WASHINGTON — The University of Minnesota is among the latest targets of a legal campaign by organizations fighting affirmative action programs in the nation’s colleges and universities.
Since the 1980s the University of Minnesota offered Black and Native American students a paid summer internship program that aimed to address the underrepresentation of students of color at the graduate and professional level. The Multicultural Summer Research Opportunities Program allowed students to participate in faculty research programs.
About 10-weeks long and opened to 16 students this summer, the program came across the radar of William Jacobson, a Cornell University securities law professor who has founded a non-profit called the Equal Protection Project (EPP). The group says it is “devoted to the fair treatment of all persons without regard to race or ethnicity.”
“Our guiding principle is that there is no ‘good’ form of racism. The remedy for racism never is more racism,” the EPP says.
The EPP made a complaint last month to the U.S. Department of Education and the University of Minnesota quickly renamed and relaunched the program so that all students could apply.
That did not satisfy Jacobson. He said he is concerned about how the university will implement the new program and “how are changes going to be implemented when you already have people signed up for the summer?”
[image_caption]William Jacobson[/image_caption]
The University of Minnesota said it has no restrictions on race in its Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, which is open to undergraduates from every college and allows students to partner with a faculty member on research or creative projects. Nevertheless, Jacobson said the EPP plans to investigate other University of Minnesota programs for what he calls discriminatory policies based on ethnicity and race.
The university’s turnabout on the summer internship program also did not satisfy Republican members of the Minnesota congressional delegation.
They recently wrote a letter that was also signed by Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, to the U.S. Department of Education to complain about the program that no longer existed and demand the department investigate why the Multicultural Summer Research Opportunities Program was created. The lawmakers wrote the U.S. Department of Education because the university receives federal money.
“It is illegal and flat-out wrong for the University of Minnesota to authorize an internship program that explicitly excludes students of certain races,” said Rep. Tom Emmer, R-6th District.
The Department of Education confirmed it had received the letter from Emmer, Owens and Reps. Pete Stauber, R-8th District, Michelle Fischbach, R-7th District, and Brad Finstad, R-1st District. But it declined to say whether it would take further action and said it does not comment on complaints made to the department’s civil rights division.
Those who defend programs like the one the University of Minnesota has eliminated say they are necessary to combat historical and ongoing discrimination that results in a lack of opportunity for Black and Native American youth in the United States.
[image_caption]Mitchell Crusto[/image_caption]
“Their disadvantage is from current conditions such as unequal funding of public schools and other challenges such as high unemployment in these communities,” Crusto said. “Their current disadvantage is compounded by historic mistreatment via segregation, racism, redlining, and the like.”
Legal challenges from the right to “racial preference” programs in academia are on the rise, with organizations like the Equal Protection Project becoming more involved in the filing of court cases and complaints. The EPP has also recently complained to SUNY-Albany about a project the school runs in conjunction with the Albany Public Library. The program offers fellowships to students of color at the university’s College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity.
The organization has also set in its sights a Missouri State University business boot camp for women and minorities that excluded white males.
“We’re only three months old and we have already filed several complaints,” Jacobson said.
The EPP, which was established by Jacobson recently, is one project of a larger nonprofit Jacobson also founded called the Legal Insurrection Foundation, whose staff of attorneys includes a former employee of far-right activist group Project Veritas.
The foundation has been involved in a challenge to Harvard’s race-conscious admittance policy that’s at the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the suit say Harvard’s admittance policy discriminates against Asian Americans and the Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the case this month.
Another project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, called CriticalRace.org, has compiled a database of universities that it says teach critical race theory, but also details all efforts at diversity and inclusion at a school.
For instance, Minneapolis’ Augsburg University was cited for its for plans to eliminate standardized testing as a requirement for admission and for establishing a site that lists all events and opportunities dedicated to Justice for George Floyd.
This is right-wing outrage politics at work. When you don’t have good policies to run on, you rely on fear, anger, and hate to get votes. The reality is that Affirmative Action in America is almost entirely toothless, even though, if empowered, it could be an excellent means to addressing some pervasive systemic economic injustices in this country. After all, what is more important to the development of an individual, or a family, or a community than access to good jobs and education?
“To abandon Affirmative Action is to say that there is nothing more to be done about discrimination.” – Coretta Scott King
When I was an incoming freshman at the University of Minnesota, the enrollment counselor who knew that I was there on a tribal scholarship, told me that when I graduated with my undergraduate degree, if I was interested in medical school I would be granted an automatic acceptance. You probably think that was a great program. I found that insulting.
Your pride is not a data point. We can debate the nuances of “automatic acceptance” versus preferential treatment, but I guess I’m more interested in the ends than the means in this scenario. An argument could easily be made that more diversity amongst those who provide medical services is a good thing, or at least that characteristics of the people being served by that system should be reflected in those providing the services. If the system in place has historically prevented nonwhite individuals (as an example) from becoming providers of medical services, then yes, preferential treatment seems like a logical means to achieving the end of diversity in the medical field.
How do you suggest we overcome a history of systemic exclusion and deprivation in this country?
By stop doing it. Then stop talking about. Kids today are indoctrinated in the belief that they are victims because of the color of their skin and there’s nothing they can do about it. That doesn’t solve anything, and it gives them a sense of hopelessness. Not good.
I disagree. NOT talking about race is what got us into this mess. Denying that the issue exists doesn’t make it go away.
Yes, if only we would outlaw these (quite marginal and non-comprehensive) affirmative action programs, and then stop talking about racism in America in the 21st Century, it would promptly disappear. This is a very serious solution indeed!
The only people I hear talking about race are white liberals. It’s their white guilt talking. They hate their whiteness.
I would suggest to you that talking about race and conduct about race are two different things.
Race seems to also be a popular topic among white conservatives fearmongering about ‘white replacement’ in this country. And, from my perspective, it seems like you are often the first commenter to bring up race.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone say that children are indocturnated into believing themselves as a victim. Everyone has had history and there was never a focus on emotionally hurting kids. These programs rarely change year by year so if there was a huge about face in a subject, we would’ve known. I can’t get over how this last year has made teachers into purveyors of societal ” sins” . I really feel sorry that they’ve had to go through this. They’ve done nothing wrong. The teachers have been the victims..it’s a way of taking the spotlight off of who is really the purveyors and who really stokes the hatred fires…for them to do this is morally reprehensible, you just feel like getting sick every time they open their mouths. It’s all regurgitated hate..
“Kids today are indoctrinated in the belief that they are victims because of the color of their skin and there’s nothing they can do about it.”
A popular right wing talking point to be sure, but no one ever provides any facts to back that up.
You don’t think right-wingers are indoctrinating their kids in the principles of white victimhood?
Touche. Indeed I do. Just look at this very week for proof!
And if you were in the ROTC the skids would also have been greased for your continued education. Just maybe, an underserved community in need of medical doctors, benefits from enabling a path to solving the problem. Seems like a win/win proposition. Why folks insist on win/lose has always left me curious…
Sorry Dennis, Med school acceptance doesn’t work that way. You have to take the classes and tests and apply. I entered more than 40 years ago and it never was that way. Just more of your right wing platitudes and myths to make yourself seem like some sort of culture hero. 40 years ago, they were trying desperately to get more people of cultures into medicine, however, they still had to make the cut academically. It wasn’t some sort of liberal fantasy about guilt over past actions, rather, it was a recognition that certain cultures did better when discussing personal and medical issues with people of the same culture and backgrounds. That is still the case. Since med schools rely heavily on state and federal funding, it would seem very germane to make sure that resources are used to benefit all people of all creeds when funding a public resource. I think they call that fair.
What, you mean there is some level of exaggeration in Dennis’s account? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you!
I doubt this story’s veracity. Especially since there are multiple resources that say that lots of Native American kids applied to medical school and were rejected. At best, I see (a VERY recent) article about a proposal for automatic interview. I’m sorry you were offended. But being offended is a choice you made over an opportunity (that probably didn’t happen).
“When you don’t have good policies to run on, you rely on fear, anger, and hate to get votes. ”
Equal treatment under the law is a darn fine policy.
That would be nice wouldn’t it? Please invent a time machine so you can go back and make sure everyone in America is treated equally from the start, so that we don’t need programs like Affirmative Action to play catch-up from America’s sad history of non-equal treatment. Honestly though, this is just a naïve take. Just like the argument, “you should hire the best person for the job,” it relies on this fantasy of a world where equal treatment exists or ever existed, or that you can actually identify the “most qualified” person. It is just rhetorical subterfuge to maintain white supremacy.
So, you would not be upset or angered by being denied an opportunity, that you earned and deserved, simply because your name is Tyler and was told “Nope, we don’t accept any Tylers for this opportunity.”
That’s obviously a ridiculous comparison because there isn’t a history of Tylers being oppressed in this country and systems built around sustaining that oppression. But more importantly, I take issue with the word “deserved” in your argument. America is not a meritocracy. People are more likely to get a job because of who they know, or because they went to the right school or come from the right family, rather than getting a job because of the color of their skin. It is exactly because American society is NOT based on merit that Affirmative Action needs to exist – to level the playing field for those who are systemically disadvantaged.
The 2nd paragraph of this article indicates that the U of M has been offering these paid and special internship opportunities to Black and NA students since the 1980’s in order to promote more minority representation in professional and graduate programs. What has been the result of these special opportunities over the past 40, or so, years? I would think, if these programs are successful, there would be statistics to verify their success. And, if not …. why should taxpayer money continue to be spent on these programs? I am concerned that we just keep ‘pouring’ money into programs that do not reach their goals for the sake of ….. saying we are trying something.
If you’re going to oppose racial discrimination, which any fair-minded person would do, you have to have the integrity to oppose it regardless of the race involved. In this case, it smacks of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” which is difficult to defend in a nation who’s had a Black president.
“If you’re going to oppose racial discrimination, which any fair-minded person would do”
Hmmm…. Fair minded???
Woke
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Woke
Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination”
“Florida Governor DeSantis declares war on ‘woke’ culture – Says, ‘woke goes to die’ in my state”
Wake me up when the phony woke wars are over. Can’t we do better then the “Woke Warrior” and the “Retribution Revolutionary”? Eisenhower could rise from the grave tomorrow and not get elected as a Republican County Commissioner any where in the US…
“Wokeness” is the new, shorthand version of political correctness, which is basically an anti-Christian, anti-straight, anti-conservative, agenda.
“Political correctness” evidently had too many syllables for the average conservative to remember, so it was replaced by a much easier term.
“which is basically an anti-Christian, anti-straight, anti-conservative, agenda.”
Which leaves the questions of our time:
Can you be pro muslim/jew/buddhist/add your flavor here and not be anti-Christian?
Can you support GLBTQ rights and equality and not be anti-straight?
The last one is easy: any agenda that just does not capitulate to all your ideas and dares to go down the road on compromise is anti-conservative
Oh. Wow. So “there was this one time that we had a minority person in a position of power so everything is hunky dory” now? Because, in nearly 250 years, we had ONE black male president for 8 years, NO female presidents, and so we’ve fixed the whole 97% percent of our history because of it??? Thank goodness we ratified the 14th Amendment (which, by the way, TFG and his supporters want to repeal), or Obama couldn’t have been president. And neither could you, Mr. Tester. AND STILL, it took nearly 150 years to have ONE black president. When we have a 150 year streak of female BIPOC presidents because we can, I’ll maybe consider that we need to stop “discriminating” against white males. Until then, since we had more than 200 years of white male presidents, your whataboutism is pure malarkey. And that gives malarkey a bad name.
“Since the 1980s the University of Minnesota offered Black and Native American students a paid summer internship program that aimed to address the underrepresentation of students of color at the graduate and professional level.”
This is a fascinating sentence. On the one hand, it tells us there is a program “aimed to address the underrepresentation of students of color at the graduate and professional level.”
And it also tells us the “University of Minnesota offered Black and Native American students a paid summer internship program” and that’s where the obfuscation comes in.
Asians and Hispanics at the U are also students of color. Asian and Pacific Islander undergraduates make up 14% of the student body. Are they getting paid internships? They’re people of color too. Additionally, 5% of undergrads are Hispanic. Are they getting paid internships? They too are people of color. And together, these two groups comprise just under 20% of undergraduates. That’s a mighty big chunk.
Which brings us back to the assertion the program is “aimed to address the underrepresentation of students of color at the graduate and professional level.” Because in reality, it’s not.
Now I am absolutely fine with a program that helps Black and Native American students. Who wouldn’t be? They’re human beings after all. And historically, they’ve been given a raw deal here in America. But if Black and Native Americans students are the target for this program, just say “Black and Native American students”. Don’t tell us it’s “aimed to address the underrepresentation of students of color at the graduate and professional level”. Because it’s not. It’s aimed only at a subset of BIPOC folks — Black and Native Americans. And as such, saying it’s to alleviate “the underrepresentation of students of color at the graduate and professional level” is inaccurate. And deliberately so.
As I’ve said here before, genetic science has concluded that biologically, race does not exist. What we call race is nothing but a social construct. And in order for our society to move forward, it needs to be dismantled, not reinforced with half-truths and weasel words.
Would Asians be considered for these positions? Are they considered “white”?
Well, this stuff is all based off of sociology and per my recent sociology textbook, because Asian-Americans make more money and are better educated than white people, they cannot be considered a minority.
So not considered white but grouped together with white people, maybe?
“White” is a term that has no meaning, other than to denote privileged ethnicity. It is an exclusionary term, meaning everyone who is not [insert description].
There was a time in our history when Jews and Italians were not considered “white.”
Conservative white men defend white male privilege which has resulted in non-Hispanic white men being chosen in far greater numbers than their performance or numbers would justify. Among young people, only about 1 in 4 are non-Hispanic white men. Selective colleges were once very predominantly male. Now women make up well over half the enrollment. Also based on performance Asian men outperform white men. However, this has not changed the composition of the work world impacted by sexism and racism.
In corporate and government conservative white men in power continue to prefer select white men not based on evidence of talent or anything else other than comfort and bias. Conservative white men claim bias, ignoring a culture of power than benefits them.
Perhaps we need to think that men and women should split opportunity evenly and then men will compete on their share based on explicit performance based criteria. Example – ask college applicants about special treatment like tutoring and life trauma such as homelessness. Those who have overcome major obstacles deserve special consideration.
Our real problem is that we punish those who grow up in poverty and turn a blind eye to the deficits of the children of the rich. Affirmative action for the children of the poor is colorblind, but benefits discriminated against groups.
We have had four baby boomer presidents – Clinton, George W Bush, Obama and Trump. Two had single mothers, but succeeded because they earned their chance. Two grew up in the lap of luxury and got where they did based on special treatment.
Bush and Trump did immense damage, as they never had to make their own way. Bush at least was taught empathy, something Trump completely lacks. Let the children of wealth not take positions based on wealth and connections rather than performance.
This is part of the broader assault on race and race-baiting policy at the local, state, and federal level. Ask Clarence Thomas, who walked through the doors of Affirmative Action and then locked them securely behind him. Conservative activist groups are all about churning up hate and bigotry, not on a policy basis, but through the legal system. This is so transparently obscene, it’s hard to describe. I thought that the Reagan years would go quietly into the landscape — but they have fomented decade after decade to where we have majorities fearing for their existence with the increase of minority numbers. Read, Pat Robertson. There is no need to be fearful of The Other. The Other isn’t a threat to you, unless you claim it falsely to be. We’re a big America. We have places for every single child and adult. We don’t need to plow a divide of fat/thin, gay/straight, men/women, educated/non-educated, labor/non-labor, immigrant/non-immigrant, public education/homeschooling/charter, religion/secular, Right/Left. We are the United States of America and can outlast any challenge to our basic principles. We must. Notice who is committing crimes against The Other: largely White, uneducated, unemployed males. We should actively question how it comes to be that they have so much time on their hands to riot and do harm to our communities. Let’s turn our attention to these ungrounded men and see if we can’t create better communities with their support.
Thank you, Ms. Stroeve, eloquently stated. “Obscene” is a word that isn’t used enough these days. It’s an awfully obscene time.
Mr. Jacobson, as a securities law professor at an elite law school, no doubt must spend many hours working on theories to assist the free movement of capital and consulting for those who can make good use of those theories. It’s impressive that despite all of this hard work, he still has the time and energy to devote to forming organizations that exist apparently just to punch down real hard on a few Black and Native American kids trying to earn a couple of thousand dollars for the summer.
Asians are not defined in the U.S. colleges by color. They are categorized by ethnicity and/or geographical place of family origin.
And they are definitely NOT underrepresented in graduate and professional programs. Or undergraduate admissions.
The EPP is essentially arguing that any attempt to address racism is the real racism. This argument has been made since the 1960s and is a main principle of the White Student Unions that cropped up on university campuses in the decades that followed. In all likelihood, the Multicultural Summer Research Opportunities Program was cited as being unfair and unequal when it started in the 1980s.
This is nothing new. Why did Jacobson start EPP now?
Because there is a new market for, and popular acceptance of, right-wing outrage.
There was a time in my memory when it became unacceptable to be racist. Now, it’s “I’m not racist, but . . .”
He started that now, and the conservative manufactured outrage machine has been getting more aggressive and egregious (and let’s add obscene, too), because 2043 isn’t that far away (when, according to demographic data and trends, whites will be a minority) and electorally, being conservative is a losing proposition. Basically, a large segment of the population is getting smaller and fearing competition based on merit, apparently. Best to keep as many people down as possible…
It appears from comments here that the concept of white privilege has morphed into “white grievance” based on some serious confusion about our history of discriminations toward Black and Brown students in American schools.
Complainers should note: Competition is not being eliminated, this is just the leveling of the playing field.
William Jacobson is a professional troll using wingnut welfare through a phony “501(c)(3) charitable organization” (which neither EPP nor “Legal Insurrection Foundation” are) to attack a perfectly reputable and honest effort to equalize opportunity for groups who have been the victims of past, and as Jacobson is seeking to prove, ongoing discrimination. Like other right-wing cranks who cannot stand to see less privileged people getting a fair shake, Jacobson is blind to his own prejudice and privilege. He is a vile man determined to prove the critical race theory is actually valid and true by his ongoing misguided efforts to make the Fourteenth Amendment meaningless.
There are other “right-wing cranks” we can do something about– the elected officials who support the continuation of White Supremacy.
to wit:
““It is illegal and flat-out wrong for the University of Minnesota to authorize an internship program that explicitly excludes students of certain races,” said Rep. Tom Emmer, R-6th District.”
“The Department of Education confirmed it had received the letter from Emmer, Owens and Reps. Pete Stauber, R-8th District, Michelle Fischbach, R-7th District, and Brad Finstad, R-1st District. But it declined to say whether it would take further action and said it does not comment on complaints made to the department’s civil rights division…”
Boy, oh boy. If we could get Emmer out of office, we could save LOTS of taxpayer dollars on all of the campaigning he does on official letterhead and using his official email address. Probably save taxpayers way more money than this internship program costs that some people on here are using as an excuse to be outraged about. Tell me how we can get Emmer out of office and I’m in. I’m tired of the spam I get that comes out of my pockets as a taxpayer and the canned (and rarely even relevant) responses I get when I try to actually contact his office.
Leftists get really worked up when they have to defend current discrimination against people who didn’t perpetuate the past discrimination. Just admit you want government mandated equality of outcomes based on racial groups.
How anyone could actually think permitting (not requiring) college admissions officials to use membership in an historically disadvantaged racial group as one of a variety of admissions criteria is “mandat[ing] equality of outcomes by racial group” is quite remarkable as an intellectual concept.
But you got in the rightwing buzzphrase “equality of outcomes”, which is a “known” evil, so excellent use of misleading rhetoric!
No, “leftists” get worked up when people who should know better claim that racial discrimination is a thing of the past and that programs and policies that don’t affect them but are trying to correct the ongoing present effects of prejudice and discrimination are the “real” discrimination against them.
There’s no greater demonstration of “white supremacy” than white liberals insisting that black and brown people can’t possibly succeed without their help.
“White liberals insisting…”
Um, are you aware that many minority public action groups support affirmative action programs? That many non-white individuals think such programs reasonable and not an insult to their existence?
In short, that not every minority person thinks as you do?
“Many people” love free stuff and can easily be convinced they have it coming.
I assume you mean red counties and states.
How about white conservatives claiming racial discrimination is all in the past and there’s no such thing as systemic racism despite overwhelming evidence that proves there is? Or funding sham “charities” that attack programs that recognize the well-documented racial bias and stigmas in health, housing, education and workplaces? That’s white supremacy.
There’s no greater demonstration of “willful cluelessness” than conservatives pretending we’re in a post-racial society with equal opportunities.
Do you get all your talking points directly off The Daily Stormer now that Tucker isn’t on Fox? It is sad how conservatives can justify sharing symbols, ideals, and policies with overt white supremacists while claiming that anyone who opposes those things is the actual racist.
But this willful cognitive dissonance is required to believe what conservatives believe. The ability to think they have better policies on crime and their “everyone for themselves” economic ideology drives success, while all the states they run have verifiably worse outcomes in crime and are more dependent on taxes. Conservatives believe the election was stolen despite no evidence other than the word of a man who bragged about being and was legally found to be a fraudster and rapist—a man who will soon likely be indicted on multiple charges, including espionage against the United States. Conservatives need to be able to consider themselves patriots while supporting violent terrorists who have been convicted of sedition.
With conservatives, none of the above is a bug in their system, it is the primary feature—the ability to believe anything they want despite every single fact showing it to be completely untrue. Conservatives can not deal with being accountable to reality, much less the community of people to which they belong. They need to believe that their inherent superiority alone creates any success they have, while any failure is because of “other” people.
Regarding the specific topic of the article, it can be seen in the conservative ability to use “woke” as a pejorative and the need to believe the United States hasn’t been built at its foundation on white supremacy and that systemic racism no longer exists. But it is very easy to reveal conservatives as who they truly are with a single question. A question where an answer has one of three potential outcomes. The person replying shows themselves to be a fool, a white supremacist, or both.
If there are no notable impacts of institutional racism in this country and systemic racism doesn’t exist, why do Native American and black communities still have worse educational, health, legal, and financial outcomes than whites? And to shorten any convoluted circular replies, please avoid using interstitial “culture” arguments that would just lead to repeating the question “Why is that the case?” Repeatedly. Just get to the point.
This white grievance project is just priming the pump for the expected ruling (any day now) by the democratically-illegitimate Alito Court declaring affirmative action programs unconstitutional. This decision will lay another plank in the “conservative” paradise of making sure that everything works out great for the children of white people (as though events along those lines don’t work out well enough already).
The childish and simplistic idea behind this deep “legal theory” is that granting some preference criteria in an educational program to a black applicant in the 21st Century is hostile “discrimination by race” against some (unknown) white applicant, “race discrimination” equal in constitutional doctrine to the level of race discrimination against blacks that existed in, say, the Jim Crow South. In short, it a legal theory tailored to appeal to the rather stupid, ignorant and closed-minded.
The 6 “conservative” activists masquerading as justices on the Alito Court can all be expected to sign onto this simple-minded (and ahistorical) “analysis”, and it will effect an overruling of another longstanding precedent permitting affirmative action in upper education, in a case decided in 1978. So not quite as venerable a precedent as Roe, but one that was certainly seen as “liberal”, and hence anathema to “conservatives”.
How any of this will help the racial problem and racial equity in America can be imagined. But working class whites (and probably white Evangelicals) tend to be opposed to affirmative action, and thus the Alito Court “conservatives” likely hope that this will be popular ruling with the demographics that now makes up the bulk of the conservative base; especially after the decision last summer overruling Roe/Casey, which has not paid the political dividends Alito and Co. imagined it would.
It is not “equality of outcomes” that makes affirmative action good policy.
It is providing opportunities for those who historically have been underrepresented in higher education, a way to break a cycle of poverty, of oppression, of simply not being given a hand up.
It does not hurt white people to help non-white people. It does not eliminate competition in institutional advancement, work or social status.
If white people cannot compete because a non-white American got into a college, got a good job, or achieved something special having been given an opportunity, well those are the breaks.
As someone said, “‘Fair’ is in August, and it’s only three days.” For the poor, disadvantaged, POC who have been discriminated against for so many generations, this is not a case of being in the “innocent” category of whites.
It is the best way to correct society’s terrible treatment as can be measured in a lower percentage in employment, income, and representation.
Even the NFL knows they need to develop the personnel they need to make a balanced product. Wypipo who own pro sports teams know that.
See people? This is what we mean by “white supremacy.” Ask any Indian guy on the rez who his biggest enemy is and he’ll tell you it’s the know-it-all, I’m-better-than-you, white liberal.
Also, apparently, any Indian guy not on the rez?
After listening to the political pronouncements of Dennis T, one is shocked upon examination to determine the actual voting patterns of American Indians…
Racism is wrong. Reverse discrimination is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Simple. NO preferences due to a presumed race.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MpnpIhqSLto
I love this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVD8PxGg1ys&ab_channel=1NtnUndrAGrv
I love this too.
Now we’re linking to YouRube videos as “evidence” or proof of some assertion?
Kind of like watching Road Runner cartoons and claiming that you’re studying engineering.
You don’t understand. It’s alternative physics.
No, it’s two black guys telling the truth.
Portier is telling a truth in 1967. Since then we’ve had Nixon, Reagan, Limbaugh, etc.
And there you have the definitive difference between a normal working guy (me!) and an aggrieved right winger:
I go to YouTube to try to figure out how to install the belt on my lawn mower vs. going for political affirmation of an aggrieved status.
Maybe a compromise? Here are 591 videos in a long series on how to exit society and build an off grid lifestyle where you can only be aggrieved by a black bear that raids your food cache:
My Self Reliance:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIMXKin1fXXCeq2UJePJEog
In the immortal words of Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R. Okla.), “I don’t want reality.”
There was an interesting opinion piece on the NY Times website today. The author noted that opponents of civil rights legislation – even the very basic ones that just prohibited discrimination based on race – would raise the specter of “preferential treatment” for black people. The laws that purported to do nothing more than eliminate distinctions based on color (the goal claimed by many conservatives today) were condemned for providing special protections that weren’t available to white people.
This brought to mind the objections to including LGBTQ people as a protected class under the human rights act. By giving them protection against discrimination, the state would be giving them special privileges. The argument never dies, does it?
Yes, and it was senate democrats like Al Gore’s father and Bill Clinton’s mentor who filibustered against it. It was passed with more republican votes than democrat votes.
Quite correct, although you neglected to mention the bill was pushed through by a (southern) Dem president. And the vote was entirely unlike the partisan breakdown of support for most civil rights legislation after the election of St. Reagan and the dawn of the “Conservative” Era (1980-202?).
So your point is…?
Would those Republicans vote for those laws today? Let’s ask a random Republican in Congress, for example, Rand Paul. How has he answered that question before he realized how bad his candid response made him feel?
When southern Dixiecrats joined the Republican Party, was it because of their strong commitment to equal rights for all? Is that why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans?
Thanks Dennis, I agree that it is too bad that we all cannot show the exemplary leadership of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both of whom moved beyond the example of men they emulated early in life to become the independent thinking leaders they became.
It is so sad that white men of privilege were instrumental in founding a country that enabled men like Douglas, Page, Obama, Ellison to become men of privilege. If only they had concentrated their efforts on making sure everyone was created equal, we would not have the current catastrophic, societal conundrum involving opportunity for everyone, regardless of skin color.
I’d love you to lay out that rationale from beginning to end through the 250ish years since those illustrious white men of privilege started their scheming to found a country. Please. I’ll even let you start with the white men of privilege that didn’t own enslaved people and end with Obama. I’ll even let you assume that there were no important people on the continent of Africa before they were forcibly dragged to a new continent…if they survived. But I will not let you skip over the fact that every time people of color, especially Black people, got ahead in this country despite their initial circumstances, privileged white men literally burned it down (or locked it up or made laws against it). The arguments that the “conservatives” are making in the comments here are absolutely ignoring that part. If we ignore history, we’re doomed to repeat it. Those who pretend that history doesn’t matter WANT to repeat it. And it’s all fun and games until you all realize that you’re NOT actually in the in crowd.