Here's Mother Jones dutifully protecting its readers from a rude word used by Justice Sotomayor today in her Concurrence/Dissent.
Brace yourselves. Here are the words Justice Sotomayor actually spoke:
I don't claim to have any insight into the criminal case against Jessie Smullet. I haven't reviewed any of the evidence; I didn't follow the trial, except for notice headlines. I do know that the jury found Smollett guilty on five criminal counts all based on making false reports to the police. Thus, the jury has concluded that Smullett staged a phony racist and anti-gay attack three years ago.
I noticed this at National Review: Jussie Smollet's Attorney made this claim today: "The defense had an uphill battle, he said, because for three years Smollett has been “tried and convicted in the media.”
When I heard this claim by Smullet's legal team it reminded me of this:
When university administrators speak officially on controversial matters of social importance, they must be cognizant of the fact that––as faculty at the University of Chicago recognized at the height of the Vietnam War––“[t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”[1] If the university itself becomes the critic––which occurs when administrators qua administrators opine on controversial issues not bearing a tangible impact on the university’s ability to function––it diminishes the openness of an academic climate that would otherwise invite dissenters to engage boldly with their peers and colleagues. This truth led the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee to recognize that institutional neutrality enables the “fullest freedom of its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action…” [2] We believe that the institutional neutrality principle, so articulated, reasonably restricts university officials’ speaking in their official capacities.
Unfortunately, recent events at our University suggest that the neutrality principle has been dangerously dishonored. In the case of Dean Jamal’s November 20th statement regarding the Rittenhouse verdict, the significant factual errors (while embarrassing) are not the cause of our protest. [3] What motivates our letter is a concern about the implications of a University administrator, speaking in her official capacity, promulgating to an entire community of students her moral evaluation of the outcome of a highly publicized and controversial trial. Her doing so in effect places SPIA’s institutional support behind a particular position on a matter which, as it engages the interests of so many, should invite a vigorous and respectful conversation amongst students and faculty alike.
Instead, students and faculty are left to read that a Dean has adopted a definitive stance on a matter about which reasonable people of good will can and do disagree. Dean Jamal writes with a “heavy heart” as she decries the “incomprehensib[ility]” of a not-guilty verdict, labels the defendant a “minor vigilante,” and situates the alleged outrageousness of the trial’s outcome within the broader context of racial inequalities pervading “nearly every strand of the American fabric.”
Each of these features––the verdict, the alleged vigilantism, and the systemic racism claim––are the subjects of genuine debate among serious legal commentators and academics. Contrary to Dean Jamal’s forceful assessment that some of these issues––viz., the systemic racism allegation––are settled “without a doubt,” these topics occupy the debates of students, faculty, and the public at large. Though no one claims that Dean Jamal’s statement directly forces dissenting students to remain silent or to affirm what they do not believe, it is no stretch to conclude that the establishment of an institutional position tends to draw restrictive parameters around a dialogue that would be otherwise unfettered.
[Emphasis added]
I enthusiastically support Glenn Loury's Substack. He often discusses race issues with John McWhorter. Glenn invited questions for their upcoming question and answer session. Here is my question. I hope they have time to address it on their Q & A:
Here’s a hypothetical for the two of you.
Assume that God visits the United States next Tuesday. After sizing things up, God performs a miracle. He/She/They decide to make it impossible for anyone to know the “race” of anyone else. There are no longer any physical or historical ways to determine the “race” of any people you meet. Two questions: What % of people would like this new world? What % would be distressed because they no longer have a quick proxy for judging the character of others? I suspect that some people doing DEI work will get upset because they will lose their jobs. Some people will get busy trying to determine new immutable characteristics upon which to judge the characteristics of other people—perhaps astrology and phrenology theories will again flourish. In the midst of all this panic, distress and commotion of this non-racial reckoning, the news media reports that someone (race unknown) murders 15 people (race unknown). Many people watching the news reports don’t know whether to give a shit in the absence of “racial” information.
John McWhorter lists some today's most prominent fictions pushed by the political far left in his NYT article: "Here’s a Fact: We’re Routinely Asked to Use Leftist Fictions."
These days, an aroma of delusion lingers, with ideas presented to us from a supposedly brave new world that is, in reality, patently nonsensical. Yet we are expected to pretend otherwise. To point out the nakedness of the emperor is the height of impropriety, and I suspect that the sheer degree to which we are asked to engage in this dissimulation will go down as a hallmark of the era: Do you believe that a commitment to diversity should be crucial to the evaluation of a candidate for a physics professorship? Do you believe that it’s mission-critical for doctors to describe people in particular danger of contracting certain diseases not as “vulnerable (or disadvantaged)” but as “oppressed (or made vulnerable or disenfranchised)”? Do you believe that being “diverse” does not make an applicant to a selective college or university more likely to be admitted?In some circles these days, you are supposed to say you do.