While I am dismayed that my children are told explicitly in school that they may not use words that others may use, and that they should be condemned for actions that others with different skin should be excused for, it is difficult to see the parallels between the examples Ms Harris cites and what Brown was trying to fix.
Better to pick the BIPOC-only classes that have sprung up in public schools, the school-sponsored 'affinity groups' that welcome everyone but white people, 'grading for equity,' or the selective enforcement of rules. These may create only a very mild version of segregation's harms, but the real harm is in legitimizing unequal treatments by race, which leads us to unknown but likely much more unpleasant consequences.
Agreed! I was rather dismayed to see our local high school offering separate graduation ceremonies specifically for Black and for Latino/Latina students. Granted, this was in addition to, not instead of, the main event; but I couldn’t help noticing that there wasn’t a separate event for white or for Asian students. (And to be clear, this is in a public school district that is majority-minority.)
I am disappointed in this article as I feel the author is pushing an agenda that is not the same as the intended Brown vs Board of Education ruling.
In Brown, the problem was that students were segregated based on the colour of their skin - something the students could not control. Mistreatment of conservative students or Jewish students because of the philosophies they hold - while also problematic - is not the same.
There is a new kind of racial segregation on campuses in 2024. A segregation the purports to benefit Black Americans. This affirmative action is the antithesis of the Brown decision and I expected this behaviour to be described in the article.
It is unfortunate that race radicals chose to use the power they accumulated through the black civil rights movement to mainstream their discriminatory biases against Jews and conservatives.
There was no anti-Israel movement in this country until after the 1967 Six-Day War. That is when the PLO and Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the US found an audience among race radicals, who injected Palestinian propaganda and other lies about Israel into American political discourse. They were prosecuting a cognitive war that had as its ultimate goal the destruction, or radical transformation, of the American “empire,” which they believed had colonized the world. DEI is a system that has put some of these radical ideas into practice. Race weighs especially heavily, not just because of the history of slavery, Jim Crow and all that came after, but because, as one of the largest minorities in the US, which fought a righteous cause for liberation, the black community has been able to leverage its power and influence to some degree, by convincing others that race is the filter through which the world must be viewed. But we’re seeing, now, how the obsession with race and other identity politics has run amok.
America has plenty of faults, but the answer is not to destroy or radically transform it. For decades, now, radical activists have attempted to use the virulently anti-Jewish Palestinian cause to transform U.S. politics and culture. Part of their strategy is to absurdly link that cause to minority issues in the US, through grotesque distortions of truth and reality. Their efforts are seriously misguided and dangerous for everybody. Religious radicalism, in the form of draconian abortion laws and bizarre speeches telling graduating females who just spent thousands of dollars and years of their lives earning their degrees to stay home and push out babies, should be seen as a backlash to the excesses of identity politics. Thankfully, Americans with more moderate politics, like the good folks at FAIR, are finding ways to disrupt the loud minorities, currently wielding outsized influence.
While I am dismayed that my children are told explicitly in school that they may not use words that others may use, and that they should be condemned for actions that others with different skin should be excused for, it is difficult to see the parallels between the examples Ms Harris cites and what Brown was trying to fix.
Better to pick the BIPOC-only classes that have sprung up in public schools, the school-sponsored 'affinity groups' that welcome everyone but white people, 'grading for equity,' or the selective enforcement of rules. These may create only a very mild version of segregation's harms, but the real harm is in legitimizing unequal treatments by race, which leads us to unknown but likely much more unpleasant consequences.
Agreed! I was rather dismayed to see our local high school offering separate graduation ceremonies specifically for Black and for Latino/Latina students. Granted, this was in addition to, not instead of, the main event; but I couldn’t help noticing that there wasn’t a separate event for white or for Asian students. (And to be clear, this is in a public school district that is majority-minority.)
Well geez. Maybe eventually they'll put *themselves* at the back of the bus and insist on their own water fountains lest they get white cooties.
I am disappointed in this article as I feel the author is pushing an agenda that is not the same as the intended Brown vs Board of Education ruling.
In Brown, the problem was that students were segregated based on the colour of their skin - something the students could not control. Mistreatment of conservative students or Jewish students because of the philosophies they hold - while also problematic - is not the same.
There is a new kind of racial segregation on campuses in 2024. A segregation the purports to benefit Black Americans. This affirmative action is the antithesis of the Brown decision and I expected this behaviour to be described in the article.
It is unfortunate that race radicals chose to use the power they accumulated through the black civil rights movement to mainstream their discriminatory biases against Jews and conservatives.
There was no anti-Israel movement in this country until after the 1967 Six-Day War. That is when the PLO and Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the US found an audience among race radicals, who injected Palestinian propaganda and other lies about Israel into American political discourse. They were prosecuting a cognitive war that had as its ultimate goal the destruction, or radical transformation, of the American “empire,” which they believed had colonized the world. DEI is a system that has put some of these radical ideas into practice. Race weighs especially heavily, not just because of the history of slavery, Jim Crow and all that came after, but because, as one of the largest minorities in the US, which fought a righteous cause for liberation, the black community has been able to leverage its power and influence to some degree, by convincing others that race is the filter through which the world must be viewed. But we’re seeing, now, how the obsession with race and other identity politics has run amok.
America has plenty of faults, but the answer is not to destroy or radically transform it. For decades, now, radical activists have attempted to use the virulently anti-Jewish Palestinian cause to transform U.S. politics and culture. Part of their strategy is to absurdly link that cause to minority issues in the US, through grotesque distortions of truth and reality. Their efforts are seriously misguided and dangerous for everybody. Religious radicalism, in the form of draconian abortion laws and bizarre speeches telling graduating females who just spent thousands of dollars and years of their lives earning their degrees to stay home and push out babies, should be seen as a backlash to the excesses of identity politics. Thankfully, Americans with more moderate politics, like the good folks at FAIR, are finding ways to disrupt the loud minorities, currently wielding outsized influence.