This is hardly the worst thing about this statement, but I can't get over the fact that the president of Harvard sounds like a 6th grade teacher. To give a sense of the decline, here is a speech from a Harvard president in 1961 saying roughly the same thing about free speech:
Nathan Pusey, president of Harvard 1953–71, opens the speech with this letter from an alumnus worried about subversives on the faculty: “When a whole Harvard department is so strongly promoting measures leading to totalitarianism, it seems I would be weak-minded to support it.”
“Harvard is a complex, lively, and involved institution. Now as always she includes many kinds and conditions of people—people of different interests, views, and opinions; and this grows increasingly so, the more the University becomes a world institution. But this is good, for diversity of opinion makes one think. As much as anything, it may set one on the path toward truth.
But never has Harvard tried to teach a single narrow orthodoxy in any field, nor does she now. From the time our first president, Henry Dunster, was dismissed for unorthodoxy, it has been her chief purpose to call men to think for themselves. Again and again there has been difficulty about this. Henry Dunster did not meet the conditions of the Massachusetts theocracy, but Harvard respected him for his courage and conviction and in time named a House for him.
Harvard still honors courage, conviction, and independent thought in her main and central thrust. As William James said in his much quoted address at Commencement fifty-eight years ago this month, ‘The day when Harvard shall stamp a single fast an hard type of character upon her children will be that of her downfall.”
“Our world is full of divergencies of opinion and unlimited perils. Granted. And this has made us all abnormally apprehensive. But surely the way to cope with this situation is not to begin by saying there is some simple, easily recognizable right to which we must adhere, and that all other views are wrong. Nor, let me add in fairness to my critic, is there any need to assume that any single individual who talks most frequently, or most conspicuously, or most assertively, must necessarily therefore be right or even in any degree representative. We all learned in the first discussion class we ever attended that this is not so.
Our world is full of divergencies of opinion, and so is Harvard.”
“What is the sum of these few brief remarks? It is simply that in my judgment there is one thing Harvard men must be agreed about. This is the recognition that truth is not something easily identifiable or simply stated, and that, this being so, those other qualities for which we all care so much—integrity, concern, and courage—these qualities make serious demands for understanding upon us all.”
The thing about decolonization is, every colony in Africa was unique: the white population was small or large, transient or settled; were schools built; was native labor exploited; etc.
Britain tailored independence plans to each specific case—yet the result was always the same.
All the complexities that were pondered in the run-up to independence—the moral claims of various parties, the colony’s unique history, the economic needs of the future state—collapsed before the simple Fanonist logic of white man bad.
Don’t overthink it, is what I’m saying.
“It’s not communism, and it’s not just
sheer racism. It’s race communism. It’s the merging of the two.”
Good podcast on this topic today, Lomez says some wise things:
The American deep state was the best friend decolonization ever had. The Cold War in Africa was all about us outbidding the Soviets by being more pro-liberation than they were.
It’s true that our Third World clients often paid lip service to colorblind liberalism: We invite white settlers to stay and build the new Kenya! “We shall not steal anything from them except our freedom.” And yet in not a single decolonized country did this multiracial democracy actually materialize. Odd.
It’s an interesting question: Is anti-racism/critical race theory an American import? Both sides have good arguments but on balance I say yes. America invented this model and then spread it abroad.
Obviously “anti-racism” here doesn’t mean just the idea that racism is bad. It means the specific model of NGOs that (1) use anti-discrimination measures for lawfare; (2) lobby for infinity migrants; and (3) keep watchlists of “far-right” groups that spread “hate,” i.e. dissent from the above, and work with the deep state and other establishment organizations to weaponize those lists.
There were anti-racist groups in France after WWII (MRAP, LICRA) but the first NGO on this model was SOS Racisme, founded in 1984. Below, we see SOS Racisme providing lawyers for African squatters to prevent them from being evicted and also “testing” for bias in landlords, employers, nightclub bouncers.
The fact that the Penn Station puncher had no previous arrests makes the story more disturbing. He wasn’t a vagrant, just a normal guy who punched a stranger for bumping into him.
“‘Bruh I had a f—ing day … So the n***a I punched died bruh,’ Tate wrote on Instagram Sunday.”
A lady once bumped into my toddler getting off the train. I said, hey, watch it, and she went into a full-on meltdown (“Bitch you don’t know who you’re messing with”), following us around the station for ten minutes shouting. She harassed us on three subsequent occasions at the same stop.
Months later, she even pulled over her car when we were walking down the street in a different neighborhood, shouting at me and my children: “I know where you live now, you better watch out.” She was blocking traffic and other cars were honking, but she kept yelling.
So I have a deranged stalker and my son is afraid of “the bad lady,” all because I told this woman to please not step on my child.
It wasn’t some teen delinquent, either. She was a middle-aged lady with an office job. Her place of employment was on the name badge around her neck.
Public transit is stressful enough without having to worry that you might inadvertently “disrespect” the wrong person.
I have so many stories like this. A teenage boy saw me staring at him as he jumped the faregate, and he started approaching me: “What? What you looking at? Bitch I will throw that stroller in front of the train.” Then a middle-aged lady came to my rescue: “You’re not gonna do it. I’m a mother. I’m telling you, you’re not gonna touch that child.”
I stood there watching these two shouting at each other for several minutes. I got on a train going the wrong direction to escape.
I later saw the same boy jumping the faregate on multiple occasions, usually with the station manager looking on and doing nothing. Why don’t you stop him, I thought.
The ruling ideology is just race communism. Taking stuff from the bad class and giving it to the good class is its central purpose as much as it was for the Soviets. Who gets board seats, jobs, college spots, loans, housing—it’s all about the allocation of resources by race.
“Wokeness” is a bad name for it because it sounds frivolous. It makes you think of diversity seminars and college professors. “Race communism” sounds like what it is: your telecommunications merger won’t be approved unless you give sufficient hand-outs to legally favored races.
Communists believe the central story of mankind is the oppression and eventual liberation of the working class. Race communists think the same thing but about non-white people. It is the dominant theme of all human history and the basis of the regime’s moral legitimacy.
Interesting New York Times Magazine article on white flight from 1971 by a journalist who grew up in a Slovak neighborhood of Cleveland in the early 1950s and returned after Carl Stokes was elected the city’s first black mayor in 1967. nytimes.com/1971/01/24/arc…
“The old ladies of the church were getting beaten and robbed on their way to early mass, so we stopped those… We had a lot of trouble with school children being beaten... I guess you heard about the eighth‐grade girl who was raped by four boys from Audubon.”
“Joe had been warned the neighborhood was changing, that five merchants or property owners had been killed during hold ups in the last few years. His response was, ‘Who would want to hurt me? Anyhow, they can take the money, I'll earn more.’ … His tire gauge had deflected a bullet, but his skull had been crushed in a remorseless beating.”