Why The Racist Left Smears Clarence Thomas As An ‘Angry Black Man’

Why The Racist Left Smears Clarence Thomas As An ‘Angry Black Man’

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is “a person of grievance” harboring “resentment, [and] anger,” reported no less an authority than Hillary Clinton during an appearance last week on CBS. In ignoring Thomas’s ideas to smear his temperament, Clinton pulled from the same playbook leftists have been using against Thomas since even before his 1991 confirmation hearings.

The New York Times once called Thomas the Supreme Court’s “youngest and angriest.” Times columnist Frank Rich accused him of “rage” and “unreconstructed racial bitterness.” His colleague Maureen Dowd has over the years variously described the justice as “barking mad,” dishonest, and “angry, bitter, self-pitying.” In the article, “Why Is Justice Thomas So Angry?,” CNN legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin concludes, “His fulminations … are hurtful to the court’s mission and reputation.”

Forming something of a bitter consensus, his critics exhibit behavior every bit as intriguing as that they claim to condemn.

Let’s Go to the Source

The best place for insight into Thomas’s “anger” is with the man himself. In his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” Thomas says his bouts with anger in early life were at their most intense when, during his college years, he grew “drunk with revolutionary rhetoric.”

Black-nationalist ideas didn’t suit him long, however. As his life evolved, so did his thinking. The hostility he once directed at a racist American society for mistreating blacks found new targets.

His personal anger can be interpreted in the context of its inverse relationship with happiness. Alongside his brother, Thomas was raised by their grandfather, Myers Anderson, whom, taking after their mom, they called Daddy. A self-employed deliveryman and farmer with an inexhaustible work ethic, Thomas portrays Anderson as akin to a drill instructor.

As the price of their shelter, the two boys labored so intensively in maintaining the farm that Clarence once reminded his grandfather slavery had ended. “Not in my house,” Anderson answers. Without hard work, self-reliance was impossible, Anderson taught the boys, and only through self-reliance can men earn their freedom. That was to be his gift to them.

“He knew that to be truly free and participate fully in American life,” Thomas writes, “poor blacks had to have the tools to do for themselves.” Very few would argue that, absent this individual liberty, personal happiness is even possible.

Clarence Thomas Meets Karl Marx

Thomas credits self-reliance for his success as a student. Raised Roman Catholic, his elementary school years were spent at St. John Vianney Minor Seminary, where he excelled athletically and academically. With plans of becoming a priest, he left Georgia to attend high school at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri.

After a change of heart, he returned to Georgia, where one of his grammar-school nuns persuaded him to apply to Holy Cross. Before heading back north to attend college, a friend introduced him to “The Communist Manifesto.” This introduction to Marx soon blossomed into something else.

As a child Thomas had been taught that a man’s life is his own responsibility, but according to Marxist theories of racial oppression, progress comes through “revolution.” To black nationalist Marxists, white racism explained every problem, Thomas says. It was “the trump card that won every argument.” He co-founded the Black Student Union, a leftist group whose advocacy included anti-Vietnam protesting.

At one BSU rally, he says that after the crowd worked itself into a frenzy with leftist sloganeering, “We drank our way to Harvard Square, where our disorderly parade deteriorated into a full-scale riot.” It went on through the night. After returning to campus early the next morning, Thomas became horrified: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry.”

In the whirlwind of irrational violence, the BSU students, he realized, had perpetuated an unwelcome stereotype, that of the angry black man. This anger was sanctioned. Thomas describes black students flagrantly violating the student code of conduct and making tall demands, only for the administration to cave every time.

Black students also bonded through black-nationalist politics. Mixing radical politics with the entitlement mentality the administration encouraged quickly proved toxic. Already unprepared for living among whites, Thomas says, many of these unprepared black students gave up class in favor of drugs and “cultlike Eastern religions.” Others dropped or failed out.  

Thinking Freely Makes Vicious Enemies

In his senior year, Thomas read the uber-individualist books of Ayn Rand and began questioning the groupthink of his black peers. But to embark on free thinking meant making enemies of “the government, the racists, the activists, the students, even daddy.”

Yet free thinking yielded an immediate payoff for his temperament, for he was also being liberated of ideologically imposed passions that universities countenanced: “I already knew that the rage with which we lived made it hard for us to think straight. Now I understood for the first time that we were expected to be full of rage. It was our role — but I didn’t want to play it anymore.”

Graduating cum laude in English, Thomas was accepted to Harvard Law, but opted instead for Yale, which he felt was less conservative. Yale was further down the racial-preference road than Holy Cross, which cast suspicion over the entire black student body, as author John Greenya quotes Thomas: “You had to prove yourself every day because the presumption was that you were dumb and didn’t deserve to be there on merit.”

Affirmative Action Destroys Opportunities

To put his abilities beyond doubt, Thomas eschewed classes on civil rights and constitutional law in favor of corporate, tax, and antitrust law, seeking out professors with a reputation for hostility to blacks, where he strived still. Aspiring a return to his Atlanta-area hometown where an elite law degree could be of service to needy blacks, his plans were frustrated after every application was rejected, and his anger was born anew.

“Prospective employers dismissed our grades and diplomas … assuming we got both primarily because of preferential treatment,” Thomas told the Macon Telegraph. Believing his Ivy League education was overvalued, he affixed a $.15 stamp to his degree, the value of a Yale education when it “bore the taint of racial preference.”

In The New Yorker, Toobin wonders whether Thomas overplays this notion, asserting perhaps these rejections stemmed from simple racism, the very thing “affirmative action was designed to combat.” Perhaps. But would an already racist employer be any less skeptical of a black applicant owing to admissions’ racial preferences? 

‘That Stopped Me Cold’

At Yale, Thomas had worked for the social-services group New Haven Legal Assistance, where he encountered the “beneficiaries” of government welfare programs. Many of those seeking eligibility feigned poverty and victimization and called for assistance.

Thomas nonetheless believed that as American society condemned blacks to an outlook of scant hope, redressing social imbalances was legitimate government work. Around this time he happened to befriend future U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who introduced Thomas to a new set of ideas.

In a debate over whether mandating helmets for motorcyclists was meritorious policy — Thomas felt accident-related health care costs demanded such a rule — Bolton asked him: “Clarence, as a member of a group that has been treated shabbily by the majority in this country, why would you want to give the government more power over your personal life?”

“That stopped me cold,” Thomas writes:

I thought of what Daddy had said when I asked him why he’d never gone on public assistance. ‘Because it takes away your manhood,’ he said. ‘You do that and they can ask you questions about your life that are none of their business. They can come into your house when they want to, and they can tell you who else can come and go in your house.’ Daddy and John, I saw, were making the same point: real freedom meant independence from government intrusion, which in turn meant that you had to take responsibility for your own decisions. When the government assumes that responsibility, it takes away your freedom — and wasn’t freedom the very thing for which blacks in America were fighting? 

Thomas’s worldview made a prodigal return “to the real world.” In many eyes, though, this made him a traitor, for it positioned him as an opponent of programs advertised as pro-black.

Clarence Thomas Meets Thomas Sowell

Thomas was soon recruited by Missouri’s attorney general, John Danforth, a Yale alum. Danforth’s Republican affiliation posed a near-crisis of conscience for a man who’d recently voted for George McGovern and felt there was no such thing as a self-respecting black Republican.

After being assured of the same treatment as every other staffer, Thomas accepted a job offer, to the derision of his Yale classmates. While the position was intellectually satisfying, its meager salary soon sent him into the private sector, where he encountered the opposite dilemma: satisfying pay but meager opportunities for intellectual challenge.

Thomas then stumbled upon a book review of Thomas Sowell’s book, “Race and Economics,” which ended with this passage:

Perhaps the greatest dilemma in the attempts to raise ethnic minority income is that those methods which have historically proved successful —  self-reliance, work skills, education, business experience —  are all slow developing, while those methods which are more direct and immediate —  job quotas, charity, subsidies, preferential treatment —  tend to undermine self-reliance and pride of achievement in the long run. If the history of American ethnic groups shows anything, it is how large a role has been played by attitudes — and particularly attitudes of self-reliance.

Finally, Thomas knew he wasn’t alone: “I felt like a thirsty man gulping down a glass of cool water.” But with newfound confidence came another challenge: Danforth had recently been elected Missouri’s junior senator and wanted Thomas to join his staff. A job that could be used to benefit other people was appealing, but Thomas knew his heretical thinking would make him a target in scandal-hungry D.C.

Being a Target Almost Scared Thomas Off

Not long into his tenure on the Hill, the Reagan administration asked if Thomas would serve as the assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education. He almost didn’t. Washington Post reporter Juan Williams had recently published an article quoting Thomas as asserting welfare ruins blacks, mentioning his sister’s experience. The torrent of criticism that followed made him think twice about accepting a prominent executive branch position.

“Having felt the lash of public criticism, I questioned whether I had the strength —  or the courage — to stand in the eye of the howling storm that surrounded civil-rights policies,” he writes.

He was likewise beset when later nominated to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As chairman, Thomas oversaw a massive increase in anti-discrimination litigation, and ideologically driven attacks against his character intensified. These began exacting a toll, especially as a longstanding fondness for alcohol turned into a form of escapism. He even nursed thoughts of suicide, Thomas writes:

I [asked] myself whether I might do better to back away from my political beliefs. Life, I knew, would be so much easier if I went along with whatever was popular. What were my principles really worth to me? As I gazed out my office window at the Potomac River, the answer came instinctively: They’re worth my life. I spoke the words out loud, knowing at once that they were true.

When Thomas was later offered the nomination for Supreme Court justice, he knew it meant subjecting himself to abuse for not thinking as white senators thought black men should. He says he accepted only out of loyalty to then-President George H.W. Bush: “By then I’d shed the last of my illusions about white liberals: I knew that their broad-mindedness stopped well short of tolerating blacks who disagreed with them.”

The campaign against him featured charges of tax fraud, Confederate sympathies, anti-Semitism, patronizing a cult-like church, and, of course, sexual harassment. These wild allegations obscured the motivation behind the campaign. According to Thomas: “I refused to bow to the superior wisdom of the white liberals who thought they knew what was better for blacks. Since I didn’t know my place, I had to be put down.”

‘A Few Crumbs from the White Man’s Table’

For noting the correlation between welfare services and an entitlement mentality, Thomas has endured beyond-the-pale personal attacks. After defending himself against a Playboy article (“Reagan and the Revival of Racism”) with a letter to the editor, the article’s white author responded: “As a Southerner, Mr. Thomas is surely familiar with those ‘chicken-eating preachers’ who gladly parroted the segregationists’ line in exchange for a few crumbs from the white man’s table. He’s one of the few left in captivity.”

Not even civil-rights leaders criticized this racist broadside. “What I found inexplicable,” Thomas writes, “was that so many of the people who went out of their way to tell me how strongly they disapproved of my views seemed to think that the mere act of pointing out the human damage caused by welfare policies was wrong in and of itself. Would they have felt the same way if I’d said that I was opposed to drunk driving because my sister had been hit by a drunk driver?”

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policies that favored some races over others, Thomas issued a dissent imbued with personal experience:

The majority of blacks are admitted to the Law School because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving. This problem of stigma does not depend on determinacy as to whether those stigmatized are actually the ‘beneficiaries’ of racial discrimination. When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry, or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement. The question itself is the stigma — because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed ‘otherwise unqualified,’ or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination. 

After this decision New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said Thomas’s failure to appreciate racial preferences was hypocritical: “It’s impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself.” Toobin abused Thomas as a race traitor for his “intense resentment of efforts to help African-Americans.”

In 2002, five black law professors at the University of North Carolina boycotted a Thomas appearance, claiming: “[A]s a justice, he not only engages in acts that harm other African Americans like himself, but also gives aid, comfort, and racial legitimacy to acts and doctrines of others that harm African Americans unlike himself — that is, those who have not yet reaped the benefits of civil rights laws, including affirmative action, and who have not yet received the benefits of the white-conservative sponsorships that now empower him.”

Is the ‘Angry Black Man’ a Projection?

How could good-faith efforts at furthering blacks’ progress be met with such derision? Much of it stems from his critics’ perception of what motivates his opposition to their social-engineering experiments. Toobin, Dowd, and others ascribe this heterodoxy to a perceived servility to “powerful” “conservative” elites.

Dowd, imagining herself as Thomas, wrote of his opinion in Bush v. Gore: “I used to have grave reservations about working at white institutions, subject to the whims of white superiors. But when Poppy’s whim was to crown his son —  one of those privileged Yale legacy types I always resented — I had to repay The Man for putting me on the court even though I was neither qualified nor honest … But having the power to carjack the presidency and control the fate of the country did give me that old X-rated tingle.”

Others interpret Thomas as an ideological devotee to the take-it-as-it-comes judicial philosophy sometimes called “originalism” — a notion he’d reject.

“A philosophy that is imposed from without instead of arising organically from day-to-day engagement with the law isn’t worth having,” he writes. “Such a philosophy runs the risk of becoming an ideology, and I’d spent much of my adult life shying away from abstract ideological theories that served only to obscure the reality of life as it’s lived.”

Still, Thomas’s Supreme Court career is often blithely dismissed as the work of his ideological puppeteer, Scalia, supposedly because they often vote alike. In fact, according to ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg’s book “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story for Control of the United States Supreme Court,” it is Scalia who often changed his opinions to more closely reflect Thomas’s.

In 2005, University of Iowa Law Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig reported the court’s leftist justices were more likely to vote alike than Thomas and Scalia did, “with Justice Ginsburg agreeing in full with Justice Souter 85% of the time, Justice Souter agreeing with Justice Stevens 77% of the time, and Justice O’Connor agreeing with Chief Justice Rehnquist 79% of the time while Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia agreed in full only 73% of time.”

This notion that blacks choose not to think for themselves is not entirely foreign to these critics; The Times’s Dowd and Rich have joked that blacks who spoke at the Republican 2000 convention participated in a “minstrel show.”

It’s Old Racism in New Clothes

Thomas’s own explanation for his ideas is less conspiratorial. He thinks too many of these policies are premised on the idea that blacks are an inferior race. In 1995, the Supreme Court heard Missouri v. Jenkins, where the Kansas City school district was attempting to, in part, correct racial imbalances by opening schools catering to whites in a neighborhood they had long ago abandoned. In a concurring opinion, Thomas writes:

It never ceases to amaze me that the courts are willing to assume that anything that is predominately black must be inferior. Instead of focusing on remedying the harm done to those black schoolchildren injured by segregation, the District Court here sought to convert the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) into a ‘magnet district’ that would reverse the ‘white flight’ caused by desegregation. … Racial isolation itself not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. 

It’s unclear whether affirmative action supporters’ professed ideal of racial equality better represents their actual thinking than preferences’ implications of black inferiority. President Biden certainly didn’t help the former case when he speculated aloud to The Washington Post about why Iowa’s public schools outperform D.C.’s: “There’s less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.” More recently Biden said, “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

Hurting Black Kids to Make White Adults Feel Better

The preoccupation with means over ends exacts a toll on blacks, says Thomas. By pursuing busing programs meant to intermix students usually at the expense of quality education, blacks are essentially being used as guinea pigs in the experiments of white social scientists. This not only is demoralizing, but suggests that without whites, blacks are hopeless.

Once more, blacks become reliant on whites, and a theory that tacitly assumes black inferiority helps make it real. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll finds that, with the Great Society 57 years deep, black Americans are historically pessimistic, with more than 80 percent viewing their race as an impediment. Curiously, the more educated the respondent, the more likely he was to see his race as an obstacle, and half say America will never achieve racial equity.

Whites, too, see less progress, per Pew, but are twice as likely to be optimistic. This suggests efforts at racial redress atone for white guilt twice as well as they do boosting black progress. For this reason, Thomas sometimes says, racial preferences are intended more for their sponsors than their recipients.

Perhaps conventional repulsion for Republicans explains why more blacks haven’t had similar re-appraisals to the government’s efforts to improve their lot. While skepticism of government social work may well be an aspect of conservative political philosophy, for Thomas, it’s merely an affirmation of his life’s experiences. He is “conservative,” in other words, because he is black.  

I Don’t Care What You Think. I Think for Myself

And it no longer matters what anybody says, a declaration he made in a 1998 Memphis speech. Speaking before the National Bar Association, a black lawyers group, Thomas did not apologize for his heretical beliefs. Instead, he said this:

I have come here today, not in anger or to anger, though my mere presence has been sufficient, obviously, to anger some. Nor have I come to defend my views, but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black. I come to state that I am a man, free to think for myself and do as I please. I have come to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned the unquestioned opinions of others.

This attitude is clearly unhelpful to those promoting preferences. Thomas, after all, is right: Racial preferences tar reputations. He has achieved the uttermost prominence, yet no matter what he achieves, it seems, his critics still argue he owes everything to preferences.

Dowd began an article, “He knew he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.” Of Thomas’s nomination to the EEOC, Toobin says, “Though Thomas doesn’t say so directly, it’s clear he was given the job because he was black.”

Stripping pride from a man’s achievements is certainly an indecent thing. One wonders how Toobin would feel if it were constantly alleged that the only reason he got his job at CNN was because he’s a dyed-blue-in-the-wool Democrat. And how would Dowd respond to accusations that the only reason she owns premier real estate on The New York Times editorial page is because she’s a woman?

This claim effectively imparts ownership of racial-preference recipients’ achievements to those administering these programs. If that’s the choice —  diminished personal sovereignty, or liberty —  Thomas would rather be free, even if it means he fails. This is why Thomas began his Grutter v. Michigan opinion with a quote from his hero, Frederick Douglass:

Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.

Thomas’s life has been a struggle to stand alone, and he knows there are others. He’s long nursed an urge to return to Georgia and help his old neighborhood. At a book-signing party, he was asked whether he’d prefer any job over his current assignment. He could think of only one: “a small or medium-sized business” somewhere in the South where he could “be a part of my community.”

Thomas has often passed up these opportunities on the belief that positions of greater prominence held greater capacity for reform. Yet each step has met ever greater condemnation —  sometimes infected with accusations of racial traitorship, always leading to the same regrettable conclusion: Black minds aren’t ready to be free.

But having untangled himself from the pull-strings of racial groupthink, leftist social dogma, political ideology, and popular opinion, Thomas was recently able to proclaim himself “the freest man on the court.” It’s this, his intellectual emancipation, that most infuriates his leftist critics. In proving their entire worldview fraudulent, Thomas continues to attract racist abuse because that’s all they have left to hurl.

Witnessing the way white progressives resort to racism the moment a black man breaks free from his intellectual shackles, surely younger black thinkers will realize there’s no value in accepting a set of beliefs simply because they were born a certain race. That would surely make Justice Thomas happy.


Tom Elliott is the founder and editor of Grabien. Follow him on Twitter @tomselliott.

Source

Chicago High School to Implement Race-Based Grading System

Chicago High School to Implement Race-Based Grading System

A high school in a Chicago is implementing a race-based grading system “to adjust classroom grading scales to account for skin color or ethnicity of its students.”

The move is necessary, advocates say, because “traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities,” a slide used in a presentation said.

Students, depending on their race, will not be held accountable for missing class, misbehaving in school, or for failing to turn in assignments.

The West Cook News reported on the development:

Oak Park and River Forest High School (OPRF) administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.

School board members discussed the plan called “Transformative Education Professional Development & Grading” at a meeting on May 26, presented by Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning Laurie Fiorenza.

[The plan] calls for what OPRF leaders describe as “competency-based grading, eliminating zeros from the grade book…encouraging and rewarding growth over time.” Teachers are being instructed how to measure student  “growth” while keeping the school leaders’ political ideology in mind.

“Teachers and administrators at OPRFHS will continue the process necessary to make grading improvements that reflect our core beliefs,” the plan, set to begin in the fall of 2023, says.

The article notes that according to the Illinois State Board of Education, 38 percent of sophomores fail the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).

The failure rate was 77 percent for black students, 49 percent for Hispanic students, 27 percent for Asian students, and 25 percent for white students.

Margaret Sullivan, associate director at the Education Advisory Board, which consults colleges and universities, said teachers have to recognize when “personal biases manifest.”

“Teachers may unintentionally let non-academic factors—like student behavior or whether a student showed up to virtual class—interfere with their final evaluation of students,” Sullivan said. 

Fiorenza called for the changed after releasing a report that showed a spike in “F” grades in the 2020-21 school year.

“OPRF’s administration will adopt language that makes and keeps the system visible and continues to name racism as a complex interconnected structure,” the report said. “We must recognize the unique challenges faced during the pandemic intensify the need for a systemic approach to confronting the racial and socioeconomic discrepancies often experienced by our underrepresented student population.”

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

Source

After Race-Based Admissions To Nation’s Top High School, Students Drop Out And Underperform At Record Rates

After Race-Based Admissions To Nation’s Top High School, Students Drop Out And Underperform At Record Rates

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – In summer 2017, when Ann Bonitatibus walked through the front doors of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology as its new principal, she came with a mission to turn the top-rated school upside down. For her, that meant flipping the school’s racial demographics. At the time, 7 of 10 students came from Asian immigrant families, two of 10 from white families, and one of 10 students came from black, Hispanic, and multiracial families.

On June 7, 2020, after George Floyd’s killing, Bonitatibus emailed our mostly minority, immigrant families, telling us to check our “privileges,” expressing her shame at our “Colonials” mascot, and outlining her vision for a new racial makeup at the school. Soon Bonitatibus will be able to say “mission accomplished”—courtesy of an unfortunate 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

The justices “temporarily reinstated a woke admissions policy at one of America’s top schools despite a federal judge previously ruling it was racist,” the UK’s Daily Mail reported bluntly.

‘No. 1 School Has Become the Titanic’

Our legal battle to stop the principal and fellow activists from completely hijacking the school as a magnet for advanced students in math and science is far from over. But the decision is bad news for the short-term future of TJ, as the school is called, where freshmen are leaving the school in record numbers and teachers are abandoning ship.

“Our country’s No. 1 school has become the Titanic,” says one person, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from the principal. Indeed, U.S. News and World Report just released its rankings of top schools and TJ is No. 1 again—but folks wonder for how long.

According to people familiar with the school, the situation has become so bad the principal has instructed counselors to connect her with students considering leaving the school, so she can meet with them and keep her numbers down, something she didn’t do regularly before. Fairfax County Public Schools and Bonitatibus didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Yes, Racism Is Still Unconstitutional in America

Know this. Our parents are on the correct side of history. On February 28, federal Judge Claude Hilton issued a historic ruling in our lawsuit, Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. Hilton said a new admissions process the school board put in place in December 2020, with the principal’s advocacy, is “patently unconstitutional” and ordered the school board to immediately return to its previous merit-based, race-blind admissions test system.

Already, the district picked the Class of 2025 through an illegal admissions process, causing the percentage of Asian students admitted last year to plummet from 73 to 54 percent, in a purge.

On March 10, the judge denied the school board’s request for a “stay” of his order, pending its appeal of his decision. School board officials challenged Judge Hilton’s refusal of the stay in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and, in a 2-1 split decision, two judges granted the stay.

In response, lawyers for Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Coalition for TJ, filed an emergency application on April 8 with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the stay. Often, judges don’t like to rule on lower-court decisions until they evaluate the merits of a case. Getting three judges to overcome that reticence and vote to overturn the stay says a lot about how seriously they view this constitutional violation. It bodes well for our return to the Supreme Court.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

Now, however, the case heads back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Fairfax County school board is trying to overturn Hilton’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments in September. If it reverses the federal judge’s ruling, Pacific Legal Foundation will take the case back to the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the merits.

The Supreme Court ruling clears the way for admissions officers to flip half the school, by allowing next year’s freshman class, the Class of 2026, to be announced any day now through the unconstitutional process. The illegal process will likely be used for another admissions cycle for the Class of 2027 and the selection of three-fourths of the school. Finally, maybe in late 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court may hear the case on its merits.

With justice delayed, it’s children who are paying the price. For months, parents and teachers have been talking about how the freshmen admitted through the lower academic admissions standards are struggling and leaving the school. Even freshmen students are calling the Class of 2024 the “last real class of TJ.” Now the data is in.

Record Numbers of Freshmen Leaving

According to the school district’s website,  only 541 students of the 550 students admitted in the Class of 2025 even started in September 2021. Several left throughout the school year, in March bringing the Class of 2025 to 529 students from 541.

That’s 12 students, or a record 2.2 percent of the freshman class, who dropped out of the school. The number may seem small, but consider that only one student dropped out the entire year before from the Class of 2024.

Teachers also say the principal has sent a clear message: don’t fail freshmen. The year before, in the freshman Class of 2023, only one student dropped out.

Record Numbers of Unprepared Students

In February, blaming “pandemic learning gaps,” Bonitatibus had staff announce new after-school “Algebra Review Sessions” because so many Class of 2025 students were ill-prepared in math.

Furthermore, a new study by the Fairfax County Association for the Gifted, which advocates for advanced academic students, confirms the new admissions process admitted students in the Class of 2025 with less advanced math than the year before. Compared to the TJ Class of 2024, the proportion of students admitted in the Class of 2025 with Algebra 2 or higher completed in 8th grade decreased from 35 to 18 percent. Advanced math, like multivariable calculus, lays the foundation for advanced sciences, from artificial intelligence and machine learning, that matter to TJ students (and the school’s mission).

The study also found 38 percent of Fairfax County Public Schools students admitted to the TJ Class of 2025 “were not participating in the most rigorous coursework available in 8th grade.”

Indeed, in response to a FOIA request by a TJ mother, Fairfax County officials revealed that the number of TJ students who had to take geometry—a course that most ninth graders completed before arriving at TJ under merit admissions—skyrocketed to 136 students in the 2021-2022 school year from 11 in 2020-2021 and 15 in 2019-2020.

Unfortunately, educrat-activists like Bonitatibus are now busy rewriting their role in this disaster.  At a Sept. 15, 2020, online school board “work session,” Bonitatibus beamed as she enumerated the many ways she had advanced the new admissions policy that would bring “representative demographics” to TJ, according to a recording of the meeting.

She’d “been involved” in a special task force that Virginia Education Secretary Atif Qarni had convened in June 2020 to push race-based admissions changes. Bonitatibus, who grew up in Pittsburgh as a Steelers fan, proudly said she had been fielding questions from the superintendent and school district chief operating officer for “several weeks” as they worked on a new “merit lottery” race-based admissions process.

Denying ‘Any Role’ in Admissions Changes

Last week, however, a new video reveals, Bonitatibus stood before parents at a meeting of the school’s Parent Teacher Student Association, or PTSA, and denied her role in the TJ admissions changes.

“To be clear,” Bonitatibus said, sharply, “it is the FCPS school board who makes the decision about TJ admissions and FCPS leadership. I do not make – nor have I had any role – in the decision-making for TJ admissions.”

Brian Davison, a TJ father who asked Bonitatibus about her advocacy for the new race-based admissions policy, shook his head in disbelief at this. “The judge called you a racist,” he said, as members of a new rubber-stamping PTSA clapped for the principal.

“Principal Ann Bonitatibus is a liar,” Davison later told me. “She used her official channels, including the FCPS email system, to say that it is unacceptable for 70 percent of TJ students to be Asian. Bonitatibus owes the community an apology for her indisputable position that Asian students should be replaced solely because they have the wrong skin color. How can an avowed racist remain as principal of TJ when over half of her students know she holds racial animus against them?”

‘Get Your Hands Off Me’

Meanwhile, at the PTSA meeting, PTSA President Yvette Rivers moved to have Davison “removed” for “heckling” the principal, as a TJ mother, Kate Carey, who supports the new admissions policy, scrambled to stand in front of Davison and another TJ father, Harry Jackson, who was filming the meeting.

Carey then darted to Jackson and, the video reveals, she frantically waved a green PTSA voter’s card in front of Jackson’s phone as he moved it above his head, above her reach. The green card can be seen flashing in front of the camera. Witnesses say Carey pressed against Jackson’s left leg, left shoulder, and left side, desperate to get to the phone.

Jackson, a former U.S. Naval officer and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, supports a return to merit-based admissions. He can be heard on camera saying, “Get your hands off of me.”

Rivers, who supports the new admissions policy, repeatedly says, “Kate, Kate, sit down. Kate, please sit down.” Rivers and PTSA officers didn’t return a request for comment.

In a curt response, Carey said, in an email, “I never touched Harry. I blocked view [sic].” A few minutes later, a friend of Carey’s emailed, telling me, not-for-attribution, that Carey “did not touch” Jackson.

Democrat Activists Drunk on Race Extremism

Carey and the principal’s other minions symbolize a national network of apoplectic hard-left activists, most of them white, affluent, and affiliated with local Democratic Party chapters. Loudoun County, Va., parent advocate Ian Prior, founder of Fight for Schools, calls them “Chardonnay Antifa.”

Over the past year, Carey and fellow activists and trolls from the local Fairfax County Democratic Party have spent countless hours, trying to discredit parents (including me) in a series of rants, as “dark money” political operatives, “white supremacists” and “right wing” extremists.

Carey targeted me after I wrote a Federalist column chronicling how the TJ principal violated district policies by bringing “Black Lives Matter at Schools” and a film rated TV-MA into a “social and emotional learning” lesson during school hours, without parental permission slips the school district required.

During the lesson, an activist alum scolded the school’s Asian students about “cultural appropriation” when they salsa dance during a TJ tradition called iNite. I noted at the time that Bonitatibus had lamented in an email, revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request, that there were “so few black and brown children” at TJ.

Earlier this month, Bonitatibus sent another email to parents. This time, she bragged about the school’s celebration for Holi, the Hindu festival of lights, and Model United Nations awards. She signed her email, “Proud TJHSST Principal.”

Last night, donning traditional clothes from India, Bonitatibus also danced at the school’s iNite celebration. Recalling the crusade that the principal has led against the school’s Asian students and families, a mother from China watched, aghast.


Source

After Race-Based Admissions To Nation’s Top High School, Students Drop Out And Underperform At Record Rates

After Race-Based Admissions To Nation’s Top High School, Students Drop Out And Underperform At Record Rates

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – In summer 2017, when Ann Bonitatibus walked through the front doors of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology as its new principal, she came with a mission to turn the top-rated school upside down. For her, that meant flipping the school’s racial demographics. At the time, 7 of 10 students came from Asian immigrant families, two of 10 from white families, and one of 10 students came from black, Hispanic, and multiracial families.

On June 7, 2020, after George Floyd’s killing, Bonitatibus emailed our mostly minority, immigrant families, telling us to check our “privileges,” expressing her shame at our “Colonials” mascot, and outlining her vision for a new racial makeup at the school. Soon Bonitatibus will be able to say “mission accomplished”—courtesy of an unfortunate 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

The justices “temporarily reinstated a woke admissions policy at one of America’s top schools despite a federal judge previously ruling it was racist,” the UK’s Daily Mail reported bluntly.

‘No. 1 School Has Become the Titanic’

Our legal battle to stop the principal and fellow activists from completely hijacking the school as a magnet for advanced students in math and science is far from over. But the decision is bad news for the short-term future of TJ, as the school is called, where freshmen are leaving the school in record numbers and teachers are abandoning ship.

“Our country’s No. 1 school has become the Titanic,” says one person, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from the principal. Indeed, U.S. News and World Report just released its rankings of top schools and TJ is No. 1 again—but folks wonder for how long.

According to people familiar with the school, the situation has become so bad the principal has instructed counselors to connect her with students considering leaving the school, so she can meet with them and keep her numbers down, something she didn’t do regularly before. Fairfax County Public Schools and Bonitatibus didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Yes, Racism Is Still Unconstitutional in America

Know this. Our parents are on the correct side of history. On February 28, federal Judge Claude Hilton issued a historic ruling in our lawsuit, Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. Hilton said a new admissions process the school board put in place in December 2020, with the principal’s advocacy, is “patently unconstitutional” and ordered the school board to immediately return to its previous merit-based, race-blind admissions test system.

Already, the district picked the Class of 2025 through an illegal admissions process, causing the percentage of Asian students admitted last year to plummet from 73 to 54 percent, in a purge.

On March 10, the judge denied the school board’s request for a “stay” of his order, pending its appeal of his decision. School board officials challenged Judge Hilton’s refusal of the stay in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and, in a 2-1 split decision, two judges granted the stay.

In response, lawyers for Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Coalition for TJ, filed an emergency application on April 8 with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the stay. Often, judges don’t like to rule on lower-court decisions until they evaluate the merits of a case. Getting three judges to overcome that reticence and vote to overturn the stay says a lot about how seriously they view this constitutional violation. It bodes well for our return to the Supreme Court.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

Now, however, the case heads back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Fairfax County school board is trying to overturn Hilton’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments in September. If it reverses the federal judge’s ruling, Pacific Legal Foundation will take the case back to the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the merits.

The Supreme Court ruling clears the way for admissions officers to flip half the school, by allowing next year’s freshman class, the Class of 2026, to be announced any day now through the unconstitutional process. The illegal process will likely be used for another admissions cycle for the Class of 2027 and the selection of three-fourths of the school. Finally, maybe in late 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court may hear the case on its merits.

With justice delayed, it’s children who are paying the price. For months, parents and teachers have been talking about how the freshmen admitted through the lower academic admissions standards are struggling and leaving the school. Even freshmen students are calling the Class of 2024 the “last real class of TJ.” Now the data is in.

Record Numbers of Freshmen Leaving

According to the school district’s website,  only 541 students of the 550 students admitted in the Class of 2025 even started in September 2021. Several left throughout the school year, in March bringing the Class of 2025 to 529 students from 541.

That’s 12 students, or a record 2.2 percent of the freshman class, who dropped out of the school. The number may seem small, but consider that only one student dropped out the entire year before from the Class of 2024.

Teachers also say the principal has sent a clear message: don’t fail freshmen. The year before, in the freshman Class of 2023, only one student dropped out.

Record Numbers of Unprepared Students

In February, blaming “pandemic learning gaps,” Bonitatibus had staff announce new after-school “Algebra Review Sessions” because so many Class of 2025 students were ill-prepared in math.

Furthermore, a new study by the Fairfax County Association for the Gifted, which advocates for advanced academic students, confirms the new admissions process admitted students in the Class of 2025 with less advanced math than the year before. Compared to the TJ Class of 2024, the proportion of students admitted in the Class of 2025 with Algebra 2 or higher completed in 8th grade decreased from 35 to 18 percent. Advanced math, like multivariable calculus, lays the foundation for advanced sciences, from artificial intelligence and machine learning, that matter to TJ students (and the school’s mission).

The study also found 38 percent of Fairfax County Public Schools students admitted to the TJ Class of 2025 “were not participating in the most rigorous coursework available in 8th grade.”

Indeed, in response to a FOIA request by a TJ mother, Fairfax County officials revealed that the number of TJ students who had to take geometry—a course that most ninth graders completed before arriving at TJ under merit admissions—skyrocketed to 136 students in the 2021-2022 school year from 11 in 2020-2021 and 15 in 2019-2020.

Unfortunately, educrat-activists like Bonitatibus are now busy rewriting their role in this disaster.  At a Sept. 15, 2020, online school board “work session,” Bonitatibus beamed as she enumerated the many ways she had advanced the new admissions policy that would bring “representative demographics” to TJ, according to a recording of the meeting.

She’d “been involved” in a special task force that Virginia Education Secretary Atif Qarni had convened in June 2020 to push race-based admissions changes. Bonitatibus, who grew up in Pittsburgh as a Steelers fan, proudly said she had been fielding questions from the superintendent and school district chief operating officer for “several weeks” as they worked on a new “merit lottery” race-based admissions process.

Denying ‘Any Role’ in Admissions Changes

Last week, however, a new video reveals, Bonitatibus stood before parents at a meeting of the school’s Parent Teacher Student Association, or PTSA, and denied her role in the TJ admissions changes.

“To be clear,” Bonitatibus said, sharply, “it is the FCPS school board who makes the decision about TJ admissions and FCPS leadership. I do not make – nor have I had any role – in the decision-making for TJ admissions.”

Brian Davison, a TJ father who asked Bonitatibus about her advocacy for the new race-based admissions policy, shook his head in disbelief at this. “The judge called you a racist,” he said, as members of a new rubber-stamping PTSA clapped for the principal.

“Principal Ann Bonitatibus is a liar,” Davison later told me. “She used her official channels, including the FCPS email system, to say that it is unacceptable for 70 percent of TJ students to be Asian. Bonitatibus owes the community an apology for her indisputable position that Asian students should be replaced solely because they have the wrong skin color. How can an avowed racist remain as principal of TJ when over half of her students know she holds racial animus against them?”

‘Get Your Hands Off Me’

Meanwhile, at the PTSA meeting, PTSA President Yvette Rivers moved to have Davison “removed” for “heckling” the principal, as a TJ mother, Kate Carey, who supports the new admissions policy, scrambled to stand in front of Davison and another TJ father, Harry Jackson, who was filming the meeting.

Carey then darted to Jackson and, the video reveals, she frantically waved a green PTSA voter’s card in front of Jackson’s phone as he moved it above his head, above her reach. The green card can be seen flashing in front of the camera. Witnesses say Carey pressed against Jackson’s left leg, left shoulder, and left side, desperate to get to the phone.

Jackson, a former U.S. Naval officer and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, supports a return to merit-based admissions. He can be heard on camera saying, “Get your hands off of me.”

Rivers, who supports the new admissions policy, repeatedly says, “Kate, Kate, sit down. Kate, please sit down.” Rivers and PTSA officers didn’t return a request for comment.

In a curt response, Carey said, in an email, “I never touched Harry. I blocked view [sic].” A few minutes later, a friend of Carey’s emailed, telling me, not-for-attribution, that Carey “did not touch” Jackson.

Democrat Activists Drunk on Race Extremism

Carey and the principal’s other minions symbolize a national network of apoplectic hard-left activists, most of them white, affluent, and affiliated with local Democratic Party chapters. Loudoun County, Va., parent advocate Ian Prior, founder of Fight for Schools, calls them “Chardonnay Antifa.”

Over the past year, Carey and fellow activists and trolls from the local Fairfax County Democratic Party have spent countless hours, trying to discredit parents (including me) in a series of rants, as “dark money” political operatives, “white supremacists” and “right wing” extremists.

Carey targeted me after I wrote a Federalist column chronicling how the TJ principal violated district policies by bringing “Black Lives Matter at Schools” and a film rated TV-MA into a “social and emotional learning” lesson during school hours, without parental permission slips the school district required.

During the lesson, an activist alum scolded the school’s Asian students about “cultural appropriation” when they salsa dance during a TJ tradition called iNite. I noted at the time that Bonitatibus had lamented in an email, revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request, that there were “so few black and brown children” at TJ.

Earlier this month, Bonitatibus sent another email to parents. This time, she bragged about the school’s celebration for Holi, the Hindu festival of lights, and Model United Nations awards. She signed her email, “Proud TJHSST Principal.”

Last night, donning traditional clothes from India, Bonitatibus also danced at the school’s iNite celebration. Recalling the crusade that the principal has led against the school’s Asian students and families, a mother from China watched, aghast.


Source

Nobody ‘Implied’ Ketanji Brown Jackson Was Nominated Because Of Her Race. Biden Stated It Proudly

Nobody ‘Implied’ Ketanji Brown Jackson Was Nominated Because Of Her Race. Biden Stated It Proudly

During opening statements of the Senate confirmation hearings for Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, which began on Monday, Democrats (one in particular) went into spin mode by testing out a talking point that went a little something like this: Republicans are saying you were nominated because of your race.

It was Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who said it most plainly:

“My Republican colleagues and public figures have attempted to undermine your qualifications through their pejorative use of the term ‘affirmative action,’ and they have implied you were solely nominated due to your race. … Let me be clear: Your nomination is not about filling a quota.”

Al Sharpton employed a similar deflection on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I salute President Biden in this case. He made a commitment, and I don’t think it was based on some tokenism. I think it was based on him saying that the court ought to reflect the country, and a black woman has never been on the court, and you couldn’t get one more qualified,” Sharpton said, before implying that it was racist for GOP lawmakers to inquire about the nominee’s law school admission test score.

It’s an odd basket of claims: that it’s Republicans who made Jackson’s nomination all about race, that anything was “implied,” that describing the race-based selection as “affirmative action” is out of bounds, and that this has nothing to do with tokenism.

They’re strange claims because most Americans are old enough to remember just two months ago when President Joe Biden himself stated clearly and plainly that his pick would be “the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court,” after making a similar promise on the campaign trail. It was the Democrat president, not Republican cynics, who announced that race and sex were deciding factors in the selection. “Y” chromosomes and fair skin were disqualifying attributes before any merits could be considered.

Other Democrats couldn’t help themselves, playing into the identity politics game and marveling at the “historic” nature of nominating a black woman to the high court — and all the while undermining Hirono’s claim that it’s Republicans who have centralized race in Jackson’s nomination.

“The appointment of a Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court — let’s be very blunt — should have happened years ago. This day is a giant leap into the present for our country and for the court,” gushed Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

“The Senate is poised right now to break another barrier. We are on the precipice of shattering another ceiling,” said New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker, who is known for breaking Senate rules during the confirmation hearings for now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh with his cringe “Spartacus” moment. “I just feel this sense of overwhelming joy as I see you sitting there.”

Despite Hirono’s attempted deflection to her GOP colleagues and empty media assurances that tokenism is nonexistent here, it was Democrats who fixated on Jackson’s race and sex.

Now when Republicans inquire about her academic achievements and judicial record, it’s branded as veiled racism and sexism. Jackson proponents treat it like unjust scrutiny, as if a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is supposed to be for grandstanding about “historic” moments and not for judicial vetting.

Try as they might to turn Jackson criticism on Republicans, this one is on Biden. He’s the one who announced in other terms that Jackson is an affirmative action pick, just as he did with his vice president (and we’ve seen how that’s turned out). He’s the one who invited intensified scrutiny of Jackson’s merits and ideology. He reduced Jackson’s qualifications to the color of her skin and the pairing of her chromosomes.

Nobody “implied” that Jackson was nominated because of her race. The president announced it proudly.


Source

Brian Flores’ Lawsuit Exposes The Absurdity Of NFL Racial Quotas Like The ‘Rooney Rule’

Brian Flores’ Lawsuit Exposes The Absurdity Of NFL Racial Quotas Like The ‘Rooney Rule’

The efforts of leftists to destroy the world of sports took another Great Leap Forward last week with the news that former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores filed a class-action suit against the NFL and all 32 NFL teams for racial discrimination. Flores was fired in January after three seasons with the Dolphins, and he recently interviewed for the New York Giants head coaching job that instead went to Brian Daboll.

Flores’ lawsuit is an unhinged, 58-page rant that focuses more on topics like professional football history and George Floyd rather than Flores’ specific allegations because his allegations are preposterous. Flores says the NFL “remains rife with racism” when it comes to hiring and retaining black coaches, and that the league “is managed much like a plantation,” yet he has been employed as an NFL coach for the past 14 years, and made upwards of $3 million per season as the Dolphins head coach.

The thrust of Flores’ suit is that since 70 percent of NFL players are black, and anywhere between 3 percent and 34 percent of coaches and executive personnel are black, that is prima facie evidence that the league is “racially segregated.” But Flores himself was an enthusiastic participant in this supposed “injustice,” since nearly 75 percent of his own coaching staff during his tenure with the Dolphins were white. And nowhere in Flores’ lawsuit does it mention that he was fired in Miami by a black general manager, Chris Grier.

Also unmentioned in the lawsuit is precisely how Flores would remedy the situation. If we want an NFL that proportionally “looks like America,” as Joe Biden is so fond of saying, then 3 or 4 of the 32 head coaches, general managers, and team owners would be black, but 75 percent of the players would be white or Hispanic. It’s doubtful that Flores is advocating for two-thirds of black players to be fired and replaced with whites. Is there any reason, other than “discrimination,” why NFL rosters are still 100 percent male? Why is neither team in the upcoming Super Bowl starting a transgender female at left tackle?   

What the social justice warriors in sports want, of course, is to have it both ways: force the NFL to have fewer white male coaches, executives, and owners while still signing NFL players based on their performance and the best interests of the team.

In all my years of playing football, from high school to the NFL, I never heard any teammate of any race complain about a team’s racial composition. Players understand that sports are the ultimate meritocracy, where the currency of the realm is performance, not skin color or political correctness. If a player doesn’t think he’s getting enough playing time, it doesn’t do much good to cry “racism!” The only rational thing to do is to work harder and play better.

Part of the reason this wisdom hasn’t been applied to the coaching world is due to absurd racial quota systems like the “Rooney Rule” in the NFL, which forces teams to interview at least one black candidate for any major coaching or executive vacancy.

The absurdity of this practice can be illustrated by simply applying it to NFL roster vacancies. Imagine if every NFL team were forced to invite a white cornerback into training camp every season. No NFL team has started a white cornerback since Jason Sehorn in 2002. A white cornerback who fulfilled a team’s obligation under a “Sehorn Rule” would feel insecure and teammates would feel resentful, even if the player was qualified for the position and seriously considered for the job.

This is not a defense of the NFL. The league brought this upon themselves when they jumped in bed with the social justice radicals after the Kaepernick saga and doubled down after the George Floyd/BLM riots. They deserve this lawsuit and everything that’s coming to them.

The rest of America would do well to abandon the obsession with racial optics and skin-deep assessments of our fellow countrymen, or we’re heading toward the all-out racial conflict that the radical left seems obsessed with fomenting.


After 4 seasons with the New England Patriots, Jake Bequette joined the military where after graduating Army Ranger school he deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne. He’s currently running for US Senate in Arkansas.

Source

Elite Christian School In New York Considers Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Elite Christian School In New York Considers Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practices

A leaked draft hiring manual obtained by The Federalist reveals that Grace Church School in New York considered using two different sets of hiring practices on the basis of the candidate’s race and ethnicity in a move that would discriminate against internal white applicants.

The school has been the center of racially charged controversies since a teacher went public last spring with complaints about “woke” “indoctrination” of students. The teacher, Paul Rossi, soon departed the school.

New information reveals the elite Christian school, which charges a tuition of nearly $60,000 per year, also laid out a method for practicing organized racial discrimination in a document titled “DRAFT Hiring Manual.” Topher Nichols, a spokesman for Grace Church School, told The Federalist that an official hiring manual has not been adopted. He did not address the racially based exceptions in the draft.

The manual begins by explaining that it intends to provide a “useful starting point” before going on to explain that the school seeks to engage in “anti-bias hiring.” It also remarks, “We seek to align our work with best practices for anti-racist institutions.”

Standard Hiring Practice

The standard hiring practice was described in the manual and was notably complex. It consisted of 12 different and multifaceted steps. The standard hiring practice required different employees of the school, including in human resources, the hiring committee, the hiring manager, and the assistant head to take part in the effort.

This lengthy process includes the creation of a hiring team and the appointment of a hiring manager, the HR and the assistant head working together, and multiple rounds of interviews.

The document noted there isn’t a set number of candidates that must be considered, establishing “the size of the pool determined by the hiring team’s sense of its strength and diversity,” an admission that race, not just merit, will factor into employment with the school. 

Discrimination Against White Job-Seekers

The manual listed a number of exceptions to the rule, one of which was “When there is an exceptional internal candidate of color.” Should this racial criteria be met, the 12-step process could be bypassed.

It goes on to explain “When that candidate is a person of color, the Head of School may determine that the time that could be saved by avoiding a Potemkin search — i.e., one in which the school goes through the motions of a process whose outcome is already clear — merits appointing the internal candidate without going through the full search process.”

Such a search must still be conducted if the exceptional candidate is not a person of color, the document says, assuming that other exceptional criteria are not met. Other exceptions, it says, can only be made if a role must be quickly filled for student safety, an exceptional candidate is about to accept another offer, or if the head would like to change the name of a role without significantly altering the work. An exception may also be made if the internal pool is “deep and diverse.” 

Thus, the school has considered enshrining racial discrimination as an explicit aspect of their hiring process, by purposefully instituting different sets of hiring processes based on applicants’ race or ethnicity. 

This means that, should the practices in the draft be adopted, a non-white person might be hired without having to compete against any other applicants, while an equally qualified white applicant would be required to contend with a variety of other applicants, as Grace Church invests time and resources to advertise the position to the candidate’s competitors. 

Belying this document, Grace Church School recently reassured parents and teachers in a statement on anti-racism, which claimed “Antiracism is not a zero-sum game in which we are taking resources away from one group to give to another.”  

Despite the school’s claimed opposition to racism, this leaked document proves the institution has considered engaging in systemic anti-white discrimination against members of their own community. This professed opposition to racism was present at several points in the manual. 

One section claims that Grace Church strives to be a school that “tells the truth about racism and the harm it causes to members of the school community” while envisioning “a just future where all feel an abiding sense of belonging regardless of their Identities” and being committed to “the work of anti-racism and the cause of justice.”

Sparking Racial Animosity and Division

As Grace Church speaks the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion, with incessant appeals to anti-racism, previous controversies and even their current website display both outright racial animosity and a concerted effort to divide students on the basis of race. 

Grace Church School is no stranger to controversy and appears to have a history of anti-white practices. Previously leaked audio indicated Head of School George Davison admitting that the school was “demonizing white people for being born” through what it erroneously refers to as “anti-racism” initiatives.  

The school also advertised that they’ve worked in partnership with Pollyanna Inc, an organization that crafts curriculum laden with critical race theory and racial grievance politics. The leftwing organization is also set to host an online event in defense of CRT.

Despite such clear evidence of racial division that is the hallmark of CRT, Nichols said in a statement to The Federalist that the school doesn’t “teach critical race theory as a discipline or subject or train teachers to do so.”

Racially Segregating Students

Like the Parish Episcopal School in Dallas, Texas, Grace Church School also hosts affinity groups. These are racially segregated groups where “those that share an identity, such as race, religion or gender, come together with an advisor” for conversations about identity.

Both schools are affiliated with the National Association of Independent Schools, a leftwing private school accreditation organization. Grace Church School notes that affinity groups are distinct from “alliance groups,” which are not racially exclusive.

The affinity groups begin in middle school and continue through high school, with groups like the Student of Color Affinity Group, which seeks to “offer opportunities for social-emotional and positive racial identity development” and SWAG, the Student White Anti-Racism Group, being promoted on the school website.

There’s also BICONS+, a club for “Bi/Pan/Queer/Questioning” students, or anyone else who finds himself “in the middle of the Kinsey scale,” which is named after Alfred Kinsey, a leftwing researcher of sexuality whose experiments featured acts of pedophilia. 

The Grace Church School is only one of several elite, private, NAIS-affiliated schools that similarly teach their students. The Federalist previously revealed that one Dallas Christian school had been lying to parents about teaching CRT, while another private school in the same area had been hosting racially segregated school clubs.


Source

Biden Is Wrong About His Supreme Court Pledge — And So Were Reagan And Trump

Biden Is Wrong About His Supreme Court Pledge — And So Were Reagan And Trump

When news broke about the imminent retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer,  President Joe Biden quickly reiterated his pledge to consider nominating only black women for the vacant seat. Biden first made that promise during the 2020 campaign, and it appears he’s going to keep it.

Anyone with any sense knows Biden is wrong to do this. Imposing race-and sex-based criteria, whether in hiring a janitor or nominating a Supreme Court justice, is straightforwardly racist and sexist. It doesn’t matter if the ultimate goal is to get a more “diverse” Supreme Court. We need to call this what it is. By announcing that he will consider only jurists of a particular race and sex, Biden is engaging in blatant racial and sex-based discrimination.

When conservatives point this out, the frequent rejoinder is: but Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump did this, too, they pledged to nominate women! Both sides do it! Indeed, Reagan and Trump each made some sort of commitment to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court.

But you know what? They were wrong, too. Conservatives need to be honest about that. Simply put: race and sex and other incidental characteristics should have absolutely no bearing on whether someone is nominated to the Supreme Court. A president, Democrat or Republican, should pick the best person for the job, regardless of race or sex. Period. 

Some on the right, like legal scholar and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, have argued that it was different when Reagan and Trump did it, that it was in fact perfectly fine because their pledges were more attenuated. In Reagan’s case, he at least considered men alongside women before eventually choosing Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981.

In Trump’s case, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, he announced bluntly, “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.” But, argues Turley, Trump had already released three lists of possible nominees, including both men and women of various races, and Trump’s final short list included some male jurists in addition to his eventual nominee, Amy Coney Barrett.

As my colleague Mollie Hemingway explained in her recent book, “Rigged,” upon Ginsburg’s death Trump had already decided he was going to name Barrett, whom he had wanted to nominate to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018 but didn’t have the votes then. And it’s worth noting that all three of Trump’s potential nominee lists were chosen for the most part based on quality, not identity politics.

But in the end it doesn’t matter. Reagan and Trump were both wrong to signal publicly that they would nominate a woman, whatever their behind-the-scenes deliberations might have been. They should have resisted the pull of identity politics — already exerting a malign influence on American society in the early 1980s — and declared that they would nominate whomever they thought was the best person for the job, regardless of race or sex. Instead, they pandered to the liberal consensus that things like a nominee’s race and sex matter a great deal in choosing a Supreme Court justice, and proceeded with their nominations on that basis — or at least they appeared to.

Some argue, as Sen. Lindsey Graham did over the weekend, that considering race and sex is important because the Supreme Court should be diverse and reflect the diversity of America. But that, too, is totally wrong. We’re not talking about an incoming freshman university class here, we’re talking about a lifetime appointment to a nine-person supreme judicial body that cannot possibly reflect the diversity of a nation of 330 million people.

The Supreme Court is in some ways an extra-democratic institution, and that’s by design. It is and should be insulated from the vicissitudes of democratic politics, including our compulsive desire for every public institution to exactly reflect the makeup of our body politic, usually in superficial and meaningless ways. We don’t need Supreme Court justices whose race and sex and ethnicity and “lived experiences” mirror our own; we need justices who understand the Constitution and will defend it at all costs.

Seen in that light, Reagan’s commitment to nominate a woman for the court in 1981 may have been a grave mistake. Yes, Reagan was able to claim bragging rights for nominating the first woman to the court at a time when, through no fault of their own, there were not very many qualified female jurists in America. But at what cost?

Conservatives who abhor our abortion regime might reflect with dismay at O’Connor’s role in saving Roe v. Wade and, through cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, grafting abortion rights onto the Fourteenth Amendment. As the late, great columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2005, O’Connor seemed to have no guiding judicial philosophy on major philosophical questions about the Constitution:

That is what made O’Connor so unpredictable. Sure, she was headed for what she judged to be socially a stable settlement. But you could never know what empirical judgments she would make to get there. Would she decide that the long-term stability introduced by returning abortion to the elected branches of government would outweigh the short-term instability it would produce? You could not be sure. What you could be sure of was that she would come up with some ad hoc constitutional principle to justify her empirical judgment.

Biden is being swept along by the woke tide that has washed over and consumed the Democratic Party. Just as he pledged during the campaign to pick a woman as his vice presidential running mate (and was pressured into considering only black women), Biden was always going to pick a Supreme Court nominee based on superficial markers of identity politics.

It hardly needs to be said that this commitment to identity politics over actual qualifications is what gave us the manifestly incompetent and deeply unpopular Vice President Kamala Harris. That’s what happens when you refuse to consider qualified people because they happen to be a certain race or sex: you tend not to get the best people.

Conservatives should be able to criticize Biden for this while also being honest about the failures on our own side in this matter — even the failures of a president as revered as Reagan or as popular as Trump. The more willing we are to grapple with those failures and own up to them, the more likely it is that a future Republican president will avoid them when the time comes.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, First Things, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)