A Nation Primed To See Racism In Everything Will Think Only About Race

One high school in Oregon postponed a vote last week on whether to change its mascot from the Trojan to the Evergreens over concerns the imagery of lush timber was racist.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett High School, named after the prominent black activist and journalist who documented lynching in the post-Civil War era, was considering a mascot change to adopt a symbol more representative of its connection to the community. Board members complained, however, that evergreen trees would conjure up imagery invoking the brutal execution of African-Americans.

“I think everyone comes with blind spots and I think that might’ve been a really big blind spot,” said Director Michelle DePass at the school board meeting.

The episode is emblematic of how the country has come to see race, viewing minorities deemed oppressed by the woke left as fragile special-interest groups that Americans must hold a religious commitment to buttress in the moral righteousness of “antiracism.” Everywhere, Americans are explicitly reminded of the racial inequities among minority groups as evidence of their inherent racism and the nation’s irredeemably racist past — and present.

Starting at an early age, Americans are barraged with statistics and anecdotes, about everything from income to health status, that are always broken down by race to highlight disparities that victimize minorities and define their destiny as one determined by racist circumstance over personal responsibility. This ideology of abject victimhood taught in classrooms, newsrooms, and boardrooms after being bred for an entire generation on left-wing university campuses has now produced a nation dangerously constrained by a toxic obsession with race.

Under this doctrine, anything and everything must be vetted by 21st-century standards of cultural acceptance to root out the poisonous racism. This obsession, however, is the root of American demise. A nation primed to think only about race will only think about race.

Americans are now trained to see racism in everything, even where it doesn’t exist. Trees are racist. Hiking is racist. Your cereal box is racist. Your depictions of Santa Claus and Jesus are racist. Claiming otherwise to any of it is also racist.

Minorities are trained to see themselves as hopelessly oppressed and facing endless aggressions at every turn. Every slightest impolite infraction can earn the morally indignant condemnation as racist, wrecking the perpetrator as a villain responsible for deep personal trauma. The so-called trauma, however, is merely a preconception inculcated by years of woke indoctrination.

None of this is to say racism doesn’t exist. Americans can and should recognize there are racial tensions that need to be addressed. The radical obsession with defining every aspect of the modern culture through the exhaustive lens of “antiracism,” however, has only led tensions to new heights while deceiving millions of well-meaning Americans who are terrified of the racist label and roping them into the effort. And “antiracism,” weaponized by the political left to pursue political ends through intimidation of their opponents, has stifled debate, driven division, and merely created a different kind of racism.

The debate over voter ID requirements included in the recent Republican-passed Georgia voting bill provides a perfect illustration of today’s racism infecting woke corporatists and the Democratic Party, which claim — in the name of antiracism of course — that mandated identification requirements for ballot access are too difficult for minorities to comply with.

And then there’s affirmative action and the push for reparations, endorsed by the Democratic Party, which claims minorities aren’t capable of achieving of the American dream without white saviors and billions in special assistance.

Race relations under the mandated lens of antiracism aren’t getting any better. On that, nearly all Americans agree. According to Gallup, in 2008, the year Americans elected their first black president, 70 percent of white adults and 61 percent of black adults said race relations were either “very” or “somewhat good.” Only 46 percent of white adults and 36 percent of black adults said the same in 2020.

If last year’s radical acceleration of antiracism in the culture war has taught us nothing else, it’s that the colorblind approach was likely the right one. The opposite has shown to be an aggressive form of racism featuring the bigotry of low expectations cloaked in the moral righteousness of social justice.


Harvard Doctors Promote Race-Based Discrimination In Boston Hospital In Order To Be ‘Antiracist’

A Boston hospital released a new “Antiracist Agenda For Medicine” plan that it says will promote “racial equity” in health care.

According to an article published in the Boston Review, the Brigham and Women’s Hospital will offer “preferential care based on race” in order to ensure “race-explicit interventions.”

“Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law,” Harvard Medical School professors Bram Wispelwey and Michelle Morse wrote in the piece. “But given the ample current evidence that our health, judicial, and other systems already unfairly preference people who are white, we believe — following the ethical framework of Zack and others — that our approach is corrective and therefore mandated. We encourage other institutions to proceed confidently on behalf of equity and racial justice, with backing provided by recent White House executive orders.”

The instructors linked to an executive order signed by President Joe Biden on his first day in office that called for “conducting an equity assessment in federal agencies” and revoked former President Donald Trump’s established 1776 Commission to teach foundational American civics in schools. The Biden administration removed the 1776 Report from the White House website, but you can read a copy obtained by The Federalist here.

In addition to claiming that data showing white people were more likely to be patients at its hospital demonstrates a “racial inequity,” the Harvard professors say “institutional racism” is at the root of America. The piece calls for “implicit bias training” as well as “checklists” for providers to verify they are not being racist to patients.

“Implicit bias training and checklists offer indirect solutions where more direct forms of race-explicit action are available; the objectivity aspired to in clinical criteria is also inevitably tainted by the pervasiveness of structural racism,” the piece states. “What we need instead, we have come to believe, is a proactively antiracist agenda for medicine.”

The doctors are spearheading this and other “equitable solutions” as part of a pilot initiative at Brigham and Women’s Hospital this spring. Wispelwey and Morse say that leftist economist William Darity Jr. provided a “reparations framework” that must be applied to the health profession to ensure “black and Latinx patients” are prioritized.

One of the programs proposed by the writers is something called “Redress.” The program is intended to discriminate against whites who require medical attention so other individuals can automatically be given treatment.

“Redress could take multiple forms, from cash transfers and discounted or free care to taxes on nonprofit hospitals that exclude patients of color and race-explicit protocol changes (such as preferentially admitting patients historically denied access to certain forms of medical care),” the professors write.

According to GianCarlo Canaparo, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, the effort would violate a “number of federal and state laws,” in addition to Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity.”

“What’s more, Bringham and Women’s Hospital’s decision to discriminate in providing medical services makes it ineligible to receive federal funding and jeopardizes the federal funding of Harvard Medical School with which it is affiliated,” Canaparo noted. “For example, the Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’) bars any Health and Human Services funding from going to a medical provider that discriminates on the basis of race. Likewise, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars federal funds from going to any organization that engages in racial discrimination. The hospital also exposes itself and Harvard Medical School to court or federal agency enforcement of the law’s anti-discrimination requirements.”
The hospital will prioritize five neighborhoods in Boston with the highest black and Latino populations and provide outreach in these communities to apologize for supposed institutional racism.


University Of Oregon Paid ‘1619 Project’ Writer Nikole Hannah-Jones $25K To Lecture On ‘Systemic Racism’

The University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication paid New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the writer behind the anti-historical “1619 Project,” for a Zoom lecture in February on “1619 and the Legacy that Built a Nation,” as first reported by Campus Reform.

Hannah-Jones raked in $25,000, evident by a Freedom of Information Request filed by Campus Reform. The Feb. 19 event was co-sponsored by the university’s Office of the President, Office of the Provost, and Division of Equity and Inclusion, among other groups.

The organization that was paid by The University of Oregon was the Lavin Agency, as shown by the FOIA. The agency defines itself as “the world’s largest intellectual talent agency, representing leading thinkers for speaking engagements, personal appearances, consulting, and endorsements.” The group also offers the likes of Margaret Atwood, leftist activist Angela Davis, Khan Academy Chief Executive Officer Salman Khan, climate writer Naomi Klein, and other big names.

The “1619 Project” writer discussed why Americans need to “remain vigilant” while fighting for “racial inequality.” A promotional flyer for the event claimed there is a “lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation.”

“As the lead writer for New York Times Magazine’s the “1619 Project,’ a major viral multimedia initiative observing the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves arriving in America, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones explores the lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation—specifically, how Black Americans pushed for the democracy we have today,” the flyer read.

Last week, Hulu announced it will stream the “1619 Project,” which Lionsgate studios and Oprah Winfrey partnered to fund this summer. Hulu praised the project by Hannah-Jones in a press release as “a landmark undertaking … of the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today.” Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize for her project — which has been debunked by several historians for its pushing of the false premise that America was both founded in 1619 and that the Revolutionary War was fought to sustain slavery.

“[I]t would not surprise me in the slightest if the university is actively attempting to hide its embrace of radicalism,” Oregon Federation of College Republicans Chairman Ben Ehrlich said to Campus Reform.

John Large, a spokesman for the Lane County Republicans where the university is located, told The Federalist that “The University of Oregon is so damned two-faced that if a conservative went to the campus, they would go ahead and throw them guys out.”

According to a document put out by the university, the event was not permitted to be recorded or redistributed.


Hulu Hops On ‘Systemic Racism’ Train By Streaming 1619 Project Disinfo Docuseries

Hulu will stream a docuseries adaptation of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which Lionsgate and Oprah Winfrey partnered this summer to fund.

The 1619 Project, a series of articles created by so-called journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, ahistorically claimed the year 1619 was the legitimate founding of the United States due to the importation of slaves.

The speculative project neglects the fact that America was founded as a constitutional republic in 1776 after sparring against the British monarchy. Hannah-Jones’s work went so far as to claim the Revolutionary War was fought to sustain slavery, even though it was factually fought between the 13 colonies and Great Britain over unnecessary taxation and a war for control of America.

A press release put out on Thursday by Hulu praises the 1619 Project as “a landmark undertaking … of the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today.” Hulu describes Jones in its press release as “one of the nation’s foremost investigative journalists.”

Hulu, majorly owned by the Walt Disney Company, has not yet announced when the project will be available. The first episode will be directed and produced by Roger Ross Williams, who was the first black director to take home an Academy Award for his 2010 documentary “Music by Prudence.” Williams said in a statement that the “systemic racism” the 1619 Project teaches “is an essential reframing of American history.”

“Our most cherished ideals and achievements cannot be understood without acknowledging both systemic racism and the contributions of Black Americans. And this isn’t just about the past — Black people are still fighting against both the legacy of this racism and its current incarnation,” said Williams.

While the New York Times has stood by its verifiably false reporting on the history of slavery, it altered its mission statement for the 1619 Project. The description for the series of articles in August 2019 sought to represent “1619 as our true founding,” while a description published on Sept. 18, 2020, deleted this phrasing.

Jones, who not shockingly won a Pulitzer Prize in 2020 by the left-leaning institution, claimed we need to “deprogram … millions of Americans, almost all white, almost all Republicans.”

Then-President Donald Trump signed an executive order in November 2020 to establish a “1776 Commission” to “instill patriotic education” and teach foundational American history. Moments after taking office, President Joe Biden removed the report from the official White House website and revoked the commission to guide civics education. School districts across the country have said in recent years they will use the flawed 1619 Project in schools.

The docuseries aims to communicate that America is systemically racist and comes at a time when the Marxist critical race theory is on the rise.


Oakland to Give $500 per Month to ‘BIPOC Families’ to ‘Eliminate Racial Disparities’

The Mayor of Oakland, California, is rolling out a program that awards low-income black families, foreign nationals, and the homeless $500 a month — and apparently excluding white households living in equivalent poverty.

According to CNN, the “Oakland Resilient Families Program” will give the extra cash to families with at least one minor child, selecting recipients at random from an online database:

To qualify for the Oakland Resilient Families payments, families must have at least one child under 18. Their income must be at or below the area’s median income: around $59,000 for a family of three.

But half of the available spots will be reserved for very low-income families — those who earn below 138% of the federal poverty level — or, about $30,000 per year for a family of three.

An online, multilingual screening form will be released later this spring and summer, after which families will be chosen at random to receive the payments. The program is also open to undocumented and/or unsheltered families. Because recipients will not be required to work for the payments, the money is not considered taxable income.

The program is reportedly funded by private donations rather than tax collection, and it will select 600 families for the payouts over a year and a half — a total of $9,000 per family, distributing $5.4 million out of $6.75 million the organization has raised so far.

Mayor Libby Schaaf praised the “guaranteed income” program in a statement: “The poverty we all witness today is not a personal failure, it is a systems failure. Guaranteed income is one of the most promising tools for systems change, racial equity, and economic mobility we’ve seen in decades.”

Schaaf’s (pictured) reference to “racial equity” indicates adherence to the rising trend of antiracism, a concept popularized by Ibram X. Kendi which argues in favor of racial discrimination for the purposes of achieving equal outcomes between demographics. The city’s statement makes this explicit, declaring one of its objectives is to “eliminate racial disparities.” It points to a data survey titled the Oakland Equity Index, which reports, on average, the city’s white households earn considerably more than its minority households:

The median income for White households was highest ($110,000) and the median income for African American households was lowest ($37,500). The median income for Asian households ($76,000) was similar to the citywide median income ($73,200), while Latino households fell below the citywide median with a median income of $65,000. The median income for White households was 2.93 times the median income of African American households.

The Daily Mail notes that, according to the Oakland Equity Index, “around 8 percent of the city’s white residents, approximately 10,000 people, live in poverty.” The city’s statement does not make any mention of assistance for poor white families. The statement only designates “BIPOC families” (black and indigenous people of color) as recipients.

Other guaranteed income programs have been instituted in Stockton, California, in 2019, where 100 dwellers receive $500 payments without strings attached. The report also noted three other states have also created similar handouts in Newark, New Jersey; and Atlanta, Georgia.


How Writing A Federalist Article Put Me On Chardonnay Antifa’s Cancel List

In October 2020, I wrote an opinion article for The Federalist entitled “More Va. Public Schools Using Kids As Guinea Pigs For Critical Race Theory.” As a parent in Loudoun County, Va., I had become extremely concerned that Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is being hijacked by rabid radicals eager to spend taxpayer money to indoctrinate teachers and students with critical race theory concepts.

Among the many issues I highlighted included: (1) more than $400,000 in taxpayer money spent on “equity consultants”; (2) an unconstitutional speech code preventing school staff from speaking negatively — both at school and in private — about LCPS’s “action-oriented equity practices”; and (3) unconstitutional discrimination in paying for an “equity” focus group, where participants were chosen based solely on race.

As a parent, a lawyer, and public affairs professional, I was exercising my First Amendment right to question my local government. Certainly, those in Loudoun County on the other side of this debate could have countered my opinion article with one of their own. That is the very essence of the First Amendment: the marketplace of ideas.

But that contrary opinion article never came. What did come, however, is highlighted in this horrifying story by The Daily Wire.

In short, a private Facebook group called “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County” (hereinafter referred to as Chardonnay Antifa) solicited members to help “expose” other parents who had spoken out against the use of critical race theory and “equity” (as opposed to equality) at LCPS. As part of the call to action, one member asked for help in hacking the websites of fellow LCPS parents, spreading information about these targets publicly through mailings, and raising money for these dirty deeds.

Dozens of members of this group started listing their nonconformist neighbors. I was listed by someone I didn’t know for speaking out at a school board meeting about my heartfelt concerns with the speech code. I was listed a second time for my October Federalist op-ed by a neighbor who frequently takes to social media to attack everyone who does not agree with her worldview.

While those posts are certainly annoying to see, it is her constitutional right to express on social media or any other medium as many negative opinions about me as she wishes. But you don’t need a J.D. from the Holiday Inn Express Law School to recognize that soliciting assistance to potentially commit cyber-crimes against people solely for exercising their right to speak —and providing targets for destruction — is not protected by the First Amendment.

These proposed dirty tricks may violate a bevy of laws, including Virginia’s criminal solicitation law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and ironically a Reconstruction Era civil rights statute prohibiting a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.”

As insane as this part of the story is, there is a larger concern here. It is important to understand that being “anti-racist” is not the same as being “not racist.”

The large majority of tolerant people, myself included, put themselves squarely in the latter category. They believe that the color of someone’s skin is as relevant as the color of his eyes or hair. They have been raised to be color-blind and live by Martin Luther King Jr.’s maxim to judge a person by the content of his or her character, rather than skin color. These people believe in race-neutral policies that have the ultimate goal of equal opportunity for all.

Those who pose as “anti-racist” claim that systemic racism is present in nearly every conversation, interaction, organization, and so forth. They aggressively advocate for race-based policies that inflame, divide, and deliberately destroy longstanding norms, language, and institutions.

While many do not subscribe to the “anti-racist” mantra, that does not mean they are wrong or right. That is what civil debate in the marketplace of ideas is for.

Unfortunately, the Loudoun story is an example of what happens when people become radicalized by non-stop gaslighting from nefarious leaders, cable news hosts, celebrities, and people who say things on social media they wouldn’t dare say at a cookout. Throw in the social media algorithms and you’ve got an army of liberal lemmings willing to start secret cabals to bring down anyone who dares raise concern.

So what are parents to do? Well, I helped start a daily newsletter called the Daily Malarkey that frequently highlights the absurdity of cancel culture. Here is what we said about this the other day: “The Cancel Culture war isn’t limited to politics and the media. It’s in your neighborhood, at your kids’ schools, and on your social media channels. In the past, you could generally avoid drama by keeping your head down, but when you’re dealing with a group that literally creates a blacklist, there is no safe space.”

This cancel culture cancer is coming for you, whether you know it or not. It’s not about your political affiliation. It’s not about your worldview. It’s about the radicalization of everyday people whose inner turmoil will be directed at you, for whatever innocuous thing you might do to offend. It’s being fueled by Big Tech, irresponsible political leaders, and perhaps a dash of foreign influence campaigns.

Whatever you do, don’t back down. Go beyond the politics and read the work of James Lindsey, Chris Rufo, and Bari Weiss. If you are conservative, don’t be afraid to read Matt Taiibi just because he is liberal. If you are a liberal, don’t scoff at reading Andrew Sullivan because he is a conservative.

Seek out information about critical race theory in schools and learn why it’s unconstitutional and racist. Send open records requests, go to school board meetings and speak out, and substitute unproductive social media fights with letters to the editor at your local paper.

Ultimately, this is beyond a fight for the First Amendment, a fight for freedoms, or even a fight for the future of your country. This is a fight for you, your family, and the future. Go win it.


Illinois Teachers Shamed For Color Of Their Skin In Taxpayer-Sponsored ‘Antiracist’ Training

Educators at a public high school in Illinois were astonished to learn when they showed up for work one day that everything from the color of their skin to snow shoveling indicates “systemic racism.”

On Feb. 26, Naperville 203 Community Unit School District hosted a systemic racism training for faculty and staff, bringing in “antiracist” coach Dena Simmons for a keynote speech. The Countywide Equity Institute featured 10 speakers lecturing on “equity and inclusion” practices for “marginalized and/or underrepresented” students, as well as implicit bias and microaggressions.

A whistleblower who reached out to The Federalist, a teacher at Naperville Central High School, claims Simmons told attendees that “our education is based on a foundation of whiteness” and that Americans “are spiritually murdering” students. Simmons also reportedly said that if you are not an “antiracist” you are a racist, even if you believe “you are treating people with respect.”

Simmons has delivered two TEDx talks on institutional racism. In one speech to educators that has more than 230,000 views on YouTube, the Yale University graduate said “white supremacy” is the outcome in all schools that do not embrace “racial justice” and “antiracism” training for students.

In an article titled “How to Be an Antiracist Educator” published in Oct. 2019, Simmons praises The New York Times’ “1619 Project” as a “comprehensive opportunity to learn and discuss history and race with colleagues and students.” The 1619 Project claimed America is systemically racist and that all of modern society and injustices are directly linked to slavery. It has been the target of much criticism by scholars for inaccuracy.

The whistleblower said Simmons’ lecture was “all over the place” and “hard to follow” content-wise. Simmons reportedly said “snow removal” indicates systemic racism, presumably referencing a viral Feb. 3 column published by the Los Angeles Times in which the author condemned her Republican neighbor for plowing her driveway.

“At one point she was talking even about how snow removal is affected by systemic racism. She totally lost me on that one. I even texted that to my [partner],” said the whistleblower.

“It’s almost time for an amazing day of learning in @Naperville203! So excited for our lineup, discussions, reflections, and ACTIONS that will make us better together. #BeTheSpark @brightmorningtm @DenaSimmons @SaraKAhmed @pgorski @chrisemdin,” the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction at Naperville, Jayne Willard, who organized the Feb. 26 “antiracist training,” tweeted that morning.

The Federalist contacted the district for a transcript or video of the training. An employee at the district office claimed Simmons did not permit any recording or redistribution of her discussion that day.

“The Naperville Community School District 203 has given a platform to the toxic and divisive ideology of critical race theory. Ms. Dena Simmons is one of the many prophets of this cult-like ideology that looks at children by the color of their skin, not the content of their character,” Asra Q. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter investigating critical race theory in education, told The Federalist. “As parents, we need to ask the bottom line questions. How much was Ms. Simmons paid? Was there a competitive bidding process to get speakers on the topic?”

Simmons is the founder of LiberatED, a group “focused on developing school-based resources at the intersection of social and emotional learning (SEL), racial justice, and healing.” She posts a reported speaking fee of $10,000 to $20,000 to essentially discuss the redistribution of wealth and social prestige by race.

A teacher at Naperville Central sent The Federalist several PowerPoint slides from the virtual training hosted by speaker Valda Valbrun, who presented on the topic “Leading for Equity: Efficacy and Action in Schools.” The PowerPoint image below obtained by The Federalist alludes to a broad conspiratorial network of interconnected systems of “structural and institutional racism.”

Below are additional pictures that teachers in the Valbrun training took, one of which depicts a pyramid graph that differentiates between examples of “covert” and “overt” white supremacy. Among the overt examples, the graph claims the phrase “Make America Great Again” is covert white supremacist language, nearly equivalent in context to the N-word and the Ku Klux Klan. Also, it claims denying the existence of “white privilege” makes you a racist. So does the “celebration of Columbus Day,” as depicted in the right-hand corner.

Another slide, depicted under the white supremacy graph, deceptively equates “equal access” with “a vision of society in which the distribution of resources and power is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure.” Once more, equality of outcome is represented by the “antiracist” educators as synonymous with equality of opportunity.



Valbrun is the CEO of Valbrum Consulting Group, an organization that provides training and leadership development for schools and districts. In 2019, Valbrun presented at The Harvey B. Gantt Museum, Equity and Innovation Teacher Institute on equity and systemic racism in education. Valbrum’s lecture at Naperville overwhelmingly used identity politics to explain all “disparities” in society, according to sources.

“Let’s look at the children as individuals,” a teacher said. “They are saying that if you are white you are racist and have white privilege. Even if you say you are not racist, you are told you are.”

On March 2, school district coordinator Sue Jim Striedl sent an email to all attendees at the Feb. 26 Valbrun training to provide a link to the Intercultural Development Inventory website. IDI identifies itself as “the premier cross-cultural competence that is used by thousands of individuals and organizations to build intercultural competence to achieve international and domestic diversity and inclusion goals and outcomes.”

Striedl forwarded a Google Drive link from Valbrun that contains documents she used in her lecture. One document called the “Leading For Racial Equity” glossary defines the terms “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “white culture,” “whiteness,” and “systemic racism,” among others. It also says that “reverse racism” does not exist, claiming white people cannot be discriminated against.

Another document is a “Continuum on Becoming an Anti-Racist, Multicultural Institution,” a six-step guide to becoming an “antiracist” based on the notion that everyone is implicitly bigoted. The third document included below is called the “School Culture Equity Rubric” and outlines various scenarios of “racism,” such as if a minority student is not greeted upon entering a classroom. Additionally, suspensions, detentions, and all “zero-tolerance discipline” policies are said to be racist.

In a tweet prior to the 2020 presidential election in November, now-Vice President Kamala Harris called for “equity,” saying “equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.” Schools and companies are now ramping up partnerships with speakers espousing dangerous ideas, such as the elimination of meritocracy and the idea of judging people as racist or non-racist based on their biology.

In this intersectionality hierarchy, a white man is inherently racist simply because he is a white man; a transgender black pansexual person with the pronouns it/they remains oppressed because of his sectarian status in society’s impermeable “hegemony.”

In February, a whistleblower said Coca-Cola was hosting “antiracist” training on LinkedIn for employees, which was subsequently removed from the website. The training videos instructed employees to “try to be less white.”

Brigham Young University, as reported by The Daily Wire, is developing a “race-conscious” curriculum. The BYU task force said the school should “establish a dedicated, visible space on campus for underrepresented students and those who serve this population.” In other words, segregation.

“We’re facing a national crisis in America today with a multimillion-dollar industry that I call ‘Woke Inc.,’ infiltrating our schools with hired guns, weaponizing our children, and indoctrinating them with toxic, divisive ideas that segregate, shame, and denigrate,” Nomani said. “As a parent, it breaks my heart. We have to stand up with moral courage and challenge and expose this nightmare.”

According to teachers, Naperville Central had a “building institute” training a week prior on Feb. 22 where district “learning coaches” lectured on implicit bias and microaggressions. The topic of discussion was also equity and racism in education—and America at large. The whistleblower says that he believes the next session is scheduled for April 6.

The “antiracist” training at the high school comes on the heels of Illinois formally approving “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards.” According to the new rules, teachers are required to “embrace and encourage progressive viewpoints and perspectives,” as well as “assess how their biases…affect…how they access tools to mitigate their own behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege, Eurocentrism, etc).”

“In Illinois, the semi-official civics website tied to the implementation of the state’s civics law, illinoiscivics.org , has been heavily promoting critical race theory, the culturally responsive teaching philosophy that grows out of critical race theory, and the white fragility-style training sessions connected to culturally responsive teaching. I say ‘semi-official’ because the illinoiscivics.org website is funded and run by a private entity, the McCormick Foundation,” Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told The Federalist.

The new rules in Illinois include an article on “white fragility” and form the basis for training sessions—like that at Naperville—for teachers to “move past their whiteness.” Educators are required to admit that there is systemic racism or  “that there are systems in our society that create and reinforce inequities, thereby creating oppressive conditions.”

“We need to oppose ‘antiracism’ training because the training itself is more like racism than its opposite. This training attributes guilt and innocence, insight and blindness, to individuals because of their race. This training, and the critical race theory that inspires it, is fundamentally at odds with the classically liberal principles that form the foundation of our constitutional system,” Kurtz added.

He noted that Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed the nation he leads is beset with systemic racism, a critical race theory concept, and one of his first acts as president was to reinstate critical race theory trainings for federal employees and contractors.

“I’ve had enough of this,” the whistleblower said. “Somebody needed to say something. I was raised with the idea that you try to see people as human beings and individuals. Instead of trying to create a society that works together, a society that has the values that our country was founded on, all systemic racism is doing is drawing attention to people’s races and differences. Instead of a society that works together, this is totally the opposite.”

Assistant Superintendent Jayne Willard did not return several calls from The Federalist requesting for comment, nor did Assistant Principal Angela Ginnan from Naperville Central High School. Valbrun Consulting Group did not return any calls. An individual who handles inquiries for Dena Simmons responded to an email preliminarily but did not answer a follow-up with questions.

Update: A teacher who wishes to remain anonymous contacted the Federalist on March 6 and said the Naperville union representative, Dan Iverson, sent a letter to faculty and staff after the publishing of this article. Iverson said that it is vital America fosters “a more equitable district and a more equitable society.”

I appreciate your article as I too work at District 203. Sadly it is falling on deaf ears and they are ramping up pressure on us even more as conservatives. We just got this letter from our union rep (Dan Iverson). The thing he doesn’t get is if we speak out we will get punished. Read below. [link],”

Linked here is the letter by Dan Iverson obtained by The Federalist. Above all else, Iverson neglects the fact that conservative voices are silenced in leftist-ran institutions today, such as Naperville—which has been harped on by several educators who spoke to The Federalist. All teachers have requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions.


Whistleblower: Coca-Cola Uses Antiracist Training That Tells Employees ‘Try To Be Less White’

Coca-Cola has used a training video by antiracist activist Robin DiAngelo that tells employees to “try to be less white,” according to “unwoke activist” Karlyn Borysenko based on information from what she says is a company whistleblower. Borysenko, who is also a psychologist, YouTuber, and creator of Zen Workplace, put a video of the training online. Borysenko often speaks out against critical race theory and corporate race training.

The 49-minute training video by DiAngelo, author of the book “White Fragility,” is titled “Confronting Racism.” Right away the course establishes that all white people are born racist. “Nothing exempts any white person from the forces of racism,” says DiAngelo. “When you accept the reality of your socialization, you can begin to examine how you’ve been shaped by it.”

“In the U.S. and other Western nations, white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white,” she continues. “Research shows that by age 3 to 4, children understand that it is better to be white.”

Employees are told in the “what you can do” section that to “be less white” one can:

Be less oppressive

Be less arrogant

Be less certain

Be less defensive

Be less arrogant

Be more humble



Break with apathy

Break with white solidarity

DiAngelo’s list thus implies that white people are, by their very skin color, oppressive, defensive, arrogant, apathetic, and so forth.

The training includes a “racial resentment” section. “Any moment of black advancement is met with a backlash of white rage and resentment,” DiAngelo claims. “I think we’re in a current moment of that after eight years of Obama.” DiAngelo goes on to say that white people resent affirmative action, which she describes as “a toothless program that we’ve practically dismantled.”

DiAngelo says when white people say they aren’t racist, she doesn’t buy it. When DiAngelo hears white people say, “I was taught to treat everyone the same,” she said she thinks to herself, “this person doesn’t understand basic socialization. This person doesn’t understand culture. This person is not self-aware.”

Being nice to black people is not enough, according to DiAngelo. “Niceness is not courageous. Niceness is not anti-racism.” She informs listeners that if they are merely nice, then they are advancing a racist system that increases “racial disparities.”

The course description for the training reads:

In this course, Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of White Fragility, gives you the vocabulary and practices you need to start confronting racism and unconscious bias at the individual level and throughout your organization. There’s no magic recipe for building an inclusive workplace. It’s a process that needs to involve people of color, and that needs to go on for as long as your company is in business. But with these tools at your disposal, you’ll be well on your way.

The entire training is available on “LinkedIn Learning,” which Borysenko says Coca-Cola is using “for their internal platform.”

DiAngelo’s course could open Coca-Cola to a slew of lawsuits by employees who suspect they were denied promotions, bonuses, and other opportunities due to their skin color. They can use the training as direct evidence of racial discrimination, according to lawyers.


Netflix-Sponsored ‘Antiracist’ Grifter Ibram Kendi Supports Totalitarian Government

You’ve probably heard that Ibram X. Kendi, author of “How To Be An Antiracist,” just teamed up with Netflix to create films and animated shorts about racism for adults through preschoolers.

You may not have heard some of Kendi’s other ideas, such as his proposal to create a federal Department of Antiracism to go after speech and policies that don’t fit Kendi’s definition of “antiracist.”

In Kendi’s paradigm, by the way, there is no such thing as simply being “not racist.” If you are not actively advocating Kendi’s brand of antiracism, he suggests, you are by definition being racist.

The Department Of Policy And Speech Police

Kendi has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make “racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials” unconstitutional. Inequity, of course, is different to leftists than inequality. As Vice President Kamala Harris explained in a video that inspired comparisons to communism, to leftists equity means government rigging equal outcomes.

Racial inequities, Kendi says, are “evidence of racist policy.” That means if a young woman who isn’t white is making less money than a white woman of the same age, that inequity of income must be a result of policies that are racist.

While policies that produce inequity should certainly be scrutinized (and their political proponents held accountable), the assumption that any significant difference in outcomes is a result of racism is wildly divorced from the American belief in personal responsibility. All Americans deserve the opportunity to pursue happiness; that doesn’t mean the government measures out doses of it.

Policies that enable abortions are extremely racially inequitable, and leftists never call the results racist. While black Americans make up just over 13 percent of the population, 36 percent of abortions in America kill black babies. In 2015, there were almost as many abortions of black babies in America as white babies, even though white Americans make up over three-fourths of the population. By Kendi’s logic, Planned Parenthood clearly has to go — but somehow I don’t think that’s what he has in mind.

So what policies would Kendi’s Department of Antiracism go after? It would have to “preclear,” Kendi says, “all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity.” That means a bureaucratic agency composed of completely unelected “experts” can nuke any policy, from a law passed by Congress to a local school board decision, that it predicts will cause “inequity.”

Not only would Kendi’s department appoint itself over every government policy from Washington, D.C. to the Kalamazoo School Board, it would also “investigate private racist policies.” So if your local homeowners’ association, homeless shelter, or private preschool is perpetuating policies that the Department of Antiracism thinks cause inequitable results, it won’t be long before the G-men show up.

Kendi’s proposal doesn’t stop with policies. It would also police public officials’ speech. “The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas,” Kendi says. Threatening government discipline against people who don’t “voluntarily” change their ideas sounds, well, like regimes the United States used to fight wars against.

Fighting Capitalism and Adoptive Parents

Kendi’s proposal to eradicate policies or speech he deems racist begs the question: what does he think is racist?

“In order to truly be antiracist,” Kendi has insisted, “you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” The logic suggests that any policies promoting capitalism would certainly not make it past the Department of Antiracism.

Kendi has also leveled criticism at now-Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett for adopting black children from Haiti. “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children,” he tweeted shortly after President Trump nominated Barrett. “They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity,” Kendi continued. If Kendi considers adoption of black children by white parents racist, would it be allowed under his proposed agency?

Kendi also openly advocates for racial discrimination in the name of “antiracism.” “If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist,” he says. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Perhaps, then, Kendi would have the Department of Antiracism create racially discriminatory policies in the name of fighting racism.

Bureaucracy Doesn’t Solve a Sin Problem

“The fundamental problem is policy,” Kendi says in a two-minute video clip posted by Politico. Policies are always imperfect, but the fundamental problem of society has never been policy. Even in the dark days when some Americans enslaved other human beings, the fundamental problem was not policy but sin.

Still today, problems in society exist because man is a sinful creature, desperately in need of the grace and restoration which come not from federal agencies but from God.

Of course, all Americans should oppose racism wherever they encounter it. But that doesn’t mean labeling free-market economics or adoption as racist. It doesn’t mean having unelected bureaucrats shut down speech and policies with which they disagree.

It does mean recognizing the fallen nature of man, examining our own hearts with sincerity, and loving our neighbor regardless of his skin color. That’s not a job for a new federal agency. That’s a job for us.


Why Capitalists Like Jack Dorsey Keep Bankrolling Anticapitalists Like Ibram X. Kendi

Jack Dorsey just took Big Tech’s bankrolling of radical, anti-capitalist, social justice movements to the next level, donating $10 million to Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, with “no strings attached.” The center was founded this summer by “How to Be an Antiracist” author Ibram X. Kendi.

BU described the billionaire Twitter CEO’s donation as “a signal of his unqualified support of Kendi’s vision of putting academic researchers at the forefront of the movement to dismantle policies that underlie racial inequity and injustice.” The university’s president called it “a tribute to Kendi and his vision for antiracism and for the vision of building a center around scholarship and policy that actually has a positive impact going forward.”

[embedded content]

Dorsey is in the midst of an effort to donate 28 percent of his massive wealth to charitable causes, and maintains a spreadsheet tracking his donations. As BU’s news release noted, “Dorsey’s gift is part of an outpouring of donations from the high-tech industry to racial justice organizations in recent months.”

Dorsey’s gift to Kendi is noteworthy for two reasons. First, like Black Lives Matter (to which Dorsey has also donated), Kendi’s “vision” is explicitly anti-capitalist. Second, that vision involves an expansive definition of racism, which is problematic given Dorsey’s role in policing speech on his platform.

The founder and CEO of both Twitter and Square, Dorsey is a billionaire several times over. As he surely knows, his companies owe their success to the free market system. It makes little sense to defend Twitter and Square, and remain a multibillionaire, while also supporting an explicit, anti-capitalist vision. Dorsey either believes the $10 million gift is a worthwhile public relations expense, doesn’t fully embrace Kendi’s project, or wants to create a world in which his own companies wouldn’t exist.

“In order to truly be antiracist,” Kendi argues, “you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” Given his profession, Dorsey is not “truly” anti-capitalist, but Kendi was still happy to take his money and lavish the CEO with praise. “It’s just amazing that Jack would recognize and decide to invest in our center with no strings attached, particularly at this early date,” he told BU. “And to be among the group of organizations that he’s supporting is truly an honor.”

Unless Kendi believes a multibillionaire CEO is “truly anticapitalist,” he also necessarily believes Dorsey’s work is not “truly antiracist” by his own logic.

Dorsey’s embrace of the Kendi “vision” also serves as more evidence that corporations are embracing radical, cultural leftism, which is particularly troubling in Dorsey’s case given that his platform enforces restrictions on acceptable speech. If Dorsey applies Kendi’s expansive definition of racism to Twitter, the platform will need to ban an even wider range of speech, per its own policies.

That his gift will also further the power of radical leftism in academia ensures the working world will continue to be shaped by the importation of college graduates trained to accept Kendi’s philosophy.

“One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist,” Kendi writes. “One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.”

Powerful companies are increasingly eager to promote an incoherent blend of leftist cultural radicalism and corporatism, which are about as compatible as oil and water. In some cases, this is clearly a cynical public relations effort that exploits anticapitalist campaigns for capitalist gain. In others, it seems to reveal that elites want to reap the feel-good benefits of anticapitalist social justice movements but aren’t willing to fully accept their most fundamental values, because that would mean rejecting their life’s work and the system that enabled it.