Recently, I saw a report that a nominee to run the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Kristen Clarke, was a woman who had written some very racist things in the past. I saw this allegation on Fox News, and so I was suspicious that it might be overblown.

After reading everything, it seems the allegation was UNDER-blown. These aren’t “racist” things. They are literally “Black Supremacist” things. It seems we have a true Critical Race Theory Postmodernist set to lead the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

You can read it yourself using this link. Below is a discussion of the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the letter, as well as what it means.

I’m preserving the text of what was written in the Harvard Crimson here, under the very-real-possibility that these digital copies suddenly disappear. (It’s happened to me before.)

The Author of the Letter

The name at the bottom is clearly Kristen Clarke. Recently Kristen Clarke was selected by Joe Biden to run the DOJ Civil Rights Division.

Stephanie Guerilus
Thu, January 7, 2021, 7:14 PM EST

Clarke was previously a federal prosecutor at the agency

President-elect Joe Biden campaigned on having a diverse Cabinet and his latest selections prove his commitment to that vow.

Biden nominated civil rights lawyer Kristen Clarke to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. If confirmed by the Senate, Clarke’s role would involve ensuring civil liberties for all Americans. (See Yahoo News article Here)

So this isn’t a random weirdo or some professor. She’s about to have SERIOUS power, either for good or for ill.

Regarding people in important positions, I am normally skeptical of accusations of “racist” language, because usually people bend that word to make “offensive” or “rude” or content out of context into something that is “racist.” The goal is usually to make an debatable point suddenly deserving of censure by all members of polite society.

For instance, when Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barret used the phrase “sexual preference,” this was deemed “offensive” by someone at CNN. Startlingly, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary quickly updated the definition of “sexual preference” after the complaint to include the notation that it was “offensive.” It literally happened immediately after the hearing, according to Snopes. This “unfair standard” has often led to a reverse “unfair standard” to make things “even” in public debate.

That’s what I was worried about. I didn’t want to over-blow something myself by repeating it without seeing something myself.

But what I saw actually shocked me. It involves literal statements of black supremacy. Like, not even close to reasonable. I kept wondering if it is sarcasm, but it didn’t look like it to me (and it didn’t look like it to readers at the time, either). Read it for yourself.

Text of Kristen Clarke’s Harvard Letter

BLACKS SEEK AN END TO ABUSE
To The Editors
October 28, 1994

In response to those who defend The Bell Curve (“Defending The Bell Curve,” Opinion, Oct. 24, 2994), please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites.

One: Dr. Richard King reveals that at the core of the human brain is the “locus coeruleus” which is a structure that is Black because it contains large amounts of (neuro) melanin which is essential for its operation.

Two: Black infants sit, stand, crawl and walk sooner than whites.

Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin—that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcification[sic] or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent, Asians 15 to 25 percent and Europeans 60 to 80 percent. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between Blacks and whites.

Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.

We can readily admit that an abused child is less likely to achieve academically than a child that has grown up in a supportive atmosphere. Black children, whether rich or poor, grow up with an added abuse which white children never have to face. Imagine the message that misguided information like The Bell Curve would send to a Black child who is trying to find her place in school. It’s degrading, belittling and outrageously false.

Attacks on Black people such as those in The Bell Curve are not unique. Black children face this abuse daily through television shows, jokes aired on the radio, textbooks with truncated history, etc. Liberal whites underestimate the damage which racism causes on the minds of Black children, and conservative whites know all too well how to enlarge that damage. No matter how rich or supportive a Black person’s home might be, by the time she is ready to take the SAT or apply to college, she has struggled far more extensively than any white person of the same social and economic background.

In addition, it is completely naïve to say that Black have achieved economic equality with whites. It seems that whites have grown tired of hearing about racism. So, some have turned to measures such as The Bell Curve to relieve themselves of blame.

It’s just ridiculous Black people are not asking for political correctness, but truthfulness, fairness and an end to this abuse. Kristen Clarke ’97 Victoria Kennedy ‘97
(Harvard Crimson Letter from Kristen Clarke)

For the record, I did some digging. Apparently, “Dr. Richard King” is the author of a self-published book called “Melanin: A Key to Freedom.” According to his obituary, he was “a psychiatrist, historian, and melanin/pineal gland scholar.”

And according to the Amazon summary of his book, he was also a kook:

A Study of ancient African history reveals an early African definition of the human Melanin System as a whole body Black Melanin System that serves as the eye of the soul to produce inner vision, true spiritual consciousness, creative genius, beatific vision, to become Godlike, and to have conversation with the immortals (Ancestors). The purpose of ancient African education was to provide knowledge and development of the will of the student that allowed salvation (freedom) of the soul from the fetters (chains) of the physical body (George G. M. James, Stolen Legacy The Study Of Melanin in the human form and throughout nature is a precious key that will unlock the chains of mental slavery that presently imprison the minds of African people throughout the world.

In other words, he took the Black Panther movie waaaay more seriously than the rest of us, and he did it before the movie was even made.

That is who Kristin Clarke is quoting.

Harvard’s Response to the Letter

In response to this OBVIOUSLY racist language, the Staff of the Harvard Crimson called on Kristen Clarke to retract her statements. Much like myself reading it today, they didn’t see any irony or humor or sarcasm in her statements either. The full text of that is here:

Two years ago, when the Black Students Association (BSA) invited City University of New York (CUNY) Professor Leonard Jeffries to speak at Harvard, the campus erupted in protest. In large part, students were upset because they felt Jeffries, a well-known anti-Semite, homophobe and Black supremacist, should not be given the honor of a Harvard forum to spout his bigotry. That aside, Jeffries’ speech prompted discord because of the utterly fictitious nature of his assertions.

Essentially, the controversial professor claimed, Blacks, or “people of the sun,” are superior to whites, or “people of the ice,” because the melanin that makes their skin dark also endows them with greater physical strength and intelligence.

In a word, the theory is bunk. Even the BSA’s leaders at the time, while stopping well short of denouncing Jeffries’ views, refrained from endorsing them. As then-BSA President Art A. Hall ’93 put it, “We endorse his Blackness, as a Black individual and a Black intellectual, but as far as his viewpoints, that’s another issue.”

Sadly, last week, one of Hall’s successors at the BSA’s helm failed to exhibit the restraint of her predecessor.

BSA President Kristen Clarke ’97 wasn’t here for the Jeffries lecture. But in a letter to the editors of The Crimson, Clarke made a series of assertions cerily reminiscent of the CUNY professor’s racist theories. Among them, was the following: “Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities–something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”

Clarke’s outrageous statements came in the context of a letter attacking those who would defend The Bell Curve, a controversial new book coauthored by the late Harvard professor Richard Herrnstein that suggests (among other things) that race and intellectual ability are somehow genetically linked. Rather than attack the questionable research and logic underlying The Bell Curve, however, Clarke resorted to bigotry, pure and simple, to reach the opposite conclusion.

It’s an affront that someone in an academic position should have published a work of racism, even one cloaked in scholarly research. But it’s also sad that a Harvard student would think that one race is genetically superior to others. And it is almost inconceivable that this student would be an elected leader of Black students on campus. Nonetheless, this is the situation with which we are confronted.

We searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter (which was coauthored with Victoria Kennedy ’97, who does not hold any elected position in the BSA). But truth be told, such indications would be irrelevant. In such a circumstance, any irony short of unambiguous sarcasm is unacceptable coming from the pen of a student leader.

Later, in an interview with The Crimson, Clarke suggested that “The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe, but some information that we think those persuing a true understanding of The Bell Curve theory should either address, ignore or refute.”

Aside from the fact that we don’t think Clarke actually meant people should ignore her views, her follow-up statement doesn’t suggest any tempering of the beliefs espoused in the letter. Clarke says she doesn’t “necessarily” believe her assertions. Well does she or doesn’t she? So far, she has given us every indication that she does.

Student leaders are encouraged to express their views and the views of the groups they represent. But they should be accountable for those views and support them upon cross-examination. Students such as Kristen Clarke, who clearly cannot serve in their elected capacities as responsible spokespersons for their communities, have no place at the helm of student organizations like the BSA.

Indeed, what’s really at stake here is the BSA’s credibility. In fulfilling the very important role it plays in the Harvard community, the BSA has consistently stood up for Black members of the community who are underrepresented in the administration, the faculty and student groups, including The Crimson. Clarke’s comments are particularly troubling because they could well serve to damage the BSA’s hard-earned credibility.

Unless Clarke is prepared to retract her statements, and apologize publicly for making them, she should resign from the BSA’s executive board. Should she refuse, the organization has no choice but to remove her if it is to maintain its credibility on campus.

It seems Ms. Clarke did not retract her statements.

Activist Organizations Response to the Harvard Crimson’s Request for a Retraction

Not only does it seem that Ms. Clarke did not retract her statements, it seemed other activist organizations doubled down. In response, several activist organizations penned a response, basically saying “You can’t tell us what to do.” The full text is as follows:

CRIMSON OVERSTEPS ITS BOUNDARIES
To the Editors:
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
November 7, 1994

In its demand for the Black Students Association (BSA) President Kristen Clarke ’97’s retraction or resignation. The Crimson has outlandishly overstepped its boundaries as a newspaper (“Clarke Should Retract Statements.” Opinion, Nov. 4, 1994). While The Crimson can and should espouse opinions about campus organizations, it has no right to intervene in internal organizational politics by calling for the resignation of a campus leader. The only people who should demand the resignation of an organization’s leader are the members themselves.

If editors of The Crimson would like to join the BSA and then call for Ms. Clarke to resign, they are welcome to do so. But they cannot submit such claims through the external voice of their newspaper. Harvard’s ethnic organizations will not tolerate such irresponsible journalism and unthinking sensationalism. –Vivek Maru ’97   Academic/Political Chair   South Asian Association   Susan S. Kim ’96   President   Korean Students Association   Jean M. Ou ’95   Co-President   Chinese Students Association   Alex Cho ’96   Co-President   Asian American Association   Julissa Reynoso ’97   President   Fuerza Quisqueyana   Alison Moore ’97   Vice President   Black Students Association   Laurent Alfred ’96   Political Action Chair   Haitian Alliance   Nisha Hitchman ’97   Dax Bayard   Co-Chairs Caribbean Club   Pedro Orozco ’96   Secretary   RAZA   Radi Annab ’95   President   Society of Arab Students

There is so much I can say in response to that, but I wont.

A Writer’s Response to the Letter

The Harvard Crimson responded to this letter with the following piece.

FIRE WITH FIRE
By David Bosco
November 9, 1994

Harvard has just been treated to a textbook display of how not to respond to a disturbing and controversial idea. Kristen M. Clarke ’97, the president of the Black Students Association has chosen to fight fire with fire, and in so doing she has damaged her credibility and that of the organization she leads.

The new book, The Bell Curve, has stirred up as much response here as anywhere, and students have taken various positions on it–from cautious support to angry opposition.

Clarke, in responding to one student who defended the book in The Crimson, wrote a letter which called on those engaged in the issue to consider some other theories. So far so good.

She went on though, to outline several alternatives, most prominently the “melanin” theory, which accords Blacks greater intelligence, spiritual qualities, etc. due to their high levels of melanin.

It would be nice if her letter were pure irony, a simple attempt to ridicule The Bell Curve by association with other crazy ideas. But subsequent attempts to clarify what Clarke meant have been met with staunch equivocation.

In her most recent letter to The Crimson, Clarke still refuses to take a stand: “[The Melanin Theory] is not necessarily something we believe, but some information we think those pursuing a true understanding of The Bell Curve should either address, ignore or refute.”

Clarke’s tactics are disturbing for several reasons. First, that Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories she has brought up raises the possibility that she actually believes them. Enough said.

Secondly, her tactic of calling on scholars to address the melanin theory is precisely the wrong way of attacking the ideas of Murray and Herrnstein.

Serious researchers of the issue no more have to take into account the melanin theory than those searching for extraterrestrial life have to take into account every UFO nut who claims to have been abducted.

The melanin theory, most notoriously advocated by Leonard Jeffries, has no grounding in accepted fact and can defend itself only by claiming that the effects of melanin “cannot be measured with Eurocentric methods.” What might those “Eurocentric methods” be? Science? That’s probably one such method we might want to hold on to.

Conclusion to the Harvard Crimson Back And Forth

This wasn’t the end of Kristen Clarke’s controversial activism. In December of the same year, Kristen Clarke invited Wellsley Professor Tony Martin to speak at Harvard.

Who is Tony Martin? Well, he wrote a self-published book called “The Jewish Onslaught,” which is about what you would expect from a 1993 self-published book (before Amazon made this option somewhat respectable) called “The Jewish onslaught. You can see his Wikipedia Page here. In fact, in 2002, he was a featured speaker at a Holocaust Denial organization, “the Institute of Historical Review.” The title of his speech was (and I am not kidding): Tactics of Organized Jewry in Suppressing Free Speech. Wow.

And sure enough, Kristen Clarke invited the author of “The Jewish Onslaught” to talk about exactly what you’d expect from someone who wrote a book called “The Jewish Onslaught.”

After this happened, notice what one Jewish student very presciently asked in the Harvard Crimson after this speech, and look at his very pertinent question:

That last thought was one of the few true things Martin had to say. Young Black leaders like Kristen Clarke, who have risen to campus prominence by gaining the respect of their peers, will no doubt have an enormous impact on the future leadership of the African-American community. The Kristen Clarkes of America’s campuses will soon be on the front lines, fighting against racism and other societal and historical impediments to better lives for African-Americans. This is why we should all be thinking about Kristen Clarke.

What, I ask myself, was she thinking when she invited Martin to come to Harvard? Did she think Black students needed to hear what he had to say? When she told The Crimson that “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well versed Black intellectual who bases his information of indisputable fact,” was she being serious? (Harvard Crimson Letter to Editor)

These were the continuing actions of Kristen Clarke in college. And now, she she just might run THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.

My Response to the Kristen Clarke Letter

Let’s be perfectly clear: This is racial-superiority language. Regardless of the fact that it comes from someone who is not white, there is no other way to read a statement like the following:

Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.

That is literally proclaiming the superiority of the black race not only in the “mental” and “physical” spheres (which is racist enough), but in “spiritual abilities,” too. That is absolutely shocking. And to top it off, if you do not see this in the data, that is because this “cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”

What is a Eurocentric standard? Well, if your ethnicity comes from Europe and you disagree, that is a Eurocentric standard. I wish I could give a more favorable definition, but that is it.

If ANYONE would say such things about ANY race, that should be disqualifying for any federal office. Of course, we can allow an exception for people who have truly repented and changed from a previous position. We don’t want to condemn people to be an outcast of society forever, even if they change. But such changes should come with some serious proof of change.

However, this isn’t just “any federal office.” This is literally the office that is charged with enforcing the Civil Rights laws of the United States, including:

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

How on earth can we entrust this responsibility to someone who not only believes that Black people are “mentally and physically” superior, but also “SPIRITUALLY” superior?

Nominating someone who has views like this to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is like nominating Robert E. Lee to be in charge of Reconstruction, Jefferson Davis to run the Freedman’s Bureau, or making General William T. Sherman the president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce.

It’s utterly ridiculous. How did this happen?

How This Explicit Racism Happens

This is happening for a reason, and it’s not too hard to see. It is an explicitly post-modern worldview that affects everything it touches. It is “critical,” and “critical” is a special term. It means that it is explicitly trying to tear down old structures — whether they are laws, institutions, ways of thinking, or ways that families relate — and replace them with new structures that are more “equitable.” (On terms that the post-modernists define.)

What is frightening is that a common belief among those with this mindset is that they do not believe in “truth.” They only believe in “power.” You can read about that in this other post I made earlier in 2020. To them, truth is not something that actually exists. Instead, truth is a way for groups in society to obtain “power” by defining things like “truth.” That’s why you will get phrases like “Eurocentric standards” in a letter like the one above.

This is also the mindset of Black Lives Matter (TM), which I wrote about here. In their recently withdrawn statement of beliefs (the text of which I saved IN FULL on the linked post), the Black Lives Matter (TM) organization is quite open about the “structures” that they want to dismantle:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

It’s really looney stuff, but it is not benignly looney. It’s dangerously looney, because no matter how looney the ideas sound, the people are dead serious. They’re dead serious, and they’re looking for power.

You might think that is crazy, but go back and look at the back-and-forth in the Harvard Crimson in 1994 above:

• Kristen Clarke thought “The Bell Curve” was racist against black people. (This is a discussion for another day, but the fact is, she thought it was racist.)
• In response, Kristen Clarke lobbed her own racist attack at those who defend “The Bell Curve.”
• Somewhat level-headed people asked Kristen Clarke to retract her statements, because (duh!) they are racist.
• In response, Kristen Clark said she “doesn’t necessarily believe” what she said, but that these things that she said “those persuing [sic] a true understanding of The Bell Curve theory should either address, ignore or refute.”

WHAT? How does this make any sense? It’s like a player in a basketball game breaking the other coach’s arm rather that take the game-winning shot. It is absolute LUNACY…..

…if your goal is to “get points.” If your goal is to hurt the opposing coach, then that action is completely rational. It’s downright clever. At the last moment of a big game is the time when the coach would be too distracted to defend himself. There are some “useful idiot” post-modernists out there, but there are some other deadly serious and sinister ones out there, too.

This post-modern mindset — where “truth” doesn’t matter — is what we are seeing play out in those Harvard Crimson letters. Rather than words being used because someone believes them, these words are just thrown out as weapons. Was Kristen Clarke’s argument “bad”? That doesn’t matter if your goal isn’t to find the truth. That’s how a true post-modernist approaches an argument. The argument’s goal isn’t to “speak the truth” or “find the truth” through the discussion. (Remember: the truth does not exist.) Neither does it matter if Kristen Clarke actually believes the stuff she is saying. (What would be the point of “belief” if “truth” doesn’t matter?) Instead, Kristen Clarke is playing a game of “power.” If words can cause people to “change the subject” or to “go down a rabbit hole of distraction” or to “defend their character rather than their point of view,” then the goal of ACQUIRING POWER IN THE CONVERSATION has succeeded.

In the realm of race relations, this Post-Modern mindset shows forth in Black-supremacy. Does Kristen Clarke REALLY believe that black people are “mentally, physically, and spiritually” superior? I doubt it, but that doesn’t help the situation. The point is that is the tool that Kristen Clarke was using to GAIN POWER for black people. When will she stop using that line? I suppose when it stops granting power. That is terrifying.

We should also notice that this mindset is quite wide-spread. It goes under the name “anti-Racism.” (Because who wants to be pro-racism, right? See how words can create power? Merely by the name of the movement, they have eliminated opposition. It’s scary when you think about it.) One of the biggest purveyors of this is the American University professor Ibraim Kendi (a very docile looking man with a perpetual 1,000 yard stare in all photograms), who stated IN PRINT (and to great applause):

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. (Ibram Kendi, How to Be an AntiRacist)

He is literally advocating for pro-black discrimination to fix previous anti-black discrimination both now AND IN THE FUTURE. That’s racism. Despite the false badge of “anti-racism,” that is literally racism. Why create labels that are the opposite of what we find in the package? Because the truth doesn’t exist. If the label grants power, it is a good label. Yikes.

Now, of course, there is a very good question about when affirmative action is appropriate in places that have seen actual racial discrimination. I’m sure good people can disagree on those lines, just like good people can disagree about how long certain corrective measures can continue in society. But this goes far past all of that. This isn’t even close. It is the worst form of racism.

This is Post-Modernist, Critical-Race-Theory Racism.

How Antithetical the CRT Mindset is to American Society

Though we had a brief change in our normal national motto to “In God We Trust (which was made to differentiate ourselves from the quite bad and quite godless communist powers during the cold war), our REAL national motto can be seen on any dollar bill or coin. It means “Out of Many, One”:

E PLURIBUS UNIM

But don’t be fooled. This is no easy platitude. America is a unique nation in that it doesn’t have a “nationality.” We’re making one out of scratch… or…. out of the leftovers of other nations with “nationalities” like England, German, China, Japan, etc. etc.

And this wasn’t always the case. At one point “Anglo” and “American” were synonyms. Read about it yourself in the 1830s observations of Alexis De Tocqueville. The “Americans” were the “Anglos.” The “Negros” weren’t the “Anglos” or the “Americans.” The “Spanish” weren’t the “Anglos,” and neither were “the French.” Neither were the “Indians.” Things used to be VERY DIFFERENT. And the idea that nationality doesn’t matter in a nation is a rather unique and strange experiment that we’ve been trying for the past 250 years.

The real dedication to E PLURIBUS UNIM came with the 14th Amendment, which declared:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For a while, people trying to hang on to the old “culture” (a real thing, by the way) of their European ancestory tried to make this work under the justification of “separate but equal.” That obviously didn’t work. Now, it is clear that:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. (Brown v. Board of Education)

In other words, WE DON’T DO THAT here anymore. And even though our law is pretty much up to date on this, there are still very real-world difficulties of ensuring that E PLURIBUS UNIM is a reality. Because the fact of the matter is, people really are “different.” People really do think differently, enjoy different things, have different values, have different religions, believe that different things are good or bad, speak different languages, celebrate different holidays. In some places in this country, the things that one very large group of Americans holds as essential, sacred, and invaluable might be a complete enigma to another group. You’ll notice this when one group gets upset about “burial grounds” and pipelines. One side will say “this is our burial ground!” while the other side will say “Yes, and we want to bury a pipeline here.” That is literally the class of two different peoples. And our goal is to make them ONE.

We need every ounce of our strength as a nation to make the equality of all peoples a reality. It is NOT the default. It is UTTERLY DIFFICULT. And yet, here in this letter, we have a high-ranking nominee claiming that one race is “superior” to others in “mental, physical, and spiritual” aspects, LITERALLY ON THE BASIS OF MELANIN:

Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcification[sic] or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent, Asians 15 to 25 percent and Europeans 60 to 80 percent. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between Blacks and whites.

This is a pseduo-scientific, reverse-Nazi-esque explicit declaration of Black SUPERIORITY. And it comes from someone who appears to have the “sanction of law,” and in fact is he highest law enforcement officer on “Civil Rights” in the Justice department.

The danger is clear. As stated by the Supreme Court as recently as 2017:

“[D]iscrimination on the basis of race [is] ‘odious in all aspects, is especially pernicious in the administration of justice.’…” Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S.Ct. 855, 197 L.Ed.2d 107 (2017)

What the post-modern critical-race mindset does is go BACK to the old way of thinking. It explicitly divides for the purpose of “equity.” It seeks “present discrimination” to rectify “past discrimination,” and it seeks “future discrimination” to rectify “present discrimination.” How is this any different than George Wallace’s declaration: “Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever”

The post-modernish answer would be that George Wallace was white, and he was fighting FOR WHITE SOCIETY. And so now, we need different leaders to fight FOR BLACK SOCIETY. There is no “right” or “wrong” to the abstract idea of “discrimination” or “segregation” (because in a postmodernist mindset, the “truth,” including “moral truth” is all relative, and doesn’t exist). Instead, “discrimination” and “segregation” were bad, because they hurt BLACK SOCIETY. How? By taking away their power.

The reason that there is an effort to go back to “discrimination” as a valid tactic is because there is the belief (and it may not be incorrect) that the power balance has shifted, and now “discrimination” will BENEFIT BLACK SOCIETY.

This is how a post-modernist thinks about racism and discrimination. What happens when someone with that mindset runs the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division?

The Dangerous Grievance Mindset

We should also note that this is very much a belief based on group grievance. Despite the pseudo-scientific claims of black superiority, there is a strange acknowledgement that black students underperform in schools. But it is blamed on one thing only: the Oppression.

“If it weren’t for these people who are oppressing us, we would be kings and queens. We would be able to make our society great again. All we need to do is remove the oppression from [fill in the blank group].”

That’s the sort of language that starts holocausts (which we have seen in the past), mobs (which we have recently seen), riots (which we have recently seen), storming the capitol (which we have recently seen) and civil wars (which I hope we will not see). It is utterly DANGEROUS in a society, much more so at the highest level of the Federal Government.

Conclusion

I sure hope that Kristen Clarke can convince me that her wild younger days at the president of the Black Studies association are long gone. However, the administration begins in a week on January 20, 2021, and it is going to take YEARS of public demonstration to the contrary for any fair minded viewer to know otherwise.

And unfortunately, it doesn’t look like things have gotten better. They have merely gotten more sophisticated. For instance, look at the position she has made in public about pushing for more “diversity” in the Trump cabinet. Pushing for “diversity” in sex and race is when the selector considers sex and race in employment decisions. Normally, this is ordinary discrimination. But because this push would be discrimination in a POSITIVE direction, she wants it to happen. This interview came in 2018:

Additionally, look at what she had to say about Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is extreme and out of the mainstream for the reasons you will hear here. However, what I would like for you to know as a lawyer is that these “problems” with Amy Coney Barrett are pretty much Justice Barrett doing what Justices are normally required to do: not broadcasting standards of very possible cases in the future, stating what is and isn’t illegal.

This is why a judge may balk at saying “voter intimidation is illegal.” Why? Because a case where one side says “I’m exercising my freedom of speech!” and the other side says “You are intimidating me!” might come before her. Justice Barrett can’t take a side in that. But Kristen Clarke knows this, but she doesn’t care to share that. Why?

Because “truth” is not the goal. “Power” is the goal. She’s trying to break the arm of the opposing team’s coach and hurt the other side rather than “get points” and shoot the winning shot.