One only needs to hear an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi speak to sense that he is a trickster. Below is a description of his anti-racism in the context of anti-racism as a whole that will explain this intuition.

Where institutions are concerned, anti-racism has only ever had one aim and made one argument. The aim is to overturn the principle of equal treatment so that black people can receive what they are not entitled to.[1] The argument goes like this. The races are the same, but their circumstances differ. Black people must be being discriminated against, therefore we need to discriminate in their favour.[2]

The problems with this argument are obvious. There is no reason to think that the races are the same. Secondly, if black people were being discriminated against, there would be evidence of it. Finally, if such discrimination were going on, the answer would be to stop it, not reverse it. Despite these flaws, the argument has served anti-racism well for decades thanks to the media’s skill in making it seem plausible.

Insisting that the races are the same is essential to anti-racism. If we could point out that they differ, this would explain the fact that their circumstances differ, and the idea that these differing circumstances are the fault of whites would collapse. And so, underlining the existing taboo against mentioning racial differences, Kendi calls the idea that the races differ “racist”.[3] He doesn’t say what is wrong with it; this is just a “principle” of his.[4]

His second “anti-racist principle” is that “Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy”, where by “racial inequity” he means the races being in different circumstances and by a policy he means any rule, law, requirement or procedure. By a “racist policy” he means a policy that tends to increase racial inequity. According to him, then, wherever we see a differences in the races’ circumstances, a racist policy is behind it.[5] Again he backs this up with no argument. The link between “racial inequity” and “racist policies” is created by stipulation.

If racial disparities are caused by racist policies, clearly something must be done. For example, any difference between the SAT scores of blacks and the SAT scores of whites must be eliminated to remove and atone for that racism. This might be a difficult task since two thirds of black twelfth-graders lack even partial mastery of basic twelfth-grade maths,[6] and the number of blacks at the advanced stage is too small to show up in the statistics.[7] However, by hook or by crook, racial equity in academic qualifications must be achieved, which will lead to racial equity in the world of work as well, with black people being employed as scientists and technicians at the same rate as whites. Most black scientists and technicians will be innumerate, but at least there will be plenty of them. Similarly, if white people’s wealth exceeds black people’s, white people owe some of their wealth to blacks. If I have $100 but a black man has only $50, I owe him $25.

It is a mistake, thinks Kendi, to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with racial discrimination.[8] It depends on its effects. “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist.”[9] Indeed, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination”.[10]

Nor is there any such thing as a non-racist policy. According to Kendi, every policy is either racist or anti-racist because it either increases or reduces racial inequity.[11] People who think that it is possible to be non-racist or “race-neutral” — meaning to treat a black person like anybody else — are deluded. Worse, they are racist: the drive for race-neutrality is the “most threatening racist movement” of today.[12] Unless we want to be threatening racists, therefore, we must discriminate in favour of black people as hard as we possibly can, 24 hours a day.

Kendi’s technique is so simple that it is embarrassing to think that anyone falls for it. He just attaches the word “racist” to whatever he opposes. Such is the voodoo-like quality the word has acquired from Americans’ guilt about the racism of the past, however, that many think that if something is described as racist there must be something wrong with it.

One of the peculiarities of Kendi’s position is that it makes it impossible to appraise a policy on its merits; it can only be appraised by looking at its effects. Thus if I invite everyone to a party, we cannot know whether the invitation was racist until after the event. If no black people come, it was racist because it gave rise to racial inequity; if many do, it was anti-racist. In the case of murder, if black people committed the crime at the same rate as whites, the law against it would be no problem since there would be equity in the races’ incarceration rates. Because black people commit it at a higher rate, however, the law against it is a racist policy. Indeed, it must be about the most racist policy there is, for American blacks commit murder at more than twenty times the rate of whites.[13] Kendi’s solution would presumably be for the police to turn a blind eye to nineteen black murders out of twenty, or, to tackle the problem at its root, to repeal the law.

In deploring policies that have a “disparate impact” on the races, Kendi follows every anti-racist who came before him. It is part of basic anti-racist doctrine to say that if blacks fail to meet a requirement at a higher rate than others, the requirement is illegitimate, as is any attempt to enforce it or to monitor occasions on which it is not met. We saw this in Britain in 2000 when the Commission for Racial Equality argued that the police should stop going after muggers because the law against mugging “indirectly discriminated” against young black men.[14] Years before, American anti-racists had opposed the requirement for teachers to take basic-skills tests periodically on the grounds that black teachers failed them at a higher rate than did white teachers.[15] Recently, speed cameras were deemed racist for showing that black drivers are more likely to break the speed limit than are the other races.[16] To be anti-racist, Miami and Rochester, New York took down their speed cameras.[17]

Writing with another author about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against affirmative action in college admissions, Kendi confirms our impression of his character.[18] The authors lament the fact that the ruling will mean that racial inequity will again become normal, by which they mean that when college admissions are decided on merit, black people will go to college at a lower rate than whites. They don’t say what is wrong with inequity, which is an inevitable effect of fair competition, be it between individuals, countries or racial groups, since one competitor must come out on top. Rather, it is a dead heat that should raise suspicions, suggesting as it might do that the competition was rigged to obtain this result. Such rigging is what Kendi demands, calling a dead heat “equity”.

The authors ignore obvious facts. “Admissions metrics”, they assert, by which they seem to mean test scores, say more about wealth than about students’ potential. They ignore the fact that any child, black or white, rich or poor, can do well if it is talented and works hard. They also ignore the fact that, according to the literature, taking account of socio-economic status diminishes the size of the Black-White IQ difference by only about a third. Moreover, most studies indicate that the difference is not reduced but increases as parental socioeconomic status rises. In other words, greater parental wealth is associated with a rise in Black IQ but with an even bigger rise in White IQ.[19]

The authors misrepresent reality, referring to “these metrics that give preferential treatment to white students”. The “metrics” do no such thing; they show that whites outperform blacks. Similarly, the authors refer to the “deep advantages white Americans receive” from “race-neutral” admissions metrics, putting “race-neutral” in quotes to signify that they do not consider the metrics to be really race-neutral. Therefore, they suggest, the advantages gained by whites are not deserved. But the “metrics” confer advantages on any American who makes the grade; it is just that blacks less often do. By pretending that whites gain undeserved advantages at the expense of blacks, the authors insinuate an argument that seeks undeserved advantages for blacks at the expense of whites.

They compare “race-neutral” admission policies, again in quotes, to the way that in the South the right to vote was restricted to those who could read and write, which excluded many blacks, the suggestion being that the real aim was to stop blacks voting. But the restriction was just as race-neutral as it seemed, for it didn’t stop literate blacks voting or give the franchise to illiterate whites. For anti-racism, however, no group to which something desirable is granted must be defined by reference to a quality that few blacks have. Accordingly, the practice of awarding Nobel prizes has been condemned because few blacks seem to have the intelligence, imagination or perseverance needed to win a Nobel prize.[20]

The deviousness goes on. The authors come out with Kendi’s idea that “racial inequities prove that policies proclaimed to be ‘race neutral’ are hardly neutral”. What the inequities in fact prove is that the races differ — the idea that Kendi tries to ban as “racist”. They say that so far from there being anything wrong with affirmative action, it was never taken far enough. What do they want, a PhD awarded to every black person at birth? They are not above making an utterly meaningless statement. They write: “Race, by definition, has never been neutral”. You might as well say that pastry has never been neutral.

But we have bigger problems than an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi. On both sides of the Atlantic, anti-racism is the national ideology. In 2000, one of London’s top policemen boasted that he had reduced the number of young black men stopped and searched by almost forty per cent in the previous twelve months,[21] during which muggings rose by at least two thirds.[22] That display of anti-racism was a response to an official report of 1999 that described the police as institutionally racist.[23] The police still accuse themselves of institutional racism, citing the fact that black people fall foul of the law at a higher rate than others.[24] All they can do to bring “equity” to the criminal justice system is look the other way when black people commit crimes. Politicians are quite blatant in their pro-black discrimination. As fast as black police officers are convicted of gross misconduct or criminal offences, Home Secretaries introduce schemes to fast-track them to senior ranks.[25]

So internalised is the anti-racism of British institutions that they need no nudge from activists to take their pro-black discrimination to ever new extremes. In 2021 Lloyds Bank gave itself four years to increase black representation in senior roles to at least three per cent, citing “diversity” as the justification.[26] The following year His Majesty’s Treasury stated its aim of making six per cent of its staff black, almost twice the percentage of black people in the population.[27] Such moves are as nothing compared to the lengths to which pro-black discrimination is taken by the advertising and entertainment industries. In Britain the principle of equal treatment — treating people on their merits, racial impartiality, fairness, whatever you want to call it — is an increasingly distant memory.

According to Heather Mac Donald, America’s institutions permit only one explanation of racial differences of outcome that are not to black people’s credit: the “racism” of American institutions.[28] The institutions’ folly and self-hatred are turned back on them by activists, who demand that the results of academic tests be ignored or that the tests themselves be abolished since black people’s performance in them shows that they are “racist”. Illustrating the repetitive nature of anti-racist claims, this one has been being made for decades, at least if anti-racist objections to IQ tests are any guide. The claims never change; what changes is the amount of purchase they have on the mainstream, which always increases, with the occasional blip as in the recent Supreme Court decision.

If every requirement that black people rarely meet and every rule they are prone to break must be done away with, this, as Heather Mac Donald points out, is a recipe for civilisational suicide. As she does not point out, the destruction of Western civilisation was always the aim of the more far-seeing anti-racists, as it is of Marxists, climate-change alarmists and many other intellectuals today.[29]

This includes the media, who cannot see the West rush towards its suicide fast enough. So avidly did they promote Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019) that it sold more than two million copies in its first two years. Companies everywhere recommended it to their employees. Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University.[30]

The bitter opposition of our intellectuals to the principle of equal treatment means that they are bitterly opposed to the continuation of our civilisation. Ibram X. Kendi is just riding the wave of success which, thanks to them, anti-racism has been enjoying for the last sixty years.

[1] One could have said “non-whites” rather than “black people”, but anti-racism has always been mainly concerned with black people, who by most white standards are the least capable race. That it is black people, not non-whites in general, who are the intended beneficiaries of anti-racism is demonstrated by the fact that Asians, who on average are more intelligent than whites, pay a price for affirmative action rather than being favoured by it.

[2] A variation of the argument has arisen in step with the spreading of the idea of equality of circumstance as an ideal. In the variation, white people must favour black people solely on the basis that the latter’s circumstances are less favourable than their own. This does not have to be in the opinion of black people; all that is needed is that white people would prefer not to be in those circumstances. Thus the variation appeals to white people’s capacity for pity, whereas the original argument first appeals to their hatred of injustice, by presenting black people as wronged, and secondly, in accusing whites of perpetrating that injustice, seeks to make them feel guilty.

[3] In his book How to Be an Antiracist (2019), Kendi writes: “A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html. “Inferior or superior to” translates into “different from” because as soon as a difference between two races is recognised, it becomes possible to say that one race is superior to the other in that way. Thus if Race A can run faster than Race B, to say as much is to say that Race A is superior to Race B at running fast. Therefore Kendi is in effect condemning any comparison of the races.

[4] Politico, 2019, “Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment” by Ibram X. Kendi,  https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/.

[5] Thus Kendi told the New York Times in 2018: “When I see racial disparities I see racism” (Headline shown on American Renaissance, March 10th 2022, “‘Unconditional war’ on racism”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/AhbzYJ4r9vlr/).

[6] For readers outside the USA, twelfth-graders are students in their final year at high school (seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds).

[7] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, “Lowering the Bar for Ethnic Minorities ‘Threatens Lives & is a Recipe for Civilisational Suicide’”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYR7_YPYMwE. Heather Mac Donald was being interviewed about her book When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives (2023).

[8] From Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019): “Racial discrimination is not inherently racist” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] There is “no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy”, Kendi says in How to Be an Antiracist (ibid.).

[12] “The most threatening racist movement is … the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ [state]” (ibid).

[13] American Renaissance, March 24th 2023, “A harsh new light on race and murder”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DkJclYNa5D9S/. The multiple should be no surprise. According to Wikipedia, Jamaica’s homicide rate is 75 times Norway’s.

[14] Commission for Racial Equality, Feb. 2000, “Race Relations (Amendment) Bill” (briefing note), http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl_rrab3.html.

[15] S. Thernstrom and A. Thernstrom, 1999, America in Black and White, New York: Touchstone-Simon and Schuster. pp. 349-50.

[16] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, “Building Haiti right here in the United States”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/G7zaRiwM11KV/.

[17] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, op. cit.

[18] Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/CuFS1hrNJco/, quoting and commenting on The Atlantic, June 29th 2023, “‘Race Neutral’ Is the New ‘Separate but Equal’” by Uma Mazyck Jayakumar and Ibram X. Kendi, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-neutral-admissions/674565/.

[19] Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race and Class (Twelver, 2020). See F. Roger Devlin’s review: “Murray on Race Differences in IQ,” The Occidental Observer (February 20, 2020). https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/02/20/murray-on-race-differences-in-iq/

[20] According to CNN in 2020, the Nobel Prize organisation had a diversity problem: not enough black people were getting prizes. See CNN, Oct. 10th 2020, “The Nobels honored 4 women this year. But the awards still lack diversity”, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/10/world/nobel-prize-diversity-2020-intl/index.html.

[21] This was John Grieve, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”, http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument).

[22] Muggings in London went up by more than 75 per cent in the fifteen months to May 2000 (calculation based on figures given in Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”, and Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”).

[23] Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, Paragraph 6.34. Macpherson also stated that “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed” (Paragraph 45.24).

[24] Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/06/chief-constable-sarah-crew-on-institutional-racism/.

[25] This was first done by Jack Straw in 1999, when he introduced quotas for the number of non-white police officers (Home Office, March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan). He wanted to see non-whites promoted to the highest ranks, including chief constable (Telegraph, April 11th 1999, “Straw to set ethnic quota for every police force”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000659276559150&rtmo=aNN3…/npol11.htm).

Priti Patel announced a scheme to fast-track non-white officers to the rank of superintendent in 2021 just as the case against a black Chief Superintendent was being heard, who was accused of spending almost fifty times the sum of his allowance at a conference using someone else’s credit card. Another case was that of Superintendent Robyn Williams, a black woman, who in 2019 was found guilty of handling indecent images of children. We can be sure that if such cases arose involving white people, we would hear about them.

Black people and other non-whites have always been investigated for misconduct at a higher rate than whites, as have non-white doctors and solicitors. Typically, the BBC presents this as evidence of racism (BBC, June 30th 2020, “My 30-year struggle with racism in the Metropolitan police”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53224394).

[26] Lloyds Banking Group, no date given (June 2021), “Ethnicity”, https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/who-we-are/responsible-business/inclusion-and-diversity/ethnicity.html.

[27] Telegraph, Nov. 15th 2022, “Treasury aims to have six per cent of staff from black backgrounds in race target”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/15/treasury-aims-have-six-per-cent-staff-black-backgrounds-race/.

[28] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, op. cit.

[29] In 1992 Maurice Strong as chairman of the UN’s Earth Summit said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (quoted by Tom DeWeese in Redoubt News, Oct. 20th 2017, “Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 there is no difference” https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/agenda-21-2030/).

[30] Insider, Aug. 20th 2020, “Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donates $10 million to Ibram X. Kendi’s center on antiracism at Boston University”, https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-donates-ibram-kendi-center-on-antiracism-boston-university-2020-8?op=1&r=US&IR=T.

In the previous two parts of this essay (here and here), I discussed my experiences as a faculty member at a far-left American academic institution, and how the social justice hysteria was affecting what was going on at the school. What has been occurring more recently?

This is amusing, as I have experienced truly grotesque Black females talking about how “beautiful” they are; further, one can overhear comical examples of inflated self-esteem, such as such students, who are barely passing basic coursework, talking among themselves about how much money they will make as doctors or lawyers (possibly not so far-fetched, what with affirmative action and the move away from standardized tests and objective grades and toward “holistic admissions reviews”),and how they won’t take the last names of their potential husbands, but vice versa. (If they do become professionals, then the Black male peers they fantasize as their husbands will instead be pursuing White women.)

Read this, which is very similar to some of my own experiences.

After finishing grad school, I began teaching at universities across the US. It was as a professor that I began noticing patterns in black behavior: a sense of entitlement, a lack of discipline, a bad attitude, disrespectfulness, and aggressive behavior. And the more black students a college had, the worse their behavior was. I was always reluctant to share these observations with my colleagues for fear of being called a racist. … Most blacks have an entitlement problem. They feel that they can behave in any way they want because they are black, and if you call them out, they accuse you of racism. 

Black students, particularly Black females, do indeed manifest the most outrageous entitled and obnoxious behavior. They have no shame to go to the offices of faculty and scream like lunatics at the faculty, demanding to be given credit for wrong quiz and exam answers, because the faculty doesn’t “understand my point of view” (in other words, if the Black students say a wrong answer should be right, then they must be given credit for it: my truth).

These students will cheat on exams, cry racism when caught, and then brag how “I can get away with anything” when the administration inevitably backs down. They will contact faculty and demand special treatment; for example, more time to complete projects because they are “real busy.” They’ll come late for exam reviews and demand that the faculty go over all that was missed; if you balk, then you are “racist.” And if you need to do practice interviews with these students for, say, law school or medical school interviews, and/or if you have to read any personal statements, all you’ll hear is the most extremely self-obsessed rambling about race. Everything is racist, everything revolves around their single-minded obsessive focus on their racial identify and their racial grievances. The legal system is racist. The medical system is racist. Medical instruments are racist. (I kid you not; I’ve read or heard statements about “racist stethoscopes” and “racist blood pressure monitors — apparently, these devices were designed by hateful Whites with the intention of “destroying Black bodies.) Higher rates of Black incarceration are due to a racist criminal justice system. If Blacks have higher rates of certain diseases — even when objective evidence suggests those differences are due to rampant Black obesity or from racial genetic differences — that is due to “the legacy of slavery” and “stress from White racism causing Black Fatigue.”  Also, if there is an attractive White female professor or teaching assistant involved, the jealous Black female students spew their venom on their poor victims. That these students are academically incompetent, cognitively deficient, and lacking in logic and common sense goes without saying. If you put a “filler” “joke” answer to round out a multiple choice question answer list, you can bet one of these students will choose it. And they’ll have a bizarre explanation for their choice. And as stated above, they’ll demand credit for their answer.

Other non-White students often mirror the entitlement and poor behavior of Black students, although typically not as consistently or to the extreme. I note that Jewish students invariably identify as minorities, at odds with the dominant White American Christian culture, often making common cause with Blacks and other non-Whites as fellow victims of hatred and discrimination. Jewish students will invent special joint Jewish-Black celebrations, such as joint Passover dinner combined with a celebration of “Black emancipation” — Jews and Blacks together celebrating their similar d history of liberation.

Considering the issue of Black (and POC, in general) entitlement and poor behavior, we can consider the Ilya Shapiro controversy. It’s not enough that the Negroes wanted Shapiro out, they had other needs as well:

At another juncture, a student demanded that the dean cover for the classes that the activists had missed as a result of the sit-in, suggesting that the move should be part of a “reparations” package for black students. She followed up by insisting that students be given a designated place on campus to cry. “Is there an office they can go to?” she asked. “I don’t know what it would look like, but if they want to cry, if they need to break down, where can they go? Because we’re at a point where students are coming out of class to go to the bathroom to cry.”

“And this is not in the future,” she added. “This is today.”

The administrators took the law student’s query seriously. “It is really, really hard to walk out of class or a meeting in tears, and you should always have a place on campus where you can go,” Dean Bailin told her. “And if you’re finding that you’re not getting the person that you want to talk to or not getting the space that you need, reach out to me anytime — anytime — and we will find you space.”

Besides censoring academic critics of affirmative action, and besides demanding a dedicated crying space, the Black students also demanded that (White) classmates be “reminded” how much they owe to Blacks and to stop critiquing Black activists:

Yet another student pressed the deans to send out an email attacking BLSA’s critics. “Something that’s important is to remind our classmates that are attacking us that they are only here because our ancestors were sold for them to be here,” she said. “And I think it’s a very important fact that is not talked about explicitly enough, because we are still being attacked. So I just would appreciate in whatever message that’s going out [to the student body], that our classmates are explicitly reminded: Do not attack the people who were sold for you to have this opportunity. . . . That needs to be something that these people are reminded of, because they continue to attack us as if it is not on our backs that they are even here.”

Of course, in reality, Blacks need Whites and not the other way around; further, it is the case that everything Blacks have “achieved” — or have been handed to them — in America has been on the backs of the long-suffering White American people, who are the economic equivalent of slaves since they must work to pay taxes that support Blacks and other People of Colors.  See this as well.

Of particular interest is this anti-Shapiro tweet by  a Black professor, Aderson Francois: aderson francois 🇭🇹 14th Amendment Baby @abfrancois Replying to  @ishapiro 

Mr. Shapiro, as one of your future Georgetown colleague, I am curious: is your phrase “lesser Black woman” meant to describe a particular Black woman or do you intend “lesser Black woman” to encompass the general set of Black women under consideration for the seat?

 Of course, it should be “colleagues” not the grammatically incorrect “colleague.”  Any halfway literate middle school student would realize that, but apparently this “professor of law,” who is a Georgetown faculty member, can’t reach a twelve year old’s standard of English proficiency.

Thus, I can ask: Mr. Francois, as one of the readers of your tweet, I am curious: are you a functionally illiterate affirmative action hack or did you intentionally set out to prove Shapiro’s criticism of affirmative action to be correct?

An anecdote comes to mind. I remember a Black male professor who came to my institution as a candidate for a position at my school. I saw this candidate walking with the “chief of diversity” with the Negro stating that he “likes what he sees” and implying that the decision whether he becomes a faculty at the institution is up to him alone (entitlement complex again). What I noticed is that this Negro’s shoes were completely untied; he was trailing the laces behind him like tails, with the loose shoes flopping around as he walked. I saw the same person a while later and the shoes were the same. I remember thinking what kind of buffoon comes to an interview and doesn’t know or doesn’t care that his laces were untied and he was flopping around all day like a retard. Fortunately, and surprisingly, this person was not hired, but he exemplifies many Negro academics — a clownish inept buffoon who is nothing more or less a creation of quotas and set asides, reeking of unjustified self-esteem and a sense of extreme entitlement. Black and other Colored students that I deal with on a regular basis exhibit the same behaviors.

Speaking of hiring, it is interesting that every time new faculty and, even more importantly, new administration, are hired at my institution, they always turn out to be hard leftists. In my last essay, I mentioned the political contribution database of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and how the data there can reveal the politics of academics.  Indeed, new hires at my institution typically show up at that database, reflecting their extreme “progressive” politics. Possibly this may inform us on how leftist control of academia is maintained. It is interesting how the current crop of faculty and administration always manage to recruit and hire individuals who are exclusively on the Left. One can argue this is simply due to the law of probability; the vast majority of academics are leftists, so one would expect that even a random draw of candidates would be enriched in SJW types. There may be some truth in that, but that is hardly the full picture.

First, nowadays, many institutions require candidates to openly express a commitment to “woke” politics; indeed, many institutions require candidates to present tangible proof of how committed they are, and what they did to promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” at their previous employment), and to present plans on how they would promote those objectives if hired for the present position being offered. But this is still not at the fundamental level by which leftist academic hegemony is maintained, as that hegemony was entrenched long before “diversity statements” became a requirement of the hiring process.  No doubt I’m not the only one at my institution studying the FEC database. Would a professor with a record of donating to, say, the Trump campaign, be hired?  Would they even be invited to an interview in the first place, regardless of their objective qualifications?  And even if they avoided that pitfall, and the even more obvious pitfall of leaving a digital political footprint via social media and other avenues of expression, then there is the interview process itself. Even if they got through meeting with the “Dean of Diversity and Equity” — and even if we consider the time before such deans existed — the candidate has to get through the gauntlet of interviews and “informal” dinner meetings, etc. where astute interviewers will try to extract from the candidate some inkling of their political and social views.  A comment dropped, a facial expression, a hesitation, anything can be a clue to disagreement with SJW politics; conversely, the candidate can demonstrate genuine enthusiasm for leftist ideas and cheerfully agree with the comments and opinions ever so “casually” dropped during conversation.  And if a “dissident” somehow gets hired, they can always be weeded out via the renewal, promotion, and tenure process.

How did I get in then?  I was hired long ago when the institution was much smaller and did not have the same political vetting system in place; further, I presented a very neutral persona and did not have a digital trail of political contributions or other “warning signs” that I was not one of them. I was very careful in interviews and in the “informal” dinner meetings. I went into the process with “eyes wide open,” assuming everyone I interacted with was a leftist hack looking to uncover hidden signs of “unacceptable beliefs.”  And, as stated, the vetting was not as well organized as it is today; I slipped through the cracks. But my advancement has been negatively affected by not being a supporter of the leftist agenda. Very likely, in today’s hysterical climate, I would not be hired. Currently, as I stated above, it is not sufficient to merely avoid what is perceived as “negative beliefs” but need to embrace, and show evidence for, “progressive” politics.

And let us consider the flip side of this.  Even if a rightist does somehow get in and survives the rough-and-tumble of academic politics in which the word ‘politics’ means far more than the usual beyond petty academic infighting to include rigid adherence to progressive orthodoxy, they will likely find the environment unpleasant and unwelcoming, and may voluntarily leave academia for other occupations. Thus, through a variety of direct and indirect stratagems, leftist academic hegemony is maintained.