Paul Butler is a professor at the Georgetown University School of Law.
In the Washington Post, where he is a contributing columnist, he writes that the disparate treatment of Nikole Hannah-Jones illustrates critical race theory. At the heart of CRT is the belief that systemic racism persists, despite legislative and judicial actions to banish it.
According to some leading critical race theorists, integration — thetraditional progressive route to racial justice — does not actually work for minorities. In this view, white supremacy is so embedded in most American institutions that people of color will never be accepted as equals — even when they are formally Reade entry.
UNC demonstrated that point after its journalism school offered Hannah-Jones, an investigative journalist for the New York Times, a prestigious professorship. The MacArthur “genius” learned that her initial appointment would be without tenure. She said she knew of no “legitimate reason” why “someone who has worked in the field as long as I have, who has the credentials, the awards, or the status that I have, should be treated different than every other white professor who came before me.” After a threatened lawsuit and huge public outcry, the university’s Board of Trustees voted 9 to 4 to extend tenure to Hannah-Jones….
Hannah-Jones’s rejection of a majority-White institution whose leaders clearly did not value her worth — and her embrace of a Black institution that did — embodied critical race theory’s foundational principles….
In a classic article published in 1976, Harvard professor Derrick Bell argued that during the Jim Crow era, Black students might have been better off if they had sought more resources for segregated schools rather than access to White schools. Bell’s premise was that actual integration would never happen, even if it were legally mandated, because of “massive white hostility.”
Critical race theorists described the heavy toll of desegregation efforts, including placing Blacks in hostile environments, in a way that resonates with Hannah-Jones’s explanation for her decision: “At some point when you have proven yourself and fought your way into institutions that were not built for you . . . you have to decide that you are done forcing yourself in….”
I have no beef with Hannah-Jones for declining a job at a journalism school that is literally named after the White man who, as he so delicately put it, “expressed my concerns” about her hiring. But, for now, I am okay with working at a university that in its early years was financed by the sale of enslaved people. I love my students and respect my colleagues, and have been part of the community’s efforts, still incomplete, to make reparations for that travesty. Sometimes, helping majority-White spaces be less racist and more inclusive feels transformative. Other times, it feels like an intellectual version of my great-grandfather’s job; he cleaned outhouses — i.e., shoveling White people’s excrement.
Much respect to Hannah-Jones for providing another example. Much respect to critical race theorists for keeping us focused on the crucial question: whether any approach can achieve racial justice in our flawed and divided country.
Here’s a more rational assessment of the lead author of the deeply flawed 1619 Project that is not based on racial and ideological solidarity.
(ad hominem alert: National Review has published hundreds of pieces criticizing the buffoonery of Donald Trump and allows its writers to vigorously disagree with each other. NR is conservative, but it doesn’t enforce a party line)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-bizarre-martyrdom-of-nikole-hannah-jones/
Do you consider it rational because the article attacks certain actions by Hannah-Jpnes? What makes these attacks rational?
The NR article is based on envy, not rationality.
I was not impressed by the article attacking the credibility of Nicole Hannah-Jones in the National Review. Have you read The 1619 Project? I found it a very impressive work and worthy of the Pulitzer. NHK has won every major journalism award, as well as the MacArthur prize. She didn’t win all these awards because of her race but because she is a fine journalist. I have admired her work for years. UNC gave tenure to every previous holder of the Knight Chair. All were white. In the case of NHJ, she was the first to be denied tenure. Why?
Clearly, UNC’s behavior was “rational” because they were just “rationing” tenure.
There is a limited amount of tenure (a tenure scarcity, as economists would say) , so one must be very careful to ration it so that one does not run out prematurely. My best guess is that they just recently realized when they checked the gauge on the tenure tank that they were running low.
What could be more rational than rationing under such circumstances?
Who knows.
Maybe the tenure gauge bad been stuck for several years and that’s why they didn’t know they were running low.
That happened to me once last winter, not with tenure, of course, but with my fuel oil. My gauge was stuck making it look like I had much more than I did, so I ran out. Had I known I was getting low, I would have rationed until I could get another delivery.
Same is true with tenure.
Not sure how often they get tenure deliveries but it might only be every couple years.
Or maybe they get more tenure every ten years.
And that would really explain the need to be rational.
Hope that helps.
“more rational”
Oh Lord, now THAT is a good one! Tell us another!
I still don’t think you fully understand the argumentum ad hominem.
Isn’t that an argument about the meaning of two words that sound the same?
Hahahaha! Yes, yes it is.
RE: National Review piece:
The “rationality” of Hess’s opinion consists of easily-rebutted claims about the 1619 Project plus some petty cr*p. You can find far more nuanced discussions by following the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th links of his fourth paragraph– all to articles he embraces as “supporting” his claims.
Hess is not a historian.
In “Caste ” another NYT journalist Isabel Wilkerson points out the institutional nature of racism. The times that a Black person in a store is assumed to be an employee . Her interactions with even a Black flight attendant who assumed she did not belong in First Class. Being interacted with by DEA agents for being Black while walking fast through an airport .
I have to believe that it is not that integration will not work ,but rather that integration has not happened. We have been a divide society for 400 years. It is a little over 50 years that we mandated change through law. If shoveling s___against the tide is what it takes what other alternative is there . At some point that Black Flight attendant no less a White one will not assume that a Black person belongs in Economy Class.
So perhaps Jones should have stayed at UNC forcing that institution to confront her being there. Instead she took the economy ticket (not directed at Howard). Which is where UNC preferred her to sit.
Joel,
Respectfully, I disagree. Four members of the Board of Governors continued to vote against her tenure and, that was after the Board’s prior actions were called out as racist.
Star scholars should avoid UNC, not burnish its image. If the President of the University had resigned and a new President chastised Walter Hussman and all of the people he influenced, a case could be made for employment and enrollment at UNC. If the courageous people who exposed Hussman received commendation from the University, a case could be made.
Linda
I can handle it. We usually agree.
I would say staying and being in their face may have been the way . Have other white scholars boycotted UNC since. Have any of the white faculty given up their tenured position moving to other schools in protest.
She would have been a constant reminder of the failed attempt to block black students after Brown and discriminate against her almost 70 years later . .
Disparaging her reputation could have become sport among bigots at UNC and the N.C. capitol. In that context, it would be made difficult for her to accomplish. I admire Hannah-Jones for being a beacon instead of a sacrifice.
A black friend told me that when she went to an upscale department store, she was always followed by a store employee, the assumption was that she intended to shoplift.
I have also heard this from black friends, including one who was making several hundred thousand a year in base salary and was typically, when he entered one of these stores, wearing a suit and tie.
Hannah-Jones explained her decision by saying something to the effect that it is not necessarily the responsibility of Black people to help correct the White institutions that discriminate against them; ultimately, that is the White institutions’ responsibility.
Instead, Blacks (like all of us) have the right to choose the path that best fulfills THEM.
Oops–I was attempting to respond to Joel above.
“At some point that Black Flight attendant no less a White one will not assume that a Black person belongs in Economy Class. So perhaps Jones should have stayed at UNC forcing that institution to confront her being there. Instead she took the economy ticket (not directed at Howard). Which is where UNC preferred her to sit.”
Any highly accomplished professional worth their salt would have taken their candidacy elsewhere after being so shabbily treated by a potential employer. Why should N H-J have accepted a grudging offer made 8 months after promised, and then only after public pressure? Why should she join the faculty of a college whose major donor worked behind the scenes against her candidacy– a college which bears that donor’s name? [& her own alma mater!] How is the cause served by making her eat dirt (in public!)? That would be like moving back to economy seats even though you paid first class, in front of all the passengers who witnessed the flight attendant’s racist challenge.
“Bell’s premise was that actual integration would never happen, even if it were legally mandated, because of “massive white hostility.”
There is a lot of data that supports Bell’s premise that there is “massive white hostility” to blacks. Tens of millions of white or light-skinned Americans that still support Traitor Trump represent that data. MAGA means Make America White Again, not Make America Great Again.
If there are thirty-to-forty million Traitor Trump hardcore supporters out there, that means it would be difficult to find a school or community without racists that practice white hostility toward people with naturally darker skin tones.
In Native Son, Richard Wright cleverly has a white lawyer defend Bigger Thomas for the violent murder of a character in the book. The lawyer does not defend Thomas for his actions, but begs mercy “…so that not only may this black boy live, but that we ourselves may not die.”
From the essay above: ”…whether any approach can achieve racial justice in our flawed and divided country.” If you believe Wright, we have no choice in the matter. I agree with Wright. We had best come together around the best of hopes or we will perish as a society, fractured by the constant conflict that persists because of our past history and our present attitudes.
For every one Paul Butler, how many are on the opposite side in Georgetown’s broader religious community?
Reviewing the first 10 pages of an internet search of CRT Catholic or “critical race theory” Catholic, provides an indication.
Christopher Devron, S.J. , 6-3-2021, writing at America The Jesuit Review, is one who appears to have sentiments similar to Butler’s. IMO, he shares company with those who couch their pro-CRT arguments from the arrogance of Whites telling Blacks how their history in America should be taught. My observation from what Devron wrote was, there was enough spinning to avoid offending Trump supporters.
Ryan Girdusky, who formed a PAC to raise money for school board candidates opposed to CRT, received a fawning interview at Catholic Vote. Christopher Rufo, who the New Yorker portrayed as the origin of the CRT controversy, tweeted, 6-3-2021, “We…decided to place our oldest in Catholic school” (a reason other than CRT was cited).
The politicking of the Catholic Church leadership and the politicking of the Church’s powerful members who are driven by their religion, have protection from a lot of diehard fans who are in influential positions. In contrast, there are few willing to expand the public’s view of a force engaged in pervasive and intense politicking which benefits authoritarianism and the GOP.
You are always on message, Linda, I give you that.
You too, Flerp.
My general observations share company with the warnings of Antonio Spadara, a close ally of Pope Francis.
Pope Francis appears to be quite concerned about the political right turn within his Church- recently, the fractures over Biden receiving communion and two days ago, according to a Jesuit magazine, “Latin Masses hijacking former Popes’ initiatives for their own ends.” I don’t think Pope Francis wants Trump re-elected with Catholic votes.
Rhetorically, what percentage of Americans do you think know that Catholic organizations are the 3rd largest U.S. employer, that some of the associations’ employers are exempt from civil rights employment law, that some Catholic schools have altered the U.S, pledge of allegiance, that credit for school choice legislation goes to state Catholic Conferences, that the shrine of the Knights of Columbus, largest lay organization in the world (run by a former legislative aide to Jesse Helms), rolled out the red carpet for Trump, etc.?
I’m guessing the answer is less than those who can parrot Fox News.
Regarding the “altering of the Pledge by some Catholic schools,” the Pledge was itself altered by the addition of “under God.” Furthermore, that original version without “under God” could be considered an alteration, since it is not one of the founding documents of our country.
I have refused to parrot it since 10th grade, and have long wondered why we do not instead recite parts of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
I don’t disagree.
Given the contradictions in the whole of “God’s words” and the mental illness evident in Revelations, being under God’s rule forces Americans to abide by the self-interest of powerful Narcissistic men interpreting stories and hallucinations from the distant past, men whose interests are limited to protecting wealthy white men and their authority.
The USCCB’s elected general secretary, Monsignor Jeffrey Burill, missed an important opportunity to elucidate about Catholic policy and fairness. If he had spoken up, I want to think that people of faith like Pelosi and Biden wouldn’t be vehemently criticized by 2/3 of the bishops in the USCCB. From his leadership role, Burill could have told the bishops and the public that laws against abortion unfairly target heterosexual sex.
Biden is in Cincinnati today. CNN which is hosting the event, chose a Catholic university for the invitation-only town hall. The school’s administration sent out a notification of available tickets to its college community. Advance questions were also limited to those from the university’s community.
While the venue and protocols may seem like a poor choice for a “town hall” meeting in a democratic nation based on separation of church and state, it’s worked out for the best.
The Archdiocese’s objections to Biden, about which the news reported, showed the public the partisanship of the “non-profit” Church.
When Rep.Ted Lieu said the Catholic bishops were hypocritical concerning Biden and abortion vs. Trump and capital punishment, he may have more accurately stated the bishops are liars by omission rather than hypocrites. Pregnancies are punishment for women who have sex and capital murder is punishment for those who defy law and order. The positions appear hypocritical only because the Bishops don’t want to inform the public of the true motivation.
“Here’s a more rational assessment …”
‘Cause rational or truth, or reality, is what we
say it is.
Rather than sort through questions of notoriety and suitability,OUR narrative is the real deal. OUR
cabal has access to the truth that “others” fail to discern.
The United States: Home of Shocking Medical Inequality and Profiteering Supported by Repugnicans and Rapacious DINOs
All my life, I thought that once you got to be old, you would be covered by free Medicare insurance, and I thought, well, at least, the poorest Americans have that.
Little did I know that a) elderly people have to pay what is, for most of them, a steep monthly premium for Medicare, and b) the plan they get for that premium is an extremely paltry thing, a eunuch’s shadow of an actual medical insurance plan–one that covers almost nothing. For example, Medicare doesn;’t even cover an actual annual physical. It covers a few superficial tests in something called a “wellness visit.” It doesn’t even cover the basic blood and urine work included in an actual physical.
This is obscene, and
ONLY IN AMERICA, and in NONE of the 36 other OECD nations is it like this.
Systemic racism and systemic mistreatment of the poor, example number 1,543,844.
systemic racism = racism built into one or more systems
The percentage of POC who are poor is much greater than the percentage of whites who are poor. So, our healthcare system, which serves the wealthy well and the poor poorly, hurts a greater percentage of POC than whites. This is not a matter of ideology but of fact. It’s racism BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM. And it’s but one of many examples of that.
“So, our healthcare system, which serves the wealthy well and the poor poorly, hurts a greater percentage of POC than whites.”
Bob, in your view, is there a difference between “systemic racism” and “any system that produce a negative impact that impacts POC [usually defined as black and Latino] in disproportionate numbers relative to their overall population”? Or is that just what systemic racism is?
That is what systemic racism is. If people understood this, they would see that the question of whether there is systemic racism in the U.S. is not debatable. It is demonstrably, objectively true.
Consider the difference in a system that allows both the rich guy and the poor one who couldn’t afford one in the U.S. access to a free, complete, actual physical.
It certainly would be if that’s the definition.
But this is why I don’t like the term “systemic racism” as commonly used. I don’t think all racially disparate outcomes are “racist” in any meaningful sense. I don’t think the term helps us understand why outcomes may correlate with race. It’s too much like a “God of the gaps” theory. “Racism of the gaps.”
I don’t think all racially disparate outcomes are “racist” in any meaningful sense.
Well, you and I disagree about this. We have a LOT of government polices and habits of the tribe within our government, policing, legal, and penal systems that hurt POC significantly. It’s much less likely that some cop is going to kneel on your neck until you die or kill you if you are a young person playing with a cellphone or toy in the part if you are white. You may think that calling that racism is just a god of the gaps, but that’s really insensitive to the conditions with which POC live, I think. The gap in the case of the argument from lack of scientific knowledge OBVIOUSLY doesn’t require adoption of some superstitious explanation. But there’s ample evidence that many of these examples of systemic racism in government, law, etc, are, in fact, intentional, not simply unintentional, examples of racism. And does it have to be intentional to be racism? I don’t think so. Not if it CLEARLY is disproportionate, this is pointed out again and again, and nothing is done. The doing nothing is not making the effort because you don’t give a ________, and that’s racist.
And, I grew up in the Midwest and heard the local cops talk. The N word was always on the lips of many of them.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.
So, our government healthcare system is racist. It serves white people much better than it does POC. It is systemically racist.
What if something serves Latino people better than it serves black people? Is that systemic racism?
What if something serves white people better than it serves Indian-Americans?
Is that systemic racism?
What if something serves Chinese-Americans and Korean-Americans better than white people? Systemic racism?
Look, when things are as bad as they are in the U.S.,–when racism is so prevalent–it’s completely ridiculous and disproportionate to be wasting time with these quiddities.
FLERP, you are nitpicking. Are you claiming that there is no systemic racism? Do you really believe that police react to Blacks as they do to whites?
“React to” how? What circumstances? I don’t know the answer to that.
I’m saying that if the definition of “systemic racism” is that disparate outcomes exist among “racial” groups, then yes, it certainly exists, at least in some contexts? That’s undeniable in some contexts, but I don’t think it’s very instructive.
If the term means racism exists in all contexts, then I am very skeptical, and even more skeptical of the term’s utility.
I don’t think this is nitpicking.
Accidental question mark in my last comment.
Bob,
It seems to me that it is beyond debate that the public school system in the United States is now producing, and has always produced, a disproportionately negative impact on people of color.
Can I assume that you believe the public school system in the United States is, and always has been, racist?
And some alternative system is doing better, TE? And these negative outcomes are the fault of the public school system and not of the vast economic inequities that exist in this country? Really? Tell me you don’t think that.
Centuries of exclusion with dramatic consequences.
As Diane says, “It’s the poverty, stupid, not the schools.” Pareto principle.
The intro to my essay “On the Pseudoscience of Strategy-based Reading Instruction”:
For all children, but especially for the one for whom learning to read is going to be difficult, early learning must be a safe and joyful experience. Many of our students, in this land in which nearly a third live in dire poverty, come to school not ready, physically or emotionally or linguistically, for the experience. They have spent their short lives hungry or abused. They lack proper eyeglasses. They have had caretakers who didn’t take care because those adults who should have were themselves constantly teetering on one precipice or another, often as a result of our profoundly inequitable economic system. Many of the students coming into our classes have almost never had an actual conversation with an adult. They are barely articulate in the spoken language and thus not ready to comprehend written language, which is merely a means for encoding a spoken one. They haven’t been read to. They haven’t put on skits for Mom and Dad and the Grandparents. They don’t have a bookcase in their room, if they have a room, brimming with Goodnight, Moon; A Snowy Day; Red Fish, Blue Fish; Thomas the Tank Engine; The Illustrated Mother Goose; and D’Aulaires Book of Greek Myths. They haven’t learned to associate physical books with joy and closeness to people who love them. In the ambient linguistic environment in which they reached school age, they have heard millions fewer total numbers of words and tens of thousands fewer unique lexemes than have kids from more privileged homes, and they have been exposed to much less sophisticated syntax. Some, when they have been spoken to at all by adults, have been spoken to mostly in imperatives. All this is due to centuries of exclusion and oppression of people who look like them.
Such children desperately need compensatory environments in which spoken interactions and reading are rich, rewarding, joyful experiences. If a child is going to learn to read with comprehension, he or she must be ready to do so, physically, emotionally, and linguistically (having become reasonably articulate in a spoken language). Learning to read will be difficult for many kids, easy for others. And often the difficulty will have nothing to do with brain wiring and everything to do with the experiences that the child has had in his or her short life. In this, as well as in brain wiring, kids differ, as invariant “standards” do not. They need one-on-one conversations with adults who care about them. They need exposure to libraries and classroom libraries filled with enticing books. Kids need to be read to. They need story time. They need jump-rope rhymes and nursery rhymes and songs and jingles. They need social interaction using spoken language. They need books that are their possessions, objects of their own. They need to memorize and enact. And so on. They need fun with language generally and with reading in particular. They need the experiences that many never got. And so, the mechanics of learning to read should be only a small part of the whole of a reading “program.” However, this essay will deal only with the mechanics part. That, itself, is a lot bigger topic than is it is generally recognized to be.
FLERP!,
Systemic racism means that often nothing is done about things that disproportionately affect non-white Americans, and more specifically African-Americans, until they also affect white people, too. Or until white people start caring about it because they can no longer pretend it doesn’t exist.
So while someone who is determined to “prove” that poor white Americans also suffer (which is true), the fact is that when it is something that starts to greatly affect white folks — like opiate addiction — suddenly our country doesn’t make it all about how “bad” the white addicts are. It’s about the “100 to 1 disparity between the amount of crack cocaine that triggers a federal mandatory minimum sentence versus powder cocaine. Five grams of crack mandated a five-year sentence — 500 grams of powder cocaine was required to trigger the same sentence.”
We live in a country where white people who benefit from this privilege believe they are suffering mightily from discrimination.
We live in a country where many of the same people who profess outrage about affirmative action say that it’s fine that rich students whose parents donate lots of money or rich kids who play non-revenue sports played primarily in rich high schools get admissions advantages.
Nicole Hannah Jones was held to a HIGHER standard that any of the white people who were given the Knight Fellowship with tenure before her. And yet white folks denied that.
Many white people get their jobs over far more qualified applicants because of their connections. But as soon as someone who is not white is given a job, all those qualified applicants claim that they suffered from reverse racism.
NYC, surely you are not suggesting that there are many white kids who are just like Princess Sparkle and Slender Man! LOL.
“Do you really believe that police react to Blacks as they do to Whites?”
A few years back students from the Half Hollow Hills district, a rather wealthy district here on Long Island held a ski trip . The bus ride turned into a wild drug party. The driver pulled the bus to the side of the road and called police. Of course in the interim the kids got rid of the drugs and alcohol. The incident made headlines Statewide.
If they ever had set up a stop and frisk outside the two HHH High Schools, half the student body would be attending the State Pen. instead of UPen, Harvard or Pen State . Of course that would never happen because the Mayor ,the County Exec. and the Commissioner of Police would be fleeing for their lives if it did.
There were no arrests in the bus incident and if I remember little or no disciplinary action taken by the district other than cancelling further trips . Amazing things happen when parents are White and have esquire after their names.
Indeedy. Every teacher has witnessed this first hand.
Yup, Joel. That the rich white kids slide is so common that it has become a stock template for B-grade movies–the privileged white kid who gets away with everything does so and does so and does so until he or she gets a comeuppance.It’s its own genre now, like movies about teenagers (played by 20-40 year olds) besieged a rented cabin.
Bob,
Do you think disproportionate suspension rates of black students is caused by teacher racism, conscious or unconscious? Perhaps I’m deluding myself, but I see myself as discriminating in favor of black students. I don’t think I’m alone.
That said, I know I’ve had years where my detention/referral rate for my black students was higher than for white students. Can’t the reason just be that I happened to have some very misbehavior-prone black students? Is it valid to infer it had to have something to do with my attitudes toward blacks? The assumption seems to be that blacks, as a group, must have exactly the same propensity to break school rules as whites or Asians, and that any differential can only be due to bias. Is this a fair assumption?
These are questions asked in a good faith effort to understand the truth; however I know that I’ll be blasted for even asking them. I’m not supposed to ask these questions, am I? We’re constantly told we need to have “conversations about race”, but this kind of conversation gets angrily shut down, which makes me and many others want to stay as far as possible from conversations about race.
If you believe that systemic racism is the explanation for all disparate outcomes—as Kendi and evidently many commented here do—then disproportionate suspension rates of black students is cause by systemic racism. No need to look further at any other causes. Of course that doesn’t tell us why white students are suspended at much higher rates than Asian-American students.
When I say that where you find more negative effects on blacks of a system, you are looking at systemic racism, I am EMPHATICALLY NOT suggesting that it’s easy to see where the systemic racism lies. From my own experiences as a teacher, I would say that some black students in the United States act out because they are young and angry because their lives are horrible because they have one or more adults doing caretaking for them who are a mess because they don’t have anything and have no hope for themselves due to systemic exclusion over literally hundreds of years of them and their ancestors. Ask Lloyd or me or anyone else who has ever taught in a district where the students’ parents were mostly poor. That kid of the drug-addicted prostitute parent won’t typically be all bubbly and ready to learn about pronoun reference. So, it isn’t systemic racism on the part of the teacher but on the part of the country as a whole, and the teacher is simply caught up in that like a fly in treacle. Not blasting or blaming you here.
Policymakers have been chiseling away at Medicare’s coverage for years. That is the reason many people carry a supplemental plan, but it is still better coverage in a health crisis than the Medicare Advantage plans. For anyone with a serious illness MA insurance companies have the right to deny coverage while the supplement plans, also private insurance, are required to back up what Medicare covers. There are also maximum out of pocket amounts for traditional Medicare, but not for Medicare Advantage.
But good supplemental plans are very expensive, and poor people (i.e., most seniors) simply can’t afford them.
Agreed. I took care of my mother for her last three years. She passed away in 2005. Her Medicare coverage was far more comprehensive, and no supplement was needed. The only remaining bill after she passed was $200 for an ambulance. We need universal healthcare.
Given that we live in the USA, USA, USA, it’s a miracle that we even have Medicare. It took a bully monster like LBJ to get Medicare and Medicaid created and enacted. Without Medicare, I would probably be broke or dead. Over the years, I’ve made a few trips to the ER (just the $35 co-pay) and had cataract surgery (under $200) that would have cost me many thousands of $$$$ if not for Medicare.
We most definitely should have universal healthcare like the other wealthy democracies (and with cheaper drug prices), it’s long overdue. The GOP and corporate Democrats stand in the way of true universal healthcare. Given how fouled up our health system is, I guess we should be thankful that they didn’t charge us for the Covid vaccinations.
They don’t charge us for covid vaccinations…yet
But they will, in the future, for “boosters”
It’s all part of the master plan.
Butler, who is Black, is relatively new to Georgetown.
Let’s take a look at Georgetown’s stats since its location in D.C. enables its faculty and administration to have outsized influence in government decisions.
Not one woman has ever been University President in its 230 year history. It’s only been about 50 years since women were admitted to the school. In May of 2021, the school put together a Task Force on Gender Equity. The first female Faculty Chair of the School of Foreign Service was elected in 2019. In 2016, the student body elected the first woman of color to head student government. Since the time women were admitted to the school, only 20% of the student body presidents have been women.
It seems likely that Butler, speaking from the glass house of Georgetown, reflects only his view or the view of a limited number in the community.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been vigorously lobbying against the Equal Rights Amendment.
I watched an interview with Hannah-Jones and it was interesting- given what I consider an almost insane pushback to her work I expected a fire-breathing radical and she was measured and methodical in the interview.
I also completely agree with what I think is her larger point- it is not her job to “bring people together”. That’s a duty that no other historian or scholar is saddled with and one has to wonder why this demand is only made of African American scholars. It’s really not up to her if America “solves” the racism problem- she’s offering the work she did, which is what every historian and scholar does. This sort of extra condition or requirement was added to her work- it couldn’t be “divisive” and it couldn’t make race relations worse. Where did that come from and why just her? That’s not a requirement. It’s ridiculous to demand it.