These stories are rich indeed.
First, the Girl Scouts.
The organization sent out a tweet congratulating Amy Coney Barrett for being the fifth female Supreme Court Justice in the nation's history, and it did not go over well with the hard left:
Many pointed specifically to the threat that the justice represents toward women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights and the nation’s response to climate change; some even threatened to boycott the organization. Within hours, the organization’s initial tweet was deleted and replaced with an explanation.
One gal said that "as a queer, disabled lifelong Girl Scout, this bums me out hard." Another prattled about how girls "grow up and need a full range of health care." One need not be an expert in code language to know that this refers to the extermination of fetal Americans.
But the thing that really strikes me is how these leftists think federal courts operate. They think entirely in terms of protecting their pet "rights." They envision SCOTUS originalists salivating to "oppress" supposedly beleaguered demographics in our society.
The Supreme Court merely gets cases that come before it, some having to do with inflammatory social issues, but most of a more arcane and benign nature. The originalists then refer to the Constitution - its actual text and the intent of those who crafted it (including amendments) - in coming to a decision on the matter they're considering. If there are any justices that have an agenda, it's the living-Constitution types. But basically, as Chief Justice John Roberts says, it's a panel of nine serious grownups who aren't up there to shill for any political party or passing ideological fad.'
Now, Princeton.
I thought this was great:
This summer, Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, admitted that the institution he has run for years is plagued by “systemic racism.” He also admitted that racist assumptions “remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”
U.S. law bars colleges and universities that receive federal money from subjecting students to discrimination on the basis of race. Princeton receives lots of federal money.
Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Education, which is charged with enforcing the federal ban on discrimination by colleges and universities, commenced an investigation of Princeton. As the saying goes, Eisgruber had stepped in it.
Is there a way to square Eisgruber’s admission of systemic racism at Princeton with the federal ban on race discrimination? I discussed some possible ways to attempt that reconciliation here and here. They don’t work.
Nonetheless, Eisgruber is determined to squirm his way out of the problem he created. The Daily Princetonian reports:
Pushing back against the [Department of Education’s] investigation’s premise, President Eisgruber said, “It is very surprising to me, frankly, that the Department of Education thinks that because Princeton has stated that we want to address systemic racism that we are somehow admitting … there is something wrong in our community that requires intervention from the federal government.”
Eisgruber said he is not aware of any civil rights violations that the University had committed.
“I am not aware of instances where the University has discriminated unlawfully against individuals, and we will explain that to the government,” Eisgruber said.
But here is what Eisgruber admitted before he realized Princeton might be investigated for discrimination:
Racism and the damage it does to people of color. . .persist at Princeton.
Thus, Eisgruber wasn’t being honest at the town hall. Princeton (Eisgruber) has said more than that it “want[s] to address systemic racism.” It has admitted that such racism exists at Princeton and that it damages “people of color” at Princeton.
And clearly, this state of affairs means that “there is something wrong in [the Princeton] community.” Or does Eisgruber want to tell Princeton’s black students that there is nothing wrong with systemic racism at the University they attend?
This dust-up would not have occurred had he not felt compelled to puke all over himself in a fit of white guilt:
The only honest way for Eisgruber to escape his pickle is to admit that he was blowing smoke when he copped to persistent systemic racism at Princeton. But the consequences of such an admission would be waves of protest, loss of credibility, and presumably the end of Eisgruber’s time as president.
Thus, Eisgruber will continue with his double talk in the expectation that Joe Biden will be elected president and that Biden’s administration will bail Eisgruber out by ending the federal investigation of racism at Princeton.
This is why the political fallout from next week's election is only of limited importance. The cultural rot will proceed apace wherever the fault lines of government power run. Yes, if Democrats get the White House and both chambers of Congress, they'll feel empowered to use government to accelerate the rot, but there will be a wild swing to the right in the midterms - and maybe some Trumpist-ish populist unrest in the meantime. And if Trump is re-elected, he'll continue to give lip service to traditional values, but it will continue to ring hollow because he lacks conviction and it's obvious to all.
But, anyway, these are a couple of delicious stories for the "you'll never be woke enough" file.
No comments:
Post a Comment