The discrimination suit against Harvard is underway, and the first day produced some interesting claims.
William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s admissions dean since 1986, defended the policy [of favoring some applicants over others on the basis of race] by saying the letters to white students in more rural states help the school recruit from areas where students may be less aware of Harvard.
This is nonsense. If student awareness were the goal, instead of sending letters to favored individuals, Harvard would advertise, would communicate with the junior high schools and high schools of those rural areas.
A Harvard junior has had the effrontery to write an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that’s critical of Harvard and its admission practice. In the piece, he cited a criticism he gets when he’s rude enough to comment on campus.
How can you be against affirmative action? That’s racist[.]
What a sad commentary this is on the quality of education available at our colleges and universities, especially one that pretends to superiority. Plainly, Harvard, et al., are teaching nothing of logic or history, only bald ideology. Any program that carries race (and gender, as affirmative action programs do) as criteria for admission, or any other gain, is by design racist (and sexist). And, this racist and sexist design was built in at the origin of affirmative action programs, including Harvard’s.
The People’s Republic of China, the home of rule by law (not rule of law), has retroactively legalized its “internment” camps, which the government is using to jail reeducate recalcitrant Muslims in its western province of Xinjiang.
Chinese authorities in the far-northwestern region of Xinjiang on Wednesday revised legislation to permit the use of “education and training centers” to combat religious extremism.
So far—so far, mind you—a million Muslims are…housed…in those camps.
The camps are strongly reminiscent of those of President Xi Jinping’s early predecessor, Mao Tse-tung. Mao sent 16-18 million children and millions more adults to his “reeducation” camps.
Aside from the misnomer of the title, which is implied by the thrust of a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the hoo-raw surrounding that, Chief Justice John Roberts has a problem with the perception of the Supreme Court—according to Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin, the authors of the piece.
“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it’s a very unfortunate perception that the public might get from the confirmation process,” CJ Roberts…2016.
The Court can’t worry about perceptions, though. It can—should—only rule on what the Constitution or law actually says.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal warned us last Sunday to be heads up: the Progressive-Democrats are not going to let this Kavanaugh thing go, even now that the confirmation is done. Shamefully, neither are they going to let Dr Christine Blasey Ford go.
The Minority Leader made clear that Democrats are going to use accuser Christine Blasey Ford as a campaign prop from here to November and beyond.
Schumer, Feinstein, Hirono, Gillibrand, Durbin, Spartacus—all of these, and each of them, have abused Dr Ford nearly as badly as did her unknown assailant all those decades ago. So has nearly every member of the Progressive-Democrat Party up for reelection this cycle.
Recall Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D, CT) sly innuendo about Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh during last Thursday’s (has it been only a week?) Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to receive testimony from Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh:
As a federal judge, you’re aware of the jury instruction falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in everything], are you not? You’re aware of that jury instruction.
Where Blumenthal was being legally pedantic, Victor Davis Hanson has an idea of an entirely appropriate response by Judge Kavanaugh, a broader, literary one, from Horace:
Recall the deal brokered by Senators Jeff Flake (R, AZ) and his BFF Chris Coons (R, DE) wherein Flake would sell his vote for confirmation of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in return for a new, week-long FBI investigation specifically into Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s (and one other woman’s) accusation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. Recall further that, no sooner had the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its committee vote on the confirmation, Coons was talking to the press about how the FBI should not be limited; the agents should be free to investigate any further allegations that might be generated come up during that week.
On Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday last weekend, Mo Elleithee, 20 years a communications strategist for the Progressive-Democratic Party, said he had a daughter and a son. Then he said that if her daughter were assaulted and named her assailant, even if she couldn’t corroborate, if her claim were merely plausible (for instance, firm evidence that she had been assaulted), she should be believed and her assailant jailed.
Senator Jeff Flake (R, AZ) sold his Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh confirmation floor vote for a week-long FBI investigation into Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh. Ostensibly this was a deal he made with his BFF, Senator Chris Coons (D, DE), in return for the Senate’s Progressive-Democrats dropping their complaints that six prior FBI background checks of Kavanaugh didn’t turn up enough dirt to suit them.
Shelby Steele had an op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal that discussed the reasons for today’s Left being consumed with hate. He was generally correct until the end of his piece.
And then there is the failure of virtually every program the left has ever espoused—welfare, public housing, school busing, affirmative action, diversity programs, and so on.
I was with Mr Steele until this point. Far from failures, however, these programs have been the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party’s greatest successes. These are how the Left and the Party have kept blacks—and far too many women—trapped in the Party-built welfare cages, trapped in perpetual victimhood.