I am a faculty member at an American academic institution; for the sake of argument, the school is a fairly prominent blue state university, with predominantly undergraduate students but also, as befits a university, post-graduate education as well. The institution, like virtually all others in the USA, has a far-left radical administration, leftist faculty, and social justice-obsessed students; since late spring 2020, all of these unfortunate specimens have become hysterical beyond all imagining. In Part I of my essay, presented here, I comment on aspects of some of the initial anti-White “training, workshop, seminar” activity that has been foisted on us as a result of the latest moral posturing outrage with Black Lives Matter, George Floyd, etc. More to the point, and more broadly, I will comment on the overall racial atmosphere here and how different sections of our academic community contribute to it.

The latest  “social justice” barrage started with outrageously juvenile and bigoted sociopolitical pontifications from our overpaid and underworked administration, and promises to the students for all sorts of “social justice” activity and “rigorous reflection” and “training”— mandatory of course — for everyone at the institution, to eliminate the deadly scourge of “White racism.” I would like to also point out that promises were also made to change student admission and faculty hiring practices to favor “diversity” — that is, discriminating against qualified White candidates. As well, non-White students were specifically promised race-specific student benefits (e.g., counseling for “victims of racism” specifically for “students of color”); please note that providing student services based strictly on race is of course against federal law and also is in violation of official institutional policy that states that all activities that affect students will be applied in a manner independent of “race, color, ethnic origin, sex, religion, etc.”

Let’s briefly consider some low points of the “training” (i.e., indoctrination) so far. There were online webinars from angry Black women about the health crisis of “racism” — complete with pointed references to the “racism” of the 2016 election outcome. I suppose now we will hear complaints about all those nasty White racists who voted for Donald “Platinum Plan” Trump in 2020; after all, voting for a man who completely ignored his White base for four years, while promising a half-trillion-dollar handout to people who don’t vote for him and who in fact elected Joe Biden, is evidence of unrepentant bigotry. Other webinars told of the agonies of the Holocaust (while omitting mention of any historical episodes of White Christian suffering), isolated cases of medical malpractice involving Blacks, and, of course, the ever-present nonsense of “race is only a social construct” (tell that to Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug). Live “workshops” often also featured Black women (who seem to specialize in this activity), typically using ghetto slang and vulgar language to a captive audience of highly educated White and Asian faculty.

Another accusation faculty hear in such “training” is that the institution is “White-centered.” How that could be is a mystery, since our academic institution (like all others) celebrates the identities and accomplishments of every group except for Whites. One observes multiple celebrations and exhibits for Black History Month, Asian History Month, “Latinx” History Month, Native American History Month, etc. During such celebrations, one can find non-White students wearing racial pride and racial nationalist t-shirts of an extreme nature; if White students wore anything analogous, they would likely be labeled as “racist” and expelled. In the midst of all of this “inclusion,” one can look in vain for anything positive for Whites, Europeans, etc. The only mention of Whites, as a group, is always in a purely negative sense. So, the idea that this is all “White-centered” when it is precisely the opposite is something only deranged ideologues could claim.

What do I believe is the attitude of students and institutional employees to all of this? The students are close to 100% supportive; indeed, much of the impetus for hysterical “training” and the other manifestations of non-White identity politics and anti-White hatred originates with the students. The non-White students are essentially 100% on board. The vast majority of the White students — I’d estimate at least 90% — are strongly supportive of the anti-White agenda as well. No student openly speaks out against it; even if they were offended, they would, rightly, fear retaliation from fellow students, from faculty, and from the administration. Rarely, a White student will quietly complain, in private and in confidence, to the few sympathetic faculty that exist about mistreatment based on race. Typically, after “White Privilege training” what would happen is that White students would be verbally racially harassed by non-White students; most of the Whites would masochistically revel in the abuse but a few would complain behind closed doors. Staff also verbally abuse, in racial terms, those few White students who are insufficiently anti-White and insufficiently “woke” on these matters.

Administration are virtually all on the extreme left, whether these individuals are White, Jewish, non-White; they speak with one voice, without the slightest hint of dissension or debate. For the most part, I suspect this is sincere ideological fervor, but in some cases, I suspect there may be some characterless White sociopaths among our institutional leadership who mouth the dogma merely for career advancement.

What about the (non-faculty) staff? All of the women are “social justice” types, with White women “allies to people of color” being particularly extreme and unpleasant. White-collar men among the staff also are mostly leftist; however, I suspect that some of the blue-collar White maintenance staff include a few with more healthy instincts, although they stay silent. Faculty are among the most extreme leftists, with obvious exceptions such as myself; the majority of the far-left White faculty are hypocrites who live as far away from minorities as possible. And, amusingly, even some of these White progressives sometimes complain about non-White administrators who (and this is an exact quote) “cannot get along with White people.” By and large, however, the faculty stand with the administration and students, and most of the staff, in their adherence to radical leftism. It is interesting how these people obsess over the accidental death of George Floyd, a Black ex-convict who, according to the autopsy, died of a drug overdose while resisting arrest, but completely ignore the death of Cannon Hinnant, a five-year-old White boy shot to death, “allegedly” by his Black neighbor. Some lives matter more than others, I suppose.

We must understand what the real purpose of all of this “diversity training” is. Multiple studies have shown that such training is ineffective and indeed often increases bias. That is old news, and yet, despite these findings, the training continues to occur. But, you see, the ultimate purpose of the training is to abuse and humiliate White people and it is indeed very effective at that. And, if the training has the side effect of actually increasing bias and exacerbating racial tensions, well, that’s a side-benefit, since more bias and more tension is used to justify more training, leading to more of the desired abuse and humiliation and also to more problems requiring yet more training. Of course, as well, some people make good money from this nonsense, and the institutions that host the training use it as “liability insurance” to safeguard against “discrimination” lawsuits by non-Whites (they don’t worry about Whites in that regard). So, many people benefit, but, again, the main objective is to “stick it to Whitey.” Therefore, that White students end up getting racially bullied after such training is considered a feature and not a bug. That White employees are ritually humiliated by such training is also a feature and not a bug.

I would like to finish with comments about the overall racial and cultural climate in American academia, based on direct observation, my own institution being a perfect example. Are admission committees biased against Whites, particularly White men? Yes they are. After all, there are a limited number of admission slots and there are more candidates than slots. Therefore, it is inevitable that altered criteria for admissions that favor minorities and/or women will result in other candidates being rejected. This discrimination is often hidden behind the euphemism of “a holistic admissions policy.”

I read about the grading system changes in the San Diego school district with grim amusement. Readers should understand that the situation is no different in higher education. Not only have general standards fallen to accommodate low-performing students, grade inflation and easy exams being just two examples, but, specifically, non-Whites are accommodated in other ways. Cheating scandals? If most or all of the cheaters are non-White then you can forget about any real discipline being meted out. Faculty are simply told to “change the test questions” as if the new questions are not going to be targeted for cheating as were the old ones.

And these manipulations are not only for undergraduate institutions, but also for graduate and medical schools as well. The Step One exam for medical students is now pass/fail. Who knows? Perhaps it will eventually be dispensed with completely. We can’t have “disparate outcomes,” now, can we? Why have the MCAT? SAT? GRE? Maybe we should dispense with grading altogether and evaluate students solely on the basis of their commitment to “social justice.” What about student misconduct other than test cheating?  Are investigations into potential student misconduct biased against Whites, particularly White men? Yes they are. Interestingly, it seems that the group most favored are Asian-American women. No matter what they have done, no matter what terrible things they are accused of doing, they are considered to be “nice and sweet” and therefore must always be “given a second chance.” In contrast, the most mild, nitpicking infraction by a White male student is met with “he’s arrogant and we need to make an example of him.”

Finally, are academic institutions hypocritical in how they address alleged cases of “offensive comments and microagressions?” You bet they are. It’s “anything goes” with respect to hate toward Whites in general, specific White ethnic groups, Christian religious belief, men, etc. I do not want to get into real-life specifics here, as some specific incidents may very well be the target of future discrimination claims against the institution, but I can provide hypothetical examples that convey the essence of what typically occurs. For example, it would be considered perfectly acceptable to, openly and publicly in front of witnesses, tell an Irish-American that they “look like a drunken leprechaun” or to ask a Polish-American “how many of your family members does it take to screw in a light bulb?” or to comment that an Italian-American “looks like a Mafioso” and “talks like Vito Corleone.” But if one were to, for a microsecond, make a facial expression of distaste in response to the harsh smell of some sort of exotic and malodorous non-White food, or to, completely innocently, mispronounce a non-White surname, then that is considered a serious racial offense, a microaggression, and will lead to investigations, meetings, and “sensitivity training” for the entire institution. If you think I’m joking, I assure you I am not. It is also perfectly acceptable to openly disparage Whites in general in the most extreme and derogatory terms, mock men for alleged biological inferiority to women, and to ridicule Christian religious practices. That is all considered to be “inclusion” and a “commitment to eliminate discrimination.” Complaints about such overt anti-White and anti-male bigotry are of course completely ignored. Things can only be expected to get worse; after the Trump interregnum, these types are out for blood.

After the first round of our required “training” is concluded, I will conclude with Part II of this essay, summarizing what has occurred in that time and its effects on the institution. Who knows whether a Part III will be necessary, but it is entirely possible.