There goes my head. I find this story incredible. Northeastern and Boston College co-hosted a debate tournament last Fall restricted to students who “do not identify as white.”
Here is the announcement, tracked down by Campus Reform (hence the logo in the background):
Analysis: What the hell?
By what possible logic can college administrators conclude that this segregated activity is legal, ethical, or tolerable? What’s going on here, you ask? What’s going on here is that those in charge of two esteemed institutions of higher learning have dead ethics alarms. “The goal of this tournament is to promote affinity among non-white APDA debaters and cultivate racial diversity on the league” is Authentic Frontier Gibberish: what is “affinity” in that context? How is racial diversity cultivated by racially segregated tournaments?
Never mind: many schools participated, and apparently see nothing wrong with “good” racial discrimination. The All-BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color,) only tournament included the University of Chicago, for example, which “The Chicago Thinker” reported informed its students the BIPOC debate was only open to anyone who “does not identify as white”…whatever that means.
Needless to say, but apparently necessary to point out to the schools involved, a “No Whites” participation violated the various schools’ own stated policies. Boston College’s University Notice on Nondiscrimination prohibits discrimination based on race, stating “federal laws and regulations require the University not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, or age in treatment, employment, admission or access to Boston College and its educational programs and activities.” Northeastern University’s Policy and Procedures is similarly clear, stating “Northeastern University strictly prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, religious creed, genetic information, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, veteran, or disability status.”
Ah, but these policies only apply to bad discrimination.
The University of Chicago’s Chicago Debate Society that participated in the BIPOC debate tournament an explanation of why it felt such apartheid was appropriate:
“The Chicago Debate Society supports our members’ participation in the tournament and the tournament itself for combatting the ongoing legacy of racism in all levels of American competitive debate. We believe in creating spaces for discourse about race and social justice, especially those that actively promote the voices of marginalized debaters.”
Translation: “We believe that racial discrimination is a remedy for racial discrimination.”
Ethics Alarms 
Segregation masquerading as enlightenment is just getting worse and worse. I remember reading about black students wanting to have a blacks only graduation at Harvard. These young black students are being radicalized by racist Black Lives Matter ideology. Notice how Democrats now have distanced themselves somewhat from BLM. The ideology is Marxism wrapped in racial resentment.
By what possible logic can college administrators conclude that this segregated activity is legal, ethical, or tolerable?
Maybe no logic, Jack. Perhaps their moral certitude is so profound that they neither care what people think about this beyond the echo chamber of liberal academia nor fear a legal response. After all, these schools have vast hoards of wealth they call “endowments,” and can always settle out of court for a drop in the proverbial bucket.
In short, I suspect they know what the Supreme Court would think about this, and don’t care one iota. They believe they are doing [insert moral authority here]’s work.
This is what the elites of this country want. The thing they most fear are talented people from the middle class supplanting them. To keep this from happening, they employ all kinds of rules and programs to exclude talented ‘commoners’. These include unpaid internships in New York City to qualify for certain jobs (finance and journalism) You might wonder how these affirmative action programs do this. Well, the liberal elites are quite racist. They don’t believe that minorities can ever challenge them on merit, so their only fear are talented whites and Asians. Affirmative action lets them exclude talented whites and Asians on racial grounds. This is much more defensible than the ways they have been doing this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgGZMRJ15oY (just watch the first few minutes to get the gist)
If you watch this, you should pay attention carefully to some details.
(1) Why was the instructor, Gordena, so sure that Eric would be part of the secret seminar that she would speak to him about it, even though it was ‘secret’?
A: Because she bought the line that the secret seminar was for the ‘best’ people in the program. She knew that Eric was one of the best people (objectively) and was studying that very topic, so he MUST be part of the secret seminar if it is actually for the best people.
(2) Why wasn’t Eric in the secret seminar?
A: Because the secret seminar isn’t for the ‘best’ people, it is for the ‘right’ people. If it is for the best people, it doesn’t have to be secret. You could publicize it and use it to motivate students. You could even put it on their transcripts.
(3) In his interview with Joe Rogan, Weinstein explains that he had made a discovery that was considered too significant for someone like him. Harvard then got rid of him so they could give Weinstein’s work to someone ‘more deserving’.
Both those interviews suffer from terrible interviewers who don’t understand the point and keep interrupting, but you will get the picture of how rigged the system is. As it is now, the children of the elites are in programs with middle-class whites and Asians who are much more talented than the elites and lots of games need to be played to keep the elites in the top spots. With affirmative action, you can exclude the talented whites or Asians on racial grounds, keep the children of elite whites in the programs, and now the elite whites really ARE the top people in the program. As long as you don’t have any really talented minorities, they are in the clear. Destroying public education and the nuclear family pretty much eliminated the threat of a large number of talented minorities long ago. They can pick some minorities for highly visible positions if they want, and it is better if they are incompetent, so they won’t really have any power. With affirmative action, you can keep your monopoly on powerful positions AND be praised for your egalitarianism at the same time!
Interesting analysis.
I agree with Glenn. A very provocative response and one that had never crossed paths with my mind.
Once I saw that interview, it explained so much of what I saw and was confused about in graduate school. It was scary and depressing.
I’ve noticed they’ve allowed for white JUDGES, which I imagine would prompt complaints by debate participants. “They just favored the debater with lighter skin!”
I guess I now have the opportunity to turn my Boston College graduate degree to face the wall.
Have we not yet reached the “Julie Principle” point for this kind of hypocritical discrimination at American universities? They’re going to keep doing it, they clearly feel no shame about it, and no amount of complaining seems to do any good at reversing or even slowing it down – when do we hit the Julie point on this?
Why did they have a date and time limit on submitting the forms? That’s such a “white” standard. Were the participants further oppressed by also being expected to show up on time for the event, use English, be encouraged to employ facts in their arguments, & etc.? If I were one of them, I’d be offended at being expected to perform in the masters’ little minstrel show!
Not totally related but the promo image for PowerPoint that is on the home screen of Microsoft Edge has this text: “Create will-designed, entertaining slideshows with the help of Powerpoint”. That is what the best and brightest deliver. Well, at least in terms of proof reading.
I suppose will-designed now means what I want it to mean. So much for well-designed layouts.
I’ve seen advertisements for this lately:
Allblk
ALLBLK (pronounced as “all-black”) (formerly Urban Movie Channel (UMC)) is an over-the-top SVOD service operated by the AMC Networks. It was formed by Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, in 2014.
I can’t imagine anything called “Allwhite.”
“During the qualification for the 1982 FIFA World Cup, the team appeared for the first time in an all white uniform against Taiwan in 1981. This led a commentator to dub them the “All Whites”, a play on the traditional name “All Blacks” used for the national rugby team.” New Zealand’s traditional all black uniform was not available as black was reserved for referees.
In August last year there were calls by some to change the name to make it more ‘inclusive’ whatever that means. Thankfully, so far the progressives have not prevailed.
From the email, the definition of BIPOC is anyone who does not identify as white. Since the left has established that having testicles and a penis does not necessarily make you male and allows you to identify as female. Then having white skin does not necessarily make you white and you should be allowed to identify as BIPOC. Problem solved!