X Close

Anti-racism attacks my American Dream Why do Democrats condemn hardworking immigrants?

(TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)


November 15, 2022   9 mins

What was I — a lifelong Democrat — doing at an election watch party in rural Virginia, surrounded by Republicans? As Ron DeSantis, 800 miles away, filled a huge TV screen with a post-landslide victory speech, he provided part of the answer: “We chose education over indoctrination!” He got a raucous round of applause from the crowd at the Marriott Ranch, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Even I joined in.

I have come to realise that party affiliation is far less important to me than fealty to the values that made it possible for me, a Muslim immigrant from India, to prosper in America. In the summer of 1969, I arrived at JFK International Airport as a four-year-old with no English, destined for a new home in New Jersey and then Morgantown, West Virginia. My parents had made a keen study of US history. They knew it was a nation that had its flaws, but they were encouraged by some pivotal developments, particularly the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which banned racial segregation in public schools and declared unequivocally that race cannot play a role in school admissions. This, they thought, was a fair place to raise their kids.

When I came to learn my adopted nation’s history myself, at Martin Luther King Elementary School, I understood that the painful legacy of slavery was part of it. But I also knew that good and thoughtful people in the present had made honest attempts to address these issues — by passing laws banning racial discrimination, for instance. I hardly thought the US perfect but, as a native of India, I understood that societies that dwell forever on historical grievances tend not to be happy, free or prosperous places. America was fundamentally — and wonderfully — different.

But, in recent years, something very disturbing has happened. That is why, on the night of the midterm elections, I drove west after sundown on Route 66 with my friend Harry Jackson, the first black PTSA president at my son’s alma mater. We were driving to a party of kindred spirits, most of whom didn’t look anything like us.

Why? Because the Democratic Party, which once valued fairness and justice, has, alas, been torching the American Dream. Democratic politicians, school boards, governors and even US Supreme Court justices are pushing “equity” over equality, “anti-racist” bigotry over colour-blindness, and mediocrity over merit. Literacy and maths scores are plummeting nationwide, while black and Hispanic kids are falling further and further behind — and yet progressive Democrats are far more interested in bringing crackpot racialist theories into our classrooms. In other words: they choose indoctrination over education.

As a teenager and young American, I trended liberal. In the Eighties, I opposed former Republican President Ronald Reagan’s military escapades into Central America, his demand that young men register for the draft and his efforts to ban abortion. Decades later, I moved to Virginia as a single mother with a six-year-old son. Though the state’s history was steeped in racism, Virginia had just voted for a black man to be president. I thought it had finally become progressive enough for a woman of colour like me to raise a child freely.

But among the loudest voices ahead of last week’s midterm elections were those of aggrieved parents, who are waking up to the fact that Democrats aren’t defending a fundamental American value: that children should not be judged on the colour of their skin. Affirmative action wasn’t explicitly on the ballot, but the question of whether we are merit-based and colour-blind was the subtext of multiple campaigns.

In Union City, in the San Francisco Bay, Jeff Wang, who immigrated to the US from China in 1984 as a student, won with the campaign mission that his “American Dream” is to help others “achieve their ‘dream’”. In southern California, Republican Michelle Steel, an immigrant from South Korea, faced a tough race in the 45th Congressional District against her Democratic opponent (who is Taiwanese American). Earlier this year, Steel signed an amicus brief with 81 congressional colleagues against the use of race in college admissions. “Shutting the door to applicants based on race is wrong,” she later wrote. There was not a single Democrat among the signatories. With votes still being counted, Steel is the frontrunner in her race.

I was 13 when the US Supreme Court Justice ruled, in a landmark 1978 case (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke), that universities could take race into account in admissions if there was a “compelling interest” — like needing to remedy past discrimination — but otherwise it banned racial quotas. In theory it makes sense to correct still-raw injustices with so-called affirmative action. But on the ground, we can’t realise “diversity” just by filling race-based quotas. My father ticked so many “diversity” boxes, but as a teen I saw him devastated by a decision: he had found a home at West Virginia University, happily teaching clinical nutrition, but (white) administrators in the late Seventies denied him tenure. I learned what it meant to fight the machine: my father appealed, represented himself and won tenure, not through quotas, but grit.

The watch party was full of people with equally impressive trajectories. The host was Republican congressional candidate Hung Cao, who arrived in the US as a refugee from Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in April 1975. His family settled in low-income housing in Reston, Virginia; in 1985 Cao entered the first class of a new selective school, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. It had been established to make the US competitive against the Soviet Union in the new field of “STEM”. Back then, local Fairfax County was mostly white, and so was the school, but with increases in the number of Asian technology workers, more of their children started acing the school’s merit-based admissions tests.

Meritocracy, is seemed, was winning. Over the next years, nine states banned public colleges and universities from considering race or ethnicity at all in admissions to public institutions, kicking off with Proposition 209 in California in 1996. But in the summer of 2003, with my son just a newborn, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Grutter v. Bollinger that universities may use “narrowly-tailored”, “race-conscious” admissions as a “plus” in their efforts to achieve “diversity” on campus — as long as diversity isn’t defined “solely” by race and ethnicity. Former justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion with a sentence that would haunt the court years later. She wrote: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

The goal of diversity is noble in spirit. But the philosophy of “critical race theory” that dominates so many admissions departments today is toxic and illiberal. The focus is on increasing admissions of black and Hispanic students, meaning that hard-working Asian American students become sacrificial lambs in their racial experiment, caught in the crosshairs of preferential treatment for other minorities, as part of a war on merit. Indeed, one of America’s best-known “anti-racists”, Ibram X. Kendi, writes: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”

In an attempt to stop racism in the name of “diversity”, more states banned race as a factor in hiring or admissions, including Michigan in 2006 and Oklahoma in 2012. In 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin that race can be considered in admissions only under “strict scrutiny”. Late the following year, in 2014, a new organisation, Students for Fair Admissions, filed lawsuits on behalf of Asian American students in federal court against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill — for, among other things, violations of Title VI of the 1964 US Civil Rights Act, which prohibits any schools that receive federal funding from discriminating against people based on race and other identity markers. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to land next spring.

But then came the “racial reckoning” of 2020. In the spring of that year, Harry Jackson’s son was one of six black students admitted to Hung Cao’s alma mater, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. By then, my son was a sophomore at the school, admitted through its race-blind, merit-based admissions process. Little did we know that the school was about to be targeted by “equity warriors”, spurred on by the killing of George Floyd. Our school’s population was 70% Asian — but we were the wrong kind of brown for activists.

That autumn, as my son became a junior and Jackson’s son became a freshman, the local 12-0 Democratic school board became obsessed with rigging the admissions process so that the low number of black and Hispanic students would increase dramatically. In December 2020, in a devastating decision for kids who had been working hard for months to hone their maths skills, the board replaced the school’s merit-based admissions test with a new racially-engineered system that assigned “bonus points” to factors that were seemed like a proxy for race. One of the board members, Abrar Omeish, actually acknowledged in a text message to another member that the new process had an “anti-Asian feel…hate to say it lol”.

In the spring of 2021, a group of our families sued the school board for violating the 14th Amendment, in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. While Democrats condemned us, the Virginia gubernatorial candidate, Republican Glenn Youngkin, understood us. He sent us a video, supporting our efforts to maintain merit-based admissions. At almost 11pm, in his final rally of the election last year, off the backroads of Loudoun County, Virginia, Youngkin declared: “We will not be a Commonwealth of dream stealers. We will be a Commonwealth of dream enablers and builders.” The crowd, including myself, cheered.

And our vision of the American Dream triumphed. In March 2022, a federal judge ruled that the new admissions’ system was “patently unconstitutional”, because it discriminated against Asian American students. In the parlance of “anti-racists”, school officials had put in place systemic racism. The next month, Cao stood with other Asian American families — including my father, then 87, and me — at the steps of the US Supreme Court to argue against racism towards students of Asian descent in admissions to his alma mater. Soon after, Cao, a political newcomer, beat out a tough field of (all white) Republicans to run against Jennifer Wexton, the (white) Democratic incumbent for the 10th Congressional District of Virginia. And it wasn’t long ago that I was back on those steps. On Halloween, I walked into the US Supreme Court, as lawyers from both sides made their arguments in the case against Harvard and the UNC Chapel Hill.

It was hard to watch the so-called liberal justices turn a blind eye to the blatant anti-Asian racism that has become a hallmark of admissions to schools. But I felt great hope as the majority conservative justices expressed outrage over the “race conscious” biases in admissions. My prediction — and that of legal experts — is that the Court will bar Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill from using race in admissions, ending “race-conscious” systems that discriminate against Asian American students. Schools will likely get sneaky about how they use race, but, in a short video filmed outside the Court, I declared that the day was a “win for America” and all children.

That video, once posted, triggered an assault like I had never witnessed before. Pamela Denise Long, a contributor to Newsweek and the creator of “trauma-informed” “humane antiracism” training, shared an image of me from the video and admonished me for “coming to somebody else’s country” and using “their laws” to win rights. I was disparaged as a “tool of white supremacy”, promoting a “wannabe white supremacist ideology”.

My views fall well within the mainstream of the vast majority of ordinary Americans: a new Pew poll of American adults found 74% think race or ethnicity “shouldn’t be considered” in admissions. Moreover, they are supported by countless black leaders. On the eve of Halloween, as Cao waged his battle for political office, Harry Jackson joined a rally of about 500 Asian Americans supporting the lawsuits against Harvard and the UNC Chapel Hill. “I am an ally!” he said. Next to him, an Asian American boy carried a sign: “I have an American Dream too.”

Any yet, my views get me pilloried. Self-described anti-racists bombard me with the view that I am “white adjacent”, “honorary white”, “white passing”, and part of the “dominant culture”. These attacks are reminiscent of the words of white extremists. And yet they come from a movement called “Foundational Black Americans” — which espouses the “Great Replacement” theory of white supremacists, accusing immigrants, including black immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, of stealing resources. In one radio show, founder Tariq Nasheed accuses black immigrants of being “tethers” to America with “anchor babies”, “smelling like booty juice and flies”, “smelling like cheetah pee” and taking jobs and resources owed to black people born in the US. Nasheed says Foundational Black Americans is not a hate group, but rather a “lineage”.

My suspicion that the ire directed at me was a comment on my immigrant status was confirmed on the drive to the watch party. Speeding along the tarmac of Route 66, I got a message: “Go back to India.”

By the time I got there, I’d been accused of coming from an “upper caste family” (though I am Muslim, not Hindu); of being a “white Aryan Indian”, allegedly descending from the Aryan tribe that captured Hitler’s imagination; and of having “musty underarms”. “You Asians are the pets of white supremacy, flat face,” wrote one Twitter user.

It is worth saying again: among all this, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are standing up for us. At the party, I was surrounded by people, like me, who feel they have been mugged by the political party that once shared our values and goals — but now gives us no choice but to reach out to the other side. Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin understand our concerns. Joe Biden and the progressive ideologues in his party wish we would go away — and belittle us when we refuse. And refuse we do.

At 10pm, the results were in. In a near-final tally, Wexton won 52.83% of the votes while Cao won 46.98%, narrowing the win to six percentage points, compared to Wexton’s 13 percentage point win in her last election in 2020.

“It hurts,” Cao acknowledged to the crowd, but he also stressed that he would never want “race-conscious” allowances to push him, as a minority, to victory. That is the way it should be, whether in schools or society at large. And he will continue fighting for that version of the American Dream. Like me, he declines to live in a society in which people who ought to know better judge, shame and browbeat us because we embrace honesty, hard work and education. We are not the racists here. We are the American Dream.


Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a senior fellow in the practice of journalism at Independent Women’s Network.

AsraNomani

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

101 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

The Democrats have come full circle to return to being the party of racists that they were in the days of President Lincoln. The US will flourish so long as it supports merit and hard work regardless of skin colour or ethnicity. Diversity is the US’s most pernicious export.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

They have always been racists.

Samuel Gee
Samuel Gee
1 year ago

Not quite. There was a ~50 year period from around 1964 when they were not or rather when they tried not to be. Though they talked a non-racist game, they followed through with policies underpinned with the racism of low expectations. Then they just reverted to racism 2.0. Racism with a new vocab.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Gee

That was my point.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

The obvious solution would be to identify the chose as a specific group so that hey lost out as a result of affirmative action. It would end in no time

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Gee

They most certainly were racist all along. When you believe that black people are so stupid that they need lower bars to hurdle to be successful, that’s racist. When you believe they are so stupid that they can’t get access to an ID card in order to vote, that’s racist. When you believe the only way they can succeed in society is with your help, from above, that’s racist. When you allow generations of families to live off of public assistance, not allowing them to chose their schools, so that teachers’ unions can prosper, and in return fund your campaigns, all the while claiming that education is the answer to their problems, as you send your kids to private schools, that’s racist. When you vociferously feign advocacy for them, while you live behind walls and gates, to protect yourself from the consequences of the policies you espouse, that’s racist. The whole world is upside down.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Although I deplore affirmative action I don’t think the assumption was that blacks were too stupid to compete on a level playing field but that past discrimination had disadvantaged the average black to such extent that his potential would only flourish if the bar was temporarily lowered for 25 years. The assumption being that by then the legacy of discrimination would have faded sufficiently to enable competition on a level playing field. Of course it hasn’t worked out that way and those supporting continued affirmative action will continue to argue that the legacy of past discrimination will always remain. In contrast those who look at the facts such as Thomas Sowell will point to cultural factors for the average sub par performance of blacks that have been exacerbated by welfare programs that have broken traditional family structures.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Does the Asian experience explained in the article undermine the whole concept of affirmative action? Black culture isn’t adapted to succeeding, yet.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes. The difference in outcomes prove that statistical differences in group attributes (environmental and genetic) are the cause and not racism.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago

Attitude is neither environmental nor genetic, so your answer is incomplete. Worse, it shifts focus from the sole factor (personal responsibility) MOST likely to determine individual outcomes, providing excuses for failure.

Last edited 1 year ago by Johnathan Galt
Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
1 year ago
Reply to  Johnathan Galt

I would argue that attitude is 100% a result of environment and genetics – those 2 are pretty inclusive except for the Metaphysical realm.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes, it obliterates the rationalizations. If blacks truly are inferior, and they are unhappy about that, they (the lower end) can choose birth control to elevate the group to equality – addressing the root cause (if it exists). If they AREN’T inferior, racist policies are a crutch that holds them back. Either way, institutionalizing racism in the name of “fighting racism” is like giving alcohol to alcoholics – it is an abusive form of enabling behavior.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

American blacks were doing far better before the 1960’s and LBJ’s the Great Society – they had a lower divorce rate than whites and intact families. Read Jason Riley’s (Wall Street Journal & author) work….

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Pure rationalization. Doing evil “in the name of good” is and always was intentional malicious evil.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

And it was welfare legislation passed by Democrats, especially LBJ, which in turn broke up the black family. Welfare was structured so that having a black father at home was discouraged. LBJ supposedly was quoted as saying (in a crude manner) – that after the so-called ‘Great Society’, “those blacks (sic) will be voting for us for a hundred years”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
Rick Abrams
Rick Abrams
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Yes, and it is more complicated than that.
http://bit.ly/3Ag3UwG   November 14, 2022, CityWatch, The Two Worst Political Ideas in American History, by Richard Lee Abrams     
Something worst may descend upon us — another Supreme Court affirmation of the rule in The Dred Scott Decision (1858). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___, did not just repeal Roe v Wade, it took away from women the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty adn Purusit of Happiness in the same way that Dred Scott tookm away the same inalienable rights from Blacks. Instead of inalienable rights, Blacks under Dred Scott and women under Dobbs only have those rights which the voters of each state wish to provide them. It is called Popular Sovereignty and it means that whatever the majority of voters approve becomes the supreme law of the land. In brief, it nullifies all inalienable rights and everyone is subjected to the whim of the majority of voters.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Abrams

Please cite to me the location in the US Constitution of the “inalienable rights of Life, Liberty adn Purusit of Happiness” (I’m quoting YOU) which in reality seems to mean the unlimited freedom of women to kill their babies, for whichever reason and at whatever time they choose for their deliberate homicides.

Last edited 1 year ago by Wim de Vriend
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Abrams

Two cases: Person A owns land in the midst of Person B’s property. Does he have the right of ingress and egress?A stream runs thru both properties. Does Person B have the right to cut off the flow of water to Person A’s property?That’s the abortion question in a nutshell.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Incorrect. Why? Because the status of the unborn (person? Not a person?) is “indeterminate” under our Constitution nor Federal law. That is the LEGAL question. Not a person? Carve away! Person? Murder, unless allowing it to live would kill the mother.
Easiest answer? Put it up to national referendum. Simple question: “How many weeks after conception (0-36) does an unborn baby become a “person” under our Constitution with an equal right to live?” Take the median (answer in the middle of all votes). Hint: it will be about 12-16 weeks, just like in every other civilized country.

Rational Db8
Rational Db8
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Abrams

And how about the women’s rights for the 50% of those babies who you want to abort? How about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL the children you want to abort or allow to be aborted?
Women do have a right to their own bodies – they can choose to abstain from sex or use birth control. Once they are pregnant, however, the fact is that there are TWO (or more) lives involved – not just the pregnant woman’s.
Why is it that people such as yourself wear such massive willful blinders that you have zero compassion or consideration for the lives and rights of the babies? Especially once those babies are developed enough to be able to feel – or even to be able to survive outside the womb?

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Abrams

You are not simply I’ll-informed, you are misinformed. Roe NEVER established any right for women. Operating under a baseless legal theory, it posited that an unborn is an “incomplete person” (just like he 3/5ths rule for blacks) and therefore the mother’s rights were supreme over those of the baby (exactly as slave owners justified killing slaves whenever it suited them). Legally, neither extreme (person at conception, not a person until born) has any basis whatsoever in our Constitution nor Federal law.
Personally I favor unlimited abortion. My reason, despite the obvious sociopathy of anyone who would butcher a 9 month fetus, is that the vast majority of seekers are Democrats – and the sooner they all voluntarily eliminate themselves from the gene pool, the better off this world will be.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Abrams

Abortion is not addressed in the Constitution. Even ‘feminist heroine’ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bade Ginsberg said it was ‘bad law’ and she anticipated it would be struck down. It would have been interesting to see how she would have actually voted had she lived longer.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

So simple, and yet so many are fooled by the left’s Orwellian messaging.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Johnathan Galt

People are sheep.

Russ W
Russ W
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Very well put

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Democrats need American blacks to remain in the party which is why they toss so many goodies to them – housing, SNAp cards, Obama phones, etc. Even Joe Biden said, “You ain’t black unless you vote Democrat”. But this largesse and lowered expectations of their capabilities has only dragged them down and by design has ‘kept them on the Democrat plantation’. Even black leaders have sold out their own people. It’s our modern day tragedy.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Gee

Nope, just clever messaging. The 1960s were their big push to institutionalize racism forever.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

And now the racists are all woke.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

I’m happy the author is addressing the American Dream her parents sought, but I’m confused as to why they became Democrats after making a “keen study” of US history in the first place. The Democrat party was literally formed to protect its slavery, segregated to become its own nation, lost a terrible war in attempting to keep its hideous institution, created a terrorist organization in the Ku Klux Klan, enacted Jim Crow laws throughout the South, fought against Eisenhower’s 1957 civil rights bill, and deliberately created the Great Society welfare program under Johnson that destroyed the black nuclear family. How anyone of any race can support such a party beggars belief, but, since they own all the main drivers of society – education, media, law, entertainment, tech – they control what is said about them.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

You don’t seem to realise that your universal damnation of Democrat supporters is on a par with Clinton’s view of ‘deplorables’ supporting the Republicans? The political landscape is too complex to apply such primitive interpretations.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Actually, that is false. We can objectively judge the policies of the Democrat party, which includes massive institutionalized racism and oppressive government. The choice today is crystal clear: Republican or Democrat; Liberty vs totalitarianism; equality vs institutionalized racism and sexism; maximum prosperity vs lowest common denominator; a healthy win-win society or a win-lose system in which government perpetually picks winners and losers; good vs evil.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

No some things are really obvious.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Seems like they initially bought into the Democrat ‘koolaid’. Democrats are pros at deception & dirty tricks (Hillary Clinton’ Russian gambit with the Steele Dossier)

Tim D
Tim D
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Perhaps monitor one’s access to Disposible Wealth rather than Ethnic/Cultural Identity for this problem. $50,000 a year, the entry fee for membership to a Club as opposed to the step-off to lifetime Academic pursuit is unobtainable to most (what you learn yourself rather than how many others click like) . The  Diploma, often narrowly focused, is a Charter from the King(s) granting Commercial power as an overseer (Hospitals are now Factories run by Academic and Certificated Engineers utilizing just a few, chosen floor supervisors). A more accurate term is “segregationist”, rather than “racist”. We have a need for identity (ala Joseph Campbell) to belong to our unique group. The group may be smaller (Republican, control your family destiny with a hands-off Government that fosters only me and mine); or larger (Democrat, me-too hand-out Government that fosters dividing the pie). As mentioned, Equity (to each according to need) vs Equality (to each the same thing) is a fundamental choice. The recurring theme in America that mediates this conflict is an experience of Fairness.

Rational Db8
Rational Db8
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim D

All of your base assumptions and claims here are grossly incorrect.
Centuries of history shows VERY clearly that socialism is a massive horrific murderous failure every single time. “Equity” doesn’t mean “to each according to his need” – it means everyone is exactly equal, regardless, period – we’re supposed to all be clones. “Equality” doesn’t mean “to each the same thing” – it means a level playing field, e.g., equal opportunity – and then you make your choices and succeed or fail based on merit.
Per the latest Census, 48% of all adult American’s have a college degree, and another 15% have some college. Tuition at an in-state public university is only $10,230 (avg.), and if you include room, board, books, meals, etc., it’s about $22,000. It’s also very easy for those with financial need to get grants and loans to cover the costs – or you can work your way through as I and so many others have done in the past.
Republicans don’t remotely believe in a government that “fosters only me and mine.” They believe in a small strong government with a safety net for those who really need it – which again, history clearly shows allows all to flourish. Democrats don’t remotely foster “dividing the pie” – they foster destroying the pie so all can be equally destitute, other than a very few at the top who live lives of luxury and don’t adhere to the same rules as the rest. What’s more, reality is that there is no set sized “pie” to divide. Learn some basic economics – the size of the “pie” changes all the time – and the more people flourish, the bigger the pie grows, and all do better, including those at the bottom.
The plain unquestionable facts are that over the past century or so, socialism/Marxism and all it’s varieties (Fascism, Communism, etc.) has inevitably resulted in massive destitution, a collapsed nation, horrible suffering and mass murders conducted by one’s own “beneficent compassionate, equity fostering, to all according to their needs” government.
Where capitalism has resulted in lifting literally billions out of dire subsistence poverty in just the last 50 years alone and raising our living standards to heights never before seen on this earth – all while also resulting in a much cleaner less polluted environment for all living things.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rational Db8
Rational Db8
Rational Db8
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim D

All of your base assumptions and claims here are grossly incorrect.  
Centuries of history shows VERY clearly that socialism is a massive horrific murderous failure every single time. “Equity” doesn’t mean “to each according to his need” – it means everyone is exactly equal, regardless, period – we’re supposed to all be clones. “Equality” doesn’t mean “to each the same thing” – it means a level playing field, e.g., equal opportunity – and then you make your choices and succeed or fail based on merit.  
Per the latest Census, 48% of all adult American’s have a college degree, and another 15% have some college. Tuition at an in-state public university is only $10,230 (avg.), and if you include room, board, books, meals, etc., it’s about $22,000. It’s also very easy for those with financial need to get grants and loans to cover the costs – or you can work your way through as I and so many others have done in the past.  
Republicans don’t remotely believe in a government that “fosters only me and mine.” They believe in a small strong government with a safety net for those who really need it – which again, history clearly shows allows all to flourish. Democrats don’t remotely foster “dividing the pie” – they foster destroying the pie so all can be equally destitute, other than a very few at the top who live lives of luxury and don’t adhere to the same rules as the rest. What’s more, reality is that there is no set sized “pie” to divide. Learn some basic economics – the size of the “pie” changes all the time – and the more people flourish, the bigger the pie grows, and all do better, including those at the bottom.
The plain unquestionable facts are that over the past century or so, socialism/Marxism and all it’s varieties (Fascism, Communism, etc.) has inevitably resulted in massive destitution, a collapsed nation, horrible suffering and mass murders conducted by one’s own “beneficent compassionate, equity fostering, to all according to their needs” government.  
Where capitalism has resulted in lifting literally billions out of dire subsistence poverty in just the last 50 years alone and raising our living standards to heights never before seen on this earth – all while also resulting in a much cleaner less polluted environment for all living things.  

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Rational Db8

Duplicate post.

Rational Db8
Rational Db8
1 year ago
Reply to  Johnathan Galt

Yes, initially they deleted my first one, so I tried reposting it. They deleted it also. Then I posted that I was surprised they were censoring me… and today both posts are there.
Kudos to them for at least restoring the posts!

Rational Db8
Rational Db8
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim D

It’s a real shame that this site censors comments which are politely discussing such issues rather than fostering an open exchange of ideas. I’ve tried to post a reply to you a couple of times, and they keep deleting it for no reason that I can see other than perhaps they disagree with a different viewpoint.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Rational Db8

I haven’t had anything censored here. You may have just seen a delay in your post being visible to you since I see you having a duplicate post.

Rational Db8
Rational Db8
1 year ago
Reply to  Johnathan Galt

No, actually the posts – both of them – were each visible for a short time, then disappeared. And I didn’t post the second one until a couple of hours after they’d deleted the first one.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim D

The median worker salary is now over $60,000, Cletus. By definition that means it is available to most. Try staying married – the median family income is substantially higher.

John Pade
John Pade
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Color blind admission is an appealing and even admirable concept. However, it would create difficulties in practice.
Schools like Harvard and Stanford would be 90% Asian and Jewish (I read this somewhere a long time ago). Personally, this doesn’t bother me. But these schools are more than centers of learning: they are the training grounds of leaders. I can’t imagine a leadership cadre made up overwhelmingly of these groups gaining legitimacy from black, Hispanic and white Christian followers. I can see nothing but instability and worse in this situation.
I have had the luck to work alongside Vietnamese, Cambodian, Indian and Pakastini co-workers. They were exceptional by any standard and the Vietnamese particularly had to overcome obstacles and put forth efforts that most of us can only imagine. Nevertheless, a US Congress made up of even 30% Asian and Jewish members would be looked upon with suspicion, at best, by majorities of every ethic other group (I don’t mean to lump Asians together nor Jews together and do so for the sake of economy only.)
So, like it or not, race or ethnic conscious admissions policies may be a price we have to pay for a functioning, if creaky, multi-cultural society. Unless the abandoned concepts of America the melting pot and assimilation can be resurrected. But I’m afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Pade
Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

Thanks for that thoughtful mirror view of the issue. How would I (white male) feel about this if it came to pass that, basically, only Asians and Jews got into the best colleges? Ashamed I hope and maybe whites would pull themselves together.
Of course this issue is also linked to another problem: immigration. We build the best nations in the world and get lots of immigrants who then take over. An issue as old as time and yet our Elite still support it because in the short/their term it is for the best, for the Establishment anyway.
We should be looking for each race/culture to have its own nations and then have a friendly rivalry with the others. Just letting immigrants come in, as they are now, in large numbers is only worsening the problem of not enough houses, hospitals etc AND ‘encouraging’ us to not sort ourselves out.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

Your comment makes a lot of questionable assumptions. Why would Stanford and Harvard be 90% Jewish and Asian? Asian immigrants are atypical of Asians in general and there is no reason to think second and third generation Asians in the US will be as driven as recent immigrants. Your only support for this belief is something you read somewhere a long time ago. Secondly why would Congress be made up of 30% Asian and Jewish members if the other ethnic groups looked on them with suspicion?

It is true that ethnic groups that prove particularly successful in a society can breed resentment but that only has unfortunate outcomes where politicians seek to stir up up resentment as happened in Weimar Germany or more recently Uganda. The problem arises from the sort of racism that is promoted by social justice warriors and diversity programs. The problem is race hustlers and that is the issue to be addressed not divisive attempts to engineer unnatural outcomes.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

What a baffling post. You’re trying to suggest a multicultural society only works through policies of explicit discrimination?

Ron Bo
Ron Bo
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

It’s culture not colour that matters.
As long as we have shared values there will be no need to consider race at all.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron Bo

The only color that matters is the color of your attitude.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

“…it would create difficulties in practice.
Schools like Harvard and Stanford would be 90% Asian and Jewish…”
How is this a difficulty?

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Full circle? You are very confused. Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of racism. All that changed was their messages. Around 1960, drawing increasing criticism for the KKK and realizing their anti black message wasn’t winning elections, Democrats tried something new. They disavowed the KKK and flipped their anti black message to white guilt / anti white, promising that all would be made up to African Americans out of whitey’s pockets. SHEZAM!!!!! Black voters shifted from nearly 80% Republican (the Party of Lincoln) to 80% Democrat. LBJ, an outrageous racist, reputedly was so excited he said, “We’ll have those (derogatory n-word)s voting Democrat for 200 years! The KKK was almost immediately replaced with the Black Panthers and Weather Underground. His cycle simply repeats, and today we have Antifa and BLM.
The true division in this country has never been so stark: Republican or Democrat; Liberty vs Totalitarianism; small ethical government dedicated to PROTECTING our rights vs crushing corrupt government continually picking winners and losers; objective rule of law vs capricious mob rule; free choice vs coercion; win-win vs win-lose; emotionally healthy society vs abusive dysfunction; good vs evil.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago

It is amazing how blatantly racist people are allowed to be as long as it is in the name of anti racism. Similarly, it is amazing how blatantly homophobic/ misanthropic people are allowed to be in the name of transgenderism.

Last edited 1 year ago by Aphrodite Rises
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

It’s called “moral licence”, that is, provided what you do is in the name of some higher moral purpose you can do pretty much anything you like; hence the abuse and rape and death threats in the name of “kindness”.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago

Is the ultimate higher moral purpose being ‘on the right side of history’? Though the true motive is probably finding a legitimate outlet for hatred, bitterness and frustration. I think these people and their supporters genuinely believe they are on the right side of history but I suspect, ultimately, they are destined to be on the wrong side of history. Anti racism and transgenderism are two denominations of the church of the right side of history. Tony Blair was or is a member of the church of the right side of history (he prioritised his position in history) that is why he started the Iraq war? Biden probably believes his support for the transgender cause is placing him on the right side of history.

Last edited 1 year ago by Aphrodite Rises
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Technical hitch!

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

That’s because racists have become clever.
Notice that line about “upper caste” Hindus?
It’s interesting because of a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the concept of caste has become increasingly irrelevant in urban India and most corporates, inter caste marriages are common now.
But also, those in the West that talk about caste have no interest in actually helping “lower castes”. (Incidentally, that category is where India’s prime minister and President belong to)
It’s just a useful tool (shared both by “liberals” and the muslim brethren of South Asia) to use against those dirty Hindus.

Sound familiar?
Same kind of tool that is used against the non regressive Whites – slavery, “white privilege” etc
The West is the least racist culture right now.
Doesn’t matter.
The liberals don’t really care about “slaves” or the victim “BAME” folk, or if their policies actually harm black Americans.
Doesn’t matter.
It’s just a way to attack Whiteys.

Michael Askew
Michael Askew
1 year ago

This is a heartening beautifully written story of courage and decency

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
1 year ago

Never forget that the Democratic Party opposed the abolition of chattel slavery in the US in the 19th century. It’s a fact well documented, but under-discussed, I often think.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Parker

That never changed. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat Senator when he filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act for something like 24 hours. And he was not alone in his views.
The same people who were cheering when police stood by while poor, black people in Tulsa were massacred by rioters in the 1920’s… are still cheering when police are ordered not to protect poor, black people from rioters in Minneapolis and Portland and Kenosha in the 2020’s.
The racist ideology doesn’t change, only its enforcement mechanism.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brian Villanueva
Alan Groff
Alan Groff
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Parker

Democrats have done a great deal of good. They’ve also had moments where they descended into decadence. They are in another decadent phase.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Groff

Alan, very good way of putting it. The same liberalism that freed black slaves from bondage is now trying to free children from their genitalia.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago

The woke generation will eventually tie themselves in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable.
“War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.”

Michael James
Michael James
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

To which they could add: tolerance is bigotry; equality is injustice.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael James
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael James

Shouldn’t that be “bigotry is tolerance”?

Michael James
Michael James
1 year ago

Yes, if the formula is bad = good. But Orwell didn’t always follow it: hence he didn’t say slavery is freedom.

Positive Trends
Positive Trends
1 year ago

if the American Dream is to remain (or re-establish) itself for what it is/or once was, it will be second generation immigrants who lead the way-saving this country from itself. thank you for your leadership

Last edited 1 year ago by Positive Trends
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

American politics has always essentially been a war between Wall Street and Main Street. Now, thanks largely to the Clintons, the Democrats are firmly the party of Wall Street.

The use of tribal and ethnic conflict to divide class opposition has been the prime tactic of the plutocrat since the dying days of Rome. All that S0ros et al have done is add gender to the mix.

Nik Borden
Nik Borden
1 year ago

This essay, along with a lot of anti-affirmative action commentary, seems to presuppose that the concept of merit is well-defined. Elite schools have never formed their student bodies on test scores alone. I grew up in America as the child of immigrants from Asia, and I spent the first 18 years of life thinking that higher test scores, tennis match wins, more extracurricular activities, Honor Society, playing Rachmaninoff on the piano were formulaic signifiers of merit. If you do all this and you don’t get accepted, someone has made a mistake or succumbed to some bias.
The real world isn’t like this. Effective managers, entertainers, writers, consultants, even professors don’t all, or even mostly, come from the world of perfect test scores and quiz bowl victories.
Is race-conscious admissions policy helping or hindering the creation of a more colorful and enjoyable society? That is worth talking about.
But equally important is an exploration of what is underlying this self-concept of deservingness. Do I _deserve_ to go to Yale because I have great test scores? And perhaps more importantly, just what sort of dream is actually being dashed by being forced to attend a number 11 school instead of number 1?
I am teaching my children that the purpose of life should be to have personal priorities and execute on them, not to accumulate outside validation. Things in life are not deserved or undeserved. Things in life are accomplished or unaccomplished.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nik Borden
Michael James
Michael James
1 year ago
Reply to  Nik Borden

Shouldn’t you be addressing this question to the anti-racists, not their critics?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Nik Borden

Yes it’s difficult, but past and present deviations from pure merit do not justify blatant ‘anti-racist’ racism. The cure for imperfections in the system is to cure the imperfections, not add new ones.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Nik Borden

The pressure on teachers to ensure everyone graduates by accusing teachers of racism if a particular racial group has not achieved the expected standard means overall standards are dropping. This means the entry level for STEM subjects must also be lowered. Though it is true standards are dropping rapidly in the U.K. I know in some universities lecturers are instructed to dedicate 20% of lecture time to discussion to ensure students feel involved which for STEM subjects generally means there is not enough time to deliver the whole course.

Last edited 1 year ago by Aphrodite Rises
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

“as a native of India, I understood that societies that dwell forever on historical grievances tend not to be happy, free or prosperous places. ”
I know this was a gratuitous throwaway line, but after my recent trip to India my conclusions were exactly the opposite. People there are happy, free and increasingly prosperous. The last is important, visible improvement in income levels, infrastructure…it’s the delta in living standards that matters much more so than absolute levels, when it comes to happiness.

But his line also misses the point spectacularly. There is nothing wrong or harmful about correcting historical grievances. What does mess things up is when your entire identity is ONLY about your “group” and grievances, and not about economic growth or social development.
That’s the problem with blacks in US, because victimhood and identity politics is given priority over crime, education and family.

And that’s why the one community that is perennially unhappy and underperforming in South Asia, is the Islamic one.
His intro gives a hint: “Muslim immigrant from India”. A Hindu would be just an “immigrant from India”.

Whether it’s majority Islam Pakistan, which started off with a prosperous land and ended up a violence ridden basket case.
Or the muslim minority in India, that also demanded Pakistan, refused to leave, were granted religious rights far beyond that granted to Hindus…and still underperform economically and socially, still keep complaining about the “injustices” towards their group (and not a squeak about Hindus in Kashmir or Pakistan).

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Didn’t you notice, Samir, that the author is not a man? Even, in her short bio at the top of the piece, that she is introduced as a senior fellow at the Independent WOMENS’ Network? (my capitals).

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Thanks for pointing that out, that’s very useful information.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Your comment about identity is the key to many issues in the U.S. Previous generations of immigrants assimilated to simply become Americans, regardless of who they were or where they came from. Today, everyone is categorized and defined by their physical appearances and/or how they chose to have sex.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

A unity cannot be defined by difference which is why it was always ridiculous to define a society as multicultural. A society can be multicultural but that cannot hold it together.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Although I agree with you over whining Muslim Indians, I think you will find that the Irish take gold in this field by a short head.
They have the distinct advantage of over 800 years of practice.

Wessie Williamson
Wessie Williamson
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“Happy, free, and prosperous” exactly because they have made pointed efforts to move on. If you read the history of India what the author said is, and was, true.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Democrats are used to the historical paradigm of black vs. white, where you have a fairly uniform racial group with a very specific history. For a long period of America’s history, really from the time of the civil war until recently, Black and White were the default categories, and the only categories. Black America was defined by the struggle against slavery and the civil rights movement. That created a solidarity that encouraged them to unite against oppression and discrimination. This dynamic lead to a natural alliance between blacks and affluent whites who held some noblesse oblige to ‘help’ the downtrodden and ‘make up’ for historical injustices. That noblesse oblige still animates much of progressivism. However, the techniques and language suited to oppressed blacks and guilty whites, that of grievances and struggle against oppression, is less appealing to minorities in general, who are far more diverse, and come from more diverse backgrounds and histories. The traditional us vs. them, slave vs. slaveowner, grievance based approach to politics simply doesn’t appeal to groups that never developed that ‘solidarity’ from being a minority, and why should they have. Most of them come from places where they were a majority. Why should a Mexican American feel solidarity with a Cuban American, to say nothing of a Chinese American, or a descendant of slaves. Yet, the language and tactics of progressivism act as a leveler, reducing complicated and diverse peoples into a struggle of us vs. them even when that dynamic creates hilariously contradictory and overtly discriminatory outcomes like anti-Asian bias in college admissions. I fear the Democrats simply don’t know how to do anything else at this point. Now that the nation faces real problems with energy, inflation, economic dependence on China, etc., they need actual solutions. Blaming whitey while pushing the same corporatist policies and neoliberal dogmas of the past thirty years is not going to sustain the party into the future.

Graeme Kemp
Graeme Kemp
1 year ago

Thankfully – in the UK – we have organisations fighting back like Don’t Divide Us https://dontdivideus.com/ and the Equiano Project https://www.theequianoproject.com/ who offer positive alternatives.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Kemp

I can particularly recommend teh Equiano Project web site, it has lots of useful information and it generally gives both sides of any issue so that you have enough information to make up your own mind. Committed, intelligent people of different races, who love this country whilst still recognising that it has its flaws which people of good faith are working to put right.

Tim F
Tim F
1 year ago

Wealthy Blacks have more in common with wealthy Whites than with poor Blacks. Poor Blacks have more in common with poor Whites than with wealthy Blacks. And vice versa. Discuss!

Tim F
Tim F
1 year ago

Wealthy Blacks have more in common with wealthy Whites than with poor Blacks. Poor Blacks have more in common with poor Whites than with wealthy Blacks. And vice versa. Discuss!

Will Whitman
Will Whitman
1 year ago

I believe immigrant citizens like Asra are the ones who will save America from itself. They truly care, damn it.
This essay deserves to be shared widely.

Michael James
Michael James
1 year ago

Presumably the anti-racists approve of the quotas that Harvard University used to impose on Jewish enrolments. I mean, just look – of the Nobel prizewinners, at least 20% have been Jewish. Time for some equity, no? (No!).

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael James
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael James

If a college entrance hall were filled with young Germans, Hungarians, Russians, Irish, Poles, Austrians, Brits and Israelis it would be quite a diverse group of people. But if they applied to a college with an “anti-racist” protocol, would they all be lumped together as “oppressors”?

Sophy T
Sophy T
1 year ago

Of course Asians are going to be successful at academic studies as their parents take education very seriously.
It’s extremely unfair that they are being punished like this and I hope they win their case.
However what those in charge of admissions at Harvard and Yale etc. do behind closed doors will be kept secret – so they may nonetheless continue to discriminate against Asian applicants even though their scores are higher.

Sophy T
Sophy T
1 year ago

Of course Asians are going to be successful at academic studies as their parents take education very seriously.
It’s extremely unfair that they are being punished like this and I hope they win their case.
However what those in charge of admissions at Harvard and Yale etc. do behind closed doors will be kept secret – so they may nonetheless continue to discriminate against Asian applicants even though their scores are higher.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

As educated and evolved students of Hegel, I am sure that my liberal friends understand that the Thing is the same as its Opposite. Only opposite.
Thus racism and anti-racism are both obsessions about race. That is all.

Last edited 1 year ago by Christopher Chantrill
Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago

Nice.

I have never understood the argument that excuses present discrimination to remedy past discrimination. Tomorrow, yesterday’s discrimination will be “past” and thus in need of a remedy. The argument is a concession to an endless cycle of discrimination.

fred friedman
fred friedman
1 year ago

We need to start defunding any educational institution that practices discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity. Affirmative action is nothing more than leftist racism wrapped in a poisonous bowl of grievance and reparations politics.

fred friedman
fred friedman
1 year ago

We need to start defunding any educational institution that practices discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity. Affirmative action is nothing more than leftist racism wrapped in a poisonous bowl of grievance and reparations politics.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago

Face it. Democrats are an existential threat to the American dream.

Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago

Face it. Democrats are an existential threat to the American dream.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago

Asra, what a wonderful essay on this terrible regression. I came to NY in 1990 from Australia, and then Philadelphia, in a biracial relationship, I being Anglo and my partner AA. This was all emerging and I too pushed back, given that an embittered AA academic community, led by angry leftovers from the Civil Rights era, was creating a new generation of resentment where racial animosity had largely evaporated.
Much of the ‘academic’ theory was profoundly racist, not only against Anglos but Asians. AA ‘academics’ at CUNY wrote papers about golf being a white man’s sport where a “small ball was clubbed eventually into a small hole” and even the blackboard was a construct of white supremacy, with the “white chalk covering the black board.” Mind you, in feminist ‘academia’ my partner was told that even a table lamp was a subtle sign of patriarchal oppression, since its design was ‘p***s-like’ or ‘an inverted, oppressed vagina’. Hard to argue with that one. “Have you stopped beating your table lamp yet?”
In the 1990s one could see this leading to the 2020s, and believe me, this is no 20-20 vision on our part. It was a clear pathway of descent into all you describe.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago

Asra, what a wonderful essay on this terrible regression. I came to NY in 1990 from Australia, and then Philadelphia, in a biracial relationship, I being Anglo and my partner AA. This was all emerging and I too pushed back, given that an embittered AA academic community, led by angry leftovers from the Civil Rights era, was creating a new generation of resentment where racial animosity had largely evaporated.
Much of the ‘academic’ theory was profoundly racist, not only against Anglos but Asians. AA ‘academics’ at CUNY wrote papers about golf being a white man’s sport where a “small ball was clubbed eventually into a small hole” and even the blackboard was a construct of white supremacy, with the “white chalk covering the black board.” Mind you, in feminist ‘academia’ my partner was told that even a table lamp was a subtle sign of patriarchal oppression, since its design was ‘p***s-like’ or ‘an inverted, oppressed vagina’. Hard to argue with that one. “Have you stopped beating your table lamp yet?”
In the 1990s one could see this leading to the 2020s, and believe me, this is no 20-20 vision on our part. It was a clear pathway of descent into all you describe.

Rick Abrams
Rick Abrams
1 year ago

The author makes one error. Brown v Bd of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) was not an anti-discrimination case. It is the basis of group rights where Equality of Outcome by race classification became the law. Brown withheld from Blacks the individual inalienable right to Freedom-Liberty in favor of Equality of Outcome. Equality is not an inalienable or a constitutional right (until Brown). In fact, Equality is the antithesis of Liberty. Thus, under Brown’s Equality of Ourtcome, if there are not enough Blacks in a business or a school, then more Blacks must be admitted over others on the idiotic theory that anti-Black racism can be the only explanation that Blacks are not equally represented with other races (“groups” is a better word since race is a BS construct). 

From near the beginning of Affirmative Action, Asians have faced discrimination. At first they were included under AA but employers and schools were hiring and admitting Asians and not admitting Blacks by using test scores where Asians were doing even better than Whites. Today, schools bar Asians after their quota has been reached (same as the Ivy Leagues schools did to Jews).

The political basis of discrimination against every group which does better than Blacks is Nancy Pelosi’s Identity Politics and the anti-White racist Wokers. Do not think that GOP does not have it own “wokers.” They are better known as WASPs, Nazis, KKK, Rednecks, white supremacists. About 15% of the Dems are woker left wing racists and about 15% of the GOP are right wing racists. The rest of America is centrist. If you pretend that 1/2 the ccuntry is Dem and the other 1/2 is GOP, then 85% of the nation are centrists who are being held captive by the two extremes.

http://bit.ly/3Ag3UwG  November 14, 2022, CityWatch, The Two Worst Political Ideas in American History

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Rick Abrams

Very good point that needs to be repeated regularly thanks !

Bob Smalser
Bob Smalser
1 year ago

Interesting to listen to an activist suddenly discover affirmative action is always done at someone else’s expense. Welcome to the cut line. The founder’s dream of a meritocracy is why we become originalists.

Bob Smalser
Bob Smalser
1 year ago

Interesting to listen to an activist suddenly discover affirmative action is always done at someone else’s expense. Welcome to the cut line. The founder’s dream of a meritocracy is why we become originalists.

Richard Gelb
Richard Gelb
1 year ago

Great article, and terrific discussion. One factual correction for the author: selective service for 18 year old men was instituted by Jimmy Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan continued the policy, but it wasn’t his to begin with.

Richard Gelb
Richard Gelb
1 year ago

Great article, and terrific discussion. One factual correction for the author: selective service for 18 year old men was instituted by Jimmy Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan continued the policy, but it wasn’t his to begin with.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago

The writer uses the word ‘I’ like it is the most important word in the British dictionary. Is that discriminating against ‘we’ .

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

Dear Asra – I appreciate your article, more than you can imagine. But I would like to volunteer as a proofreader, for this or any future articles of yours — no offense intended.

Last edited 1 year ago by Wim de Vriend
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

“Indeed, one of America’s best-known “anti-racists”, Ibram X. Kendi, writes: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.””
*Indeed, one of America’s best-known racists, Ibram X. Kendi, writes: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”

William Hickey
William Hickey
1 year ago

Unless Asian-Americans, South and East, stand up against discrimination directed at white Americans and oppose ALL so-called Affirmative Action, then they will not be true allies.

Reading Ms Nomani’s ethnocentric comments, it’s clear that she is open to being bought off by her still-beloved Democratic Party. The bargain will consist of three things: non-discrimination against Asians, continued favoritism toward blacks, and an even bigger back-of-the-hand to those white descendants of racists.

To paraphrase the old line about taxes, “Don’t discriminate against me, don’t discriminate against thee; discriminate against that white guy behind the tree.”

Dr. G Marzanna
Dr. G Marzanna
1 year ago

This article misses the point about why affirmative action in favour of Black and Hispanic students exists.
The majority (though not all) Black people in the USA are descended from the enslaved population. Affirmative action is a kind of reparation. Until very recently these people were largely excluded from education.
Hispanics in the USA are the descendants from the colonised, both the colonised indigenous native peoples who became Spanish speaking, and the populations of the entire Southwest regions (e.g. California, New Mexico, Texas etc) These people were vilified and subjected to all kinds of oppression.
Now whether you agree with reparation or not, this is the reason. For latecomers such as Asians, this is the history and fact of America, deal with it. You cannot expect to just turn up and not deal with the toxic legacy of history.
I don’t believe that meritocracy exists.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr. G Marzanna

If that’s you position, then why not continue in that vein and grant ‘Asians’ the same rights as American blacks? After all, Japanese as well as Chinese were treated shabbily in the past also, by means of immigration restrictions and during WWII, by confinement of Japanese-Americans in camps …

Ron Bo
Ron Bo
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr. G Marzanna

How many Hindus were killed by the Mogul invasion?No single group has a monopoly regarding oppression.
How many English were killed during the harrying of the north by William The Conqueror?
The past is the past!!