This, when you think about it, is consistent with the developing logic of the “antiracism” scam and The Great Stupid. The legal theory that the impact of a reasonable policy could be deemed racist if it had “disparate impact” on a minority group gradually metastasized into the Bizarro World belief that black community cultural pathologies had to be granted immunity from negative consequences in the interests of fairness. This, in turn, encourages cultural pathologies, which further disadvantage the black community and undermine societal values generally.
It is one of the intrinsically terrible ideas that once would have gained no traction with those possessing any critical thinking skills whatsoever, but after sufficient indoctrination and propaganda, almost any idea can begin to seem reasonable. But does it go this far?
Researchers with the University of Denver’s Institute for Human-Animal Connection argue that animal control policies and pet adoption requirements perpetuate racial inequities. Their “Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement” argues that animal control enforcement and punishment disproportionately hurt people of color and low-income communities, and thus constitute “systemic racism.”
The authors, led by Kevin Nolan Morris, who holds an endowed chair, point to racial biases in requirements of “responsible pet ownership,” you know, little matters like leash laws, rabies vaccination requirements, anti-tethering laws, responsible handling of “at-risk” animals, providing shelter, behavioral training or veterinary care, and investigations of cruelty, abuse and neglect. This is all discriminatory, because African-American lifestyles, attitudes and culture often don’t mesh with such habits. Thus “racism, classism, and the White dominant culture” mandates animal treatment standards that are “largely unobtainable for anyone in the U.S. other than white, middle, and upper-class individuals,” the paper argues.
That’s right: a large number of blacks can’t or won’t treat animals with kindness and due care, so requiring such conduct of those who choose to own animals is racist.
Stupid enough for you?
Published in October 2020, the paper was apparently too stupid for animal rights activist Nathan Winograd, who posted a blog essay headlined “The Racism of Low Expectations.” The woke researchers “ignore that rescuers and shelters have a moral and institutional obligation to the vulnerable animals they serve to ensure those animals are not placed in harm’s way; which can and should be done using standards that don’t focus on a potential adopter’s skin color or size of their bank account, but on their ability to provide for an animal’s physical and mental health,” Winograd noted. I can make it simpler than that: if you can’t take care of a pet humanely, don’t get a pet.
The same rule holds for having children, and, of course, requirements of responsible child-rearing may also be “racist.”
A jaw-dropping op-ed from the Albuquerque Journal [behind a paywall, unfortunately] is called “End racial bias in animal adoption; people of all colors love pets.” “Many animal welfare groups as a whole try to protect animals up for adoption by requiring everything from a fenced yard for dogs, to ownership of a house, to meeting age requirements for adoption of a young puppy. […] The excuses [we] have heard for adoption denial of an animal [have] led to more people of color going to breeders and pet stores,” is among its fatuous arguments. It is an example of the increasingly faddish, “If doing something responsible motivates irresponsible people to do something irresponsible, then it’s irresponsible to be responsible.”
Morris and his team wants a full removal of adoption requirements. After all, The Institute for Human-Animal Connection explains, what the racist dominant white culture calls neglect or abuse cases are simply the misinterpreted, benign practices of a pet owner in a different culture.
For example, my rescue dog Spuds [above] was forced to live most of his day in a locked bathroom, sleeping in his own excrement, and filling his stomach with sticks when he was chained in the back yard without being fed. Hey, his owners still loved and cared about him! They were just part of a different culture!
A book, “The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals,” published by Stanford, even lists dog-fighting as one of those cultural differences in pet ownership that are unfairly discriminated against by “white culture.” Providing high levels of care are, the book explains, behaviors characteristic of “whiteness.”
The ethics takeaway from this madness is as follows: while the argument that preventing cruelty to animals is “racist” is a particularly throbbing version of the “disparate impact” trick, it is no different from the rest. With a little attention and responsible reporting, deranged extensions of the values-rotting low-expectations excuse for black community pathologies may speed our currently addled society back to reality.
If a culture is cruel to animals, the problem is with that culture, not those who are attempting to minimize its damage.
Facts: College Fix