Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Summaries and links to news items
Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:57 pm

Whites Need Not Apply: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Pressured to Purge White Staffers to Make Room for Non-Whites

http://www.unz.com/sbpdl/whites-need-no ... K2fnqWuHLQ
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:53 pm

‘It’s OK to Be White’ Posters Appear at More Colleges

By Hans Bader | November 11, 2019 | 9:26am EST




(Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
(Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Inside Higher Ed reports that “It’s OK to Be White” posters have appeared on more campuses:

The posters, which also appeared a year ago at this time, are put up without permission [from college officials]. Posters have been seen this year at Christopher Newport University, East Tennessee State University, Oklahoma City University’s law school, Susquehanna University and Western Connecticut State University.

The sentiment that “it’s OK to be white” is obviously protected by the First Amendment.

But at Western Connecticut State University, President John Clark has threatened the unknown persons who posted flyers saying “It’s OK to Be White.” He says if they are students or faculty, they will face the “severest disciplinary actions, including dismissal as well as possible civil and criminal actions.”

The university says its officials immediately reported the flyers to local and state police and the FBI office in New Haven, all of whom are investigating where the posters came from and who posted them.


Law professor Eugene Volokh, whose writings have been cited by the Supreme Court, notes “that the flyers consisted solely of the messages ‘It’s OK to be white’ and ‘Islam is right about women,'” and that “such messages are of course fully protected by the First Amendment.”

Volokh is right. Even if these messages are viewed as racially or religious inflammatory, they are still protected by the First Amendment.

The federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Connecticut ruled in 1992 that a professor’s derogatory beliefs about black people were protected by the First Amendment. (See Levin v. Harleston, 966 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1992)). In 1990, it ruled that a professor had a First Amendment right to teach that Zionism is racism, even though that caused a “furor” on his campus. (See Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587 (2d Cir. 1990)).

It is unclear what possible basis the FBI would have for investigating here. Federal law doesn’t forbid flyers that people find racially or religiously offensive, and laws against things such as littering are state laws, not federal laws enforced by the FBI.

In any event, Federal officials such as FBI agents must comply with First Amendment limits on their investigations. In 2000, a federal appeals court ruled that federal officials had violated the First Amendment by investigating citizens for 8 months over flyers and speech about a housing project for disabled people that allegedly exhibited prejudice. (See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000)).

The court ruled that even if their speech was prejudiced, it was still protected by the First Amendment because it did not incite imminent lawlessness. Thus, it violated the First Amendment to subject them to a prolonged, speech-chilling investigation, even if federal officials thought that their speech violated a federal civil-rights law. The FBI should heed such rulings by not investigating flyers that say “It’s OK to Be White.”

These flyers may well have been posted in unauthorized places, the way flyers often are on college campuses. Violating such rules seldom carries any serious penalty, much less the “severest disciplinary action” that the university president threatens for the “It’s OK to Be White” flyers.

The university cannot discriminate against these flyers based on their viewpoint by expelling or dismissing people for posting them, when it obviously would never expel or dismiss someone for posting flyers with a different viewpoint the university likes better, such as “It’s OK to Be Black.”

Even valid school rules, such as against posting flyers in the wrong place, or against littering or harassment, cannot be enforced against someone based on their viewpoint. A federal appeals court ruled that a conservative student could not be punished for violating a college’s broad harassment rule by videotaping someone in their office, when a liberal student would not have been punished for the same kind of videotaping. (See O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2016)).

(Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. He also once worked in the Education Department.)

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans ... cHt9Jr9N8E
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:58 pm

Collectivist UK Medical System Now Ready to Deny Aid to Those Deemed 'Racist' or 'Sexist'

After all the myriad revelations concerning the collapsing British “National Health Service” (NHS), one might imagine things couldn’t get any more brazenly absurd for sick folks trying to purchase good medical care in the UK.

But -- of course! --they have.

Now, the North Bristol NHS Trust is ready to implement its new “Red Card to Racism” policy. And what might that catchy title imply?

If you guessed a “soccer/football” modeled system to deny service to patients deemed by NHS bureaucrats as having used language the government doesn’t like, you just scored.

According to The BBC:

Under the scheme, any patient abusing staff would be challenged and warned, leading to a 'sports-style disciplinary yellow card' followed by a final red card in which treatment would be 'withdrawn as soon as is safe'.

And who wouldn’t be thrilled to have tons of his or her cash extracted by the state to fund a system that gives itself the power to deny medical care to said same taxpayer for things he or she might say?

The abusive behavior covers racist or sexist language, gestures or behavior.

(North Bristol) Trust chief executive Andrea Young said they wanted staff to 'challenge and report it'.

And before anyone take an unnecessary turn down “sounds reasonable road”, consider a number of facts.

First, even if a patient considers something “reasonable”, the final definition of that term is left in the hands of agents of the state.

Second. The definitions of “abusive” behavior, “racist or sexist language, gestures or behavior” are also left up to the all-powerful, ever-so-trustworthy government.

So, as Luis Miguel of The New American observes:

In a highly publicized case from 2017, a female NHS patient complained when she requested a female nurse to carry out a cervical smear only for the hospital to send a person with ‘an obviously male appearance … close-cropped hair, a male facial appearance and voice, large number of tattoos and facial stubble.’ When the patient pointed out what she believed to be a mistake, the nurse replied, “My gender is not male. I’m a transsexual.’

In other words, a patient complaining that she’s being gynecologically examined by a pirate in drag could, according to the North Bristol NHS Trust Website, be cited with not just a “Yellow Flag”, but a “Red Flag” and denied “service”.

How quaint. That would be “service” for which her taxes have been seized for years -- upon threat of her being thrown in jail for non-payment.

Indeed, the vagueness of the North Bristol “Red Card” policy could mean that even Britishers who are proud of their socialistic British system could run into trouble.

Wait. What?

In 2017, for example, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust ordered the removal of the British flag from the stab vests of security personnel because the national banner was deemed 'offensive.'

So. Hold on. The state-run system is so screwed-up that it could ban people for wearing the state flag?

Somewhere, the Monty Python team members must be watching this and wondering if the political class in England is trying to write new skits for them.

After all, this is the same medical system that, because it operates under the “we all pay” concept of forced collectivism, in 2017 mandated that if those grunting, troglodytic obese people in the patient caste wanted elective surgeries, they’d have to lose weight.

It’s the same system that in 2016 was exposed for trying to hide the fact that it was going to close clinics because it was so incapable of controlling expenses.

This is the gulag of involuntary medicine that was caught using the bodies of aborted fetuses as fuel in hospital incinerators. Really.

This is the collectivist system that was caught denying life-sustaining hydration and food to terminally ill patients in what was called the “Liverpool Pathway” – a system that, perhaps, Obamacare co-creator Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to former Chicago Mayor and Clinton/Obama pal Rahm, might like, since he helped incorporate “Best Practices” panels into Obamacare to do essentially the same thing.

Gotta love those fans of euthanasia, ‘cause they’re all for the “greater good” of course.

And this is the NHS that recently fired a doctor because he would not conform to their speech dictates. He would not call people male when they were not, and he would not call people female when they were not. He stuck with science and truth, and the state will ban truth when it gets in the way of the state’s goals.

One of the most striking things about the inevitable implosion of the collectivist UK health system begun in 1947 is that so many Brits still cling to it as something good, when reality screams at them to wake up.

The second is that the socialist UK system (there is still a tiny private market that handles roughly 10.5 percent of cases) offers a prime lesson in how the “Tragedy of the Commons” becomes an ouroboros – a snake that eats its own tail. Since the system is touted as “care for all”, it isn’t supposed to deny care for anyone and is supposed to be “inclusive”. But this “inclusiveness” causes over-utilization of services by the public, who, if they were paying out-of-pocket, would shop more wisely and husband their resources. It also destroys the competitive market in health care that would drive down costs for all. Instead, costs are driven up, and a system that was once portrayed as “for all” then has to apply capitations and payment limits on services, even, as mentioned earlier, going so far as to hide its financial ruin and use aborted babies as human fuel for heat.

If there were any more appropriate image to analogize collectivism, I cannot think of one.

Now, even the speech doctors and patients use could see them fired or denied service, because a system that is supposed to cater to all cannot do so without offending some, and it must, inevitably produce government controls over everything, including speech.

This is a warning to Americans not only about health care -- which has already been mostly turned into a collectivist, semi-fascistic, government-mandated, corporatized, politicized system even when people are trying to use “private” coverage outside Obamacare – but about how important it is to know the difference between private property and public property.



From government mandates that private store owners create “genderless” bathrooms, to bans on smoking in private eateries, many people in the US simply accept the idea that politicians can tell private business owners how to run their establishments. And that’s because, since 1946, and a terrible Supreme Court ruling in the case called “Marsh v Alabama”, the feds have defined private property open for business as de jure “public” property. In “Marsh”, a ship-building company that owned and ran its own village of Chicksaw for employees to stay close to their work asked a woman handing out religious pamphlets to leave the property because she was trespassing. The police were called. She was removed.

But the US Supreme Court ruled that the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation had created in Chicksaw a “public square”, and, as a result, the court set the unctuous precedent that private property owners would no longer being able to control their own property as they saw fit. Subsequently, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included in it the affront to private property called the “Public Accommodations” portion, which, in statutory form, explicitly spelled out the erroneous Supreme Court notion and applied it as so-called “law”.

But Natural Law clearly spells out the difference between private property – owned by an individual – and public property – claimed by the state, and on which taxpayer cash is used.

All of the problems of the NHS stem from the fact that theirs is not a private system. And now, the collectivism is so unworkable, even speech is being controlled.

People many not think that the US would ever go that far. But history shows, the path has already been set.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/uk-collectiv ... _QL9bMKS-A
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:24 pm

Black Professor of African American Studies at Ole Miss Proposes Expelling [White] Students or Sending Them to Jail if Reported for "Bias"

Image

Never forget: once non-whites gain electoral control of a city, they use state power to promote their racial groups interests exclusively.

For the truth of this, see Detroit and Baltimore. It’s with this in mind we consider what a black professor of African American Studies at the University of Mississippi recently proposed as penalty for those demonstrating “bias.”

The penalty?

Expulsion from Ole Miss or even arrest. [Ole Miss professor proposes expulsion, criminal penalties for students reported for ‘bias’, College Fix, December 11, 2019]:

Students would demonstrate less bias if they were threatened with expulsion or arrest, according to a professor at the University of Mississippi.

Kirk Johnson, associate professor of sociology and African American studies at Ole Miss, told The College Fix that the university would benefit from a more aggressive, forceful Bias Incident Response Team, even if that meant expelling or charging them with crimes.

If students “faced the possibility of being suspended from school, or being arrested under federal or state hate-crime statutes, I suspect they would police themselves more vigorously,” Johnson told The Fix via e-mail.

“Our BIRT system is toothless to the extent that students who violate the University of Mississippi creed face no punishment,” Johnson said. “As a result, there is little incentive for students to take responsibility for their actions.”

“To the contrary, to the extent that the UM creed represents a set of rules that all students are obliged to live by, the lack of an administrative response to uncivil behavior encourages rulebreaking,” Johnson said.

(UPDATE: Johnson later contacted The Fix to clarify that students should only be arrested if they have violated state or federal hate laws.)

The University of Mississippi Bias Incident Response Team allows students and faculty members to anonymously report one another for displaying “bias” on campus.

According to the University of Mississippi website, a “bias” incident is one that involves “a behavior or act that targets an individual or group based on perceived or actual characteristics such as, but not limited to, race, religious belief, sexual orientation, disability, or age.”

Examples of bias incidents provided by the university include:

Offensive graffiti or images/drawing
Calling someone offensive, derogatory, or inappropriate names
Posting or commenting on social media related to someone’s identity in a biased manner
Drawing or creating pictures that imitate, stereotype, belittle, or ridicule someone because of their gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, faith, or political affiliation
Yet campus bias response systems around America have been accused of suppressing free speech by individuals afraid they will be reported to diversity coordinators. Both the University of Illinois and the University of Texas currently face First Amendment lawsuits challenging their bias response teams on the grounds that they chill campus speech.

In October, the University of Michigan discontinued its bias response team in a settlement reached with Speech First, a nationwide campus free speech association.

In November, University of Mississippi Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Community Engagement Katrina Caldwell told the Daily Mississippian that free speech wasn’t a concern at Ole Miss because the response team doesn’t have enforcement authority.

“BIRT doesn’t punish,” Caldwell told the paper. “(Education) is its only function.”

But that education “may or may not be voluntary, depending on the situation,” according to an article in the Daily Mississippian campus newspaper, paraphrasing Caldwell.

At Ole Miss, the Bias Incident Response Team outlines “Step 3: Intervention” in its process, which states the team will “work with the affected parties to reach a resolution, which may include education, outreach and training within 5 days.”

It’s unclear whether Caldwell believes forced education is a punishment. She did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The College Fix.

As for Johnson, he said he would like the BIRT team to have more power to take action.

Recently, he sent a letter to many members of the campus Critical Race Studies Group arguing for a more aggressive bias response system.

“I’ve had conversations with university officials who seem perfectly well-intentioned but unable or unwilling to translate these aspirations into actions that will make a difference,” Johnson wrote.

“For example, I’ve long felt that we need to be proactive to prevent student microaggressions instead of continuing to react to them after the fact,” Johnson wrote. “Instead of responding to one embarrassing incident after another, we could serve as a model for other campuses if we took measures to transform our campus culture in ways others want to emulate.”

In October 2018, Johnson co-authored a research paper detailing microaggressions on the University of Mississippi campus, which he said he believes demonstrates the need for more aggressive cultural policing.

Among the microaggressions the paper warns against against are “Consistently referring to couples as ‘husbands and wives,’” telling an Asian or Latino student to “Speak up! We want to hear what you have to say,” and “Explaining the rules of basketball to a female slowly and deliberately like an adult might talk to a child.”

“Microaggressions pose the risk of emotional, cognitive, and physical harm to vulnerable students, and threatens to alienate prospective students. The continued presence of microaggressions on campus also poses potential financial and reputational risks to the University,” a summary of the study states.

Johnson told The Fix he very much supports free speech on campus and he sees the bias response system as compatible with the First Amendment.

“However, free speech has limits, as Justice Holmes reminded us with his famous warning, ‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic,’” Johnson said.

“With campus microaggressions, people won’t get trampled as a crowd races for the exits. But the risk of other harms to both students and their universities,” he said, “warrant concern.”

Of course, only white people can be guilty of bias in Black-Run America (BRA), right? This professor can claim he “clarified” his positions, but it’s quite obvious he wants to change state and federal law to reflect his views on punishing any criticism of protected groups and classes as an offense worthy of imprisonment.


Mentioning the letter this black professor wrote to the Critical Race Studies Group – arguing for more aggressive bias team – is a clear giveaway and implication he intends these measures to be directed solely a white students at Ole Miss. After all, how could black students (or other non-whites) at the school display bias, when they are forced to attend a school steeped in white supremacy, where a white power structure affords all whites a privilege they don’t deserve?

https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/black-profess ... 4aaU3RPXUo
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:39 pm

Police Charge Duo With Hate Crime For Painting Over ‘Black Lives Matter’ Mural On Public Street


By Ryan Saavedra

Jul 7th, 2020 DailyWire.com


Image

Law enforcement officials in California charged a man and a woman with hate crime on Tuesday for allegedly painting over a Black Lives Matter mural that was painted on a public street.

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office announced that Nichole Anderson, 42, and David Nelson, 53, were being charged with three misdemeanor counts, including a hate crime, for the incident, which allegedly happened on Saturday.

“On July 1, a local Martinez resident applied for a permit to paint a Black Lives Matter temporary mural in downtown Martinez in front of the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse,” the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office said in a statement. “The permit was approved by the City of Martinez and the painting was done on July 4.”

“Anderson covered up a Black Lives Matter mural with black paint,” the statement added. “Nelson directly aided in the alleged criminal conduct. The incident was captured on video by witnesses.”

“Nelson and Anderson arrived at the scene of the mural after it was completed with paint supplies,” the statement continued. “Anderson started to paint over the yellow letters ‘B’ and ‘L’ in the word ‘Black.’ She used black paint and a large paint roller to do so. The video has been shared widely by witnesses and shared on social media.”

WATCH:



In a statement, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton said:

We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention. The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country. We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.

Nelson and Anderson were charged with Violation of Civil Rights, Vandalism Under $400, and Possession of Tools to Commit Vandalism or Graffiti. If convicted they face up to a year in a county jail but are currently “exempt from a specific bail amount due to the current county bail schedule in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.”


Immediately following the the incident the Martinez Police Department released a statement that said that “the community spent a considerable amount of time putting the mural together only to have it painted over in a hateful and senseless manner.”

“The City of Martinez values tolerance and the damage to the mural was divisive and hurtful,” the statement added.

Black Lives Matter murals have been painted on public streets across the U.S. in recent weeks, but not everyone in the black community approves of political statements being painted on public property.

Dr. Ben Carson, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, recently questioned during a Fox News interview how those who are painting “Black Lives Matter” murals on public streets would feel if people were painting Confederate flags on those same streets.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/police-c ... lngK9L2X0g
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:51 pm

Seattle Hosts Segregated Class To Teach 'Undoing Whiteness'

By Joe Saunders
Published July 8, 2020 at 2:52pm
Seattle has gone from a summer of love to a season of shame.

It was bad enough the city has been a national disgrace for the better of a month, ever since Black Lives Matter protests turned a six-square-block downtown area into their own squalid, anarchic territory.

The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest wasn’t over until July 1, when the city finally took action in force, but not before two young men had been shot to death — a 19-year-old and a 16-year-old.

Both of them were black — an ugly irony in a “Black Lives Matter” event.

It was a far cry from what Mayor Jenny Durkan had once optimistically predicted could be a “summer of love.”

But that was only Seattle’s better-known humiliation. It turns out, the Emerald City has also been forcing white employees to attend an instructional class officially aimed at “undoing your own whiteness” — which sounds a lot like inculcating self-loathing solely on the basis of skin color.

As Fox News reported, Christopher Rufo, a contributing editor for the conservative, New York-based City Journal, has documented a training session Seattle held for white city employees on June 12 that would probably outrage a city that still had some sense of decency.

In a Twitter thread, Rufo wrote that he had done a public-records request for the session on “Interrupting Internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness.”


First, there was an outline of what constituted “internalized racial oppression.” For white people, apparently, that included traits like perfectionism, arrogance and objectivity.

The clearly subjective nature of the material brought logical problems, Rufo noted.

Sometimes both sides of the coin are “oppression.”

Are white employees speaking too much? That’s probably the internalized racial superiority of “imposition” or “paternalism.”

Are white employees speaking too little? That’s oppression, too, because “silence” is “violence.”

— Christopher F. Rufo (@realchrisrufo) July 6, 2020

That was probably dealt with by the employees then engaging in some self-indoctrination, Rufo wrote.

Then came the point where the rubber of self-degradation hit the road of utter abasement — and employees were instructed to “let go” of apparently white expectations, including “guaranteed physical safety” and “social niceties.” (Most people would probably think of those things as being part of “civilization,” but most people don’t live in Seattle.)

Here’s how Seattle pitched this Stockholm Syndrome workshop to its white employees:

And how would employees know that it worked?

When “white normative behavior” is out. (That presumably includes “perfectionism” and “objectivity,” so Seattle residents better hope the tax collector’s office wasn’t part of this. Or the engineering department. In fact, it’s hard to think where striving for accuracy and objectivity wouldn’t come in handy in city government, but maybe Seattle knows better.)


When “other white people may be angry.” (This seems like a moving target. As the session organizers should guess by now, white people can get angry at any number of things that have nothing to do with racism. Other white people not using their turn signals, for instance. Or black people, or Asian people not using their turn signals.)

If all of this sounds more than a little Maoist, if it seems more than a little alarming to think an American city is engaging in openly racist practices like this, it should and it is.

And a city that has already made a disgraceful name for itself on the national stage just lowered itself a step further.

A rainy climate might have given Seattle the nickname Emerald City, but its politics should be making it red with embarrassment.

The Western Journal reached out to the Seattle mayor’s office for comment Wednesday but did not hear back by publication.

https://www.westernjournal.com/seattle- ... -Vdx9u1CXI
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Benjamin Bice
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Benjamin Bice » Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:53 pm

Another article about the same subject as the previous post.

https://www.conservativesociety.org/new ... 8Iq7LcV31w
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

User avatar
Grimork
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:34 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Grimork » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:11 pm

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/u ... ne-exhibit
The University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts announced its decision on Friday to remove a John Wayne exhibit from its main building.

Assistant Dean of Diversity and Inclusion Evan Hughes explained the school's decision in a memo shared on Twitter.

"I am writing to update you on plans for the Wayne exhibit, located in the main building of the School of Cinematic Arts Complex. Conversations about systemic racism in our cultural institutions along with the recent global, civil uprising by the Black Lives Matter Movement require that we consider the role our School can play as a change maker in promoting antiracist cultural values and experiences. Therefore, it has been decided that the Wayne Exhibit will be removed," the statement begins.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Will Williams » Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:12 pm

Grimork wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:11 pm
"...Conversations about systemic racism in our cultural institutions along with the recent global, civil uprising by the Black Lives Matter Movement require that we consider the role our School can play as a change maker in promoting antiracist cultural values and experiences. Therefore, it has been decided that the Wayne Exhibit will be removed,"

You'd think the BLMers would like the Duke since he was no "racist," but was a race-mixer: https://news.amomama.com/210318-john-wa ... wives.html

User avatar
Grimork
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:34 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Black/Non-White Institutional Racism

Post by Grimork » Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:22 pm

Will Williams wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:12 pm
You'd think the BLMers would like the Duke since he was no "racist," but was a race-mixer: https://news.amomama.com/210318-john-wa ... wives.html
Won't be the last time that BLM can't see the forest for the trees. Ha, he really liked Mez women huh? They're accusing him of saying he supported white supremacy in a 1971 Playboy interview.. now, if that were true, you'd think he'd care more about the dilution of his children's genes by miscegeny.

Post Reply