Racism, Arrogance Against Election Integrity

In the aftermath of the 2020 election confusions in Georgia (both general and runoff), that State passed its Election Integrity Act that, among other things, shortened Georgia’s early voting period from nine weeks to four, reduced the window for mail-in ballots, and moved the deadline for registering to vote to 29 days before an election.

The Sixth Dist. of the Afr. Methodist Episcopal Church, the Ga. State Conf. of the NAACP, and The Concerned Black Clergy of Metro. Atlanta Inc., joined by the Federal government’s DoJ, sued to strike the law as voter suppressing—the stricter voting period unfairly discriminates against Black voters, among other complaints.

This was a nakedly racist suit that used a manufactured racism beef as the core of their argument. Federal District Judge JP Boulee issued a preliminary injunction upholding the law. With particular reference to the Act’s runoff requirements, he wrote,

Plaintiffs presented evidence that Black voters are more likely to vote early. Plaintiffs did not present any evidence, however, which would show why Black voters would disproportionately struggle to vote during the new early voting period

And [emphasis added]

In short…the Court is not persuaded that evidence showing that black voters use early voting more often is sufficient to show that the Runoff Provisions, which shorten the early voting period, will have a disparate impact on black voters. In other words, without more, generalized evidence related to the use of early voting is not sufficient to automatically show that this particular provision, which pertains to one aspect of runoff elections, is discriminatory.

And

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show that the Runoff Provisions have a disparate impact on black voters. Indeed, Plaintiffs failed to show that eliminating the registration period before a runoff election disproportionately impacts black people. Plaintiffs also failed to show that reducing the early voting period and not mandating weekend voting has a disparate impact. The Court thus weighs this factor in favor of Defendants and against a discriminatory purpose finding.

“Plaintiffs” just expected their unsubstantiated claim to be taken as dispositive fact. Their arrogance runs as deep as their racism.

Regarding the specific question of Plaintiffs not getting their preferred way, Boulee noted the 11th Circuit’s precedent, binding on his court (the 11th Circuit includes Georgia):

The Court acknowledges that the Legislature did not include the alternative option that Plaintiffs would have preferred [a one- or two-week longer voter registration period]. Importantly, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the failure to “‘include the alternative option[s] that Plaintiffs would have preferred’ is not evidence of discriminatory intent.”

That’s the arrogance of Plaintiffs being handled.

The dishonest nature of the plaintiff’s beef is illustrated in Footnote 6 of the Boulee’s ruling [emphasis added, cites omitted]:

6 As to the other named organizations, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs established an injury based on a diversion of resources. By way of example, Plaintiffs argued that “[i]t is false that Common Cause ‘says nothing about runoffs,’ . . . Common Cause testified about its voter participation efforts in both the ‘2020 Primary and Runoff election cycles.'” A close look at Plaintiffs’ evidence, however, does not show that Common Cause diverted its resources to counteract the Runoff Provisions. Instead, Common Cause’s representative stated that “[a]s part of the organization’s voter participation efforts, Common Cause GA provided free personal protective equipment (PPE), food, and water to persons, including voters, at or around polling sites, in Fulton County during the 2020 Primary and Runoff election cycles.” Simply put, the fact that Common Cause elected to give out water and other gifts during a runoff election does not show that it diverted resources away from its ordinary activities to counteract the Runoff Provisions.

These plaintiffs, their judgments clouded by their racism and arrogance, are just making things up and claiming them to be true without even a pretense of substantiation.

The judge’s ruling can be read here.

Racism Strikes Deep

Chicago’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson is making his go-to move regarding the influx of illegal aliens Chicago is experiencing (I don’t say “suffering;” that’s what Texas and Arizona border cities and towns are doing): he’s playing his race card in objecting to Texas’ Republican Governor Gregg Abbott helping the illegal aliens flooding across his State’s border to accept Brandon’s open-arms invitation of them with his loud and proud sanctuary city status.

…Johnson condemned Governor Greg Abbott…in a recent MSNBC appearance, arguing he has been “attacking” cities run by Black leaders with waves of migrants.

No, Abbott is transporting illegal aliens, all of whom are volunteers for the trip, to sanctuary cities. Providing sanctuary to illegal aliens is the destination selection criterion. That cities that satisfy that criterion happen to be run by Progressive-Democrats is just that—an irrelevant happenstance. And that those Progressive-Democrats running sanctuary cities happen to be black is just that—an even further remote irrelevant happenstance.

Only a racist manufactures a race beef when there is no beef to be had, and it’s especially pernicious when the race card player knows full well there’s no race beef to be had.

Where Does Harvard Go From Here?

That’s the question The Wall Street Journal asked in its Wednesday article.

Melissa Korn, the article’s author, proposed this in all seriousness.

The governing board and interim leaders will first need to address concern from some faculty and alums that the school has drifted too far to the left, with a growing emphasis on ethnic studies and diversity, while also fielding complaints from others that it hasn’t gone far enough in addressing racial inequities on campus and in society at large.

That won’t happen until there’s a 100% replacement of Harvard Corporation and Board of Overseers members. Those are the personnel who actively condone Gay’s bigotry and dishonesty—a support they demonstrated by allowing her to resign rather than firing her, and a support they continue by keeping as an employee of Harvard, a professor. These are the personnel who hired her, who push “diversity” claptrap, and who have already influenced the hiring of all those Leftist “teachers.”

Claudine Gay’s Resignation Letter

Here it is, via Ricochet’s Editors [emphasis in the original]:

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
It is with a heavy heart but a deep love for Harvard that I write to share that I will be stepping down as president. This is not a decision I came to easily. Indeed, it has been difficult beyond words because I have looked forward to working with so many of you to advance the commitment to academic excellence that has propelled this great university across centuries. But, after consultation with members of the Corporation, it has become clear that it is in the best interests of Harvard for me to resign so that our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenge with a focus on the institution rather than any individual.
It is a singular honor to be a member of this university, which has been my home and my inspiration for most of my professional career. My deep sense of connection to Harvard and its people has made it all the more painful to witness the tensions and divisions that have riven our community in recent months, weakening the bonds of trust and reciprocity that should be our sources of strength and support in times of crisis. Amidst all of this, it has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor—two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am—and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.
I believe in the people of Harvard because I see in you the possibility and the promise of a better future. These last weeks have helped make clear the work we need to do to build that future—to combat bias and hate in all its forms, to create a learning environment in which we respect each other’s dignity and treat one another with compassion, and to affirm our enduring commitment to open inquiry and free expression in the pursuit of truth. I believe we have within us all that we need to heal from this period of tension and division and to emerge stronger. I had hoped with all my heart to lead us on that journey, in partnership with all of you. As I now return to the faculty, and to the scholarship and teaching that are the lifeblood of what we do, I pledge to continue working alongside you to build the community we all deserve.
When I became president, I considered myself particularly blessed by the opportunity to serve people from around the world who saw in my presidency a vision of Harvard that affirmed their sense of belonging—their sense that Harvard welcomes people of talent and promise, from every background imaginable, to learn from and grow with one another. To all of you, please know that those doors remain open, and Harvard will be stronger and better because they do.
As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity—and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for—and to our capacity to serve the world.
Sincerely,
Claudine Gay

Couple things about this. First and foremost is the letter’s existence. Harvard allowed her to resign, and Harvard is retaining her as a professor. Harvard has not fired her for cause, of which there are two (as I wrote earlier): her dishonesty and her bigotry.

Her bigotry was made blatantly manifest during her testimony late last year before the House Education and the Workforce Committee wherein she refused to condemn the antisemitic bigotry going on at the school over which she was presiding, and which she affirmed in the weeks following with her overt denials that there was anything wrong in her testimony.

Her dishonesty is plainly demonstrated by her plagiarism—and not just that she did it once or twice, an occasion that could be written off as hugely sloppy personal editing, but by the vast frequency with which she engaged in her naked, unattributed copy-pasting.

Then there’s her professional victimhood move in playing that race card—her ouster was fueled by racial animus. I have no doubt that she did get some scurrilous correspondence in response to her own behaviors. However, the thrust of the push to get her out was fueled by her own rank bigotry and disgusting dishonesty, either one of which should have been, and should be, disqualifying for her continued association in any way with Harvard.

And this: there is not a syllable of apology for her misbehaviors that have brought her to this partial pass. There is not a single minim of acknowledgment of her misbehaviors. It’s almost as if the lettered (now ex-) President and still professor is incapable of recognizing bigotry and dishonesty when it’s inside her.

Finally this: it says volumes about the moral failure of the Harvard management team that they have made the conscious decision to retain this paragon of dishonesty, this epitome of bigotry, as a professor, presuming to teach young minds.

President Plagiarist

Harvard’s, not the one currently sitting, on occasion, in the White House. Claudine Gay has been caught out again.

Seven of Gay’s 17 published works have already been impacted by the scandal, but the new charges, which have not been previously reported, extend into an eighth: In a 2001 article, Gay lifts nearly half a page of material verbatim from another scholar, David Canon, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin.
That article, The Effect of Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Political Participation in California, includes some of the most extreme and clear-cut cases of plagiarism yet. At one point, Gay borrows four sentences from Canon’s 1999 book, Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts, without quotation marks and with only minor semantic tweaks. She does not cite Canon anywhere in or near the passage, though he does appear in the bibliography.

Gay’s…performance…goes downhill from there.

Is it the case that here, too, every word she writes is a lie, including “and” and “the”?

In the end, on Tuesday she resigned as Harvard President. The Harvard management team cravenly allowed her to resign, rather than firing her for cause—of which there were two: her dishonesty and her bigotry. Harvard management, even more cravenly, are keeping her on the professorial payroll. Never mind that she should be fired altogether for cause—of which there are two: her dishonesty and her bigotry.

It’s unfortunate that Harvard continues to employ this person, and her continued employment demonstrates that the school doesn’t care about her dishonesty or her bigotry. From that, Harvard should be disqualified from any further government funding, from any level of government.