Woke Insanity: Trinity College Edition

We'll take a brief respite from the K-12 woke wars to look at a recent incident at Trinity College in Connecticut. I haven't focused as much on colleges lately because everyone pretty much understands they are nuts, and college kids are older, so they are not as "at-risk," psychologically, as younger kids. (Although that's debatable at times.)

Trinity used to be a nice little liberal arts college. A family member went there. It was where kids who weren't getting into Ivies could go and have an Ivy-ish experience. Its vibe was never as crazy as many of the other similar schools in New England, such as Bowdoin or Middlebury. (Or Wesleyan - nobody out-crazies Wesleyan).

It was also a safe space for conservative kids, at least as safe as one could to find in the Northeast.

But that all changed when they made the enormous mistake of hiring this woman:

Joanne Berger-Sweeney

How often do the destroyers come in the form of hyphenated names? (Answer: a lot. Coincidentally, the villainess in Campusland also had a hyphenated name.)

When Berger-Sweeney got to Trinity, she decided to go all-in on the social justice train. The character of the school changed almost overnight, as did the nature of the student body. The few fraternities left are under constant bureaucratic assault. 

You know the drill.

The first big warning sign was when Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and staffers were shot during a baseball practice in 2017. A Trinity sociology professor named Johnny Williams weighed in about what he thought you should do if you saw a Republican bleeding in the street. He used a hashtag.

#letthemfuckingdie

Berger-Sweeney had his back. First Amendment, and all. (Bear that in mind as you read below.) Williams is still on the faculty.

What kills me is that Trinity had a niche. If they'd doubled down on that niche, they'd be unique in New England right now. Applications and money would have ballooned. It would have been a nearby alternative for all the kids now heading south to find some semblance of a normal college experience. Instead, Trinity decided to be like every other school in pursuing an anti-intellectual, anti-American agenda. Social justice warriors welcome here.

The results were dismally predictable.

The endowment is hurting. Of course it is when they are giving all the big donors a ready-made excuse to send their money elsewhere. They certainly don't call me anymore. (Not that I fall into the big donor category.)

Message to Trinity parents and alums if you are currently giving: stop.

Which brings us to a recent incident. Read this letter from a passel of deans (my comments in bold):

Dear Students, Staff, and Faculty,

We write you to inform you about an incident that recently took place on campus. A student studying in the library reported that he heard a group of Trinity students being insensitive to the violence and suffering that Palestinians and Israelis are currently experiencing. 

Someone was being insensitive? Smithers, release the hounds! And my money says they were being insensitive about Palestinians, not Israelis, which is what has the left's panties in a bunch.

When confronted, the students were reported to be dismissive and lacking in empathy for the humanity of all affected. We recognize the courage of the student who spoke up and sought assistance to address this situation.

So some other student rats out his/her classmates for saying words she doesn't like in a private conversation, and she has courage?

We have been in contact with several students present and are collecting relevant information in order to identify who was involved and what their role was in the incident. This information will inform our process going forward.

Process for what?

We ask that each of us extend compassion and support to one another.

All except the kids who were being insensitive about Hamas terrorists. Those kids are gonna hang.

To all who may be looking for support, please don't hesitate to reach out, especially to those offices that stand ready to assist you.

Sincerely,

Joe DiChristina - VP Student Success and Enrollment Management

Jody Goodman - Dean of Student Life

Rob Lukaskiewicz - Dean of Community Life and Standards

Ann Reuman - Senior Assoc. Dean and Special Asst. to the VP for Student Success

John Selders - Asst. Dean and Coordinator of Student Standards

Yes, these are real people and those are actual job titles. If you ever wonder why your kid's tuition is so high, look no further than the creation of all these ridiculous, meddling admin positions.

This is where we are now. Kids being praised as "courageous" for ratting out the private conversations of other kids. And what were they talking about? Committing a crime? Blowing up a dorm? No, they were being "insensitive" and "lacking in empathy." This is what merits a full investigation along with a university communication these days.

And what sort of kangaroo court will decide what constitutes the proper level of "empathy?"

Berger-Sweeney and her ilk hide behind the First Amendment when it protects her own faculty member when he suggested, very publicly, we let Republicans die in the streets. But some kids who "lacked empathy" in a private conversation?

Somewhere, Torquemada is smiling with approval.

The New Ethno-Marxism (and How We Got Here)

It's difficult to keep up with the forces that have taken over America's institutions. 

In reality, these forces have been at work for decades now, and it's vitally important to understand where they came from.

Here at the Naked Dollar, we like to make it easy to understand these things, because the left makes it intentionally difficult. They love jargon and they love abstruse, campus-born concepts. 

Welcome to the Cliff Notes Guide to understanding All This Crap.

Let's start with Marx, because really, that's the right place. Most rational people might think we were done with Marxism after it got 100 million people killed in the 20th century, but no. To borrow from from Zoolander, "he's so hot right now."

Madman in a Library

Every bit the madman he appeared to be, holed up in the British Library, Marx based his radical new ideology almost entirely on economics. The oppressed, according to Marx's doctrine, were the working class, and they would inevitably rise up with violence against their bourgeois capitalist oppressors, seizing the means of production as well the profits otherwise earned at their expense.

They didn't, exactly, but that's another story.

Then came this guy, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci had a different take. He believed that the ruling elite used culture more than economics as their principle tool of oppression. He called it "cultural hegemony." Institutions - corporations, the media, churches, the entertainment industry - were purveyors of this culture and used its institutional organs to propagate a "capitalist zeitgeist." The common man was kept in his place with all the legal and societal structures that these institutions deliberately put in place.

Here are Gramsci's own words:

“Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

Here's what it was called: the Long March through the institutions.

Could Gramsci have imagined how successful he might be? Arguably, his vision has been achieved. Our schools, churches, sports leagues, major corporations, media industry...all have embraced far-left nostrums. 

But Gramsci himself couldn't have understood how his vision would be realized, because it happened with a uniquely American twist - through the crucible of race. 

Enter Critical Theory

Critical Theory was born in Germany in the 1930s and championed along the way mostly by bloviating Marxist philosophers in Europe. This included Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the latter two being darlings on today's campuses. (And yes, they are technically "deconstructionists," not critical theorists, but it's a distinction without a difference for 99% of the world's population.)

Ask ten people what Critical Theory is and you'll get ten answers. Seriously, Google it. Many of the explanations are ridiculously strangled, no doubt intentionally, progressive word salads designed to keep you out of the club. But the consistent theme is that truth is not an absolute, it stems from power - i.e. those with the power, the ones controlling society's institutions, can create whatever truths they want.

All truth stems from power.

(Keeping up? If this all sounds ridiculous, trust me, a lot of people take it very seriously.)

In a previous post, I detailed how some are now arguing that there shouldn't be correct answers in math, because correct answers are a "social construct." If you don't like who was doing the "constructing" (read: white mathematicians from a racist era), then does 2 + 2 really equal 4?

So, if you believe in critical theory, you not only have a shorthand way to dismiss everything you don't like from the past (i.e. anything to do with Western Civilization), but you also have an incentive to take over society's institutions. That way, you have the power, and the truth is what you say it is.

Which brings us to Critical Race theory.

Derrick Bell 

In the 1970s, Derrick Bell was a professor at Harvard Law School. His bright idea was to inject race into Critical Theory. In this take, race itself became the social construct, with whites (who had the power) constructing it in such a way as to permanently oppress blacks. Since whites had possessed the power since our country's founding, everything was therefore permeated with racism. All of it, most notable our institutions. Racism was systemic.

Well, if every institution was racist, the only solution was to burn it all down and start all over again.

That, or take them over, make them your institutions. Then you get to create the truth.

Critical Race Theory* was about to have its moment.

George Floyd

Gramsci's Long March had been making steady progress for decades, but the opportunity for its final victory arrived in the unlikely form of a felonious drug addict named George Floyd (with an assist for COVID). 

Floyd may prove as important to history as Gavrilo Princip, the 19-year old who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. Both men, wittingly or not, unleashed forces they couldn't begin to fathom. Modern "thinkers" on all things race like Ibram Kendi stepped on the gas.

The visible side of this was the summer of riots, but beneath the surface, far more consequential things were happening. Curricula were being rewritten, charters altered, mandates revised. DEI exploded as an industry.

And so here we are.

If old Marxism defined the "oppressed" by economic status, the new Marxism defines the oppressed by skin pigmentation. Some call this "woke." Others call it "cultural" Marxism. 

But why not call it what it really is?

Ethno-Marxism.

This new variant is actually far more pernicious. In "old" Marxism, at least everyone was supposed to be treated equally (in theory).

This new Ethno-Marxism seeks to right historical wrongs by flipping the tables. The once oppressor class must now, itself, feel the pain. This is a vengeful ideology bent on conforming America to its will, and if all of our traditions and institutions are hollowed out or even burned to the ground in the process, so much the better.

Think I'm being alarmist, maybe exaggerating for effect? Then take the damn time to read what they say, because they are quite up front about it.  

Or perhaps you think you're safe? Maybe you hired a DEI consultant, or you scrubbed your socials. Maybe you are careful to only espouse the "right" opinions.

Think again. 

The rules of this game are constantly changing, and if you find yourself suddenly in the way, the rules will be changed enough to get you cancelled. 

They will not care who you are.

*If you hear the term "anti-racism," that is nothing more than the practical application of Critical Race Theory.

DEI Charlatans Go Into Crisis Management Mode

Back in the 60s, European Marxists coined the term the "Long March." Borrowing from Mao, it was meant to describe how Marxism would ultimately triumph by hollowing out Western institutions from within.

We've seen this march steadily succeed over the years, but as of last May 25th, the Long March became the Mad Dash. May 25th was the date of George Floyd's murder. We all know what ensued.

Or do we?

The progressive left never sleep, and they never miss an opportunity. The distraction of COVID only increased the opportunity. While we all saw what was happening above the surface - the rioting, the looting, the demands to defund the police - there was a lot happening below the surface too.

The left had a busy summer last year.

By the time students showed up for school this fall, some virtually, an entirely new curriculum had been put in place - an "anti-racist" curriculum, which is the practical application of Critical Race Theory. 

In particular, New York's private schools went deep. The Naked Dollar has chronicled much of this. 

The curricular changes were done without consulting parents. Schools like Dalton, Brearley, and Grace Church have continuously said they were "studying" the idea, when in fact they had already woven it into their entire curricula as well as their mission statements. 

If you think "anti-racism" sounds like a swell thing, like maybe it's just like "not being racist," you must be a first time visitor to the Naked Dollar. I urge you to look through previous posts see what a vile, divisive concept it is.

Briefly, anti-racism says we are nothing more than a product of our skin color. We are not individuals. We are either the "oppressed" or the "oppressor," and must behave accordingly. If you are white, you are born with racism in your American DNA, and you must spend a lifetime atoning. 

And it's so much more, too. It's about a tearing down of all existing standards and institutions, because they are all "social constructs," and it was presumably white people who did the constructing.

This is what we're teaching our third grade kids. It's a new kind of racism. Neoracism.

If you stand in the way, or even raise a nuanced question, you are the racist. Better to shut up.

A few brave parents raised objections in the fall, only to be roundly ignored by both their schools and the media.

Then, in December, a Dalton School insider shared information with the Naked Dollar about the insane CRT-driven demands being made by the faculty. I wrote about it, and it went viral. This blog got over half a million hits. This can only be because others had begun noticing, feared speaking out, but were happy someone was at least drawing attention to it.

It was just the luck of timing, but the Naked Dollar lit the match.

What followed over the next few months was a series of others speaking out, laying bare the cultural rot of neoracist CRT in their schools. Publications - not just in the U.S., but globally - took notice. Ordinary people began to figure out that words like "anti-racist" and "equity" and "systemic racism" don't mean what they think they mean. Parents began forming organizations to fight back (more on this to follow).

The drivers behind all this are the contemptible opportunists of the DEI industry (diversity, equity, and inclusion). One of the big ones specializing in K-12 private schools is called Pollyanna. They will hollow out your school in a matter of months. (I previously profiled them.)

Well, it's possible they are finally feeling the heat.

What follows is a letter just sent out by Pollyanna to their "community." My comments are in bold.

Dear Pollyanna Friend: I started Pollyanna because I believe schools can achieve real change. I believe a school community can exist in which young people of all races and backgrounds feel equally valued, heard, and supported. That’s the systemic change to which we aspire. Would that include kids who don't agree that we should be divided by race? Would they be valued? Or what about the white ten year-olds you label "oppressors?" We haven’t yet arrived at that destination. But we can. As we approach a year since the resurgence of the social-justice movement that has energized our nation, our communities have experienced a whirlwind of feelings – from pride and validation, to exhaustion and cynicism. At Pollyanna, our mission is “to advance systemic change by developing stronger communities.” Now is as good a time as any to ask: just what do we mean by that?  DEI consultants love the word "community." It implies that everyone agrees. It’s perhaps an intangible goal, and in its intangibility there can exist room for concern, doubt, and fear.  Hell, yes, it's intangible. That's by design. The end goal must never be specifically defined or quantified, lest the need for DEI consultants go away. It’s not surprising that some independent and public school families are feeling it’s necessary to speak out in opposition to their schools embracing DEI programs and a more inclusive curriculum.  Well, you got that part right. You may be hearing these concerns directly from your families, colleagues, and friends; you’re no doubt seeing them sensationalized in the media.  The accounts I've seen are not sensationalized at all. They have been straight-forward reporting. They present our collective work as zero-sum: to elevate marginalized communities, we must take away from others.  You are less than zero-sum. You are about subtraction. The only way to achieve "equity," which means equal outcomes, is by chopping down opportunities for some to excel. Why else, for instance, would Dalton teachers demand that AP classes be eliminated if black students were not achieving the same results as whites?  Or they present our work as capitalizing on a fleeting political trend. Well, no. We see you as a very long-term trend that is coming to fruition. That's what gives us grave concern. These may be instilling in you a sense of doubt or trepidation. But rest assured: our work is neither zero-sum nor politically motivated. On the contrary, our work is child-centered.  No, no, and no! It is race-centered. Every child – regardless of their identity – deserves the ability to be the most authentic version of themselves in their school community and beyond. As intangible as our goal may be, the future we envision is very real. We envision a world in which children grow into a society without prejudice, that embraces differences, and allows them to thrive to reach their fullest potential. We believe we can achieve this and we are on our way to this bright future. Oh, my God, what dreck. And what lies. You tell 12 year-old white kids they should bear the burden of ancestors they never met, you tell their black classmates they are looking at their oppressors, you make absolutely everything about skin color, and yet they're supposed to grow up in a "society without prejudice?" You're the one teaching it! I know you share our vision. We believe that many families do too when they consider this through the eyes of the children. We hope that those who doubt our mission and work will too.  As you continue to navigate this challenging landscape, please know that we are here for you.  We stand ready to assist you in communicating these complex but vital initiatives. We feel confident that, when presented sensibly and through the eyes of the children, we can find common ground. Translation: you will fall in line because we will brainwash your children.   All my best,

Casper Caldarola Founder

Woke Wars Update: Grace Church (cont.)

Caught Lying

This has been out there a couple of days, but just in case you missed it, it's a bombshell.

Here's a brief recap what came before. Try to follow along:

1. Paul Rossi, a middle school math teacher at Grace, blows the whistle by going public with an expose on neo-racist Critical Race Theory run amuck at Grace (after trying and failing internally).
2. Headmaster George Davison says Rossi shouldn't come to school this week for "his own protection."
3. Then he says don't come for the school's protection.
4. Then he says don't bother ever coming back, and don't even come in the building for any reason.
5. Then Davison sends a school-wide letter which is highly critical of Rossi and says he made "glaring omissions and inaccuracies."
6. Rossi responds with a letter of his own, relating that in a private conversation between them Davison was sympathetic to some of the points Rossi was making, in particular that they were "demonizing" white children. 
7. Davison accuses Rossi of lying, saying he never made these statements.

And here's the update:

Rossi knew he had to protect himself, so he recorded* the conversation with Davison. Sure enough, Davison said, word for word, what Rossi said he did.

Davison lied.

My question for Davison is this:

You apparently know, on some level, that all this is insane. You are retiring at the end of the year. And yet, even you didn't stand up to the madness. Why? 

I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me Rossi has grounds for both a wrongful termination suit (when he is formally fired) and a defamation suit.

I hope it happens.

*Note that this is perfectly legal in New York State.

NYC Private School Madness - Grace Church Edition

This is almost hard to keep up with. Dalton must be so happy they're not the only school that looks foolish right now.

About Grace Church. 

Paul Rossi

You will recall that a middle school math teacher there named Paul Rossi reached his boiling point last week and went public with Grace's DEI and CRT-driven insanity. You can read it here. 

First, the school said, "of course we won't fire you."

Then they said, "maybe you'd better stay home, you know, for you own safety." 

Safety from whom? Were the fifth graders planning some sort of attack? Or perhaps the lunch lady? Paul said he was willing to take the risk.

So then they said, "Actually, you should just stay home for our safety."

Did they discover that Paul was bringing nunchucks to school?

George Davison

Then just yesterday, the headmaster, George Davison, sent out a letter condemning Paul, saying his missive contains "glaring omissions and inaccuracies," without saying what those were. (They never do. See: the Brearley School.) 

And yes, Paul was all but fired. "It is clear to me that Paul cannot be an effective teacher at Grace any more," says Davison. He can't even enter the building after teaching there for many years. Because he might say something random and offensive like, "I think we should be blind to skin color." People could get hurt.

You can read the Davison's execrable letter here.

Of course, Paul knew this would happen. Woke justice is swift indeed. I have spoken to him many times. He loved his job, and he didn't want to leave, but he felt he had to do the right thing, to say something.

This is a modern day tragedy, wrapped in a farce.

Does everyone realize what's at stake here? Our finest schools are now marching in lockstep to a perverse, cult-like ideology, one that alleges to fight racism but is, itself, deeply racist. Dissent is not tolerated.

Everyone who enables this, from the board members to the parents who stay silent (and even write checks) should be ashamed.

But Paul, God Bless him, will not go quietly. He has written a response, and here it is:

Dear George, I am writing in response to the letter that you sent over the weekend to my colleagues. Grace’s public story — the story it is telling to the press and to its own community — has been very different from what you have told me. In light of your statement that my essay “contains glaring omissions and inaccuracies,” and in support of those who will inevitably be scared into silence by seeing the price I am now paying for speaking up, I am compelled to share what you have told me in our previous conversations.

In the letter, you reaffirm that Grace’s “commitment to antiracism is consistent with our identity and mission” and that “it has been at the heart of our work for years.” 

I believe that you share my desire to ensure that racism does not mar the experience of students at Grace. But, like me, you also expressed “grave doubts about some of the doctrinaire stuff that gets spouted at us, in the name of antiracism.” When I told you “they’re fighting a revolution” and “will hollow out Grace and move on to the next institution,” you acknowledged that “they've hollowed out a bunch of other ones ahead of us.” 

You write that you “find it regrettable that Paul Rossi chose to air his grievances with the school in the press.” But as you well know, speaking publicly about this was hardly my first choice. Over the course of several years, I have made my specific concerns clear, not only to you, but to the Head of High School, and the Assistant Head. These concerns centered on the impact of this doctrinaire ideology on our students. Even when I have simply tried to expose our students to alternative points of view in the classroom, I have been repeatedly shut down. The school’s response to my efforts to raise these concerns internally left me no choice but to speak about them publicly. 

In the letter, you say that “the wellbeing of our community is our first priority,” and that Grace cares “deeply about human dignity.” 

And yet you admitted to me that Grace Church is, in fact, “demonizing white people for being born,” and that the school is making white students “feel less than, for nothing that they are personally responsible for.” 

While I cannot know for certain, I suspect that the reason you have not shared these concerns with the broader Grace community is because you know exactly what happens to people who do — it is what is happening to me right now. I understand that. It is because of the fear I see in so many people, including so many of our students, that I felt compelled to speak out even though I knew I would pay a steep price for it. 

I love this school and its students, and I want to see it thrive. I want to see a renewed commitment to free expression, viewpoint diversity, and true education. And I think the public and, in particular, the Grace community deserve to know that these concerns are not mine alone. 

Sincerely, Paul

Here is my most fervent wish: that Paul hires an employment lawyer and sues Grace's ass off.

Below is a list of Grace Church board members. At least Grace hasn't purged this yet, unlike Brearley and Dalton. Note the presence of our old buddy Jim Best.

Olivia W. Douglas                  Chair

Ann Mellow                           Vice Chair

Tom Geniesse                         Treasurer

Karin Greenfield-Sanders.      Secretary

Jim Best

Kirby Chin

Carolina Esquenazi-Shaio

Donna Garbin

Greg Gushee

David Heller

Yoo Jin Kim

George Majoros

Renee Noel

Naomi Nwosu-Stewart

Folake Ologunja

Camille Orme

Dominique Schulte

Barbara Sibley

Jason Slibeck

Erik Sorensen

Valerie Toscano

Felicia Washington

Melanie Weston

Kenji Yoshino

The Brearley School: the Latest Front in the Woke Wars

For those not familiar, Brearley is like Dalton; it's one of the most elite private schools in the nation, and is also on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

And the last twenty-four hours may be the most shameful in its 137-year history.

Two days ago, a Brearley parent named Andrew Gutmann sent a letter to the school community. Like Paul Rossi's letter the week before about the Grace Church School, it decried the school's descent into racial madness. 

Andrew Gutmann

Both men, for the record, have done a very courageous thing. They are digital-age Martin Luthers. Both are even-keeled and soft-spoken. Speaking out did not come easily to them, but both had reached their breaking point. (For the record, I have had lengthy conversations with each.)

I firmly believe that the more people learn about what has been perpetrated in the last few months, the more they will reach their own breaking points.

If you haven't read Gutmann's letter, it's a barnburner.

Some highlights:

"It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob."

"I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died."

"I object...that Brearley has begun to teach what to think, instead of how to think."

If you haven't read the whole thing, please do. Brearley has descended into the same DEI-driven hellhole as Dalton, Grace Church, and so many others. You can read some of my previous posts to get the full flavor.

Now for the shameful part.

The very same day, without missing a beat, Brearley's Headmistress responded, and I'm literally floored at what she wrote. It is breathtaking in its intolerance, divisiveness, and complete lack of self-awareness.

Jane Fried

Let's take a close look, shall we? What follows is the complete letter, interspersed with my comments.

Dear Members of the Brearley Community,

Today, Brearley families received a letter from a Brearley parent. The letter then circulated among students, faculty, and staff at school. Many have written to say that they found the opinions expressed to be deeply offensive and harmful, and we agree.

Offensive? Which parts? The part about how we should embrace Martin Luther King's ideal of a colorblind society? Or maybe the part about objecting to the idea that blacks can't succeed without white people helping them?

And harmful? Seriously? Did anyone have to go to the ER?

This afternoon, I and others who work closely with the Upper School students met with more than one hundred of them, many of whom told us that they felt frightened and intimidated by the letter and the fact that it was sent directly to their homes.

Oh. My. God. What kind of complete pussies have you created that they are frightened by a letter from a concerned parent? Did he threaten to physically harm anyone? Did I miss that? You claim to be training girls to be courageous, and yet you also think it's entirely appropriate when they cower in fear over some words on a piece of paper.

Our students noted that as this letter, which denies the presence of systemic racism, crossed their doorways, the evidence of ongoing racism - systemic and otherwise - is daily present in our headlines.

Oh, so you're relying on the media to help form your views? Because, you know, they are pretty balanced. And as for "systemic" racism, perhaps this might help you understand what a false narrative it is.

We express our unequivocal support for Black, Asian, Indiginous, Multiracial, and Latinx students, faculty, staff, and alums.

Latinx? Good for you signaling your virtue with the latest woke nomenclature!

Many of our students of color, especially those who identify as Black, felt that the letter questioned their belonging in the Brearley community.

I must have missed that in the letter. Did these students actually read it, or just rely on what others said? Did you even read it?

Their belonging and their excellence are unquestionable. We continue to move forward together to build an inclusive, antiracist school in which all members of our diverse community see that their contributions are acknowledged, know that they are values and that they belong.

Including the white kids? Because you just said your are "antiracist," and that actually means very specific things. It means that whites are automatically stigmatized as being part of an "oppressor class," even if they're little kids. It means we are all little more than products of our skin pigmentation. Seems to me you can't value everyone equally and in the same breath believe that one group needs to be labelled as oppressors.

Brearley will continue to listen, solicit feedback, and welcome constructive criticism from our students and our community as we challenge racism wherever we find it.

Except we won't do any of that if we don't like what you're saying.

We all share responsibility in preparing our students for purposeful and meaningful lives.

...living in fear of printed words.

We are all expected to engage in this work with respect for one another. This letter failed in both content and delivery to meet these expectations.

What content? You haven't actually brought up any specifics at all. And delivery? Are we talking about Gutmann's grammar or the postal service?

We are better than this and we must do better for our students. they are counting on us.

Sincerely,

Jane Fried

I know for a fact that many Brearley parents are astonished by Fried's response. It's a straight up effort to silence dissent and criticism by smearing the critic and stigmatizing him as a racist. She offers no specifics about where Gutmann might have been wrong, and thus allowed for zero debate on the merits. Nuanced discussion is off the table. And the allegations of "harm" are as absurd as they are offensive. Jane Fried is no better than the woke bullies who swim the fetid sewers of Twitter.

Fried's letter proves the very points Gutmann himself makes, but Fried is so blinded by the religious zeal of CRT and wokeism that she can't see that.

And as for her "community," (she likes that word a lot) she will never know just how many are pissed, because they, like parents at so many other schools, are afraid to say anything. That is the inclusive environment you have created, Ms. Fried.

And you, Brearley board members, where the hell are you? You are the enablers. I noticed, in a particularly craven move, you had your names deleted from the Brearley website yesterday. Dalton did the same thing. What are you afraid of?

Good thing the Wayback Machine exists, because here are your names:

Christine Frankenhoff Alfaro    President

David B. Philip                          SVP

Jocelyn E. Strauber.                   Secretary

Modupe Akinola                       Treasurer 

Tara Abrahams

Gideon Berger

Susan V. Beresford

Elizabeth R. Chandler

Joe DiMenna

Amina Elderfield

Tom Farrell

Jane Foley Fried

Julie Gamboa

Jane Gladstone

Martha Haakmat

Rebecca Haile

Munib Islam

Sue Meng

Stephanie Perlman

David Raso

Paula Campbell Roberts

Bill Shutzer

Lita Tandon

Olivia Wassenaar

Alan Yan

So, Dalton, Grace, Brearley...is anyone taking bets on who's next?

UPDATE: A bunch of Brearley parents sent out a letter attacking Gutmann. It is even more idiotic and tone deaf than Fried's letter. It calls Gutmann's letter "vile and racist." I dare you to read Gutmann's letter and find racism. He advocates for an MLK colorblind society, but to these idiots, that is now racist.

This has become a cult bordering on a religion

Dalton Fires Jim Best

Jim Best (inset)

Dalton is allowing its outgoing headmaster to say he's quitting, but make no mistake, he was fired. This all went down in January, and wasn't going to be announced until the end of the year, so it's curious as to why now.

Initially, I wasn't sure whether his firing was because he'd turned Dalton into a woke home of racial obsession, or because he'd allowed the situation to blow up beyond Dalton's ivy perimeter. Publicity is always awkward for a private school, and this one went supernova. Best's sin was to "say the quiet part out loud," as one friend of mine put it.

I now have some clarity. The board was actually split, with both halves wanting Best gone. One half was very upset with how he handled COVID, something that the parents were also up in arms about. Dalton didn't open for in-person classes until late January, unlike literally every other private school in New York.

The other half was upset about Dalton's woke/CRT explosion, which Best engineered, using the odious DEI consultant Pollyanna for cover. But I'm still not clear what part of that upsets the board. I suspect it was all the publicity, and not CRT itself. The board - still absent from Dalton's website - is not exactly a conservative hotbed.

In the end, both factions deemed Best's action to exhibit a failure of leadership. I'm told it was unanimous that Best had to go.

But the board told quite a different story to the parents.

A letter from the board to the community had nothing but glowing things to say about Best. Here's a small taste:

"In every role Jim has ever played at Dalton be has brought his giant heart, his passion for innovation, and his commitment to making Dalton the best it can be..."

"He will be deeply missed."

"We look forward to celebrating Jim when our community can safely gather to share a fist bump and toast his leadership..."

As one Dalton parent put it to me, "They must think we're morons."

Hey, Dalton Board: you should all resign right now. This was your chance to distance yourself from Best and everything he stood for, instead you publicly doubled down. Shame on you. You should at least have the courage to put your names back on the website.

As for Best himself, I don't doubt Best will land somewhere. The radicalized community of school administrators and board members takes care of its own. He remains on the board of the Grace Church School, which has had its own woke implosion over the last week. And while he has disappeared from Pollyanna's website, I suspect he remains very active there as well.

Here's Why We Should Lower the Drinking Age

Out of 190 countries, only 12 have drinking ages as high as ours.

Twelve.

We are keeping company with other cool kids on the block like Iraq, Oman and Equatorial Guinea.

Congress raised the age to 21 in 1984 to combat drunk-driving fatalities. It's actually a state-by-state decision (as most things should be), but the Feds coerced states with the threat of withheld highway funds. Most caved right away, although Louisiana held out for a time. Since then, the rate of drunk-driving deaths has dropped more than 50 percent. 

Good news, right? 

Absolutely. But why has it dropped?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a powerful lobby, will tell you it’s because of the age increase, but does anyone really think college-age kids have stopped drinking just because it’s illegal? 

Get serious. If you think that, you've never had a college age kid. Or gone to college. Or have eyes.

In reality, drivers of all ages have reacted to the much tougher enforcement and severely increased penalties. Drunk driving rates are down for every demographic, not just 18-21 year-olds. It turns out no one wants to go to jail. Back in the day, it was, “Get home safe, son.” Now it’s the slammer and huge fines. 

Technology has also changed, creating safe alternatives. Kids know to call Uber, an option not available in the ’80s, as with the mobile phones used to summon them.

It’s time to lower the drinking age and join the rest of the civilized world. Current law is not a deterrent, and it has had negative cultural effects, particularly on our nation’s campuses.

But what’s the harm, you say? Let’s start with the binge drinking of hard alcohol. Beer, the college beverage of choice since the first student was forced to read Sartre, has faded away. Too bulky. No way to sneak a keg into your dorm room. Hard liquor is the new poison, particularly vodka. It’s clear and mixes with about anything. Not surprisingly, this has made alcohol a bigger problem on campuses than ever because too much hard alcohol kills. Back in the day, I can’t remember anyone going to the hospital because they drank too much beer. 

People tried, believe me. I would know. I was in Brett Kavanagh's fraternity. We liked beer.

The higher age has also affected college culture, and not in a good way. When I was a student, we had big, campus-wide events. It was all very social and egalitarian. In fact, on our very first day, our president, the great Bart Giamatti, welcomed all freshmen to his house with an open bar. 

Imagine. 

Now, students squirrel away, pre-gaming, consuming what they want in places they won’t be caught by RAs and other mandated busybodies.

A change is needed. And Republicans — you should lead the charge.

College social life has become cliquey, balkanized. With big events out, students now huddle in smaller groups that have an irritating habit (from a social engineer’s standpoint) of self-selecting mostly along demographic lines. 

(Note to the ever-expanding university diversity departments: You should not like this. What good is diversity if no one’s hanging out with each other?)

Consider that more than 100 college presidents have signed a petition to have the age lowered back to 18. They are on the ground and see firsthand the damage of hard alcohol. They’ve had to set up complex compliance regimes to keep an army of tort lawyers at bay. Complicating matters, most seniors and juniors can legally partake, creating a great schism of haves and have-nots.

A change is needed. 

Republicans — you should lead the charge. 

Let’s face it, most 18-year-olds won’t be caught dead registering for your party. It’s an image thing, mostly. You are a brand for old people and stiffs. You have erected a fortress that says, “Enter here and never get another date.” At that crucial moment when someone first registers to vote, this is what you are up against. And once someone registers for a party, they usually stick with it for life, so the stakes are huge. It is a branding problem almost beyond repair.

Lowering the drinking age is consistent with your support for personal liberty and will resonate with libertarian-leaning youth. Lower it for beer and wine to steer teens towards safer forms of consumption. My humble suggestion is that you rally around this issue. Go on the offense, make the Democrats be the wet rags for once. I bet they’d come around quickly. 

Hey, bipartisanship!

The best part about this is that it’s the right thing to do. Eighteen-year-olds can drive, sign contracts, get married, take a bullet in Afghanistan — everything except have a beer. It’s inconsistent and patronizing, and it’s time to change it. But as long as we treat alcohol like forbidden fruit, the thrill remains.

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!