NYC Psychiatrist Tells Yale Audience: ‘I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way …’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Ed Zilch from Pixabay

Two months ago, NYC psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani delivered a virtual public lecture at Yale University School of Medicine’s Department of Child Study Center. The title of her discussion was “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.”

Even for Yale, this was pretty radical.

As you may have guessed from the headline, Khilanani is unapologetically anti-white and she is most definitely angry.

An attendee sent a recording of the lecture to journalist Bari Weiss who writes she initially thought it was sent as “a prank.” After looking over Khilanani’s social media history, she quickly realized it was genuine.

Weiss explained that the recording was available only to those with a Yale University school ID. The university attached a warning for “profanity and imagery for violence.”

MEA World Wide, an India based media outlet, reported that the day before the lecture, an employee from the Dean’s office who had previewed the video recording, emailed Khilanani “to ask about the impact of her speech.” She replied, “If you obliterate the difference there’s no f—— problem here so shut up, you’re the real racist.”

Angry that the recording was unavailable to the general public, Khilanani posted a video on TikTok. She said, “My talk at Yale Child Study Center was just released internally. Unnamed and untitled like the privilege it protects.”

A recording of Khilanani’s remarks is provided at the top of Weiss’ webpage. The quality isn’t terrific, but it is audible. Here are a few of the highlights:

“I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f—— favor.” (Time stamp: 7:15)

“This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil.”

“White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time.” (Time stamp: 17:05)

“We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just like sort of not a good idea.” (Time stamp: 17:10)

“We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask.” (Time stamp: 17:50)

These statements sound like the ramblings of a deranged mind, yet Yale University sees fit to give this woman a platform so she can infect young, impressionable minds with her poison.

Khilanani’s comments are some of the most racist I’ve ever heard. Although her level of hatred toward whites may rank near the more extreme end of the spectrum, sadly, I’m sure many non-whites harbor similar feelings. And you can be sure some of the audience members were reached and possibly changed, by her message. This is where the embrace of critical race theory has brought us.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Writer Katie Herzog, Weiss’ colleague interviewed Khilanani and the transcript is provided below (via Common Sense with Bari Weiss):

KH: Your bio online says you are a “Forensic Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, with expertise in violence, racism, and marginalized identities. I left academic institutions because of institutional racism. Word.” Tell me about that. What happened?

AK: I trained at Cornell and Columbia and NYU and I really experienced all aspects of Cornell and Columbia as very racist. Less so NYU. NYU I found to be a lot more open. Cornell, I think we had one black faculty member. When I was at Columbia we had, I think, one black psychoanalyst. And just the way of thinking was all the same.

Do you have examples of what you experienced?

Sure. When I was at Cornell, I got beat up by a patient’s family member. I have a friend who is blonde and when she got threatened [by a patient] I think they did a Grand Rounds or a talk or some kind of symposium. They really addressed it. She was given a lot of support. And I’m not even sure if she was actually hit or not.

Now, when that happened to me, and I actually got beat up, the way they responded was, “Well what do you think you did to elicit this?” That’s the question I got. Like I must have done something to provoke the attack.

Did you file a complaint?

No, because the more that you push back, the more they are going to keep attacking you. Also, in my first year, along with another person of color, I had the most Saturday call. These things are not incidental. There was a meeting where they actually tried to take away my vacation from me.

Why?

They came up with this idea that since I hadn’t put the request on the calendar then they’re not going to give it to me. So that one I did push back on. That one I reported. It was a very chilling conversation that I had with somebody. This is how these chilling conversations go. It’s never through email. They’ll call you on the phone and say, “We need to talk to you about something,” because they never want any of this stuff documented. They’ll be like, “Since you didn’t put this on the calendar, you’re not allowed to have vacation.” And I said, “So-and-so and so-and-so didn’t put it on the calendar. Why do they get vacation?” And they’re like, “Do you really want to put yourself in the position where you’re pointing out your colleagues’ stuff?” Like they needed to make me the person who is calling out my colleagues — not that it was unfair.

When was this?

When I was in residency. Either 2007 or ‘08.

Clearly the national conversation has changed a lot. I think in 2007, 2008, there were probably very few people who knew what anti-racism was. There was a lot more ignorance on the part of white people. Do you think things have changed in any meaningful way?

In some places things are starting to change, in other places, they really can’t reflect on themselves because there’s a lot to lose. I have a question for you.

Sure.

Is what you’re writing going to be from a conservative perspective?

Well, I’m not conservative so, no.

I ask because I actually think that conservatives are psychologically healthier.

Interesting.

They are more in touch with their anger and negative feelings. They can articulate it. They can say it, they’re not covering it up or like “Oh my god, I’m amazing, I love all people.” There’s not all this liberal fluff of goodness. Conservatives can go there. They can say things that are uncomfortable that I think liberals would shirk at or move away from or deny.

I would feel more comfortable hanging out with Ann Coulter than a lot of liberals because she’s unlikely to do anything. She’s in contact with her anger and her hatred, and I think that needs to be worked through, don’t get me wrong, for the country to heal, but she’s actually in contact with those feelings that a lot of people can’t say out loud and that’s a safer space. Now do I agree with her? No. But liberals have no access to that at all. The thought is forbidden.

It sounds like what you’re saying is that you think liberals would be healthier if they expressed racism.

Absolutely. Well, not racism, because racism is an action. Racism occurs in a couple situations: when you are unaware of aspects of your unconscious, then it will come out in the form of an action. So if you are not aware of your own hatred and rage, it’s going to come out in an action if the feeling is not metabolized. For people who can say that they hate something and work through that feeling, then there’s more hope there. That’s where the work really needs to happen. I can’t really help the liberal who says, “There’s no problem here.” I can’t do that much with that person. This country doesn’t really give white people the tools to deal with their negative feelings.

I know you have a background in critical theory. How did you go from academia to psychiatry?

My masters is in humanities and the focus is largely on critical theory. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the University of Chicago, but it was very critical theory-heavy when I went. I did pre-med stuff in undergrad and had always been thinking of these issues. I also majored in English Lit and wondered about other ways of thinking. And I was interested in the unconscious for a long time, so it wasn’t that big of a jump for me.

From my experience, therapists tend to act pretty neutral. Is your practice like that?

Not at all. I think that’s a part of the racist aspect of psychoanalysis, this idea that people are neutral is, I think, a complete fiction. But I would say that who I am inside the room is exactly who I am outside the room. My patients have a pretty good sense of who I am. I’m not the stereotype of the psychoanalyst where I’m withholding or won’t say anything or will just be there as a sounding board because that sounds really fucking cold and empty. That sounds awful. I do have people sit with their emotions and get into unconscious stuff but I’m there as myself to be with them.

Talk to me about the unconscious. What is this?

Critical theory is about how you are positioned in the world. Ever since I was a little kid, since I’ve interacted with people who are white, and especially white women, I would notice that things were really off. So what I’ve done by going through psychoanalytic training, which is all about getting in touch with the unconscious, is literally work backwards. I’m like, “Ok, I’ve noticed that white people tend to put me in certain roles. White women will experience me this way, white men will experience me this way.” I’m going to use psychoanalysis to work backwards and treat all of this as a projection to see what I can learn about their mind.

What do your sessions look like?

I don’t do CBT [Cognitive Behavioral Therapy], I don’t do DBT [Dialectical Behavioral Therapy], I don’t do med management, except like once every three months. I only do intensive psychotherapy or intensive psychoanalysis with or without meds. I largely work with the unconscious. What does it look like? It’s different for everybody, but the way people organize their anxiety is usually very meaningful. And the narrative they tell me about it is how they are uniquely suffering. I feel like it’s my job to help them with that.

Do you think that it’s your mission or your job or your duty to get to the root of a white person’s racism or deal with their whiteness?

No. That makes it seem like it’s for me. If I were to do that it would be selfish as fuck. Do I focus on ways I think race is seeped into everything, yes, but it’s not for me. I can actually see how white people are suffering in a way that is very unique and different from people of color.

What is the difference between white peoples’ suffering and the suffering of people of color?

People of color, myself included, suffer from being positioned in the world, psychologically, and the stuff that goes with it: violence, this, that. Now, white people suffer from problems of their own mind. They suffer with trust, they suffer with intimacy, they suffer with closeness, shame, guilt, anxiety. They suffer with their minds. Don’t get me wrong, people of color are also neurotic and have their own stuff and ups and downs. But there is a fundamental issue I think that is very unique to white suffering and I think that’s their own mind.

What would you say is the cause of this?

I think it’s colonialism. That history. If you do this much lying to yourself it’s going to have an effect on your mind. There’s no way it can’t.

How does that work? Are you talking about some kind of epigenetics or the passing down of the collective unconscious? I’m an American, a white woman, I don’t have any direct experience with colonialism although I’m sure I’ve benefited from it in some ways, but it’s hard to see how I would be traumatized by this thing that happened before I was born.

I don’t think you do feel traumatized. White people experience this as normal. That’s their level of functioning that feels normal but it’s picked up in everything. It’s picked up in history, it’s picked up in all aspects of culture.

Could you give me an example?

Of what?

Of how this is picked up in all aspects of culture. How do you see the after-effects of colonialism manifesting itself in the white mind today?

It’s going to be hard for me to give you a one sentence soundbite on this but I would say, a high level of guilt. I’ve never seen anything like this before. Other than in white people not eating bread, an incredible level of shame. Feeling really exposed all the time. A lot of perfectionistic tendencies. Not letting themselves move forward. Experiencing themselves as passive a lot.

So you think this is the effect of history?

I don’t think it’s an effect of history, I think it’s the effect of telling the lie. If you commit these acts, I don’t think someone is going to bitch slap you in the future. What got passed along were these lies about what actually happened. And those lies are internalized and become part of the culture.

What lie specifically are you talking about?

One lie would be that any time white people say they discovered something. Any time they steal something they use the word “discovery.”

You mean like food? Culture?

This country. That’s part of the rhetoric — “We discovered a country.” You haven’t discovered shit! But this idea is everywhere. Look at food bloggers who are like, “I invented something new,” and you’re like, “Oh so you added flaky salt. You added a twig of parsley.” Everything else is stolen.

It does seem like you generalize a lot about white people but also people of color. Why do you do that?

What do you feel is a generalization?

Like white people having a high level of guilt or not eating bread. That’s true for some people, for sure. But I eat bread.

You asked me before, what is the unconscious? I think the unconscious is coming out right now between you and I. This idea that I’m the one that’s generalizing is, I think, a defensive reaction to my talking about whiteness. You feel put on the spot and so I’m the one that’s generalizing.

So you don’t think that you are generalizing?

This idea that I’m the one generalizing is actually defensive. Do I really believe on some level that every single white person is racist? No. Clearly. I have one percent left of that friend group. [In the lecture, Dr. Khilanani explains she has cut most of her white friends out of her life.] So no, I don’t. At the same time, I’m saying how it functions psychologically when someone says “You can’t say that,” and “Not all of us,” what you’re saying subconsciously is “I’m the exception to what you just said and you made me feel like I’m a racist and I don’t experience myself that way. I do not want to experience myself as a racist and I’m going to turn the tables on you and say you’re the racist because you’re generalizing and that’s what a racist does.”

Let’s talk about your practice. You’ve mentioned that you treat a lot of white people and you treat “whiteness.” What is the distinction between the two?

I wouldn’t say there is a distinction. For example, for white women, I do help a lot with passive-aggressiveness — not being able to use their voice, say things, feeling like there will be a negative consequence. White people have an intense level of guilt. I have never seen a level of guilt that I see among white people. I mean, white people don’t eat bread. Think about that. There have been wars all over the world over grains and bread and only here, white people are depriving themselves. Think about that shit. Everyone has this gluten allergy and you’re like, what the fuck is a gluten allergy? That’s a psychosomatic symptom. If you actually talk to a GI doctor, they’re going to say, “Well, there’s Celiac and there’s everything else” with a wink, and you know what the “everything else” is. It’s all the guilty gluten people.

Sure. There are lots of white people who don’t eat bread, although I am not one of them. I exclusively eat bread, and I’m also skeptical of some claims of gluten intolerance but my assumption has always been that they’re just buying into pseudoscientific B.S. and following health trends. You think it’s white guilt?

On an emotional level, absolutely. Like, if I raise an eyebrow at a white person around bread, the first response is like, “It’s real.” What does that mean? They mean it’s not psychological.

Right. It’s a medical issue, not a mental one.

I don’t deny that people may get symptoms, but how is it that all these people suddenly now, after all the violence has occurred, are not eating bread. It’s like the weirdest fucking thing.

But what does bread have to do with violence? What’s the connection there?

I think the bread is about guilt and needing to keep them in a state of deprivation and stay guilty.

Do you think white people should feel guilty?

No, I think guilt is the most useless emotion on the planet. What function does it serve? It’s not helpful.

Let’s talk about your talk, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” How did you get invited to do Grand Rounds at Yale in the first place?

I was invited to do it. A big part of my practice is also doing consultations for marginalized people and how they’ve been harmed in treatments, usually psychiatric or psychological treatments.

Ok so the talk was in April, and it was public?

Yes.

So walk me through what happened. You get invited, you give them the title of the talk, and then what?

Nothing. There was not a response for a long period of time. I was kind of surprised because usually people want to know a lot of details. And then I think, and I’m not sure about this, maybe they only put the announcement out the day before.

So not a lot of notice.

I’m not sure. This is what I think because I only got the concerns as relayed to me from the dean right before. I didn’t hear any concerns prior to that.

Let me pull up the email you forwarded me from the dean real quick. The message is from someone in the department to the dean and it says: “Good morning, I was surprised to see the announcement for tomorrow’s grand rounds. I imagine replacing the words ‘white mind’ with ‘Asian mind’ or ‘gay mind’ as we work towards equity and inclusion and unity. I wonder what impact this presentation will have.” Let’s just address that. “Imagine replacing the words ‘white mind’ with ‘Asian mind’ or ‘gay mind’ as we work towards equity and inclusion and unity.” What’s your response to this? Does this person have a point?

I think part of the anxiety is my using the word “white” and them having to reflect on that. And there was the use of the word “equity.” When I’m breaking this down psychologically, what they’re saying on some level is like, “We need things to be the same. If you can say ‘white,’ we can say ‘Asian.’” Psychologically, they’re actually making a false equivalence. What they’re doing psychologically is obliterating the difference between white and Asian, and if you obliterate the difference there’s no fucking problem here so shut up, you’re the real racist. That’s how it functions psychologically.

Let’s go through a bit of your talk here. You write: “This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. Around five years ago, I took some actions. I systematically white-ghosted most of my white friends. And got rid of the couple white BIPOCs that snuck in my crew too. I stopped watching the news. Once I started, I couldn’t stop. I have less than one percent left. It was also a public service. I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor.” I can imagine that for some people the response to hearing a respected professional like yourself say that white people suck you dry and there are no good apples is going to be shame.

I think what a lot of people felt wasn’t shame but horror that I was in touch with aggressive feelings.

Sure. That makes sense. Do you find that this sort of rhetoric is effective or do people reject what you’re saying because it is violent?

Before I gave the talk, I said, I want you to observe your thoughts and feelings as I talk. I said, there’s a difference between a thought, a fantasy, and an action. Now, my reflection on my own rage was actually that I was feeling impotent. So that’s where I was going with that. And kind of normalizing feelings of hatred. This is stuff that exists and I need to dive deep within myself to reflect on how it is that I got here. So there is a reality here, like did I actually cut white people out of my life? Absolutely.

When you were going through this process of cutting white people out of your life, what specifically would lead you to that decision?

Having the same conversations with people on repeat. People getting defensive, needing to argue, being unable to take in what I’m saying. An ability to say they’re not racist. And on repeat. I think my favorite responses were, “Well, you’re really sensitive. You’re over-reacting.” Focusing on my feelings. White women will often tell me that I’m really edgy and I’m like, “That’s so interesting that you’re focused on my edginess. Have you reflected on why they might be?” But they can’t go there.

This reminds me a bit of Robin D’Angelo’s writings, where she talks about how often in her trainings, the response from white women in particular is being defensive and shutting down. She calls this “white fragility,” but I’m curious about the effect. Do you find this is effective?

It depends on who my audience is. Do I think that that is effective for someone who is not in a place where they think there’s a problem with them? No, I don’t. Do I think it’s effective for people who are a little bit scared but also kind of curious? Yeah, I do. I know my audience and what my own limits are. I’m for the people who want to walk into the other room and see how we view you. That’s who my audience is. In a private practice setting, no, I don’t do that and that’s because it’s a fucking asshole thing to do. I need to be where they are at. When I’m speaking publicly, I need to invite someone into my room. This is how I talk with other people of color, this is how I talk with my black friends, this is how I talk with my Asian friends. This is how we talk about you. When I have patients, it’s the other way around. I need to be humble and be where they’re at. I need to sit with them and understand what they are going through. I feel like I’ve deepened a lot of my empathy for how much white people suffer from my white patients.

Let’s go through some other sections of the talk.

Did you have any reaction to it?

I found parts of it difficult to hear, for sure. I also found it refreshingly honest. There was one part that I really liked. You say: “White people love talking about race right now. You cannot get them to shut the fuck up. It makes them feel good. And, they also imagine it makes us feel good to see their true enlightenment. Talking about racism is a form of self-congratulatory masturbation. White people exchange pleasantries, without really addressing racism. It serves no purpose in connecting other than to jerk themselves off.”

I’m surrounded by people who do that, especially on social media. I find it very performative and it seems disingenuous. It also just seemed to appear overnight after the death of George Floyd. It’s like every one I know decided to be an anti-racist the next day. They might not have known what that meant but they bought “White Fragility” and Ibram Kendi and maybe read them or maybe just posted photos of them on social media. It felt very performative and self-congratulatory and trendy to me. But I am curious about what you see is the solution here, because you say that white people love talking about race but in another part, you say that talking with white people about race is a “waste of our breath.” You say, “We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. They have five holes in their brain. It’s not going to happen. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. Not a good idea.” But you do talk to white people about race. You were doing it at Yale. Walk me through that.

I’m saying that talking about race right now like white people are doing, like occupying that much space for something they’ve never actually gone through but see themselves as self-appointed experts as, it serves a defensive function to not feel a negative feeling because if you’re teaching about it and you’re able to give and help, you don’t actually have to do the thing that is harder, which is feel negative feelings. So when I was saying that talking to white people is useless, I’m not actually really saying it’s useless because if I really thought it was useless I wouldn’t devote time to doing this. I’m talking about an experience that I have, that people of color have, of futility when coming up against a psychological defense. So it’s an experience of futility.

So do you think white people who talk about racism all the time, and I think we could probably picture the stereotype of how that might be, do you think that they’re easier to reach because at least they acknowledge the existence of racism?

No, I think they’re harder to reach. Their defenses are up, right? You have to be very arrogant to imagine that you’re suddenly a teacher of something you’re never gone through. That is an incredible level of arrogance. Your psychological defenses are high, they’re intact, they’re rigid. So that is actually harder. People are feeling very upset right now that what they thought they were going to have — a job, a position — is suddenly now being threatened by people of color. Now actually talking about that and saying that out loud is healthier because they can say it. They’re like. “I’m mad. I thought that I should be able to get this thing and now I feel like it’s been taken away from me.” That’s a lot of people’s experience right now. Suddenly they feel like what should be rightfully theirs has been taken away. But actually what’s happening is that the playing field is being leveled and they have to go through a loss as they lose their unearned advantage. That’s hard. But if someone doesn’t have access to that feeling and can’t get mad or feel pissed off because they don’t think that exists, that’s harder. That’s going to be harder for them emotionally. They’ll be like, “It’s fine, I’m fine.” How could you be fine? Your entire world operated one way and suddenly what you thought was certain and what you thought was going to be yours, you are no longer sure is going to be coming your way. That’s scary.

When you talk about it like that it does seem like you think that white people are going to have to give something up for equity. Do you think that’s true and if so what is that thing that white people are going to have to give up?

It’s not a thing. It’s a way of being. It’s a level of certainty and control that just kind of came for them before.

Are you talking about jobs or money or . . . ?

Yeah, a lot of things. But I also think there’s a loss they have to go through that is psychological, too, and this might be the harder thing. If you know one way of existing and that’s been your way of existing and suddenly that feels like it’s changing on you, that’s terrifying.

A lot of people say that the election of Donald Trump was a reaction to this, but then Donld Trump had a higher share of black and Latino votes in 2020. How do you explain something like that?

It’s internalized whiteness. After a period of time, you’re going to start internalizing these things because you’re attacked.

You say in your talk, “I got rid of the couple white BIPOCs that snuck in my crew too.” What is a white BIPOC?

It’s someone who has internalized a lot of these thoughts. It’s the same thing.

The way that you talk about whiteness, it’s almost like it’s a state of being. Is that correct?

I would say it’s a state of mind that affects how you think consciously and how you think unconsciously.

Are all white people afflicted by whiteness?

It’s impossible to not be. You would have to do an incredible level of work to not be.

It sounded like your talk was very well received by the audience. But what happened afterwards?

There were a lot of delays before Yale posted it. They said they were going to put out the talk the following Monday and that they had received a ton of requests for this talk so they wanted to get it up quickly. And then it didn’t happen. People started emailing them requesting the talk and they got very different responses. First they were saying that there were some technical difficulties and then they told another person that this was a chronic issue and that there are many other talks that need to be released and they need to go in order. That was brand new. Like, if you’ve been working on this for six weeks, why not say that before? “It’s white amnesia, I just suddenly remembered that we are having this IT difficulty. Whoops!” Then I begin to hear from different people that there is this stuff going on at Yale about the talk, that there’s pressure building, that a lot of the people wanted to know what was going on, so people started to complain internally and demand that the video be put up. Then they released it internally only. Of course they didn’t call me during any of this.

When we were corresponding via email you said people were afraid. What are they afraid of?

I guess it would be retaliation. It’s sort of like that question you asked me about racism when I was in residency, and it’s like this stuff happens to me every minute of every day. They get very angry if you start to stick up for yourself. It really elicits a lot of rage and a lot of retaliation.

And this was people trying to get access to the video, they were afraid to ask for it?

I think people were afraid to put their names on things, that kinda thing.

It’s interesting that you say that because I’ve been interviewing clinicians for this series who are opposed to social justice ideology in medicine and who see the need for progress but who don’t like what’s going on. And nobody will put their name on anything. A lot of people talk about how cancel culture is stifling discourse and people are afraid of consequences, so it’s interesting to me that we’re talking about two different groups of people and these people who aren’t woke are afraid and you’re saying that the people who are woke are afraid, too. What does that tell you about the moment that we’re living in right now?

That everyone is scared to change, I think. People of color are scared of retaliation and consequences for speaking and owning their own thoughts. It’s a responsibility issue, too. If you are opposed to social justice, why wouldn’t you say that?

Because they’re afraid. They all say the same thing, they think they’ll be penalized if it’s known that they oppose antiracism. They’re afraid of retaliation.

They’re afraid of retaliation or afraid of being judged?

Probably both. There have been examples of people who’ve lost their jobs. You see people fired for a bad tweet or lost their attending privileges because of a tweet.

Everyone is terrified and it might be different what that terror is, but for the people who are opposed to it, I wonder if they’re doing any work with their thoughts and feelings or their own, what their fears and anxieties are.

Sen. Tom Cotton: Few Things Are More Destructive to the Military Than Critical Race Theory

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

It wasn’t too long ago that most Americans had no idea what critical race theory was. At least I didn’t.

Now, the term is everywhere. It is the idea that American racism has shaped every institution and norm in our lives. White people are the oppressors and have led lives of privilege and people of color are the oppressed who have always operated from a point of disadvantage in America. Suddenly this ideology is finding its way into every aspect of our lives.

It is divisive and destructive, but nowhere is it more dangerous than in the military.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas joined Breitbart News’ Alex Marlow on Marlow’s Friday radio show to discuss the impact of critical race theory on our military, our government and our foreign policy.

Cotton served as a U.S. Army officer for four years and afterward, in the Army Reserves. He also completed several overseas deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marlow asked the senator to address the new woke direction the military has taken.

“What is the message to young troops?” Marlow asked about the 17:40 mark, noting that critical race theory is finding its way into military training.

Newly enlisted troops, Marlow said, are being taught that “some races are treated worse than other races” and that it “seems like an incredibly distracting and toxic message.”

Cotton agreed.

“It’s particularly bad for this to be taught to our young troopers, whether it’s at service academies or in professional military education, or just in routine quarterly or annual training,” he said. “Because they need to look to their right and their left and see not the representative of a racial group, but a battle buddy, a comrade in arms who will lay down their lives in defense of each other and their nation.”

“If I were in a foreign intelligence service,” he explained, “I can think of few things that would be more destructive to morale and unit cohesion in the United States military than critical race theory, and the idea that we are somehow simply representatives of our race as opposed to American patriots who are wearing the flag of our country in defense of our common ideals.”

In March, Cotton introduced a bill to ban critical race theory from being taught in the military. He told colleagues at that time, “Critical race theory teaches that race is a person’s most important characteristic, and that America is an evil, oppressive place. That idea may be fashionable in left-wing circles and college classrooms, but it has no place in our military,” according to Fox News.

Military.com published an article about a March briefing at the Pentagon delivered by Chief Master Sergeant Ramón “CZ” Colón-López, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Colón-López told reporters that soldiers “from every echelon that we’re talking to” were likening the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion with the Black Lives Matter/antifa riots that spread throughout the country last summer in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

Troops have asked him, Colón-López said, “How come you’re not looking at the situation that was going on in Seattle prior to that?”

Colón-López said he is “concerned about the way that some people are looking at the current environment,” according to Military.com.

He sees this “confusion,” especially prevalent among younger troops, as a reason “why the training sessions on extremism are needed.”

Frankly, I’m concerned about the way Colón-López is looking at the current environment.

In a March commentary piece, Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked, “Is the military more concerned with wokeness than winning the next war?”

It would appear so.

Cotton is right. This kind of training undermines our military and projects weakness to our enemies.

About the 14:20 mark in Friday’s interview, Marlow asked Cotton about where else he sees critical race theory popping up.

Cotton replied, “[Critical race theory] popped up most recently in this conflict between Israel and Hamas. You have a very vocal — I think small, but very vocal left-wing of the Democratic Party led by the ‘squad’ — people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib — who see the entire world not as individuals, but simply as groups of people, the oppressed versus the oppressor.

“Obviously, in their worldview, Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians are the oppressed,” Cotton said. “I think one of the new so-called squad members likened what was happening to Hamas to what happened to Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, seven years ago. And of course, the BLM organization is an openly Marxist and anti-Semitic organization.”

[ic_trending]

He continued, “So that’s just one more instance where you see critical race theory influencing our public debates, and it’s a deeply offensive and anti-American worldview that we aren’t individuals, [but] are simply representatives of a group to which we belong, in this case, the group represented by our skin color, and that some races are inherently privileged and other races are inherently victimized or oppressed.”

Critical race theory is a “deeply unpopular view among normal Americans, but also very popular in university towns, in the left-wing press, and increasingly in our mainstream media,” he added.

In a later comment, about the 17-minute mark, Cotton said the tentacles of critical race theory have worked their way into legislation.

“Almost every bill that comes before the Congress these days has these kinds of affirmative action quotas and set-asides, which I would remind your listeners are blatantly unconstitutional and have been for years,” he said.

“But this is the modern Democratic Party. They see the entire world through the lens of race. They see it as essentially a neo-Marxist view that there only can be oppressors and the oppressed. It’s deeply antithetical to the ideals that animate America.”

In the comment section, one critic complained essentially that Republicans were painting an entire party with the same brush. This commenter wrote the Cotton was accusing Democrats of supporting “fringe ideas.”

But positions that not so long ago would have been considered radical are rapidly gaining support among Democrats.

It’s difficult to find any meaningful polling on the subject of critical race theory. One national poll, released on May 10, conducted by a group called Parents Defending Education, found that 25 percent of respondents said it was somewhat or very important for schools to ‘teach students that their race is the most important thing about them’ compared to 70% who said this is not important or not at all important.”

The vast majority of the country, in other words, sees the problem for what it is.

Idaho recently became the first state to ban critical race theory from being taught in the state’s public schools. Other red states will soon follow. It is a dangerous ideology and we need to eradicate it wherever we find it.

This article was previously published by The Western Journal.

‘Rural Oregon Wants Out of Oregon’; 5 Counties in the State Vote to Join Idaho

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Pexels from Pixabay

Secession was on the menu for five rural counties in Oregon in Tuesday’s election. Voters in Malheur, Sherman, Grant, Baker, and Lake counties would like to become part of Idaho, according to The Epoch Times.

The Times explains the odds of this actually happening are long because of the numerous hurdles involved. Here’s what it would take:

It would require a formal vote in the Democratic-controlled Oregon legislature. If that goes through, Oregon and Idaho would have to come up with a deal, which would then have to be ratified by the U.S. Congress.

Throughout the history of the United States, changing state lines has been a rare occurrence—all taking place before the 20th century. In 1792, Kentucky was created from Virginia’s territory, Maine was created from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia in 1863 was admitted into the United States when Union states and counties separated themselves from the Confederate ones during the Civil War.

Oregon’s Jefferson and Union counties voted last year to leave the state and the measure will be on the ballot for two additional counties, Harney and Douglas, in an upcoming election, the report said.

The group behind this effort is called “Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho.” Unhappy with the liberal government in Oregon, they’d rather be part of a freer, more conservative state.

Mike McCarter, president of Citizens for Greater Idaho, told a local media outlet, “This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon. If Oregon really believes in liberal values such as self-determination, the Legislature won’t hold our counties captive against our will. If we’re allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well.”

McCarter also said that Republican Idaho state Reps. Barbara Ehardt and Judy Boyle “plan to introduce legislation to move toward possible relocation of the Idaho/Oregon border next January.”

Who could possibly blame these voters for wanting to leave the insanity that defines Oregon’s leadership for the conservative governance of Idaho? Last month, Idaho’s Republican Gov. Brad Little signed legislation banning Critical Race Theory from being taught in public schools. Idaho is the first state in the U.S. to do so. I posted about this here.

This morning, I wrote about the passage of two constitutional amendments in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that will reign in the emergency powers of the state’s Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf.

Are Americans starting to fight back against the massive Democratic power grab? I certainly hope so.

Pay Attention Biden: France Shows the World How to Crack Down on Woke Culture in Schools

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Phil Riley from Pixabay

The “Academie Francaise,” France’s education ministry, scored a win against left-wing equality advocates seeking to normalize “gender neutral” spellings of words in schools. The Biden Administration would be wise to take a lesson from the French government.

The education ministry issued a ruling last week banning schools from “using gender neutral spellings,” which they claim are “a threat to the French language,” according to a report in The Daily Mail.

The education ministry is “responsible for guarding the French language” and considers the activists’ efforts to normalize gender neutral spellings to be “harmful to the practice and understanding of French.”

Gender equality advocates argue that “full stops in the middle of written words – dubbed ‘midpoints’ – which allow both male and female forms to be represented simultaneously” should be required.

Because English is a non-gendered language, the article explains, the word “friends” refers to individuals of either gender. “In French grammar, nouns take on the gender of the subject to which they refer, with male preferred over female in mixed settings. Therefore, a group of friends with four women and one man is referred to using the masculine ‘amis’.

Advocates of gender equality propose the addition of “midpoints” to neutralize a word. For example, “the written word becomes ‘ami.e.s’, including the feminine ‘e’ ending – though it would still be pronounced the same when spoken.” Thus, they claim the language would be “more inclusive.”

Those opposed to making this change believe the “differences between written and spoken French would make the language harder to learn and threaten its entire existence.”

Nathalie Elimas, the State Secretary for Priority Education, said the use of midpoints would do nothing to increase the use of the French language, “but will instead drive more people to learn English which does not gender its nouns.”

“With the spread of inclusive writing, the English language – already quasi-hegemonic across the world – would certainly and perhaps forever defeat the French language,” she added.

In an interview with Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche, Jean-Michel Blanquer, France’s education minister, said “the use of dots in the middle of words” would make it more difficult for individuals “with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia.”

The Mail reports that one of France’s largest teachers unions, SUD, called “on teachers to ignore the ruling.” The union issued a statement saying that Blanquer must “stop trying to impose his backwardness on the education community.”

In America, the teachers union would have had the last word.

According to the article, the ruling provided some concessions. “Certain job titles should change forms when the person holding the role is female. For example, a female president would be referred to as ‘présidente’. Job application forms should also include both male and female titles to encourage more women to apply, the decree added.”

This development proves that, in contrast to the current ruling class in America, there are still some sane individuals inside of the French government.

It might surprise members of the Biden Administration to hear that not all foreign governments approve of the Woketopia they’ve tried to create in America.

According to an editorial in the The New York Times, many French “politicians and prominent intellectuals” believe that America’s new woke culture has gone too far and now poses an existential threat to the French republic and identity.

Specifically, they are concerned about the dangerous social theories on “race, gender and post-colonialism,” which they view as forms of separatism.

The article cites an October speech delivered by French President Emmanuel Macron, in which he warned that the threat to French culture lies in “[c]ertain social science theories entirely imported from the United States.”

Macron is absolutely correct.

In recent years, the emboldened left has tried to force Americans into adopting their radical, divisive ideas. They’ve tried to convince every white person that they’re racist and must atone for it.

The French president sees what’s happening in America and knows the uncertainty we face. He wants to make sure that it stays out of France.

And he has to be wondering why U.S. voters elected such a “woke”, power-hungry and anti-American administration.

On some level, he may take pleasure in our current troubles. On the other hand, he knows the world has suddenly become a far more dangerous place.

Leaked Documents: Disney Subjected Employees to Nightmare Anti-America Training

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Hands off my tags! Michael Gaida from Pixabay

Apparently, the Walt Disney Corp. either hasn’t heard of or is not concerned about the concept, “Go woke, go broke.”

The company has embarked upon a new “diversity and inclusion” program called “Reimagine Tomorrow” that requires employees to participate in training sessions on subjects that include systemic racism, white privilege, white fragility, white saviors and more.

As you might imagine, that has more than a few employees concerned.

The City Journal’s Christopher F. Rufo recently obtained a series of “whistleblower documents” related to this initiative and spoke to numerous Disney employees. For obvious reasons, the employees agreed to speak with him on the condition of anonymity. (Documents can be viewed here.)

The employees agree that the “Reimagine Tomorrow’ program has become deeply politicized and engulfed parts of the company in racial conflict,” Rufo wrote.

It is built around a phrase that’s filled the airwaves over the last few months, “critical race theory,” which unfortunately won’t be going away anytime soon.

The “antiracism” program consists of a series of modules, according to Rufo. The first is called “Allyship for Race Consciousness,” which “tells employees that they must ‘take ownership of educating [themselves] about structural anti-Black racism’ and that they should ‘not rely on [their] Black colleagues to educate [them],’ because it is ’emotionally taxing.'”

It teaches employees that the U.S. has a “long history of systemic racism and transphobia” and white employees need to “work through feelings of guilt, shame, and defensiveness to understand what is beneath them and what needs to be healed.” The company suggests employees can remedy the situation by “challeng[ing] colorblind ideologies and rhetoric” such as “All Lives Matter” and “I don’t see color”; they should “listen with empathy [to] Black colleagues” and “not question or debate Black colleagues’ lived experience.”

Another module, according to Rufo, is called “What Can I Do About Racism?” Employee are told to reject “equality” which merely means “equal treatment and access to opportunities.” Rather, they should aim for “equity,” which means “the equality of outcome.”

The company asks employees to “reflect” on our “racist infrastructure” and “think carefully about whether or not your wealth, income, treatment by the criminal justice system, employment, access to housing, health care, political power, and education might be different if you were of a different race.”

Disney has collaborated on a separate program with the YWCA called the “21-Day Racial Equity and Social Justice Challenge.” This starts with the assumption that employees have “all been raised in a society that elevates white culture over others.”

Rufo write: “Participants then learn about their ‘white privilege’ and are asked to fill out a white privilege ‘checklist,’ with options including: ‘I am white,’ ‘I am heterosexual,’ ‘;I am a man,'[ ‘I still identity as the gender I was born in,’ ‘I have never been raped,’ ‘I don’t rely on public transportation,’ and ‘I have never been called a terrorist.'”

Rufo explains an exercise that employees must complete to find out if they suffer from “white fragility.” I have a feeling most will be told that they do. Statements such as “I am a good person, I can’t be racist … I was taught to treat everyone the same” are viewed “as evidence of the participant’s internalized racism and white fragility.”

Please click here to continue reading on The Western Journal.

Less Is Certainly More

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by sergei akulich from Pixabay

I was just reading the news, or at least all of the news I can ingest without experiencing an equal and opposite intestinal reaction, and noticed a highly impactful story from our friends at Fox News about a 47-year-old woman who disappeared last year, only to be “found” by sheriff deputies. She survived a winter in the Utah front range, not exactly the Hilton of outdoor experiences.

How she made it alive through the winter without tons of necessary gear is a mystery (and a great potential embarrassment to any and all professional preppers), but I am guessing that she had some level of physical, mental and emotional preparedness.

The Fox article reports that the woman wasn’t crazy:

Although the woman had struggled to find an adequate food supply over winter, [Sgt. Spencer] Cannon commended her resourcefulness in foraging grass and moss.

Cannon added that the woman’s campsite was well maintained and organized. He also shared that the woman is “very intelligent” and “has held highly respected jobs.”

With apologies to Charlotte (one of my favorite literary characters); my delicate, woven web message would be “some woman”.

Why she attempted it, to me, is the bigger question. The Fox news article explained that “Her motivation was, in part, for solitude and isolation,” Sgt. Spencer Cannon told Fox News in an email.

Wow.  I’ve driven by the Spanish Fork area on several occasions – it’s beautiful and if you would pick a place to starve to death or perish from the elements, you couldn’t find a more perfect landscape.

My lizard cortex jumps to the forefront of my brain and takes control. … Running from? Running to? Running away? Running towards?  Running, running, r.u.n.n.o.f.t. (Oh Brother, extra credit if you remember that line).

Mr. Narrator (interrupts):  “Richard Edward!  Stop! Deep breath! This woman wasn’t running in fear. Read the statement from Sgt. Cannon. She was running towards a better place, a more sane and serene place. She was running towards health and well-being.”

Richard Edward: “Okay, Mr. Narrator. I’ll consider your opinion. … But why risk death and/or being eaten by a bear for a little solitude? C’mon man, there are spas for that kind of thing, aren’t there? Does getting away from it all have to be a death-defying act? What ever happened to quiet and essential oils?”

Mr. Narrator: “Why do you really think she was running, Richard Edward? You think she was looking for just for a little solitude? Look around you and tell me what is happening. I think maybe she was looking for less. Yes, less of the following things.”

“Critical Race Theory is encroaching on every aspect of our lives. If you are white, you are the worst thing since spam was invented. Not guilty about being white? You should be. Just ask any race hustler who is working their corner.”

“Illegal immigrants are now the disadvantaged people of choice – they’re treated better than U.S. citizens. They’re more deserving of government help in difficult times. Just ask the Biden administration. Break the law to get here, no worries, come on down!”

“Mask up, dude! Every local governmental official below the office of county dog catcher governor is exercising their appropriated power to tell you what to do and how to behave in public.”

“Drug addled thugs from Minneapolis are celebrated as heroes. Cops who risk their lives everyday are the new Brownshirts of our society. Is this law and order you can count on to keep you safe?”

“Felons are released back into the community without so much as an overnight stint in the local jail, much less required to post bail. Local DAs are practicing a catch and release program. No chair to sit on when the legal music stops? No problem, just keep playing the game, we’ve got your felonious back.”

“I could go on Richard Edward, but answer me honestly, do you think this woman was comfortable walking the streets of her neighborhood, living daily life in her home, encountering her woke neighbors, the shopkeepers in her community, the roving activists with megaphones bellowing that Black Lives Matter, interacting with any level of her government representatives for assistance while constantly having to be aware of her skin color and supposed privilege?”

Richard Edward: “You mean she was running toward a life without ‘woke’ standards? A lifestyle that used to value people as people, and not as generalized identities based upon skin color and political views?

Mr. Narrator: “Yes Richard Edward. She was running towards sanity. She was running towards a life of truth. She was running towards a life of value, not virtue signals.”

Richard Edward: “We don’t have that kind of community any more. We can’t escape the all-encompassing theory of Critical Race Theory. The woke brigade now rules the planet and our daily behavior.”

Mr. Narrator:  “Richard Edward, you will someday wake up and realize that less truly is more. Less critical race theory, less government rules and regulations, less illegal immigration, less leniency to convicted felons, less government spending, less taxes, less politics, less of everything that steals your individual American rights. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was considered to be an architectural genius and his Bahus style of design influenced generations of architects. He is synonymous with ‘less is more’. Minimal intrusion, by architecture, on lifestyle.“

Richard Edward: “I get it now. This woman who ran away to a Utah campsite in Spanish Fork is more than an architectural genius. She didn’t run away to build a minimalist building, she ran toward liberty and self-reliance. She ran away from a life in the popular culture gulag and toward a life of independence. She ran toward freedom.”

If you think that a life in the wilderness could be better than a life in the Democrat-controlled matrix, please leave Richard Edward and Mr. Narrator a comment about why.

— Richard Edward Tracy

DemoCats and Other Radical Creatures

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

Lately, it’s been getting crowded in my house or at least it seems like it. At first, it was just me and the fourth First Lady. Then, and almost without fanfare, I noticed that an alter-ego had arrived. Not too inconvenient, but he (for those of you who care, Mr. Narrator’s pronouns remain officially undeclared) did impinge upon my time and was seen to be taking up space in the landscape of my thoughts. Okay, still a livable arrangement and the fourth first doesn’t seem to mind. But ‘it’ eventually happened. After a  year of two of skirting the issue, the fourth first popped the question: “Since your allergies are under control, can we get a cat? All Russian households, at least ‘real’ Russian households, have a cat.”

Panic. Last time I checked the atlas (for you younger readers, it’s a book of maps – not a god or a bodybuilder), Arizona isn’t anywhere close to Russia. Okay, we’re not a Russian household but the fourth first lady is Russian and that trumps all other geographical arguments. (Did I mention that Russians tend to be somewhat intransigent personalities?)

Renewed panic. If forced to declare a preference, I am a dog person. Conservatives are dog people. How do I know? Dogs are loyal, affectionate, smart (sometimes) and (mostly) reliable. Some of them are even classified as ‘working’ dogs, dogs that can even carry alcohol in kegs under their chins. How much more ‘conservative’ can you get?

Cats, ugh. Cats are the animals of the 1%. The ones with which I am familiar have been distant, dispassionate, aloof, elite, distrusting, self-interested, the kind of animal that never gives back, a creature that only takes …

Mr. Narrator (interrupts):  “Richard Edward, stop. You are denigrating an entire species of animal. It’s unfair and unsubstantiated, too. Additionally, you are anthropomorphizing, painting an entire species of animal with the broad brush of ‘identify’ classification. Don’t you realize how racist, how divisive and polarizing that kind of process appears?”

Richard Edward: “Mr. Narrator, wait, wait.  Zoologists always use the classification system when talking about animals. That’s what I learned in school. It is how we can discuss wonderful animals in general and then those other animals, like cats, in particular.”

Mr. Narrator: (sighs) “Richard Edward, you are so ‘not woke’. Critical Race Theory teaches us that everything you learned in school, every value you were taught to respect, everything in your everyday life is simply based in white privilege and formulated to support white supremacy. You think dogs are okay and cats are so-so? Racist! Why is the love of dogs racist? Dogs were used to hunt down escaped slaves. See, I am sure that’s why you like dogs. On the other hand, cats have independent attitudes, are owned by no one. Cats exhibit the ultimate anti-slavery, anti-racist animal attitude. Your white supremist attitude is really why you don’t like cats.”

“Your assignment of negative, humanlike traits to cats is nothing more than your effort to marginalize a noble species. You are so mired in white privilege that you cannot see beyond your white schooling and the old, white-designed scientific methods, promulgated by dead, white-guys with science degrees.”

Mr. Narrator is considerably younger than I and his school experience more recent. I’ll have to take his word that what is being taught in schools is quite different than my old curriculum. How in the blazes did this newfangled thinking get introduced into our culture and quite honestly, who is crazy enough to believe it?

Then it dawns on me. This is simply an extension of what I’ve been reading about in the news. White privilege is everywhere and it’s responsible for everything that is wrong.

Of course, with power like that, why wouldn’t CRT be used for framing our daily experience? Got to go to the doctor? Don’t worry about making an appointment. You will be seen, not in the order of your arrival at the office but based upon your race. My colleague Elizabeth Vaughn has written about the proposed new medical triage process.

Think its only happening here? If you are white, just try to get a vaccine appointment in the city of Hamilton, Ontario in Canada. Maybe that trip across the border needs to be delayed.

The new-think of CRT demands that white, privileged people remember their place at all times and in all circumstances. Don’t believe me?

Take sports (yes, please take them, especially football). The NFL, where the top four highest paid players (quarterbacks) are black, is now racist, according to some sport analyst. Why? Maybe white quarterback prospects are being scouted and drafted ahead of players of color because of the racist owners and team management. Really?

Race is certainly taken front and center stage in what’s left of the mind of the President of the United States, resulting in his comments about equity in the administration of COVID vaccines between white seniors of those seniors of color. Not to be outdone in the vaccine race (pun intended), the President is pushing for grants, through his department of education, that would fund the teaching of CRT in American schools. As reported by Fox news:

The rule would funnel federal grant money to help schools teach the New York Times’ controversial 1619 Project by controversial essayist Nikole Hannah-Jones and Boston University Director of the Center for Anti-Racist Research Director Ibram Kendi’s book, How to Be an Anti-Racist into K-12 school curriculums.

Wow, identify politics and race has seeped into the very fabric of our lives.

Mr. Narrator: “Be careful Richard Edward, you just made another racist reference; ‘cotton’, the material that commercially used to be known as the ‘fabric’ of our lives.  Remember who used to pick that cotton, Richard Edward. Now do you see how complete CRT can be? All you have to do is submit to seeing everything through the lens of race and assume that anything you know or understand is evil, and you really don’t have to go to school to learn this, all you need is attitude.”

Richard Edward: “Mr. Narrator, how do we unwind this? I know in my knower that the values I was taught are not bad, that my commitment to view people’s character instead of the skin color is the proper way to treat my fellow human beings. We’ve got to stop this crazy indoctrination.”

Mr. Narrator: “I am glad you asked Richard Edward. Once again, your editor and colleague Ms. Elizabeth is out in front on this. We are finally seeing a sane politician and geo-political entity pushing back on having this nonsense taught in our communities. You won’t be surprised or disappointed that it’s a red state. Who knows, maybe some other bastions of rational thought won’t be far behind once they see how Idaho fares. (Arizona, Governor Ducey, looking at you).

Richard Edward: “I hope the law passes Mr. Narrator. I want to see equality of opportunity in my beautiful America. I don’t like the radical actors in the U.S. pushing these irrational theories on everyone, trying to negate traditional conservative values, values of faith.”

So, as I sit back and ponder the sad state of race theory that’s undermining my beautiful America, the attack on my neighbors and fellow citizens by those who would divide and destroy based upon the insane radical theory of white supremacy and white privilege, I see from the corner of my eye my new cat walk by on her way to her food bowl, glancing disdainfully back at me from over her shoulder, slowly sauntering by my office, taking in the entirety of her new kingdom. Well, at least one of us in the house understands the concept of privilege.

If you think that the ideas of white supremacy, white privilege, CRT and other race-based politics are causing an American Crisis, please leave me a comment.

—  Richard Edward Tracy

Boston Hospital to offer ‘preferential care based on race’ to initiate ‘ANTIRACIST agenda for medicine’ based on critical race theory

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay

Two Harvard Medical School professors have outlined a plan for Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a teaching affiliate of the university located in Boston, to offer “preferential care based on race.” It calls for an “antiracist agenda for medicine” based on critical race theory. Additionally, in order to “comprehensively confront structural racism” and “mitigate health disparities,” this effort should include “federally paid reparations for black Americans.”

Dr. Bram Wispelwey and Dr. Michelle Morse provided a comprehensive description of how this program evolved, why its time has come, and what it will look like in an article published last month by the Boston Review. I assure you, it’s illuminating.

Perhaps getting a bit ahead of themselves, they envision this plan to be a pilot program for what they hope will be replicated in health care facilities throughout the nation. The doctors write: “Together with a coalition of fellow practitioners and hospital leaders, we have developed what we hope will be a replicable pilot program for direct redress of many racial health care inequities.”

Wispelwey and Morse came to the realization when the pandemic first hit, that COVID was striking people of color in disproportionate numbers compared to white people. Then they noticed that white patients managed to enter the hospital’s premier cardiology program with much greater frequency and ease than minority patients.

The doctors had an epiphany. “Alarmed by these findings, we sought an immediate solution. … “Our path to this realization, as with nearly all advancements in social medicine, took us outside our discipline—through the field of critical race theory (CRT),” they explained.

“Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law … We encourage other institutions to proceed confidently on behalf of equity and racial justice, with backing provided by recent White House executive orders.”

CRT is a term we’ve been hearing more and more frequently. It is working its way into every American institution from our government to our system of justice and, most significantly, into many of our schools.

Americans can ignore the growing acceptance, the “everywhereness,” of this dangerous ideology at our peril.

It’s important to know what CRT means.

CRT is an intellectual theory which promotes the idea that humans are fundamentally racist. Racism is everywhere, in everything. According to the American Bar Association:

CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or ‘colorblindness.’ CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.

Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.

Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.

It should come as no surprise that CRT is the basis of this new “pilot” program which will likely be adopted by many other “woke” hospitals in America.

In response to an inquiry from The Washington Examiner, Brigham and Women’s Hospital issued a statement which said the Boston Review article by Wispelway and Morse is an “opinion piece written by two physicians, not a formal position of the hospital.” It continued:

The Brigham is committed to examining and eliminating the many impacts that racism has on the health and wellbeing of our patients, As part of our system’s United Against Racism campaign, we support efforts focused on improving both the access and the experience of our patients, focusing on community health and advocacy, and increasing the diversity of leadership.

As part of this commitment, researchers have proposed a pilot program for heart failure patients that aims to address the racial inequities found in a recent study, which found that race, as well as other factors, affected who was admitted to cardiology service at the hospital. Aspects of this pilot program were described within the opinion piece you’ve cited. This program offers a critical step toward identifying opportunities to improve access for patients who have been historically denied equal access.