St. Joseph’s University Professor Suspended For Criticism Of Reparations On Social Media

We have been discussing disciplinary measures taken against faculty who engage in the public debate over social and political issues ranging from the Black Lives Matter movement to police misconduct to systemic racism in society. Now Professor Gregory Manco, a math professor at St. Joseph’s University, has been suspended after he made arguments opposing reparations on Twitter. Few media outlets beyond conservative sites like The College Fix are covering the controversy but it raises serious questions over the curtailment of free speech for both faculty and students in expressing opposing views in our ongoing national debate over social, economic, political, and legal reforms.

We have been discussing efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views of the basis or demands of recent protests including an effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as a leading linguistics professor at Harvard and a literature professor at Penn. The silence of many faculty in the face of crackdowns on free speech has been chilling in the last few years.A written notice from the school’s human resources department to Manco called the tweets “biased or discriminatory,” and he has since been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.

In this case, Manco was writing on a personal and an anonymous account as “South Jersey Giants.” Yet, he was still targeted because he expressed his opposition to reparations as well as racial bias training. A professor should be able to voice such views not just anonymously but directly as part of a national debate on such issues.

As always, my concern is not with the merits of such arguments, or even the manner in which they are expressed. Rather, professors have a right to express themselves even when they espouse offensive or disgraceful positions. As we have previously discussed, one professor called for more Trump supporters to be killed. Another called for strangling police. Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis, who writes for the site Lawyers, Guns, and Money, said he saw “nothing wrong” with the killing of a conservative protester — a view defended by other academics.  While sites like Lawyers, Guns, and Money feature writers law professor Paul Campus who call for the firing of those with opposing views (including myself), they continue to feature a writer who has justified actually killing those with opposing views. I have opposed calls that extremist figures like Loomis should be terminated at their universities for speaking publicly on such issues. However, there remains a sharp contrast in how such controversial statements are treated by universities depending on their content or conclusions.

We have previously discussed the concern that academics are allowed (correctly) to voice extreme views on social justice and police misconduct, but that there is less tolerance for the voicing of opposing views on such subjects.  There were analogous controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.  There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives.  Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.

Universities are not alone in such one-sided actions. This week, I testified in Congress on efforts to bar individuals from social media or even pressure companies to take networks like Fox News off the air.

In this case, Manco compared slavery reparations to the great-great-grandchild of a murder victim asking the perpetrator’s great-great-grandchild for compensation.  It is easy to see why many would be offended by how he expressed his views, including the statement “Now get this racist reparation bullshit out of your head for good.” However, other academics espousing anti-police or anti-Republican views have used similar language without triggering a campaign for termination.

In this case, students demanded action and the university swiftly complied with an investigation and suspension of Manco. Director of Public Relations and Media Gail Benner told The College Fix that  “We thank our students for bringing to our attention a possible violation of our values. The University launched an investigation into a report of bias. The faculty member will not be in the classroom or in a coaching role while the investigation is conducted.”

The suspension raises that same concern that I had with the recent handling of the case of Law Professor Jason Kilborn who was suspended for using a censored version of the “n-word” on an exam. The suspension and public investigation of Kilborn triggered serious academic freedom questions. The matter could have been investigated further by the university after an initial determination not to change his status. Instead, he was suspended — a decision that clearly will create a chilling effect on other academics at the school.

In this case, there is no connection of Manco’s classes and he not only wrote without reference to his position but did not even write under his own name. Chief Human Resource Officer Zenobia Hargust wrote “The University received several complaints regarding online postings that were allegedly made by you and are of a biased or discriminatory nature.” Those postings were private, off-campus remarks. Yet, he was suspended.  Even if an investigation was warranted, it could have left his status unchanged, particularly in light of a presumption that he is entitled to speak on social and political issues outside of the school.

Indeed, the faculty handbook affirms that right, as Manco himself pointed out.



That statement is not the creation of St. Joseph’s University. It is the 1940 statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors:

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Manco however was suspended despite the controversy focusing on discussions outside of the university on social media on an anonymous account. Manco told the College Fix “I have no idea how it will turn out. A fair investigation clears me and I rejoin my students. I can only hope it will be fair. I love my university.”

The silence of other faculty at the university (and faculty at other universities) continues to be both conspicuous and alarming. There is a palpable fear that speaking out in defense of the free speech rights of professors like Professor Manco will only make you the next target of criticism or some cancelling campaign. The result is bone-chilling silence from most faculty when fellow professors are targeted for expressing conservative or opposing views on these sensitive subjects. That silence is as damaging as the campaigns targeting faculty members. Historically, censorship and speech controls are used not just to silence a few but to deter many others in the expression of opposing views. Manco will presumably be cleared, but his suspension sends a clear message to others that expressing themselves in public (even anonymously) could result in public investigation and humiliation.


267 thoughts on “St. Joseph’s University Professor Suspended For Criticism Of Reparations On Social Media”

  1. Reparations processed in blood and treasure, and “our Posterity” that stands up to diversity and other classes of bigotry.

    1. It’s amazing who left learning twinkle-toes can’t understand the whole world doesn’t genuflect in lockstep whenever a some bozo says achtung!
      One sould wonder how many students truly understand WW2.?

  2. Reparations would be entirely consistent with our accelerating downward trajectory. Among other things, imagine the organizing bureaucracy! And lets not forget the Sioux, the Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Apache, Arapahoe, Mohawk, Iroquois, Paiute, Crow, Ossage, Nez Perce and so many others…What the Native Americans don’t have a vocal lobby, they don’t draw enough attention to their history, so they don’t get reparations???

  3. If we could go back in time to the frightened Union soldiers preparing to go to war to face death or maiming in order to force Democrats to abandon slavery and stay in the Union, what would their reaction be to today’s reality? White people are openly considered inferior, and racist no matter what their actual beliefs are. After spending billions on welfare and other programs designed to help black Americans, they still want reparations. It’s never enough. No money is ever enough. It doesn’t matter how the Irish, women, Italians, Asians, indentured servants, all women in history, or anyone else was treated. Only blacks are due redress. Would they still go out there and fight, knowing that future generations would be reviled and financially punished anyway? If someone died to save your ancestor, you should look with fondness upon their descendants.

    Black tribes conquered their enemies and sold prisoners into slavery to European slave traders. Slavery still exists today in Africa. But it is white Americans who will perpetually bear the guilt of the slave trade. Do they ever wish that African tribes didn’t practice slavery and warring with their neighbors over land?

    The world was a dangerous place to be 200 years ago. No one one the planet had modern values, although a few people came close.

    Do you want to financially punish innocent people because our nation did not evolve faster? It’s like being furious that we didn’t discover fire sooner. Should descendants of victims of the Holocaust and the Holodomor pay up? What about descendants of the Irish, who had an average life expectancy of 19 at a time when the average slave lived to age 36? Or Asians who had their property seized during WWII without recompense. What do they owe you? What do the descendants of Union soldiers who fought and died to free your ancestors owe you? Was their life blood or right arm not enough? Was their families’ destitution after they died on the battlefield not enough? Was burning the cities and salting fields on the March to the Sea not enough revenge?

    What about the descendants of Africans who sold their enemies into slavery, owned slaves until last Thursday, and then immigrated here Friday. Are they owed?

    We are not responsible for the sins of our great great great great great Grandfathers.

    At what point do modern black Americans, born into the safety and freedom of the United States, begin to think it is their responsibility to stay in school, stay out of trouble, wait to have children until they are married, and work hard? When does the responsibility to thrive fall in any fraction upon their own shoulders?

    Why do Democrats keep pushing the narrative that black people require others to take care of them because they can’t possibly succeed? It’s racist baloney. There are black role models out there who are highly successful and educated. They didn’t “act white”; they did what was statistically likely to lead to success.

    I know a Thai woman who worked herself about transparent to provide a better life for her kids. Their responsibility was to get As in school, go to college, and have a good career so that future generations would flourish. She came here with nothing. Literally nothing. She had less than the average black poor person in a country that’s supposed to be completely racist. And now she’s got kids graduated from college and she owns a business.

    Forget calling successful behaviors “acting white.” Nonsense. Asian family culture famously tends to follow these behaviors on average more often than whites. Call it “acting Asian” if you insist on making success a racial aspect. But do the same.

    1. Not all Asian cultures are so assiduous. It’s a minor point, but, usually these are people who hail from rice-agricultural farming regions. See the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

      So for example, if you get Chinese people from farther north where all the other grains are farmed rather than rice, which is a more seasonal form of agriculture like ours, they tend to be less “exemplary” at their educational attainments once here in America than the southern rice farming area Chinese.

      Moreover, because the PRC is dominated by the north of that country politically, it’s the southerners who tend to migrate here more in the first place. This is why you can walk into a Chinese restaurant and speak Mandarin and they will look at you funny. Yes, of course, your pronunciation is wrong, but if they were childhood migrants from China, their Mandarin stinks too. They speak Guandong-wa, if they are “Cantonese,” or more likely even Hokkien, as mother tongue, if they are from Fujian, as many of the restaurant owners are these days. They learn Mandarin in school and if they didn’t have much school back before they came here, then perhaps they didn’t learn Mandarin well. You might as well be trying to speak Portuguese to a Spaniard.

      And what, pray tell, would these new Americans owe to blacks, in respect of “reparations?” Not a dam thing. Nor more than any of my ancestors either, who were exclusively Yankees, not slave owners, and some of whom came well after the Civil war was done and over with for a long time. Moreover, for my ancestors who were here before the Civil war, our family already paid the price in blood. Many of my long dead cousins were infantrymen who ended up part of the 300,000 stiff and dead in Southern dust.


      Sal Sar

  4. Reparations can only come from the African tribal chiefs who began the era of slavery in the British colonies by abducting and selling their fellow countrymen to Arab slave traders.

    But for the industry created by African tribal chiefs and Arab market makers, there would have been no slavery in the British colonies.

  5. In every transaction there is a buyer and a seller. I am for reparations when the sellers of slaves in Africa and Europe are held accountable for their collective part, promotion and participation in the slave trade of the 1600 – 1800’s and they agree to pay 50% of the reparations.

    1. According to data I just looked up, there were ~700K slaves in the US when the country was founded, and almost 4 million when slavery ended. About 388K slaves came directly from Africa, some came from slaveowners in the Caribbean. Most of the slaves sold in the US were born here, born to slaves who were already here. Congress outlawed the African slave trade in 1808, but “the slave population in the US nearly tripled over the next 50 years.” The sellers were Americans.

      How did you come up with “the sellers of slaves in Africa and Europe” accounting for 50%?

      1. Either side of that proposition are both ridiculous. The slavemasters, importers, vendors, and slaves are all over a century long dead.

        Any “reparations” scheme would be an illegal, unconstitutional and racist tax on the living, in favor of the dead who can never claim the prize. Hence, it would be an unconstitutional and illegal tax on everybody who is not black, in favor of everyone who is. This is an absolutely untenable proposal from a constitutional standpoint and anyone who encourages the notion is themselves, either a fool or an oppportunist.

        Let me ask you something here. Are black people some sort of super-caste in America, above all other peoples, white yellow or brown for that matter, such that they not only get all these affirmative action setaside slots at university and in big business, but that they will now receive nakedly unfair direct payments too? If you think everybody else will stand for this, you’re wrong. It’s a bridge too far now and will always be.

        Sal Sar

        1. Kurtz, it’s no more illegal for the government to provide reparations (e.g., increased funding for HBCUs, college scholarships to other schools, small business funds) than for your hero Trump to authorize $28 billion in payments to U.S. farmers for their losses after his disastrous tariffs.

          No, Blacks aren’t a “super-caste,” nor does a serious discussion of reparations suggest they are.

          1. CTHD– The government has spent many millions through the SBA and other agencies with special programs to aid blacks, most of it wasted.

            Add to that millions, or more, in contract set asides like section 8 and similar state programs intended primarily for blacks.

            Why should ‘historically black’ colleges get any funding [though they do]? Get back to me after you try to set up a ‘historically white ‘ college.

            Primarily black schools in Washington, DC get and spend more money per pupil than any school in the country with the exception, by a small margin, of New York with dismal results because nobody can even say much less address the problems in that demographic, one principal one being children having children with no father present to aid in discipline and development.

            1. The results of AA and the War on Poverty are measurably good and the debt being repaid is no small thing. You think you can enslave, murder, and rape, and continue on with it even after “freedom” (350 years) and the price will be cheap, fast, and easy? In what alternative reality is that place? We (white people like me) are lucky most blacks still love America and only want to fit in and succeed. It could be much, much worse.

            1. No, Kurtz, I’m not blurring anything. You simply have an inadequate understanding of the range of things that people mean by “reparations.”

              1. CTHD: “You simply have an inadequate understanding of the range of things that people mean by “reparations.”


                Dress it in whatever ornaments you like.

                It still comes down to giving free money and free goodies to people only because they are black and ripping off the rest of us, white, brown or whatever to do it.

                You want ‘white [ and whatever] supremacy’? That’s one way to get it.

                Even Asians and Hispanics are being called white supremacists these days.

                What has gone wrong with our educational systems that it is even possible to have this discussion.

                1. And isnt this one of the stranger, mitigating benefits of increased racial diversity, that with each additional hispanic or asian migrant, there is one more person in America who has no pathetic white-guilt complex, one more person who is dead set against coughing up more of their tax money to fund a perpetually dissatisfied group of politicians who are milking the Civil War long after it is done and over. We’ll see how long this racket holds up. Maybe the future is brighter than it seems.

                  Meanwhile, random criminal attacks on Asians particularly in Chinatowns in California, are on the rise. The mass media blames it on Trump and white racism, but who, typically, are the actual perpetrators? Take a wild guess. Get a look at the video. The rare ones that still can be found Sal Sar


              2. CTHD: rather than call me inadequate, which to belittle me, why not explicitly state what a smart lady such as yourself understands to be referred to when people say “reparations”? Perhaps you can teach me something. Sal

                1. Kurtz, I didn’t call *you* “inadequate.” I said that your *understanding* was inadequate. I think you’re smart enough to understand the difference. Calling someone’s understanding inadequate isn’t belittling. Every person — you, me, and everyone else — has an adequate (or even excellent) understanding of some things and an inadequate understanding of many other things.

                  I’m not going to tutor you. I believe that you’re intelligent enough to educate yourself.

                  1. You’re not tutoring me CTHD, think of it as proving your point and educating the readers.

                    Or feel free to admit that you have been tutored. The two points in question.

                    a. reparations are both qualitatively and legally, not the same thing as grants to historically black colleges and universities, and

                    b. race based direct transfer payments to blacks, ie, reparations, would be unconstitutional under existing law.

                    If I am wrong, commit to honest discussion and prove your point. I provided authority for my assertions, but so far, you have not.

                    If you decline the conversation because you have something better to do, ok! no problem.


                    1. “reparations are both qualitatively and legally, not the same thing as grants to historically black colleges and universities, ”

                      No, grants to HBCUs can be among the means that reparations are provided.

                      “race based direct transfer payments to blacks, ie, reparations,”

                      That’s *your* definition of “reparations.” If you read more, you’ll find that proposals about reparations aren’t limited to your view of it. You can certainly argue about how it should be defined and what word(s) you’d rather be used for the proposals that you think can’t legitimately be called “reparations.” What word(s) do you want to use for these other proposals?

                      “If I am wrong, commit to honest discussion”

                      Again, you seem to misunderstand what “commit to honest discussion” means when it comes to my name. It does not oblige me to respond to anything, only to avoid knowingly making false claims and to correcting mistaken claims when I make them.

                      If the issue of constitutionality is one that interests you, it’s easy enough to find additional discussions, such as Section III of

                    2. your article says this:

                      “A reasonable interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause—
                      which looked to the likely effect of reparations—would almost certainly conclude that reparations is a race-based program.”

                      that was my point. thanks. glad you got it.

                      i read most of the rest of that section. it was purely speculative and the law as it exists would be very much against where that article is heading.

                      the article you furnished is what I meant when i said “editorial.” it is an argument for a change in existing law. it is not the law. the article is spiced up with self serving phrases to make it seem like the desired outcome is more plausible than it really is.

                      Now. that does not mean it is impossible. If such a law were passed– very, very unlikely– but if it were passed, many years hence– the courts may be by that time, fully politicized in favor of anti-white political forces such that they will simply exclude white people from the abmit of protection afforded under the 14th amendment equal protection clause. it is not impossible. indeed there are ways that we already are being denied that equal protection of laws. i might write my own law review article about it– but decades ago when I breached the topic in law school, I was told that it would be “dead on arrival” “unpublishable,” and a “suicidal move for my future career.”

                      So here I am decades later, saying it under a fake name, in the dimming days of my career, because I don’t give a shitz anymore. I am white and if a government ever comes which will try and tax me under such a fake law I will gladly resist under my real name and volunteer for trial and prison over it. For starters. There will be tens of millions of others who will come to my aid if it comes to that. We all understand this, and that’s why you, and your article, tries to obscure the definitions of reparations. likely it will come in tiny barely noticed packages, rather than one big thing.

                      Nonetheless, come what may, a person like you, who is white, correct me if I am wrong, perhaps should not be in such a hurry to apologize for your own existence. If you want to cease to exist, there are easier and more honest ways out of a painful guilt at having white skin, than advocating for a tax on white people.

                      Of course the same folks who want such things also wring their hands over their own carbon footprint. Has there ever been a more self-denying, self-loathing generation of European descended peoples than the one that infests the Earth today? It is almost a certainty that we will cease to exist within a century at this rate of craven self-abnegation. Nature will render its verdict: UNFIT TO SURVIVE

                      Sal Sar

                  2. “Kurtz, I didn’t call *you* “inadequate.” I said that your *understanding* was inadequate.”

                    Kurtz is a lawyer and makes his living off of understanding things. It doesn’t matter how you parse the words. You called him inadequate. Then to top it off you said “I’m not going to tutor you. “

                    You pretend to be what you are not.

              3. Better yet, CTHD, you could refer to the article which I produced, from one of your favorite mainstream newspapers, not one I like but one that explains the subject material, and supports my assertion that reparations would be unconstitutional. Having read it, perhaps you could “commit to honest discussion” and elaborate meaningfully on what you meant when you claimed that reparations would be so. Im all ears. Sal

                1. You overstate your case with Lane’s column. He notes that a race-conscious state or federal policy can be enacted if it passes “strict scrutiny.” You seem to be suggesting that it’s impossible to do this, though you don’t say why, and he notes examples that are legal.

                  California has already approved the creation of Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals. The bill requires the Task Force “to recommend, among other things, the form of compensation that should be awarded, the instrumentalities through which it should be awarded, and who should be eligible for this compensation.” Presumably they’ll focus on recommending legal means.

                  For the record, “commit to honest discussion” doesn’t oblige me to elaborate on anything. It obliges me to avoid knowingly making false claims, and to correcting my mistakes when I become aware of them. I especially do not take on any unilateral burden in these discussions. If the other person is trolling, for example, it’s totally fair for me to simple walk away.

                  1. cthd ” He notes that a race-conscious state or federal policy can be enacted if it passes “strict scrutiny.” You seem to be suggesting that it’s impossible to do this, though you don’t say why”

                    I didn’t say why because I forgot that the audience here might be mislead about such things.

                    I was taught in law school by my constitutional law professor an ACLU liberal, that almost no race based policy would survive strict scrutiny. her words not mine.

                    her only example of an existing race based policy that has passed muster, was the intentional housing unit segregation of prison inmates by race due to the well known propensity and exigent circumstance posed by inmates almost always banding together by race and efforts to desegregate them, tried over many generations, have generally resulted in lethal violence. moreover, these segregation policies are implemented “separate but equal,” yes, the old bugaboo, which still has some relevance in this context. so they all get the very same sort of jail, it’s just the jail will put the blacks bunking together in one cell, the whites in another, etc. of course if this were not done fairly, they would have riots over that one too. now while i observe that those policies are not universal in jails, they are considered constitutional, again, so long as the prison resources are allocated fairly. which they are.

                    in short, that is the classic example of one of the few remaining licit policies which is allowed by courts.

                    compare that to a policy that would tax all non-blacks, to make a direct payment to blacks. this is nakedly racist and illegal under our constitutional system and laws as they stand today. you would have to rewrite the 14th amendment! please read it if you doubt me.

                    So, If you wanted to make a bet that a race based transfer payment scheme which we all understand to be the essence of “reparations” would be constitutional or not, I would give you 100:1 odds that it would not be constitutional. of course there is a possibility that it might pass muster. but if you think that chance is much more than that, then you have misperceived the law on this subject.

                    Sal Sar

                    1. Now, if we understand that such a scheme of reparations, would be generally understood to be unconstitutional under existing law, then how has it gained so much steam?

                      1. because the advocates like ta-nahesi coates want to change the law. and indeed, it only takes a majority on the SCOTUS to change it, as we can see from their about face on many subjects none the least of which was abortion. it is entirely possible that at some time in the future, a SCOTUS majority could say that the 14th amendment does not protect white people. That would be preposterous, but yes, it is possible.

                      2. the billionaires want to divide, demoralize, and antagonize the ever shrinking white majority, and crush it into submission, lest we rebel against global capital. policies that harass and annoy us, and financially disempower us as a group, are and have been underway for many decades and they grow momentum every year it seems.

                      3. the advocates of such schemes, gain political power by advancing an impossibly illegal policy. they can make up a law if they have a majority, which is illegal. and then the problem of declaring it illegal, falls to a small number of judges, who can easily be intimidated. see number 1. So what is impossible under existing law, might not be so impossible, especially if white people are divided politically and shrink to a minority of voters. which is precisely what billionaires have planned for us, going back to item #2.

                      Thank you for your attention to my further political analysis

                      Sal Sar

                    2. Sorry, Kurtz, but I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you that reparations need not include “direct payment to blacks.” That’s not what I’m talking about when I say “reparations.” Since you’re not listening, I’m not going to put any more time into this exchange.

                    3. ha ha, ok, “reparations need not include direct payments to blacks.” well, that would be about the ONLY worthwhile thing to do, however unconstitutional. at least then they would pump it back into the economy. That would be LESS BAD than throwing more money at their “advocates” and more incompetent “social agencies.” and various bogus “nonprofits”

                      don’t worry, all the advocates and social agencies and fake nonprofits will be getting plenty money anyways. nobody will call it “reparations” when it comes. it will be sliced and diced into a thousand pieces of largesse with as many different program names.

                      thanks for the stimulating conversation!

                      sal sar

                    4. I am looking forward to the response when blacks learn that reparations won’t include cash payments to black people.

                      That’s not what they think.

      2. “the sellers of slaves in Africa” were Africans.The dominant tribes enslaved and sold the less dominant tribal members into slavery.

        BTW, well before the English started importing African slaves to the New World they started with Irish “indentured servants” in the Caribbean basin who were nothing more than slaves.

        So, where are the reparations for the Irish descendants?

        1. Where’s the reparations to be paid by Aztecs to all the descendants of the minor tribes they enslaved?

          Oh wait, they murdered most of them off, sacrifices to their bloody pagan idols. So, ha, no problem today.

          Oh, the Spanish. Guess what? They ended it. and then almost 95% of the subsequent mass mortality among the indigenous was an unintended consequence of diseases inadvertently spread by them. And yet one never hears of the evils of Spain.

          Here, get a look at a “tower of skulls” of the Aztec victims that can still be seen today


          1. Yeah Kurtz, you know I was tempted to cheat on my wife nottoo long ago, didn’t, but felt really guilty. And then I thought “Hey wait, not so bad! You know the Aztecs were much worse.” So you know, you bring up a really important principle: You can do anything to anybody and somebody else somewhere did worse!


            1. Didn’t quite follow you Joe. I suggest that we are all descended from peoples who were part of wars and conquests one way or another. Best for government not to try and go too far back in time. Kind of like the notion of statutes of limitations. This is my analogy. You may find it laughable but I offer it for the readers and not just you who habitually mock me. Sal

              1. Kurtz, the complete destruction of social life and family structure through slavery, and the robbing of the fruits of their labor and wealth building through slavery, and then 100 years of Jim Crow subjugation left American blacks in a uniquely devastated condition, and one which the benefited much of the rest of the nation. 1964 is not that long ago, and 350 years of this was not going to be fixed and made right cheap and easy. We are already paying for this still in continuing problems. You can try to blow it off and get out of clean, but it isn’t happening.

                1. Slavery is a terrible infliction onto others.The English speaking people tried to abolish it as did the Americans, but it continues today. Politics defines what is or is not permissible. Classical liberalism protects the individual. Leftism enslaves the individual.

        2. I think those initial white slaves often forgotten about died at a much higher rate than the African slave at least in part due to the fact they were free and the African slave was not.

          I wonder how much those descendants of the Spartans owe the descendants of the Helots?

            1. Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t know his history. I am not talking about indentured servants. The white slaves were free meaning at no cost and the African slave cost money. The white slave death rate was much higher.

              It’s hard to keep up with all your inaccuracies.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, we all have to recognize that slavery was the norm throughout man’s history and slavery still exists. In fact, our open borders loved so deeply by the left have brought illegal slavery into the United States. You also have to recognize that most slaves in the past were captured after battles between different groups of people or civilizations. We also have political prisoners treated as slaves in China the bedmate of the left while the left remains silent and sells the country down the drain.

                  I’m not sure where the first white slaves were in the Western Hemisphere but I think they were considered ‘criminals’ whatever that meant at the time. Then we had what was called indentured servants and African slaves. I am not sure how we would categorize all of them since the reality varied and the treatment could be quite different. I brought up the Helots and Spartans because they are from ancient times and I felt perhaps while being educated you might have learned about them. Do you think the Spartan descendants should be offering reparations to the Helot descendants?

                  The left in the US has created a mess and now instead of exporting democracy we are exporting politically correct BS to our western friends. Surprisingly one western friend is trying to maintain what the enlightenment provided. That is France. Macron stated publicly that he wanted to end the PC culture where people were being killed by Muslim extremists and maintain France’s culture and laws. We have fallen behind France in that respect.

                    1. “So says Stupid Meyer.Who would bother reading past “Anonymous the Stupid.”…??”

                      I now separate my comments into those that might have value and those that are answering the rantings of Stupid individuals. To Anonymous the Stupid I am purely anonymous, to some others a bit above Anonymous the Stupid I provide an initial, but when I write for others to read I use my alias, S. Meyer. They can read or not as they feel inclined. They should delete all anonymous comments including my own without even opening. None of those comments are credible or have any intelligent value and yours are of the least value.

          1. You’re an idiot. The English have done a very effective job over the past century making sure that their major role in both the Irish and African slave trade was diminished through “education”.



            Then there’s the ironic fact that thanks to Obama and Clinton, Libya is now the largest slave market on the planet.

            And the Mulatto from Chicago could care less.

              1. Both are made illegal under the 13th amendment.

                There was an old story I heard in economics class many decades ago. It was said that it might be more profitable for a southern landowner to hire immigrant Irishmen to drain the swamps instead of using black slaves, because if the wage earners died, long before worker’s comp, no problem. The losses were less painful financially than if a slave had died.

                Think about it. this is the history of labor and diminishing all the other poor people in history at the time when blacks were yet chattel slaves is to lose sight of the overall economic systems that were in play and how we have evolved as a society. the entire conversation serves mostly just to divide and antagonize people today so as to prevent them from opposing global capital over the oppressions right before our eyes, in favor of long-completed chapters from over a century ago.


                1. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States…”

                  Slave labor still exists in the US because of that exception.

                  Fact remains that slavery and indentured servitude are not the same thing.

                  1. Wrong. JAIL still exists because of that. Read the cases.

                    Incarcerating people is not the same as chattel slavery. Only fools and the despicable liars who pretend to be academics think so. I realize there are a lot of fools out there now but I didn’t think many of them were typing here, not even among the usual interlocutors.

                    Since you mentioned it however, let’s get a look at some of these cretins who want to end jails and prison altogether. These anarchists have a face. Sal


                    1. As usual Aninny, you’re wrong. The prison gang and prisoner leasing is a thing of the past. Prisoners have to be paid for work though at low rates for security reasons.

                  2. As usual mespo727272, you’re wrong. They can be legally subject to forced labor, as I said, and in some states, they are not paid –

                    Your fondness for calling anonymous commenters “Aninny” only reveals that you relish denigrating people you disagree with and can’t have an adult discussion with those you disagree with. Grow up.

                    1. “They can be legally subject to forced labor”

                      Once again you make a black and white statement and post a link.

                      I am not sure of the answer, but your black and white statement is not proven by the link until the necessary quote can be found. I didn’t see it. That is the same problem we face with most of your links. You links too frequently don’t match what you say they do and sometimes match the opposing view point.

  6. Below is a message I sent to the HR, Public Affairs and Alumni offices—other alumni should do the same.

    I am a graduate of St. Joseph’s (Class of 1975) when it was still a bulwark of intellectual freedom and diversity of thought. I was a proud alumnus until today.

    I was disgusted to see the Jonathan Truly tweet describing the gross overreach of the University and its lack of adherence to the basic academic tenet of searching for philosophic truth through a rigorous discussion and analysis of opposing positions. The suspension of Professor Manco for the expression of views that are held by many decent and charitable persons, but not within the narrow politically correct confines of thought, is something I never thought I would live to see. It now appears that the voicing of an opinion that is contrary to and outside of the boundaries of current institutional “group-think” is a de facto ground for discipline and threat of dismissal for faculty and students alike.

    This is a sad and infamous day for the spirit of Hawk Hill and the principles that my cherished Jesuit education was based upon. I will no longer speak proudly of my days spent in those halls discussing all manner of the human and natural reality from opposing points of view. In that environment, we were all simultaneously student and teacher; givers and takers of knowledge and collegiality within another time of turmoil and opposing views. The University was at the pinnacle of what the words “universitas magistrorum et scholarium” enshrine.

    Now, I fear, it is nothing more than a collective of minor minds who are unable to respond to an opposing thought position with anything except bully tactics and the application of a pall over the coffin of reasoned academic discourse. I am saddened that my beloved alma mater has become nothing more than another ash on the funeral pyre of the free expression of ideas and intellectual honesty. “The king is dead”, but I do not respond with “Long live the King” for the new royal house is nothing more than a pack of academic pretenders whose rabid fangs are now exposed for all to see.

    1. Good letter.

      As I know from personal experience, reasoned protests from alumni are effective. I encourage you to share that letter with your alumni association, and with major donors to the university. When the university contacts you for a donation, tell them: Not until . . .

  7. My wife is an educated, legal first generation immigrant and quite literally played no part in any of this on either side at any point in the existence of her entire lineage. To ask her and others like her to bow to this insanity is so beyond the pale of absurd it’s difficult to wrap the mind around. It is so painfully clear that the proponents of this nonsense are the older and disaffected and the young that just don’t frickin’ know any better. What is happening to this country with so few having the courage to speak up is pure madness, and its efforts to involve the rest of the world in their madness is the prefect recipe for absolute self-destruction. It is far beyond time to stop being cowardly and reticent. anyone that opposes such nonsensical brain failure needs to say so . . . NOW, whoever they may be.

    1. Everyone currently living in the US, including recent immigrants, experiences benefits today from the existence of slavery here in the past. Slave labor helped to build our Capitol and the WH. Slave labor helped us become a leading economic power. And slavery isn’t the only contributing factor to reparations. Other acts that benefitted whites at the expense of blacks, like redlining, are also a factor.

      If your wife found that you owned art that the Nazis had looted from German Jews, would she think it right to return it to the descendants of the family it was stolen from, even though she wasn’t involved in the theft?

      Despite you’re declaration that it’s “nonsense” to seriously consider reparations, it’s not nonsense. People of good will can certainly disagree about it, but there’s a serious discussion to be had if only you’re willing to consider it seriously.

      1. About 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War.

        That is reparations enough.

        Name any other country that paid so high a price to end an ancient and legal institution.

        You can’t.

          1. “The price was set by the slave states”

            Which ones?

            You do realize that slavery was still legal in multiple States in the Union after the Civil War ended?

            Also, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the Confederate States not under Union control. In the Southern States that were under Union control, slavery remained legal.

            The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

            1. “The Civil War was not fought over slavery.”

              You must have failed history. Several factors contributed, but slavery was the most significant.

          1. Interesting. I won’t doubt it, but I have watched the total change several times. Even at lower estimates it is a huge pile of corpses to bring an end to an ancient and legal institution.

            I notice that the folks who get upset about long gone slaves are silent about slavery in China and the ME and Africa. One suspects they mostly are concerned about the amount of money they can siphon out of our pockets and nobody in China or the ME or Africa is going to pay up.

            Race is a racket these days and when they can’t find a genuine race crime they make them up. A lot have been faked these days to lubricate the racket.

            Meanwhile, actual crimes like looting are just ‘reparations’ and forgiven.

        1. Almost half of those that died were from the secessionist states, but somehow in your warped accounting, you think their deaths are reparations to descendants of the slaves they were fighting to keep enslaved. Of those who fought for the North, most were killed by secessionists. Their deaths aren’t reparations; their deaths simply add to the debt owed by those who favored and fought for slavery. Maybe the professor can help you improve your logical reasoning skills.

          1. Aninny:

            “Almost half of those that died were from the secessionist states, but somehow in your warped accounting, you think their deaths are reparations to descendants of the slaves they were fighting to keep enslaved. Of those who fought for the North, most were killed by secessionists. Their deaths aren’t reparations”
            Okay what credit do we give to the families/descendants of the 350,000 or so Union deaths. What credit do I get since my family wasn’t here yet? Why am i paying at all? Who do we pay? Descendants? How much per slave? Who decides? And why just blacks? The Irish were oppressed. The largest mass lynching in American history wasn’t blacks; it was Italians in New Orleans. What’s my cut? Why isn’t this all a fool’s errand?

            How’s about we all handle our own crap and quit dwelling on the past as salve for our current circumstances? There are lots of reasons for success and failure. Race is pretty low down the ladder. Education, stable homes, intact families, full time employment are at the top.

            1. mespothelioma,

              How about we deal honestly with the past and with how it shapes the present? That’s PART of handling our own crap.

              “Education, stable homes, intact families…”

              In some states, it was illegal to teach slaves to read and write. Slave owners prevented slaves from having intact stable homes and intact families for generations. They raped female slaves, they sold children away from their parents and siblings, they might break up a husband and wife through sale, the infant mortality rate and childhood mortality rates for the children of slaves were twice what they were for whites, redlining made it harder to have stable homes, … Can you bring yourself to simply acknowledge these things? If not, there is no basis for discussion.

              1. Aninny:

                Can you bring yourself to simply acknowledge these things? If not, there is no basis for discussion.
                So? What’s that got to do with me? You don’t want acknowledgment, you want a conviction of the present by the past. it’s over. Everyone’s dead. There are no debts nor debtors. They’re gone. And you’ve ignored my very real questions about who, what, where, how much and why. You’re the typical liberal fool blubbering about your version of right and wrong and expecting everyone else to pay for your sensibilities. Forget you and yours. You’re a collectivist arse and you want to control the wealth and hard work of others in service your warped sense of morality. America owes nothing. AMERICA FREED THE SLAVES and paid in blood. Any debt that was owed is by the slave owners who are no longer with us. It’s sad what happened to the slaves; it’s sad what happened to the Italians but if you want to sort through history to right all the wrongs, count me and mine out. We’re not paying for your guilt and self-loathing. We weren’t involved — at all.

                1. “you’ve ignored my very real questions about who, what, where, how much and why.”

                  You’d have to be a true idiot, which I don’t think you are, to think that you can go around trolling and then get people to answer your questions as if you’re a sincere discussant.

                2. “There are no debts nor debtors. They’re gone.”

                  You must be quite the lawyer if you think that one cannot recover payment from the estate of a dead person.

                  1. Aninny:
                    “You must be quite the lawyer if you think that one cannot recover payment from the estate of a dead person.”
                    You want payment from the government numbnut not from an estate. Try to keep up with yourself. You wanna sue long settled and closed slaveholders’ estates, go right ahead. Learn about bfps and the statute of limitations. You’re just dumb.

                    1. Mesbloviator, as predicted, in your rush to defend yourself, you admitted that it’s about payment from the government. Thanks for demonstrating that you were purposefully making an irrelevant argument when you argued “Everyone’s dead. There are no debts nor debtors. They’re gone.” Are you capable of having a sincere discussion?

                    2. ““Everyone’s dead. There are no debts nor debtors. They’re gone.” “

                      If there are no debts or debtors your entire argument falls apart, not because individually each argument can’t be argued rather the logical thread that holds the arguments together doesn’t exist.

                      I was going to explain why like I explained an earlier why to you but your response to my explanation which took time was a nasty three or four words.

            2. mespo, you don’t have a debt. America does, and it also has lingering problem and we all continue to pay for it. Slavery and then Jim Crow destroyed social and family life of black slaves and stole the fruits of their labor. True full citizenship for them was only achieved 50+ years ago and even then discrimination continued for many to most. You don;t snap your fingers and say “OK, we’re all equal and good now.” Much progress has been made. More remains to be accomplished.

              1. AnonJF:

                If you feel you owe it, you pay it. Leave me out of your little divisive pity party that I neither caused, authorized, benefitted from or agreed to finance. You really think America owes it? Put it to a vote. You’ll be surprised right down to you collectivist soul about the result.

                1. You’re already paying for it and just don’t get it. Connect the dots.

                  Do you want to try and do it smart or just keep patching the damage?.You’ll pay either way.

                  1. AnonAF:
                    I am not paying for it. That’s just propaganda. I may be paying for the welfare state but at least that’s means tested and benefits all in need. Your scheme would have us paying black millionaires for some unliquidated “harm” they suffered.

                    1. Geez, you guys need a road map?

                      Child poverty alone is estimated to cost $1 trillion a year to the economy.

                      “Childhood poverty cost $1.03 trillion in 2015, about 5.4 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States, according to a new study from the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis.

                      “Impoverished children grow up having fewer skills and are thus less able to contribute to the productivity of the economy,” said Mark R. Rank, the Herbert S. Hadley Professor of Social Welfare and one of the country’s foremost experts on income inequality. “They are also more likely to experience frequent health care problems and to engage in crime. These costs are borne by the children themselves, but ultimately by the wider society as well.”..”


                      Argue about the amount, but you have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not get that we have been and will continue to pay for the “sins of the the fathers” in America. The question is what are we going to do about it?

                    2. JF insults “Geez, you guys need a road map?”

                      JF has no road map. What he does have are faith-based beliefs that lead to the problems he has listed by copying another’s arguments. He doesn’t bother making sure the article he quotes from is dealing with the exact same arguments.

                      For example, from the article, “Impoverished children grow up having fewer skills and are thus less able to contribute to the productivity of the economy,”

                      That is true, but how does that relate to the discussion at hand. We can combine JF’s faith-based beliefs with Chicago which represents the Church of JF’s faith-based beliefs. How is that working out?

                      Gangs, poverty, lack of education and skills, murder, broken families, etc. If JF’s religion worked then Chicago should be a green paradise. JF is worshiping the God of death and destruction.

                    3. Geez, you guys need a road map?

                      Mr. Dunning-Kruger fancies his response was something other than a non sequitur.

                      1. ‘Poverty’ (or ‘child poverty’) is an amorphous concept that is exploited by social workers for professional self-aggrandizement.The rest of us should ignore any sentence which has that term in it.

                      2. Income differential and occupational stratification exist in every society more complex than an agricultural village. It isn’t contingent on their having once been chattel slavery in this country.

                      3. Cutting lump sum checks to ascribed groups does flat nothing to address quality of life deficits in concentrated black populations.

        2. I think a nice round 1 million would be more accurate.

          You presume accurate records are available and you ignore follow-on deaths, including suicides, which were directly attributable.

        1. “I will no longer discuss things with…People like Young and Allan”

          Thank goodness Allan is on that list. Allan hears enough of this toad when she posts spontaneously. I can only hope that the other toads stop responding as well. That, however, is hoping for a miracle.

          1. Allan and S. Meyer are one and the same, of course — as most know.

            “Toad” describes him well.

            And don’t let him kid you: He loves all the attention.

          2. LMAO that Allan the Abusive (who also posts as S. Meyer, Mark N., anonymously, and using occasional other names) continues to refer to himself in the third person when he finds it convenient.

            Do you have multiple personality syndrome Allan?

        2. CTHD–I looked at your linked comment and saw you were exercised in part over the idea of the fallacy of appeal to authority. You take the journalist’s approach by claiming that the appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authority is correct.

          It is a logical fallacy.

          My math professor may tell me the Pythagorean Theorem is true and I may refer to him as an authority. I might even refer to Pythagoras. They are correct.

          But I have proven nothing.

          Proof, actual logical proof, is found in Euclid #47 and stands on its own. No human ‘authority’ or opinion or journalist is needed.

          The Ptolemaic theory could be ‘proven’ by authority for millenia. But referring to the authorities only proved what the authorities thought, not what the actual state of the system was.

          Even Copernicus and Galileo didn’t get it right, though they were closer. Kepler used Tycho’s precise observations and the conic sections of Appolonius to put together a truly precision argument and a proof that stood on its own, one that did not require that I believe someone else but, instead, could follow the evidence and logic for myself.

          An appeal to authority has the weakness that the authority may say one thing one day and something else the next. Look at Fauci.

          You are talented, but in a secretarial way. The boss says X so X must be true. But what he says isn’t always true, and what the boss says isn’t proof.

      2. “Everyone currently living in the US, including recent immigrants, experiences benefits today from the existence of slavery here in the past. Slave labor helped to build our Capitol and the WH.”

        Obama made a similar statement and it was just as Stupid.

        Do you give a tip to the person that used the toilet seat before you? Didn’t he keep it warm?

        1. The word “stupid” peppers this guy’s comments, day after day.

          “S. Meyer”:

          One might guess his first name.

  8. The demand for “slavery reparations” is racist. It’s the collectivist idea that a racial group today (whites) is somehow responsible for the crimes (real or imagined) committed by one’s racial ancestors. (While conveniently ignoring the fact that many of those ancestors fought and died to eradicate slavery.)

    Individualism is the only cure for such racist demagoguery.

    1. “It’s the collectivist idea that a racial group today (whites) is somehow responsible for the crimes (real or imagined) committed by one’s racial ancestors.”

      No, it isn’t.

      In no way does it suggest that people living today are responsible for the acts of people who are dead. Clearly no one currently alive is responsible for the actions of the dead.

      Have you ever read what arguments for reparations actually do involve, so that you don’t make false arguments about it?

      If you do an internet search on [arguments for reparations], it will pull up arguments for you to read.

      1. “Clearly no one currently alive is responsible for the actions of the dead.”

        So punishment (being forced to pay “reparations”) *without* responsibility. That’s even more irrational and evil.

        1. Reparations aren’t punishment.

          Have you ever read what the arguments for reparations ARE?

          Again: someone’s Nazi ancestors looted art from a Jewish family, the descendant isn’t responsible for the looting. But if a descendant of the Jewish family seeks to get the art back from the descendant who inherited the stolen art, do you likewise argue that it’s unfair, and the descendant who inherited the stolen art is being “punished”? Or do you recognize that even though the descendant who inherited the stolen art wasn’t responsible for the theft, they still benefited from it (by inheriting the stolen art), and access that the art should be returned to the family it was stolen from?

          The situation with reparations is more complex than that, because it was often labor that was stolen. But if you won’t engage seriously with the analogy, then you’ll continue to make false claims about “punishment.”

          1. “someone’s Nazi ancestors looted art from a Jewish family, the descendant isn’t responsible for the looting. But if a descendant of the Jewish family seeks to get the art back from the descendant who inherited the stolen art, do you likewise argue that it’s unfair, and the descendant who inherited the stolen art is being “punished”?”

            That’s a question that should be asked of Obama and Hillary regarding Libya.

          2. I know, why use ugly words such as “responsible” and “punishment.” Dress up a racist proposal in flowery language — and hope people don’t notice that they’re being played for suckers.

            Putting a dress on a pig doesn’t make it the belle of the ball. It’s still a pig.

            P.S. As is your wont, your analogy switches the context, in this case, from individual guilt to collective guilt — a racist collective guilt (and dessert).

    2. Sam, I am not in favor of reparations, which i think will cause more damage than benefits. However, your definition is not accurate. Blacks were not only systematically held in slavery and then brutally repressed and exploited for almost 100 years after their freedom, but the fruits of their labor – the wealth they created – was confiscated and therefore not distributed to their heirs. The cultural and economic devastation this caused is still with us, and the idea that we could suddenly halt this abuse legally – if not in all practice – and declare all fair and equal and expect bygones to be bygones, is naive – to put it politely – and BS to put it bluntly. The CR Act and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s were great achievements, but hardly all that was necessary to right the wrong. The responsibility for this is not properly assigned to whites, but to the nation, and we will pay for it one way or the other, and already have. We continue to pay for it. I favor mitigation by proactive favoratism like affirmative action and quotas, not reparations, and they have been both fully justified and beneficial, if inelegant solutions. There is no elegant solution to correcting the damage we caused – as a nation.

      1. “Blacks were ……………… the fruits of their labor – the wealth they created – was confiscated and therefore not distributed to their heirs. ”

        Are you so naïve that you think that the white wage earners from 1865-1965 enjoyed all the fruits of their labor? Or were not systematically suppressed and exploited?

        Sal Sar

      2. The CR Act and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s were great achievements, b

        In retrospect, we can see they were not. The ‘Civil Rights Act’ stripped from private vendors in competitive markets the right to define their custom. The downstream consequence has been a legal regime wherein no one has the right to associate except when given permission by gentry liberals and wherein ordinary people are subject to lawfare campaigns by privileged political interests. As for the Voting Rights Act, it’s been a wedge for courts to impose racial gerrymandering. Conjoined to the one-man-one-vote decisions, it has prevented the development of alternatives to wholly free-hand modes of delienating constituencies. Non-discretionary rules will have some variation in constituency populations, but, being non-discretionary, obviate the problems associated with gerrymandering. The intersection of the act and other bits of case law are now being used as a wedge to eliminate ballot security. Note, the federal legislation in place in 1964 had proved sufficient in Louisiana (to take one example) to increase the population of blacks on the voter rolls from 3% of those eligible to 33% over the period running from 1948 to 1964. The ratio of unregistered to registered voters among age-eligible blacks changed so rapidly from 1959 to 1964 that it was a reasonable expectation that the ratios for black and white voters would have been about the same by 1975. Note what was not happening in Selma in 1965. The Attorney-General was not, as he had the franchise to do, prosecuting the Dallas County (Alabama) Board of Registrars (and the local sheriff for obstructing the registration of eligible voters. The tools were there.

      1. Young, that means her great great grandmother – or some other good looking female ancestor – was raped by the Master. Happened all the time. Didn’t mean she got a honeymoon and her own slaves.

        Why do you think so many American “blacks” are pretty light skinned?

        1. They aren’t. West African DNA accounts for between 75% and 83% of black American ancestry. Blacks who are > 50% European are just 10% of the total.

          1. Having your great great grandmother raped by a white master would not make you > 50% European. You can do that math, right?

          1. I think you’re speculating. Her father is pretty light skinned and he’s the one with the slave ancestors.

  9. I looked up St. Joseph’s University. It was founded by the Jesuits. Is it still run or affiliated with them? My understanding of the Jesuits is that they are focused on Catholic thought and education. This act seems to contradict that tradition. Spread the word…don’t send kids to St. Joseph’s University.

    1. My understanding of the Jesuits is that they are focused on Catholic thought and education.

      They were in 1960. Now they’re focused on single-malt scotch and sodomy.

        1. Why not research ordinary news sources to make yourself familiar with the phenomenon. This has been known to anyone reading the Catholic press for nearly 20 years. The California province was not only shot through with homosexuals, they put campy seminarians on their recruiting websites. See also the writings of Paul Shaugnessy and Paul Mankowski on problems in the Order. Both have been writing from the inside.

        2. Art is only wrong in identifying the Jesuits as specialists in buggery and booze. Actually there are quite a few other Catholic orders who specialize in these as well. But saying so is to miss their principal endeavor, making money.

          It is a damnable shame. It also explains the miserable performance of the Roman Catholic Church for the past 80 years or so. They have excelled at getting money and yet badly failed at teaching society and their pastoral obligations. They have made the salad days of corruption before the Reformation look like kid-stuff.

          This is a horrible outcome for “the West” which owes much of its existence to Catholic leadership. And now “the West” is like a demented rich old fool, ready to be picked apart by the vultures circling overhead.

          One is reminded of the quote: “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

          Sal Sar

          1. But saying so is to miss their principal endeavor, making money.

            It isn’t. If that’s your interest, you don’t go into the non-profit sector.

            1. Really, you don’t think that their principal interests are making money? Do you still think it is saving souls? The greater glory of God? I think those days have come and long gone.

              How do you think the Jesuits manage the budgets of their nonprofit universities? These nonprofits with their budgets more than the Vatican state itself. Really. I double down on the assertion that their principal interest is indeed in making money. Just in clever ways

              There are many examples both now and in the past of jet setting priests of no little fame who took “vows of poverty” but lived like kings on the university budget. No names mentioned. The bad actors in these sectors are little better than racketeers.

              That they were alcoholics and buggers is perhaps less interesting to me, than that they were frauds.


  10. A year ago today, Trump’s appointee, Larry Kudlow, said “We have contained this [coronavirus]. We have contained this. I won’t say airtight, but pretty close to airtight. We have done a good job in the United States. Hats off to our public health people. And the other generic point, and hopefully we’ll explore this, Kelly, is simply this. This is a human tragedy. There is no question. Particularly in China. A Human tragedy, with, you know, thousands of deaths. God look over them. Terrible. And that’s the worst part of this. The business side and the economic side, I don’t think it’s going to be an economic tragedy at all.”

    It’s been a human tragedy worldwide, both in terms of loss of life and economic loss. More people have died in the US than in any other country, many people have lost their jobs and are facing eviction. It didn’t have to be this way.

    1. “It’s been a human tragedy worldwide, both in terms of loss of life and economic loss. More people have died in the US than in any other country, many people have lost their jobs and are facing eviction. It didn’t have to be this way.”
      Oh how did it have to be? Sheer speculation on your “more people” numbers since Chinese numbers are notoriously unreliable and our numbers are fudged for budgetary purposes. We need a lot less Chicken-Littles and lots more tough people. It’s a pandemic causing at most 500,000 US deaths in more than a year even if we accept the phony figures. That’s .015 % of the population. Where is the sky falling?

      1. It didn’t “have to be” anyway, but it should have been that the president at the time didn’t pretend there was no problem, didn’t fail to adequately fund testing or PPE equipment, and didn’t sabotage his own administration’s guidelines for safe behavior by citizens. If he had done the basic decent and minimum duties, we not only would have saved lives, but provided safer conditions for citizens to buy and businesses to sell. People didn’t stay home mostly based on edicts from government, but from a realistic fear of catching and spreading it.

        Mespo’s pseudo tough guy routine claims 1/2 a million dead – and how many with permanent injury – is nothing doesn’t sound so cool if you’re talking about vets in WW2. By the way, if we had snowflakes like him crying about his precious right to party during that war effort, we’d have been in it longer.

        PS The governors didn’t plan and run D-Day.

      2. “It’s a pandemic causing at most 500,000 US deaths in more than a year even if we accept the phony figures. That’s .015 % of the population. Where is the sky falling?”

        It’s killed many more Americans than died in WWII. I’m sure you ask the same question about those deaths. You’re also wrong in claiming that it’s “at most 500,000 US deaths,” as can been seen by looking at excess deaths, which is ~560,000.

          1. Aninny:

            So? It’s a pandemic numbnut. It kills people but you’re so concerned about blaming the US you forget it was manufactured by the Wuhans/CCP who likewise hate us. It’s hardly the disaster you portray. You’re pathetic.

                1. From your article, the relevant admission:

                  “Although the NIH did fund a project at the Wuhan lab, …” IE NOT DEBUNKED- RATHER, ADMITTED

                  “there’s no proof that the coronavirus was bioengineered” FALSE … THEY JUST DONT LIKE THE PROOF

                  the proof is the expert opinion of a 2008 nobel prize in medicine winning virologist Luc Montagnier says it must be lab made based on his dna analysis

                  I’ll take his expert opinion over yours and the rest of the fake news. and the self serving medical publications establishment.

                  Seems to me, odds are, it was gain of function research gone wild. I don’t personally believe it was weaponized, by either the the PRC or US, but I do believe it was made in a lab. Yes, yes, your fact checkers, self appointed authorities who can’t tell a test tube from a bong, say there is no proof, but your fact checkers can eat my shoes.

                  Sal Sar

                  1. “a project” in no way implies “SARS-CoV-2”

                    “Luc Montagnier says it must be lab made based on his dna analysis”

                    He did say that, though his work draws on an analysis in a preprint from other scientists that was later withdrawn due to numerous errors (

                    Other scientists dispute his claim, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” ( Some scientists dispute his analysis but conclude that we don’t yet know either way, “the currently available sequences, analyses based on phylogenies of complete virus genomes are not sufficient to draw firm conclusions on the evolutionary origin of SARS-CoV-2.” (

                    Here’s another element of being committed to honest discussion for me: it requires a willingness to consider new evidence and an openness to changing one’s mind. A response like “your fact checkers can eat my shoes” is antithetical to that.

                    1. I admit that the majority of the qualified experts all seem to agree that sars cov 2 is not lab created.

                      I maintain my suspicion that it is.

                      My remark was directed at Joe’s fact checkers. yes they can eat my shoes. I know that there is no honest discussion with the lame fact checkers out there. I have studied the fact checkers and in nearly every instance they are anything but honest.


                      you should be praising Obama for his foresight and wisdom. he was right!

                      And it is a FACT that grants from the US government to the Wuhan lab continued after his ban.

                      Those two salient facts are glossed over by the lying fact checkers who then zero in with this arrogant statement that there is NO evidence that the virus is lab created. Guess what- Luc Montainger is not some yahoo. He won the Nobel prize for his work as a virologist. He is an expert and his opinion may be small evidence, but qualified expert opinion is evidence nonetheless.


  11. While not directly related to Prof. Manco’s problem, the question raised by McWhorter in the link below seems worth sharing because it is indirectly related to the situation in which Manco and many others find, or have found, themselves.
    McWhorter argues that the far right may be alarming, but it is not a threat to our freedoms because it has not penetrated or taken over our key institutions, unlike the “woke,” who have managed to do just that, from the corporation, to the media, to the schools, to the government.
    McWhorter’s term for the woke is the Elect, a contemporary elite whose mentality and behavior is reminiscent of those who believed they were predestined for salvation in an earlier era. The Elect are not susceptible to rational argument, and even after amassing enormous power, they pretend that they have none at all and are merely acting to protect the powerless from those whomever they identify as possessing power. As a result, they cannot help but misuse and abuse the power they actually possess.
    If I undestand McWhorter correctly; here is the link in case I do not.

    1. “the far right may be alarming, but it is not a threat to our freedoms because it has not penetrated or taken over our key institutions”

      Yep, no one from far right is in Congress. (sarc)

  12. Using this same constitutional measuring-stick, it could also lead to censoring some rap music. Some songs by Bruno Mars, NWA, Dire Straits, Billy Joel, Prince, Beetles, etc. could be censored using the same standard. Some video games and movies could also be censored. Comedy acts like Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams, Susan Silverman, Wanda Sikes, Steve Martin, Don Rickles, Lenny Bruce, etc. could never be seen by Americans without redactions.

    This is already happening, many movies, comedy acts, etc. you pay money to view on cable has been redacted without ever informing the consumer paying the cable bill. In 2020, many radio stations have simply started bleeping out or removing lyrics without informing listeners of the censorship.

    The ACLU uses the metaphor of “poison gas” to describe censorship, it’s great until the wind shifts direction and blows your way!

  13. “. . . online postings that were allegedly made by you and are of a biased or discriminatory nature.”

    “biased or discriminatory nature” = Opinions that hurt the feelings of the eternally aggrieved activists.

  14. “In this case, Manco compared slavery reparations to the great-great-grandchild of a murder victim asking the perpetrator’s great-great-grandchild for compensation. It is easy to see why many would be offended by how he expressed his views, including the statement ”

    Um, no it’s not only not easy to understand why anyone would be offended by this statement, it’s curious why you or anyone else WOULD be.

    1. LMAO that you cut the quote off right before “Now get this racist reparation bullsh*t out of your head for good.”

      You seriously don’t understand why someone would be offended by that?

  15. From what I’ve seen of Manco’s comments, he shouldn’t have been suspended.

    That said, for a guy who claims to value reason, Manco should understand that his analogy, “compar[ing] slavery reparations to the great-great-grandchild of a murder victim asking the perpetrator’s great-great-grandchild for compensation,” is a faulty analogy. Reparations are much more about stolen wages than they are about murder (though slaves were indeed murdered, beaten, raped, …), and reparations don’t involve an individual going to another individual, but a class of people getting a benefit from the government via institutions (e.g., via increased funding to HBCUs).

    But even if you just shifted the analogy to theft and omitted the element of a class of people seeking benefit from the government, when something is stolen, the descendants of the people it was stolen from can indeed seek its return (whether from the descendants of the thieves or even from someone who bought the stolen item from the thieves). Consider the situation with returning artwork that was stolen from Jews by Nazis. The descendants of the families whose art was stolen have successfully sought its return. Here’s an example:

    Reparations aren’t racist, just like Jews seeking the return of their families’ property is anti-Semitic.

    Of course, the way to deal with Manco’s faulty reasoning is to point out the flaws, not to suspend him.

    1. That should have been “isn’t anti-Semitic.”

      I wish this site used a commenting system that enabled edits.

    2. “Reparations are much more about stolen wages than they are about murder (though slaves were indeed murdered, beaten, raped, …), and reparations don’t involve an individual going to another individual, but a class of people getting a benefit from the government via institutions (e.g., via increased funding to HBCUs).”
      I’m all for reparations for stolen wages so long as the check is made out from the account of the thieves and payable only to the victims of the theft. Those who weren’t victims and the entity that stopped the practice to the tune of about 350,000 dead white guys are immune from the process. Seems fair to me. Wanna bet not to tearful CTHD? She weeps for us all, ya know.

      1. Oh, look, mespo ends his comment by trolling, because he doesn’t really want to have a serious respectful discussion about it, and he knows that CTHD won’t respond to trolls.

        1. I notice that’s how you roll, too. Maybe you could respond to my argument about the innocent paying the unharmed for the actions of people from history to which they have no connection or penalizing the entity that remedied the problem.

          1. Why should anyone respond seriously to your argument when you aren’t willing to respond seriously to the argument CTHD already made? You know, by acknowledging the longterm consequences, acknowledging the Black soldiers who helped the North win, acknowledging that she wasn’t talking only about slavery but also actions like redlining, …

            As ye sow, so ye shall reap, mespo727272.

            1. The black soldier contribution to the north was scanty at best. Sorry folks that was a white on white war.

              1. “By the end of the war, 178,975 enlisted men served in the U.S. Army as members of the U.S. Colored Troops. In addition, three regiments of Native Americans, the Indian Home Guard, fought for the Union in the western theater of the war.”

                American Battlefield Trust

                “Who Fought?”



                Overwhelmingly, Union soldiers were white.

                It was not until May 22, 1863 that the U.S. War Department established the Bureau of Colored Troops enabling black men to serve as soldiers. (Black men had been assisting the army in other official capacities such as constructing entrenchments or performing camp duty or other labor since the Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862.)

                By the end of the war, 178,975 enlisted men served in the U.S. Army as members of the U.S. Colored Troops. In addition, three regiments of Native Americans, the Indian Home Guard, fought for the Union in the western theater of the war.

                Interestingly, over 400 women dressed as men and served in the army. Many of them, like Jennie Hodgers who served in the 95th Illinois as Albert Cashier, were not revealed to be women until after the war was over.

                1. Tell us, how did they do at Fort Pillow? Is it true that they had the high ground, a trench and embankment before their fortified walls, and yet they failed to stop the evil Confederates, who braved their fire, scrambled down the ditch and up the walls, and then, from the parapet fired on the “defenders,” who — to quote a common resource– “broke and ran”

                  yes, THAT Fort Pillow. Wrings hands, boo-hoo.

              2. It wasn’t scanty, and they may well have been the difference between the North winning versus losing.

      2. The 350k dead didn’t volunteer to enter the pre-war south to end slavery, they entered to save the union which the south sought to end in defense of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation came in 1863 and after many dead blue coats. That debt is owed by the southern slave holders and their defenders, not blacks.

        1. The southern slave holders are all dead. and their grandchildren too. this socalled debt is stale and already paid in blood.

          on the plus side, there is nothing quite so much as enrages white people as the notion of paying reparations to a black population that already enjoys countless affirmative action set asides, and endless grants and scholarships and so forth. This makes us mad and rightly so. This is a catalyst to get white people to organize politically and stand up to the forces which subjugate us because of the color of our skin.

          BLM has a new program they were talking about on NPR today. They pay people for being black! What a scheme, eh?

          at the end of the day, it’s unfair to be angry at blacks in general because of this largesse. That is a natural feeling, but misplaced enmity. I suspect that “nonprofits,” “social agencies,” etc are the true beneficiaries of it. I would guess they rake off more than half of the funds, off the top, probably closer to 2/3, and the final net transfer payments are a pittance in the grander scheme of things, a fig leaf to hide their shameful rackets.

          Rather instead, of being angry at black folks in general, I would suggest that white people get a grip on who is funding these rackets, generation after generation, and why. Dig into that question, and you will find, that those who are perpetually presuming to “ameliorate poverty” in one sector or another, are actually the group of billionaires, who use such schemes as a fig leaf of their own, to conceal their aim to subjugate all of us below them

          Sal Sar

          1. Kurtz, the nation has a debt to blacks who’s ancestors were slaves and Jim Crow victims, not white people.

            Meanwhile, you keep singing “Let my people go” at the country club.

            1. Kurtz, the nation has a debt to blacks who’s ancestors were slaves and Jim Crow victims, not white people.

              Thanks for the ex cathedra. Been an education.

            2. I don’t belong to a country club at this time thank you. I owe them no debt and we owe them no debt. You think you owe a debt, then you pay it. Don’t presume to tax me to pay your imaginary obligation. Sal Sar

        2. AnonJA:
          Ingratitude is your stock in trade, AnonJF. No surprise here. Thankfully, most blacks I know acknowledge the debt owed Lincoln and the brave soldiers who freed them.

              1. African Americans were among the brave soldiers who freed the slaves. Would the North have won without them?

    3. “Reparations are much more about stolen wages than they are about murder “

      A bit of a goofy reply. ‘Your wallet or your life’. Is Commits answer really ‘you can have my life but not my money’. Commit is not normal so maybe that would be the answer.

      Then again, what have we been doing since LBJ? Reparations in a different form while Democrats once again enslave the African Americans. This time they enslave the mind rather than the body by offering all sorts of trinkets to make it appear they are giving the African American something rather than taking away their dignity and their futures.

      African American family lifestyle and education were on a rapid upswing until LBJ when that upswing leveled off. What do we see in the major Democrat cities of the US? Murder, theft, drugs, gangs, lack of education, etc. The Democrats are responsible for the decay of the African American Community.

    4. “Reparations aren’t racist, just like Jews seeking the return of their families’ property is anti-Semitic.“

      What a Stupid analogy. Return of property is quite different than the reparations sought. In fact, most of the Jews never got anything returned and when they did it was minuscule. The above statement is just dopey.

  16. For public universities, a student or parent of a student could file a “Pro Se Constitutional Lawsuit” claiming “First Amendment Injury” as legal standing. In other words a non-financial constitutional lawsuit violating core constitutional rights. A public university official is a “government-entity” and is bound by the First Amendment legal restraints. Since this government entity is promoting one viewpoint while silencing other First Amendment speech, almost anyone could file one of these lawsuits.

    Only the Judicial Branch courts will solve this, the political branches will never fix this.

  17. Evergreen State College, which created a hostile work environment for Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, saw a catastrophic loss in enrollment after that episode and has had continuing concerns about its financial stability.

    Apparently, St. Joseph’s didn’t get the memo.

  18. Reparations:
    Who to?
    How much?
    Who pays?

    1. Who gets money. All people of any “color”? Kamala Harris? Did she have ancestors who were slaves? Those who were Jim Crowed?
    Barack Obama? His mom was all white. Dad came over from Kenya long after civil war here. Neither side if family were slaves.
    What about free black man, never a slave, who owned black slaves in America. Do his great grandkids get reparations or pay them?

    2. Why do humans all ve today who were not ever enslaved themselves get one nickel in reparations?

    3. How much? What if black mom and six kids all get welfare checks now and for three generations back?

    4. If it’s tax dollars then black tax payers would be getting a refund of sorts.

    5. As a tax payer why do I pay if none of my white ancestors lived in America? I came over from Mexico and climbed a wall to get in.

    1. @liberty2nd

      The questions you ask are valid but I’m afraid the proponents of reparations could care less. We have been paying reparations for a long time indirectly through affirmative action, set asides, lowered standards, tolerance of riots and lawlessness. This is just another avenue of extracting money from Whites, it is that simple. And do you think these parasites will be satisfied after they get their “reparations”? I take a perverse satisfaction at knowing that the Hispanic-Asian dominated America of 2075 will not tolerate black shenanigans.

      BTW – my ancestors were from Spain and left the “worker’s paradise” of Cuba in 1959. Do I have to pay??


      1. It is my belief at this time Antonio, that the aim of such things is not to shake down whites for money.

        ‘Rather the aims are:

        1. to develop political power and leadership among blacks and other sectors which benefit,

        2. to use that political power against whites, not to squeeze them for money, but to atomize, divide, demoralize them as a potential political force which might threaten those who lead and wield the political power developed by such programs, and most of all,

        3. to distract, divide, confuse, and prevent us all from rallying against the group of western globalist billionaires, who are the biggest beneficiaries of all these programs, rather than the poor and uneducated baggy pants fellow sitting on the porch next door.

        The ultimate adversary is not the poor black people, nor the upwardly mobile blacks, nor the social workers, nor even the Democrat leadership who always push these things. No, it is the group of the western globalist billionaires, who for decades have wielded these schemes to protect their own position and power against all of us as a whole.

        The same notion applies in other venues, such as mass migration. The beneficiaries are not so much the migrants or their verbose political patrons, rather, it is the billionaires. I could keep at this rackets-analysis all day long, but you get the idea.


Leave a Reply