The Legacy of Housing Discrimination (VIDEO)

This segment below, from "CBS This Morning," is really well-done --- and troubling.

I mean, there's so much leftist anger and hatred over "racism" and "white supremacy," which nowadays neither is anywhere near the "devastating" levels idiot leftist-Dems want "the rubes" to believe. 

But if you honestly go back to the 1950s and 1960s, you do see patterns or real racial discrimination, and this segment is particularly interesting, as "CBS This Morning" co-host Tony Dokoupil's grandfather settled in the suburb of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, and at the video, Dokoupil conducts a set of generally decent, and not "blame-casting," interviews, discussing the phenomenon of racial "redlining," which back in the day, kept black families from being able to buy homes, and thus build generational wealth.  

It's well-done:

Baseball Legend Hank Aaron Has Died

I was just a kid, and Willie Mays was my favorite at the time (after leaving the S.F. Giants, he had just one more year or so with the N.Y. Mets before retiring), so I can't say I'm a "Henry Aaron" fanatic. I also wasn't watching that day, at Dodger Stadium, when he hit #715.

But Aaron's story is absolutely phenomenal and historic. Just reading his obit, I've been literally shaking my head at what the man dealt with in his life and career.

In any case, here's his NYT obituary (I know, I know, but FWIW), "Hank Aaron, Home Run King Who Defied Racism, Dies at 86":

Hank Aaron, who faced down racism as he eclipsed Babe Ruth as baseball’s home run king, hitting 755 homers and holding the most celebrated record in sports for more than 30 years, has died. He was 86.

The Atlanta Braves, his team for many years, confirmed the death on Friday in a message from its chairman, Terry McGuirk. No other details were provided.

Playing for 23 seasons, all but his final two years with the Braves in Milwaukee and then Atlanta, Aaron was among the greatest all-around players in baseball history and one of the last major league stars to have played in the Negro leagues.

But his pursuit of Ruth’s record of 714 home runs proved a deeply troubling affair beyond the pressures of the ball field. When he hit his 715th home run, on the evening of April 8, 1974, against the Los Angeles Dodgers at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, he prevailed in the face of hate mail and even death threats spewing outrage that a Black man could supplant a white baseball icon.

Aaron was routinely brilliant, performing with seemingly effortless grace, but he had little flash, notwithstanding his nickname in the sports pages, Hammerin’ Hank. He long felt that he had not been accorded the recognition he deserved.

He played for teams far beyond the news media centers of New York and the West Coast, and his Braves won only two pennants and a single World Series championship, those coming long before he approached Ruth’s record.

Aaron did not enjoy the idolatry accorded the Yankees’ Mickey Mantle or match the exuberance and electric presence of the Giants’ Willie Mays, his outfield contemporaries and rivals for acclamation as the greatest ballplayer in major league history.

But when he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1982, his first year of eligibility, Aaron received 97.8 percent of the vote from baseball writers, second at the time only to Ty Cobb, who was inducted in 1936.

Aaron grew up in Alabama amid rigid segregation and its humiliations, and he faced abuse from the stands while playing in the South as a minor leaguer. Years later, he felt that Braves fans were largely indifferent or hostile to him as he chased Ruth’s record. And the baseball commissioner at the time, Bowie Kuhn, was not present when he hit his historic 715th home run.

All that, and especially the hate mail that besieged him, seared Aaron for years to come.

As the 20th anniversary of his home run feat approached in the early 1990s, he told the sports columnist William C. Rhoden of The New York Times, “April 8, 1974, really led up to turning me off on baseball.”

“It really made me see for the first time a clear picture of what this country is about,” he said. “My kids had to live like they were in prison because of kidnap threats, and I had to live like a pig in a slaughter camp. I had to duck. I had to go out the back door of the ball parks. I had to have a police escort with me all the time. I was getting threatening letters every single day. All of these things have put a bad taste in my mouth, and it won’t go away. They carved a piece of my heart away.”

Aaron’s achievements went well beyond his home run prowess. In fact, he never hit as many as 50 homers in a single season.

He was a two-time National League batting champion and had a career batting average of .305. He was the league’s most valuable player in 1957, when the Milwaukee Braves won their only World Series championship. He was voted an All-Star in all but his first and last seasons, and he won three Gold Glove awards for his play in right field.

Aaron combined with the Hall of Fame third baseman Eddie Mathews for 863 home runs during their 13 years together on the Braves, the most ever for two teammates.

Aaron remains No. 1 in the major leagues in total bases (6,856) and runs batted in (2,297); No. 2 in at-bats (12,364), behind Pete Rose; and No. 3 in hits (3,771), behind Rose and Cobb. He won the National League’s single-season home run title four times, though his highest total was only 47, in 1971. Matching his jersey number, he hit exactly 44 home runs in four different seasons.

At six feet tall and 180 pounds, Aaron was hardly the picture of a slugger, but he had thick, powerful wrists, enabling him to whip the bat out of his right-handed stance with uncommon speed.

“He had great forearms and wrists,” Lew Burdette, the outstanding Braves pitcher, recalled in Danny Peary’s oral history “We Played the Game” (1994). “He could be fooled completely and be way out on his front foot, and the bat would still be back, and he’d just roll his wrists and hit the ball out of the ballpark.”

Aaron was quick on the bases and in the outfield...

More at the link.

Tucker Carlson: Democrats Are Demonizing Half the Country (VIDEO)

Following-up, "Biden's Inauguration Brings Back 'American Carnage'!"

Here's Tucker's opening from last night --- the man is on fire!

David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross

At Amazon, David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

MLK Day 2021

A surprising headline at the Los Angeles Times, "Martin Luther King’s Promised Land may be closer than we think."

Plus, seen on Facebook earlier:

Kristen Clarke’s Disastrous Nomination to Head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division (VIDEO)

 From Joseph Klein, at FrontPage Magazine, "Biden’s Disastrous Pick to Head DOJ Civil Rights Division":

Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.

Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, is a disastrous choice. Clarke has a long record of making racially charged-comments, going back to her time in college and continuing to this day. She also has spoken out in favor of anti-Semites. Back in college, Clarke led a student group that provided an anti-Semitic professor a platform to spew his vile remarks. Much more recently, Clarke supported an advocate of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. If Clarke’s name is not withdrawn from consideration, the Senate must reject her nomination.

Back in the day when Clarke served as the president of the Black Students Association (BSA) at Harvard, she co-authored a letter to the Harvard Crimson asserting that blacks are born with “superior physical and mental abilities.” It’s all due to the chemical melanin, Clarke claimed, which “endows [b]lacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards." The Harvard Crimson editors at the time called for Clarke to resign her position at the BSA unless she was “prepared to retract her statements, and apologize publicly for making them.” The furthest that Clarke was willing to go at that time was stating that "The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe.” [Emphasis added] There was no public retraction back then.

Clarke also invited the late Wellesley Professor of Africana Studies Anthony Martin to speak at a 1994 Black Students Association-sponsored event. Clarke’s guest used his time to slander Jews with the accusation that Jews had a “tradition” of persecuting blacks. "There was a Jewish monopoly over Blacks being cursed," Martin said during his address.

Clarke defended the choice of Martin to speak after receiving criticism from the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel. "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact," Clarke said. The real indisputable fact is that Jews have put their lives on the line in the cause of the black civil rights movement. For example, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman served in 1964 as voting-registration volunteers in Meridian, Mississippi and were murdered by Klansmen.

Now that Clarke is craving for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights position in the Biden administration, she wants a do-over. In a recent interview, Clarke said that she realizes it was a mistake to invite Martin to speak at Harvard. “Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” Clarke said, adding that “I unequivocally denounce antisemitism.”

Clarke’s recantation comes way too late. If Democrats had an ounce of intellectual honesty, which they do not, Clarke’s invitation to an anti-Semitic professor to speak at Harvard when she was a student would be reason enough for them to “cancel” Clarke now. After all, Democrats in the Senate were willing to throw Trump nominees’ alleged behavior in college and high school back at them when their nominations were being considered. The worst case involved the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But there were others as well who were targeted by the cancel culture crowd.

In any case, we don’t even have to look back at Clarke’s college days to find proof of her support for radicals who espouse anti-Semitic views. In 2018, for example, Israel denied Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, entry to the country because of his organization’s support for the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Clarke tweeted, “Incredibly disturbed to hear that @VinceWarren was detained and denied entry into Israel on a trip that was carefully and thoughtfully planned out over the course of several months. #CivilRights Lawyers should not be penalized for their work to promote justice.”

As for the letter to the Harvard Crimson Clarke co-authored, claiming that blacks have “superior physical and mental abilities,” Clarke is now saying that it was all a misunderstanding. She claims that the letter was intended as a satirical response to the book The Bell Curve, which posited genetic differences between whites and blacks. Clarke wants us to believe that her letter’s references to melanin as the cause of black superiority “was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory.” That’s disinformation. At the time when the letter was written, Clarke said that she was uncertain whether the melanin theory of black superiority was true or not. There wasn’t a hint of sarcasm in the letter.

Putting aside her comments about melanin back in college, Clarke certainly shows no uncertainty today in embracing critical race theory, which posits that America is inherently racist. In her capacity as president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Clarke condemned the Trump administration’s decision to remove critical race theory from federal government training programs. "Our nation stands at an inflection point as communities are grappling with the ongoing threat of racism, white supremacy and police violence," Clarke said in a statement. "President Trump's latest federal directive is an attempt to discredit, condemn and silence important conversations happening in communities and workplaces about anti-racism and about our nation's history of white supremacy. By banning government support for these discussions, he sends a dangerous message to the country that racism is a fallacy."

Last year, Clarke denounced what she claims is “systemic racism that pervades every aspect of our lives, especially when it comes to policing and the operation of the criminal justice system of our country.” She supports defunding of the police. “I advocate for defunding policing operations that have made African Americans more vulnerable to police violence and contributed to mass incarceration, while investing more in programs and policies that address critical community needs,” she wrote last June for Newsweek. She called the concerns regarding the violence that broke out last year in the wake of the George Floyd killing a “distraction.”

Clearly, if Clarke were to become Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and have her way, she would push to put the police on trial all over the country. She would also force-feed critical race theory to all federal employees and beyond. She would support the BDS movement as a civil right.

 

John McWhorter, Losing the Race

At Amazon, John McWhorter, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America.

Post-George Floyd, Wave of 'Anti-Racist' Teaching Sweeps K-12 Schools Targeting 'Whiteness'

Colleges too, and big time. 

And as you know, I'll be writing quite a bit about this topic of "anti-racist" teaching indoctrination in the weeks and months to come, but unfortunately, it has to be done. 

At RCP Investigations. 

Also, "The Totalitarian Tendencies of the Woke."

BONUS: At the Other McCain, "The Anti-Anti-Racist Professor."

William Julius Wilson, The Bridge over the Racial Divide

At Amazon, William Julius Wilson, The Bridge over the Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coalition Politics.

'There is a fight to be waged against an intellectual matrix coming from American universities and intersectional theses that want to essentialize communities and identities, at the antipodes of the Republican model, which postulates the equality between human beings, independently of their characteristics of origin, sex, religion. It is the breeding ground for a fragmentation of societies that converges with the Islamic model...'

One hundred French intellectuals have signed a letter backing the recent comments from French Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer.  

See the Unz Review, "France: Prominent Academics and Macron Administration Attack American Anti-Racist Ideology as "Anti-White":

100 prominent French academics signed a letter affirming Blanquer’s statement, and calling for the French people to defeat an “American” ideology that preaches hatred of “whites” (a word that, unlike Trump, they explicitly used) and the indigenous Gallo-Romans of France. While the academics and Blanquer primarily blame Saudi-funded Islamist preachers for the death of Samuel Paty, they also believe US influence on their intellectuals has made it socially acceptable to murder white people.  

In an interview with a French journal, Blanquer reiterated this sentiment...

RTWT.

BONUS: Speaking of France and French intellectuals, the Assistant Village Idiot has an explainer: "Critical Race Theory [and Michel Foucault]."

Affirmative Action Crushed at the Polls? Clueless California Leftists Struggle to Figure Out What Went Wrong

Oh brother. 

In 2006, Proposition 209 passed 55 percent to 45 percent (a 10-point) margin. It banned racial preferences in the state.

In 2020, Proposition 16, which would have restored affirmative action in California, was defeated 57 percent to 43 percent (a 14-point margin). 

In 1990, ethnic whites were 60 percent of the state's population. In 2020, ethnic whites are 40 percent of the population. Hispanics now comprise more than 40 percent of the state's population, and we have a "majority-minority" demographic.

And Democrats still couldn't get race quotas approved by the voters? Maybe the problem's the Democrat Party and not the voters. Even in the bluest of states, race-neutral public policies command huge support. I mean Proposition 20, the left's "defund the police" and "abolish prisons" initiative was shot down by a whopping 62 percent to 38 percent, a 24-point margin). 

So, racial justice reform in California isn't going anywhere for now. Good thing, sheesh. 

At the Los Angeles Times, "Failure to bridge divides of age, race doomed affirmative action proposition":

Failure to bridge divides of age, race doomed affirmative action proposition https://t.co/gG10VKbdRP

— Seema (@LATSeema) November 25, 2020

Widespread skepticism in Latino and Asian communities and tepid support among younger Black residents combined with opposition from most whites to doom the effort this year to revive affirmative action in California, according to a new postelection survey.

The failure of Proposition 16, which voters rejected by 57% to 43%, marked a significant defeat for the state’s Democratic political leadership and many activist groups, which backed the Legislature’s move to put the proposal on this year’s ballot.

The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers on an issue that has been a touchstone in the state’s political debates for years.

The survey, conducted by a coalition of community organizations, shows widespread support across racial and ethnic lines for diversity in education, public employment and contracting. At the same time, it showed broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.

On two other topics, the survey showed how attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic have grown more politically divided as the state heads into a period of renewed restrictions designed to limit the spread of the disease.

And it indicated that awareness and concern about racial and ethnic discrimination in the state has receded since reaching a high point this summer.

Asked how often they personally felt discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity, about one-third of Latino respondents said they experienced discrimination “frequently” or “sometimes.” That’s down from nearly half when the poll asked the same question in July.

The finding “reaffirms that these issues are difficult and complicated, and people just don’t have the bandwidth” to focus constantly on discrimination, especially when the impact of COVID dominates so many peoples’ lives, said Helen Torres, executive director of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE), one of the sponsors of the survey.

“It’s hard to sustain for the long term,” she said.

The share of Asian and Pacific Islander respondents who reported feeling discriminated against showed a similar decline since July. The share of Black respondents who reported feeling discriminated against did not significantly decline.

The California Community Poll, conducted online Nov. 4-15, was designed to provide a more detailed view of the state’s racial and ethnic diversity than is typically possible. It surveyed 1,300 adult California citizens, with over-samples of Black, Latino and Asian Pacific Islander respondents in order to ensure enough in each group to allow analysis by age, gender and other characteristics.

The margin of error is estimated at 2.7 percentage points for the full sample. The poll is sponsored by three community organizations — the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment (CAUSE), the Los Angeles Urban League and HOPE.

California banned most government affirmative action programs nearly a quarter century ago, in 1996, when voters approved Proposition 209. Since then, overturning the ban has been a major goal for many Democratic lawmakers and state officials, especially at the University of California, where deans and chancellors have repeatedly said that their inability to take race into account in admissions has kept the number of Latino and Black students well below their share of high school graduates who meet UC eligibility standards.

But as the poll showed, many Californians have more mixed feelings on the subject than their elected officials do.

The results show “a limit on California’s liberalism” that “requires some examination of the progressive base,” said Drew Lieberman, senior vice president of Strategies 360, the polling firm that conducted the survey.

Two-thirds of the California adults surveyed said they believe “diverse representation based on race, gender, ethnicity and national origin” is important, with about 4 in 10 calling it “very important.”

That’s true across major ethnic and racial groups and among both voters and nonvoters, the survey found. About 6 in 10 white respondents said they considered diversity important, along with about 7 in 10 who identify as Latino or Asian or Pacific Islanders. Among Black respondents, the share rose to more than 8 in 10.

But that didn’t translate into support for affirmative action. Among Latino respondents, for example, only 30% said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41% who called it a bad idea and 29% who said they were unsure. The division was similar among Asian and Pacific Islander respondents, with 35% calling the proposition a good idea, 46% saying it was a bad idea and 20% unsure.

White respondents were slightly more opposed, with 32% calling the measure a good idea, 53% a bad idea and 15% unsure.

Only among Black respondents did the proposition get majority support, with 56% calling it a good idea, 19% a bad idea and 25% unsure.

The views of voters and nonvoters were very similar, suggesting that higher turnout would probably not have changed the results.

Roughly a third of those polled could be characterized as solid supporters of affirmative action — people who said that diversity is important and the ballot measure was a good idea. On the other side, just over 1 in 5 say diversity is not important to them and that the ballot measure was a bad idea.

Another 1 in 5 say diversity is important but that the proposal was a bad idea. The members of that swing group are more likely than others to describe themselves as moderates and to be suburbanites.

Since the election, some supporters of the ballot measure have speculated that voters may have been confused about its potential impact. The survey does not support that. After asking people their opinion, the survey gave a more extensive description of the ballot measure and retested people’s feelings on it. The additional information did not significantly change people’s views.

Still more.

The Inauthenticity Behind Black Lives Matter

It's Shelby Steele, at WSJ, "Insisting on the prevalence of ‘systemic racism’ is a way of defending a victim-focused racial identity":

Insisting on the prevalence of ‘systemic racism’ is a way of defending a victim-focused racial identity. But blacks today are far more likely to encounter racial preferences than racial discrimination, writes Shelby Steele. https://t.co/zg7k3WbJBc

— Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@Ayaan) November 23, 2020

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina gave a remarkable speech at this year’s Republican National Convention. Yes, here was a black man at a GOP event, so there was a whiff of identity politics. When we see color these days, we expect ideology to follow. But Mr. Scott’s charisma that night was simply that he spoke as a person, not a spokesperson for his color.

Burgess Owens, Herschel Walker, Daniel Cameron and several others did the same. It was a parade of individuals. And in their speeches the human being stepped out from behind the identity, telling personal stories that reached for human connections with the American people—this rather than the usual posturing for leverage with tales of grievance. So they were all fresh and compelling.

Do these Republicans foretell a new racial order in America? Clearly they have pushed their way through an old racial order, as have—it could be argued—many black Trump voters in the recent election. I believe there is in fact a new racial order slowly and tenuously emerging, and that we blacks are swimming through rough seas to reach it. But to better see the new, it is necessary to know the old.

The old began in what might be called America’s Great Confession. In passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, America effectively confessed to a long and terrible collusion with the evil of racism. (President Kennedy was the first president to acknowledge that civil rights was a “moral issue.”) This triggered nothing less than a crisis of moral authority that threatened the very legitimacy of American democracy.

Even today, almost 60 years beyond the Civil Rights Act, groups like Black Lives Matter, along with a vast grievance industry, use America’s insecure moral authority around race as an opportunity to assert themselves. Doesn’t BLM dwell in a space made for it by America’s racial self-doubt?

In the culture, whites and American institutions are effectively mandated by this confession to prove their innocence of racism as a condition of moral legitimacy. Blacks, in turn, are mandated to honor their new freedom by developing into educational and economic parity with whites. If whites achieve racial innocence and blacks develop into parity with whites, then America will have overcome its original sin. Democracy will have become manifest.

This was America’s post-confession bargain between the races—innocence on the white hand, development on the black. It defined the old order with which those convention speakers seemed to break. But there is a problem with these mandates: To achieve their ends, they both need blacks to be victims. Whites need blacks they can save to prove their innocence of racism. Blacks must put themselves forward as victims the better to make their case for entitlements.

This is a corruption because it makes black suffering into a moral power to be wielded, rather than a condition to be overcome. This is the power that blacks discovered in the ’60s. It gained us a War on Poverty, affirmative action, school busing, public housing and so on. But it also seduced us into turning our identity into a virtual cult of victimization—as if our persecution was our eternal flame, the deepest truth of who we are, a tragic fate we trade on. After all, in an indifferent world, it may feel better to be the victim of a great historical injustice than a person left out of history when that injustice recedes.

Yet there is an elephant in the room. It is simply that we blacks aren’t much victimized any more. Today we are free to build a life that won’t be stunted by racial persecution. Today we are far more likely to encounter racial preferences than racial discrimination. Moreover, we live in a society that generally shows us goodwill—a society that has isolated racism as its most unforgivable sin.

This lack of victimization amounts to an “absence of malice” that profoundly threatens the victim-focused black identity. Who are we without the malice of racism? Can we be black without being victims? The great diminishment (not eradication) of racism since the ’60s means that our victim-focused identity has become an anachronism. Well suited for the past, it strains for relevance in the present.

Thus, for many blacks today—especially the young—there is a feeling of inauthenticity, that one is only thinly black because one isn’t racially persecuted. “Systemic racism” is a term that tries to recover authenticity for a less and less convincing black identity. This racism is really more compensatory than systemic. It was invented to make up for the increasing absence of the real thing.

Keep reading.

'To cultivate a genuine sense of American identity requires more than agreement with its principles. It requires a sense of belonging and affection. It requires a love of America as one’s own...'

I love this piece, at RCP, "Frederick Douglass’s American Identity Politics."

The Coming Black Crime Bloodbath (VIDEO)

She's one of the most politically incorrect women in America, and she's riding a wave of prescience on Black Lives Matter. Super compelling interview with Epoch Times editor Jan Jekielek.

And at Amazon, Heather Mac Donald, The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.

White Privilege

It's the rage right now, or, atoning for it is.

At LAT, "‘Something is not right.’ George Floyd protests push white Americans to think about their privilege":

The police killing of George Floyd and resulting protests have led white Americans to reckon with racism more vigorously than at any moment in recent history. https://t.co/tpRqGetRha

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 28, 2020

GUALALA, Calif. —  Mike Sexton is white and a Republican who lives in an affluent suburb of Fort Worth, where many neighbors back President Trump and some work in law enforcement. Rage wells up in his voice as he says that George Floyd, a Black man, was “basically lynched.” 

Shawn Ashmore is an independent who lives nearby in east Dallas. He’s using Floyd’s killing to teach his young sons uncomfortable lessons about the privileges their family enjoys because they’re white — how, for instance, they’ll never fear for their lives during an encounter with the police the way some Black men do.

Lisa Joakimides lives in rural Northern California and considers herself a well-meaning Democrat. After the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Joakimides, who is white, convinced herself that America was finally making amends for its history of mistreating Black people.

As Joakimides got down on both knees to honor Floyd at a roadside demonstration in early June, she wondered how she could have been so naive.

Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis, captured in witness videos showing then-Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck, has led white Americans to call out racism against Black Americans more vigorously than at any moment in recent memory. And it’s prompting many white people to think more deeply about the color of their own skin.

Why now? Chicago-based sociology professor Jacqueline Battalora believes that after three wearying months of social isolation and economic upheaval brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, Floyd’s killing was yet another blow to the illusions of safety, security and equality that many white people harbor about America.

“The police are fair; institutions are fair — white people have been so happy to believe those things,” said Battalora, a former police officer and author of “Birth of a White Nation: The Invention of White People and Its Relevance Today.” “What this signals is that a good chunk of white people now have some recognition that something’s not right.”

For Sexton, Ashmore and Joakimides, the killing of Floyd and outpourings of rage have forced them to see that expressions of sympathy and displays of solidarity with Black people are only the beginning. America won’t change its racist ways, they say, unless white people use this period of protest and reflection to change, too.

What’s different this time, Sexton said, is that white people have gained a better sense of where that outrage comes from, and how insulated they are from the racial injustices that provoke it.

Sexton, 45, said he can’t sit on the sidelines of the protest movement, or shy away from the national conversation about racism and police brutality, simply because he votes red instead of blue.

“It’s not right versus left,” he said. “It’s right versus wrong.”

Sexton said he wasn’t oblivious to racial discrimination. Every Black person he knows has shared stories of being followed and stopped for no reason by police.

But the video of Floyd’s killing, which captured him crying out “I can’t breathe” and calling out for his dead mother, made Sexton realize the powerlessness and sheer panic that Black people often experience in the presence of officers.

He said it’s crazy that it took so long for him and other white people to fully grasp that horror of police brutality, “but for us, we wouldn’t have understood were it not for the video.”

“Now,” he said, “we’re listening.”

Sexton, a salesman, recently organized a rally for police accountability in a high school parking lot near where he lives in Grapevine, Texas. It drew about 200 demonstrators, most of them white.

Members of the clergy and Grapevine Police Chief Mike Hamlin attended. One of the speakers was a Trump supporter.

A Black teen told the crowd that she was afraid to bring children into the world because she feared she wouldn’t be able to protect them from law enforcement or the country’s racism.

“That broke my heart into a thousand pieces,” Sexton said.

After weeks of protest, opinions about police violence appear to be shifting, but there’s still a large gap between white and Black people about whether it represents a national crisis.

In an AP-NORC poll taken in mid-June, fewer than half of white respondents — 39% — believe that police violence against the public is either an extreme or very serious problem, compared with 80% of Black respondents.

Those numbers did show a shrinking of the gulf between the way white and Black Americans view the issue. The same poll was taken in the early stages of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2015, and then only 19% of white people said police violence was an extreme or serious problem, compared with 73% of Black people.

“It created this opening for white people,” Battalora said of Floyd‘s killing. “But that’s different from saying we ‘get it.’ That will be more of a process.”

It remains to be seen whether the spectacle in recent days of white people locking hands to protect Black demonstrators from riot police, or taking part in the toppling of monuments to Confederate soldiers and slaveholders, represents a turning point...

Still more.

Interactive Cover

Click through, at the New Yorker:

An early look at next week’s cover, "Say Their Names," by @KadirNelson: https://t.co/Nj3q09OrOL pic.twitter.com/a3w3l1XESb

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) June 14, 2020

Also:

Like men who saw the scroll of #MeToo testimonies & interrogated women, asking “Is it really that bad?,” the shock of Floyd’s death is itself a barometer of inequality, evidence of who has moved through life free of the burden of such terrible knowledge. https://t.co/7Ci2bv3ToO

— jelani cobb (@jelani9) June 14, 2020

It's performative journalism.

Terrifying Collapse of Rule of Law Across America

I've been waiting for this, from Heather Mac Donald, at City Journal, "Darkness Falls: The collapse of the rule of law across the country, intensified by Antifa radicals, is terrifying":

Savagery is spreading with lightning speed across the United States, with murderous assaults on police officers and civilians.

Welcome to a real civilization-destroying pandemic.

My latest @CityJournal https://t.co/mTZef4vnZP

— Heather Mac Donald (@HMDatMI) June 1, 2020

This pandemic of civil violence is more widespread than anything seen during the Black Lives Matter movement of the Obama years, and it will likely have an even deadlier toll on law enforcement officers than the targeted assassinations we saw from 2014 onward. It’s worse this time because the country has absorbed another five years of academically inspired racial victimology. From Ta-Nehisi Coates to the New York Times’s 1619 project, the constant narrative about America’s endemic white supremacy and its deliberate destruction of the “black body” has been thoroughly injected into the political bloodstream.

Facts don’t matter to the academic victimology narrative. Far from destroying the black body, whites are the overwhelming target of interracial violence. Between 2012 and 2015, blacks committed 85.5 percent of all black-white interracial violent victimizations (excluding interracial homicide, which is also disproportionately black-on-white). That works out to 540,360 felonious assaults on whites. Whites committed 14.4 percent of all interracial violent victimization, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks. Blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population.

If white mobs were rampaging through black business districts, assaulting passersby and looting stores, we would have heard about it on the national news every night. But the black flash mob phenomenon is grudgingly covered, if at all, and only locally.

The national media have been insisting on the theme of the allegedly brutal Minneapolis police department. They said nothing as black-on-white robberies rose in downtown Minneapolis late last year, along with savage assaults on passersby. Why are the Minneapolis police in black neighborhoods? Because that’s where violent crime is happening, including shootings of two-year-olds and lethal beatings of 75-year-olds. Just as during the Obama years, the discussion of the allegedly oppressive police is being conducted in the complete absence of any recognition of street crime and the breakdown of the black family that drives it.

Once the violence began, any effort to “understand” it should have stopped, since that understanding is inevitably exculpatory. The looters are not grieving over the stomach-churning arrest and death of George Floyd; they are having the time of their lives. You don’t protest or mourn a victim by stealing oxycontin, electronics, jewelry, and sneakers...

RTWT.

Social Distancing in College Classrooms

I really don't know how this is going to work.

First, given reports of the last few days, and especially the news of the Harvard study indicating social distancing may be needed well into 2022, I'm not sure colleges will even be back in the classrooms.

Second, though, how are colleges supposed to do this? At my school, we have enrollment in each class capped at 40 students, which is a full classroom. You're not going to be able to distance students within the class. Either class maximums have to lowered by about half, or teachers are going to have to double their teaching loads, which won't happen.

Man, all of this is crazy.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Social distancing in a classroom? Newsom suggests major changes when schools reopen":

Social distancing in a classroom? Newsom suggests major changes when schools reopen https://t.co/PYSfNIzqZs

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) April 14, 2020

Although campuses are likely to reopen in the fall, the school day may unfold in starkly different ways, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Tuesday, suggesting staggered start times, “reconfigured” classrooms that allow for social distancing and some continuance of online learning.

The governor said that physical distancing and other precautions against transmission of the coronavirus could remain in place for a lengthy period at schools after stay-at-home orders are lifted and California begins to gradually reopen.

School district leaders will need to begin considering a host of safety measures, he said.

“Can you stagger the times that our students come in so you can appropriate yourself differently within the existing physical environment — by reducing physical contact if possible, reducing the congregate meal, dressing issues related to PE and recess?” Newsom said. “Those are the kinds of things — those are the kind of conversations we’re all going to be having over the course of the next number of weeks and the next number of months.”

“We need to get our kids back to school,” he added. “I need to get my kids back to school. We need to get our kids educated.”

Such precautionary measures would have a profound impact on the experience of school for the state’s 6.1 million students in kindergarten through 12th grade as well as for students attending college. Since early to mid March, virtually all schooling in California has become “distance learning,” typically involving students and teachers interacting online.

The biggest concern has centered on the effect of the altered learning environment for students who lack computers, adequate broadband or suitable study conditions at home. Many school districts are loaning out computers and arranging for internet access. Los Angeles Unified is spending $100 million on computers and broadband hot spots for its students — 80% are members of low-income households.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said he’s encouraged by the governor’s optimism, the incremental progress in the fight against COVID-19 and the early thinking on reopening schools. All the same, he said, schools need to “continue working on distance learning,” make the most of the current school year and look at using the summer to address academic issues.

On Monday, L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner announced that campuses in the state’s largest school system would remain closed through summer, with online courses available. District officials also said Monday that no student would receive a failing grade for spring classes...

My college is also having online summer classes, and faculty are waiting to hear what's going to happen for the fall semester.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Norman Varner in 'Preferred Prounouns' Transgender Case

At the Hill, "Judge: Referring to transgender people by chosen pronouns 'courtesy,' not law."

And from Vodkapundit, at Instapundit, "MORE LIKE THIS, PLEASE: Sanity at Last: Court Refuses to Kowtow to Personal Pronouns Like ‘Xemself, Faerself’":

On Wednesday, a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused a male prisoner's motion that the name on his order of confinement be changed and that he be addressed by female pronouns on account of his female gender identity. The ruling on personal pronouns sets an important precedent for free speech, judicial impartiality, and the basic meaning of pronouns against the transgender movement's bastardization of language.

The case involves Norman Varner, a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempted receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 15 years in prison, partly due to his previous conviction on child pornography and his failure to register as a sex offender. In 2015, he claimed to have transitioned to being female, and asked to be referred to as "Kathrine Nicole Jett."

A lower court had denied his motion and he appealed. The 5th Circuit panel ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to consider the request because Varner's motion was not authorized by any statute...

Still more.

Jill Arrington Featured at the Los Angeles Times

This is a major, major investigation, and fascinating.

I remember Ms. Jill announcing her departure from CBS 2 Los Angeles a couple of years ago, and she was disgruntled.

At LAT, "One year after Moonves’ exit, CBS TV stations also face harassment and misogyny claims":

One year after Moonves' exit, CBS TV stations also face harassment and misogyny claims https://t.co/cxetfh5ktn

— LAT Entertainment (@latimesent) December 8, 2019

Jill Arrington was a star in TV sports. Then, four years ago, the former NFL sideline reporter traded national exposure for what she thought would be a more stable job at CBS’ television stations in Los Angeles.

Arrington loved chronicling the Rams and other pro teams, and eventually took on additional duties as the weekend sports anchor for KCBS-TV Channel 2 and KCAL-TV Channel 9. But one thing about her job galled her: She was earning nearly $60,000 less a year than the male anchor she replaced.

When her contract came up for renewal, Arrington told the station’s top managers that it was unacceptable to pay a woman so much less than a man.

“Oooh, isn’t she tough,” Arrington recalls the former general manager of CBS’ L.A. stations, Steve Mauldin, saying during a March 2018 meeting. She said Mauldin turned to his lieutenant and said: “This one talks more than my wife.”

The meeting ended with no assurance of a raise. But as Arrington started to leave, she said her boss told her: “Put on a tennis dress and meet me at the golf club. We’ll put you on tape, and you can make some extra money.”

Arrington had experienced come-ons in her years covering sports, but nothing like this. She confided in a colleague, who recalled that Arrington was “frantic and scared” after the exchange. In an interview last week, Mauldin denied making the remarks. “That didn’t happen,” he said. “That’s the most absurd thing. I would not talk to women that way.”

Six months after that meeting, a bombshell detonated at the highest level of the company: CBS’ larger-than-life chief executive, Leslie Moonves, was ousted over claims he harassed and assaulted multiple women decades ago.

After a high-profile probe into Moonves’ conduct and the company’s workplace culture, independent law firms hired by CBS concluded that “harassment and retaliation are not pervasive at CBS.” But a Times investigation has uncovered claims of discrimination, retaliation and other forms of mistreatment in an overlooked but significant corner of the company: the chain of CBS-owned television stations.

More than two dozen current and former employees of KCBS and KCAL described a toxic environment where, they said, employees encountered age discrimination, misogyny, and sexual harassment — and retaliation if they complained.

Discrimination complaints have also surfaced at CBS-owned stations in Chicago, Dallas and Miami. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against CBS after investigating allegations that station managers in Dallas denied a full-time position to a 42-year-old traffic reporter and instead hired a 24-year-old former NFL cheerleader who didn’t meet the job’s requirements. CBS denied that it engaged in discrimination.

In late November, shortly before a scheduled trial, CBS reached a tentative agreement to resolve an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by award-winning Miami-based journalist Michele Gillen, who sued CBS last year. The company admitted no liability in the agreement. In her court filings, Gillen called CBS a “good ole boys club” that “protects men despite bad behavior.”

*****

During the last seven years, multiple women at the Los Angeles stations complained that they were subject to harassment by their bosses or colleagues.

Early in 2018, prominent KCAL anchor Leyna Nguyen complained to KCBS management about inappropriate comments and unwanted touching by a male colleague, according to several people familiar with the matter. CBS spent months investigating the allegations but concluded there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, according to a person familiar with the situation who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity.

CBS reached a settlement with Nguyen in July 2018 — just days before the allegations about Moonves became big news. Nguyen, a 20-year employee who left KCBS following the incident, declined to comment on the matter. CBS also struck a separation agreement with the person who was accused of the misconduct, and he also left. CBS did not admit liability in the matter. The employee denied wrongdoing and did not respond to a request for comment placed through his attorney.

The station’s then-head of makeup, Gwendolyn Gatti, backed Nguyen’s allegations. Gatti said the same employee harassed her, too, and that he “propositioned her for sex, asked about her sex life,” “slapped her on the buttocks,” and used the N-word when referring to her, according to a lawsuit in a separate case. CBS settled the matter with Gatti on July 27, 2018, according to court records. In a court filing, a CBS attorney labeled Gatti’s sexual harassment allegations “frivolous.” CBS denied any liability, according to a partially redacted copy of Gatti’s settlement agreement.

A former KCBS employee told The Times that he recalled a separate episode several years ago when Gatti was near tears and shaking with anger after a different colleague, a cameraman, forcefully slapped her on the buttocks. A second person confirmed that CBS investigated the slapping incident and the cameraman was disciplined.

Gatti was fired in September 2018, two months after her settlement. The 64-year-old makeup artist sued CBS in Los Angeles Superior Court in February, alleging wrongful termination, discrimination and retaliation. CBS, in court documents, said Gatti was fired “after she brought illegal drugs onto CBS property, in violation of company policy.”

In her lawsuit, Gatti said she realized her wallet was missing on Sept. 18, 2018, and called CBS’ security office to see if it had been turned it in. Later that day, she said she was called to the security office and presented with what she said were two empty plastic bags that a security guard claimed were found in her wallet. Gatti denied the bags were hers and “stated that she does not use any illegal drugs,” according to the lawsuit. She was fired the next day.

Nguyen and Gatti complained to management about sexual harassment in March 2018, according to court records. This was the same month that Arrington, the weekend sports anchor, began inquiring about her contract renewal. A single mom, she had been at the station more than two years, her duties had increased, and she wanted a raise.

The Times independently confirmed that CBS was paying Arrington about $60,000 a year less than her male predecessor. Arrington said her goal simply was to extend her contract, which expired in April 2018, and get a bump in pay to an anchor’s salary because she was putting in long hours serving as both a reporter and an anchor — appearing in as many as seven telecasts on a weekend shift.

Arrington was far from the highest-paid employee at the station, according to a person familiar with KCBS’ finances. Her salary put her among the middle of the pack. She was told to discuss the situation with Mauldin, which led to the awkward exchange.

Arrington’s colleague, Elsa Ramon, a former KCBS and KCAL anchor, confirmed that Arrington shared details about the incident with her shortly after it occurred in early 2018.

“She was uncomfortable,” Ramon said. “Mauldin made a suggestion that she engage in some activity,” adding that she viewed it as a quid pro quo situation.

A second CBS executive who attended the meeting said he didn’t recall Mauldin making inappropriate comments. Arrington claims that executive left the meeting just before she did. The second executive and Mauldin said they felt that Arrington was out of line in asking for a substantial raise over her $135,000 annual salary at a time when the station was struggling to control costs. (Arrington said she made no specific salary demands, and merely asked to be paid what other anchors in L.A. were making.)

“I thought she was making a good salary,” Mauldin said. “She thought she was worth more.”

Arrington initially was reluctant to talk to The Times.

Before joining KCBS, the 47-year-old Georgia native worked at Fox Sports, ESPN and CBS Sports, where she was seen by millions of viewers on the sidelines of NFL games and hosting shows about college football and NASCAR. Playboy readers in a 2000 online poll voted her America’s “sexiest sportscaster.” She declined the $1-million offer to pose for the magazine.

She arrived at KCBS and KCAL in 2015 after being recruited by Bill Dallman, a popular station news director who was also a Fox Sports alum. Arrington said she accepted the CBS stations job even though it meant lower pay and less exposure than a position at a national network. She was then in her 40s and working in on-air roles, a corner of the industry that can be unforgiving to women as they age.

Arrington nonetheless said she “felt it could be a whole new career for me, and a place where I could work for the next 10 years.”

Dallman, who now is news director for an ABC affiliate in Seattle, told The Times: “Jill and I both worked diligently to improve the quality of the on-air product and the culture in the building.”

Arrington enjoyed her experience early on, particularly co-anchoring KCAL’s weekend “Sports Central” with Gary Miller, an ESPN veteran. Miller, who now works at a Cincinnati station owned by Sinclair, said in an interview that Arrington was capable and a team player. Another KCBS reporter said: “She was one of the best we’ve ever had.”

Miller said Arrington confided in him that she was uncomfortable with Mauldin’s comments. Miller said he encouraged Arrington to complain to the human relations department, but she felt her best option was to avoid Mauldin. “He would start talking about her appearance or ask about her private life,” Miller said. “It was so inappropriate.” Mauldin denied the claims, saying “there was never a time when I put her in an uncomfortable position.”

Miller was let go in January 2017 due to budget cuts, and Arrington’s workload increased.

There were other tensions, too, according to seven current and former station employees interviewed by The Times. Jim Hill, a former NFL player and a fixture in L.A. broadcasting, was the station’s main sports personality and its sports director. He seemed uninterested in sharing the limelight, these people said.

“Jim wanted to handle the big stuff,” Mauldin said, adding that Hill was one of his favorites. “He wanted to do the big interviews, and I think Jill had a problem with that. ... I don’t think people down there [in sports] were comfortable being around her because of where her head was at.”

Arrington’s feature stories rarely appeared in Hill’s shows, she and others familiar with the situation said. Even a powerful report on an NFL lineman battling depression didn’t make the cut. Instead, the station ran preseason baseball clips.

“She wasn’t allowed to do stories that she wanted to do,” Miller said.

Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

Arrington said she tried to persevere: “I was just hoping the quality of my work would speak for itself.”

In early August 2018, the high-profile investigation into CBS’ culture began. Arrington’s attorney, Bobby Hacker, said he reached out to lawyers conducting the review because of concerns about Arrington’s treatment. But Arrington didn’t get a chance to talk to the investigators.

She was blindsided a week later on Aug. 22, 2018. It was her first day back at work after spending the weekend covering a Rams-Oakland Raiders preseason game. She was summoned to a conference room, where Tara Finestone, the news director who had replaced Dallman in January 2018, told her it was her last day.

Arrington demanded an explanation. She recalls Finestone saying: “We’re not firing you. We are happy with the quality of your work.” Instead, Arrington was told her position was no longer being staffed.

“I thanked her for her contributions and we talked about budgetary reasons,” Finestone told The Times. “Hers was the position that we decided to eliminate.”

More than a year later, Arrington still hasn’t landed a new job and she fears for her future.

“My takeaway from my experience at KCBS is that they were more concerned with protecting political alignments rather than the quality of their on-air broadcasts,” she said.

Colleagues and others also were confused by her abrupt departure. “My dealings with Jill were always first rate,” said Steve Brener, Dodgers spokesman. “She was professional and easy to work with. Then one day, she wasn’t here any more.”

Other station staffers say management decisions can be capricious and punitive. In 2013, Emmy Award-winning KCBS reporter Joy Benedict, who had just become the union shop steward at the station, posted a photo on Facebook of herself playfully posing on a giant chess board while on vacation in Miami with the caption, “Who wants to play with me???” Executives in New York became upset when a TV industry blog reposted the picture. They ordered KCBS managers to fire Benedict over the picture, according to three people with knowledge of the incident. KCBS executives felt that was too harsh of a punishment but they nonetheless assigned Benedict to primarily work less desirable weekend shifts. CBS representatives pointed out that she has since been given additional on-air opportunities at KCBS and CBS News.

Nancy London, who worked at CBS for 34 years, found herself on the outs after years of favorable performance reviews.

Nearly a decade ago, London, who worked at KCBS in technical services, received a new assignment and a new boss. He “harassed and ridiculed” her, she claimed in a lawsuit, alleging age, race and sex discrimination. London is African American. When she complained to HR, she said the situation grew worse. In July 2011, she was confronted by her boss and three other men who “railed upon” her in a group setting, London alleged in court filings. She fainted, requiring medical attention, according to the lawsuit.

A week later, London was fired.

London sued CBS in 2012, alleging wrongful termination. CBS dismissed London’s account as baseless. CBS settled the case in 2013 and did not admit liability. London declined to comment.

Several older CBS workers in L.A. also have alleged that they have been subject to age discrimination. The company also has come under criticism for its use of so-called per diem reporters, some of whom have worked for CBS for decades. These employees refer to themselves as freelancers, but some have been there so long that they jokingly call themselves “perma-lancers.”

Los Angeles relies heavily on per diem talent, according to executives and agents. The system causes resentment because it results in two classes of staff members working side by side. Using more per diem, part-time workers allows the stations to save money on personnel costs.

“People want to work in L.A., so there is a bigger pool of talent,” said one veteran CBS executive. “It comes down to market conditions.”

In the last 18 months, the station hired several new part-time reporters in their 20s. Younger reporters tend to get marquee weekday slots, which has caused resentment among some veterans, according to interviews and a review of KCBS staffing schedules.

In the just-completed November sweeps, KCBS and KCAL tied for sixth place in Los Angeles in viewership to late local newscasts. Market leaders are Walt Disney Co.’s KABC-TV Channel 7 and Univision’s KMEX-TV Channel 34.

“They are trying to cut, cut, cut and it’s taking a toll,” said Ramon, the former anchor who left the station in spring 2018. Ramon, 48, left rather than return to the weekend shift after spending two years filling in on prominent weekday newscasts because she cherished that time with her kids. She said she did not experience sexual harassment, but she didn’t see any opportunity for advancement, particularly because the station was investing in younger workers. “I felt that I was just spinning my wheels,” she said.

Numerous people said the atmosphere at KCBS and KCAL deteriorated after Dallman left.

Six employees told the Times that what they perceived as a hostile atmosphere at the station contributed to their decision to leave it in recent years.

Earlier this year, KCBS employees brought their concerns about stagnant wages and reliance on long-term freelancers to their union, SAG-AFTRA. Nearly two dozen reporters and anchors signed a petition in May. A union representative declined to comment on pending negotiations.

Mauldin denied that women were treated poorly or underpaid and said that the highest-paid talent was 30-year anchor Pat Harvey, a woman.

“We didn’t pay women less than men because they were women,” he said. “We respect everyone. But when you cut back in business, it’s difficult on people.”

CBS has faced workplace complaints in other divisions. Scott Pelley, 62, the respected former anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” told CNN that he lost his job as chief anchor “because I wouldn’t stop complaining ... about the hostile work environment.” CBS also ousted two big names — morning news anchor Charlie Rose and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager — over allegations of inappropriate conduct.

CBS’ board a year ago acknowledged shortcomings. “Historical policies [and] practices ... have not reflected a high institutional priority on preventing harassment and retaliation,” the board said of the investigators’ findings.

At KCBS and KCAL, a new general manager, Jay Howell, arrived in July, after spending the previous year running CBS stations in Pittsburgh.

Some staff members said they doubt reforms will filter down to the local stations.