Glenn, your conversation with John was entertaining, and some of it resonated with me. But what I heard was two exceptional black men talking about the importance of leveraging their exceptional brilliance to secure the opportunities they deserve. I see you. I recognize you. Because I am in that club of exceptional black men too. My resume would confirm my membership--not because academic credentials make me exceptional--but credentials can serve to validate that, given opportunity, I was successful in leveraging my abilities to realize achievements in the academic space that some people find noteworthy.
Which is my point. The System which is American Society is biased, expects less of black people, and puts obstacles in our way. Obstacles which can be overcome, and which should be overcome. But the obstacles should never have existed, and this Society penalizes itself by unreasonably (and also unfairly, but "fairness" isn't the point of my message) singling out some identities to carry additional burdens and to face additional obstacles.
Rather than normalizing this dysfunctional behavior and patting ourselves on the back for having achieved a measure of success for having overcome those obstacles, we who are in that exclusive club of exceptional black men who have overcome obstacles to realize success should be the loudest voices for those obstacles to be removed. Not (simply) as a matter of fairness. But because we, more than most, understand the reality of those obstacles. Because we, more than most, have the platform, and the ability to articulate the reality of those obstacles, so that others less gifted, as well as those who might think they are well served by a system that places obstacles on some, based on identity, ** can understand what Society loses when its systems disadvantage some, based on identity. **
Because we, more than most, can imagine how all of society can benefit when those identity-based obstacles are removed, and not only exceptional black men and women, but even average black men and women, are able to access the opportunities and resources that can allow them to realize their potential.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk <wink>. And for sharing your powerful platform with me.
I saw my name, so I had to comment/smile. I once wrote an essay about where are the High IQ Black People. In part, I was motivated by the disconnect between my individual story and the larger narrative story that schools are failing black students. That was not my story, and was not your story. What I find interesting is your understandable focus on the external, "The System." Everyone is different, I suppose. For me, a focus on "The System" is about as disempowering as one can get. Focus should come from within, not without. For example, can you name the highest achieving ethnic group income wise in the U.S.? Not Chinese Americans. Not Indian Americans. Not WASP Americans. The absolute highest income levels can be found among the Openly Orthodox Jewish Americans. One would think our Christian "System" would fate marginalization and oppression. The opposite occurs because, in my view, there is 100% focus on internal locus of control. Internal Focus = External Achievement. I liked your thoughtful comment, saw my name, and decided to wade in.
Hello Winkfield. Thanks for weighing in, and sorry that it’s taken me a month to come across your comment and respond—I’m rather new to the world of Substack and hadn’t seen your comment.
You can think of focusing on Systems as disempowering. I wouldn’t say you are wrong, per se. Your pointing out the success of “openly orthodox” Jewish Americans is interesting. Making any observation about Jewish identity that could be interpreted as victim-blaming is especially dangerous in a time where the White House is making anything that smells of antisemitism a reason DoJ investigation and enforcement. But the cohesiveness and effectiveness of Jewish identity in securing achievement and success is remarkable—those of us who are not Jewish are somewhat envious (me included) and some people (me NOT included) fear it. But frankly, appealing to creating that level of identity-based cohesion as an antidote to identity-based systems of disadvantage is just saying fight fire by creating another kind of fire. And personally, I have more insight into how to move systems from disempowerment towards empowerment for all, by knocking down identity based disadvantage. And have as the Jews have undoubtedly, and unfortunately, experienced over the millennia, creating identity-based systems that advantages its members relative to those outside of its membership has some downsides in terms of how members are accepted amongst the larger community, as well as it’s noteworthy advantages.
Wouldn’t dismantling all systems that privilege some identities over others be a superior solution, compared to creating multiple identity-based “mini-systems,” each of which advantages its members, while leaving nonmembers at a relative disadvantage?
I think a difference between your view, and mine, Wink, is that you see the opportunity to access and leverage the mindset of an identity group as more accessible than the opportunity to access and leverage the mindset of humanity as a whole. Also you aren’t giving weight to the inevitable division and antagonism that always comes from privileging some identities over others—antagonism that drives wedges in a society that would benefit greatly from the absence of such divisions.
And perhaps my black identity, and what I am guessing is perhaps your Jewish identity, and our respective peoples History, “colors” (no pun intended) how we weight and consider those counterbalancing concerns.
Glenn and John post diversions. Trump removed an order that prevented federal contractors from having segregated facilities. Trump removed photos of Black people and is purging Black government employees. Conservatives are silent. This is James J. Kilpatrick 2.0.
It is my experience that in the tech / Nerd world everybody has to prove themselves. First you build your reputation - then your reputation builds you. But there are routine 'retests' if you will for you to show that you have not lost 'it'. I have stayed in the tech side for my entire career and have had numerous retests, I will be retiring from the tech workspace soon enough, but I am reaching my mid 70's, with most of my peers aging out of the environment by the time they turned 60.
"If you are not inferior, prove it" is part of the human condition.
Thank goodness that I didn't let this hold me back when I was a young woman entering the corporate world in a traditionally male job before women were accepted. It's perfectly ok that I had to prove myself.
Perfectly put. I'm stealing that opening sentence.
I worked in the tech sector and pretty much every action I took was second guessed and challenged. And with every small promotion, it got worse, not better. You lick your wounds and cash your check.
The purpose of this post is to claim it is a noble effort to go out of your way to prove yourself to white people but the same efforts are not spent to get picked by what I am assuming black peers in an athletic environment. The ultimate theme of this post is to suggest that proving oneself to white people should be the core of black existence and that to prove yourself to black people has little or no merit. There also is nothing in the post that asked white people to improve their negative stereotypes of their black peers.
The increased opportunity of the post civil rights era presented ‘a brutal proposition to black America: if you're not inferior, prove it.’” And you conclude, “Black pride means, at the end of the day, proving it.”
This is irrational. Being Black and qualified does not mean that you will not be replaced by white men who are less qualified. Black Pride does not depend on the stamp of approval of white people.
Interesting. "[T]hey [the white guys] assumed" that John didn't know enough to be on the team and so the white guys left him out. How does John know what "they assumed"? He doesn't tell us. Seems to me that John did the assuming. Another interesting remark that John makes about one of the white guys: "He wasn't the devil. He was actually very open-minded. He was, frankly, a Democrat. He was a good white person." So, a "good white person" must be a Democrat?
I think what he means is that even open-minded people who aren't screaming racists can be prejudiced in subtle ways. He's painting a picture of a kind of person—a well-meaning white liberal who nevertheless stereotyped him.
I think what he's saying is that the experience of being the last picked or not picked at all was familiar from school sports, where he wasn't picked because he was nerdy and unathletic, not because he was black. But in College Bowl, where nerdiness should be an asset, he wasn't picked because he was black.
What he's saying is if they KNEW he could compete, they might have picked him. But it seemed to him they assumed he couldn't compete, because they assumed a black guy wouldn't have the kind of knowledge required. That was his perception. This is a decades-old story that only the people involved could remember. Most of the people involved probably don't even know they were involved. Where are you going to get "the facts"?
I'd say, in general, you should believe what people tell you about their lives unless you have a reason not to. If someone has a history of lying on the record, maybe take what they say with a grain of salt. As far as I know, John has no such record. He's written and spoken extensively about why claims of racist exclusion today are often overblown. So when he says, "This thing happened to me that seemed at the time and still seems today a bit racially tinged," I'm inclined to believe him, because his first instinct every time something bad happens is not "I'm the victim of racism." Something happened, he thought about it, he's presenting it, it sounds plausible to me. So yeah, I take it on trust. You don't have to if you don't want to, but there aren't any more facts forthcoming.
Yes, I think you should believe what people tell you about their lives if it sounds believable. His presetting of the events sounds plausible to you, but you cannot explain the obvious, in my view, contradictions in his recalling. This all is not a big deal. What's bothering me a little is an order in which you answer: instead of "I don't know" first, you first hurry to his defense. I'd wish for a little more neutrality from such a great program.
The need to prove oneself worthy, despite somebody else's doubts, has been part of the human dynamic across many cultures over millennia, in may domains of life. It could involve "race" but it could involved hundreds of other disctincions. In some sense, one could say that it's never "fair", but it comes up anyway. The ONLY real solution is to show that one can, any other response fails to satisfy.
I think that Asian-Americans (a term I use reluctantly, given the wide diversity of peoples being deceptively lumped under 'Asian') have gained a lot of respect by demonstrating that they can earn it, rather than by avoiding and deflecting, saying that they should not need to do so.
We would agree that a presidential candidate should provide evidence of their competency, and you and I would agree that we do not personally judge the current president as competent to hold the office. I assume that you voted against him, as I did.
However, we two do not make that decision individually or together; we are not his supervisor. If either of us were, he'd be fired. But we live in a nation where majority rules - wisely or not, and we lost (for now).
That criticism of an elected official, however, doesn't imply that every individual who ever applies for any job should be automatically hired without regard to their competency. It is completely consistent to support hiring on the basis of evidenced worth, democratic voting, and criticism of the current president.
If the country elects an incompetent white man who said Haitians ate pets, why should others aspire to a higher standard?
A group of white incompetents included a reporter on secret communications. Conservatives created the lower standard. Why should others be required to be competent? Mind you Conservatives are OK with replacing qualified Black generals with incompetent white men. Shouldn’t the standards be equal?
Aren’t we lying to Black children if we tell them competence will protect them?
Diamond & Silk and Kanye West are Conservative darlings. Herschel Walker was championed as a Conservative gubernatorial candidate. Barack Obama and Kamala Harris were considered unworthy. Competence is not a Conservative criteria. An incompetent Black person can gather wealth in the Conservative arena.
PGbR> "That criticism of an elected official, however, doesn't imply that every individual who ever applies for any job should be automatically hired without regard to their competency."
RR> "If the country elects an incompetent white man who said Haitians ate pets, why should others aspire to a higher standard?"
I would say that we should aspire to higher standards if and only if we want better outcomes than lower standards create. If we don't care about outcomes, or if we actively want negative outcomes, then there is no reason to aspire to do any better.
So what's your answer to your own question, in the quoted section above?
----
If you tell any children (regardless of race, sex, religion, eye color) in any human society that has ever existed on the planet, that "competence will protect you", then you are lying to them. Competence increases the odds of positive outcomes as compared to incompetence, but it provides no guarantees, and there are no "protections" possible for the vicissitudes of human life. Pretending that outcomes are absolutely controllable rather than probabilistic is unwise.
Using your seat belt could cost you your life, if you are ejected from your seat before your vehicle plunges over a cliff; but it's statistically more likely to save your life. Using a seat belt cannot protect you from negative outcomes, but it can change the odds. Likewise competence.
We have incompetents in charge who cannot plan a military attack without breaching security. Tariffs on foreign automobiles were just announced. Higher standards are not on the horizon.
The incompetents have entire networks propping them up.
We all know that, we can read the news first hand for ourselves. NOBODY is arguing that point, you really don't need to convince anybody. We get it.
I'm still waiting for you to give your own answer to your "why" question, which is about our day to day lives and whether we should aspire to do better than the Trump administration, or just follow their lead in all of society.
RR> "If the country elects an incompetent white man who said Haitians ate pets, why should others aspire to a higher standard?"
Agreed, it shows a mixture of amateurism, hubris and self-owning coverup.
So would you want the government (now or in the future) to aspire to a higher standard, or not? Will that example of malfeasance at the top cause you to seek out an incompetent plumber or surgeon who is cheap, because Trumps appointment of incompetence proves to you that competence is irrelevant everywhere in society?
My fellow citizens, including many here are getting what they wanted when they voted. They may reconsider when the wheels fall off.
Johns Hopkins had millions in research grants canceled. Incompetents are being created in front of our eyes. Education is being disrupted.
There is no plan for the formulation of this year’s flu vaccine. RFK Jr suggests cod liver oil, antibiotics, and a steroid for measles. The incompetence is in our face and supported by many on this website. The standards have already fallen.
I love John. He now solely inhabits a Western archetype. The reason I listen so closely to John and Glenn is that they are the only voices free to speak out honestly to be found in High Academe. What I mean is: No white man could maintain a position at Brown or Columbia or Harvard and say what Glenn says about race. And by indispensable association with Glenn’s project, White John would have also been run out on the same literal and hypothetical rail.
That is wrong. Veritas MEANS SOMETHING. If you are forcing me to be polite based upon your beliefs then we are no longer on mission. We are just as backwards and misguided as the institutions modern inquiry was designed and codified to counter.
Heavy is the book that is carried by only two men. But they must not drop it.
Glenn, your conversation with John was entertaining, and some of it resonated with me. But what I heard was two exceptional black men talking about the importance of leveraging their exceptional brilliance to secure the opportunities they deserve. I see you. I recognize you. Because I am in that club of exceptional black men too. My resume would confirm my membership--not because academic credentials make me exceptional--but credentials can serve to validate that, given opportunity, I was successful in leveraging my abilities to realize achievements in the academic space that some people find noteworthy.
Which is my point. The System which is American Society is biased, expects less of black people, and puts obstacles in our way. Obstacles which can be overcome, and which should be overcome. But the obstacles should never have existed, and this Society penalizes itself by unreasonably (and also unfairly, but "fairness" isn't the point of my message) singling out some identities to carry additional burdens and to face additional obstacles.
Rather than normalizing this dysfunctional behavior and patting ourselves on the back for having achieved a measure of success for having overcome those obstacles, we who are in that exclusive club of exceptional black men who have overcome obstacles to realize success should be the loudest voices for those obstacles to be removed. Not (simply) as a matter of fairness. But because we, more than most, understand the reality of those obstacles. Because we, more than most, have the platform, and the ability to articulate the reality of those obstacles, so that others less gifted, as well as those who might think they are well served by a system that places obstacles on some, based on identity, ** can understand what Society loses when its systems disadvantage some, based on identity. **
Because we, more than most, can imagine how all of society can benefit when those identity-based obstacles are removed, and not only exceptional black men and women, but even average black men and women, are able to access the opportunities and resources that can allow them to realize their potential.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk <wink>. And for sharing your powerful platform with me.
I saw my name, so I had to comment/smile. I once wrote an essay about where are the High IQ Black People. In part, I was motivated by the disconnect between my individual story and the larger narrative story that schools are failing black students. That was not my story, and was not your story. What I find interesting is your understandable focus on the external, "The System." Everyone is different, I suppose. For me, a focus on "The System" is about as disempowering as one can get. Focus should come from within, not without. For example, can you name the highest achieving ethnic group income wise in the U.S.? Not Chinese Americans. Not Indian Americans. Not WASP Americans. The absolute highest income levels can be found among the Openly Orthodox Jewish Americans. One would think our Christian "System" would fate marginalization and oppression. The opposite occurs because, in my view, there is 100% focus on internal locus of control. Internal Focus = External Achievement. I liked your thoughtful comment, saw my name, and decided to wade in.
Wink
Hello Winkfield. Thanks for weighing in, and sorry that it’s taken me a month to come across your comment and respond—I’m rather new to the world of Substack and hadn’t seen your comment.
You can think of focusing on Systems as disempowering. I wouldn’t say you are wrong, per se. Your pointing out the success of “openly orthodox” Jewish Americans is interesting. Making any observation about Jewish identity that could be interpreted as victim-blaming is especially dangerous in a time where the White House is making anything that smells of antisemitism a reason DoJ investigation and enforcement. But the cohesiveness and effectiveness of Jewish identity in securing achievement and success is remarkable—those of us who are not Jewish are somewhat envious (me included) and some people (me NOT included) fear it. But frankly, appealing to creating that level of identity-based cohesion as an antidote to identity-based systems of disadvantage is just saying fight fire by creating another kind of fire. And personally, I have more insight into how to move systems from disempowerment towards empowerment for all, by knocking down identity based disadvantage. And have as the Jews have undoubtedly, and unfortunately, experienced over the millennia, creating identity-based systems that advantages its members relative to those outside of its membership has some downsides in terms of how members are accepted amongst the larger community, as well as it’s noteworthy advantages.
Wouldn’t dismantling all systems that privilege some identities over others be a superior solution, compared to creating multiple identity-based “mini-systems,” each of which advantages its members, while leaving nonmembers at a relative disadvantage?
I think a difference between your view, and mine, Wink, is that you see the opportunity to access and leverage the mindset of an identity group as more accessible than the opportunity to access and leverage the mindset of humanity as a whole. Also you aren’t giving weight to the inevitable division and antagonism that always comes from privileging some identities over others—antagonism that drives wedges in a society that would benefit greatly from the absence of such divisions.
And perhaps my black identity, and what I am guessing is perhaps your Jewish identity, and our respective peoples History, “colors” (no pun intended) how we weight and consider those counterbalancing concerns.
Glenn and John post diversions. Trump removed an order that prevented federal contractors from having segregated facilities. Trump removed photos of Black people and is purging Black government employees. Conservatives are silent. This is James J. Kilpatrick 2.0.
https://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/james-j-kilpatrick-death-of-a-bigot/
It is my experience that in the tech / Nerd world everybody has to prove themselves. First you build your reputation - then your reputation builds you. But there are routine 'retests' if you will for you to show that you have not lost 'it'. I have stayed in the tech side for my entire career and have had numerous retests, I will be retiring from the tech workspace soon enough, but I am reaching my mid 70's, with most of my peers aging out of the environment by the time they turned 60.
"If you are not inferior, prove it" is part of the human condition.
Thank goodness that I didn't let this hold me back when I was a young woman entering the corporate world in a traditionally male job before women were accepted. It's perfectly ok that I had to prove myself.
Perfectly put. I'm stealing that opening sentence.
I worked in the tech sector and pretty much every action I took was second guessed and challenged. And with every small promotion, it got worse, not better. You lick your wounds and cash your check.
This is a great vignette. Thank you, gentlemen.
The purpose of this post is to claim it is a noble effort to go out of your way to prove yourself to white people but the same efforts are not spent to get picked by what I am assuming black peers in an athletic environment. The ultimate theme of this post is to suggest that proving oneself to white people should be the core of black existence and that to prove yourself to black people has little or no merit. There also is nothing in the post that asked white people to improve their negative stereotypes of their black peers.
Thanks for pointing out the gobbledygook.
Glenn Loury quotes Shelby Steele.
The increased opportunity of the post civil rights era presented ‘a brutal proposition to black America: if you're not inferior, prove it.’” And you conclude, “Black pride means, at the end of the day, proving it.”
This is irrational. Being Black and qualified does not mean that you will not be replaced by white men who are less qualified. Black Pride does not depend on the stamp of approval of white people.
Interesting. "[T]hey [the white guys] assumed" that John didn't know enough to be on the team and so the white guys left him out. How does John know what "they assumed"? He doesn't tell us. Seems to me that John did the assuming. Another interesting remark that John makes about one of the white guys: "He wasn't the devil. He was actually very open-minded. He was, frankly, a Democrat. He was a good white person." So, a "good white person" must be a Democrat?
I think what he means is that even open-minded people who aren't screaming racists can be prejudiced in subtle ways. He's painting a picture of a kind of person—a well-meaning white liberal who nevertheless stereotyped him.
I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something - how people should pick a guy for Jeopardy if nobody knows anything about other people?
And John wasn't picked for sports because he was black?
I think what he's saying is that the experience of being the last picked or not picked at all was familiar from school sports, where he wasn't picked because he was nerdy and unathletic, not because he was black. But in College Bowl, where nerdiness should be an asset, he wasn't picked because he was black.
Again, If nobody in the college knew him or knew anybody else - how did they pick their teams?
Look man, I don't know. You may just have to trust him on this one.
Trust on what? - He said they didn't think he was nerdy because he was black. So, he thinks if they knew he was a nerd they would pick him.
I'm sorry, but it seems like you rush trying to defend him not knowing the facts.
And we have to believe him even if it all sounds like a nice spin on the familiar theme.
What he's saying is if they KNEW he could compete, they might have picked him. But it seemed to him they assumed he couldn't compete, because they assumed a black guy wouldn't have the kind of knowledge required. That was his perception. This is a decades-old story that only the people involved could remember. Most of the people involved probably don't even know they were involved. Where are you going to get "the facts"?
I'd say, in general, you should believe what people tell you about their lives unless you have a reason not to. If someone has a history of lying on the record, maybe take what they say with a grain of salt. As far as I know, John has no such record. He's written and spoken extensively about why claims of racist exclusion today are often overblown. So when he says, "This thing happened to me that seemed at the time and still seems today a bit racially tinged," I'm inclined to believe him, because his first instinct every time something bad happens is not "I'm the victim of racism." Something happened, he thought about it, he's presenting it, it sounds plausible to me. So yeah, I take it on trust. You don't have to if you don't want to, but there aren't any more facts forthcoming.
Yes, I think you should believe what people tell you about their lives if it sounds believable. His presetting of the events sounds plausible to you, but you cannot explain the obvious, in my view, contradictions in his recalling. This all is not a big deal. What's bothering me a little is an order in which you answer: instead of "I don't know" first, you first hurry to his defense. I'd wish for a little more neutrality from such a great program.
The need to prove oneself worthy, despite somebody else's doubts, has been part of the human dynamic across many cultures over millennia, in may domains of life. It could involve "race" but it could involved hundreds of other disctincions. In some sense, one could say that it's never "fair", but it comes up anyway. The ONLY real solution is to show that one can, any other response fails to satisfy.
I think that Asian-Americans (a term I use reluctantly, given the wide diversity of peoples being deceptively lumped under 'Asian') have gained a lot of respect by demonstrating that they can earn it, rather than by avoiding and deflecting, saying that they should not need to do so.
The need to prove competency is quickly destroyed by the personnel appointed by Donald Trump.
We would agree that a presidential candidate should provide evidence of their competency, and you and I would agree that we do not personally judge the current president as competent to hold the office. I assume that you voted against him, as I did.
However, we two do not make that decision individually or together; we are not his supervisor. If either of us were, he'd be fired. But we live in a nation where majority rules - wisely or not, and we lost (for now).
That criticism of an elected official, however, doesn't imply that every individual who ever applies for any job should be automatically hired without regard to their competency. It is completely consistent to support hiring on the basis of evidenced worth, democratic voting, and criticism of the current president.
If the country elects an incompetent white man who said Haitians ate pets, why should others aspire to a higher standard?
A group of white incompetents included a reporter on secret communications. Conservatives created the lower standard. Why should others be required to be competent? Mind you Conservatives are OK with replacing qualified Black generals with incompetent white men. Shouldn’t the standards be equal?
Aren’t we lying to Black children if we tell them competence will protect them?
Diamond & Silk and Kanye West are Conservative darlings. Herschel Walker was championed as a Conservative gubernatorial candidate. Barack Obama and Kamala Harris were considered unworthy. Competence is not a Conservative criteria. An incompetent Black person can gather wealth in the Conservative arena.
PGbR> "That criticism of an elected official, however, doesn't imply that every individual who ever applies for any job should be automatically hired without regard to their competency."
RR> "If the country elects an incompetent white man who said Haitians ate pets, why should others aspire to a higher standard?"
I would say that we should aspire to higher standards if and only if we want better outcomes than lower standards create. If we don't care about outcomes, or if we actively want negative outcomes, then there is no reason to aspire to do any better.
So what's your answer to your own question, in the quoted section above?
----
If you tell any children (regardless of race, sex, religion, eye color) in any human society that has ever existed on the planet, that "competence will protect you", then you are lying to them. Competence increases the odds of positive outcomes as compared to incompetence, but it provides no guarantees, and there are no "protections" possible for the vicissitudes of human life. Pretending that outcomes are absolutely controllable rather than probabilistic is unwise.
Using your seat belt could cost you your life, if you are ejected from your seat before your vehicle plunges over a cliff; but it's statistically more likely to save your life. Using a seat belt cannot protect you from negative outcomes, but it can change the odds. Likewise competence.
We have incompetents in charge who cannot plan a military attack without breaching security. Tariffs on foreign automobiles were just announced. Higher standards are not on the horizon.
The incompetents have entire networks propping them up.
We all know that, we can read the news first hand for ourselves. NOBODY is arguing that point, you really don't need to convince anybody. We get it.
I'm still waiting for you to give your own answer to your "why" question, which is about our day to day lives and whether we should aspire to do better than the Trump administration, or just follow their lead in all of society.
RR> "If the country elects an incompetent white man who said Haitians ate pets, why should others aspire to a higher standard?"
The incompetent white men in the Trump administration sent Yemen war plans to a reporter from the Atlantic.
https://youtu.be/H1eFV_5XTWk?feature=shared
Agreed, it shows a mixture of amateurism, hubris and self-owning coverup.
So would you want the government (now or in the future) to aspire to a higher standard, or not? Will that example of malfeasance at the top cause you to seek out an incompetent plumber or surgeon who is cheap, because Trumps appointment of incompetence proves to you that competence is irrelevant everywhere in society?
My fellow citizens, including many here are getting what they wanted when they voted. They may reconsider when the wheels fall off.
Johns Hopkins had millions in research grants canceled. Incompetents are being created in front of our eyes. Education is being disrupted.
There is no plan for the formulation of this year’s flu vaccine. RFK Jr suggests cod liver oil, antibiotics, and a steroid for measles. The incompetence is in our face and supported by many on this website. The standards have already fallen.
I love John. He now solely inhabits a Western archetype. The reason I listen so closely to John and Glenn is that they are the only voices free to speak out honestly to be found in High Academe. What I mean is: No white man could maintain a position at Brown or Columbia or Harvard and say what Glenn says about race. And by indispensable association with Glenn’s project, White John would have also been run out on the same literal and hypothetical rail.
That is wrong. Veritas MEANS SOMETHING. If you are forcing me to be polite based upon your beliefs then we are no longer on mission. We are just as backwards and misguided as the institutions modern inquiry was designed and codified to counter.
Heavy is the book that is carried by only two men. But they must not drop it.
If we do not refute what Mr. Jefferson says about us we will only establish them.
(John got his bachelor's degree from Rutgers and then went to Stanford. Even I knew that much.)
Should have caught the Stanford thing. Thanks for the heads up.
"Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World" is now on Documenting the American South at UNC so you can get the real quote from there)