\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Screen-Shot-2021-05-29-at-7.52.02-PM.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
Brandeis Dean Declares “Yes, All White People Are Racists”<\/strong><\/h1>\nBy Jonathan Turley<\/p>\n
Last year,\u00a0we discussed<\/a>\u00a0the controversy over the acting Northwestern Law Dean declaring publicly to\u00a0\u201cI am James Speta and I am a racist.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\nHe was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced,\u00a0\u201cI am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe public confessions reflect the view that all white people are racist due to their race and privilege \u2014 a view contested by some as itself a form of racial intolerance or bias.<\/p>\n
Now one of Brandeis\u2019 Assistant Deans,\u00a0Kate Slater<\/a>, has triggered a similar controversy after declaring \u201call white people are racists.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\nSlater is the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/2021-05-28_9-44-22.jpg?itok=fst3qRs6\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\nSlater\u00a0defines herself<\/a>\u00a0as an \u201canti-racism scholar\u201d who is seeks to \u201cfacilitate an understanding of race and racism through honest and frank conversations.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0In her discussion of \u201ccritical race theory,\u201d\u00a0she does not exclude herself from being a racist and insists that she does not hate white people, just \u201cwhiteness.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Such statements rankle many. It is doubtful that Brandeis would tolerate an academic saying that she does not hate black people, just \u201cblackness.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/slater1.jpg?itok=PXzuOoVb\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\nSlater\u00a0defines her role<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0helping \u201cWhite people conceptualize what sustained anti-racism can look like with the ultimate goal in mind: liberation from oppression for Black people and people of color.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Ironically, this is an effort to get \u201cwhite\u00a0folx<\/a>\u201d not to fear critical race theory which clearly did not work with a number of\u00a0conservative sites<\/a>:<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/slater2.jpg?itok=742tk4rJ\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\nI have a different take on this controversy from some who have denounced Slater as engaging in simply another form of \u201crace baiting.\u201d I agree with Slater that we should be debating this issue. This is a view among many academics and should be respected as a good-faith understanding of the source of racism.<\/p>\n
The problem is that critical race theorists and advocates often insist that we must have a dialogue on race but it tends to be more of a diatribe.<\/strong>\u00a0For an academic to voice opposing views on such issues is to risk investigation, re-training, or even termination, as we have discussed in past cases. The only dialogue allowed in these sessions tends to be the willingness to accept the underlying premises rather than alternative viewpoints.\u00a0 Indeed, most sessions are treated as \u201ctrainings\u201d to address \u201cwhiteness:\u201d and \u201cwhite privilege\u201d rather than debating if this view is itself racially intolerant.\u00a0 The same is true at\u00a0corporations like Lockheed<\/a>\u00a0where top executives were sent into mandatory training to address \u201cwhite male culture\u201d and \u201cwhite male privilege.\u201d<\/p>\nSlater says that she seeks \u201can understanding of race and racism through honest and frank conversations\u201d but it is clearly a discussion premised on the assumption of all white people being racist and \u201cwhiteness\u201d being hateful. It is designed to be more therapeutic and transformative for white people than a real debate of the assumptions and stereotypes underlying this aspect of critical race theory.<\/strong><\/p>\nIt is a loss in my view and inhibits true evolution of viewpoints and assumptions. I accept that I many be blind or insensitive to racial bias or privilege, but I have serious concerns over the bias shown in some of these lectures and supporting material.<\/p>\n
Colleges and universities were once places where controversial subjects could be debated in a passionate but civil exchange.<\/strong>\u00a0 Assumptions were challenged and data reviewed. That is not happening on many of the issues that face us today. Certain subjects are treated as off-limits. We have been discussing the targeting of professors who voice dissenting opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement, police shootings, or aspects of the protests around the country from the\u00a0University of Chicago<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0Cornell<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0Harvard<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0other schools<\/a>.\u00a0Students have also been sanctioned<\/a>\u00a0for criticism BLM and anti-police views at\u00a0various colleges<\/a>. Even a high school principal was\u00a0fired for stating that \u201call lives matter.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\nI obviously follow a robust view of free speech that is out of vogue today. I have no problem with extreme views being voiced on campus so long as schools allow countervailing views also to be voiced. For that reason, I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments \u201cdetonating white people<\/a>,\u201d\u00a0denouncing police<\/a>,\u00a0calling for Republicans to suffer<\/a>,\u00a0\u00a0strangling police officers<\/a>,\u00a0celebrating the death of conservatives<\/a>,\u00a0calling for the killing of Trump supporters<\/a>, supporting the\u00a0murder of conservative protesters\u00a0<\/a>and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History\u00a0Erik Loomis,\u00a0<\/a>who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw\u00a0\u201cnothing wrong\u201d with such acts of violence<\/a>.<\/p>\nWe cannot make true progress unless we are able to speak openly and freely on such subjects.\u00a0<\/strong>Many disagree with the views of academics like Slater but few faculty members are willing to raise such disagreements openly on campus. To do so is to risk being labeled as an example of reactionary white privilege and hostility. Without such freedom to challenge underlying assumptions or viewpoints, these sessions will be viewed as indoctrinations rather than real discussions of race in society.\u00a0That will serve to silence many but convince few.<\/strong><\/p>\n
He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced,\u00a0\u201cI am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The public confessions reflect the view that all white people are racist due to their race and privilege \u2014 a view contested by some as itself a form of racial intolerance or bias.<\/p>\n Now one of Brandeis\u2019 Assistant Deans,\u00a0Kate Slater<\/a>, has triggered a similar controversy after declaring \u201call white people are racists.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Slater is the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.<\/p>\n Slater\u00a0defines herself<\/a>\u00a0as an \u201canti-racism scholar\u201d who is seeks to \u201cfacilitate an understanding of race and racism through honest and frank conversations.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0In her discussion of \u201ccritical race theory,\u201d\u00a0she does not exclude herself from being a racist and insists that she does not hate white people, just \u201cwhiteness.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Such statements rankle many. It is doubtful that Brandeis would tolerate an academic saying that she does not hate black people, just \u201cblackness.\u201d<\/p>\n Slater\u00a0defines her role<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0helping \u201cWhite people conceptualize what sustained anti-racism can look like with the ultimate goal in mind: liberation from oppression for Black people and people of color.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Ironically, this is an effort to get \u201cwhite\u00a0folx<\/a>\u201d not to fear critical race theory which clearly did not work with a number of\u00a0conservative sites<\/a>:<\/p>\n I have a different take on this controversy from some who have denounced Slater as engaging in simply another form of \u201crace baiting.\u201d I agree with Slater that we should be debating this issue. This is a view among many academics and should be respected as a good-faith understanding of the source of racism.<\/p>\n The problem is that critical race theorists and advocates often insist that we must have a dialogue on race but it tends to be more of a diatribe.<\/strong>\u00a0For an academic to voice opposing views on such issues is to risk investigation, re-training, or even termination, as we have discussed in past cases. The only dialogue allowed in these sessions tends to be the willingness to accept the underlying premises rather than alternative viewpoints.\u00a0 Indeed, most sessions are treated as \u201ctrainings\u201d to address \u201cwhiteness:\u201d and \u201cwhite privilege\u201d rather than debating if this view is itself racially intolerant.\u00a0 The same is true at\u00a0corporations like Lockheed<\/a>\u00a0where top executives were sent into mandatory training to address \u201cwhite male culture\u201d and \u201cwhite male privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n Slater says that she seeks \u201can understanding of race and racism through honest and frank conversations\u201d but it is clearly a discussion premised on the assumption of all white people being racist and \u201cwhiteness\u201d being hateful. It is designed to be more therapeutic and transformative for white people than a real debate of the assumptions and stereotypes underlying this aspect of critical race theory.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is a loss in my view and inhibits true evolution of viewpoints and assumptions. I accept that I many be blind or insensitive to racial bias or privilege, but I have serious concerns over the bias shown in some of these lectures and supporting material.<\/p>\n Colleges and universities were once places where controversial subjects could be debated in a passionate but civil exchange.<\/strong>\u00a0 Assumptions were challenged and data reviewed. That is not happening on many of the issues that face us today. Certain subjects are treated as off-limits. We have been discussing the targeting of professors who voice dissenting opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement, police shootings, or aspects of the protests around the country from the\u00a0University of Chicago<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0Cornell<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0Harvard<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0other schools<\/a>.\u00a0Students have also been sanctioned<\/a>\u00a0for criticism BLM and anti-police views at\u00a0various colleges<\/a>. Even a high school principal was\u00a0fired for stating that \u201call lives matter.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n I obviously follow a robust view of free speech that is out of vogue today. I have no problem with extreme views being voiced on campus so long as schools allow countervailing views also to be voiced. For that reason, I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments \u201cdetonating white people<\/a>,\u201d\u00a0denouncing police<\/a>,\u00a0calling for Republicans to suffer<\/a>,\u00a0\u00a0strangling police officers<\/a>,\u00a0celebrating the death of conservatives<\/a>,\u00a0calling for the killing of Trump supporters<\/a>, supporting the\u00a0murder of conservative protesters\u00a0<\/a>and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History\u00a0Erik Loomis,\u00a0<\/a>who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw\u00a0\u201cnothing wrong\u201d with such acts of violence<\/a>.<\/p>\n We cannot make true progress unless we are able to speak openly and freely on such subjects.\u00a0<\/strong>Many disagree with the views of academics like Slater but few faculty members are willing to raise such disagreements openly on campus. To do so is to risk being labeled as an example of reactionary white privilege and hostility. Without such freedom to challenge underlying assumptions or viewpoints, these sessions will be viewed as indoctrinations rather than real discussions of race in society.\u00a0That will serve to silence many but convince few.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n