Category: Race

More on Whether Non-Whites Can be Racist

Jacques writes,

I had a few thoughts about your post on the definition of "racism".  

First, I think your definition and almost everything you say here is reasonable, but you may not be engaging with the enemy's reasoning (if we can call it that).  As you anticipate, Leftists will say that only whites can be "racist" because only whites have power as a racial group over others, only whites oppress others, and so on.  Your response is to say that in that case they are using the wrong word.  Why talk about "racism" rather than "oppressivism" if really we're talking about oppression and power rather than race. 

But the Leftists would say that they are talking about race too, or racial oppression.  They say race is a "social construct" but, of course, a social construct can be real and socially important.  So their idea is that in our evil western societies some people–the "white" people–are given special privileges and power over other people; this is how the biologically meaningless notion of race comes to be important, and how racial (or "racial") power and privilege are sustained.  From this perspective, then, it would still make sense to talk about racial oppression or "racism" for short.  By analogy, someone who doesn't believe in the Nazi ideology of Aryanism could still reasonably describe Nazi Germany as a society based on Aryan supremacy or "Aryan" oppression of non-Aryans.  It makes sense for them to continue to call this "racism" because the system of oppression is based on this false mythology of race that underwrites the distinction between oppressors and oppressed.

 I think there are two good responses to this standard Leftist claim:

(1) Grant that "racism" in this sense of the term refers only to systemic privilege and oppression (etc.) based on socially recognized racial categories.  That's a matter of how their concept or principle is supposed to work.  But now we just point out that it's an empirical question whether, in a given society at a given time, some particular socially recognized race is in fact systemically privileged, oppresses other groups, and so on.  And on the empirical side, isn't it ludicrous to claim that whites are the systemically privileged oppressors in any western country in 2018?  Whites are the only group that faces severe social costs and often serious legal trouble merely for publicly defending their own racial interests.  Whites are the only group against whom racial discrimination is legal.  And on and on.  I think we have to press them to defend the empirical part of their thesis.  It's ridiculous, indefensible…

You are right to raise the empirical question., Jacques. Since I was concerned to make a merely conceptual point, I conceded arguendo that whites as a group oppress blacks and other non-whites as groups. As you point out, it is false at the present time, and indeed ridiculous as witness the case of Sarah Jeong.

(2) Grant for the sake of argument that whites can't be "racist" in their sense of the term.  But now just point out that whites can still be victims of racially-motivated hate, racially-motivated bias and injustice, racially-motivated violence, and so on.  (Basically, whites can be victims of "racism" in your sense of the term.)  All these things are plainly bad and wrong in themselves, regardless of the larger "systemic" context.  Press them to explain why it doesn't matter morally or politically when blacks torture a mentally retarded white man live on Facebook, because they hate whites as a group.  Or at least, ask them why this doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the fact that some black guy who wasn't buying anything wasn't allowed to use the bathroom at Starbucks.  

I recommend adding these two lines of argument to yours because I know Leftists are going to dismiss your entirely reasonable arguments by saying you just don't get it.  These other arguments are directly targeting their (absurd) understanding of racism.

Right. We might just give leftists the word 'racist' to use in their way, according to which non-whites cannot be racists, and then challenge them to explain why it is morally acceptable to act in violent, bigoted , and unjust ways towards whites.

We could grant them that Sarah Jeong, being Asian, cannot possibly be racist, but then ask how her membership in a group oppressed by whitey justifies her vicious anti-white tweets.  For even if Asians as a group at the present time are being terribly oppressed by whites, Jeong herself is enjoying all sorts of advantages.

I am reminded of the identity-schmidentity move that Saul Kripke makes in Naming and Necessity.  "You say what you are doing is not (reverse) racism? Racism-schmacism! What you are doing is morally wrong."

In re: the Starbucks dude, we could say to lefties "OK, the black loiterer was treated in a racist manner, on your idiosyncratic understanding of 'racist' according to which a member of a group that is on the bottom is an object of racism even when he does something objectively unacceptable. But that doesn't change the fact that he was loitering, refusing to buy anything, taking space away from paying customers, and thereby violating important social norms."

But deeper than all this are the Left's absurd claims that race is a social construct and that there is such a thing as institutional or systemic racism.

My question to Jacques: since these claims are prima facie absurd, how is it that lefties can convince themselves otherwise? And what exactly do they mean by them?

Can a Black be a Racist?

More generally, can a non-white be a racist?  It depends on what a racist is. The unfortunate tendency is to bandy the term about undefined. This serves the purposes of those who want an all-purpose verbal cudgel with which to attack their opponents. I will give you my definition, one that ought to appeal to sane and well-intentioned people. 

A racist is a person who harbors an abiding irrational hatred of all or most of the members of one or more other races just because of their racial membership. 

Racism is a standing disposition that manifests itself in hateful or contemptuous words and deeds.  These words and deeds are not rational responses to particular provocations but express a blanket, irrational negative attitude to an entire group. This is why "all or most" figures in my definition. Obviously, hatred of a person of a different race needn't be racist: the hater may have good reason to hate the other person. Racism comes into it when the person is hated because of his membership in the other race.

On the above definition a black can be a racist, and indeed some are.  And so can Hispanics and Asians, including Sarah Jeong.

For the record, I condemn racism as above defined, and you should too. 

If you don't like my definition, do you have any reason not to like it? Do you have a better definition?

Notice that I didn't mention skin color in my definition.  People who should know better regularly conflate skin color with race.  Skin color, however, is at best a phenotypical indicator of race.  Suppose you have two guys, one from India, the other from Africa. Suppose they are dark in color to the same degree. They are both 'blacks' — black in color to the same degree of blackness. But they are of different races. Therefore, race is not the same as skin color.  

For the politically correct, however, blacks cannot be racists.  The reason, apparently, is that whites oppress blacks but blacks don't oppress whites.  If so, racism is really about power and oppression, and not about race.

If racism is not about race, then why speak of racism as opposed to oppressivism?

After all, some whites oppress other whites. White males oppress white females.  White-collar whites oppress blue-collar whites. 'Coastal' whites oppress 'heartland' whites. You could say that the former 'look down' on the latter as they 'fly over' them. And let's not forget the Jews. Are Jews white? Assume they are. And yet white goyim oppress them.  

White females oppress white females. The good-lookers oppress the plain Janes.  There is a whole lotta oppressin' goin' on.  Or at least the oppressed groups feel oppressed. 

'Liberal' blacks oppress conservative blacks by calling them Uncle Toms, traitors to their race, etc. Are 'liberal' blacks therefore racists?

I am making two main points.

First, on a sane definition of 'racism,' proffered above, non-whites can be racists.  

Second, if your beef is with the oppression or 'denigration' of one group by another, then  'racism' is not the word you want.

Blogging may not be good for me: I am writing like a damned journalist what with these one sentence paragraphs.

God help me. Journalists deserve about as much respect today as lawyers and Catholic priests.  I make an exception for journalists who courageously enter war zones to get the story and sometimes don't come home. 

Kanye and the Democrats

Walter E. Williams:

The big difference between black libertarians/conservatives and West is that he has 28 million Twitter followers and a huge audience of listeners whereas few blacks have even heard of libertarian/conservative blacks outside of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (I might add in passing that Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the nation’s most distinguished and accomplished scholars alive today.)

The Kanye problem for the Democratic Party is that if the party doesn’t keep blacks in line and it loses even 20 to 25 percent of the black vote, it can kiss any hope of winning any presidential and many congressional elections goodbye. Democrats may have already seen that threat. That’s why they support illegal immigration and voting rights for non-citizens. Immigrants from south of the border who are here illegally may be seen as either a replacement for or a guarantee against the disaster of losing the black vote.

That's right. Illegal aliens are undocumented Democrats.  

And you are still a Democrat? Then you are clearly no patriot. A patriot loves his country. He does not seek its fundamental transformation.

We Are all ‘White Supremacists’ Now

Even the San Francisco lefty, Angela Alioto. She has been called the following names: white supremacist, Trumpian, fascist, Nazi, and racist.  For despite her leftist wobble, she retains some common sense: she proposes a reform of the S. F. sanctuary city law so that it no longer protects felons as she explains on the Tucker Carlson show.

How 'insensitive'! What a 'racist,' as if felons constitute a race. 

And if wanting to crack down on felons proves one a 'white supremacist,' does that not imply that all felons are 'people of 'color'?

There is no wisdom on the Left.  Dennis Prager:

The left in America is founded on the rejection of wisdom. It is possible to be on the left and be kind, honest in business, faithful to one’s spouse, etc. But it is not possible to be wise if one subscribes to leftist (as opposed to liberal) ideas.

Last year, Amy Wax, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, co-authored an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer with a professor from the University of San Diego School of Law in which they wrote that the “bourgeois culture” and “bourgeois norms” that governed America from the end of World War II until the mid-1960s were good for America, and that their rejection has caused much of the social dysfunction that has characterized this country since the 1960s.

Those values included, in their words: “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

Recognizing those norms as universally beneficial constitutes wisdom. Rejection of them constitutes a rejection of wisdom — i.e. foolishness.

Yet the left almost universally rejected the Wax piece, deeming it, as the left-wing National Lawyers Guild wrote, “an explicit and implicit endorsement of white supremacy,” and questioning whether professor Wax should be allowed to continue teaching a required first-year course at Penn Law.

To equate getting married before having children, working hard and eschewing substance abuse and crime with “white supremacy” is to betray an absence of wisdom that is as depressing as it breathtaking. It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that those values benefit anyone who adheres to them; they have nothing to do with race.

Exactly right, but not much is achieved by re-iterating these commonsensical points.

One has to defeat the destructive, slanderous  leftist swine. And let's hope to God we can do it without resorting to extra-political means. The milque-toast McCains and Romneys of the G. O. P. are manifestly not up to the job. What is needed is  an alpha male like Trump the Jacksonian who has already racked up an impressive series of accomplishments and has delivered stinging rebukes to the obstructionist crapweasels of the Jack Ass party. 

‘White Supremacist’ Values

The following are now widely viewed as 'white supremacist' values: merit, individual achievement, objectivity.

Leftists used to argue, fallaciously, that since outcomes are unequal for blacks and whites, 'racism' had to have been at work. As bad as that argument is, it was at least correctly assumed that people ought to be judged on their merits and by their achievements as individuals, and not discriminated against on the basis of race or sex.

But it turns out that the war against 'racism' has done little to improve the lot of blacks as a group.

So now the lunatic Left takes a different tack, that of rejecting the very values mentioned as 'white supremacist.' 

Hillary uses the slanderous phrase. One more reason to rejoice over her defeat.

Black Privilege


White guilt“The story at Starbucks isn’t racism but entitlement. The two men felt entitled to loiter on private property without buying anything. They decided that the rules didn’t apply to them. And apparently they were correct.” —Matt Walsh

I love hanging out in coffee houses, reading, talking, and most of all, playing chess. I fancy myself a strong coffee house player, which means that I'm a patzer, but I'll clean your clock if you learned the game from your uncle. (Full disclosure: I'm in the B category; highest USCF rating = 1720. I beat Reppert once in a coffee house (on the White side of a Smith-Morra gambit) and two or three experts (2000-2200) at tournaments.)

I consider myself entitled to take up space only if I have purchased something.

Being black is not carte blanche for bad behavior. 


Fallacious Liberal-Left ‘Reasoning’ about Race

Heather Mac Donald:

The GAO [General Accounting Office] found that black students get suspended at nearly three times the rate of white students nationally, a finding consistent with previous analyses. The Obama Education and Justice Departments viewed that disproportion as proof of teacher and principal bias. Administration officials used litigation and the threatened loss of federal funding to force schools to reduce suspensions and expulsions radically in order to eliminate racial disparities in discipline. 

The argument is essentially this:

1) Black students get suspended at a higher rate than white students.

Therefore

2) Teachers and principals are biased against black students.

Clearly, this is a howling non sequitur. (Non sequitur is Latin for it does not follow.)  To make the above into a valid argument one would have to add something like the following premise:

0) Black and white students are behaviorally equal: equally well-behaved or equally ill-behaved.

In the presence of (0), the conclusion follows.

But (0) is manifestly false. For support of this claim, see Mac Donald's article:

According to federal data, black male teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at nearly 10 times the rate of white male teenagers of the same age (the category “white” in this homicide data includes most Hispanics; if Hispanics were removed from the white category, the homicide disparity between blacks and whites would be much higher). That higher black homicide rate indicates a failure of socialization; teen murderers of any race lack impulse control and anger-management skills. Lesser types of juvenile crime also show large racial disparities. It is fanciful to think that the lack of socialization that produces such elevated rates of criminal violence would not also affect classroom behavior. While the number of black teens committing murder is relatively small compared with their numbers at large, a very high percentage of black children—71 percent—come from the stressed-out, single-parent homes that result in elevated rates of crime.

The same pattern of invalid argumentation is found across the Left.  Leftists regularly assume that different groups are empirically equal. They then incorrectly take the fact that there is no equality of outcome as proof that something nefarious was at work whether racism or sexism or ageism.

But what explains the eagerness of leftists to adopt such an obviously false assumption?

I proffer an explanation in The Secularization of the Judeo-Christian Equality Axiom.

The Secularization of the Judeo-Christian Equality Axiom

It is a plain fact that humans are not empirically equal either as individuals or as groups. Why then is there so much politically correct resistance to this truth? It is because it flies in the face of a central dogma of the Left, namely, that deep down we are all the same, want the same things, have the same abilities, share the same values, and so on.  So if women are 'under-represented' among the engineers, for example, then the only way to explain this, given the leftist equality dogma, is in terms of something nefarious such as sexism. For if we are all equal empirically, then the 'under-representation' — a word I enclose in sneer quotes because of its conflation of the factual and the normative — cannot be explained in terms of a difference in interests and values or a difference in mathematical aptitude. (Remember what happened to Lawrence Summers of Harvard?)

The dogma is false, yet widely and fervently believed. Anyone who dares offend against it faces severe consequences.  Amy Wax, for example:

A University of Pennsylvania law school professor will no longer teach required courses following outcry over a video in which she suggested — falsely, according to the school — that black students seldom graduated high in their class.

Amy Wax, a tenured professor, will continue to teach electives in her areas of expertise but will be removed from teaching first-year curriculum courses, Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger said in a statement Wednesday.

Ruger said Wax spoke “disparagingly and inaccurately” when she claimed last year that she had “rarely, rarely” seen a black student finish in the top half of their class.

Professor Wax spoke the truth, but the truth is no defense in the court of the politically correct. In present-day academe, all must toe the party line and woe to him who doesn't. The universities have become leftist seminaries.

What explains the fervor and fanaticism with which the Left's equality dogma is upheld? Could we explain it as a secularization of the Judeo-Christian belief that all men are created equal? Long before I read Carl Schmitt, I had this thought. But then I found this  provocative assertion by Schmitt:

All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development . . . but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of these concepts. (Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, tr. G. Schwab, University of Chicago Press, 1985, p. 36.)

Schmitt carlThe idea that all humans are equal in virtue of having been created by God in the image and likeness of God is a purely theological notion consistent with deep and wide empirical differences among humans.  Its secularization, I suggest, involves several steps. (These are my ideas, not Schmitt's.)

The first step is to transform the metaphysical concept of equality of persons into an empirical concept of equality of measurable attributes.

The second step is to explain away the manifest empirical inequality of human groups and individuals in terms of sexism or racism or ageism or some other 'ism.'  This involves a turn toward social constructivism and a reality-denying turn away from the mind-independent reality  of biological differences between the sexes and the races.  Sex becomes 'gender' and the latter a social construct.  Similarly with race. The absurdities that result are foolishly embraced rather than taken as so many reductiones ad absurdum of the original mistake of making sex and race social constructs. Thus one foolishly embraces the notion that one can change one's race. For a calm and thorough critique of this notion as represented by a contemporary academic, see my Can One Change One's Race?

The third step is to jettison the theological underpinning of the original equality conception.  

In this way a true, non-empirical claim of Christian metaphysics about persons as rights-bearers is transformed into a false empirical claim about human animals.  At the same time the ground of the non-empirical claim is denied.  

It is easy to see how unstable this all is. Reject God, and you no longer have a basis for belief in equality of persons.  Man reverts to being an animal among animals with all the empirical inequality that that brings with it.

So the Left has a problem. It is virulently anti-theistic and anti-religious and yet it wants to uphold a notion of equality that makes sense only within a theistic framework. The Left, blind to this inconsistency, is running on the fumes of an evaporating Christian worldview. Equality of persons and rights secularizes itself right out of existence once the theological support is kicked away.

Nietzsche understood this long ago. The death of God has consequences. One is that the brotherhood of man becomes  a joke.  If my tribe can enslave yours, then it has all the justification it needs and can have for doing so.  Why should I treat you as my brother if I have the power to make you my servant and I have freed my mind of Christian fictions?

For those of us who oppose both the Left and the Alt-Right faction that is anti-Christian and Nietzschean, the only option seems to be a return to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Here is an example of an argument from the Alt Right faction I am referring to:

There is a strong anti-Christian tendency in contemporary White Nationalism.

The argument goes something like this: Christianity is one of the primary causes of the decline of the white race for two reasons. First, it gives the Jews a privileged place in the sacred history of mankind, a role that they have used to gain their enormous power over us today. Second, Christian moral teachings—inborn collective guilt, magical redemption, universalism, altruism, humility, meekness, turning the other cheek, etc.—are the primary cause of the white race’s ongoing suicide and the main impediment to turning the tide. These values are no less Christian in origin just because secular liberals and socialists discard their supernatural trappings. The usual conclusion is that the white race will not be able to save itself unless it rejects Christianity.

I agree entirely with the sentence I have bolded. Leftist secularization is essentially a suppression of the supernatural with a concomitant maintenance of virtues and precepts that make sense only within a supernatural framework. But 'trappings' is not the right word; 'supports' is better.  The Left is engaged in the absurd project of kicking away the support of universal rights, the dignity and equality of persons, and all the rest while trying to hold on to these commitments.

The deeper question, though, is whether Christianity weakens us and makes us unfit to live and flourish as the animals we are in the only world there is, this world of space, time, matter and change, or whether Alles Vergaengliche ist nur ein Gleichnis (Goethe), time is a moving image of eternity (Plato), and this world is a fleeting vale of tears that veils an Unseen Order.

The Rachel Dolezal of American Politics

Here

You say you've forgotten who Dolezal is is? Too much Twitter! A weapon of mass distraction. Soon you'll be a tweeting twit with a mind fit only to flit.  

Related:

Rachel Dolezal, The Black White Woman. I make a mistake at the end of this post that I will now correct. I represent Elizabeth Warren as the author of Pow Wow Chow when in fact she is merely a contributor to that by-now-famous recipe book. Her contribution, however, a recipe for lobster bisque — Cherokees were into haute cuisine? — was plagiarized!

Dolezal, Knowledge, and Belief

And while we are on the topic of Dem femmes, Hillary still doesn't get it.  More here.

Related articles

Rachel Dolezal Special Declared "White Privilege"

Why Do Asian Americans Continue to Support Liberal Candidates and Policies?

One might think that, given the superior intelligence of Jews and Asians as groups, members of these groups would not support destructive leftists when it is fairly obvious that doing so is not in their long-term best self-interest. We read below that a third of Asian Americans live in California. So they have first-hand experience of the negative consequences of leftist government. So why do they vote Democrat overwhelmingly?

It turns out that Confucius plays a role! Ideas have consequences.

An Asian American documents the fact and then offers an explanation (emphases added):

From Roosevelt’s executive order which sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during the World War II to today’s affirmative action in college admissions, Asian Americans have been hurt again and again by Democrat politicians and liberal policies. Yet Asian Americans consistently vote overwhelmingly for Democrat candidates. In 2016, 79 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) voters supported Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In the 2012, presidential election, Barack Obama won 73 percent of the Asian American vote, exceeding his support among Hispanics (71 percent) and women (55 percent).

Why do the majority of Asian Americans choose to support Democrats? I identified three factors. First is location. Asians tend to concentrate in urban environments where liberals are dominant. For example, a third of Asians in America live in California. Other top states with significant Asian populations are New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii. Therefore, Asians are bombarded by Democrat propaganda.

Second, the cultural influence of the countries of origin still has an impact on many first generation Asian immigrants: the top six countries that send 80 percent of all Asian immigrants to the U.S. are China, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, Korea and Japan. With the exception of India, the other five countries all have long traditions of being patriarchal societies following Confucian teachings. Confucius, a Chinese philosopher from 551 B.C to 479 B.C., defined the relationship between government and its people, between the ruler and his subject, as a family affair. Confucius believed people should obey and respect their rulers just as they obey and respect their fathers, while a ruler should love and care for his subjects as if they were his children. Under the influence of this philosophy, although many Asians believe self-reliance and hard work are the only paths to prosperity, many of them also believe government has a responsibility to take care of other people, and they are more open to big government as long as there is a virtuous leader to lead it. Like many other ethnic groups, the second generation of East Asians are much less likely to be subject to the influence of Confucius.

Third, the Democrat’s message of embracing diversity, as superficial as it is, still sounds attractive to many Asians, because it gives them a sense of belonging. In the meantime, Republicans have all but given up on winning Asian votes and thus make very little effort. Republicans have been doing a very poor job of “showing up” in Asian communities. To many Republicans candidates, minority outreach means outreach to African Americans and Hispanic Americans only. Outreach to Asians has a lower priority, often merely showing up at a Chinese New Year celebration in an election year is considered to be sufficient. In addition, Republicans do a poor job of recruiting Asian Americans at the grassroots level. Being an Asian and a conservative is a lonely journey. When I show up at a Republican Party event, 9 out of 10 times I am the only Asian in the room.

Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is that My Fault?

Black hole NASASuppose a white person uses the phrase 'black hole' in the presence of a black person either in its literal cosmological meaning or in some objectively inoffensive metaphorical sense, and the black person takes offense and complains that the phrase is 'racially insensitive.' Actual case here. Compare that with a case in which a white person uses 'nigger' in the presence of a black person.

I have just marked out two ends of a semantic spectrum. 'Black hole' used either literally or in some not-too-loose analogy to the literal meaning — as in 'black hole' used to refer to a windowless office — cannot be taken by any rational person as a racial slur. For 'black' in 'black hole' has nothing to do with race. But 'nigger' used by a white person is a racial slur.

It is worth noting that I did not use 'nigger' in the immediately preceding sentence: I mentioned it. It is a standard distinction and an important one if you value clarity of thought.

Use, Mention, ‘Quotation’ Marks, and Political Correctness

The title of a recent Weekly Standard article reads:

Professor Uses 'N-Word,' Student Shouts 'F-You,' 'Free Speech' Class Canceled at Princeton.

I would write it like this:

Professor mentions N-word [no inverted commas], Student Shouts 'F-You,' [correct use of inverted commas for quotation], 'Free Speech' Class Cancelled at Princeton [correct use of inverted commas as sneer quotes].

Pedantry aside, the real problem is in the following paragraph:

Last week Prof. Rosen received national attention for using the N-word in this class on freedom of expression. Some students walked out and protested the term’s use. One report, cited in Princeton’s main campus newspaper, says that Rosen asked, “What is worse, a white man punching a black man, or a white man calling a black man a n****r?” And when Rosen was met with disagreement of his use of the N-word, and on his continued use of the term in the academic setting, he said, he would use it, “if I think it’s necessary.”

Rosen didn't use the N-word, he mentioned it.  Rosen was talking about the word 'nigger' and asking whether it would be worse for a white man to punch a black man or to apply the word 'nigger' to him. That is a perfectly legitimate question and there is nothing racist about it.

There is also nothing racist about my mentioning of the word in question in the second-to-last sentence.  I am talking about the word in the way I would be talking about it were I to say that it is disyllabic and consists of six letters.  I am not applying it to anyone. 

Which is worse, to punch a Jew (without provocation) or to apply 'kike' to him? Does it make one an anti-Semite to ask this question? Obviously not.

Read the rest to fully savor how the Left has destroyed the universities.  If you are thinking of an academic career in a non-STEM field you may want to think twice.