We have been discussing the controversy over the University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media offering a chair and tenure to New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones. After the university rescinded the tenure offer, Hannah-Jones agreed to accept the position on a non-tenured basis. She then later demanded tenure and the board changed its position after a national campaign. Now, Hannah-Jones has denounced the university and accepted a position at Howard University.
The original offer of a chair and tenure at UNC was controversial. Hannah-Jones was made the offer despite leading academics challenging the historical account in her 1619 Project as deeply flawed as well as criticism of her record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. The board then rescinded the offer to Hannah-Jones to be the next Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism. Instead, it offered a five-year appointment to the faculty. While I was one of those highly critical of the appointment, I expressed concerns over the political interference with a faculty in making such academic decisions. Then a national campaign was used to get the board to reverse itself.
After the university renewed the tenured offer, however, Hannah-Jones denounced UNC and accepted a chair with Howard University. On “CBS This Morning” with anchor Gayle King, Hannah-Jones said that she would not accept the position because “what it took” to get it. She blamed racism as opposed to her controversial history as a writer:
“Because look what it took to get tenure. This was a position that since the 1980s came with tenure. The Knight chairs are designed for professional journalists when working in the filed, to come into academia. Every other chair before me, who also happened to be white, received that position with tenure…To only have that vote occur on the last possible day, at the last possible moment after threat of legal action, after weeks of protests, after it became a national scandal, it’s just not something I want anymore.”
The objections to Hannah-Jones were based on her approach to journalism and questions about the accuracy of her main work.
Academics have criticized Hannah-Jones work on the 1619 Project. According to The Atlantic , Princeton historian Sean Wilentz criticized that work and some of Hannah-Jones’s other work a letter signed by scholars James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes. They raised “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’” They objected that the work represented “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” The Atlantic noted that “given the stature of the historians involved, the letter is a serious challenge to the credibility of the 1619 Project, which has drawn its share not just of admirers but also critics.”
The New York Times was criticized later for a “clarification” that undermined a main premise of her writing. In March 2020, the New York Times wrote “We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. A note has been appended to the story as well.” None of that appeared to concern the Pulitzer Committee anymore than University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media.
The concern is that figures like Hannah-Jones represent a fundamental rejection of objectivity and neutrality in journalism. She appears to adhere to a growing view among academics.
In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
Dressing up bias as “advocating social justice,” does not remove the taint of yellow journalism. It is the same rationalization for shaping the news to fit your agenda and treating readers as subjects to be educated rather than informed.
While other professors in The Stanford Daily disagreed, Wesley Lowery, who has served as a national correspondent for the Washington Post, also rejects objectivity. In a tweet, Lowery declared “American view-from-nowhere, “objectivity”-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment…The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.”
These are major voices in media. Glasser is a Stanford Department of Communication professor emeritus and served as the director for Stanford’s Graduate Program in Journalism. He is also the former president of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
What is interesting is that this fundamental challenge to journalistic values is not being widely discussed. For those of us who have worked for decades as columnists and in the media, the growing intolerance for dissenting views is stifling and alarming. Hannah-Jones has been a leading voice in attacking those with opposing views. A year ago, the New York Times denounced its own publishing of an editorial of Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. It was one of the one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists called the column historically inaccurate and politically inciteful. Reporters insisted that Cotton was even endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper cannot feature people who advocate political violence. (One year later, the New York Times published a column by an academic who has previously declared that there is nothing wrong with murdering conservatives and Republicans).
Critics never explained what was historically false (or outside the range of permissible interpretation) in the column. Moreover, writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, Jacey Fortin, and others said that such columns put black reporters in danger and condemned publishing Cotton’s viewpoint. In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper apologized and not only promised an investigation in how such an opposing view could find itself on its pages but promised to reduce the number of editorials in the future.
One of the writers who condemned the decision to publish Cotton was Hannah-Jones. Hannah-Jones applauded the decision of the Times to apologize for publishing such an opposing viewpoint and denounced those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. Opinion editor James Bennet reportedly made an apology to the staff. That however was not enough. He was later compelled to resign for publishing a column that advocates an option used previously in history with rioting.
Media outlets are now wedded to echo journalism models where opposing views or facts are increasingly rare. We are seeing our leading schools teaching such advocacy and bias as values as opposed to dangers to journalism. It is a shift at universities that will impact journalism for many years to come.
Again, the Hannah-Jones controversy presented a difficult tension for those of us who believe in the need for both faculty governance and greater diversity of viewpoints. However, this is not how a board should respond to such controversies. The Board adopted a position divorced from principle or logic. It failed to explain why it would rescind both a tenure and chair offer. Such rare decisions should come with a full and frank explanation from the University. Instead, we had an anonymous statement that this is a political compromise removed from the academic basis for the offer. If the Trustees want more intellectual diversity on the faculty, they should state so and address how to do so without gutting faculty governance. If it viewed Hannah-Jones as unqualified, it should have stated so.
The position of Hannah-Jones is no less baffling. She first demanded tenured but then accepted the position without tenure. She then demanded tenured but, when it was restored, she then rejected the position and denounced the school.
Hannah-Jones will now teach journalism as a tenured chair at Howard University. That resolves the question of where she will teach but questions remain over what she will teach is the essence of journalism.
Not shocking that this glorified race grifter chose Howard over UNC.
UNC showed some common sense when it denied her tenure initially.
Howard supports the serial rapist Cosby; she definitely belongs there.
For all you DEMs who blame Republicans for everything, look at the crime ridden, filthy cesspools of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, … You are doing a great job!
To be filed under, “Crap ignorant “N’s” do Every.Single.Time.”
The problem with the 1619 narrative, to begin, is that it’s factually inaccurate on several points: One, it appears there were free blacks in the Colony of Virginia prior to 1619; two, those twenty or so of 1619 were not directly of Africa but of Spanish territories; three, they were rolled into the existing system of indenture, only some few, described by the court as “incalcitrant,” actually had their service indefinitely extended, or were, in other words, thus “enslaved.” Note too by this time some hundreds of thousands of the English poor had been enslaved in the Americas, sold on the very same blocks; only one in four survived to own property or leave descendants, an historical fact the English have long been reluctant to acknowledge, why? Because to nobility the poor are of zero value, it is meaningless. And who was responsible for such injustice? The crowned heads of Europe. And the African monarchs themselves. That said, We the People aren’t perfect – this Constitution fails us on at least two obvious points – one, it failed to uphold the ideals set forth in the Dec of “all men”; two, it neglected need of a succinct and definitive citizenship clause. That’s not to say concepts of citizenship did not exist, they did, and had long existed, in the form of temporary grants of residency, votes to grant freemanship (the legal right to make all decisions regarding one’s life and equally participate in community affairs), replete with oaths of fidelity. .
How any of this aids the plight of the black man in America, honestly, is beyond me. Because, only the truth can set you free.
“Because, only the truth can set you free.”
To know the truth one needs to educate himself and the left is doing everything possible to keep poor black families from being properly educated.
Universities exist to educate young men and women, not to provide jobs to those that lack scholarship and don’t check their facts.
Where did America go wrong?
________________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
“[There is no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration] except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”
– George Washington
Except that, Franklin greatly disagreed, didn’t he? In fact Franklin attributes American prosperity to immigration – the import of both wealth and industry, in the form of artisans, and the creation and rapid expansion of market. .
betuadollar,
Me thinks thou art a fraud.
_____________________
A history of American anti-immigrant bias, starting with Benjamin Franklin’s hatred of the Germans
By Annalisa Merelli
February 12, 2017
In the 1750s, the United States of America was not yet a country, but its trouble with immigrants already had begun.
People of non-WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) descent were crossing the ocean to start new lives in the new world, and earlier Colonial settlers were none too happy about it. Among them, with ferocious conviction, was Benjamin Franklin, noted inventor, eventual American founding father—and hater of Germans.
In writings from that decade, Franklin shared his concerns about the Germans:
They weren’t as smart as the people already living in the colonies.
“Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”
They were unable to adapt to the local values.
“Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.”
They were endangering New England’s whiteness.
“[T]he Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.”
In short, they were not to be liberally admitted to Pennsylvania, because as Franklin argued, “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”
To be sure, Franklin, like most other American leaders after him, acknowledged the importance of immigration as a source of growth, and so he didn’t declare himself against German immigration—just in favor of controls on it. “I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary,” he wrote, “they are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.”
You, Turley, are more guilty at trying to tip journalistic coverage from neutrality than Nikole Hannah-Jones ever was. And to add to it, you’ve engaged in a character assasination campaign of her on your blog here. So when you say this…
“While I was one of those highly critical of the appointment, I expressed concerns over the political interference with a faculty in making such academic decisions. ”
I laugh out loud. Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to justify your actions to yourself, but this episode won’t, and shouldn’t, have you sending up the balloons of pride when you think back on your career. I can get around the vast majority of the role you’ve taken on as a social media influencer/ market reseacher here on your blog, but I find what you’ve done to Hannah- Jones here basically despicable, Turley. Think about what it would be like if someone went after your job in academia in the way you’ve done with Hannah – Jones at UNC.
No wonder she chose to go somewhere else. Imagine going to UNC and having to teach around the minefield you and others threw her way in your coordinated campaign to bully her.
eb
Turley’s “Bill Barr Summary” has been in full view. He points out want he wants, and omits those pesky facts that he doesn’t want known. There are no surprises anymore from Turley, he is very clear in what he is doing, and for whom.
+100
Turley’s “Bill Barr Summary” has become his go to method in his opinion editorials. Seemed there used to be one out of three where he’d stray from it. Not anymore.
eb
+100
Now I understand where you went wrong, Bug. You think universities are there to provide jobs for those who lack scholarship and are unable to check their facts
UNC’s J school would’ve thrived with the presence of Hannah-Jones.
eb
… and they would have had even more ignorant people graduating that are unable to write an opinion that contains fact. Karen’s insurance would have to go up even more to pay for their hip surgery.
SM
And yet another example of the sheer stupidity of Allan Stupid Meyer, or ASM for short.
UNC’s loss = Howard’s gain.
eb
“And yet another example of the sheer stupidity “
Yet you are unable, Bug, to tell us what the “sheer stupidity” is. You continue to make empty statements. That is a sign of pure ignorance.
SM
Actually, I think a fitting name for you is: Allan’s Soporific Stupidity. Or ASS for short.
eb
Bug, you make another stupid statement essentially repeating what you said before. If you weren’t such a dullard you wouldn’t have needed Karen to pay for part of your hip surgery.. You would have also known what was gong on. Better you stick to sitting in front of a TV watching basketball and pondering how one can weave a basket.
SM
If “social justice” is now the driving mission of journalism schools, they could define social justice and give examples. For instance, are school vouchers for the poor social justice; are investment zones is poor neighborhoods social justice and are police measures that reduce gang violence social justice. In others words what is social justice for some is not for others. The term is formless and has no place as a totem for journalism schools. You are right on the mark Prof. Turley
Hanna Jones was her name!
She ride off with Robert E. Lee!
“ Academics have criticized Hannah-Jones work on the 1619 Project. According to The Atlantic , Princeton historian Sean Wilentz criticized that work and some of Hannah-Jones’s other work a letter signed by scholars James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes. They raised “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’”
Turley is being deliberately disingenuous here. These academics had objections over a few claims. Not the entirety of the project’s assertions. That’s not criticism that would have been cause to deny tenure. Here’s the actual criticism Turley is referring to,
“ I think the purpose is a good one, which is to alert people who are interested in American history to the importance of slavery, of race and racism, in shaping important aspects of American history,” McPherson said.
“No matter what people tell you that it’s not about the facts, it’s about the facts,” Wilentz said, in a possible allusion to Adam Serwer’s article in The Atlantic. He added, “we weren’t attacking the whole project.”
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/02/u-professors-send-letter-requesting-corrections-to-1619-project
Turley’s use of these critical historians obfuscates the real concerns they have. It’s not about the general idea of the 1619 project. It’s a few points that Hanna-Jones was more than happy to correct. But Turley doesn’t do anyone any favors by being incredibly sloppy with his characterization of the criticism.
“ I think the purpose is a good one, which is to alert people who are interested in American history to the importance of slavery, of race and racism, in shaping important aspects of American history,”
*********************
Yeah I hear another racist screed, Mein Kampf, got the same reviews.
“Turley is being deliberately disingenuous here. ”
No, he isn’t. You haven’t been exposed to what people actually believe. You live in a limited world. Many have been brave and made some statements to show what they find to be a lack of scholarship of the 1619 project. If they weren’t afraid of being canceled, they would say a lot more.
Even the NYT forced a major correction by Hannah-Jones a couple of months after 1619 was published. Additionally, the magazine’s editor had to change the original introductory in-print essay because the initial statement about 1619 projected a totally wrong idea.
Do you believe what is taught in our schools about July 4th being the country’s ‘birth’ is wrong and that the date was actually 1619?
Contrary to what you have said, historians have very significantly criticized the accuracy and the underlying conclusion of 1619.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson (you mention above) said: “I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective.”
When you think of 1619 and what Hannah-Jones said it meant, skip the rhetoric and the date. This country was founded in 1776. Black slavery had little to do with the ideas behind the nation’s founding.
S. Meyer,
“Do you believe what is taught in our schools about July 4th being the country’s ‘birth’ is wrong and that the date was actually 1619?”
That’s not what the 1619 project claims. It’s the year slaves were introduced into this continent by colonists. That’s it.
“Contrary to what you have said, historians have very significantly criticized the accuracy and the underlying conclusion of 1619”
Not the experts cited by Turley. Who are these “historians” you are referring to?
” You haven’t been exposed to what people actually believe.”
Sure I have, Turley and everyone he cites WRITE exactly what they believe. I’d say they expose everyone who reads their…Beliefs.
“That’s not what the 1619 project claims. It’s the year slaves were introduced into this continent by colonists. That’s it.”
Read the in-print introduction of the 1619 project. Then you can make an intelligent decision for yourself.
“Who are these “historians” you are referring to?“
I provided a quote from the first one that was mentioned by Turley and you copied. I quoted one of his statements. Do you bother to read my responses before you write your replies? You say you have been exposed to the beliefs of people, but here you are responding to me and asking me questions answered in my response to you. That is not good scholarship.
“It’s the year slaves were introduced into this continent by colonists.”
Good grief.
Slavery (and not just of blacks) was imported to North America by Great Britain (Spain, Portugal, and other European countries).
“That’s it.”
Hardly.
It has been known since the 17th century that there was slavery on this continent in 1619 (and, actually, long before that). That point is not a revelation.
The central claim of 1619 is that in 1776, the Founders created America primarily to protect the institution of slavery, i.e., that America was created as a “slavocracy.”
Hannah-Jones and her ilk are attempting to destroy the greatest political accomplishment in human history — a country created explicitly on the concept of individual rights.
Whitewashing history has been practiced since at least ancient Rome. It is a fraud, but the motivation is at least a human one: to make a country seem better than it actually is.
This is the first instance I know of where historical revisionism is used to make a country seem *worse* than it is — and, in fact, is being done to destroy a virtue. Those who wrote and promote 1619 have a sub-human motive.
Sam https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/13/correction-to-the-1619-project-proves-it-is-not-fit-for-schools/ provides one of the two corrections I mentioned. This one was from Hannah-Jones. The other was a correction by the editor of the magazine section who changed the online words of the introduction but apparently the original words still remain on the net.
1619 demonstrates a lack of scholarship that is acceptable to those who have no standards or remain uneducated.
“ The original offer of a chair and tenure at UNC was controversial. Hannah-Jones was made the offer despite leading academics challenging the historical account in her 1619 Project as deeply flawed as well as criticism of her record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. The board then rescinded the offer to Hannah-Jones to be the next Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism. ”
Turley’s characterizations about what led to the original retraction of the tenure are deliberately disingenuous. Hanna-Jones is correct in asserting that the position she was offered has always included tenure. What led do the university not offering it was pressure from conservatives in the board.
According to USA Today, “ The 13-member Board of Trustees is composed of four people appointed by the state’s Republican-majority General Assembly, eight people elected by the Board of Governors – who are appointed by the General Assembly – and the president of student government. Ten are white men.”
The very fact that the majority are appointed by conservatives in the legislature clearly leaves the strong impression this was a politically motivated decision. Turley is complicit in this because joined in on the criticism based on ambiguous rationales about journalism’s lack of objective integrity. Ironically Turley himself engages in the very type of journalism he despises.
Svelaz, why do you seem surprised that Turley only wants to point out what he wants pointed out. Everyone knows who he is writing for and to. But thank you for bring up the facts that Turley won’t.
Fishwings, after reading all the criticisms these historians Turley mentions it becomes clear that they are not opposed to the general idea of what the 1619 project portrays. They actually agree with a majority of its premises. Their only criticism is a couple of claims that are at best still debatable. Many other similarly highly esteemed historians refused to sign the letter for those very reasons. Turley didn’t bother to mention that. Hanna-Jones is right. The board was making a political decision. It had nothing to do with her journalism. It’s interesting that Turley doesn’t delve into the fact that this chair has always included tenure. But because it was Hanna-Jones, she was singled out for extra scrutiny over her work.
+100
eb
Why has this name been withheld since January 6?
All right. For the last time (I hope). Ashli Babbitt, after disregarding commands of Capitol Police and forcing her way into the Capitol building, was trying to go through a broken window to gain access to the Speaker’s Vestibule. That area was only lightly guarded, and the door was blocked by furniture and a handful of officers who were pointing guns and one member of Congress (a Republican who, for some odd reason, is denying there was an insurrection, even though his presence pushing against the furniture blocking the door is on video). She disregarded the commands to stop, and was shot while attempting to go through the window. BABBITT WAS NOT MURDERED. Stop lying about this. She had no right to be where she was. Her intention in trying to break into the Speaker’s Vestibule was to try to stop Congress from accepting Joe Biden’s certified election victory and/or to hang Mike Pence and harm Nancy Pelosi. Her presence in the Capitol building was wrongful. Members of her own family admit it is her own fault she died because she believed in the Big Lie. There is a CNN documentary on this, all showing actual videos of what happened. Watch it. I dare you.
NUTCHACHA,
“All right. For the last time (I [lie]).”
For the last time. One can only hope.
Does anyone believe NUTCHACHA here?
Oh, and NUTCHACHA says, “If you’re black, it’s OK to [summarily] blow dem whites folks away.”
For all brotha Leroy knew, Ashli Babbitt could have been undercover and trying to escape the China/Soros-communist-funded BLM and Anitfa instigators.
“…For the last time…” indeed!
We’re gonna miss you, NUTCHACHA!
“She disregarded the commands to stop, and was shot while attempting to go through the window. BABBITT WAS NOT MURDERED. Stop lying about this.”
**************************
The punishment for trespassing and interfering with the workings of Congress is not death. Refusing a lawful order is not punishable by death either. And even if they were, our officer here is not authorized to serve as judge, jury and executioner. The only time deadly force can be used against folks is when they themselves threaten deadly force against the officer defined as force sufficient to cause death or serious injury. Tell us how female Ashley Babbit, unarmed vet and hellbent only to get into the barricaded room met the criteria needed to employ deadly force? Go ahead. I’m all ears.
Mespo,
“ Refusing a lawful order is not punishable by death either. And even if they were, our officer here is not authorized to serve as judge, jury and executioner. ”
Not exactly true. Just as it has been for those officers who have shot and killed black individuals for simply not following commands. Babbitt was in the same category. She was already committing a crime and was not obeying lawful commands. She was forcing her way into an area that she was not allowed and she ended up getting shot and killed. She was in the process of committing a crime.
I one-hundred percent wholly disagree. It would appear to me Ashli Babbitt was “murdered in cold blood” while being foisted by others through a broken glass window, or, in other words, in what was very obviously, unthreatening, unarmed, posture, by what or whom many believe was the Commander of the House, Michael Byrd, in violation of everything “use of force” a police officer is ever taught or trained to do. Worse, or perhaps I should say equally noxious or pernicious, the statement the fed has determined to send to the world – we can and will, kill at will, and there’s nothing the lowly citizen can do about it. It’s just more of Obama’s LaVoy Finnicum, more of the left’s selective federal policing. This is not a government for the people, this is a government for the corrupt and unscrupulous, who by hook and by crook rise to occupy a seat in the new American aristocracy, a world in which the law applies to thee but not me, same as it ever was. So much for this “Nation of Law.” And so much for the rights of the citizen. Hell, we’re so far removed from the history that created us, we don’t even remember what rights were, how or why they came into existence, what such ideological protections even mean, hope against hope the fed does not come hunting for us. But believe me, they will, because such is the nature of man. And our forefathers knew it. The murder of Ashli Babbitt cannot stand.
betyouadollar,
She was not murdered. At its most basic, she was just an poor idiot who was shot because she was doing something that she was not supposed to be doing. She was breaking the law, forcing her way into an area that was barricaded. Police officers already had their guns drawn and were shouting commands to stay back. She stupidly ignored them and got shot. If she obeyed their commands she would still be alive.
Reread what Betuadollar wrote: “Ashli Babbitt was “murdered in cold blood” while being foisted by others through a broken glass window, or, in other words, in what was very obviously, unthreatening, unarmed, posture….”
Babbitt was being hoisted up and pushed through the window when she was shot point-blank in the neck. She was murdered.
Show us video proof of ” Police officers already had their guns drawn and were shouting commands to stay back”
Natacha says: “There is a CNN documentary on this, all showing actual videos of what happened. Watch it. I dare you.”
That comment deserves only dismissive laughter HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Who would watch a CNN documentary expecting to get the facts and truth of anything? Is that a joke? Does anyone watch CNN Fake News anymore? No they do not.
Ashli Babbitt was murdered. Who murdered her? Release the name.
You know whose presence in the Capitol building is wrongful? Nancy ‘let them eat cake’ Pelosi. She is the one who deserves an epic smackdown. We’re coming for you in 2022 Pelosi.
Because he shot a criminal trespasser who was disobeying police commands. Ashli Babbitt, like anyone who doesn’t follow police commands, got shot and died as a consequence. She broke the law and paid the ultimate price sadly.
Looting, robbing and stealing are similarly illegal, are they not?
Blow them all away, right?
You forgot “unarmed criminal trespasser with no facts to suggest that she might be armed or that she posed a risk of death or serious injury to any member of Congress or the officer.”
Other than that you’re right on the money, Sevvy. Oh and the cop who blew her away is a true kitty kat.
Mespo, whether she was armed or not is irrelevant. She was forcing her way into an area that was still occupied by lawmakers and police officers are duty bound to protect them. That includes the use of deadly force. Many black men have been shot and killed while unarmed. Many conservatives and people who are all about law and order justify such killings by noting that in order to prevent such incidents was to OBEY the cop. She didn’t and consequently got shot. It’s her own fault. She was already committing several crimes. She was a criminal.
Sevvy:
“Mespo, whether she was armed or not is irrelevant.”
***************************
Read that back again slowly and then recognize the difference between the black men you’re speaking of who were typically armed or reaching for armaments or engaging in behavior suggestive of reaching for a concealed firearm and Babbit who was clearly unarmed with no suggestion she was reaching for firearms. Facts do matter.
Mespo: “Facts do matter.”
***
Facts matter but lately the key fact in almost everaything is race. If the races had been reversed there would still be peaceful rioting and burning and the media would still be screeching.
The country is becoming tribal and that is dangerous. Charles Murray made the point in his new book that if blacks, 13% of the population, can go tribal and conjure so much hatred and violence in the country, what could happen if whites, 60%, become tribal and decide they have had quite enough of this crap?
Young, I am reading that book as well, but I don’t want anyone to get the idea he was advocating that particular action. I believe the book to have important statistics and information so I hope it is read in the right fashion.
He wasn’t advocating it; he was warning it would lead to disaster.
Flip ahead to page 115.
That is right, he was warning it could happen. Neither you nor he was advocating such a thing. I just wanted to make sure the wrong impression wasn’t left with people. That said one does have to think about such a possibility.
S. Meyer, Very true. The data comes from multiple sources like the two Longitudinal Surveys of Youth conducted by academics and branches of the federal government and, on crime, data collected by the FBI. It is available to anyone who cares to go to the original sources. I have previously cited some of it here. Murray is distinguished in part for having the intelligence to use that data and for having the courage to state what it plainly shows. Nobody actually says the data is wrong, even if they don’t like it.
“Nobody actually says the data is wrong, even if they don’t like it. ”
That is the problem the left has had with Thomas Sowell for the past 60 plus years. He combines data along with his arguments. The left can’t deal with the facts, so for the most part, they don’t try and argue based on the data.
Enigma recently pointed to redlining, as many liberals did in the past. Sowell put accredited numbers together to prove the redlining thesis wrong. It was apparent, but leftists don’t look at what is obvious or true. They only look at what they wish to see.
Murray also had some facts on black interactions with the police to show that severe police prejudice against blacks claimed by leftists was also wrong. He used numbers and statistics from the FBI and police department instead of counting the number of rioters that said the opposite.
Murray’s logic and data demonstrate that a lot of things you said before the book was published had factual data to back up your claims. Good job. I’m not sure about all the claims, but they are good enough to be considered.
People like ATS can’t deal with facts. That is why all his replies sound so stupid.
You know who else was “disobeying police commands”? George Floyd. And a whole bunch of others who did not follow police commands and were shot and killed, but THOSE criminals were made into heros and saints. It’s disgusting.
Except, yeah, he didn’t.
Yes he did and had a history of doing violent things and had just committed a felony.
Do you know why you made such a stupid statement? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.
Wait!
It looks like the slaves freed by Lincoln,
Must have been deported by law.
Oops!
_____
January 1, 1863
By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.”
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
_________________________________
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
You have a valid point re the involuntary immigrant. But Lincoln actually did offer to deport those freed after the Civil War. It’s been my impression that the black intelligentsia of New York refused his offer, this despite all racial challenges.
She is nothing but a charlatan and race baiter of the Al Sharpton. mode. A truly nasty and dangerous piece of work who would gladly turn the US into a authoritarian and totally corrupt racial state. She has nothing of substance or useful to add to public discourse. The only redeeming aspect of this episode is that the taxpayers of NC are spared this monstrosity,
Has she defended her work? Answered questions raised about her work? Nah. It will never be about her defending her work. It’s going to be all about racism and the injustice *against her brilliant work*.
It’s never going to be a larger discussion and honest debate about the *accuracy of her main work. It will be about Raaacciiiism! And White Supremacy. And oppression of Brilliant Blacks Like Her being victimized by the systemic racism in all of our institutions.
Anonymous, actually she has indeed defended her work. In fact the very same academic history experts Turley cited agree with what the project is about. They are not claiming that the whole 1619 project is flawed. Turley is being dishonest in that regard. Their issue is on a few claims being made, not the entirety of the project’s assertions. Hanna-Jones has actually conceded to them that a few aspects of the project are debatable and that she’s more than happy to amend those issues. Those historians Turley mentions agree this project should be discussed.
” It is the same rationalization for shaping the news to fit your agenda and treating readers as subjects to be educated rather than informed.”
And there it is.
Its not just the news media. Its all commercial advertising as well. Look at commercials these days. They show us happy, complacent, confused and practically helpless people being educated by corporations and businesses on how to cook their meals (let us cook them for you, deliver, here’s how you open the box….) a bunch of clueless chuckleheads standing around whining about how they can’t hold onto to their phones. Fawning over insurance agents, giving them bribes for lowering their rates, idiot devices like “Alexa” that can turn off our lights, turn up the heat or AC, start our cars, unlock our doors… its like people are embracing the notion of a Incorporated nanny state. Educating citizens is how the news works in communist and fascist dictatorships. Yet every single aspect of media today seeks to do just that. Tell us how ‘safe” they’re making everything for us. They’ve disabled the ability to comment on most news stories now for our “safety”. I can’t seek a second opinion online about anything to do with Covid 19. They remove anything that doesn’t meet their “official opinion” on the subject, and they have concluded that I am just too pathetically stupid to “hear” any varying opinions on this matter related to my health. So they do the hearing for me, and the deciding then let me listen to what their opinion and their opinion only. Even if the other opinion, is a front line ICU Nurse who rose to the rank of SGT in a combat zone as a front line nurse, and she has actual video evidence to confirm her “opinion”. I can’t hear it because you know, ..I’m too feeble and stupid to think for myself. So any second opinions are hidden from me, so I don’t hurt my widdle bwain thinking about them. And now educators are filling the alumni with likeminded professors who want to tell the kids what to think, instead of informing them on the facts. Sweet.
Every so often sitting at home alone , when its really quiet, ..I just shout out …. “Alexa…….go f##$ yourself….”.
I don’t own one, but it somehow makes me feel better.
Advertising businesses (and their corporate clients) are as “woke” as the with-a-few exceptions media. I don’t recognize the American public to whom almost all ads on TV are directed when I see those ads. Is the USA really 1/2 – 3/4 – all “black” – so often the %age of “black” people pictured in the ads? Where are the actors whose heritage/appearance are Asian, Latin/South American, European, Australian???? Shameful pandering, just a kind of corporate “reparations.”
Excellent. My sentiments as well!
She complained about “what it took to get tenure.” This is laughable. Most tenure processes are grueling, stressful, and demanding. She was offered the position without ever having to prove herself or defend her writing. She was nothing more than a political token. This is what the current “anti-racist” movement is promoting. Howard is a Black university that, given its poor faculty selection process, will be promoting racism and doing a great disservice to Blacks for generations.
Journalism IS social justice when done without bias or agenda. If journalism is supposed to develop a sense of what these ideologues considersocial justice, who will investigate the social justice advocates? Their clear objective is shielding themselves from criticism, investigation and the journalists magnifying glass. It’s cowardly and tyrannical.
The worst part is that eventually, these attempts to avoid scrutiney will tarnish true, accountable social justice warriors, hindering their important work on behalf of individuals, our community, country and world.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has also accepted a faculty position at Howard. The brainwashing will continue…
Indoctrination centers: It’s all about the ‘fight’ for social justice, baby.
She will teach based on her demonstrated skills at stoking racial conflict and playing the race card to get guilty liberals to give her whatever she wants. A true exemplar of American journalism in 2021.
Howard University just renamed as Prince George’s Community College satellite campus.
It used to be that (pretended) patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel (Johnson/Boswell). Now?
Howard can now join the other Howards–Moe, Larry, and Curly.
“Moe! Larry! Cheese!