Why the Woman Appointed to a Top Education Department Post Is Under Fire

During Barack Obama’s administration, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights was staffed with “progressives” who were intent on pushing federal policy in ways that advanced their visions of what education should accomplish and how schools must treat students.

But as the former president himself observed, “elections have consequences” and we are seeing them in the Trump administration’s choices of personnel in the Department. Attorney Candice E. Jackson has been appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, where she will have a key role in making federal policy.

Her appointment has a lot of people upset because Jackson is about as far from a “progressive” as possible.

She earned her law degree from Pepperdine in 2002 and then took a position with Judicial Watch, an organization that has been a vigorous opponent of government corruption and overreach since 1994. In 2004, she co-authored an article in Reason magazine, “Washington’s Biggest Crime Problem,” in which she and William Anderson argued that the government’s constantly expanding criminal code leads to many injustices. Reason is a libertarian magazine where few if any federal officials have ever published.

In 2005, Jackson wrote a book entitled Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, which firmly established her credentials as a non-progressive.

Over the years, she has also written for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Independent Institute, both organizations that favor minimal government and oppose the abuse of the law for political ends.

Candice Jackson is exactly the sort of individual the Education Department needs to reverse the growth of federal intrusion into higher education as exemplified by the Office for Civil Rights’ “Dear Colleague” letters that have caused so much trouble. Back on March 1, I wrote that sweeping change is imperative in the Office for Civil Rights and Jackson appears to be just the person to spearhead such change.

Naturally, she has come under attack by people who don’ t want any retrenchment in the Education Department’s power.

Writing on ProPublica on April 14, Annie Waldman questioned whether Jackson would “actively investigate allegations of unfair treatment against women and minorities.”

Seeing an opening to attack Jackson, on April 24, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights sent a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Speaking for a large number of leftist organizations, the letter belittles her, stating, “In past writings, Ms. Jackson appeared to be ignorant of the history and continued presence of race and sex discrimination, as evidenced by her claims that equal opportunity/affirmative action policies discriminate against White students.”

These groups object to Jackson’s appointment because she supposedly fails “to demonstrate a commitment to core American values of equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, and diversity as well as a respect for the rule of law.”

There’s a huge problem here, however. Jackson’s demonstrated commitment to legal equality and the rule of law runs counter to the view of civil rights organizations that the government must continue to favor certain groups, but is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s many decisions against affirmative action and racial preferences. It isn’t Jackson who is out of step with the law, but rather the civil rights groups.

Was it wrong for Jackson to argue that white students (a term that presumably includes Asians) should not be disadvantaged by the civil rights laws? Not according to the Supreme Court, which held in 1976 (McDonald v. Santa Fe Transport Co.) that white Americans are just as much protected by the Civil Rights Act as are members of minority groups.

The Court has repeatedly disallowed race-specific programs such as scholarships restricted to students from certain groups or race-based classes. And with regard to racial preferences in college admissions, it ruled against quotas in Gratz v. Bollinger and held that preferences for the sake of “diversity” must be narrowly tailored and subject to strict judicial scrutiny in Fisher v. University of Texas.

Jackson’s view of the civil rights laws is that they mean exactly what they say and nothing more. They apply to individuals who have been mistreated, but do not call for or justify the kinds of group entitlement policies that the civil rights industry advocates. That is why it wants her out of the Education Department.

From Jackson’s writings on the overextension of federal law, it also seems clear that she would oppose the abuse of “guidance” letters to make new law, as the Education Department did during the Obama years, and would insist that the Department abide by the Administrative Procedure Act for any proposed regulations, which it did not.

Commenting here on the attack on Jackson by the left, Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who worked in the Office for Civil Rights during the administration of George W. Bush) writes, “It’s odd to defend clear-cut violations of the law and then complain that the law isn’t being enforced harshly enough. But that’s what the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and a gaggle of left-wing groups recently did.”

He’s right. The Leadership Council’s complaint that Candice Jackson does not support equality and the rule of law has things exactly backward. She does support equality and the rule of law and that is exactly why she is, in the view of these interest groups, not suitable for the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

The prospect of a top Education Department official who does not advocate imposing new policies through administrative fiat and would take the focus of civil rights enforcement in education off the “progressive” mania for group equality is exciting.

  • OriginalRS

    Or we could just get rid of these dopey “civil rights” divisions scattered all over the federal bureaucracy; that would be the REAL libertarian solution.

    • Gary Hoffman

      At least combine them in one division of an agency for consistency.

      • ThomasA

        I’m not sure creating a *bigger* government bureaucracy will fix the problem. Government agencies tend to get worse, more abusive, and more out of touch as they grow larger.

    • annademo

      I agree about dismantling the departments. What about replacing them with an ombudsman at each agency to handle complaints? One person with a very small staff.

  • As one who, when forced to pick one of the regnant simplistic political labels for myself, chooses ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’–NOT including the Loony Left extremists so powerful today on campuses–I basically applaud this article. And I have a great deal of personal academic experience to do so.

    –a Professor Emeritus

  • lospicaros

    It they don’t want her, then we need her.

  • bittman

    She sounds like just the person needed to clean up the mess made by the Far Left progressives who have worked in Education’s Office of Civil Rights. All of the Social Justice and policies implemented by the Far Left are dividing Americans more and more every day by race, color, sex, gender, religion, economic conditions, etc., as recommended by the Socialist/Communist Frankfurt School.

  • DrOfnothing

    Thank god that white people finally have someone to defend their civil rights. And it is so much neater and cheaper to do it with tax-funded lawyers than it is with the more traditional methods of riot police, dogs, and water cannons.

    • ToursLepantoVienna

      Another leftist troll blocked. The week is off to a good start.

    • OriginalRS

      Says the self-hating white progressive. You must be happy with the French election, here’s your hashtag for the next Paris bombing/beheading/killings: #YouChoseThis

      • DrOfnothing

        Last time someone was beheaded in Paris was during the French Revolution.

        • OriginalRS

          The priest in Rouen was reportedly beheaded, despite propagandistic western journalists calling it a “throat slit”, so your Paris “statistic” is meaningless drivel. Yes, I saw the debates, and anyone who voted for a globalist buffoon like Macron (and his weird Oedipal marriage) over Le Pen is an imbecile. Le Pen at least wanted to defend the French and French culture, to some degree at least. Macron is too stupid to know there is such a thing as French culture, besides the platitudes of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”. Like most ignorant politicians in our country and theirs. The idea that Le Pen was any kind of supporter of “white nationalism” , or anything else even moderately extreme is leftist idiocy.

          • DrOfnothing

            Your refusal to acknowledge that Le Pen, who is, by definition, a politician of the far right, and is recognized as such by every single analyst of any repute, indicates either a basic rejection of political fact or a profound misunderstanding of the political spectrum in Europe. Le Pen made some effort to “de-demonize” her party, but with mixed results. She remained the candidate of choice for the traditional National Front extremists, and her vicious attacks on Macron in the debate seemed to give the lie to her claims that the NF had successfully reformed and was now part of the political mainstream.

            Your extraordinary disrespect towards the majority of French voters (65% of them are imbeciles) is not an attitude shared by anyone with a rational and moderate view of politics.

          • OriginalRS

            I understand the spectrum just fine, and BS leftists like you trying to define it as left-wing as possible. Macron is a former member of the Socialist govt. and is in no way any kind of “centrist”. You don’t produce any evidence of Le Pen’s extremism because you can’t. The 65% made an imbecilic decision this time, mainly because too many buy into absurd definitions of the political spectrum and what is “far right” and “far left”, just like you. There hardly is any “far right” anymore in Europe or America.

          • DrOfnothing

            There is so much that is factually inaccurate with this that I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start with the rise of right-wing nationalism in Europe, here’s one of hundreds of articles written on the topic:

            Please feel free to post counter examples showing that nationalist, anti-immigrant, pro-militaristic parties that make repeated reference to rigid ethnic divisions as the cornerstone of culture and society are somehow _not_ far right.

            Macron, as mentioned earlier, quit the Socialist party entirely. None of his current policies adhere to that party’s platform. He has set himself up as an outsider that rejects both the traditional Left (Socialist) and the traditional right (not Front Nationale, but Fillon’s Republicans). Le Pen, similarly, rejected, the traditional parties–FN is, as anyone who has taken even a cursory look at this, well to the right of the Republicans (making them, by definition, a far right party). “Far Right” is not an absolute term, it is defined by where a party is on the spectrum of political parties _in that country_.

            I’m sorry, but this is not a fruitful conversation. You seem to be lacking a basic understanding of political science and of the political situation in France specifically. I’ve spent most of the last six months living there, following this election closely in both the French and English language papers. And I teach European politics and History, among other things. If you are interested in a more accurate, objective view of these topics, I would start with a good textbook on the history of modern France and go from there. Here’s a standard one:

            I’m sure you’ll find it interesting and it will give you a very useful perspective on current events.

          • OriginalRS

            Hey genius, you can’t use a leftist source like the New Statesman to make a objective point about anything. They have a biased interest in asserting the falsehood that Jobbik or Golden Dawn are the same as the National Front and UKIP when they are not. If you’re a teacher, no wonder you are so left-wing and biased. You may love the idea that Fillon and the British Tories and neocon Republicans in the USA are “traditional Right” but they are mostly right wing liberals. And the only thing that is feeding any extremism on the right in europe like Golden Dawn is people like yourself denying the negative realities of transformative immigration on the caucasian native peoples. There is still more left-wing extremism by any measure, which is ignored by most of the powers that be. Le Pen is far less extreme than Melenchon and the media would have supported him if he had made the final round.

          • DrOfnothing

            You’re right about the Golden Dawn, they are the craziest of the lot. But are you really arguing that Neocon Republicans are “right-wing Liberals?” Considering that the JMC is a Neocon edifice, and its authors repeatedly hold up Liberals as akin to Fascists, I imagine Leef and the other staff and writers would disagree.

            The idea that Europe is composed mostly of “native caucasian peoples” is a complete fantasy to begin with. The entire continent has been a nexus of immigration for thousands of years. “Caucasian” is a profoundly inexact term to begin with, and not one that analysts with any knowledge of history and culture would every attempt to use in that context, at least, not since the 1930s. The French don’t even use the term, nor do the British, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Dutch, etc.

            As for immigration being “transformative” for Europe’s imagined “native caucasian peoples,” this is simply not the case. The real issue in France is an economic malaise at which deindustrialization is at the root, but compounded by neo-Liberal globalisation, poor economic management, and the intractable conflict between capital and labour (powerfully unionised). The EU has certainly made these countries more cosmopolitan, but only because it’s brought in other Europeans (e.g. Poles). French cities have always had a significant population of French-speaking north Africans for the same reason that Britain has always had a significant population of Caribbean and South Asian people–it’s a legacy of their former colonial empires. The Syrian Civil war has prompted a refugee crisis, and that’s a serious issue, but it’s also a temporary one.

            Over the past two decades, non-European immigration, much ballyhooed by right-wing politicians, has not had any profound effect on the culture or politics of any particular European country beyond providing a blunt instrument for those same politicians to scare-monger. It’s something to which only the credulous, the uninformed, the economically marginalised, or those who subscribe to the crudest form of ethnic nationalism would look for explanations of much more complex changes in the political, social, and economic dynamics of individual countries. Heck, to even talk about “Europe” as some kind of homogeneous entity is a profound oversimplification.

          • OriginalRS

            You were right before, there is no point in continuing with someone as radically misinformed as you are. Islamic immigration has created virtual no go zones for French police/authorities in certain areas and radically transformed mid-size cities like Malmo, Sweden and many others into something unrecognizable to what they were 25 years ago. Larger, more important cities like London are radically different from what they were 25 or even 20 years ago as well, mostly due to Tony Blair and Labour’s radical immigration, unwanted by the majority of England. http://www.vdare.com/posts/how-immigration-transformed-london-into-an-unbritish-city

            Like all left-wingers obsessed with “racism”, you want to deny the unique characteristics of european peoples that are specifically culturally Christian and very distinct from other peoples, like middle eastern Muslims, Asians, etc. The “common tactic” politicians have been using over there as well as in North America for over 30 years is exactly that, to prevent native peoples from controlling their own populations. It’s failing as a manipulative tactic, fortunately, as Le Pen’s 35% compared to the 20% or so her father won 15 years ago shows. Maybe next time she’ll win. Hopefully.

          • DrOfnothing

            I ask for reliable evidence and you offer . . . vdare.com?
            Your assertions are wholly ideologically, profoundly misinformed, and have no basis in objective evidence.

            I’ve lived in London, on and off, for nearly 25 years, and I was born there. I have also been writing its history, professionally, for the last 15. It has not been “radically transformed.” It remains as it always has been, a cosmopolitan city entirely free of the hysteria you seem to feel about immigration. The same is true of Paris, where I have close relatives and also spend considerable amounts of time.

            As for Europe being “culturally Christian,” that is simply not correct. The US is far more so, and even that only outside the major cities. The 2nd choice of the UK population on surveys of religion is “other/agnostic.” And Anglicanism has been more of a civil faith than a spiritual choice for more than a century. Neither the Scandinavians nor the Germans, outside of sparsely-populated rural areas, are particularly religious. Catholicism remains the majority faith in France, Spain, and Italy, but these places, like Britain, are also incredibly cosmopolitan in culture.

            Really, you should travel to these places and see for yourself rather than believing the hyperbole published by unreliable online sources. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter, and there seems little point in continuing this, especially given your penchant for projecting stereotypes and making personal insults rather than offering original insights or reliable evidence. I sincerely hope you will make an effort to better understand these regions, their peoples, and their histories.

          • OriginalRS

            Vdare is a lot more reliable than the New Statesman.

          • DrOfnothing

            I’ve been living in central London, along with the majority of the city’s population. The outer boroughs (formerly industrial areas), might as well be the Hebrides for most of the residents of the city proper (who live in Zones 1-3). They have very little cultural relevance for the city–no more than, say, Yonkers has for Manhattan or Alexandria for Washington DC. They are largely working-class areas, and remain largely working-class areas. But the white British residents moved out once the industrial jobs declined and the rents in London started to go up.

            “Vdare is a lot more reliable than the New Statesman.” No, it most certainly is not. The New Statesman, whether or not you agree with its articles, is a professional journal that publishes quality work, carefully reviewed and edited. Vdare is a white nationalist site that has no professional journalism, no professional editorial review, and publishes ideological screeds. It makes even Breitbart look tame by comparison. It’s also on the list of several organizations (including the SLPC), that track extremist groups.

          • OriginalRS

            Yeah, your anecdotal blather about the city is more reliable than actual stats of their ethnic composition over the last 25 years, I’m sure. VDARE is mainstream conservatism. Always referred to absurdly as “white nationalist” by leftists like yourself.

          • DrOfnothing

            Vdare is _not_ mainstream Conservatism. But let’s not get distracted from the issue at hand.

            Your argument seems to be the following, if I understand it correctly:
            1.) “European culture” is a homogenous entity that is caucasian and Christian.
            2.) This caucasian, Christian culture has, in recent decades, been diluted by immigrants who are non-caucasian, non-Christian, or both.
            3.) This is having awful, but unspecified, negative effects on these societies.
            4.) Your views are based on reading Vdare, an explicitly anti-immigration website with no journalistic credentials or research base.
            5.) You have never spent any significant amount of time in either France or London, which were the main areas under discussion, nor are you knowledgeable about the history of either France or England.

            In other words, you have strong opinions on the subject, but they are not based on any objective evidence or sustained observation. That’s fine, you are welcome to your opinions, but let’s not pretend that they are anything beyond that.

          • OriginalRS

            Pompous intoning on “journalistic standards”, from the guy who uses the SPLC. And insists the New Statesman is anything but a leftist rag. I’ve spent plenty of time in London, as if you would have any idea otherwise, none of which is relevant to the FACTUAL point I made about London’s radical transformation due to immigration, which I provided links for. You’re really an idiot, aren’t you? Wish I could say I don’t believe you’ve taught anywhere, but, sadly, I do, as you are representative of so much of academia. Lefty politicized and ignorant beyond belief.

          • DrOfnothing

            No, you provided information about immigration statistics, largely confined to particular outlying areas of London, not about its “negative” consequences. You’ve done nothing whatsoever to prove your points beyond links to your favourite ideological sounding-boards, and when confronted with this failure, you result to personal insults and diversions (e.g. the SPLC, which I simply used as counter-example to Vdare). That’s fine, since it only emphasizes the fundamental weakness of your arguments and your lack of any reliable evidence for your very strong opinions on these topics. Now that you’ve gone completely uncivil, this conversation is over.

          • OriginalRS

            I provided info on London’s demographics you dishonest douche. Not “outlying areas”. Which is what we were talking about. You’re really in way WAY over your head.

          • DrOfnothing

            Now, now, just because you are losing an argument is no reason to use disgusting language or start throwing your toys. I’ll leave you with a bit more information to chew over at your leisure and then go my merry way:

            1.) You need to read more deeply into the BBC article you posted–it talks about the white British population of London, but explains much of the chance is due to white WC residents moving out of the post-industrial perimeter and on to smaller towns and cities where the qualify of life is better.
            2.) I did not argue that the demographics of the UK were changing over time, I merely disagreed with you that they had the unavoidable negative consequences or that UK society as a whole was undergoing a massive, rapid cultural transformation. Unless you view white WC living in larger houses as a negative consequence, you have not explained the grounds for either claim. I can only deduce, from your other statements, that it is because you believe that any reduction in the caucasian, Christian population is a priori a “negative consequence.” If that is your belief, fine, but it’s certainly not based on any objective economic, political, or social analysis.
            3.) If you had examined demographic changes in the UK more closely, you would have found that, though noticeable, they are hardly “transformative,” nation-wide. For example, the total Asian or Asian-British population rose only from 4.5% to just under 7% from 2001-2011. In terms of religion, the Muslim population (the focus much media attention) has risen less than 2% in the same period (from 2.71% to 4.41%). This has been more _visible_ in some areas than in other (e.g. London, Birmingham), but that doesn’t not make it more significant in terms of national culture.
            4.) Apparent declines in the Christian population are also overstated, simply because in 2001, filling in your own reiligon (counted as “no religion” in the final census) was not an option. In 2010, these were the 2nd largest categories after Christian (inc. 177,000 who put “Jedi Knight”). 25% for “no religion” and 7% for “religion not stated.” So, the apparent decline in self-reported Christians, from just over 70% to 60% is almost certainly _not_ something that happened rapidly. The secularisation of the UK has been happening for generations, but it only became apparent in the Census in 2011, with the introduction of these new categories.
            5.) The logical conclusion to draw from this is not that the country is undergoing a vast and radical cultural transformation. There is simply no evidence to support this assertion. Rather, it’s that a number of long-term trends–Asian immigration, secularisation, the decline of the industrial WC and the rise of service industries and their ambivalent class identity–are underway, much as they are in most European countries.

            BTW, you are in good company–a majority of the population in both the US and the UK massively overestimates the minority population, and that of Muslims in particular.


            Anyway, that’s as much statistical analysis as I’m willing to put into this discussion. If none of this is more convincing to you than a blog post on Vdare, let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

          • OriginalRS

            You haven’t disputed a single thing I’ve said, you putz.

          • DrOfnothing

            Demographic change and cultural transformation are not the same thing. You seem more interested in insulting those who disagree civilly with you rather than engaging in an adult discussion. Good day.

          • OriginalRS

            The demographic change has gone hand in hand with the Islamic cultural changes that are well documented. Such as Malmo, which I already mentioned, if you’d been listening, now a violent and crime-ridden city, thanks wholly to Muslim immigration. Perhaps because you’re so ignorantly insult-worthy? http://www.dailywire.com/news/12466/how-muslim-migration-made-malmo-sweden-crime-michael-qazvini

          • DrOfnothing

            The link is to a piece of fluff–there are no statistics or other evidence cited.

            From the BBC, which you quoted before, so I assume you think is at least somewhat reliable:
            “Malmo, along with other urban centres in Sweden, has one of the highest levels of reported rapes in proportion to population in the EU, mainly due to the strictness of Swedish laws and how rape is recorded in the country.
            The rate of reported rapes in Malmo has not dramatically risen in recent years and has in fact declined from its peak in 2010, before the recent large increases in refugees.

            It is not possible to connect crimes to the ethnicity of the perpetrators as such data is not published”

            Here’s a more detailed statistical analysis:

            The evidence, again, simply does not support your opinions, largely because you are getting them from wholly unreliable sources.

            BTW, the term “ignorantly insult-worthy” doesn’t mean what you suggest it does, unless you are claiming that I am ignorant of being worthy of insult (you wanted to say that I am ignorant and _therefore_ deserve to be insulted, I presume). I would like to think that I am well worth insulting, as anyone in command of reliable evidence that challenges our own deeply-held prejudices is, I simply ask you not to do so if you want to have any type of mature discussion.

          • OriginalRS

            Shouldn’t you be off tweeting hateful sh*^ about Roger Ailes dying by now, like the rest of the leftist goon squaders? Instead of, you know, continuing to embarrass yourself here?

          • DrOfnothing

            Finally, something relevant. Though why you would link to a piece where Simon Schama thoroughly debunks everything you have argued thusfar is certainly a curious move.

            The rest of this is irrelevant ranting, and there are other forums more appropriate for that type of vitriol. If you cannot sustain a mature, civil disagreement, I suggest you go there instead. Good day.

          • OriginalRS

            Yeah, that’s why the debate went from a 70+ for the proposition to welcome more immigration, to a 55-45 for proposition, because Schama and Arbour won so handedly, over Farage and Steyn. LOL. What a strategy that was, defending child rape by Muslim immigrants because they do bring diversity after all. They moved the debate a good 15 points against themselves in a tailor made Toronto liberal audience, no less, filled with people as comically confused as you about immigration and cultural transformation.

            You must be a masochist to keep going here. What’s that like?

    • bdavi52

      Why do you see this through a racist lens?
      Do White people NOT deserve to have their civil rights defended? Do Black people NOT deserve to have THEIR civil right defended?

      Would you not agree that all American citizens are owed the exact same rights & privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of skin color tint?

      Or do you think the government should continue to subsidize and support racial discrimination? Do you think certain demographic groups deserve special privileges & exemptions? Do you think Justice should NOT be color-blind?

      • DrOfnothing

        I don’t see it through a racist lens, but an historical one. Justice should be color-blind, but there is little evidence to demonstrate that it is. Outside of these forums and others from the neo-con spectrum, there is very little insistence that white people’s civil rights are under threat, while the reports of civil rights abuse against minorities appear daily.

        • bdavi52

          Have historical injustices occurred? Of course they have. That is not the question, though.

          You said, “Thank god that white people finally have someone to defend their civil rights”. I assume you said so facetiously, satirically. My question in response was very simple: “Do White people NOT deserve to have their civil rights defended? Do Black people NOT deserve to have their civil rights defended?”

          Would you not agree that all American citizens are owed the exact same rights & privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of skin color tint?

          I would assume, since you insist that you are not seeing all this through a racist lens, that you would agree (despite the sarcasm) that yes, indeed, all American citizens (White, Black, Brown, Green, etc.) deserve to have their civil rights defended. In which case, can we equally assume that you would agree that Jackson’s selection would seem to be a move in a positive direction as her view “of the civil rights laws is that they mean exactly what they say and nothing more. They apply to individuals who have been mistreated, but do not call for or justify the kinds of group entitlement policies that the civil rights industry advocates.”

          • DrOfnothing

            There is no “civil rights industry.” It’s a fantasy promoted by Leef and those who share his ideological bent. Any sane administration chooses some appointees, at least, on the basis of competency. This one priortizes only ideology and blind loyalty (as is clear from the Comey firing).

          • bdavi52

            Of course there’s a ‘Civil Rights Industry’ — or perhaps you prefer the more fashionable “Diversity, Equality, & Inclusion Industry”. It’s everywhere. Every major organization, every university, every city, every state & federal agency in the U.S. hires and maintains Diverstiy Staff and invests continually in countless diversity improvement options. The $ impact is measured in the billions.

            That is one of the many reasons why Jackson’s selection is a very positive indication that we may be returning to the notion that everyone (regardless of color, age, gender, etc) is entitled to have their civil rights (as guaranteed by the Constitution) defended.

        • kj

          So, your response to injustices in the past is to commit new injustices in the present? Some white people today should be punished because some people who sort-of, kind-of looked like them did some bad stuff a long time ago? And what did the Asians do to deserve unfair treatment?

          • DrOfnothing

            No one is advocating punishing white people.

            All injustice is relative, and sensible policy prioritizes the most severe.

            Defining lynching, systematic economic exploitation, mass incarceration, and disfranchisement that persisted well into th 1960s, and, many would argue, to the present day, as “some bad stuff a long time ago” is the worst kind of “whitewashing” (no pun intended). Please read a bit more on the history of the 20th c. US before contributing further. I would recommend this text–short, readable, and relatively objective:

            Please don’t take Leef’s thoughts on this as gospel. He is a paid lobbyist, and not very knowledgeable on the topic of civil rights at all.

          • kj

            I suspect that I have a better understanding of 20th century U.S. history than you do, thanks. As to your “please,” I have one for you: Please kiss my a#$.