Free Speech, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion in Education, and Beyond

According to the far-left online British tabloid “The Guardian,” Al Sharpton, who is an extremist black nationalist politician calling himself a “civil rights leader,” and a great many liberals a disgraced Harvard president Claudine Gay fell victim to a right-wing racist conspiracy to attack diversity, equity and inclusion policies at Ivy Leagues and other top schools.  

As soon as Claudine Gay resigned, she immediately penned an op-ed (or maybe she hired AI to do it for her, who knows?) In her bitter article she did acknowledge that she should have more forcefully condemned anti-Semitism on campus and that Hamas is a terrorist organization – but still complained about being a victim of right-wing conspiracy. Gay complained about a “trap” Republican congresswoman Stefanik laid for Gay by asking Gay tough questions about university policy on anti-Semitism after pro-Palestinian students harassed Jewish students on campus and called for genocide against Jews.  The Guardian newspaper seized upon Gay statements and went after Bill Ackman, a billionaire Harvard donor, who pushed more actively than others for Gay’s firing and also wrote an article on X expressing his concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion policies on campuses that cause reverse discrimination against white students among other things. Guardian called Ackman a “bully” and included him also in the right-wing conspiracy circle even though he has been a major donor to Democrats.  

Even though this controversy originated from liberal leftist pro-Palestinian calls for another Holocaust against Jews, at the end of the day it degenerated into the most basic and more relevant to the U.S. political climate controversy about race.

ITS ALL ABOUT RACE … AGAIN

The “right-wing”, many Republicans, conservatives, and Tucker Carlson are worried about government sponsored replacement of the white people, and the “Left”, the “liberals”, the black nationalists like Al Sharpton, and progressives like Gavin Newsom are focused on the promotion of black people and some other minorities (depending on their loyalty to democrats) in education, employment, government, private sector, and entertainment industry to phase out any white presence in all of these spheres.  Education appears to be at the forefront when it comes to the repeal of affirmative action.  

Liberals think that if they dominate the media and education, they can secure comfy positions for themselves and their clients in the black community like Claudine Gay is, i. e. black women who are the most loyal to democrats group and pretend like this is justice for everyone. White people dominated for too long, so now they should take the back seat or no seat at all, the other minorities, like Asians, are not as loyal to democrats so liberals at Harvard really hated the lawsuit Asian Harvard students won at the Supreme court to stop racist affirmative action and restore the merit-based system.

Al Sharpton made his career on extortion of more rights, privileges such as affirmative action, and benefits for inner city blacks from white society vulnerable to accusations of racism.  Claudine Gay did the same thing in the intellectual sphere tirelessly writing about the expansion of DEI in education.  Her hiring was not merit-based and she advocated identity-based admission for black students to universities without passing those tough tests. White nationalism is considered to be a curse in mainstream society while black nationalism by characters like Al Sharpton or Claudine Gay is more than welcome! 

Why is billionaire Bill Ackman being accused by the “Guardian” of being a bully? Solely because he unmasked reprehensible Harvard president for poor qualifications, anti-Semitism, and black nationalist ideas? 

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

What liberals do not understand is that there is no diversity, equity, or inclusion if white people are excluded; if black women are promoted without merit; if Latinos are being robbed and killed by black gangsters with impunity in the inner cities and if equity is not merit-based! 

What kind of “diversity” is it if 90% of postal workers are black, or 70% of TV commercials are dominated by black individuals, or when the president favors only one category of people – black women – for the most important government positions such as Supreme court, or vice-presidency? That is not diversity, that is favoritism!

To keep peace in a multi-racial, multi-cultural society neither government nor private institutions should be allowed to play favorites based on identity, race, or gender! There should never be an artificial force by the government “LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD” where students who are less intellectually endowed, poorer, and less prepared for tough tests will be given priority at the expense of more talented students with more competitive backgrounds. 

EQUITY VS EQUALITY

The entire idea of equality without merit is wrong and caters to corrupt feelings of hatred, envy, greed, and jealousy by the less fortunate against the more successful. The “oppressed” and the “disadvantaged’ should not be allowed to get ahead by the brute force of the self-serving populist government. The “privileged” and the “successful” “oppressors” have the right to keep their privileges because they are based on sacred private property ownership, success of previous generations, good work ethic, better genes, better attitude, civilized upbringing.  That is real “equity” – equality is not equity – equity is when everyone gets what he/she paid for, paid with money, or with effort, or both.

FREE SPEECH

What about the rights of the pro-Palestinian students to call for the genocide of Jewish people in response to what they feel is Israel’s “genocide” against Gaza Arabs in the aftermath of Hamas terrorist attacks? 

Shouldn’t they have the right to speak up and not be expelled from the University? Was Claudine Gay persecuted by the “right-wing” for protecting students’ free speech rights?

Maybe she could make an argument about it if all major universities including Harvard didn’t persecute the conservatives and didn’t ban “right-wing” speakers from coming on campus to provide a viable alternative to the left-wing liberal mentality that dominates U.S. campuses.

Hate speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution for a reason – the founding fathers realized how important it is for people to VENT. In old England, they weren’t allowed to vent and so the settlers in the 13 colonies rebelled. A little later in France, there was a major revolution against the royalty and nobility because people could not vent and elect their representatives.  Freedom of expression was very limited in old Europe by repressive regimes which led to major social strife and instability.  American leaders wanted to learn from Europe’s mistakes and made sure that freedom of expression and freedom of speech were so protected that even hate speech was protected with some time, place, and manner restrictions! 

At this point, there is no freedom of expression and freedom of speech on U.S. campuses – they are fully dominated by left-wing liberal propaganda to students highly susceptible to it. It’s almost an echo chamber.  Maybe students who called for genocide against the Jews thought that such an idea was mainstream because everyone around them was thinking along the same lines. No one at Harvard was allowed to present Israel’s point of view. The same goes with all other non–liberal ideas. Would they allow an anti-LGBTQ speaker to address the crowd at UCLA? Or white race replacement theory champions to address Berkeley students or any other mainstream university students? Absolutely not, because liberals consider these topics “hate speech” that should be banned not only on campus but on social media as well.   This would be considered unconstitutional censorship, had campus authorities not claimed to be a private sector entity exempt from constitutional protection of free speech. The same happens with social media; Facebook and Instagram say – we can ban any speech we consider “hate speech” because we are not the government that is prohibited from doing so by the Constitution. 

The conclusion is that to achieve “equity” on campuses, there is a need to reintroduce free speech, including hate speech in social media and by outside speakers on campuses who won’t let the liberal university elites brainwash students into becoming radical leftist extremists. Students will decide for themselves using their own sense of right and wrong what side they want to take and no one will be punished for any speech, including hate speech as long as it doesn’t result in direct harassment or bloodshed. Under such circumstances, Claudine Gay could return to her position at Harvard with the mission to open it up for Israelis to talk to students about Hamas atrocities and show mutilated baby pictures. Tucker Carlson will be the guest of honor and main speaker at multiple Harvard student conferences on white race replacement theory and Al Sharpton will be welcome to debate with Tucker Carlson on the same stage!  Heavy police presence may then be required to ensure that free speech doesn’t turn violent, but such is the price of freedom and democracy.