Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Inclusion’

Princes Kept the View

Posted by M. C. on June 22, 2022

By Tim Hartnett

In November 1919 The Basic Problem of Democracyran in The Atlantic magazine. It is 12 pages long and covers a lot of ground. The descriptions of media strengths and inadequacies are 100% applicable to what transpires in that industry at the present moment. The conclusion is this: “No man has ever thought out an absolute or a universal ideal in politics, for the simple reason that nobody knows enough, or can know enough, to do it.” The piece goes on to say of the “average American” “the more cocksure he is, the more certainly is he the victim of some propaganda.” Yeats told us the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity two years later. If you’d like to see the examples, just click onto any channel purporting to offer non-fiction coverage of daily events.

MCViewpoint comment -Michael D. Bradbury, the District Attorney of Ventura County, conducted an investigation into the raid and the aftermath, issuing a report on the events leading up to and on October 2, 1992.[1] He concluded that asset forfeiture was a motive for the raid.[9] Wikipedia

Asset forfeiture-Legalized government cop theft.

It’s in the name of equity and inclusion that American nobility is reinstituting a caste system. How you gonna’ save the world if you can’t look down on guys who turn wrenches, shift gears in semis, raise roofs and keep everybody from freezing to death?

A PR knighthood known as Unfake News is charged with the tasks of canonization, hagiography, sycophancy, sanctimony and the gushing phony emotion necessary to keep uppity ingrates in their places. The 4th Estate’s own placement in the hierarchy has mysteriously climbed from the gin mill to the penthouse in the process.

From way up there they don’t hear or see what’s going on down at street level all too well. Whatever that little man they view through a telescope is saying sounds like lese-majeste —or worse– from high elevations.

Giving the masses any say-so over newsy priorities would fog up pince-nez, induce elite heart palpitation, upend the Cristal and generally wreak havoc during otherwise placid high-brow soirees. The suggestion of giving ear to peasant plaints was tossed around recently during an exclusive function at the South Hampton estate of matriarch Phyllis Pruitt. The cigarette holder dropped from her mouth. “Gadzooks,” the hostess erupted, “not in front of the help!”

You might expect the swells to rely on cops to keep the rabble at bay with tensions amped up to levels we’ve reached nowadays. But the powers that be won’t be caught winking at the maxim of Inspector Alexander Williams. He’s the NYPD constable who told us: “There is more law at the end of a policeman’s nightstick than in a decision of the Supreme Court” in the post-Civil war era. However clueless ruling class minions sound over the airwaves — the keepers feeding them are never that transparent. Turmoil on Main Street, they’ve ruled, keeps the maid, the butler and the chauffeur at beck and call in luxurious lairs. The pecking order in manorial estates is a vital element in the sacrificial crusade to unshackle the oppressed.

The ebb in crime rates that lasted a quarter century is suddenly a threat to the goals of utopians everywhere. What was ignored as violence abated — and before that — proves awkward to news manufacturers if we peruse the record. Inconsistencies, abrupt editorial U-turns and trendy compliance with emotional tides are evident. Our informers are quite capable of turning a rigidly un-Samaritanical blind eye when it’s hiply convenient — but the details keep oozing back out of the memory hole.  Should anyone believe that altruistic motives are behind the new improved media focus on law enforcement?

When it comes to agents of the state placing cavalier valuation on human life our professional informers might have some splainin’ to do. There’s no doubt that the communication revolution has put the matter before us in ways never possible only 20 years ago. But don’t reporters, social scientists and concerned academicians claim to man the watchtowers? Where were they then? Are we to believe police unaccountability and extra-legal treatment in confronting the public are recent developments?

A mass media that has always found some victims of unwarranted violence more worthy of coverage — whether at the hands of credentialed reps of government or other violent criminals— than others, provides convincing evidence of a caste system in place. Just who is, and is not, given front page memorials in daily copy shifts with popular passion. The literary shiftlessness of the literati doesn’t account for the hairpin turns in editorial precedence entirely.

No camera filmed the murder of Donald Scott. But he was — without any doubt — a privileged white man. It didn’t save him from the deadly consequences of deranged statist priorities 30 years ago. The cops, and agents of Federal government, who executed him never went into the dock. They publicly made the claim — contrary to all evidence physical or testimonial — that the victim was fully deserving of his fate. Major media of the time did not make a national cause célèbre out of the matter. Yet, there is no dispute from any quarter — other than that of those who slaughtered the poor rich guy — that Scott lost his life through a coordinated government plot to steal his land.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

BREAKING: Jordan Peterson resigns from full professorship position at U of Toronto | The Post Millennial

Posted by M. C. on January 20, 2022

Peterson says his white male students are likely going to be unable to find work in their fields despite being highly qualified.

Dr. Jordan Peterson has resigned from his tenured post at the University of Toronto. The reason for the resignation is that “the appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion is demolishing education and business.”

In an essay in the National Post, Peterson details his reasons. He said that he “loved” his job, and had a good rapport with students. While he states that he “can now teach many more people and with less interference online,” additional reasons include:

His white male students are likely going to be unable to find work in their fields, despite being highly qualified which Peterson wrote is “partly because of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity mandates.” Peterson, who calls this “DIE” as opposed to the DEI that is commonly seen, said that these dictates, as well as the fact that he is an “academic persona non grata” make it difficult to try and education students while knowing “their employment prospects to be minimal”.

Peterson believes that these “DIE” initiatives will create “a generation of researchers utterly unqualified for the job. And we’ve seen what that means already in the horrible grievance studies “disciplines.” That, combined with the death of objective testing, has compromised the universities so badly that it can hardly be overstated. And what happens in the universities eventually colours everything.”

DIE initiatives, he writes, lead to students and researchers alike lying to get grants. “All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant. They all lie (excepting the minority of true believers) and they teach their students to do the same. And they do it constantly, with various rationalizations and justifications, further corrupting what is already a stunningly corrupt enterprise,” he writes.

He takes aim at Canadian academic regulations, gender ideology legislation, and the identitarian ethos as a whole.

“We are now at the point where race, ethnicity, ‘gender,’ or sexual preference is first, accepted as the fundamental characteristic defining each person (just as the radical leftists were hoping) and second, is now treated as the most important qualification for study, research and employment,” he writes.

“Need I point out that this is insane?”

“And it’s not just the universities. And the professional colleges. And Hollywood. And the corporate world,” he goes on to say in the National Post.

He calls out colleagues who tolerate this, and anyone else who goes along with these “insane” dictates to get along. For Peterson’s part, he’ll have no more of it.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Diversity, equality, inclusion…give me a break – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on December 27, 2021

Whites can’t learn from qualified blacks on campus?  Preposterous.  Blacks can’t learn from competent whites at university?  Equally silly.  I, a white man, have learned more from Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams on the subject of racial and sexual discrimination than from any other two scholars.  I am pleased and proud that several of my black students are making their way into academic professions.  I hold a brown belt in karate.  My teachers were the students or Asians.  My best instructor is Iranian.  I’m Jewish.

By Walter E. Block

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) amounts to the complaint that there are too many white males on the faculty and the demand that this be radically changed, forthwith.  It would appear, at least to the grievants, that females, “people of color” (“colored people” is no longer allowed to be said at university, despite the continued existence of the National Association of Colored People), and members of the LGBT community cannot really learn from straight white male professors.  Students with these characteristics, it turns out, need role models in the professoriate from their own demographics if they are to prosper in higher education.  Numerous academic job notifications now routinely require adherence to DEI sensibilities.

I don’t want to criticize the students responsible for these complaints.  They are young kids, and, presumably, don’t yet know any better.  If anyone is to blame for this new campus initiative, it is their teachers (many of whom are woke white males).

The main charge in one particular case is that the student body is less than 40% white male, while professors of the same ilk constitute about 75% of the faculty.  Out of a board of trustees of roughly three dozen, almost two dozen are white men.  The conclusion would appear to be that there should be something akin to proportional representation.  The present situation is rejected as “shocking,” “bizarre.”  As a result, students, all of them, are subjected to a “white centric” education where “whiteness” predominates.

There is more wrong here than you can shake a stick at.  First of all, there is no such thing as white math, or black logic, or Asian economics, or male physics, or female chemistry, or homosexual astronomy, or heterosexual philosophy.  This may or may not apply to grievance studies (black studies, gay studies, feminist studies), but if it doesn’t, then these are not worthy subjects to be studied at an institution of advanced learning.  There are not many truths each for a separate category of human beings.  There is only one.  Get used to it.

Second, proportionality.  Many people expect that absent racial, sexual, and other types of discrimination, all groups would be equally represented in all aspects of the labor market.  But as the insightful work of Thomas Sowell has demonstrated, this is simply not the case. The National Basketball Association comprises about 75% blacks, who make up only some 13% of the overall population.  Players in the National Football League are roughly 70% black.  Is this due to the fact that the NFL and the NBA discriminate against whites and Asians?  Of course not.  These sports leagues will sign up anyone, even people with chartreuse-colored skin and covered with pink and blue polka dots, provided, only, that they are world-class athletes with the requisite skills.  Should we, in any case, kick out of the NFL and the NBA as many splendid black athletes as needed so as to attain proportional racial representation?  That would solve one “problem,” but then many college teams would likely be able to beat these professionals unless, of course, we employed the same procedure for them.  And so on down the line.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What They Really Mean When They Say “Do the Right Thing” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 16, 2021

Consenting individuals can best agree on the right thing, and the politicians lording over them are supposed to prohibit others from interfering; however, as the ongoing (and worsening) mass psychosis makes clear, each level of government only partitions, persecutes, and parasitizes individuals.

Have you noticed that those who might as well have “inclusion” tattooed on their foreheads are the same people who wish to exclude anyone who doesn’t buy into the hype? “Conform to the insanity or else!”

Casey Carlisle

As a senior in high school, I ran for class president with “Do the right thing” as my campaign slogan. Though I realized years ago how utterly pretentious that message is, I’m often reminded that it’s good politics, which proves the point that politics is poison. To vote for someone else is to “do the wrong thing,” and you don’t want to be a bad person, do you? It’s a sinister trick that comes in many phrases—all of which are highly effective in duping the majority—yet democracy is still deified. Just as “the science” insults the scientific method, “the right thing” has the capacity to reduce peaceful interactions. How can “the right thing” be peaceful if it isn’t consensual? If the “right” thing is imposed, the thing is wrong.

Why would “the right thing” require blind obedience? If the thing were right, dissenters wouldn’t be punished. Accepting that I was arrogant to tell my senior class what is or isn’t right, imagine the hubris required to dictate morality to a third of a billion Americans. The US president recently chastised certain governors who “aren’t willing to do the right thing to beat this pandemic,” but why does the Biden regime presume to know what’s right for, say, Texans? First of all, pandemics are “beaten” only when they become endemic. Yes, involuntary (read: “political”) action can hasten that process, but at what cost? Those who answer that question with “at any cost” are the same people who would be mortified if vaccines were banned. These people see the horrors of depriving choice only when the choice is their own, illustrating why politics brings out the worst in people. Their childish and violent aspirations, if acted upon, are punishable by imprisonment, but through politics, “the right thing” is legal and enforced. Democracy tends to legalize immorality, which is bolstered by the inability to discuss tradeoffs—the best indicator of mass hysteria.

When I “served” in Afghanistan, my boss would occasionally invite the religious to pray with him prior to executing a mission. He would ask God to help his men and to hinder the enemy—whom he deemed “pure evil”—without ever appearing to think that the Taliban were likely saying the same prayer and calling us evil. It’s as if both sides were begging God to do the right thing, and over a decade later, the absurdity still bemuses me. Who can argue that twenty years of imposing democracy on a country that doesn’t want it was the right thing to do, especially after twenty years’ worth of resources were nullified in a week? War crimes or crimes against humanity began with those committing them first rationalizing them. Though the murderers might not have deemed their actions “right,” they acted anyway, because they were “just following orders.” But what of those issuing the orders, the sociopaths who believe they can define “the greater good” without the knowledge of the greater population? History repeats itself, and that too many have dismissed that fact as “pessimistic” is one of the reasons why we can’t wake from this dystopian nightmare. Is it not reasonable to expect something catastrophic to unfold when the demagogue defines the right thing?

I argued in April and November of last year that top-down edicts render useless the levels of government between the rulers and the individual. Due to proximity alone, the governor can better “serve” the individual than can the president, the county commissioner than can the governor, and the mayor than can the commissioner. Has the Biden regime forgotten that this country was founded by people who didn’t take kindly to distant rulers? American defiance is a thing of the past, but isn’t it in the parasites’ best interest to keep it there? Consenting individuals can best agree on the right thing, and the politicians lording over them are supposed to prohibit others from interfering; however, as the ongoing (and worsening) mass psychosis makes clear, each level of government only partitions, persecutes, and parasitizes individuals. It’s as if the Biden regime and every governor and bureaucrat suffering from the same delusions are doing all they can to foment violence. In October of 2020, one political party thought that the right thing to do was to refuse the then upcoming vaccine, but today, that same political party openly and sometimes joyously declare their disdain for anyone who decides what’s right for themselves so long as “right” counters the prevailing ideology. If that won’t convince you that politics is poison, I don’t know what will.

Here’s what doing the right thing actually entails: do whatever makes you feel comfortable so long as you aren’t imposing your will (or cowardice) on others. And for fans of brevity, I’ve heard that “mind your own business” is tried and true. Every American who wants to be vaccinated has the opportunity to be. The vaccinated have no moral authority to protect the unvaccinated from themselves. Every parent who wishes to abuse their child by forcing them to wear a mask has that right, but no one will force me to muzzle my three-year-old. If masks are as effective as the staunch covidians claim, why does the sight of an uncovered smile enrage the masked? That it does is the problem of those who obsequiously muzzle themselves, not of anyone else. Labeling the unmasked and unvaccinated “selfish” is nothing but pure projection. Have you noticed that those who might as well have “inclusion” tattooed on their foreheads are the same people who wish to exclude anyone who doesn’t buy into the hype? “Conform to the insanity or else!” After all, “the right thing” is “for your own good.” That’s not compassion; that’s totalitarianism. Bullies don’t grow tired of bullying; they stop bullying only when shown that ceasing their antisocial behavior is in their best interest. It’ll get uncomfortable, but if you hope to ever pursue what you deem right, it’s well past time to stand up to the vicious mob.


Casey Carlisle

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

DEI and Sports – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 23, 2021

“Diversity” refers to the distribution of racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics. It does not refer to what you might think the word means, such as having a diverse range of opinions or thoughts. In fact, it’s really the opposite. The most “diverse” group of people according to DEI orthodoxy will be 100% Leftist in their politics, and will think in lockstep about such things as DEI itself. The normal sense of the word is also distorted.

One of the interesting things about hitting the treadmill in the gym is the bank of televisions with closed captioning.  Since I don’t watch the boob tube, I’m not only exercising the body, but getting a glimpse into the alien world of the popular culture.  Sometimes the juxtapositions are telling.

On one channel was an international soccer game between Belgium and Finland.  Another channel had a talk show that was addressing the controversy about biological men competing in women’s sports – in this case, a male powerlifter who is being permitted into competition in the women’s division in the Olympic games.

The token black lady on the panel was yammering on and on about the buzzwords “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”  For the reader of the future – perhaps landing here by means of a Google search – this is a fad of our present day based on the concept known as Critical Theory – which is basically the denigration of one intersection of demographic traits for the supposed benefit of others.  The au courant acceptable hatred in this, the Year of our Lord 2021, pertains to racially being white, sexually being heterosexual and not inventing a pretend sexual identity for oneself (in other words, just being a normal man, woman, boy, or girl), politically conservative, and religiously Christian.  One is also considered to be akin to the lepers in biblical times if one is not handicapped physically or mentally.

If one has all of these markers, it is socially and legally acceptable to treat such persons as the Untouchables in the caste system in India.  And the fewer of these characteristics one has, the greater the worth of that individual.  If you read about “apartheid” in 20th century South Africa, it’s a similar concept, only with the “bottom rail on top” as the old saying goes.

DEI is a godsend for people who cannot compete in a meritocracy, and who have bleak job prospects.  For getting a cushy job in a big corporation is a piece of cake if one were to be, say, a lesbian black woman in a wheelchair who identifies as two-spirit non-binary Islamo-Buddhist, whose coffee is soy latte, skim milk, light foam, extra shot, and a dusting of cinnamon, and whose pronouns are zig and zag.  It doesn’t matter is zig never showed up for class or passed a test, whether zig can read or add two plus two, or has a work ethic.  In fact, it’s to one’s advantage in many cases not to.

Yes, this insanity was a part of our times, and it may well explain the collapse of our great civilization and why you are today speaking Mandarin and translating this from ancient English.The juxtaposition with this DEI to sports was interesting.

Let’s take them in order.


Celebrating diversity: the first all-black NBA team in 1979

“Diversity” refers to the distribution of racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics.  It does not refer to what you might think the word means, such as having a diverse range of opinions or thoughts.  In fact, it’s really the opposite.  The most “diverse” group of people according to DEI orthodoxy will be 100% Leftist in their politics, and will think in lockstep about such things as DEI itself.  The normal sense of the word is also distorted.  For in a population sample where 13% of the people are, say, black – only 13% representation in a smaller sample is not considered diversity.  In other words, if 80% of a sports team were to be black, this would not be considered a distortion, nor would the lack of, say, white players be considered a lack of diversity.  To the contrary, this is actual “diversity” according to the new definition of the word.

The Finnish football team on the tellie had very few – if any – “diversities” playing in this game.  And that is understandable.  Finland is a Nordic country that is overwhelmingly white.  Finland (unlike their opponents: Belgium) had no colonies, no presence in Africa, and not a great deal of immigration until recently.  One could imagine the diversity on the field had the Finns been playing, say, Ethiopia.

Here is a picture of the current Ethiopian national football team:

Diversity rating: A+

It’s not much of a surprise.  According to the classical understanding of diversity, this is not a very diverse team.  And for all of the repetitions of the mantra “diversity is our strength,” the lack of whites, Asians, Latinos, American Indians, Aleutian Islanders, or Esperanto speakers from Nepal seems not to impede their ability to be successful on the soccer field.

And of course, this is why Ethiopia must be praised for its “diversity” in the Newspeak sense of the word, while Finland must assuredly be “problematic.”

And here is a picture of the Finnish team:

Diversity rating: D- (passing grade thanks to virtue-signaling)

So when it comes to sports, Olympics, international, or even in the NFL and NBA, the idea of diversity is a joke – as it should be.  I live in New Orleans, and plenty of black guys wear Drew Brees jerseys.  Maybe some radicals would call them Avuncular Thomases for doing so, but the average sports fan isn’t interested in quotas and affirmative action on the field.  Rather, they want to win games and championships.  In other words, sports fans of all ethnic and sexual configurations really overwhelmingly desire meritocracy over and against racial, ethnic, or sexual considerations.

On a side note, international football is perhaps the last bastion of nationalism.  One can only surmise that there are plans afoot to rearrange the teams into non-national teams to get rid of the flag-waving and patriotism – one of the last impediments to our lords’ and masters’ dream of a Great Reset.  The future reader will know whether this happened or not.  I don’t see how it can be avoided.  But then again, perhaps by that time, the evil and disturbing Klaus Schwab’s brain in a vat will be the human owner of a professional team of robots – and maybe that will be the sports of the future.


The concept of equity sounds nice.  It sounds like “equality.”  But it means something different.  Equality means everyone has the same opportunity.  No-one is penalized for his race, station in life, or any other immutable characteristic.  Equality is a meritocracy.  There are no second-class citizens, and no caste system.

Equity is the opposite.

Equity penalizes some people and redistributes advantages, real or perceived, (and perhaps even directly as money) to others based on the above-mentioned hierarchy of values.

This redistribution can be based on historical reality.  For example, a person from Tunisia may well point to his ancestors in Carthage who were defeated by Roman imperial legions in the Punic Wars in 146 BC, and so the descendants of the conquering Romans are on the hook.  Thus the 21st century Italian government should indeed tax its citizens and wire the proceeds to Tunisia, where hopefully one will see modern-day Carthaginians driving Lexuses, and modern-day Italians posing for pictures with signs of apology and saying “no” to racism.

Or it may be based on fads.  In other words, if a famous Hollywood actor reveals that he identifies as a hen and has a sexual fetish regarding eating corn kernels off the floor, this new lifestyle may be named (Poultryamory?) and picked up by young people, incorporating a new color on the LGBT flag, securing a place in the Pride parade, and receiving a new sense of entitlement.  Perhaps the national soccer team should have a minimum of two players who pretend to lay eggs whenever their team scores a goal.  Universities should provide special “coops” for such people.  This would be an example of equity.

It may also be based on fantasy.  Perhaps a young woman became enamored with a comic book about a race of aliens on another planet.  These creatures have three heads and are asexual.  And so this is how our sci-fi fan identifies.  And in the story, earthlings came to her planet and wiped it out.  Therefore, equity demands redistributive justice for our asexual three-headed identifyee.  Maybe she should get a check every week for life to help overcome her oppression.  This would be an example of equity.

As far as sports goes, as it stands now, there is no equity.  What we see instead is meritocracy.  Usain Bolt is not required to start the race a half-mile behind everyone else.  LeBron James doesn’t have to wear a ball-and-chain on the basketball field.  The NFL Super Bowl Champions are not required to spot opposing teams a touchdown or play with two less players during the next season.  World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen isn’t required to give up a pawn to his opponents in competitions.  Things don’t currently work like that, though perhaps they will by 2081. In fact, nobody would want to see it.  Sports fans love that Usain Bolt and LeBron James and Magnus Carlsen can do things that nobody else can.

There is a meritocracy and a hierarchy in sports – both of which are anathema to the idea of equity (which seeks not equality at the starting line, but rather at the finish line).  Fans want to see their hero on the highest platform brandishing a gold medal.  Equity would rather that all players receive a participation trophy and there should be no champions.  Or at very least, if there are champions, they should get there by means of various handicaps and imposed advantages, changes to the rules, and other manipulations.  But again, fans would probably not want to watch such a thing.


Inclusion is the opposite of exclusion.  And this is clearly at odds with sports.  The motto of the Olympics is Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger).  This is by definition exclusive, not inclusive.  It is elitist.  The whole world will not watch breathlessly as a bunch of guys my age chuck javelins.  They want to see competitors in the prime of life, the elite of the elite, strive to set a new world record.  And yes, there are the Senior Olympics, Special Olympics, and the Paralympics as specialty niches for fans who enjoy such competition.  And yet, even there, participants strive to win medals and to perform to the best of their abilities.  There is still competition – even if the competition is against oneself.

Different divisions for weight and sex and level of competition in sports are by definition exclusive.  A heavyweight may not compete in the lightweight division.  He is excluded for the sake of fair competition – regardless of how he “identifies.”  Because a freshman football team lacks the physical size and experience of the varsity team, unless a freshman player is able to compete at the higher level, he will hone his skills with other freshman – excluding upperclassmen from the team.  And until recently, women have enjoyed competition against other women, as their lack of testosterone, their disadvantage in upper body strength vs. men, and even their skeletal structure puts them at a dramatic disadvantage were they forced to compete with biological males.  Real life isn’t like comic books or Marvel movies.  No amount of Girl Power posters in grade school can prevent the vaunted American women’s national soccer team from being soundly defeated by a team comprised of fourteen-year old boys who towered over them, or the Australian women’s team being shut-out 7-0 by a team of fifteen-year old boys who weren’t even of championship caliber, or a world class champion female fighter having her skull broken by a crushing blow from a man in the ring in a “fight” lasting two minutes.

And this last plank of DEI is the camel’s nose in the tent of the sports meritocracy.  It is at the present time a raging controversy, as high school girls are presently being denied scholarships and opportunity in the name of “inclusion” as boys are being permitted to compete against them in high school sports events.  In professional and Olympic competition, there is the potential of seeing women virtually eliminated from competition – and to many advocates of DEI, this is an acceptable price to pay for their vision of a more “just and sustainable world.

A Brave New World

So female competitors will just have to sacrifice their own opportunities and abilities to compete, and fans of women’s sports are just going to have to get used to seeing muscular men dominate these events in the name of inclusion.  In time, we can expect champions to be handicapped and the lower-performing to receive affirmative action to boost their representation in the world of sports in the name of equity.  We will also see new variations on the “paper-bag test” to assure even fewer white athletes than there are already in high level sports – and probably a busting up of international leagues to prevent even a small minority of nations being represented that are insufficiently melanized (not to mention to get rid of that nasty “nationalism’) – all in the name of diversity.

Sports fans are just going to have to accept the changes, give up on their meritocracy, and perhaps even some day be content to watch professionals and Olympians play “just for fun” without keeping score, as fans all wave the same flag in inclusivity and social justice instead of the diversity of banners of their own nations in pursuit of being the best.

Again, time will tell how far the insanity will go, and when – if ever – the pendulum works its way back to normalcy and the true meaning of sports, without regard to racial quotas, unconcerned with the guaranteed equality of results, and once more admiring the best of the best in fair and free meritocracy of competition.

Rev. Larry Beane [send him mail] serves as pastor at Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church in Gretna, LA and teaches high school Apologetics, Economics, and Government at Wittenberg Academy (online). Visit his blog.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Nonsense – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 2, 2020

What explains the fact that over 80% of professional basketball players are black, as are about 70% of professional football players? Only an idiot would chalk it up to diversity and inclusion. Instead, it is excellence that explains the disproportionate numbers. Jewish Americans, who are just 3% of our population, win over 35% of the Nobel prizes in science that are awarded to Americans. Again, it is excellence that explains the disproportionality, not diversity and inclusion. As my stepfather often told me, “To do well in this world, you have to come early and stay late.”



Check out any professional and most college basketball teams. Their starting five, and most of their other 10 players, are black, as is 80% of the NBA. This does not come anywhere close to the diversity and inclusion sought by the nation’s social justice warriors. Both professional and college coaches have ignored and threw any pretense of seeking diversity and inclusiveness. My question to you is: Would a basketball team be improved if coaches were required to include ethnically diverse players for the sake of equity? I have no idea of what your answer might be but mine would be: “The hell with diversity, equity and inclusion. I am going to recruit the best players and do not care if most of them turn out to be black players.” Another question: Do you think that any diversity-crazed college president would chastise his basketball coach for lack of diversity and inclusiveness?

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (National Accelerator Laboratory) is home to the world’s most powerful experiments, fastest supercomputers and top-notch physics researchers. Much of SLAC’s research is on particle accelerators that are complicated machines that are designed, engineered and operated to produce high-quality particle beams and develop clues to the fundamental structure of matter and the forces between subatomic particles. You can bet that their personnel makeup exhibits very little concern about racial diversity, equity and inclusion. The bulk of their scientists is not only Americans of European and Asian ancestry but mostly men. My question to you is: What would you do to make SLAC more illustrative of the racial, ethnic and sexual diversity of America? As for me, my answer would be the same one that I gave in the basketball example: I am going to recruit the brightest scientists and I do not care if most of them turn out to be men of European and Asian ancestry.

In the hard sciences, one will find black Americans underrepresented. For example, a 2018 survey of the American Astronomical Society, which includes undergraduates, graduate students, faculty members and retired astronomers, found that 82% of members identified as white and only 2% as black or African American. Only 3% of bachelor’s degrees in physics go to black students. In 2017, some fields, such as structural engineering and atmospheric physics, graduated not a single black Ph.D. The conspicuous absence of black Americans in the sciences have little or nothing to do with racism. It has to do with academic preparation. If one graduates from high school and has not mastered a minimum proficiency in high school algebra, geometry and precalculus, it is likely that high-paying careers such as engineering, medicine, physics and computer technology are hermetically sealed off for life.

There are relatively few black fighter jet pilots. There are stringent physical, character and mental requirements, which many black applicants could meet. But fighter pilots must also have a strong knowledge of air navigation, aircraft operating procedures, flight theory, fluid mechanics, meteorology and engineering. The college majors that help prepare undergraduates for a career as a fighter pilot include mathematics, physical science and engineering. But if one graduates from high school without elementary training in math, it is not likely that he will enroll in the college courses that would qualify him for fighter pilot training.

At many predominantly black high schools, not a single black student tests proficient in math and a very low percentage test proficient in reading; however, these schools confer a diploma that attests that the students can read, write and compute at a 12th-grade level and these schools often boast that they have a 70% and higher graduation rate. They mislead students, their families and others by conferring fraudulent diplomas.

What explains the fact that over 80% of professional basketball players are black, as are about 70% of professional football players? Only an idiot would chalk it up to diversity and inclusion. Instead, it is excellence that explains the disproportionate numbers. Jewish Americans, who are just 3% of our population, win over 35% of the Nobel prizes in science that are awarded to Americans. Again, it is excellence that explains the disproportionality, not diversity and inclusion. As my stepfather often told me, “To do well in this world, you have to come early and stay late.”

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article-diversity, equity and inclusion-Higher education’s mandatory political participation

Posted by M. C. on March 13, 2020

The Hoover Institution’s John Cochrane, blogging as the Grumpy Economist, has publicized UC’s practices, which he expects will become more onerous and invidious because universities continue hiring large numbers of diversity enforcers whose profession is to banish the classical liberal principle that every person should be treated as a unique individual.

Today, however, DEI statements are political litmus tests used in a baroque three-stage, five-point scoring system that winnows out applicants – sometimes most of them – before considering the applicants’ academic qualifications

WASHINGTON – The Free Speech Movement, an early tremor of the earthquake that shook campuses in the 1960s, began on Sproul Plaza at the University of California at Berkeley, in 1964. Today eight of the 10 universities in the UC system are administering faculty hiring practices that involve coerced speech, enforced political conformity and mandatory political participation.

Any academic seeking a position is required to write a “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) statement affirming support Higher education’s mandatory political participation – sometimes even “enthusiastic” support – for, and demonstrating activism in support of, a system-wide orthodoxy. In the required statement (“Demonstrating Interest in and Ability to Advance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”), an applicant should show that he or she has been active, and must promise to be active, in advancing the approved agenda. This process explicitly subordinates assessments of academic excellence.

Abigail Thompson, chairwoman of the mathematics department at UC-Davis, praises diversity (without explaining how ethnic, racial and gender diversity improves teaching and research in mathematics). But she thinks mandatory DEI statements have a problematic pedigree.

In 1949, during the Cold War anxiety about communist subversion, Robert Sproul, president of the UC system, proposed that university employees sign an oath attesting that they were not members of the Communist Party or other organizations advocating violent revolution. Protests, litigation and the firing of some non-signers ensued. Then fears of domestic communists abated, and a court ended the oath in 1967. The UC system subsequently adopted this policy: “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee.”

Today, however, DEI statements are political litmus tests used in a baroque three-stage, five-point scoring system that winnows out applicants – sometimes most of them – before considering the applicants’ academic qualifications. For example, eight departments in Berkeley’s life sciences recently applied the DEI “rubric” in sorting through 893 eligible applicants.

First – yes, first – they were evaluated solely on “contributions” to diversity, equity and inclusion. This involved assessing, among much else, candidates’ “comfort” in talking about those matters. Only 214 candidates who scored well in the diversity enthusiasm sweepstakes were then evaluated as scholars.

Most of the 679 who were immediately flunked received insufficient grades – only 1 or 2 points on the category “knowledge about” DEI (e.g., insufficient discussion of “gender or ethnicity/race”) or 3 (“strong understanding of challenges” but “little understanding of demographic data”). Most survivors scored 4 or 5 on “comfort” and enthusiasm discussing the DEI agenda.

The second test concerned demonstrating a “track record in advancing” DEI. Those who fell at this hurdle perhaps showed only “limited participation at the periphery” of officially approved activities. The third test concerned “plans for advancing” DEI. Those who failed here might have been judged “vague” about the required political “activities.” The fortunate few who scored 4 or 5, and so survived to have their scholarly credentials considered, presumably professed an impressive intention to strongly advocate the orthodoxy.

When Thompson published in the leading mathematics journal her criticism of mandatory DEI professions of loyalty, a Williams College mathematician, Chad M. Topaz, was enraged by this diversity of thought. He urged a digital mob to inflict on Thompson “some good ‘ol (sic) public shame.” He profits from the diversity industry: In exchange for “donations,” he and associates will critique, and even help write, job candidates’ diversity statements. This assistance will be “completely confidential.” As befits ghostwritten political enthusiasm.

Because coast-to-coast academic culture is politically homogenized, other universities are adopting identical or similar requirements of “demonstrated commitments” to this and that, including “outreach,” which presumably means something to those who speak academia’s patois. Opaque language cannot, however, disguise that this is all politics.

Politics is how we organize our ideas and practices for living together. The defining characteristic of totalitarian societies is not that the individual cannot participate in politics, but that the individual cannot not participate. In such societies, politics permeates everything: Government’s aim is the conquest of consciousness, and abstention from politics is subversive. Hence DEI pledges.

The Hoover Institution’s John Cochrane, blogging as the Grumpy Economist, has publicized UC’s practices, which he expects will become more onerous and invidious because universities continue hiring large numbers of diversity enforcers whose profession is to banish the classical liberal principle that every person should be treated as a unique individual. This banishment is a political project abetted by DEI statements, which are political tests. That they violate UC’s stated policy prohibiting political tests means that the policy actually is: “Only progressive political tests shall be considered in appointments.” George Will is a Washington Post columnist. Email him at

George Will

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Erie Times E-Edition Article-diversity, equity and inclusion-Higher education’s mandatory political participation

Diversity and Inclusion Insanity – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 22, 2020

Their solution to increase the number of women’s involvement in STEM is to standardize grading curves, in order to grade less “harshly.” The insanity of this approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards across the board. This is more evidence that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”


It’s nearly impossible to have even a short conversation with a college administrator, politician or chief executive without the words diversity and inclusion dropping from their lips. Diversity and inclusion appear to be the end-all and be-all of their existence. So, I thought I’d begin this discussion by first looking up the definition of diversity.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, diversity is “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” The definition gratuitously adds, “equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake.” The standard definition given for inclusion is involvement and empowerment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.

Here’s my question to those who are wedded to diversity and inclusion: Are people better off the less they have in common with one another? For example, women are less likely to be able to march 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load. They are also less likely to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles and move a wounded comrade weighing 165 pounds while carrying that load. Would anyone argue that a military outfit would benefit from diversity by including soldiers who can and those who cannot march 12 miles in five hours while carrying an 83-pound load?

You say, “Williams, the military is an exception!” What about language? The International Civil Aviation Organization has decreed that all air traffic controllers and flight crew members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium. According to UNESCO, there are about 7,000 languages in the world. The International Civil Aviation Organization could promote language inclusiveness by requiring language rotation. Some years, Cebuano (of the Malayo-Polynesian language family) and in other years Kinyarwanda (of the Niger-Congo language family) could be the language of pilots and air traffic controllers. Keep in mind that it is claimed that the great benefit of diversity and inclusiveness is that it promotes and fosters a sense of belonging. It values and practices respect for the differences in the talents, beliefs, backgrounds and ways of living of its members.

Another issue is what should be done when people who should know better praise nondiversity and noninclusiveness? Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said, “I applaud commissioner Adam Silver’s commitment to diversity and inclusion within the NBA.” During the 2018-2019 season, more than 33% of NBA teams had head coaches of color. The number of assistant head coaches of color was over 42%. The number of black NBA players was 82%. In the face of these statistics, Oris Stuart, the NBA’s chief diversity and inclusion officer said, “Diversity, inclusion and equality are central to every aspect of our game and our business.” I would like for Jesse Jackson and others who claim that there’s racial diversity and inclusiveness in professional basketball to make their case. The same question can be asked about professional football where 70% of NFL players are black, and 9% of team head coaches are black. The thornier question and challenge is what can be done to make professional basketball and football look more like the American population?

Most of the diversity and inclusiveness insanity has its roots in academia. An example is a paper titled “Equilibrium Grade Inflation with Implications for Female Interest in STEM Majors,” written by Naval Postgraduate School professor Thomas Ahn, Duke University economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, Duke University researcher Amy Hopson, and James R. Thomas of the Federal Trade Commission. The authors argue that science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs at colleges and universities lacking female enrollment can be attributed largely to harsh grading policies in these fields. Their solution to increase the number of women’s involvement in STEM is to standardize grading curves, in order to grade less “harshly.” The insanity of this approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards across the board. This is more evidence that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

Be seeing you

Grade inflation dilutes the value of an A – The Aragon Outlook





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Hard Rain – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on October 8, 2019

by James Howard Kunstler

A lot of readers (some of them former readers now) have been angrily twanging me by email for writing about the three-year Resistance effort to un-do the 2016 election. I did not vote for Mr. Trump (or Mrs. Clinton) but I resent the coup mounted to overthrow him. I object to the bad faith and dishonesty of the Resistance. I object to the criminal misconduct among the federal bureaucracy, and the mendacity of its partners in the news media, and the hysteria they continue to generate — at the expense of other matters that concern our future.

The political disorder spooling out is the political expression of the long emergency that the nation faces as it finally encounters the limits to growth we were warned about decades ago. The techno-industrial phase of history is ending, and we are left only with inadequate fantasies for coming to terms with it and moving forward. The dynamic relationship between affordable energy supplies and the operations of money roils at the core of this predicament. They are undoing each other and the result will be a contraction of human activity. The big question we refuse to face is how to cope with contraction.

Beyond the ongoing orchestrated coup stands a reality-optional political Left consumed by serial hysterias, uninterested in truth, steeped in social despotism, and apparently willing to do anything to gain power. We should be very concerned with what they intend to do with that power. As they attempt to redistribute wealth, they will make the unhappy discovery that the wealth itself is subject to the wholesale contraction underway. The overvalued “assets” representing “money” hoarded by the “wealthy” will turn out to be figments of a runaway debt crisis. We have already debased the operations of banking, and the tokens that banks issue — currencies and securities — levitate over an abyss.

We already have plenty of evidence for what the Left will do to the principle of political liberty. Their shibboleths of “diversity” and “inclusion” really mean shutting down free speech and telling everybody how to think. They are less interested in “social justice” than in plain coercion, the pleasure they take in pushing people around. What’s worse is that they want to use government as the instrument for enforcing their will. I object to that not just on principle but because government itself will be subject to the same contraction affecting everything else. It simply won’t be able to compensate for all the other losses. Can we downscale its activities coherently, or will we make that journey violently, in some sort of civil war?

The Left seems to be opting for civil war. It is surely underway among branches of government and the administrative bureaucracy I call the Deep State. Barack Obama, John Brennan and others set the intel and police apparatus against Mr. Trump and the war goes on in the latest reckless campaign of “whistleblowers” who are no such thing, but rather agents provocateurs of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Democrats in congress play a dangerous game with this as they attempt to engineer a non-impeachment impeachment — that is, without a vote by the whole House. To allow that vote would be a move to allow the opposition to participate in issuing subpoenas and seeing evidence, and the Democrats are bent on to preventing that. That ploy will provoke the White House to ignore their subpoenas and demands for documents on the principle that this mode of “Impeachment” is not legitimate.

The machinations of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff in this latest “whistleblower” affair pulsate with skullduggery. Are we to suppose that they will march out one “whistleblower” after another whose identity — or very reality — will remain secret through these proceedings? This is the sort of thing you get in Spanish inquisitions and soviet show trials. Until recently, all Americans had very firm objections to kangaroo courts and star chambers where the common-law safeguards of due process are thrown out the window. If the standoff goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll surely get yet another crusade to disqualify Justice Kavanaugh.

The Democratic Party is doing everything possible to destroy the legitimacy of these institutions — starting with elections themselves. The origins of the RussiaGate hoax will demonstrate that the party itself was behind “interference” in the 2016 election, and enlisted the help of several foreign governments in doing so. That is why they are so desperate to keep the level of hysteria amped to the max. The day may be not far off when a great and chilling silence falls over this mob as they look to the sky and see the indictments raining down.

Be seeing you

Baby The Rain Must Fall movie posters at movie poster ...



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

American University Students and Staff Call for Minority-Only ‘Spaces’ on Campus to Promote Inclusion

Posted by M. C. on December 12, 2018

One could surmise that diversity on campus already exists under one single umbrella — the university itself — and that installing race-based segregated spaces and housing for the sake of diversity may be counterproductive, especially in an environment where students should be focusing on preparing themselves for careers, not ostracism.

Segregation equals inclusion – As taught in the American education system.

by Alana Mastrangelo

American University students and administrators are pushing for “spaces” on campus designated for “students of color,” claiming that it will promote diversity and inclusion at the university.

Students and staff at American University (AU) are calling for “the creation of more spaces for students of color,” so that minority students can have an area on campus where they can go to be separated from the rest of the campus body, in the name of “diversity and inclusion,” according to the university’s student newspaper.

AU students are criticizing the university’s Hub for Organizing Multiculturalism and Equity (HOME) for being “marketed to students of all backgrounds rather than to students of color.”

“HOME doesn’t provide people with a sense of security, with a sense of belonging, when everyone from all types of affinity groups can be there,” said Othniel Malcolm Andrew Harris to AU’s student newspaper. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »