Giving Up

Our Father, a prominent, if not the prominent, Christian prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) is…problematic. No less a light than Anglican Church Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell says so.

I know the word “father” is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have laboured rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life.

I’ll leave the theological argument to others, other than to note that there was demurral from Cottrell’s claim, for instance Dr Chris Sugden:

Is the archbishop of York saying Jesus was wrong, or that Jesus was not pastorally aware? It seems to be emblematic of the approach of some church leaders to take their cues from culture rather than scripture.

My beef is more secular. Cottrell seems to be saying that, for those victims of abuse at the hands of their fathers there is no hope, no chance for recovery, there is no possibility of meeting a better man, a suitable father substitute. Their eyes and ears must be shielded.

I disagree. Far from helping such victims, this sham protection only further weakens them.

Contrary to Cottrell’s claim, aside from the ecclesiastic content of the prayer, it’s also a statement of earthly hope, and fact, that there is a better father—and Father—available to these victims, if only the members of the Professional Victimhood Guild would get out of their way and let them proceed through their recovery.

Instead, Cottrell and his guild have given up on these unfortunates and are telling them not to bother—to give up on themselves.

“Not a Normal Court”

With the Supreme Court having struck down affirmative action as unconstitutional, a reporter asked President Joe Biden (D), on his way out from his Friday press conference in which he objected to the ruling, a reporter asked him whether he thought the Court was now a “rogue court.”

Biden answered:

This is not a normal court[.]

It’s not normal for Justices of the Supreme Court to adhere to the text of our Constitution. It’s not normal for Justices to adhere to their oaths of office in which they swear to support and defend our Constitution rather than amend it from the bench.

This is the view of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians: our Constitution is merely suggestive, and should be ignored at convenience.

Justice Thomas Demurs

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v

President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the Court ruled that the use of race in college admissions was unconstitutional.

This post is centered entirely on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion, and that part of it in which he took issue with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, a dissent that, IMNSHO, is steeped in racism. Thomas noted that

With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the people of our Nation proclaimed that the law may not sort citizens based on race.

Then he proceeded [external citations omitted, references to Brown’s dissent retained].

Yet, JUSTICE J ACKSON would replace the second Founders’ vision with an organizing principle based on race. In fact, on her view, almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race. Post, at 24–26. This is so, she writes, because of statistical disparities among different racial groups. See post, at 11–14. Even if some whites have a lower household net worth than some blacks, what matters to JUSTICE J ACKSON is that the average white household has more wealth than the average black household. Post, at 11.
This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Put simply, “the fate of abstract categories of wealth statistics is not the same as the fate of a given set of flesh-and-blood human beings.” T. Sowell, Wealth, Poverty and Politics 333 (2016). Worse still, JUSTICE J ACKSON uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long concurring odds.
Nor do JUSTICE JACKSON’s statistics regarding a correlation between levels of health, wealth, and well-being between selected racial groups prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor—and individual outcomes. So JUSTICE JACKSON supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victim- hood. If an applicant has less financial means (because of generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a university may take that into account. If an applicant has medical struggles or a family member with medical concerns, a university may consider that too. What it cannot do is use the applicant’s skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for “black” he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person. Accordingly, JUSTICE J ACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.
JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Post, at 26; see also post, at 5–7. Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. Post, at 26.

What Justice Thomas said.

The Court’s ruling, including Thomas’ concurrence and Brown’s dissent, can be read here.

Then Do a Better Job in Education and Training

The Supreme Court has ruled that considering race in university admissions is unconstitutional and must stop.

What interests me in this is the intrinsically racist rationalization in some of the “briefs” submitted to the Court in support of racist admissions criteria.

Leaders of American business and public institutions warned in friend-of-the-court briefs that a ruling against affirmative action would deprive the nation of leaders who reflect the population’s racial diversity.

No, affirmative action selects on the basis of race and sex and so selects on merit only tertiarily. Its elimination does not at all deprive the nation of leaders who reflect the population’s racial diversity.

If those…objectors…were serious about wanting leaders reflective of our underlying population, they’d push for better education from pre-school on up, better training—internships, apprenticeships, and the like—in high school and work places, and stronger family cohesion. This is how folks get prepared for leadership roles. Dumping folks into roles for which they’re unprepared only sets them up for failure.

And this from the Liberal claque of the Supreme Court:

Society “is not, and has never been, colorblind,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

And it will continue to be exceedingly difficult to become so as long as Leftists and activist judges like Sotomayor and her ilk insist on keeping us divided by race.

Such persons plainly know better, hence my frequent assertion that these persons are themselves racist at core.

The Supreme Court’s ruling can be read here.

No, She Wasn’t

College volleyball player Macy Petty reacted favorably on Fox News @ Night to the House passing a bill banning biological males from competing in college sports. She also asked ChatGPT to help her shorten a tweet she wanted to transmit as part of an ongoing Twitter debate regarding transgenders and women’s sports. She was attempting to explain

that I’m an NCAA athlete, and that it’s important to champion the voice of female athletes and to stand up against this ideological war that’s going on that’s putting women in danger and taking away the opportunities for scholarships[.]

“ChatGPT” proceeded to berate her for her position instead of doing the task she’d asked the software to do, and Petty objected. She’s right to object to ChatGPT’s bigoted “correction” and “suggested” better tweet, but her opprobrium is misaimed. It wasn’t ChatGPT that berated her; it was the programmers and their supervisors who berated her via their software.

AIs, including ChatGPT, are not free agents; they cannot act independently. Like all software, they only do what they’ve been programed to do by their human programmers, and those programmers write only what their human supervisors permit them to write.

Petty was scolded by the Leftist programmer staff who wrote the AI software and programed it with Leftist biases and, in the present case, the exclusionism of allowing women only to play along in their own sports, but not actually to compete.

Full stop.