The last week or so has been somewhat of a gold mine of insight into the thinking of academic race grifters.
For instance, it was brought to light that an Ivy League institution brought in a forensic psychoanalyst to give a talk titled “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.”
Aside from the fact that such a title with any other race or ethnicity would get the lecturer canceled for life, and the college administrators who invited her protested until they resigned, what sort of mind conceives of the fantasies delivered at this talk:
“Unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in [her] way”? Believing she did the world “a fucking favor”? And then skedaddling with a “bounce in her step”?
Worse, in response to these very plain words, what sort of person lambastes critics as being unable to comprehend what she actually was trying to express — that all she meant was a grand desire to “have more serious conversations about race”?
Aruna Khilanani is far from alone. She’s just the latest critical race theory-minded academic to say something outrageous all in the name of racial healing.
As National Review’s Charlie Cooke noted this week in reference to Khilanani, “it does not take an exquisitely trained mind to understand why the oft-trailed and much-coveted ‘Conversation about Race in America’ never actually happens in earnest — and, indeed, why it is unlikely ever to happen in earnest.”
And that’s the “ever-shifting pseudo-scientific nonsense that underpins” those discussions.
(That’d be MSNBC’s Joy Reid — see here.)
I’ve been saying exactly this since my earliest days at The College Fix. In the middle of my teaching career, a gentleman whose past comments aren’t quite as bad as Khilanani’s (he “merely” engaged in crude racial stereotypes) came to deliver a workshop titled “Courageous Conversations (on Race).” But this gentleman, Glenn Singleton, immediately invalidated the very title of his program by declaring certain considerations verboten, like students’ home life, socioeconomic status, and quantity of discipline issues.
In addition, any truly honest conversation would not have self-appointed guardians on the lookout for offense allegedly given to the so-called marginalized. But anyone who’s attended one (or worse, forced to attend) is likely to attest this is precisely what happens. And it’s even worse when the conversation leader is the teacher from next door who suddenly became a race “expert” after attending a weekend “racial retreat.” (This actually happened at my school.)
Here’s an example from just yesterday, courtesy of one of the most popular contemporary race grifters:
Imagine someone claiming they oppose critical race theory after reading all of it. Yet they can’t name ONE thing they’ve read. pic.twitter.com/1v0FEslhmd
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) June 11, 2021
Hill tells his young charge with absolute certainty that the 1619 Project is not an example of critical race theory (CRT), and then chides him further because he will not (or cannot) name someone who dabbles in CRT.
But even the left-leaning Education Week would quibble with Hill as a recent article asks “Is ‘critical race theory’ a way of understanding how American racism has shaped public policy …”? Does the 1619 Project not purport to be an alternative method … to do precisely this?
Why yes, it does.
As one Twitter respondent told Hill, [your] “line of argument is so disingenuous, the dismissal of those who oppose racism primacy […] because of the inability to parrot dense academic theory peppered with specialized vocabulary. Google ‘What is CRT?’ and there is no clear, consistent definition.”
And that’s just how critical race theorists want it.
IMAGE: Nikita Konashenkov / Shutterstock.com