Kristen Clarke is the African American attorney who Joe Biden announced will run the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, pending Senate confirmation.
From FOX News:
In 1994, Clarke wrote a letter to The Harvard Crimson in her capacity as the president of the Black Students Association to explain her views on race science.
“Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic],” Clarke wrote.
“One: Dr Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the ‘locus coeruleus,’ which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.
“Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic].
Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.
“Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites [sic].
“Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”
The technical term for such a screed is “Yikes!”
More recently, a couple of years ago on Tucker Carlson’s Fox New show, Clarke defended hiring based on skln color rather than substantive criteria—you know, like, say, selecting Kamala Harris to be Vice-President. She insisted in that appearance that skin color should carry a “premium” in hiring decisions, even when applied to such occupations as heart surgeons and airline pilots. Skin color was “incredibly important” in making these hiring decisions, she argued, terming this principle “diversity.”
Observations:
1. The Ethics Alarms position is that statements, papers and other carriers of radical or offensive positions in college are of at best only marginal use in evaluating the character and trustworthiness a politician, academic, professional or anyone else after they have spent sufficient time in the real world. Thus that letter to the Crimson from 27 years ago should not, by itself, disqualify Clarke for national service. Students say and write a lot of foolish stuff in college; that’s part of what it is for. Student presidents of niche campus groups like BALSA are expected to say extreme things.
2. However, that letter is pure black supremacy, and thus racist. In the hearings on her fitness to lead the Civil Rights division, which requires no bias for or against any race, she must be asked about the letter and, under oath, rebuke its assertions to the satisfaction of all.
3. It should not be necessary to flag the double standard, but I will: a white lawyer who sent the equivalent of Clarke’s letter in college would be branded as a racist for life by the news media, and could never be nominated for any significant job, especially head of the DOJ Civil Rights post.
4. Clarke’s comments to Carlson advocating race-based hiring is more problematical, but again, fairness must be applied. She is a lawyer, and she made those remarks representing an advocacy organization. As a lawyer an as a spokesperson for an organization, she was communicating her group’s opinions, not necessarily her own. She should be given a chance to moderate those statements.
5. But she must moderate them, or she should not be confirmed. The head of a civil rights division cannot simultaneously support racial discrimination.
6. Nominating Clarke with her record of advocating black superiority and race-based hiring is arrogant and incompetent. Biden is apparently relying on the fear of being tarred as racist to deter critics, so he is pushing anti-white bias to the limits. There are a lot of intimidated, cowardly, self-loathing, brainwashed, virtue-signalling white Americans to be sure, but not nearly enough to get away with this for another four years, after the cynical tactic worked so well under Barack Obama.
________________________________________
Pointer: Legal Insurrection
Ethics Alarms 
That’s not the only thing that Kristen Clarke did as an undergrad at Harvard and head of the Black Student’s Union. She invited Professor Tony Martin to speak at Harvard. He is a rabid Anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. If she represents a sample of the Cabinet nominations we can expect from Biden, we’re in for a tough time.
They’re all going to be to the left of Obama’s people, Wayne. My question is: who is really running things for Joe? Are the DNC and his campaign staff making these sorts of decisions? Obama? Rahm Emanuel? David Axelrod? The Justice Democrats? Keith Ellison? Who?
Not that there’s anything wrong with having controversial speakers on campus, eh? But, as Jack noted, perhaps her view has evolved.
And the Democrats might be in for a tough time down the road. Van Jones once talked about a whitelash. You haven’t seen anything yet.
I’m old enough to remember affirmative action in its infancy, when the concept was to enlarge the pool of those being considered for important government positions. The intent was to ensure that minorities and women who might be overlooked because of racial and gender bias would at least receive consideration. Given the levels of such bias at the time, the idea had some merit, and it helped to ensure that well-qualified persons were not overlooked.
But affirmative action evolved into something of a quota system, and with that came complaints (and often enough the reality) of reverse discrimination. Now, the pendulum has swung farther so that an “anti-racist” view is dominant among a large swath of people. One part of that view, expressed by Ibram X. Kendi as a central tenet of anti-racism, is that “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
If Clarke’s apparent statement on Carlson’s Fox program (I haven’t found the full quote) accurately reflects her views, then she must agree with that theme of being an anti-racist. While I understand the argument and the history behind it, the greatest problem I see with it is that it essentially denies agency to minorities. It dispenses with any suggestion that individuals somehow have a big role in their own development and success. This is especially precious coming from someone like Kendi, who certainly had a less than ideal upbringing and felt the effects of discrimination, yet has become a highly celebrated and financially successful author and educator. I doubt that either he or Clarke would deny their own agency in their success.
Denial or diminishment of personal agency is destructive for individuals and for groups. If one is looking for evidence that such agency can serve to overcome both harsh circumstances and discrimination, one need only look at the success stories of immigrants to the U.S. The opposite view, on the other hand, paves the road to failure, when an unqualified person is selected based on skin color and the Peter Principle quickly sets in. It also ultimately is counter-productive as it feeds the view that individuals are less qualified because of their race.
One’s station in life, including race and gender, can have substantial positive or negative impacts on success. Yet, there is at least a glimmer of truth in Cassius’ statement that ““The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Is there a difference between Kendi’s “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination” and George Wallace’s “segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever”?
I see them as two different things, both wrong. One was for physical separation — separate neighborhoods and schools, no intermarriage, and so on, based on a belief that one race was superior. The other is for favoritism, somewhat analogous to veterans preference in government hiring, but more widespread and based on a history of group discrimination.
There is a similarity in how they both are wrong, in my view, and that is that they both stereotype by group membership while denying individuality and personal agency.
“she must be asked about the letter and, under oath, rebuke its assertions to the satisfaction of all.”
That’ll be must see T.V.!
The melanin theory is very common among Black racists and intelligencia, though mainstream science considers it pseudo-science, for the time being. In their view, all Whites are mutants. The further you are from “black” the further you are from the “perfect race.” In addition to superior physical and mental abilities, melanin also imbues one with supernatural powers. Naw, nothing crazy about that, is there?
Now where have I heard that “perfect race” drivel before…let me think…
You’re missing the best part, the brain chemical that is produced is melatonin which regulates sleep. Not melanin which just makes a person lazy. Ha! Sauce for the gander! I guess all big words look alike to black supremacists. Oh!/Diceman. And if she’s impressed with how fast black chillun get to boogieing wait till she finds out about chimps. And all other lower mammals.
You’re critiquing a college student’s writing many years after it was written, and you’re revealing your ignorance of neuromelanin which was touted by some who were into Afrocentrism at the time. Your racist comments add nothing to the discussion.
Great. If Blacks are so superior, then ask her to explain why Blacks suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure and hyper tension, and obesity than other races.
jvb
Sure, when I see her, I’ll ask. In the meantime, I’ll continue to consider people as individuals and not ascribe group characteristics to any one member of that group.