Noteworthy was Trump's statement to black and latino communities -- that he owes them a debt in his election and he will respond. Also of interest are articles like the one in Inside Higher Education that details the perception of DEI mid-level staff on DEI bans. More could be said about why DEI has been substituted for existing institutional channels against harassment and discrimination. An interview with Kaleb L. Briscoe
Q&A on the experiences of DEI professionals under DEI bans
"To the Black and Hispanic communities, I want to thank you for the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote. We set records, and I will not forget it. I've heard your voices in the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come."
What, if anything, can Trump & Co. do to address the absence of loving fathers in the homes of so many black children? Trigger warning for Truthophobes, I'm about to allude to evidence. The evidence of the importance to children of a loving father in the home is overwhelming. It should be common sense. The systemic "ism" we should be honest about is absenteeism... of fathers.
The narrative highlights enduring issues associated with white supremacist ideologies. There seem to be no apprehensions regarding the risk that white violent extremists involved in the January 6 insurrection that received a blanket pardon. This situation underscores a concerning distortion of law and order with white privilege.
“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today.” ― Thomas Sowell
"White supremacist ideologies" had nothing to do with the mind-numbingly dumb January 6th attacks, and nothing to do with the pardons, which I have opposed in writing many times.
Around 1965, sociologist Patrick Moynihan wrote a controversial paper about the out-of-wedlock birthrate reaching 25%. Of course, he was attacked by some as racist. What he predicted came to pass. With the rate now at 70%, "epidemic" is the correct word. It was no less than Barack Obama who made an important "Father's Day Speech." It was Jesse Jackson, the reverend who created his own love child with someone other than Mrs. Jackson, who got caught saying he wanted to cut Obama's nuts out for talking down to black folk. The evidence is overwhelming that good fathers matter.
Because we all know white people disproportionately commit crimes and that is why so many people want to move out of a neighborhood when it gets too white. Sorry, I thought it was April 1st.
Now, you should stop dodging the point and explain to us how systemic racism or "the Aryan Brotherhood" explain the epidemic of children growing up without the benefit of a positively-involved father. After you evade addressing that, or come up with some cockamamie explanation, you can inform readers whether the presence or absence of a loving father has on the subsequent outcomes for the children, regardless of the race of the parents.
I criticize any man of any color that fathers a child but is not a positively-involved father. Children's lives matter and they should matter more to their parents than anyone else. Feel encouraged to demonstrate a talent to refute that.
When it comes to "what's fueling that fire?," it is an effort to address the cancer of political correctness/DEI/wokeness that causes people to fear speaking their opinion and alluding to inconvenient facts. It is because so many people play the race/gender/Islamophobia card that this fear has, demonstrably, worsened.
When achieving "equity" requires viewing people as members of a group instead of as individuals, we get things such as Asian-Americans being held to higher standard in college admissions. We get lower standards for women when those standards, e.g. being a firefighter or police officer, matter.
You're dodging the point! So what if I swooped in to save some clueless guys from the clutches of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang? I can be a little wild myself, you know!
"Coming in very late to this discussion, I want to stress that there is a point at which black Americans will reach a level of individuation such that there cannot be a 'black' message. A fair look at history will always show that there is some fraction of a population that will care, and another that will not care about X Y or Z. It's somewhat annoying to hear agendas aimed at getting a critical mass of black Americans to do Z, and the question of Z is always central to racial politics. But as long as it's race, the goalposts will always move.
When are we going to get Irish to stop drinking gin? When are we going to get Italians to stop mobbing up? At some point you'll just be talking about drunkeness and crime. You'll have affinities towards or against such things. It will be the content of your character.
Today, people are too afraid to say some fraction of black Americans are just wrong. No politics is going to raise all boats of a particular color."
I'm fully aware of Mr. Bowen's history. His point was and is that black Americans cannot and should not be "aggregated" for any reason. You violated that principle and were rightly called on it. Black people, like white people, and any other racial or ethnic category you may choose are individuals with agency and boundless capacity. Focus on that and drop the tired and trite nostrums and bromides for one or another "community."
As long as people can be described as "black," then we can talk about them in the aggregate, just as we can talk about "people under 6 ft," or "people with red hair," or "Coca-Cola drinkers," or "Trump voters." In any event, your comments here suggest that you haven't read the article that you're commenting on. 😅 There isn't any hint in the article that black people are not "individuals with agency and boundless capacity" and there were no "trite nostrums and bromides" offered in it. It appears that you were looking for an opportunity to enlighten people with your wisdom and thought this would be the spot to do it. You were wrong. Focus on that.
You're a hack with nothing to offer your readers or (I've now ample reason to suspect) your students. Go tell your lies and slippery elisions elsewhere, and provide others the clean and fresh space to write things worth thinking about and acting on.
We'll be sure to advise Glenn Loury and the dozens of other authors who publish with us that no less an authority than Richard Bicker thinks their work that we've showcased here is hackery that is not worth thinking about.
Oh, isn’t it just fascinating how many white male child molesters seem to pop up in my community? I mean, who would’ve thought that some white mothers might actually enable this behavior just to keep their financial security intact? What a shocker!
I learned a lot from this piece and appreciate the lack of ideological bias. Well done!
👍
Thank you.
Noteworthy was Trump's statement to black and latino communities -- that he owes them a debt in his election and he will respond. Also of interest are articles like the one in Inside Higher Education that details the perception of DEI mid-level staff on DEI bans. More could be said about why DEI has been substituted for existing institutional channels against harassment and discrimination. An interview with Kaleb L. Briscoe
Q&A on the experiences of DEI professionals under DEI bans
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/diversity/race-ethnicity/2025/01/21/qa-experiences-dei-professionals-under-dei-bans
Trump "owes" black and latino "communities"? Really?
I was under the impression that the majority of both black and latino voters did NOT support Mr. Trump in last year's election? Am I wrong?
I suggest your read Mr. Bowen's statement (posted elsewhere in these comments) and consider his point in relation to President Trump's "debt."
"To the Black and Hispanic communities, I want to thank you for the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote. We set records, and I will not forget it. I've heard your voices in the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come."
Politics operates on a principle of reciprocal exchange.
Good read, thank you!
You’re welcome!
What, if anything, can Trump & Co. do to address the absence of loving fathers in the homes of so many black children? Trigger warning for Truthophobes, I'm about to allude to evidence. The evidence of the importance to children of a loving father in the home is overwhelming. It should be common sense. The systemic "ism" we should be honest about is absenteeism... of fathers.
The narrative highlights enduring issues associated with white supremacist ideologies. There seem to be no apprehensions regarding the risk that white violent extremists involved in the January 6 insurrection that received a blanket pardon. This situation underscores a concerning distortion of law and order with white privilege.
“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today.” ― Thomas Sowell
"White supremacist ideologies" had nothing to do with the mind-numbingly dumb January 6th attacks, and nothing to do with the pardons, which I have opposed in writing many times.
Around 1965, sociologist Patrick Moynihan wrote a controversial paper about the out-of-wedlock birthrate reaching 25%. Of course, he was attacked by some as racist. What he predicted came to pass. With the rate now at 70%, "epidemic" is the correct word. It was no less than Barack Obama who made an important "Father's Day Speech." It was Jesse Jackson, the reverend who created his own love child with someone other than Mrs. Jackson, who got caught saying he wanted to cut Obama's nuts out for talking down to black folk. The evidence is overwhelming that good fathers matter.
My prison caseload was like my neighborhood: a sea of white child molesters trying to outdo each other in the ‘bad choices’ Olympics!
Because we all know white people disproportionately commit crimes and that is why so many people want to move out of a neighborhood when it gets too white. Sorry, I thought it was April 1st.
Now, you should stop dodging the point and explain to us how systemic racism or "the Aryan Brotherhood" explain the epidemic of children growing up without the benefit of a positively-involved father. After you evade addressing that, or come up with some cockamamie explanation, you can inform readers whether the presence or absence of a loving father has on the subsequent outcomes for the children, regardless of the race of the parents.
It seems you’ve developed quite the talent for dishing out criticism—especially when it comes to Black folks. Care to share what’s fueling that fire?
I criticize any man of any color that fathers a child but is not a positively-involved father. Children's lives matter and they should matter more to their parents than anyone else. Feel encouraged to demonstrate a talent to refute that.
When it comes to "what's fueling that fire?," it is an effort to address the cancer of political correctness/DEI/wokeness that causes people to fear speaking their opinion and alluding to inconvenient facts. It is because so many people play the race/gender/Islamophobia card that this fear has, demonstrably, worsened.
When achieving "equity" requires viewing people as members of a group instead of as individuals, we get things such as Asian-Americans being held to higher standard in college admissions. We get lower standards for women when those standards, e.g. being a firefighter or police officer, matter.
You're dodging the point! So what if I swooped in to save some clueless guys from the clutches of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang? I can be a little wild myself, you know!
"black America"? Please define. Michael David Cobb Bowen might be able to help you (again) as he did in response to your March 2022 piece on "Closing the Racial Achievement Gap" https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/closing-the-racial-academic-achievement
Michael David Cobb Bowen (July 2022):
"Coming in very late to this discussion, I want to stress that there is a point at which black Americans will reach a level of individuation such that there cannot be a 'black' message. A fair look at history will always show that there is some fraction of a population that will care, and another that will not care about X Y or Z. It's somewhat annoying to hear agendas aimed at getting a critical mass of black Americans to do Z, and the question of Z is always central to racial politics. But as long as it's race, the goalposts will always move.
When are we going to get Irish to stop drinking gin? When are we going to get Italians to stop mobbing up? At some point you'll just be talking about drunkeness and crime. You'll have affinities towards or against such things. It will be the content of your character.
Today, people are too afraid to say some fraction of black Americans are just wrong. No politics is going to raise all boats of a particular color."
Here, "black America" merely means black Americans in the aggregate. (You may or may not realize it but Michael Bowen is a co-founder of FBT.)
I'm fully aware of Mr. Bowen's history. His point was and is that black Americans cannot and should not be "aggregated" for any reason. You violated that principle and were rightly called on it. Black people, like white people, and any other racial or ethnic category you may choose are individuals with agency and boundless capacity. Focus on that and drop the tired and trite nostrums and bromides for one or another "community."
As long as people can be described as "black," then we can talk about them in the aggregate, just as we can talk about "people under 6 ft," or "people with red hair," or "Coca-Cola drinkers," or "Trump voters." In any event, your comments here suggest that you haven't read the article that you're commenting on. 😅 There isn't any hint in the article that black people are not "individuals with agency and boundless capacity" and there were no "trite nostrums and bromides" offered in it. It appears that you were looking for an opportunity to enlighten people with your wisdom and thought this would be the spot to do it. You were wrong. Focus on that.
You're a hack with nothing to offer your readers or (I've now ample reason to suspect) your students. Go tell your lies and slippery elisions elsewhere, and provide others the clean and fresh space to write things worth thinking about and acting on.
We'll be sure to advise Glenn Loury and the dozens of other authors who publish with us that no less an authority than Richard Bicker thinks their work that we've showcased here is hackery that is not worth thinking about.
Not them. You. Just you.
Oh, isn’t it just fascinating how many white male child molesters seem to pop up in my community? I mean, who would’ve thought that some white mothers might actually enable this behavior just to keep their financial security intact? What a shocker!