY NEEDS MORE KOOKS LIKE LARRY MCDONALD IF INDEED HE WAS– and less kooks like Biden!

            1. It’s sad and bad for all of us that the former ideological diversity of the Democrat party has collapsed into the myopic condition of today where they are the mere steppinfetchits of international financial interests and apologist for rioters and looters of BLM & ANTIFA

                1. Maybe not the millions of good hearted patriotic Democrat rank and file, but the corrupt leadership of Pelosi and the runt and numerous other national leaders, yes, I do not lie nor do I merit your insult but you go ahead and say what you like it only exposes your impatience with civil dialogue. In this way you reflect the Democrat leadership which ever demonizes and belittles those who do not agree.

                  1. You are not engaging in civil dialogue, you’re lying through your teeth while following the guy who’s specialty – its the biggest applause lines in rallies and his daily obsession via tweets – is insulting others. Are you that f..king blind that you don’t get that?

                    1. I am not lying. One speech by Joe biden almost entirely alone on the subject, wherein he recently condemned rioting and looting, after over 100 days of chaos in Portland,. will not suffice as an adequate negation.

                      The Democrat party is fully complicit in the urban chaos. Or are you still maintaining that the cretin Diblasio is not a Democrat of stature? He is far worse than an apologist for riot and looting, he actively facilitates it by defunding the NYPD to over one billion dollars per his own brag recorded by NPR in the link I gave yesterday.

                      Perhaps you are lying to yourself if you maintain the belief that the Democratic party leadership of today is NOT complicit with rioting and looting. But you can reckon that on your own if you have the chance as you busily spit insults

                    2. Biden denounced rioting and violence back in the Floyd days and has ever since. You said the national Democrats were apologizing for it. That’s BS

                    3. “Biden denounced rioting and violence back in the Floyd days ”

                      Any denouncing of rioting Biden did was minuscule and didn’t do much to stop the violence promoted by his rhetoric. BTB is full of BS and most intelligent people recognize almost immediately after meeting him.

            2. Byrd held various and sundry wage positions prior to 1947, most notably a stint in a butcher shop. However, he had no fixed trade prior to getting involved in politics.

              The 2d incarnation of the Klan was a fad organization that went from a five-digit membership in 1919 to a seven-digit membership in 1923 to a five-digit membership in 1935. It formally dissolved in 1944. Organizing klaverns in West Virginia (a state where the black population was < 4% of the total and quite dispersed) in 1942 was just plain weird, akin to organizing War Bond rallies in 1963. Note, unlike the rest of the West Virginia congressional delegation (including his predecessor in the Senate and his side-kick), Byrd had an issue with blacks and consistently voted against their interests on salient legislation. That didn't change until about 1970.

              Byrd held public office from the age of 29 until his death at age 92. He tossed a mess of federal patronage at West Virginia in his later years. I'm not aware he had any hand in improving the quantum of human capital in West Virginia vis a vis the other states. Actually, the ratio of personal income per capita in West Virginia to the national mean improved pretty steadily from 1929 to 1980. It hit a plateau in 1980 and hasn't moved since. Not precisely co-incident in time with Byrd's advent as a man of influence in Congress…

              1. West Virginia is not well understood by people who have not spent some time there and discussed some of these things with humble people. I can’t dispute your impressive command of statistics but I have some small experience with coal mining families and residents of West Virginia and even local politics. I maintain my admiration for Senator Byrd and I suggest the Republicans quit nitpicking over his dubious background with that infamous membership group which only played a small role in his life.

Leave a Reply