We’re so used to hearing that the biggest factor defining America today is systemic racism that when other factors show up—such as class or celebrity—we make a lot of noise hoping no one will notice.
That is what’s happening now with the Will Smith saga. Every soul in America knows that if a janitor had smacked Chris Rock, he would have been escorted out of the premises and put under arrest. That’s because a janitor, whether white, black or brown, has neither wealth nor fame.
That complicates the picture for the peddlers of skin color. You see, once we start looking at things like class and celebrity, different skin colors come together. You have rich and famous white, black and brown people here, and working-class white, black and brown people there.
That pretty much describes the Academy Awards. The rich and famous Hollywood crowd comes in all skin colors, while the workers behind the scenes—the grips, drivers, technicians, janitors, etc.— come also in all skin colors. One class goes here, the other goes there.
Megastar Will Smith got away with his assault on Rock because he had class privilege. His skin color was irrelevant. White privilege would not have saved an unknown white janitor committing the same crime. His skin color would have been irrelevant. He’s a lowly white dude, after all, with zero clout.
Any scenario where “skin color is irrelevant” is seriously threatening to those making a fortune on anti-racism. Have you noticed how hardly anyone has mentioned systemic racism when discussing the Smith and Rock story? That’s because we’re dealing with two highly privileged individuals who happen to be Black.
Any scenario where “skin color is irrelevant” is seriously threatening to those making a fortune on anti-racism.
That very category– privileged individuals who happen to be Black—must send shivers down the spine of anti-racist millionaires like Kendi and DiAngelo. If wealth and fame start to trump race, who will pay them $20,000 a day to help America manage the never-ending complexities of race?
Race is so lucrative because it’s immutable. If I’m in the “oppressor” class because I’m white, that status will never leave me. I will always need those expensive anti-race consultants to help me work through my white privilege status.
Class and fame, however, are anything but immutable, which is why they threaten the anti-racism industry. Race is static; class is dynamic. Race nurtures victimhood; class offers hope to grow and move up. Famous Black people like Smith and Rock are quintessential American success stories because they made it regardless of skin color.
None of this is meant to downplay the long and painful history of slavery and racism in America, or imply that racism doesn’t exist. It does, and in one form or another, probably always will. The point— the crucial point—is that race is not the only factor influencing Black people’s lives. There are millions of poor Blacks, for example, who share the same pains and challenges as millions of poor whites. Crafting policies to address those problems has little to do with skin color, because in that social class, all skin colors are in the same boat.
Perhaps the most compelling argument not to make systemic racism the defining character of America comes from our greatest anti-racist hero: Martin Luther King. When King preached the ideal of a colorblind society, he wasn’t absolving America of its racist sins or ignoring the steep hill to get there. He was keeping our collective eye on the big prize. That big prize was not a reiteration of a systemic condition but the articulation of an achievable and inspirational dream.
Black people like Will Smith and Chris Rock have climbed that mountaintop. Now we ought to judge them not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Their wealth and fame may give them a color-neutral privilege, but it doesn’t let them off the hook.
If King were alive today, he might look at Will Smith in the eye and say something like, “I don’t care what your skin color is, or how rich and famous you are. What you did was violent, wrong and inexcusable.”
If King were alive today, he might look at Will Smith in the eye and say something like, “I don’t care what your skin color is, or how rich and famous you are. What you did was violent, wrong and inexcusable.”
Judging ourselves not through the lens of skin color, wealth or fame but through the lens of character is, ultimately, the real prize, the real mountaintop we all must climb– whether we’re a megastar or a janitor.
Up until now, the opposition to President Joe Biden’s efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, has revolved around criticizing the deal. That’s been my approach as well. I’ve written several columns arguing that this new deal is a lot worse than the flawed original and endangers not just Israel but also the world.
In recent weeks, however, a twist has been added: People are demanding to see the details.
“Lawmakers in both parties say they have been left largely in the dark about what a new agreement with Iran might look like,” The Hill reported on March 21, “and they fear it will be significantly weaker than the deal former President Obama cut in 2015 because the United States has lost time and leverage.”
In a memo dated March 22, AIPAC called on Congress to “review any Iran agreement,” asserting that “Congress has the responsibility to conduct rigorous oversight of any agreement and assess its impact on the United States and Israel.”
In a memo dated March 22, AIPAC called on Congress to “review any Iran agreement,” asserting that “Congress has the responsibility to conduct rigorous oversight of any agreement and assess its impact on the United States and Israel.”
The memo added: “Based on reports out of Vienna, the new agreement with Iran will inevitably strengthen the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies, which will exacerbate the unprecedented magnitude and variety of threats to Israel. Congress must conduct rigorous oversight and review of the deal and assess its full impact on U.S. interests and those of our regional allies.”
On March 25, StandWithUs (SWU) launched a campaign entitled, “Let Congress & The American People Review the Iran Nuclear Deal,” asking supporters to “Email the President, the Secretary of State, and your Representatives supporting the right of Congress to review all nuclear deals with Iran’s regime.”
I attended an emergency meeting on March 24 organized by SWU where experts weighed in on the deal, and I came out of it convinced that the number one issue has become transparency.
I attended an emergency meeting on March 24 organized by StandWithUs where experts weighed in on the deal, and I came out of it convinced that the number one issue has become transparency.
Let’s pause for a minute to consider transparency. Regardless of where one sits politically, we can all agree that, in theory at least, one of the great things about this country is that our elected officials report to us. Through our vote, we can hire and fire. President Biden himself reports to us, meaning we have every right to know what he’s up to.
“The primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”
Those are the words of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from her recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings. As someone who hails from a Third World monarchy, this notion of democratic accountability resonates deeply.
So, it is with all-American confidence that I and many others are pushing for transparency on the Iran nuclear deal, with at least the same enthusiasm that President Biden has shown for signing the deal. In view of reports that a deal is imminent, this need for transparency has taken on added urgency.
Regardless of where one sits politically, we can all agree that, in theory at least, one of the great things about this country is that our elected officials report to us. Through our vote, we can hire and fire. President Biden himself reports to us, meaning we have every right to know what he’s up to.
What do “we the people” have a right to know?
There’s no better summary than a March 10 letter to President Biden from a bipartisan group of Congressmembers, led by U.S. Representatives Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5), Elaine Luria (VA-2), and Tom Reed (NY-23). This letter is especially noteworthy because it’s not from a think tank or an activist group, but from Congress, the legislative body that represents us. This letter to the president, then, is our letter to the president. Here’s what they wrote:
“Since the beginning of this Administration, we have hoped that renewed negotiations with Iran would achieve a longer and stronger agreement than the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), with clear nuclear restrictions and provisions addressing Iran’s international terror and missile programs.
“Among other issues, we are highly concerned about reports indicating the potential lifting of the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and of the sanctions placed on members of the office of the Supreme Leader. Without adequately addressing Iran’s role as the world’s leading state-sponsor of terror — which was noticeably absent from the 2015 JCPOA — and simultaneously providing billions of dollars in sanctions relief, the United States would be providing a clear path for Iranian proxies to continue fueling terrorism.
“In his nomination hearing, Secretary of State Antony Blinken committed to maintaining terrorism-related sanctions on Iran. Lifting, waiving, or rescinding terrorism-related sanctions will violate his previous commitment to Congress.
“We will review any agreement closely, but from what we currently understand, it is hard to envision supporting an agreement along the lines being publicly discussed. As the State Department has often noted in reference to a nuclear agreement with Iran, ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.’ We hope that no agreement is finalized without additionally addressing these concerns. Our support will be contingent largely on satisfactory answers to the following questions.”
The letter then listed 16 specific questions. If you care about this issue, it’s worth reading every word:
1. Will an agreement be presented to Congress pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA)? Regardless of any substance, the law and proper oversight role of Congress must be respected.
2. What will Iran’s breakout time be when the agreement is implemented?
3. What will Iran’s breakout time be in January 2024, and each subsequent year until 2031? In calculating breakout time, please assume that Iran carries out the maximum allowable uranium enrichment activity pursuant to the JCPOA.
4. Is there a consensus within the U.S. government on these breakout time figures?If not, please detail the differing views within the Administration. Similarly, is there consensus on these figures by our international partners?If not, please provide details on any differing views amongst our allies.
5. Will Russia gain any economic benefit from an Iran agreement?
6. If Iran subsequently believes the agreement has been violated, or that it has not received the promised sanctions relief, will Russia be in a position to return enriched uranium to Iran?In essence, will Vladimir Putin become the de facto judge of compliance with an agreement?
7. How much money will Iran gain immediate access to when a deal is announced?What is the estimated value of sanctions relief in year one of the agreement, and for each subsequent year through 2031? If there are differing views on these figures within the Administration, please provide details on these differences.
8. Does the Administration intend to request Congress pass legislation to lift the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) in 2023 as required by the JCPOA? If Congress does not lift ISA, what actions does the Administration expect from Iran?
9. Does the Administration support the lifting of U.N. Security Council prohibitions on outside support to Iran’s ballistic missile program? Such prohibitions are currently set to occur in October 2023 pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2231.
10. The snapback mechanism in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 expires in 2025. What recourse will the U.S. have should Iran violate the agreement after that time?
11. Does the Administration intend to remove the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation of the IRGC? Will sanctions on the IRGC in any other way be diminished?
12. Will sanctions targeting the Supreme Leader, his office, subordinates, or associated foundations be lifted or lessened in any way?
13. Will sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) be lifted or lessened in any way? If so, can the Administration certify that the CBI has in no way been engaged in any support for terrorism in facilitation of transactions for terrorist entities (including the IRGC) in the past year?
14. Will sanctions be lifted, or lessened in any way, on any other entity or individual that has engaged in support for terrorism, or been designated under Executive Order 13224 for providing material support to a designated terrorist entity?
15. Will Iran be required to satisfactorily answer outstanding questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the discovery of undisclosed uranium particles at multiple cites?
16. Will U.S. human rights programing in Iran continue subsequent to an agreement?
Now let’s imagine that you’re a Trump-hating, diehard Democrat who also supports Israel. Is there one question above that you object to? Are you not interested to know “how much money will Iran gain immediate access to when a deal is announced?” Or whether Vladimir Putin will become “the de facto judge of compliance with an agreement?”
Or whether the Administration intends “to remove the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation of the IRGC?” Or whether Iran will be required to “satisfactorily answer outstanding questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the discovery of undisclosed uranium particles at multiple cites?” Or whether “U.S. human rights programing in Iran [will] continue subsequent to an agreement?” Or any of the other multiple questions?
It’s hard to understand why groups who consider themselves pro-Israel, such as J Street or the Jewish Democratic Council of America, have not embraced these questions and are not publicly pressuring the Biden administration to give us answers. Are they satisfied with the deal as they now see it? Do they not believe in the value of full transparency?
It’s hard to understand why groups who consider themselves pro-Israel, such as J Street or the Jewish Democratic Council of America, have not embraced these questions and are not publicly pressuring the Biden administration to give us answers. Are they satisfied with the deal as they now see it?
In short, anyone who claims to be pro-Israel, or anyone, for that matter, who believes in governmental accountability, is entitled to get answers to these 16 critical questions.
I know what you’re thinking: The obvious reason the Biden administration hasn’t been more transparent is precisely because the deal is so weak. Instead of giving us what they promised — a “longer and stronger” deal — all indications are that they will give us a “shorter and weaker” deal. Who would want to show that off?
But even if you’re an automatic supporter of President Biden and will vote Democrat until your dying days; even if you couldn’t give a hoot about foreign policy compared to issues like gas prices and social justice; even if you think Biden is doing a great job isolating and punishing Putin for his invasion of Ukraine; even if you think Biden is pro-Israel in his kishkes— if you believe in holding our elected officials accountable, you have every right to demand answers to these 16 questions.
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images; Majid Saeedi/Getty Images; Peter Muhly – WPA Pool/Getty Images
If we don’t do it, who will? Let’s face it — when it comes to influencing our elected officials, “we the people” have more leverage than many foreign leaders. Someone like Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, for example, is constrained because he can’t afford to alienate the United States, Israel’s #1 ally. We don’t have that burden. If ever there was a time when Israel needed its supporters in America to speak up, this moment is it.
Let’s imagine that you’re a Trump-hating, diehard Democrat who also supports Israel. Are you not interested to know “how much money will Iran gain immediate access to when a deal is announced?” Or whether Vladimir Putin will become “the de facto judge of compliance with an agreement?”
I’ve rarely seen such unanimity around an issue. Unlike 2015, when those for the deal were at least as noisy as those against the deal, this time it’s as if the pro forces have gone into hiding. Maybe they realize what a tough sell it is, and they can’t wait until it’s behind them. Maybe they realize the lethal implication of the deal’s sunset clause: even in a best-case scenario in which Iran doesn’t cheat (hardly a given), within a few years an Iranian nuclear program will be perfectly legitimate. So, while this new deal would kick the nuclear can down the road, Israel and other countries would have to pick up the pieces.
Because Prime Minister Bennett has publicly announced that Israel would not be bound by any agreement, we can expect Israel to accelerate its covert efforts against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Starting with the insertion of Stuxnet into centrifuges in Natanz, the Israelis have used a combination of cyberwarfare and sabotage to slow down the regime’s nuclear program. The shame is that after signing a deal, the Biden administration would be precluded from partnering in this sabotage strategy to ensure its success.
Instead, if a deal goes through, we can expect tens of billions in sanctions relief to flow to the world’s #1 sponsor of terror, a predatory theocratic regime that has been fully transparent about its desire to annihilate the Jewish state.
liorpt/Getty Images
My friend and author Yossi Klein Halevi used the word “madness” to describe the state of affairs. He wrote in an email: “The madness of the Iran deal is to offer Iran this irresistible trade-off: Restrain your nuclear capabilities for a relatively few years, and you will be granted the financial power and diplomatic immunity to become the region’s conventional Muslim power, subverting and destroying nations — even while remaining on the nuclear threshold, with the sunset clauses all but ensuring eventual nuclear breakout.”
“The madness of the Iran deal is to offer Iran this irresistible trade-off: Restrain your nuclear capabilities for a relatively few years, and you will be granted the financial power and diplomatic immunity to become the region’s conventional Muslim power, subverting and destroying nations — even while remaining on the nuclear threshold, with the sunset clauses all but ensuring eventual nuclear breakout.”
–Yossi Klein Halevi
It’s natural to wonder why the world’s most powerful country would negotiate such a lousy deal with a murderous regime. Indeed, the head of Russia’s delegation, Ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov, said recently that “Iran got much more than it could expect, much more.”
As I wrote in a recent column, I’ve heard several explanations for this radical American eagerness:
“[Biden] views the deal as upholding his and Obama’s legacy; he wants to undo anything Trump did; he’s desperate for any kind of ‘win’ after the disastrous exit from Afghanistan; he needs to lower gas prices to boost his approval numbers, and removing the sanctions against oil-wealthy Iran will help do that; he’s just following the advice of his overeager negotiators in Vienna (which would mean, of course, ignoring the three members of his Iran team who quit last month because Biden was being too soft.)”
Regardless of motives, however, as far as national interests are concerned, outcomes trump intent. What matters more than anything right now is that our elected officials are rushing headlong into a deal that is weak and potentially dangerous. The burden of proof is on them.
Before they sign anything, they must answer our 16 questions. They work for us, remember?
As horrible as discrimination is, it is even worse when it is mandated by the government, which is exactly what a proposal by the University of California (UC) currently under consideration by the UC Academic Senate would result in if adopted.
The University of California is considering a proposal that would have the effect of not only requiring students to be indoctrinated in bias but also subjecting those students to a program that delegitimizes their very existence. The proposal is one that on its face is innocuous, but it is designed to ensure that one group that has a long track record of promoting antisemitism may be in charge of creating and helping to implement a course in ethnic studies that will become a requirement for admission to California’s flagship university system (one that is paid for by California taxpayers).
While forcing students to learn to hate themselves is reprehensible as a matter of policy, we believe it is also a violation of the First Amendment.
Many families in California expect that their children will have an opportunity to attend a UC campus and, in fact, admission to a UC campus is a legal right for each student in the top 9% of their class. The proposed new admissions requirement for the University of California, however, will require that each prospective UC student complete a high school ethnic studies course that will likely be in line with a model curriculum that is openly antisemitic. As a result, California high schools are expected to require completion of this curriculum, including private Jewish schools.
This will force parents to make a choice for their children: give up the right to attend the University of California or be subjected to a program of delegitimization and hate so they can realize the benefits of the UC system.
Under a legal theory known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, this kind of choice is patently unconstitutional.
An unconstitutional condition exists where “government offers a benefit on condition that the recipient perform or forego an activity that a preferred constitutional right normally protects from government interference.”
All three basic elements of this doctrine are met by UC’s ethnic studies proposal:
First, there must be someone or something (such as a governmental entity, like a state, or a corporate entity) with rights protected by the Constitution. Second, the government has to choose to provide a benefit where it is not otherwise required to do so. Finally, the government must condition the provision of the benefit on the rightsholder waiving its right.
In the case of the ethnic studies proposal, it’s clear that the unconstitutional condition is most applicable to situations where Jewish private schools, particularly those that include instruction on ethnic and religious identity and pride, will be forced to include teaching that is dictated or guided by a group promoting antisemitism.
Jewish private schools would be forced to include teaching that is dictated or guided by a group promoting antisemitism.
Many parents choose private schools specifically to ensure that their children have a positive sense of identity and knowledge of their backgrounds, as well as the best education in traditional topics, with the additional goal of qualifying for admission to the University of California system. The ethnic studies proposal is a regulation that will impact hardest ethnic and religious minority groups, especially those with a lower income, as the University of California system often represents the only affordable option for quality higher education. It would be difficult to find a more pernicious abuse of governmental power.
The imposition of unconstitutional conditions by government, especially on a critical right such as higher education, is a fundamental attack on the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
The proposed ethnic studies requirement is a textbook example of an unconstitutional condition.
The proposed ethnic studies requirement is a textbook example of an unconstitutional condition. Parents hold the right to provide an education for their children (and private schools hold the right to determine what they teach), the government benefit is taxpayer funded higher education available to all state residents (including a guarantee of admission for the top 9% of students) and the government will condition the government benefit on the students being indoctrinated in materials that strike at the heart of their identities, in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantees with regard to expression and religion.
The ethnic studies proposal is meant to remedy what some see as a system that has institutionalized discrimination. There are many ways to combat such discrimination, but state-mandated discrimination must not be one of them.
Marc Greendorfer is the President and co-founder of Zachor Legal Institute, a non-profit civil rights advocacy organization combating discrimination.
At least five people have been killed and one person has been wounded in two shootings in B’nei Brak, a heavily Orthodox city in the Tel Aviv area.
Police reportedly view the shootings as terror attacks; the B’nei Brak shooting was reportedly committed by an unknown individual on a motorcycle. The gunman, who was shot and killed, has been identified as Dia Hamarsha, 27, a Palestinian man from the West Bank town of Ya’bad. The terrorist was working illegally for an Israeli construction site; he had previously been imprisoned for six months in 2015 over his support for a terror organization and selling weapons illegally. A second suspect has also been arrested and police are currently working to rule out that another terrorist is at large.
One of the victims has been identified as Amir Khoury, 32, an Arab-Israeli police officer who shot and killed the terrorist.
This is 32-year-old Amir Khoury, an Arab citizen of Israel and an officer in the Israeli Police, who was killed responding to tonight's terror attack in Bnei Brak.
He managed to shoot and kill the attacker before succumbing to his wounds.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad have praised the shootings; video footage and photos circulating on social media showed Palestinians handing out sweets celebrating the terror attack.
Hamas has issued a statement praising tonight's terror attack in Bnei Berak, saying it was a "natural and legitimate response to the terrorism of the occupation.." pic.twitter.com/kLUk9aNgDm
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denounced the terror attack, saying in a statement “that the killing of Palestinian and Israeli civilians only leads the situation to deteriorate. The cycle of violence shows that a comprehensive, just and stable peace is the shortest, most correct path to security and stability for both peoples.”
It is the third terror attack in Israel in a week, killing 11 Israelis.
Following the shooting, various protesters started chanting “Death to Arabs” and “revenge.”
United States Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides tweeted, “My heart goes out to the families of the victims. No one should have to endure such heartbreak.”
Just now hearing reports of another attack in Israel, this time taking the lives of innocent people in Bnei Brak. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. No one should have to endure such heartbreak.
European Union (EU) Ambassador to the Israel Dimiter Tzanchev similarly tweeted, “Another despicable terror attack, which claimed more innocent lives. My thoughts are with the families of the victims & injured. [The EU] unequivocally condemns such senseless violence! We stand shoulder to shoulder with in these difficult times. Violent extremism will be defeated.”
Another despicable terror attack, which claimed more innocent lives. My thoughts are with the families of the victims & injured. 🇪🇺 unequivocally condemns such senseless violence! We stand shoulder to shoulder with 🇮🇱 in these difficult times. Violent extremism will be defeated.
“Israel should take all measures, both domestically and anywhere else in the world, where this deadly trail leads to hold accountable the entire food chain of terrorism that has led to these murderous attacks,” Rabbis Marvin Hier, Simon Wiesenthal Center CEO and Founder and Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean and Global Social Action Director of the Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement. “Secondly, on the eve of Ramadan, later this week, we call on all faith leaders in Israel and across the Muslim world to denounce these terror attacks, and instead, embrace the historic breakthrough of peace between Arab nations and the Jewish State.”
The European Leadership Network (ELNET) similarly said in a statement, “As terror rears its ugly head in Israel once again, ELNET condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism against the innocent. These heinous attacks were carried out by nefarious terrorists, some of whom pledged allegiance to ISIS, proving that such acts of terror continue to be a threat around the world – which must stand together to root out such evil.”
As terror rears its ugly head in Israel once again, ELNET condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism against the innocent.
American Jewish Committee Managing Director of Global Affairs Avi Mayer tweeted, “Twenty years ago, during the wave of terror known as the Second Intifada, Israelis were afraid to get on buses, to sit in cafes, to send their kids to school because you never knew when and where the next attack would take place. It’s starting to feel like that again.”
Twenty years ago, during the wave of terror known as the Second Intifada, Israelis were afraid to get on buses, to sit in cafes, to send their kids to school because you never knew when and where the next attack would take place.
StandWithUs Israel Executive Director Michael Dickson tweeted, “Multiple Islamist terror attacks in Israel this week. Innocents slain as they shopped or walked in the street. There is NO difference between these attacks and similar terror attacks in cities around the world. Except for the reporting of them.”
Multiple Islamist terror attacks in Israel this week.
Innocents slain as they shopped or walked in the street.
There is NO difference between these attacks and similar terror attacks in cities around the world.
America’s institutions are failing abysmally, and our ideals are starting to lose all meaning. Most of the trouble has to do with a ferocious aversion to truth.
The public has very little confidence in government. All this polarization makes consensus building impossible. And America’s leadership role in the world seems to have evaporated.
There’s even less public trust in the media, which has forsaken news for the higher truth of politically correct, intersectionally-sound, opinion. Each day our favorite “news” outlets underscore what we are to think and what we are not to say. And we dutifully oblige them rather than change the channel or log off.
High-tech tycoons live like Caesar and amuse themselves with the bread and circuses of social media, which entertains the mob with falsehoods and covert invasions of their privacy. Alexa and Siri are more like yentas than artificial intelligence devices. They hear everything within earshot, and then bombard us with ads about clearance sales and cruise vacations.
The life of the mind was once the province of our universities. Now they hand out life sentences in stupidity. Walking around campus with a head full of grievances, and parroting anti-racist slogans, all but assures a spot on Phi Beta Kappa.
The marketplace of ideas has shut its door, indefinitely. The tedium and uniformity of group think has tragically reduced all of our consumer choices. Dull and derivative is all that remains on the paltry prix fixe menu of what passes for thoughtful, essential and inspiring ideas.
The marketplace of ideas has shut its door, indefinitely. The tedium and uniformity of group think has tragically reduced all of our consumer choices.
School children are taught the protocols of Critical Race Theory, where overachievement is racist and grounding a student’s gender and identity is more important than reading, writing and mathematics.
Self-censorship has become more viral than all the COVID variants combined.
And worst of all, by all appearances, those responsible for these social pathologies—and the damage to our culture—couldn’t care less about what they have done.
Self-censorship has become more viral than all the COVID variants combined.
You can’t get a straight answer out of anyone these days. Here are some recent examples of head-spinning doublespeak:
President Joe Biden knows that inflation was a concern long before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, but he still blamed rising prices on Russia’s president. And, yes, we were initially told that the purpose behind imposing economic sanctions was to deter Russian aggression. This past week, however, President Biden had a very different recollection.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is eminently qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. She will be a distinguished Associate Justice, even if her interpretation of the Constitution differs from your own. But during her confirmation hearing, she refused to offer an opinion on court packing. Former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and sitting Justice Stephen Breyer, ideological liberals like Judge Brown Jackson, both stated their objections to the idea.
Indeed, her confirmation hearing left many questions unanswered. Does she feel that long-term incarceration undermines the goals of punishment? When she refused to get pinned down on the definition of a woman, was that an indication that she doesn’t believe that biological sex is determined at birth? In these days of increasing public focus on the rights of transgender people, it might have been interesting to hear her discuss the law as it may evolve.
Finally, as a board member on the Georgetown Day School, with its avowed anti-racist, gender-identity orientation, why not take a moment to let Republican senators know that they have nothing to fear from Critical Race Theory? Sen. Ted Cruz quoted from a children’s book assigned at the school in which the claim is made that white babies are born racist. Judge Brown Jackson thankfully said that she disagreed with that view, but her testimony came across as if she had never heard Critical Race Theory discussed anywhere outside of law schools, and certainly not at the Georgetown Day School.
Cruz was incredulous. So were many.
It may be true that if Judge Brown Jackson had been more forthcoming, it might have scuttled her confirmation to the High Court. The senate vote, after all, is anticipated to be along partisan lines, with Democrats owning a slim majority. That’s a shame. Justice Ginsburg, by comparison, received the support of 96 senators.
These contentious hearings became more routine, and public in nature, when Senate Democrats rejected Judge Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987. Bork, too, was eminently qualified, but the acrimony surrounding his nomination was perhaps a harbinger of where we are today—the common practice of bashing and banishing those with whom we disagree.
Also, this week, the New York Times decided, finally, to reveal to its readers—albeit begrudgingly since it was not front page news—that Hunter Biden’s laptop did, in fact, contain evidence of influence peddling in Ukraine and China while his father was a Senator and Vice-President. Joe Biden may have even benefitted from his son’s shady deals.
Was such blockbuster news not “fit to print” when it was hot off the presses? Actually, this story will no doubt be news to many, since the original reporting was censored. Broken by the New York Post right before the 2020 election, mainstream media and several intelligence chiefs immediately dismissed it as a misinformation hoax. Twitter embargoed any linkage to the story. The election of Joe Biden, and the downfall of Donald Trump, was deemed too important to leave to chance with such a bombshell of a story.
Hunter Biden’s legal troubles continue to mount. But will Americans ever insist on more transparency, and accountability, about this shameful coverup? Those who harbor doubts about the 2020 election can add this, and Hillary Clinton’s Steele dossier, to their list. And having doubts is not the same thing as falling for the “Big Lie.”
Yale Law School, often considered the finest in the country, clearly needs a refresher course on the First Amendment. Recently, over 100 students shouted down and berated guest speakers who arrived on campus with ideas that offended woke sensibilities. The disruption required the assistance of the police. The law school’s administration and faculty was astoundingly unembarrassed, and the students, of course, unrepentant. Fully two-thirds of them signed an open letter in support of the protest.
Well, at least he had the guts to say exactly what he meant.
Thane Rosenbaum is a novelist, essayist, law professor and Distinguished University Professor at Touro University, where he directs the Forum on Life, Culture & Society. He is the legal analyst for CBS News Radio. His most recent book is titled “Saving Free Speech … From Itself.”
The Canary Mission watchdog released a new report on March 28 detailing antisemitic social posts from various supporters of former USC Viterbi School of Engineering’s Viterbi Graduate Student Association Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Student Senator Yasmeen Mashayekh, who had previously been under fire for past social media posts.
As the Journal has previously reported, Mashayekh’s social media posts have included “I want to kill every motherf—ing Zionist,” “Curse the Jews [in Arabic],” “Zionists are going to f—ing pay,” “LONG LIVE THE INTIFADA” and “I f—ing love [H]amas.” The university responded by saying that “the antisemitic behavior we are witnessing is deeply troubling” and announced a series of measures to combat antisemitism on campus; however, they said her tweets are protected speech under the First Amendment.
The Canary Mission report states the watchdog conducted an investigation into the social media posts of supporters of Mashayekh and found that 35 Mashayekh supporters had more than 1000 posts “calling for death and violence, spreading classic antisemitism, declaring support for terrorism, hatred of Israel, Zionists, America and Canada and promoting [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement].” Some of these posts included:
Saying that “Zionists aren’t humans.”
Calling Palestinian terror victim David Eliyahu Kaye “a devil just like all the zios.”
Saying “I think it’s about time someone drops an atomic bomb on Israel.”
Saying “Long live Palestinian violent resistance.”
Overall, Canary Mission found that Mashayekh supporters had 290 posts promoting “hatred of Israel & Zionism,” 181 supporting terrorism, 170 promoting “hatred of Israelis & Zionists” and 137 “calls for death and violence.” Additionally, 57% of Mashayekh’s supporters were affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
The report concluded by criticizing USC for failing to take “appropriate and timely action” against Mashayekh. “The supporters of Yasmeen Mashayekh who are pressuring USC to protect her are equally as antisemitic and hate-filled as she is,” the report stated. “There can be no balancing act, no moral equivalency between those protesting hatred and those that peddle it.”
Mashayekh has told The Los Angeles Times that she doesn’t “feel safe on campus,” claiming that she is being subjected to “targeted harassment” and that the university has not adequately responded to her concerns. She also said she was removed from Virterbi’s website and is concerned about future employment opportunities and her loan payments. “I just really wish I didn’t have to think about what I would change. I wish people didn’t expect Palestinians to be the perfect victims.” Mashayekh has also claimed that her posts need to be viewed under the context of Palestinians having a “right to resist occupation” under international law.
Join us for the second half of the great conversation with Paul Reiser. We pick up where Paul talks about Johnny Carson’s huge impact and how it inspired the TV series ‘There’s Johnny’ that Paul co-wrote and co-created. He shares memories about the creation of the classic sit-com ‘Mad About You’ and the fabulous 2019 reboot. Mark and Paul reminisce about the annual New Year’s Day brunch tradition they shared with Jerry Seinfeld, Larry Miller and Michael Hampton-Cain. Mark and Paul share recollections about the camaraderie and support among their comedian friends, and much more!
Paul is back on the road! Check to see if Paul will be doing stand-up in your area. Tickets to his shows are available through his website: http://paulreiser.com/
