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.


Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Focuses on ‘Racial Equity’

President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan, the so-called “American Jobs Plan,” spends a great deal of space promising to address “racial equity.”

As Breitbart News has explained, the term “equity” is not the same as “equality.” Equity is prepared to sacrifice equality before the law to benefit individuals claiming membership in groups deemed to suffer from historic disadvantages.

Under President Donald Trump, black unemployment and poverty rates reached record lows, and the gap between black and white unemployment was the smallest ever, thanks to economic growth, Opportunity Zones, and immigration enforcement.

Trump achieved those landmarks without policies aimed at taxing the wealth of some Americans to redistribute it to others along racial lines. However, Biden ran for president on a promise to “rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country.”

Biden’s plan mentions racial “equity,” “inequity,” “injustice,” or “inequality” no fewer than nine times (original emphasis):

  1. Like great projects of the past, the President’s plan will unify and mobilize the country to meet the great challenges of our time: the climate crisis and the ambitions of an autocratic China. It will invest in Americans and deliver the jobs and opportunities they deserve. But unlike past major investments, the plan prioritizes addressing long-standing and persistent racial injustice.
  2. The President’s plan will ensure that these investments produce good-quality jobs with strong labor standards, prevailing wages, and a free and fair choice to join a union and bargain collectively [sic]. These investments will advance racial equity by providing better jobs and better transportation options to underserved communities.
  3. President Biden’s … infrastructure investments will mitigate socio-economic disparities, advance racial equity, and promote affordable access to opportunity.
  4. The President’s plan includes $20 billion for a new program that will reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments and ensure new projects increase opportunity, advance racial equity and environmental justice, and promote affordable access.
  5. Eliminate racial and gender inequities in research and development and science, technology, engineering, and math. Discrimination leads to less innovation: one study found that innovation in the United States will quadruple if women, people of color, and children from low-income families invented at the rate of groups who are not held back by discrimination and structural barriers.
  6. In order to ensure workers have ready access to the skills they will need to succeed, and to improve racial and gender equity, President Biden is calling on Congress to invest $100 billion in proven workforce development programs targeted at underserved groups and getting our students on paths to careers before they graduate from high school.
  7. All of us deserve to enjoy America’s promise in full — and our nation’s leaders have a responsibility to overcome racial, gender, and other inequalities to make it happen. To that end, the President is calling on Congress to create new, good-quality union jobs for American workers by leveraging their grit and ingenuity to address the climate crisis and build a sustainable infrastructure.
  8. President Biden is calling on Congress to update the social contract that provides workers with a fair shot to get ahead, overcome racial and other inequalities that have been barriers for too many Americans, expand the middle class, and strengthen communities. He is calling on Congress to ensure all workers have a free and fair choice to join a union by passing the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, and guarantee union and bargaining rights for public service workers.
  9. President Biden is calling on Congress to provide the federal government with the tools it needs to ensure employers are providing workers with good jobs – including jobs with fair and equal pay, safe and healthy workplaces, and workplaces free from racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination and harassment. In addition to a $10 billion investment in enforcement as part of the plan’s workforce proposals, the President is calling for increased penalties when employers violate workplace safety and health rules.

The PRO Act, mentioned directly or indirectly several times in the excerpts above, would actually erode worker choice by limiting “right-to-work” laws and introducing “card check,” which denies workers a secret ballot in union elections.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


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.


‘Bachelor’ Finale Host Emmanuel Acho Said The Same Thing Chris Harrison Got Canceled For

By now, everyone should be up to speed on what’s been described as the Chris Harrison controversy. The only host in the history of “The Bachelor” franchise talked back to cancel culture when it came for one of this season’s contestants over purportedly racist college photos, and he was defamed as a racist himself and canceled. What’s happening now, however, is interesting.

Harrison’s gotten the boot, and former NFL player Emmanuel Acho is here to host in his place for the finale. Obviously, “The Bachelor” producers decided they needed a black man to host, regardless of whether he had any relationship with the franchise. One question nags, however: Why is it that he is allowed to host but Harrison isn’t? — because as it turns out, Acho’s remarks on the Rachael Kirkconnell racial controversy were basically the same as Harrison’s.

“What is the main thing you wanted to get across?” Rachel Lindsay, the former Bachelorette and “Extra TV” host whose infamous interview with Harrison sparked the whole cancel fiasco, asked Acho in a different interview about his upcoming hosting duties and his relationship with Harrison.

Now pay attention to his answer:

Number one is to reconcile. There is so much tension between the photos that have surfaced around Rachael Kirkconnell that’s like, wait a second — let’s try to seek understanding first before we seek tension.

[embedded content]

Hold the phone. You might have missed Acho’s answer because instead of harping on it, erupting the internet over it, and hanging this new host out to dry, as she did with Harrison, Lindsay just breezed right past his answer — an answer that was perfectly fine, by the way. But “wait a second — let’s try to seek understanding first before we seek tension,” sounds an awful lot like, “I’m not defending it. … [But] this is again where we all need to have a little grace, a little understanding, a little compassion.”

While it might be hard to remember what exactly Harrison’s fireable sin was because the entire situation has been reduced to the “Chris Harrison racism controversy” (a complete misnomer), it was that sentiment. Harrison’s interview segment was much longer than Acho’s one-liner, but the takeaway was the same on that point. Harrison pumped the brakes on what he called the “judge, jury, and executioner thing,” and suddenly he was a racist sympathizer. So when Acho pumps the brakes over the Kirkconnell photo tension — what does that make him?

The whole Harrison debacle has been ridiculous from the outset, but the rules are now clear. It isn’t the message that matters; it’s the messenger, and it seems identity politics decides which messengers are safe and which must burn.

Many critics will tell you “The Bachelor” has a bad track record of racial diversity. Now, however, the franchise has a new racism problem on its hands: ABC now seems to be making its firing decisions solely based on race, as the lack of uproar over Acho’s comments make clear. At “The Bachelor,” job security is a coin flip: heads, black man stays; tails, white man goes. That’s equity, baby.


The Equality Act Would ‘Potato Head’ All Americans

In case you missed it, the toy company Hasbro reportedly decided on Thursday to neuter its beloved spud toy. Mr. Potato Head, the Associated Press announced, will now just be the gender-neutral “Potato Head.”

A much more important thing you might have missed on Thursday is that the Democrat-led House of Representatives is taking up a vote on the Equality Act, a nice and equitable-sounding piece of legislation that would effectively end legal sex distinctions as we know them and coerce traditional conservatives and Christians into violating their most deeply held religious beliefs. The bill, if it passes, will amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, to also outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This isn’t some narrow rule that would ensure trans kids are always admitted to taxpayer-funded public schools. No, there isn’t any remaining area of American life where this monstrous legislation wouldn’t sneak its anti-religious tentacles. The amendment dictates that “public accommodations” include “establishments that provide exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; goods, services, or programs; and transportation services.” And just in case you weren’t sure what that exhaustive list of spaces covers, it also stipulates that on the basis of gender identity, people cannot be “denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room.” Welcome to the girls’ locker room, Jessica Yaniv. Your male genitals are welcome anywhere you like. Hate — and science — have no home here.

We’re talking about much more than condemning a cake artist who declined to design a cake in celebration of a same-sex union, which will now also be undoubtedly illegal. We’re talking about erasing sex and gender distinctions altogether and punishing anyone who resists that gender is fluid, any feminists who don’t think men should be allowed on women’s sports teams, and any church that doesn’t want to hire a transgender staff member. The legal meaning of bigotry and discrimination is about to define anyone who still believes in science.

As The Federalist Senior Editor Chris Bedford wrote this week, “According to the Equality Act, religious nurses, doctors, and hospitals unwilling to kill an unborn child or perform a sex-change surgery could be legally discriminating.” Little Sisters of the Poor? Lawbreakers. Jack Phillips? Bigot. Christian elementary school? Transphobes.

If the left prevails in this legislative endeavor, they’ll have the full force of the law to go after anyone who doesn’t fall into step with their genderless orthodoxy. “Under the Equality Act, after all, American law is a tool to attack our rights of conscience, our religious freedom, our businesses, our schools, our families, our neighbors, our priests, and our churches,” Bedford continued. “How dare anyone expect to use the law to defend against it?”

What these Democrats and other left-wing talking heads fail to point out and don’t want you to notice, however, is that there’s a direct correlation between the Mr. Potato Head name-change and the goals of the Equality Act. Whacking the “Mr.” from the potato was motivated by the same impulses that drove progressive lawmakers to draft the Equality Act: Both seek to eradicate gender distinctions, however varying the degrees. Instead of doing anything in the way of making things more equal, the pernicious Equality Act, like the Hasbro decision, would effectively “Potato Head” all Americans.

The left will continue to ignore the underlying reality, opting instead to deflect with ad hominem attacks on conservatives for the terms we use to point out the parallels between cultural trends and the evil legislation it begets. As we all know, politics is downstream from culture.

So yeah, the veritable castration of Mr. Potato Head is a big deal, and you probably should think about hiding your kids — at least from the leftist dogma that says this de-gendering of everything including personified blobs of plastic is normal. Conservatives are freaking out about Mr. Potato Head not because of some sentimental and overblown attachment to the child’s toy. They’re troubled because they see the writing on the wall.

A neutered potato is only a symptom. The tenets of the Equality Act are the problem. And if they become law, they’ll “Potato Head” all of America.


Wisconsin’s Capital City Is Trying To Ban White People From Police Oversight Board

When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. took to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, he offered Americans, of all races, a compelling vision of a society no longer prejudiced by race. He envisioned a country where citizens are judged “by the content of their character” and not “the color of their skin.”

But to listen to today’s most prominent “antiracists,” King’s dream is what stands in the way of racial justice in 21st-century America. The result is the return of legal racial discrimination.

In Madison, Wisconsin, the famously leftist city government recently established a Police Civilian Oversight Board in response to activists concerned with police relations. The board’s mission is rather vague: “provide input,” “engage in community outreach,” and “make policy-level recommendations.” What the board is not vague about is who is allowed to participate.

Six of the board’s 11 members must be black. No Asians, American Indian, Hispanics or Latinos, or Whites can sit in those six seats: “Blacks Only,” to use the terminology of the City’s Alder Workgroup, which explicitly mandated “50 percent Black members.”

Furthermore, one board seat is reserved for an Asian; one board seat is reserved for an American Indian; one board seat is reserved for someone identifying as “Latinx.” Finally, one board seat is reserved for a “member of the LGBTQ community,” although the city presumably would allow someone to be both a minority and LGBTQ at the same time.

Heralded as a serious effort at “equity” and “inclusion,” Madison’s Police Civilian Oversight Board intentionally discriminates based on racial categories—a practice with an ugly and pernicious past. This is also the vision of America’s most prominent “antiracists.” For example, in his 2019 book, “How to be an Antiracist,” best-selling author Ibram X. Kendi is explicit that, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Unfortunately, Madison is not alone in this kind of legal racism. California now imposes racial quotas on private companies’ boards. NASDAQ is following suit. Many private companies, such as Delta Airlines and Wells Fargo, are promising to impose quotas.

Regardless of the intent or the current zeitgeist on racial justice, intentional race discrimination remains illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to basic American values. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has written that “racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination.”

Our Constitution’s aim of a colorblind society, embodied in the Equal Protection Clause, was “[p]urchased at the price of immeasurable suffering,” and any racial classifications, whether for good intentions are not, “have a destructive impact on the individual and society” and “demean[ ] us all,” according to Justice Thomas, who is black.

Since 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down racial quotas every time they have reared their ugly head. Given the energy and momentum to establish new racial quotas, however, the courts can expect to be tested in new ways on their commitment to justice and equal protection.

In Madison, seven residents, represented by attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, have challenged the unconstitutional racial quotas. If the city does not withdraw its ordinance and re-constitute the board with legal criteria, the city can expect a lawsuit. If the current cultural climate remains, it won’t be the last.

This all adds up to a treacherous moment for King’s dream. While slavery and Jim Crow’s legacy have not been undone easily, America has made important progress, although halting and stumbling at times, since the 1960s.

But resurrecting legal racial discrimination in the name of progress is no progress at all. It may be the preferred strategy of the “antiracists” who have rocketed to fame and credibility among many in elite American institutions, but it represents a dead-end for a diverse country still committed to equality before the law and the proposition that “all men are created equal.”


New York City School Asks Parents to Rank Their ‘Whiteness’

The principal of a public school in New York City has sent out literature that asked parents to “reflect” on their “whiteness” with a ranked list of “White Identities,” the New York Post confirmed Tuesday.

Parents whose children attend the East Side Community School reportedly viewed a ranked list of “The 8 White Identities,” ranging from “White Supremacist” to “White Abolitionist.”

Authored by Barnor Hesse, an associate professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, the ranked list is introduced with the following statement:

There is a regime of whiteness, and there are action-oriented white identities. People who identify with whiteness are one of these. It’s about time we build an ethnography of whiteness, since white people have been the ones writing about and governing Others.

Hesse’s eight identities are:

  1. White Supremacist
  2. White Voyeurism
  3. White Privilege
  4. White Benefit
  5. White Confessional
  6. White Critical
  7. White Traitor
  8. White Abolitionist

The “white supremacist” identity is found in the “red zone” of a color-coordinated meter that accompanied the handout, and is described as “clearly marked white society that preserves, names, and values white superiority,” while a “white abolitionist,” in the green zone, is one who is “changing institutions, dismantling whiteness, and not allowing whiteness to reassert itself.”

According to the Post, a New York City Department of Education official said some parents at the 6th-12th grade school first shared the handout with school staff. Subsequently, the principal, Mark Federman, distributed the material to every parent “as part of a series of materials meant for reflection” and as ‘food for thought,” the report said.

In a statement to the Post, a Department of Education spokesperson said:

Anti-racism and the celebration of diversity is at the core of our work on behalf of the young people of New York City, and the East Side Community School’s students, parents and staff partner together to advance equity in their community.

The document in question was shared with the school by parents as a part of ongoing anti-racist work in the school community and is one of many resources the schools utilizes.

The spokesperson reportedly added school employees are experiencing threats over the materials.

“Our staff are now being targeted with vile racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs and degrading language from people outside of their school and nothing justifies the abuse directed at our educators,” the department representative reportedly said.

In 2007, Federman was arrested after he attempted to block security guards to stop them from embarrassing a 17-year-old student who had been charged with punching a guard in the eye and was about to be removed from the school in handcuffs.

Federman reportedly demanded the guards remove the girl from the school through a secluded back door in order to prevent her from being seen by other students.

Critical Race Theory investigator Christopher Rufo of the Discovery Institute tweeted the color-coded meter of “white identities” that shows the curriculum is sponsored by the Slow Factory Foundation, a nonprofit that seeks to build “anti-racist community and growing climate-positive global movements,” according to its website.

The foundation’s open education institute states it provides “equity-centered education for Black, Brown, Indigenous and minority ethnic communities, taught by Black, Brown, Indigenous and minority ethnic scholars, thinkers and educators.”

The organization defines “equity-centered education” (ECE) as:

Education that acknowledges power structures and historical social context as a key driver of any topic. Focusing on free and open accessibility, ECE initiatives are typically offered without academic admission requirements and distributed online. Open education broadens access to learning and training traditionally offered through formal education systems or corporate programs that are inaccessible to most people.

Among its offerings for its “equity-based education” are courses with these titles:

  • Fashion And Colonialism
  • Fashion And Resistance
  • Fashion And Prison Labor
  • Fashion And Cultural Heritage
  • Fashion And Reproductive Health

The “special advisor” to the foundation is designer and actor Waris Ahluwalia.


Biden’s Unity Branding Is False Advertising That Will Sow More Division

After a chaotic four years, President Biden wants to voters to believe he’s governing as a unifier while actually governing as a hard partisan. For Democrats, that tension doesn’t pose much of a dilemma because the corporate press will uncritically permit Biden to sell his leftism as unification. It’s false advertising.

Biden set the tone for his term with a milquetoast inaugural address that pledged to “lower the temperature.” For many in this exhausted and divided nation, that was probably a welcome message. But it’s merely cosmetic and Biden proved that right away.

Among his flurry of executive orders were measures to implement “equity,” redirecting the federal bureaucracy towards a fringe leftist goal. Biden immediately signed another order legally redefining biological sex to include gender identity, an action with sweeping consequences for women’s sports, locker rooms, shelters, and much more.

The administration also indicated it would swiftly roll back the Mexico City Policy reinstated by President Trump, which bars foreign aid from organizations that perform abortions. From his newly implemented immigration measures to the 1776 Commission to the National Labor Relations Board, Biden is hardly governing as a temperature-lowering unifier—beyond aesthetics, at least.

The president campaigned on policies that even McClatchy said “would likely be considered radical if they had been proposed in any previous Democratic presidential primary.” That’s not a recipe for creating an administration capable of healing the country’s divisions.

This is interesting because Biden is one of the few remaining Democrats willing to cooperate with Republicans—or even entertain the notion they aren’t all bigoted fascists. Part of the problem is that Democrats have genuinely lost touch with how polarizing their agenda is, thanks to their rapid lurch leftward.

Cultural leftism is now entirely mainstream in the Democratic Party and the corporate media. As a consequence, policies aimed at “equity” or changing the definition of sex just don’t strike journalists and Democratic operatives as radical. Their spectrum is out of whack with the public’s. Decisions like the transgender executive order aren’t even cynical ploys to appease the base. It’s just what Beltway Democrats actually want.

The unity branding is both politically expedient in an exhausted country and rooted in ignorance. Democrats know a wide swath of voters wants Washington to function better but their agenda is so radical (that’s not my judgement, it’s McClatchy’s!) that it’s completely impossible for them to unify the country on a policy level.

There are some genuine radicals in the administration that know they’re radical and don’t mind if we know either. But the establishment Democrats Biden is populating his administration with are too out of touch to understand how radical their cultural ideology is out of coastal enclaves.

It’s the media’s job to hold Democrats to account when they engage in false advertising. Because, however, the corporate press shares the same cultural ideology as the Democratic Party, they’re in no position to do this since they don’t see that ideology as radical. It’s perfectly mainstream from their vantage points in coastal newsrooms.

That means Biden and his administration have four years to package far-left policies with branding that makes them more politically palatable while also shifting the Overton Window. The cultural left’s monopoly on our institutions is wreaking dangerous consequences that make our existing divisions much deeper, alienating Americans made to feel like extremists and bigots for disagreeing with radical leftism.


Why Joe Biden Can’t Restore Unity

Sincere or not, President Biden’s inaugural pledge to unite the country is dead on arrival. I say that not to sow excess cynicism or traffic in media hyperbole, but to underscore the critical reason why.

Some observers pointed immediately to Biden’s early actions on policy matters like Israel and abortion as proof his pledge lacked credibility. Indeed, those actions were highly partisan and ill-advised, but they’re also contentious issues on which reasonable people have disagreed for years. Even in 2021, we can still talk about them.

Biden, however, will not oversee the restoration of national unity—whatever that actually means—because our culture now operates on a bloated definition of bigotry that unjustly implicates decent people in the evils of racism, sexism, violence, and hatred. Biden and his administration accept this definition and will consequently fan the flames.

They already have. On Wednesday, Biden set out to sign an executive order that would prohibit the federal government from “discriminat[ing] on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” His list of Day One executive orders also included several measures on “diversity” and “equity.” This innocuous language masks intensely charged policies built to enforce the left’s standards by rendering dissent hateful.

Biden deliberately delivered an inaugural address that steered clear of  “deplorable” language, but enforcing a definition of “gender identity” that requires people to accept of cultural leftism or face charges of violence and hatred basically has the same effect. Decent people disagree on this matter and on others, but the left’s current progressive-or-bigot binary formulation reflexively defines many decent people as bigots.

That’s what drives them to candidates like Donald Trump. They’re tired of being called racists for voting Romney-Ryan or disliking Colin Kaepernick. There’s a key distinction between saying “Everyone who voted for Trump contributed to racism,” and “Everyone who voted for Trump is racist.” There’s a difference between saying “Failure to use preferred pronouns could contribute to violence” and “Failure to use preferred pronouns is violence.”

Academia’s abstract, post-structuralist definitions of violence and bigotry migrated with college graduates into boardrooms, newsrooms, and writer’s rooms, growing the cultural snowball enough that politicians are only part of the problem. They have flowery arguments for why words can constitute physical violence, women can be anti-woman, black conservatives can be white supremacists, and everyone is racist. Relegated to classroom discussions on Judith Butler, these arguments are one thing. But as the intellectual foundation for our new standards, they are not rooted in reality.

In reality, it is of course possible to be a decent person who disagrees with the left’s cultural worldview. It’s both more accurate and more constructive to distinguish between people who genuinely believe in racial and sexual equality and the remaining people who genuinely don’t. Ben Shapiro is not David Duke, although powerful journalists and cultural arbiters treat him that way, and consequently leave a whole lot of his readers feeling like they’re being implicated in bigotry as well. They are.

The silver lining here is that bigotry is rightfully stigmatized in our society, so much so that it’s just about the worst insult you can hurl at a patriotic American. That’s why people who dissent from leftism are so offended by these baseless charges that they look to fighters like Trump.

Bigotry is, of course, still alive in this country. But it dwells not in the hearts of the vast majority of conservatives and centrists and even authentic leftists who happen to disagree on particular questions of race and sex. Biden and The New York Times don’t need to agree with the conservative agenda to foster some sense of unity. They merely need to dispense with the notion that dissenters from cultural leftism are necessarily bigots.

Hyperbole is obviously an immutable feature of political rhetoric. That sense of unity Biden wishes to recapture, however, will elude us until the cultural left abandons its bloated definitions of bigotry. It’ll require more than a letter in Harper’s or a Boomer president who waxes poetic about serving “all Americans.”

This is about our institutions purging their dominant cultural ethos and cleaning up the pipeline. At best, it will take many years and a lot more than presidential platitudes. As Biden calls for an end to the “uncivil war,” it’s essential for everyone.