Systemic Racism - the Big Lie

So, why do we say systemic racism, and not just racism? Why systemic?

It's important to understand the words and phrases that so thoroughly penetrate our national discourse, because most people don't.

Systemic racism is not about specific instances of racism. Rather, it is the belief that racism is imbued in our national DNA, in our system. It looks to broad, racial outcomes as evidence. Any disparity in result is a priori proof of systemic racism.

Ibram X. Kendi himself, the man at the very pinnacle of the "Anti-racism" power structure, says, "Racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country."

The sole cause. Nothing else. Not fatherless homes. Not personal choices. Not school quality, or culture, or even luck.

As long as racial groups perform differently, there must be racism. Systemic racism.

If our system is racist, then we must ask, what does our system consist of? The answer to that is institutions, of course. The government, corporations, schools, foundations...

And this is where I have a real problem with the whole thing. But first, let's be clear, there was a time in our country where most of our institutions were racist. You don't even have to go back too far in our history; certainly within my lifetime. (Note: I'm primarily addressing racism against blacks here, because that's what Critical Race Theory and "Anti-racism" deal with. I'm perfectly aware you could make a systemic racism argument today where "white-adjacent" groups are concerned, i.e. Asians and Indian-Americans.)

But matters have changed radically in the last few decades. I am unaware of any institutions that don't give special preferences to blacks. Many significantly so. 

Everyone knows this, but it's a truth you can't speak, particularly if you rely on someone else for your paycheck.

Whether you think such preferences are the right thing to do is a discussion for a different day. But it's an unarguable fact that they exist.

The government and public schools certainly do. 

Universities certainly do. The average SAT scores for black students at places like Harvard is several hundred points lower than other students.

Corporations certainly do. In fact, they are desperate to hire more black candidates, and are often frustrated in their efforts to do so. Same goes for finding board members. The CEO of Wells Fargo, Charles Scharf, got in hot water recently when he said, "The unfortunate reality is that there is a very limited pool of black talent to recruit from."

Does he have a point, or was he being racist? Blacks are 12% of the population, but they are only 7% of the pool of college graduates. How is Scharf supposed to get to 12%? I suppose he could, but then other banks would be left woefully short in this zero-sum game. 

Here's the rub: representation of less than 12% is viewed by the Ibram X. Kendis of the world as case-closed proof of racism. Similarly, if a neighborhood is less than 12% black, it must be because of racism.

No further evidence required.

Remember, this is all about group results, not individuals.

(Aside: that blacks are underrepresented as college grads is worthy of serious discussion, even if it's not something Scharf can solve as CEO of a bank. The problem is that you can't get to the heart of the issue without discussing the absence of black fathers or the failure of teachers unions to actually teach, and those are places you are not allowed to go.)

Systemic racism is the Big Lie because our institutions are not racist. They actually have become the opposite, seeking absolution for past sins - sins committed long before anyone currently in charge was involved in any way.

But we will never get to racial nirvana if we measure everything by groups. Groups will always perform differently, and for many reasons. This is a convenient state of affairs for DEI race hustlers because as long as differential outcomes exist, systemic racism can be blamed, and you will need their blessing to function. 

The revolution becomes permanent, and unless you want it to come for you, you'd better shell out for a DEI consultant and get that seal of approval. (For as long as your checks clear, anyway.)

As a conservative, I believe that individuals have rights, not groups. If there are acts of racism against individuals, I want to know about it, because it goes against everything I believe. 

But notice I said acts. 

If a person is guilty of acts of racism, let's call him out, even prosecute him if laws have been broken. 

If an institution is committing acts of racism, same thing. Shame on them, and there are multiple paths for remediation.

We conservatives want to solve problems.

The DEI movement does not. That's why the very definition of racism gets ever-more-nebulous. Now we have "microaggressions" and "unconscious bias," which can be so subtle that neither the victim nor the perpetrator knows they're happening. Then there's "cultural appropriation," of course (without which we wouldn't have the Beatles - just sayin'). 

There's an endless word salad of new, ever-more-nuanced transgressions. Just yesterday, I learned the word misogynoir. (That means bias against black women, in case your Oxford English Dictionary hasn't been updated in the last 24 hours.)

But solving the problem of race means the Great Race Hustle goes away, so true solutions must always be another DEI-training-session-out-of-reach.

Thus, racism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink. It's in a look or a glance, or the food we choose to cook. It's in the Classics, and Twain, and To Kill a Mockingbird. 

Even poor Dr. Seuss. 

Oh, the things you can't do!

Heads Begin to Roll at Dalton (But Don't Be Fooled)

As this space told you a few weeks ago, heads would roll. 

Yesterday, Dalton announced that its Director of DEI ("Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion"), Domonic Rollins, would be leaving in "pursuit of other opportunities."

Rollins, I'm told, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, including some longtime and supportive Dalton families. "He is completely dismissive of people not of color," one parent told me.

Rollins

His scalp won't be the last, but only because Dalton has been embarrassed about the publicity, not because they fundamentally disagree with the "Anti-racist" agenda.

The timing of the announcement was interesting. The decision was actually made some weeks ago, but they wanted to put off the announcement so it didn't look like they were caving to outside pressure. 

But why now?

It seems parent contracts are due Monday, and I'm told lots of extensions have been granted. A parental survey was just completed and there's lots of blowback. People wanted a signal that their concerns were being taken seriously. Rollins was the sacrificial lamb. 

(Don't shed any tears. DEI is a booming industry. Rollins will find work, and probably a higher salary to boot. Coincidentally enough, he is following precisely the same narrative arc as the villain in Campusland.)

Rollins will not be the last person sent to the gallows before the academic year is out.

Parents: this is all meaningless theater. Rollins' ouster means nothing, and will change nothing. Per their announcement, Dalton will do a "national search" for Rollins' replacement, and they remain as committed as ever to "Anti-racism." It's right there on their website. 

Remember, "Anti-racism" is the application of Critical Race Theory (CRT). They are the same thing.

If you think any of this simply means being against racism, you are WRONG. If you are a parent, you are negligent if you don't do independent research into what CRT really means. CRT is an anti-intellectual virus that has spread through the vital organs of our country in just a few short months.

GET UP THE CURVE.

Here's a few pointers:

CRT is, itself, racist. It seeks to define us not as individuals, nor by the content of our characters, but as mere products of our skin colors. If you are white, no amount of self-abasement can wash the stain of your DNA.

CRT is anti-meritocracy. Equal results are paramount. Anything else is evidence of systemic racism, and must be forcibly corrected. The concepts of "excellence" and "equity" are mutually exclusive. The very word meritocracy is considered a micro-aggression.

CRT divides us, it doesn't unite. It inculcates our youngest children with angry racial distinctions that they themselves don't draw.

CRT is Marxist. It's a new strain, called by some "cultural" Marxism. In the old version, the "oppressed" were defined by class (the proletariat). In the new version, the they are defined by skin pigmentation. It's all the same thing.

CRT is anti-science. Objective truth does not exist. It is a social construct used as a tool of oppression. Even the idea of a correct answer in math is now being challenged as a social construct meant to lift some at the expense of others. 

Not kidding or exaggerating about any of this. For God's sake, look it up yourselves. Take these people at their word.

After you realize what's being perpetrated on your children, say something.

Do something.

 

Dalton, Pollyanna, and the Diversity Racket

I spoke to a senior administrator of a well known private school recently. He was filled with frustration over the ever-shifting sands of the diversity game.

"Things that were best practices until recently are now considered racist," he said. "Five minutes from now it will change again. The nomenclature changes almost constantly. Who decides these things? I have no idea."

The fact is, the DEI industry needs the rules to change, because they can never have achievable goals. Otherwise, success would sow the seeds of their own irrelevance. 

This is why DEI objectives are always amorphous, impossible to quantify, to prove or disprove. The very concept of "systemic" racism is to move away from specific instances of racism - things that can be dealt with - to diffuse, societal racism, something that will always just "be."

It's also why the DEI industry invents new concepts such as "microaggressions," which are instances of racism so subtle that frequently neither the victim nor the transgressor know it's occurred. ("Where are you from?")

The DEI industry needs friction to survive, so it sows dissension where it can, which is just about everywhere. Perpetually reworking the definition of racism such that institutions never know where they stand is part of the game.

(The educator also said that the National Association of Independent Schools, the accreditation body in charge of our nation's private schools, has gone full woke. "I can't remember the last time the cover of their monthly magazine didn't have something to do with diversity. I mean, it's important, but so many other things are as well.")

Diversity has morphed from a social movement to a full blown industry with scores of conferences, consultants, and expensive opportunities for absolution. Martin Luther would blush at the scope of modern indulgence buying.

A lot of money is being made. Books, speaking fees, consulting contracts...Want to hire Ibram Kendi for a 45 minute Zoom? That'll set you back twenty K. 

Dalton's diversity consultant is an outfit called Pollyanna. Separating where Dalton ends and Pollyanna begins is a bit difficult. Pollyanna itself appears to be a Dalton creation. Its founder, Caspar Caldarola, is an alumna as well as a former Dalton trustee for ten years - right up until the moment she started Pollyanna. Of Pollyanna's nine full time staff, six have deep ties to Dalton. Of the twelve board members, half have similar ties. The original board was 100% Dalton. Every year Dalton hosts the "Dalton Conference," a DEI conference for New York private schools. Pollyanna organizes this conference and uses it to raise money.

Casper Caldarola

Many of Pollyanna's donors are Dalton people as well. Interestingly, much like how Dalton made the names of its trustees disappear, Pollyanna has purged the names of donors from its own website. I have the list, although I can't see any purpose in reprinting it here, other than I will say that Dalton Headmaster Jim Best is on it. 

There's nothing, prima facie, wrong with any of this. But it does raise conflict of interest issues when Dalton hires Pollyanna, which they did from the outset. Dalton and Pollyanna are deeply in bed. Jim Best's letter to parents last week said they were hiring "independent experts" to evaluate Dalton's DEI efforts. Dollars to donuts he's talking about Pollyanna.

Best was also prominently quoted on the Pollyanna website until that, too, disappeared. For the sake of posterity, here's what he said:

"Pollyanna is transformative. You'll talk the talk, you'll walk the walk, and you'll see the world - and your work - in a new light."

He's right about one thing, what Pollyanna promotes is transformative. But it's a transformation few parents sign up for when they actually understand it. The 1619 Project, forced equal results, race-shaming, cop hatred...it's all there.

So, what does Pollyanna do? Here are some of the services they offer:

Curriculum Assessments This is where they tell what your kids are being taught isn't woke enough.

Cross-Constituent Assessments The description of this is a progressive word salad. I have no idea what it means.

Conferences Pollyanna will organize them. Intra-school, multi-school, you name it.

Racial Literacy Curriculum This is where, having failed the assessment, schools are told they have to revamp their curriculum, and Pollyanna will show them the way. 

This last one is the dangerous part. It is an entire K-8 program where "racial literacy" is woven into every aspect of school; science, health, history, the whole thing. It is a full embrace of Critical Race Theory. If you aren't up to speed on CRT and you're a parent, you should get there. 

While Dalton claims to be reviewing its curriculum for DEI, the program is, in fact, already embedded into the fabric of their school. Pollyanna is Dalton, Dalton is Pollyanna.

Want a play where one of the parts is "Racist Cop?" Dalton's got your back. They had one.

What does Pollyanna charge for its services? Well, that's hard to say, because there's little transparency in the DEI industry. I am reminded of when I was writing Campusland and I tried to find out how many DEI officers a typical Ivy college had on their staffs, and the information was nowhere to be found. (I later discovered that Yale has 150.) As for Pollyanna, one school administrator believes that hiring Pollyanna for the full array of their services (which keep growing) would cost "somewhere in the six figures a year." 

How many scholarships could that pay for?

Parents and alumni: this is where your donations are going; to neo-segregation ("affinity grouping"), America-bashing, and ethnic self-loathing. Your dollars enable this intellectual virus.

To that administrator who wondered who was making all these rules up: it's organizations like Pollyanna, plus their enablers in the academic world.

The interesting thing is that few people at Pollyanna have any experience in actual, non-diversity related, education. Caldarola doesn't. Her background is marketing and communications. Of Pollyanna's nine employees, only three have teaching experience. Of the twelve trustees, exactly two have teaching experience. (One trustee is a high school student who is "actively looking for a job," according to his LinkedIn profile.)

However well-meaning they may be, these are the kind of non-qualified people being allowed to completely rewrite the curricula of our schools and redefine their very missions.

One school I spoke to said they paid Pollyanna "low five figures" for two Zoom calls. They discontinued their relationship when it was clear that Pollyanna was a big proponent of the odious New York Times 1619 Project, a view that America's very founding and history is little more than the story of slavery and racism. It has been widely denounced as factually inaccurate by scores of historians, but that hasn't stopped it from gaining full purchase in the DEI industry, and therefore our schools. Dalton's own "Anti-racism resources" web page links to it. While you're there, you can also read such ideological effluence such as:

• Me and White Supremacy
• Intersectionality Matters!
• Black Feminist Thought

It's a long, long list, likely curated by Pollyanna. It's the kind of material that is crowding out the rest of the curriculum. Every minute kids spend getting indoctrinated in wokeism is a minute they are not reading Shakespeare, learning algebra, or practicing creative writing. And besides being factually and philosophically challenged, the list embodies a relentlessly depressing view of the world, and of America in particular. No wonder our schools are producing so many kids who no longer view our country, the Great Experiment, with pride. Many actively detest it. 

How sad. Not the way I want my kids or anyone else's kids to grow up.

DEI has evolved into its own interest group, one that has little to do with actually helping minorities and others among the "oppressed." To the contrary, it wants to create permanent victim classes, ones that will perpetually be in need of saving. For a price.

In reality, the DEI industry is serving the interests of white people far more than black. 

I am reminded of a quote from African-American economist Walter Williams (who sadly died a few weeks ago):

"I am glad I was educated before it was fashionable for white people to like black people."

Read this for an interesting perspective from a black Ph.D. in astronomy.

The Big Grift

However well-meaning the diversity movement may have once been, the DEI industry is now a grift - and an incredibly successful one. Social justice warriors on social media ensure compliance. Anyone who raises a red flag is forever branded a racist and cancelled for good measure. This cows most into silence. So much easier to hire DEI consultants and go on about your life.

I think, though, that the tenets of CRT and DEI are becoming so outrageous that more are starting to speak up, particularly as they discover that others have quietly agreed.

Let's pray that's true, because while many adults choose to engage in ritualistic self-flagellation, our kids, white and black, are paying the price.

Post Script: In a Zoom call with parents two days ago, Dalton headmaster Jim Best called the Naked Dollar a "blog with a few dozen followers." The Naked Dollar may not be the Huffington Post, but it got a quarter of a million hits over the last few weeks, so...But perhaps Best should ask himself why, if the Naked Dollar is so irrelevant, the story could gain such wide coverage. Perhaps because it touched a nerve? Perhaps because it's saying things that the parents at your school are afraid to say out loud? Your problems were not created by this blog.

Parsing Jim Best's Letter to the Dalton Community

Head of School Best

This letter was sent by Head of School Jim Best yesterday as a response to the anonymous parent letter. It is unedited, but my comments are italicized.

To the Dalton Community:

Like many schools across the country, Dalton is in the midst of a rigorous and constructive debate about how to bring important issues of equity to life in ways that reinforce and advance our academic program. 

No, it's not. There has been no debate. Under the cover of the COVID distraction, "anti-racism" has been presented to parents and alumni as a fait accompli, and has already been sown into the entire curriculum. 

This debate has recently centered around the School's commitment to becoming an anti-racist institution, and one or more parents recently chose to write an anonymous letter that takes issue with how – and why – we're bringing that objective to life for our students. 

Have you asked yourself why these parents chose to remain anonymous?

I'd like to take a moment to articulate the values backing that commitment, and why it is so important for our school.

At its heart, Dalton seeks to create a climate of respect rooted in creativity, curiosity, individual risk-taking, and personal excellence. Our core values of honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, humility, citizenship, justice, respect, and responsibility, are not just words on a website – they are an essential part of who we are and how we develop students of strong character.

Great list of core values - except they can't be all be when "anti-racism" is now positioned as THE core value.

Our commitment to being an anti-racist institution is a natural extension of these values. In its simplest terms, this means creating an inclusive environment where all members of our community – students, faculty, staff, parents, and alums – feel respected, valued, and heard. 

Do you think that the parents right now feel "respected, valued, and heard?" 

It's a belief that every person who walks through Dalton's doors, physical or virtual, should be treated with dignity and empathy and protected from hatred and ignorance in all its forms. None of that is onerous; none of that is ideological. 

It's not ideological? "Not being a racist" is not ideological - it's human decency. "Anti-racism" is ideological to its core. Here's how Merriam-Webster defines "ideology": 

"A systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture."

I can't think of anything that fits that description better than "anti-racism."

These are the principles that have guided our school for over a century and that will continue to be our north star.

To bring these principles to life in a thoughtful, meaningful way, this December I launched a comprehensive formal review of all DEI-related academic programming – led by independent experts and guided by exceptional faculty steeped in our rigorous academic tradition – to ensure that any existing or future programmatic and curricular revisions are consistent with our mission. 

Independent experts? Are we talking about Pollyanna? For those not familiar, Pollyanna is a "DEI consultant," and they are steeped in ideological, race-based training, including fully embracing "anti-racism" and the odious 1619 Project. They were founded by Casper Caldarola, a Dalton grad and ex board member. Their board and staff are chock full of Dalton people.

This effort will be further informed by our community through expert-led interviews and anonymous surveys, the first of which I hope everyone will complete by Monday, February 1, at
5:00 PM.

Some parents have told me the survey is a joke. The very first question asks parents to list the things they like most about Dalton's DEI mission. That's like asking, what do you like best about me, my intelligence or good looks? How about asking some of the questions that parents suggested in the anonymous letter?

As we roll out the results of this review later this spring, I intend to do a better job of demonstrating that excellence and inclusion aren't competing ideas; each makes the other stronger. Rigor and anti-racism aren't mutually exclusive, they're integral to each other. 

Absolutely wrong. A key tenet of "anti-racism" is equity. Equity means equal results. It means ditching advanced classes if blacks aren't making it into them in societally correct percentages. As Andrew Sullivan put it, "Equity means treating individuals unequally so that groups are equal."

True to our founding, I'll continue to try to strike the ideal balance between where excellence meets innovation, grounded by the strong academic ideals that remain a cornerstone of our school.

Is any of this true to Dalton's founding? I think of the school's motto, Go Forth Unafraid, and then I think of parents who can only voice their opinions under the veil of anonymity. 

As a community that has long stood for the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion, my hope is that in this at least, we can stand together. To do so we must continue to work alongside one another, to communicate openly, and assume the best of intent from one another. We must model for our students what it takes to learn and change in our constant effort to be a better and stronger community in a better and stronger world.

With gratitude,
Jim Best

Some Dalton Parents Want to Save the School

Proposals reprinted here in full. This was attached to the bottom of the letter in my previous post. Note that members of the board have already privately dismissed much of this to be "racist," and the letter writers remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

By the way, remember how Jim Best's initial reaction in the wake of the Naked Dollar's revelations in December was to describe the faculty demands as a "conversation starter?" The letter below, as well as the one in the previous post, make it clear this was a lie. Many of the demands were already fully implemented. Illustrating this perfectly is that (per Jim Best's welcome back email), Dalton no longer implements "DEI," which, as we all know by now, stands for "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," but "DEIA."

Apparently, this is going to be like LGBTIAQ (...) where every few weeks a new letter is added to placate ever-more narrowly sliced constituencies. It used to be just "D&I," but the equity part was added a couple of years ago. The "A" now stands for "Anti-racism," which is a full-throated advocacy of Critical Race Theory.

And there's this: the Dalton Board is in complete disarray. They are preparing a response to the "concerned parents" but have no idea what to say. There have been many drafts. Some on the board want to concede that "anti-racism" shouldn't necessarily be the school's entire reason for being, while others claim this view itself to be racist. They apparently aren't even close to figuring out what to say.

Here's a takeaway quote from the parent letter below: 

"It's quite clear that over the summer, when schools across the country were thinking deeply about how to reopen and teach students, the Dalton administration was on a crusade to radically transform the school's curriculum and pedagogy."

By the way, you will see references to something called "Pollyanna." The Naked Dollar will explore connections between Dalton, its board, and Pollyanna in the next post.

Ideas for Restoring the Confidence of the Dalton Community

In response to the crisis of confidence, we believe three important steps are necessary., and we outline them below. We welcome a dialogue and a free exchange of ideas - if there are better ideas those would be great too!

First, the Dalton Board must immediately appoint and impartial ombudsperson to advocate for Dalton's education mission and to solicit feedback from parents and alumni about the changes to the curriculum. This could be an Ombudsperson for Curricular Excellence as outlined by the incoming Board Chair. This must be someone who is widely trusted, someone that parents and alumni may feel comfortable reaching out to in absolute confidence. Ideally it would be someone well steeped in the Dalton way. This person would be ethically and legally bound by confidentiality.

It is essential that this ombudsperson be impartial and not come from the DEI industry or specialization, which would defeat the purpose of having an independent voice. The recent appointment of experts on DEI from outside Dalton to ascertain whether we have gone far enough is not sufficient. These may be respected and talented professionals of good will, but the nature of their mandate and professional expertise does not necessarily position them to look at whether the school is being served by the curricular changes, whether the school is staying on mission, and whether the proportion of DEI materials in the curriculum is right sized. They are not positioned to see how upset the parent body and alumni are. The administration must not be involved in the selection of guidance of this important representative of the community.

Second, the ombudsperson must open a confidential avenues of communication with community members and hold an anonymous survey of the faculty, parents and alumni to understand how the community feels about the pedagogical changes. This is very different from the survey being proposed by the administration. If the results of the survey aren't anonymous, it's basically useless. It must be designed and implemented by an ombudsperson accountable to the Board and bound by confidentiality to honor the anonymity of respondents. This is the only way to get a real feel of the depth of the crisis that has been created. The survey should include the following areas:

1. Do you feel Dalton has stayed true to its educational mission?
2. What are your thoughts about the Dalton "anti-racism curriculum?"
3. Does "anti-racism" make you feel hurt or excluded?
4. Is the cadence right? i.e. should it be every class, every day, every subject? or perhaps an assembly once a year? once a month? In response to current events?
5. Would you be happier supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, without "anti-racism" in the curriculum?
6. Is a DEI program which appears to segregate parents and children by race in groups and clubs contributing to the healing within the community?
7. Do parents and faculty feel the new material is age-appropriate?
8. Does the community have confidence in the administration and DEI leadership to champion Dalton's educational mission?

Third, the school must immediately put a hold on this new "anti-racist" curriculum and revert to the Dalton curriculum. Immediately pause the "anti-racist" teacher training programs, Pollyanna, and other well-intentioned programs that are altering the curriculum and mission without proper review. First Program students and Middle Schoolers have been exposed to a college-oriented curriculum with sexuality and violence. Make Health and Assembly optional until there is a consensus that these are age-appropriate. Empower the teachers to passionately take responsibility for the children's education and teach their subjects according to the Dalton Plan, as they have done so well for 100 years. It seems insane that we have to say this, but let's restore the centrality of education to the school's mission.

With regard to the teacher trainings driving curricular changes, a glance at Pollyanna's website suggests that their recommended curriculum has already permeated Dalton classes from social studies to science. This is a brand new, untested endeavor and it appears there are close ties between the Board, PA, and the administration that suggest a conflict of interest, or at least a muddling of priorities and missions.

The company's website features a quote from Jim Best: "Pollyanna is transformative. You'll talk the talk, you'll walk the walk, and you'll see the world-and-your-work-in a new light." We don't believe it's right to transform the Dalton curriculum and pedagogy with a new "anti-racist" pedagogy, or "racial literacy." It appears some of the worst abuses this year stem from this source. It's quite clear that over the summer, when schools across the country were thinking deeply about how to reopen and teach students, the Dalton administration was on a crusade to radically transform the school's curriculum and pedagogy. Many parents and alumni have lost confidence in the administration's leadership and ability to make independent and unbiased decisions about the content of the curriculum. 

A neutral and unbiased ombudsperson appears to us the only way that a reasoned dialogue can be achieved in the wake of a highly divisive rollout of curricular changes, in an atmosphere of fear of speaking up. If the Dalton Board is not willing to step up and get an independent person that can be trusted to take the pulse of the community and act as a steward of Dalton's educational mission, as concerned parents and alumni, we would be open to finding a neutral third party for this important role.

We understand that the Board isn't set up to design the curriculum. They are, however, trustees and stewards of Dalton's educational mission. Curricular changes that affect that mission should concern the Board. In civics terms, these curricular changes that have been taken in the heat of the moment by Executive Order, but are serious enough to require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Once the situation has been stabilized and the school reconnects with its core mission, we can consider a multi-year curricular review. The content of the curriculum could be considered holistically by some of the finest minds of the educational world. It is in this context of ensuring a broad liberal arts education that curricular changes might best be considered and evaluated in accordance with Dalton's educational mission.

We hope this is food for thought, and we implore the Board to open a more meaningful dialogue with the community before the administration makes major changes to Dalton's curriculum and educational philosophy.

Dalton Parents Push Back

 

The Dalton follies continue. 

Yesterday, a letter was circulated from a group of concerned parents. The letter is well written and measured. Will this stop the pendulum swing towards madness, or will it be ignored? It is reprinted in full below.

Note that the letter is anonymous. That parents are afraid to come forward with their honest (and well informed) opinions tells you all you need to know. They are afraid of retribution against their children. Don't think this crowd is above it, either. It happens all the time. Conservative parents and students everywhere have learned to shut up and keep their heads down. (In this case, the parents can't even be call conservative; let's call them just "rational.")

My understanding is that the board is looking to throw Head of School Jim Best under the bus. Honestly, they should throw themselves under the bus. They let this happen. The board actually instructed the school to remove their names from the school's website after the Naked Dollar's first reported on what was happening. Courageous move, that. If you want to see who's on it, I listed their names here. I have learned that some of the board members are "outraged" by the letter, calling it racist.

Of course they did.

Anyway, here it is. Congrats to the scribes, it's a powerful statement, and stands in sharp contrast to the hideous inhumanity of the faculty demands. As you read it, ask yourself how anyone in their right mind would keep their kids at this school. I am reminded of one reader's comment:

"You know your society has reached peak bourgeoise decadence when its ruling class will pay top dollar to learn how to hate themselves."

Loving Concern @ Dalton

An Open Letter to the Dalton Community

Dear Dalton Community,

We are writing with heavy hearts and loving concern over the future of Dalton. As alumni and parents, we have been a part of Dalton and its wonderful community of teaching and learning for several decades. Amidst these trying times, we want to step back and remember what matters most. Dalton's greatest strengths have been 1) an educational philosophy that celebrates teaching and learning, independent thought, curiosity and creativity, and 2) an extraordinarily dedicated and caring faculty. To these strengths, the school has added one more great light - an unbelievable diversity of the student body, unique among its peers, of which the school may be very proud. While the passion for progressive education - true liberal arts, child-centered education that nurtures a love of learning and curiosity native to children - seems to have waned over the years, nothing prepared us for this fall.

Love of learning and teaching is now being abandoned in favor of an "anti-racist curriculum." Our new mission is "vocal" and explicit. How else are we to interpret the repeated communications from the Head of School pledging allegiance to a new ideology that is untested, and worse yet, untestable? How else can we interpret a curriculum night where every single class, from science to social studies, to physical education, must now be rewritten to embody "anti-racism?" When so many of Dalton's extraordinary faculty sign a letter that shows little interest in the education of children, the joy of learning, or the kids' educational development? Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, "racist cop" reenactments in science, "de-centering whiteness" in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class. Wildly age-inappropriate, many of these classes feel more akin to a Zoom corporate sensitivity training than to Dalton's intellectually engaging curriculum.

Many of us do not feel welcome at Dalton any more. That really hurts to write. This ideology is extremely exclusionary to those families (perhaps a majority of the Dalon community) who don't identify as part of an oversimplified racial dichotomy in a beautiful and diverse world, or those who choose not to make their racial identity the centerpiece of their family life or their children's education.

Dalton's progressive educational philosophy believes that each child has a spark, and all we need to do is fan that flame with a love of leaning, books, art and human civilization, to cherish nature and love and respect our fellow humans. This approach is enshrined in the Dalton Plan. You'd never know that to listen to this years's classes and administration. The curriculum is being revamped in a rush in the middle of a pandemic. Not once this semester have any of us heard (and because classes are taking place in our homes, we hear) mentioned the joy of reading, of learning, of independent thinking, of curiosity, of discovering math and science, of human cultures. What we have heard is a pessimistic and age-inappropriate litany of grievances in EVERY class. We fear that rote learning of political concepts that must be accepted as gospel is not a nutritious educational experience.

In a place of joyful progressive education, students are exposed to an excessive focus on skin color and sexuality, before they even understand what sex is. Children are bewildered and bored after hours of discussing these topics in the new long-form classes. Dalton used to awaken children's imaginations with fiction, art, Aztec bookmaking, the Renaissance, ITL and Carmino Ravosa musicals. Having children focus on skin color and their sexual identities, rather than immersing them in the beauty and joy of human civilization, the wonder of science and nature, or the meaning and power of words and math and music, seems nuts to us.

The children are innocent, humane, and decent young people full of joy in a diverse classroom. It's almost as if we're punishing the children for "the sins of the fathers." Some of this material seems a strange thing to teach seven or ten or twelve years olds. They shouldn't be anti anything. They should be pro the beauty of humanity, works of art, creativity, loving and caring for each other as citizens and community members. We have each found ways to make community building and social change part of our life missions, many of us with the tools Dalton taught us.

The new "anti-racist" obsession with race is incredibly exclusionary and hurtful to many of the children and their families, and many are considering leaving. Why would anyone voluntarily send their children to be taught that they are guilty regardless of their decency and kindness? A school where they are constantly reminded of the color of their skin, not the content of their character. What Black parent wants the other children to feel sorry for their kid and look at them differently? We have spoken with dozens of families, of all colors and backgrounds, who are in shock and looking for an alternative school for their children.

Jim Best's recent email suggested that the school "will always welcome community input and honest around how to meaningfully bring these principles to life." Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not an intellectually honest debate over the role and scope of "anti racism" at the school and in the curriculum. It is an anti-intellectual, doctrinaire soliloquy of the Head of School, perhaps with the assistance of corporate consultants who are invited to indoctrinate the rest.

Please understand the fear surrounding the implementation of this radical change to the curriculum. No one can speak up for fear of being branded a racist. Or for exhibiting white fragility. Nonsense. We are all caring people who want a better world. As a result of this fear, the Board and the administration don't realize the depth of the pain this has caused many families, or how many feel compelled to leave Dalton altogether. Jim's recent email states that this is a done deal. "We agree that our commitment is clearly aligned with our mission, strategic plan, and values as a culture and a community. I need all of us to understand that as well." Honest debate? Basically it says we know what's best, and get on board.

We are concerned that the administration has lost its way, and that the Board appears unwilling or unable to speak out and represent the Dalton community as a whole.

When a great institution undertakes a periodic curricular review, and certainly a revamping of the core mission of the institution, it is done with the advice of world renowned educators, faculty, board members, parents and alumni. We have forgotten that before being an "antiracist" institution, we must be an educational institution. We can't remake the curriculum only with the expertise of teachers specialized in "anti-racism," or we will accidentally make that the focus of the curriculum,

At most, social justice is just one part of the educational world. We need a broad based group of passionate educators to look at the curriculum over a period of years and restore our educational philosophy. We have confused a progressive pedagogical model with progressive politics. Even for people who are sympathetic to that political viewpoint, the role of a school is not to indoctrinate politically. It's to open the minds of children to the wonders of the world and leaning. The Dalton we love, that has changed our lives, is nowhere to be found. And that is a huge loss.

To be clear, we abhor racism. We celebrate Dalton's diversity and its inclusive environment, and we believe in better outcomes for Black Americans. Diversity is the best thing to happen to Dalton in the last twenty years. We, too, have been inspired by the tragic events of lst summer and are taking action in our own ways to make a difference. We totally understand the administration's desire to do something. We simply reject the "anti-racism" on philosophical, ethical, and pedagogical grounds, and we support other ways to oppose racism and teach children to become thoughtful and empathetic people, In our view, these recent curricular changes achieve precisely the opposite results as intended.

As many scholars have noted, the recent push for "anti-racism" eduction rests on unquestioned and potentially flawed philosophical underpinnings. It flattens out the rich diversity of the student body. There is no questioning allowed. Look at how divisive this initiative has been. One can embrace the ideals of hard work of making the world a better place without straying from our core educational mission. We risk losing what makes Dalton special. We must recommit ourselves to finding it.

It's unfortunate that the discourse has become so fraught that the numerous community members who contributed to this letter feel compelled to remain anonymous. We hope this communication will help the Board and the administration become aware of the depth of hurt that has been unleashed with recent changes in the direction of Dalton. In the spirit of getting a meaningful dialog going, we have shared a few ideas below that we think could contribute to restoring the trust of the community. We have set up an email as a confidential way for people to reach out and share ideas. Any creative ideas to help the community connect with Dalton's core mission would be welcome!

Most importantly, if you share our love of Dalton's education mission and our concerns about the future of the school, please reach out to the Board, share this letter widely, and make your voice heard.

If we focus on ideology at the expense of curiosity and creativity, we will extinguish the spark. Let's celebrate what makes Dalton special - and extraordinarily diverse community, a wise an enthusiastic faculty, curious and engaged students and a distinct educational philosophy that has survived the test of time. Let's build on that foundation to continue to grow and improve in a patient and thoughtful way. We must dig deep into the Dalton spirit and get back on track with an exciting and meaningful progressive liberal arts education.

Sincerely,

Loving Concern @ Dalton

Note: Following this, there was a list of ideas for restoring the school. I will publish them at a later date.

 

One Year In - COVID by the Numbers

The State of Connecticut keeps really good COVID data, and it's eye opening. 

                                  Deaths by Age Group As a Percentage of Group Population

     Age Range    Deaths/Population

  0-29                 0.001%

 30-49                0.014%

 50-69                0.122%

 70-79                0.584%

   80+                 2.424%

The last two groups, those 70 and over, have accounted for 81% of the deaths even though they are only 12% of the population. Those 80 and over have a 3,954 times greater chance of dying than those under the age of 30.

Even those in the 50-69 group are relatively unaffected by COVID. If you were under 50, you effectively had zero risk, breathless media reports not withstanding.

What this means, of course, is that we never should have shut our country down. The correct response was to keep everything open while those over 65 or 70 took steps to self-isolate.

These data were pretty obvious by last June. Why was our policy response so bad?

The obvious answer is politics were in play. Blue states self-imposed the strictest lockdowns, and it hardly seems a coincidence. Anything to hurt the Orange Man.

The less obvious answer is that it's the baby boom, screwing everyone else, yet again. Consider who many of the people are who run the country: Pelosi, McConnell, Grassley, Leahy, Feinstein, DeWine, Sanders...now Biden. 

We are run by a gerontocracy. 

Then of, of course, there's this guy:

Anthony Fauci, age 80

The correct policy would have sidelined these people to Zoom while everyone else went about their business. It would have loosened their generation's grip on power, a power that has definitely outlived its welcome. 

Was self-interest involved here? I wouldn't discount it. They wanted the pain to be shared. It reminds me of the AIDS epidemic in the 80s, which really only affected one demographic group, but that wasn't the promulgated narrative.

Now, don't get all mad saying I have no proof. Of course I don't. But self-interest should never be underestimated as a motivational force.

Other considerations, one year on: 

• COVID has been a massive transfer of wealth from small companies to large corporations. Easy money has driven stock prices through the roof while the restaurant on the corner shuts its doors. This is not healthy for our country, but don't the Fortune 500 is in any hurry to change the status quo. 
• COVID testing has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry. Don't think they want to go away anytime soon.
• The private sector (generally) has suffered while the public sector grows ever bigger. Does anyone know of a public sector employee, anywhere, that has lost their job? This, despite tax revenues plummeting. This will mean still more borrowing to make up the difference, something the private sector will have to pay for.

It's time to open up the damn country.

Why Conservatives Should Love Cryptocurrencies

I started buying crypto about six weeks ago. I'd been pondering this for years, but finally got off my ass. Does it feel late? I think it's still very, very early. How many people do you know that own Bitcoin? One,  two? The total value of all Bitcoin is about the market cap of JP Morgan, a single company  If you think this is going to become an asset class, it has to be 100x a single company like JP Morgan.

But making an investment argument is not the point here. There's plenty of that elsewhere. I want to make a philosophical one.

First, Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a currency without a nation state attached to it. Nothing specifically backs it, but nothing backs the dollar, either. Unlike the dollar, though, Bitcoin has no controlling authority other than code. This has one key advantage: it can't be inflated (which is to say, devalued) by irresponsible governance. 

Politicians ultimately are the ones who destroy currencies. It's a pattern repeated throughout history. They spend more than they have, borrowing to make up the difference. Then they print money to pay lenders back. The more they print, the more the currency is devalued. It happens most everywhere. How many times has the Argentine peso crashed in the last century?

The U.S. is not immune to this. Here's a graph of our money supply:

Seventy percent of outstanding dollars have been printed in the last decade. That's an amazing fact. You've heard of "quantitative easing?" That's government-speak for printing money.

Our status as the world's reserve currency has shielded us, for a time, from an erosion of value, as has the fact that many other fiat currencies are backed equally irresponsible policy.

But what if there was a currency that actually practiced quantitative hardening? 

There is, and it's called Bitcoin. 

There are currently 18.6 million bitcoins in the world. Of these, it is estimated that 3-4 million are lost forever (people lose their passwords or die without giving anyone access). The pace at which new bitcoins can be created ("mined") is halved every four years. Once it reaches 21 million, there will never be another. 

Projected Bitcoin Supply

This is a very powerful fact, and it will ultimately serve as a means to keep profligate governments in check. In my view, Bitcoin will increasingly be viewed as a reserve-currency alternative. When this happens, fiat currencies will have to compete not just with each other, but with Bitcoin. They will have to operate with unaccustomed restraint or watch their currencies, and the power that comes with them, evaporate. 

Good.

The other crypto conservatives should love is Ethereum. Ethereum is completely different from Bitcoin, and it's worth understanding how. It is actually a platform that rests on a vast global network of computers. It is decentralized with no controlling parties. 

Using the Ethereum platform, developers can create applications (called "Dapps," for "decentralized applications") that let users make agreements and buy, sell, and trade without a middle man. To put a Daap on the platform, developers need to spend "Ethers," which is the cryptocurrency associated with Ethereum. Ethers have the second largest crypto market cap behind Bitcoin.

Think of Ethereum as the world's computer, but instead of being one big computer, it's thousands (millions?) of separate ones.

This is not good news for much of today's Big Tech. Even though the internet seems decentralized, it's not. The vast majority of it runs through the mega-platforms like Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. These companies have begun actively stifling speech, almost exclusively from the right. (The decision by several not to support Twitter-alternative Parler has been chilling.) 

Simply, these companies have become way too powerful, and they have social agendas beyond simply making a profit for their shareholders. 

Ethereum is the ultimate middle-man crusher. 

Why go to Amazon Web Services or Dropbox if there was a simple way to utilize private servers? 

Why buy a book through Amazon when you could buy it directly from the seller? Someone will create something that looks like Amazon, but in reality has no centralized corporation overseeing it. 

Why pay Uber a fee if you can hire a driver directly? Why pay Netflix if you can get what you want directly from the creators?

Check out Presearch. It is a decentralized search engine that doesn't have Google's privacy issues or anti-competitive practices. The coolest part? Every time you search, you get some tokens (their own crypto). These tokens are the currency with which advertisers pay to get on the platform. You may not need them for that, but if the platform grows, you can sell your crypto at a profit.

The value of Presearch tokens (called PREs) has recently skyrocketed from 2 to 8 cents.

I love Presearch.

I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface, and honestly, I'm still learning. Like I said, early days. 

Last thought: I don't have the data to support this, but I think it's safe to say that crypto's biggest fanbase leans young and left. I wonder if they understand the basic contradiction in their views. They vote for an ever-expanding centralized planning (e.g. "Medicare for all") while at the same time supporting libertarian mega-trends like crypto. 

I would be the last one to suggest there's much self-analysis going on. 

P.S. If you want to try Presearch and start with 20 tokens, click this: https://www.presearch.org/signup?rid=2048924

Critical Race Theory and the "Equity" Scam

 

You've see this one, right? The three kids on the left are "equality," because they all have the same size box. The kids on the right are "equity," because they have an equal outcome.

Seems nice, right? Everyone's happy. This poster has been used in endless DEI sessions. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, if you haven't been keeping up.)

I just have so many problems with this.

For starters, the poster is misleading. The boy on the right has been given the help he needs to reach a goal, and that's great. This is what all our schools should be doing. 

If only this were a good metaphor. 

It isn't. This is a better one:

Okay, a bit graphic, but it makes the point. Critical Race Theory, the guiding force behind the DEI movement, is cultural Marxism. It is about equal results, achieved by tearing standards down. Saying things like, "striving for excellence" is now considered a microaggression. Not kidding.

Look no further than the faculty demands at the Dalton School (chronicled in previous posts). One of the demands is to eliminate AP classes (euphemistically called "layered" classes) by 2023 if black students are not qualifying in the same percentages.

In other words, bring down the high achievers (including some blacks) if the numbers aren't equal. "Equity" is all about assuming racism exists wherever the numbers for racial groups aren't equal. It doesn't require that one find actual discrimination. If you don't have a proportionate number of blacks at your company or on your faculty or in your AP classes - presto! - there's systemic racism. Cue the hiring of an immense DEI infrastructure. Yale alone has 150 DEI officers. I have no idea what they do all day, other than sow division.

Which brings me to my next issue with poster #1. It shows three individual boys, which is highly misleading. The "equity" movement is about groups; it cares not about the individual. The original intent of the civil rights movement - that we be judged as unique individuals, not by the color of our skin - has been thrown on its head.

Now, one's defining characteristic is color.

Here's a great example. A few decades ago, symphonies began using "blind" auditions. The idea was that judges would only hear the quality of the music and not be influenced by race or gender. Now, the New York Times, among others, is demanding that this practice end. They want racial preferences to make sure orchestras are diverse. Never mind tapping the best musicians.

The word "meritocracy" is also considered a microaggression. Yup.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly favor getting people the help they need to be the best they can be, and that needs to start at a young age. To do this, there has to be an honest conversation about teachers unions and fatherless homes, but just try to go there with a Critical Race advocate or DEI brown shirt. You'll be on the fast train to Canceltown.

Lastly, while the boy on the right is definitely height-challenged, perhaps he's a math genius, or a great artist. We all have different talents, and it's ludicrous to suggest we should all achieve the same in every area of endeavor. 

In closing:

'Nuff said.

How Did Hunter Biden Get into Yale Law School?

Do you know how hard it is to get into Yale Law School? The admission rate is 6.9%. By comparison, Harvard Law is twice as easy. It's also tiny, with only 200 slots available each year. 

Do you know how hard it is to transfer to Yale Law? Forget about it. Even harder. Typically, only about ten students a year are accepted. It goes without saying you'd have to be at the very top of whatever law school you were transferring from, and even then it wouldn't be a layup.

Which raises the question; how exactly did Hunter Biden pull this off?

You probably didn't even know he went there. It doesn't come up much. 

Here are the facts:

• Biden arrived as a transfer in the fall 1994. This means...
• He was accepted sometime in the winter/spring that same year
• The Dean of Yale Law at that time was Guido Calabresi
• It was well known that Calabresi's ambition was to serve on the federal bench
• On February 9th, 1994, Bill Clinton nominated Calabresi to the 2nd Circuit, where he still serves
• Thus, Biden's acceptance to Yale Law and Calabrisi's appointment were contemporaneous
• Chairing the Judiciary Committee at that time - the man responsible for confirming Calabresi's nomination - was none other than Joe Biden.
• Calabresi sailed through the process

Calabresi

Those are the facts. 

Coincidence? 

Perhaps. 

If you think Hunter Biden was one of the top first-year law students in the country and had near perfect board scores. 

I am not one of those people. 

I do not have Hunter's transcripts from Georgetown undergrad or his first year of law school there, but he's not exactly known as a scholar. I know people who knew him then and they say he was more arrogant than anything else. His life since does not suggest the slightest trace of intellect, except in the pursuit of ways to monetize his family's name..

So, there's no smoking gun, no absolute proof that a slot at America's most elite law school was traded for a federal judgeship. But the circumstantial evidence raises serious questions, the kind the mainstream media won't ask anymore, at least when it inconveniences Democrats.

There's a pattern of quid quo pro that seems follow the Biden family wherever it goes.

It's worth noting that the Ivies are very much part of the swamp. Yale, for its part, gets the better part of a billion dollars a year from the federal government. Also, there is a definite pattern of prominent Democrats getting their kids - somehow! - into Ivy League schools. Tucker Carlson did an entire piece on this. It 's worth a watch.

Edit: I'm going to anticipate one of the objections to this piece, which is Yale is a private institution, so it can admit whomever it likes. First, this would be true if they didn't accept federal money. Second, the example of accepting a rich kid in exchange for a large donation - one I know will be thrown at me - is quite different from giving a coveted space up in exchange for a personal favor. In the first instance, all of Yale benefits from the donation. In the second instance, it does not.