There is a major controversy brewing over free speech and censorship at Emory Law Journal this month after the student editors refused to publish an essay by San Diego’s Warren Distinguished Professor of Law Larry Alexander. The publication was a Festschrift (or a publication honoring the work) of Emory Professor Michael Perry. (For full disclosure, Perry was my professor at Northwestern University and I edited a prior article by him on the law review. I have also been published by Emory Law Journal). Alexander was solicited for the publication but the editors later demanded that he make extensive deletions (including an entire section) in his essay on systemic racism because they found his “words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” He refused and they removed his essay from the issue. In response, two professors withdrew their essays in protest.
Alexander and Perry have known each other for decades. According to Alexander, that relationship began when Perry was a professor at Ohio State and invited him to contribute to a symposium in the 1981 volume of the Ohio State Law Journal. While the two have sharply differing views, they have maintained that relationship and Alexander’s inclusion in the Emory publication not only added someone with a long history with Perry but also intellectual diversity as a conservative scholar.
Given their long history, Alexander’s participation also offered a different focus on Perry’s long and distinguished career. Rather than focus on his better known writings on human rights and more recent constitutional theories, Alexander addressed his earlier work on equal protection and his disparate racial impact (DRI) theory. That was an area where the two academics had had spirited but respectful disagreement earlier in their careers.
The Essay
The Alexander essay (which is available below) returns to the earlier debate of the two academics over Perry’s views on DRI and “systemic racism.” Alexander lays out the foundation of Perry’s theories in the first two sections of the essay. In the third section, he offers an alternative view and questions the basis for the “systemic racism” assumptions that underlie Perry’s early work. He agrees with aspects of the work while raising doubts over how such claims are applied to support reforms like reparations:
Michael is surely correct about the disadvantages blacks have suffered at the hands of government. Slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination are facts about the past. And they undoubtedly have left indelible traces in the black community today–-although, as I shall discuss below, their effects on the individuals who make up today’s black community is a more complicated matter.
Alexander suggests that Perry’s theories are “vague” in their application and that Perry himself has insisted that “his DRI test does not call for allocating scarce resources to blacks.” The essay maintains that the work shows “the virtues of being flexible and contextually limited” so that they do not have to be justified under the strict scrutiny of prevailing tests. However, Alexander holds that there remains a central flaw in the level of generality applied to the problems of race in America:
It treats blacks as a monolith. It does not distinguish between blacks who descended from American slaves, and blacks who emigrated from the West Indies or from Africa. It does not distinguish between blacks who face economic and educational handicaps and blacks who do not. And among blacks who do face such handicaps, it does not distinguish among blacks whose difficulties stem from past mistreatment and blacks whose difficulties stem from their own choices and behaviors. With respect to the latter, it seems to assume that such choices and behaviors have been caused by past injustices. And finally, it depends on a definition of race, and of blacks in particular, that it does not give us. Because humans are one interbreeding species, any definition of races will be arbitrary, and mating across such arbitrary lines will create the need for new arbitrary lines.
That lays the groundwork for Section III, which drew much of the criticism from the student editors. Alexander asks how the DRI theory applies to concrete solutions and whether these alleged generalities break down when presented in the “real world.”
Alexander again recognizes that “[t]here is no question that the dissolution of the black family, which has resulted in poor educational performance, poverty, and an increase in criminality, has made it impossible for blacks to achieve parity with groups in the upper echelons of the economy. ” However, he attacks the vague reference to “systems” of racism without looking at how specific systems caused or contributed to racism. He also criticizes the use of DRI theory to support such responses to systemic racism as reparations.
The article is hard hitting and controversial. It is also today virtually unheard of for such views to appear in legal academic journals. It is very difficult for conservatives or libertarians to be published today. Indeed, the number of such law faculty members in the country is remarkably low. That number has continued to fall during my three decades as a law professor. I have seen most top faculties shed all but a couple conservatives in what is now an academic echo chamber. This trend is discussed in my forthcoming law review article, Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming). We have also discussed the rising generation of censors on our student governments and journals.
The response of the Emory Law Journal editors amplifies those concerns. The editors wrote to Alexander that he had to entirely cut the third section of his work and substantially alter other parts as a condition for publication.
Editor-in-chief Danielle Kerker wrote to Alexander the following:
I shared the piece with my Executive Board, and they unanimously stated they do not feel comfortable publishing this piece as written. We think there are fair points of intellectual disagreement that would not necessarily warrant the extreme action of withdrawing our publication offer. However, we believe this piece would need to be greatly revised to be published in our journal.
We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive. Additionally, there are various instances of insensitive language use throughout the essay (e.g., widespread use of the objectifying term “blacks” and “the blacks” (pages 2, 3, 6, 8, etc.); the discussions on criminality and heredity (pages 11 and 14), the uncited statement that thankfully racism is not an issue today (page 18)). And, crucially, the discussion on racism is not strongly connected to your commentary on Professor Perry’s work, which is the focus of the Issue and the purpose behind the publication opportunity offered.
Censorship or Editorial Privilege?
The controversy raises an obvious question over the line between editorial privilege and outright censorship.
I agree with the editors that there are portions of this work that Professor Alexander should have reconsidered and rewritten. There are lines that I found particularly objectionable. For example, Alexander writes “[a]nd even more basically, in the absence of slavery, today’s individual blacks would not exist. That is, although blacks might exist in the U.S., the ones who actually exist here would not exist at all.”
I also strongly disagree with statements like “[a]lthough racism could be a problem for blacks today, the reality is, thankfully, is that it isn’t.” There is also this line: “Government cannot magically put dissolved black families back together, or instill love of education and an aversion to criminality in black children.”
Editors have a duty to maintain the quality of their journal. However, this is largely confined to the support for theories as opposed to the “harm” of the theories.
I have concerns over some of the specific objections of the editors. Professor Alexander’s use of “blacks” as a group is not unique in academic work. Moreover, the work questions the ability to treat the black community as a monolithic whole. My concern in this regard is to the consistently of such objections and whether they are based on the underlying viewpoint rather than the use of the term.
My concerns with this action are not due to any agreement with the underlying views of Professor Alexander. I have defended extremist views on academic freedom grounds like those of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis also writes for the site “Lawyers, Guns, and Money.”) I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.
We have previously discussed how there appears to be a double standard in how racially charged statements are treated in the media and academia. For example, Elie Mystal, who writes for Above The Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent has lashed out at “white society” and how he strives to maintain a “whiteness-free” life. On MSNBC, Mystal declared, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.” Mystal was celebrated for his declaration: “I have no intention of waiting around for them to try to kill me before I demand protection from their ‘free speech.’” Mystal speaks regularly at universities and will be speaking at the AALS convention this month to law professors.
While refusing to publish Professor Alexander in part due to his use of the “objectifying term ‘blacks,'” Emory Law Journal just published the article by Professor Phillip Lee entitled “Rejecting Honorary Whiteness: Asian Americans and the Attack on Race-Conscious Admissions.” Lee argues that Asians should embrace affirmative action favoring black applicants and reject “the invitation to honorary whiteness.” He argues that “color-blind” solutions are merely an effort “to preserve whiteness as an access card to education, which will only be granted to groups that white decision-makers deem worthy – in the most recent instance, certain high-scoring Asian Americans.”
Lee makes sweeping generalities based on “whites” and their privilege. He insists that color-blind rules are merely “enabling white people to retain their race-based privilege while blaming problematic minorities for their own lack of progress.” I found the article interesting and, while I disagree with aspects of his work, I would also oppose any effort to force Professor Lee to delete sections or viewpoints in this article. The point is only that what constitutes “objectifying” can change with one’s agreement or disagreement of the underlying viewpoint of an author.
Likewise, Emory editors objected to Alexander saying that racism is not a problem today. As noted, I disagree with this view. However, I am not sure how the editors expect him to add citation to his own viewpoint. Would they demand a citation from an academic who wrote “Racism is a problem today”?
Finally, the editors object that Alexander’s view on “racism is not strongly connected to your commentary on Professor Perry’s work.” However, the first two sections lay the foundation for the discussion in the third section. He is addressing Perry’s work on DRI theory and offering an alternative view on such racial impacts and the “systemic” causes for racism. I have read dozens of such symposiums on the work of authors. They are meant to be academic contributions, not just recitations or derivative work based on celebrated author’s work. Alexander discusses Perry’s work and then offers his own alternative to its underlying theory and its implications.
Professor Alexander refused to make any changes to his work. He wrote to the editors:
I refuse to eliminate Part III or to modify my language. I cannot believe the censorious tone you are taking towards an invited symposium participant. You don’t have to agree with what I’ve written, but what I’ve written I stand behind.
The editors then withdrew the offer and two other professors withdrew their articles in protest to what they viewed as content-based censorship.
As noted above, I agree with some of the criticism of the piece but I disagree with the position of the editors. There has been a long line of law review publications that make controversial and objectifying statements about whites and conservatives. I still value the diversity that such articles represent on our campuses. The best solution would have been to allow a response to Professor Alexander’s views. Ideally, Professor Perry could respond. The objections to the Alexander piece is not really his underlying support but his underlying views.
Ideally, this conflict should have been resolved with more work on both sides. I do believe that this essay would have been greatly improved with some rewriting or further explanation of these points. However, editors have an equal responsibility in maintaining a diversity of viewpoints and in recognizing that some “editing” demands can reflect bias or viewpoint discrimination.
Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), Inequity, and Exclusion. #HateLovesAbortion
“very difficult for conservatives or libertarians to be published today. Indeed, the number of such law faculty members in the country is remarkably low. That number has continued to fall during my three decades as a law professor. ”
That helps explain why so many on the left are ignorant. They only hear one voice.
These censors are supposed to be intelligent and educated, but that must not be the case. If they were, they would have published the article in its entirety and then they would have written pieces to tear the arguments apart. They chose censorship because of their lack of ability.
The objectifying term ‘blacks’ that is the basis for the name of ‘Black Lives Matter’? So many of us are so done with this cr*p. It’ll be a miracle if anyone sends their kids to these schools in five years. This period is going to be looked upon by history as a second dark age for Western civilization.
The sooner we look back on this period, the better, but I fear we are out of control and headed into the abyss.
The Emory students have mimicked the common thread of liberal thought:
They misrepresent opinion as fact.
By cherry picking the facts they want, or even by avoiding facts, they form a false, illogical opinion which goes unchecked and is misrepresented as fact. And then it is repeated over and over.
This forms a bastardized form of legal logic, and is a clear and present danger to our legal system and thus our country.
“I shared the piece with my Executive Board, and they unanimously stated they do not feel comfortable publishing this piece as written”
And that’s the point. You don’t always have too feel comfortable.
I shared the piece with my Executive Board, and they unanimously stated they do not feel comfortable debating publishing this piece as written”
Reminds me of a scene from the one the Indiana Jones movies. Ford was trying to escape from some locals when he was confronted by a sword-wielding man. The scene was supposed to be a sword fight, but Ford and many in the crew were suffering from dysentery. So Ford convinced Spielberg to have him simply shoot the man, instead of an exhausting sword fight.
Experimenting with WordPress to see if I can do a strikethrough:
I shared the piece with my Executive Board, and they unanimously stated they do not feel comfortable debating
publishingthis piece as written”“We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful…”
Truth hurts.
DRI is the biggest crock of BS
The best solution would have been to allow a response to Professor Alexander’s views.
Let me see if I understand this process correctly. “Student-editors” of the Emory Law Review invite a “Distinguished Professor of Law,” with scholarship credentials spanning decades, to submit an essay that the editors refuse to publish unless it conforms with their “months” of legal education. I picture these editors facing off with some renowned prosecutor or defense attorney and objecting based on finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive. Additionally, there are various instances of insensitive language use throughout the essay. The arrogance displayed by these student-editors is remarkable. If this is supported by the faculty of Emory Law School, then I’d hardly expect graduates of this school to be practicing law in a courtroom.
I don’t have a WordPress account, so I can’t ‘like’ this, but you nailed it – why are kids barely out of high school, the ones whose parents or our tax dollars paid for them to be at Emory in the first place – calling the shots? It is a question that is long, long overdue for an answer. Are the faculty really so paranoid about losing tenure and salary that they have given the reins to virtual children? If so, stop paying them, parents considering their kids’ next steps. the only other explanation is that our universities have been successfully taken over by people that have no business educating youth in a free country, and that too warrants severe scrutiny.
why are kids barely out of high school, the ones whose parents or our tax dollars paid for them to be at Emory in the first place – calling the shots?
Exactly. I have a 13 year old son who has become very comfortable expressing his worldly-view of life based on sitcoms, movies and listening to adult conversations. I know, standard teenage stuff. It’s tempting to just silence him, but I take these as opportunities to ask him questions that lead him to think about how he has come to actually know so little. I look forward to the day he stops expressing what he clearly does not understand and instead asks questions that lead to a true understanding.
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
~Abraham Lincoln
We in heap big trouble!
I love that quote, Ike. Now, don’t be surprised if we hear from the anti-Lincoln crowd.
“‘CRAZY ABE’ LINCOLN’S ‘RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD'”
LED TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNIST “RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS”
_____________________________________________________________________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
MARXIST OXYMORON – FREEDOM OF EDUCATION UNDER THE SUPREME CONTROL OF THE COMMUNIST STATE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“Education is free. Freedom of education shall be enjoyed under the condition fixed by law and under the supreme control of the state”
– Karl Marx
_________
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
– Vladimir Lenin
____________
The course taken by American teachers unions was dictated by Karl Marx.
Those who keep harping about how slavery is “bad for blacks” should consider that had there been no slavery, large number of blacks wouldn’t have been brought to the Americas. In fact, they wouldn’t even exist. That their ancestors were slaves really has little bearing on the capabilities of modern blacks.
They should also acknowledge, egregious as that part of our world’s history was, that the countries those people came from their own people engaged in the practice of slavery. ‘White privilege’ my behind – black people of prominence in those places were perfectly happy to have black slaves, and to give them to the ‘white folks’ that brought them over. It was (and still is in some sectors) a horrible, reprehensible, HUMAN problem. Talk about caste societies, sure, but the woke and young idjits in this country wouldn’t know their butts from a hole in the ground so paltry is their education and understanding, let alone their sense of basic human decency and compassion. I often think we should air drop all of these privileged fools into the middle of Cambodia or North Korea or Afghanistan and see how they do with the whining, a privilege this country and its Constitution gives them by default.
There are several folks in this comment section that could use an unplanned trip to one of those countries. It would be amusing to observe only because they would have the nerve to act shocked when real totalitarianism is foisted upon them.
You are right!
I had the opportunity to travel to East Berlin in the mid 1970s, spending four days in the DDR and a whole day on the other side of the wall (which was much more than a wall). traveled through the Mideast, lived in India in the late 1970s.
I traveled and lived on a shoestring and saw things I cannot forget. Such as a restaurant owner dumping the evening scraps on the sidewalk and watching a crowd fighting for the scraps. I had a drink with a textile owner who bragged to me that his workers would labor a whole day for a bowl of rice and some lentils and a few rupees. Oppression is unfortunately a way of life for hundreds of millions of people even today.
I was gone three years and when I came back home to the USA I was in total shock at the luxury and abundance. That was in the 70s! No phones, computers, didn’t have a credit card. Thankful for a meal and a safe place to sleep.
I think every young person should spend a year working among peoples in these nations at the street level. It was a huge paradigm shift for me. I hope it is not the trend but I visited with a 20 year old yesterday who referred to his grandmother for answers to questions I asked instead of answering them himself. Is this an anomaly or a growing trend?
Perhaps we are victims of our affluence.
“Perhaps we are victims of our affluence.”
Perhaps, but then none of us had any say on where, let alone when, we were born, who are parents are, or how we were raised, so I don’t see myself as a victim of affluence, per se. I grew up eating government cheese by the brick, plain label peanut butter, and dehydrated milk…a Blue-Light Special at K-Mart was a luxury growing up. Far better to be born, grow up, and raise a family in America than any other country, for sure, but as kids, we simply didn’t know we had it any better than other kids around the world.
There’s no doubt that Americans are probably the luckiest population on the planet, which is why I’m most thankful for the people who created it (United States). I will never be able to thank God enough for all the stars that had to align for me to exist here and now instead of anywhere else, as anyone else’s child, although I think I would have been even happier as a child of the 40’s after the war. 🙂
Victims and victimhood are perhaps the wrong words to use in this context ‘because’ of our affluence. I don’t mean that to sound contrarian to your travels and observations around the world, and I certainly don’t have a clue why God puts some people in situations they can’t escape, like with parents who know not how to escape the life-long poverty, the only existence they’ve ever known. To me, they are true victims.
To my point though, the Nattering-Nieghbobs of Negativism on this blog who perpetually find pleasure in running down others for their own gratification wouldn’t stand a chance living in any of the other, slightly less-affluent countries, let alone a place without clean water where far too many now are forced to live by their warlord, authoritarian leaders. It’s disheartening to watch – in both instances.
I often think we should air drop all of these privileged fools into the middle of Cambodia or North Korea or Afghanistan and see how they do with the whining, a privilege this country and its Constitution gives them by default.
That’s a very good point James. These Marxists have the luxury of being in attack mode because they are “protected” by the very rights and privileges they are attacking. It’s like bowling with the bumpers in the gutters. How quickly would their advocacy positions change if the protections of their own rights and privileges were what they publicly endorsed.
I can understand Turley’s disagreement with Alexander’s contention that racism is not a problem for blacks today. That seems an over-generalization, at best, and certainly is legitimate fodder for debate in the abence of clarification. I am puzzled, however, over Turley’s objection to this statement: “…in the absence of slavery, today’s individual blacks would not exist. That is, although blacks might exist in the U.S., the ones who actually exist here would not exist at all.” That would seem to be accurate: objectively true, and demonstrable, exactly as stated. How many blacks were voluntary immigrants to the US prior to Lee’s surrender to Grant on April 9, 1865? I don’t have a source for those statistics, but my educated guess is, damned few. Now, a case might be advanced that substantial numbers of black people have voluntarily entered the US in the years since, but, while that is indisputably true, it does not seem to negate Alexander’s point. The enslaved ancestors of today’s black US citizens would have remained in the location from where they were abducted, and would have mated with different people (if they mated at all), producing different, and possibly fewer, offspring. The geneology would be completely changed. The only exception would be descendants of blacks who immigrated as free citizens, and produced offspring with other blacks meeting that description. I would wager that is an empty set.
You haven’t gone back far enough in history. Slavery was pretty much just a thing at one time, and the United Sates was the first country to definitively put a stop to it as at the very least being ‘something we just do’.
Has anyone ever changed their location in order to obtain work? Are those Mexican, Central and South Americans coming over the border abused as much as former American slaves? How bad was life for indentured servants? How is life for those who toil at the county dump, the sewer plant, asphalt workers, steel mill workers, busboys, sump pumpers, house painters, stable hands, hotel maids, factory welders, etc., etc., etc. Are those jobs or slavery? According to legend, Jefferson treated Sally Hemmings et al. in superior fashion. How bad was it for the limo drivers of the era, the coachmen, Freed slaves must have been compassionately repatriated (what other disposition exists for victims of abduction and kidnapping?) per the law, per the Naturalization Act of 1802. Slaves didn’t have it all bad. They refused to leave when freed. The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they possessed the capacity and acumen sufficient to the task. You, Sir, are a gullible fool who has been played like a Stradivarius, of misguided, milquetoast, phantom guilt, by the parasitic, dependent freed slaves who must have had an overwhelming desire for home, one would conjecture.
I am sad to see our law schools, which are the key to our Justice System, become inundated with those who will destroy the very system that has always made us a beacon of light to the world.
Well said.
Steve: do you recall the large group of professors who united to protest the conclusions drawn by Nikole Hannah-Jones and CRT? Commenter Wayne Abernathy brings up the good point about “how we learn.” Not by being fed ideologically-driven agenda, but by probativr and opposing thought, going all the way back to Greece/Rome and beyond.. (I do agree with your latter comment about “monolithc” classification.) Thanks for your thoughts!
Let’s call a spade a spade. Our K-12 and post-secondary system has done little education and massive amounts of indoctrination. They parrot words of the coddled and weak. These students are as ignorant and brainwashed as Mao’s Red Guard, the Hitler Youth, followers of Chavez, Castro, Amin, Stalin and other tyrannical leaders. I suggest they move to Cuba and Venezuela to live the rest of their days as we don’t want oppressive little apparatchiks in the US. Th
Lefty attitudes.
I don’t like what you said so I will ban you, harm your career, and censor your writings.
But we believe in social justice for all.
Ugly people who wallow in self righteousness.
And they wonder why the country is getting more divided.
The statements of Alexander cited by Prof Turley would perhaps cause many to cringe. But those statements go beyond that, in that they would become the focus of the piece and thereby, destroy any merit in the piece.
And one of those statements: “Government cannot magically put dissolved black families back together, or instill love of education and an aversion to criminality in black children.” Huh, I thought Alexander was accusing Perry of treating Blacks as a monolithic group. Seems to me Alexander is doing the same thing in the quoted statement.
Who in the future will read such journals if they do not offer variety of views and open discussion? That is how we learn. Reading echo chambers of one’s own views soon becomes boring.
Setting aside, for the moment, all of Professor Alexander’s arguments, I expressly wish to laud him (and the good Professor Turley) for the courage and homesty it takes to set aside pursuit of academic favoritism in favor of pursuing truth.Nicole Hannah-Jones ended up with a Pulitzer Prize.and invitations for academic appointments…
“I have concerns over some of the specific objections of the editors. Professor Alexander’s use of “blacks” as a group is not unique in academic work. Moreover, the work questions the ability to treat the black community as a monolithic whole. My concern in this regard is to the consistently of such objections and whether they are based on the underlying viewpoint rather than the use of the term.”
*******************************
More SJW BS by the editors but on the thrust of the argument, I’d say: “I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people. (Edmund Burke, On Conciliation with America (1775)) I’d add to that simple truism there is no way to provide one solution to a whole people, either. The solution to the problems of any community lies within that community. No outside force can be expected to appreciate, contextualize or reform any given set of circumstances of a community – if even that is the right word here. We put people in groups for OUR convenience in thinking about things; the group is composed of individual people with differing situations and needs. That’s why the Dims are so misguided. They think they can impose virtue. Virtue springs from within. It is never authentically enforced from without.
Typical that the editors would use their “comfort” as the basis for their rejection. Aren’t any of them capable of presenting a coherent intellectual reason for their embrace of censorship? If they can’t defend their anti-democratic actions with anything other then a resort to “comfort,” they will have a hard time arguing a real case before a real judge and jury. But that’s the snowflake MO — it’s all about them.
I find it interesting and alarming that our law schools are not training their students in how to argue a case, but rather to shut opponents down through brute authority.
Like Ed Schools that do not train students in how to teach, but rather in how to indoctrinate and impose their opinions on vulnerable children.
And J-Schools that train students not how to do journalism, but how to act on behalf of powerful interests to impose approved opinions on mass society.
And now, from New York, we see how Med Schools are teaching students to impose race-based rules governing access to treatment.
None of this will end well for society as a whole, though some individuals are doing quite well for themselves, parasitizing the host society.
You are certainly correct as to your appraisal of the current situation but it stems from a nation that erroneously rejected a melting pot for multiculturalism whereby we lost a commonly agreed upon core of accepted social morals and standards by which to guide our public institutions and society in general. Whether, at this point, we can recapture that standard will determine the future of this nation.
And now, from New York, we see how Med Schools are teaching students to impose race-based rules governing access to treatment.
These are the first 4 articles listed in the current issue of the world’s once premiere medical science academic journal, the New England Journal of Medicine
First Impressions — Should We Include Race or Ethnicity at the Beginning of Clinical Case Presentations?
A.S. Brett and C.W. Goodman
2497-2499
Calling Out Aversive Racism in Academic Medicine
C.L. Chen, G.J. Gold, M. Cannesson, and J.M. Lucero
2499-2501
Closing the Gender Pay Gap in Medicine
A.S. Gottlieb and R. Jagsi
2501-2504
Trust, Faith, and Covid
E. Rittenberg
2504-2505
https://www.nejm.org/toc/nejm/medical-journal
We are so screwed.
I wish I had an answer other than be diligent, learn, research, and question everything. Consider drinking Bacardi Gold Rum and Coke with a twist of lime; it helps dull the pain.
Emory…. Memory…
Greatest BS in Alabama…
Clear across this great big land…
There is no crap like Emory!
Anonymous, I think you intended to say “Atlanta, GA,” not Alabama. Am I correct, or does Alabama appear for some less obvious reason?
Do you even know where Emory is, I’m sure they have Emory boards in Alabama?
Emory is in Georgia, not Alabama. Auburn is in Alabama.