MLK: You Die When You Fail to Speak Up for What is Right and True

Martin Luther King spoke from the pulpit at Selma on March 8, 1965:

A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.

I am thinking of MLK's words, week by week, as I watch the moral rot of Critical Race Theory (CRT) spread through our sense-making institutions:  our colleges, media outlets and government bodies.  And more recently, we can see this at Amazon and Ebay and in the censorship policies of huge social media corporations that attempt to control what we share with each other.

The sad irony is that what is now passing as a continuation of the Civil Rights Movement is the opposite of the Civil Rights Movement.  The Woke movement demands that we judge each other's character and legal rights by irrelevant characteristics, not by the content of our character.

It's time to stand up and publicly declare that this Woke ideology, this Woke religion, is a fraud. Critical Race Theory divides us and spreads suspicion and hatred.  Critical Race Theory attacks the central teachings of Martin Luther King.

It might be uncomfortable for you to stand up to state these obvious things publicly, but there are many important reasons to summon the courage to speak up. Who do you want to see when you look in the mirror in the morning?  Do you see a person who is courageous or do you see a person who is afraid to speak truth to a misguided mob?  Are you willing to sit in silence while that mob smears the teachings of Martin Luther King, a man whose ideas are so treasured that we set aside a national holiday in his honor?

It's time to speak up, even (and especially) if you are the only person in the room willing to speak up.

Continue ReadingMLK: You Die When You Fail to Speak Up for What is Right and True

Introducing FAIR: Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism

This is what I believe: No person should ever be judged based on how they look. To judge each other by the way we look destroys trust and hurts innocent people. To treat people differently based on any irrelevant factor is to embrace the bizarre "logic" of astrology and phrenology. There is only one human family and it consists of millions of exquisitely complex individuals who should be judged only on their individual merits. To all of the Dividers out there, we need to say "No More!"

For this reason I welcome the creation of FAIR: Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism

FAIR's Mission Statement:

Increasingly, American institutions — colleges and universities, businesses, government, the media and even our children’s schools — are enforcing a cynical and intolerant orthodoxy. This orthodoxy requires us to view each other based on immutable characteristics like skin color, gender and sexual orientation. It pits us against one another, and diminishes what it means to be human.

Today, almost 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education ushered in the Civil Rights Movement, there is an urgent need to reaffirm and advance its core principles. To insist on our common humanity. To demand that we are each entitled to equality under the law. To bring about a world in which we are all judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin.

That’s where FAIR comes in.

If you agree with these principles, I invite you to sign the FAIR Pledge. 

Continue ReadingIntroducing FAIR: Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism

It’s Time to Carefully Examine Critical Race Theory Programs Imposed on our Students in the Classroom

In his most recent column at City Journal, Christopher Rufo points out the dishonest claim by NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg that opponents of critical race theory are supposedly refusing to discuss and debate the merits of CRT. Goldberg's claim is wildly untrue. As Rufo states:

For more than a year, prominent black intellectuals, including John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly, and Coleman Hughes have challenged the critical race theorists to debate—and none has accepted. After Goldberg published her column, I called her bluff even further, challenging to “debate any prominent critical race theorist on the floor of the New York Times.” Predictably, none responded, catching the New York Times in a fib and further exposing the critical race theorists’ refusal to submit their ideas to public scrutiny.

Rufo then challenges those like Goldberg who vaguely describe CRT school programs as encouraging "social justice."

They present critical race theory as a benign academic discipline that seeks “social justice,” while ignoring the avalanche of reporting, including my own, that suggests that, in practice, CRT-based programs are often hateful, divisive, and filled with falsehoods; they traffic in racial stereotypes, collective guilt, racial segregation, and race-based harassment. The real test for intellectuals on the left is not to defend their ideas as abstractions but to defend the real-world consequences of their ideas.

Goldberg and Sachs should answer in specifics. Do they support public schools forcing first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, then ranking themselves according to their “power and privilege”? Do they support a curriculum that teaches that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support telling white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murdering” black children? Do they support telling white parents that they must become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? These are all real-world examples from my investigative reporting over the past two months, all of which the left-wing critics have deliberately ignored in their rebuttals.

Rufo also challenges Jeffrey Sachs who, along with Goldberg, claim that lawmakers working to restrict CRT training are impinging on free speech issue. Really?  All you need to turn the clock back to 1850 to make it clear that muzzling overt racism in a classroom is not a serious free speech issue.  Rufo explains:

To raise the stakes even further, we could also propose a counterfactual. If the Ku Klux Klan sponsored a public school curriculum that stated, “whites deserve to have the power and privilege” and “black culture is inherently violent”—a simple transposition of critical race theory’s basic tenets—would Goldberg and Sachs jump to the Klan’s defense? They would not—and for good reason. Racism, from the Right or from the Left, is wrong. However, for the critical race theorists, opposing racism is not categorical; it is instrumental. Official discrimination against blacks and Latinos is considered “bad”; official discrimination against whites and Asians is considered “good.”

I have seen many news reports (including Rufo's) that convince me that he is accurately portraying many modern attempts to teach "racial sensitivity" or "bias" or "social justice." That said, we need to be careful how we categorize these programs and those who are advocating for them.  There are some productive ways to talk about race, including the programs advocated by Chloe Valdary.  The programs I find offensive fall along a continuum. Some of these programs (e.g., programs based on the teachings of Robin DiAngelo) shamelessly argue that we ought to see people as "colors," which is a dysfunctional and destructive way to interact with others.  Other programs suggest that we strive to find differences in each other where there are not relevant differences, though they don't say it as explicitly. Every program is different and must be evaluated on its own merits. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingIt’s Time to Carefully Examine Critical Race Theory Programs Imposed on our Students in the Classroom

No Thanks, [Formerly Prestigious American University]. I Need to Go To School Elsewhere to Get a Real Education

John McWhorter has received many hundreds of emails from people who are dismayed with the Woke dismantling of American Education. Here is a recent communication he received, redacted to protect this person and published at It Bears Mentioning, McWhorter's Substack Website, part of an article titled, "If I like it, it's data; if I don't like it, it's "anecdata." No - whether you like it or not, it is neither dim nor racist to generalize on the basis of widespread and frequent events (i.e. both cop killings and Elect abuses)." McWhorter introduces this communicating by noting that this person had been "accepted into a graduate program at a prestigious institution."

It hurts so much that I have to decline your offer and several other great offers that I have received from elite universities and programs that used to be the dream schools for young people like me. I am simply very frustrated by ideology masquerading as objective science in today's higher ed. particularly humanity fields. Universities these days are trying to make young people like me feel guilty because we are white and because the whole system is filled with white racists, and me included. There is such strong moralization in the academy that is so certain that it has Science on its side in all of its proclamations. Frankly, today's academy’s ideological dogmatism is one of my major fear and hesitancies for entering it. I fear any work I do, especially in developmental or evolutionary psychology, would be evaluated not on its merit but instead on what is perceived as my politics based on how politically convenient my findings are. I have decided to move to [foreign country] to join a group of very creative and young [subject area redacted by me] on a [ibid.] research project. I want to spend the last 5 years in my 20s on something scientific, not political. But it seems that it is simply impossible to accomplish that goal in my own country.

Continue ReadingNo Thanks, [Formerly Prestigious American University]. I Need to Go To School Elsewhere to Get a Real Education

Michelle Goldberg’s False Claim that Opponents of Critical Race Theory are Refusing to Debate

At the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg dishonestly proclaims the following:

But the right, for all its chest-beating about the value of entertaining dangerous notions, is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory. It wants to eradicate them from public institutions. “

Fallacy Number One occurs in Goldberg's first three words. Goldberg knows full well CRT's critics include a large diverse group of people that includes conservatives and moderates, but that is not all. Opponents of CRT also include enormous numbers of people who consider themselves to be liberal on numerous issues. These many liberals fiercely oppose the CRT centerpiece: "fighting racism" by simplistically classifying people by color.  Goldberg and her favorite type of social justice warriors seem not to understand basic psychology and U.S. history. Classifying people by color is so incredibly off-the-mark, inefficient, hurtful and nationally dysfunctional that the U.S. fought an entire Civil War to end it, enacted a comprehensive set of civil rights laws to prosecute it and designated a National Holiday in honor of Martin Luther King in order to move forward with functional and kind-hearted ways to judge each other: by evaluating each others' content of character. The idea of moving past skin color as a way to judge each other was originally a liberal idea and this are now embraced by people across the entire political spectrum.

Fallacy Number Two. Goldbert states that "the right . . . is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory," citing to Christopher Rufo's statement: "“Critical race theory is a grave threat to the American way of life.”  Goldberg's claim is that critics of Critical Race Theory refuse to debate this issue. She makes this claim despite the fact that Rufo has been vigorously debating CRT on Twitter for the past year.  Further,

Rufo has also presented his views in the Wall Street Journal.  But perhaps Goldberg was referring to another prominent critic of Critical Race Theory, Glenn Loury? If so,

A longer version of Loury's statement is here:

And is Goldberg consciously ignoring this invitation by Coleman Hughes to debate Ibram X. Kendi? 

Or is Michelle Goldberg forgetting another (liberal) critic of CRT, John McWhorter who has shown that Ibram Kendi is incapable of honestly acknowledging McWhorter's precisely articulated critiques of Critical Race Theory?

If this is the kind of debate Goldberg seeks, bring on John McWhorter v. Ibram Kendi!

Goldberg is making her claim about the supposed refusal to debate while CRT's other rock star, Robin DiAngelo is busy grabbing exorbitant speaking fees for private events only.  DiAngelo has avoided any and all debates regarding her defective and destructive ideas.  In 2019, her speaking fees were $10,000-15,000.  And see here. How do I know that she has refused to debate her ideas in a public forum?  I invite you to run the following Google search: "robin diangelo debate."  You will not find any evidence that DiAngelo has ever subjected her ideas to public real-time scrutiny.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMichelle Goldberg’s False Claim that Opponents of Critical Race Theory are Refusing to Debate