Alan Joseph Bauer: Stop Blaming Whites

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Much of the efforts behind DEI and the like are pushed by guilt-ridden white liberals. They are doing the black community no favors.

In the last generation, new ideas and concepts have been thrown around to supposedly help disadvantaged groups finally get ahead. Some common terms:

*White privilege

*White Guilt/White Fragility/White Rage

*DEI

*Anti-Racism

*Reparations

*No Cash Bail

One cannot and should not deny the horror of slavery or the intense bigotry of previous generations. The problem is that the US is a different and better country today, and most Americans hold no hatred in their hearts. Reverse bigotry disguised as “anti-racism” or “equity” will not fix any social problem and only makes society less cohesive.

The basic premise on the left is that whites have had unfair structural advantages in society that have prevented “people of color” and other newer groups like trans from succeeding in a white-favored world. That there are very poor whites in Appalachia or very wealthy blacks in Hollywood does not enter into promoters’ generalizations and concepts. Much of the effort behind these misguided and bigoted (against whites, Jews and some other disfavored groups) efforts is driven by white and often quite wealthy liberals. People like George Soros have poured fortunes into “equity” programs or in support of DAs who either do not charge and/or release criminals for the purpose of supposedly addressing historical wrongs. Leaders like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, both extremely wealthy, have spearheaded funding and programs to supposedly finally fix the failures in black and other minority communities. Remember that Joe Biden said that “equity” and not equality would be the foundational principle of his administration. Equality means that everyone is treated the same; equity means that certain groups are “more equal than others” and get advantages based on specious external considerations like race that have no relationship to required performance. In DEI, we all lose—including those who supposedly benefit from being given a leg up when they find out that they are not ready for their future tasks.

I do my best not to think about Claudine Gay, the deposed former president of my alma mater, Harvard. But let’s just think about her for a moment. Harvard has the resources, connections and prestige to get pretty much anyone on the globe to serve as its president. The president of Harvard in the past was considered unofficially the de facto leader on educational issues in the US. He or she spoke, and The New York Times reported. Claudine Gay had 11 academic papers of questionable quality and no books when she was elevated from dean to president. She was accused of plagiarism by peers who claimed that she lifted their ideas. She let antisemitism run rampant on the Harvard campus and had a hard time condemning it as the actions of the students mirrored the victim/victimizer ideology that she and others supported at Harvard. Should the protesters have been directing their hatred and threats towards blacks, illegal aliens, trans, or gays, she would have shut down the protests and shown participating students the door.

So thinking about Claudine Gay for just one moment, one has to ask: is this the best that DEI could produce? Fine, they needed to conjure up a liberal president. But in all of the world and certainly in all of American academia, the best that the DEI anti-white, anti-Jewish bigotry machine could come up with was a black woman with a handful of questionable academic papers? The same could be asked of Kamala Harris. If one listens to one of her famous word salads in which she repeats the same words over and over again and says nothing of consequence, he will again ask: this is vice-presidential material? There are clearly far more articulate and thoughtful black women (as that was the default requirement to be Joe Biden’s running mate) than a woman who could cackle during a funeral. Why does DEI produce such lousy candidates if its goal is supposedly to advance deserving people who have been denied opportunities because of structural obstacles directed against their race, sex, sexual orientation or color?

The goal of DEI and the other terms previously listed is control and not improving anyone’s lot. How many millions did Black Lives Matter receive from corporate and personal donations? $90 million in 2020 alone. Can you list tangible improvements they made to the lives of blacks in America? It is alleged that one executive took $10 million for himself, while another bought several homes for herself. And what of the criminals released or those whose bail was set to zero by Soros DAs and go back to commit more crime? They often terrorize minority communities more than any other group. Students let into Harvard and other schools due to reduced expectations and standards will simply have to face the music later in their careers when some employer or situation does not care about their color but only results and performance. United wants a diverse pilot fleet; its passengers in the back only want to get to their destinations safely. If United’s goal does not fit with its passengers’ wishes, then they better learn how to haul freight only.

If you truly want to help black and other historically “disadvantaged” groups, then hold them to the same standards as everybody else. Yes, fewer will get into Harvard or become pilots, but the ones who succeed will go far and hopefully encourage others to reach the highest levels of performance. Lowering standards, enforcing DEI diktats, releasing criminals based on race: none of these actions have made black lives better or societies more cohesive and successful. It may make liberals’ consciences feel better but it has not led to more black wealth, safer cities, or truly improved performance of minorities. Just as the $20 minimum wage in the food industry in California has led to 10,000 fewer food workers, DEI leads to worse overall outcomes for the people and societies it pretends to help.

While using the same standards for all might be called discriminatory because ultimately fewer minority candidates will make the cut for a position at Harvard or a job afterwards, in the end the numbers will grow without sacrificing standards or risking passengers or patients. DEI, white guilt, etc. are not designed for making minority lives better; they exist to allow liberals to go to sleep at night because they feel less guilty about their own success and wealth. If they truly want blacks and other minority groups to succeed, then they should hold all to one standard—equality—and support charter schools and other vehicles that help better prepare students for truly succeeding and not just getting by via reduced expectations. There is much that needs fixing in the black community, including most children being born out of wedlock and many fathers in jail.  DEI at the end of the process will not fix that which is broken from the beginning. Americans want their fellow citizens to succeed—on a level and fair playing field.