The second Comment of the Day of the day emerges from the fertile mind of Humble Talent, who discusses the still popular use of the race card by diversity hires who have been in reality the beneficiary of racial bias, not victims of it. Here is his COTD on the post, “Fani Willis Is Toast and Those Arguing That She Isn’t Are Revealing Their Own Ethics Problems”:

***

There’s a Gordian knot here, and it’s one we’re going to continue fighting with for a very long time.

Fani Willis said in her statement: “First thing they say. Oh, she going to play the race card now? But no. God, isn’t it them who’s playing the race card when they only question one?”

There are competent black people in existence. This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need typing, but Democrats have been so interested in getting in representation regardless of the mediocrity of the candidates that it feels like every time a scandal like this asserts itself, we’re almost invariably criticizing a black person. More, because of the attention of the media, a disproportionate amount of attention gets placed on these cases.

It’s almost impossible not to label these people DEI hires. They tend to have light resumes, their conduct speaks for itself, and the moment they catch whiff of criticism, they reference their melanin and/or their sexual organs.

Look at Claudine Gay… We were told that the reason she was being scrutinized was because of her race and gender. It was in the statements from Harvard. It was in the statements from her. Google it, they’re still saying it.

Meanwhile, reality is that she was being scrutinized because of her politics (Politics which were enough to get Liz Magill fired from the University of Pennsylvania without even a sniff of plagiarism… But Magill is white, so her departure was swift and barely made the news cycle.). And while scrutinizing her for her politics, the people looking to do Gay damage found obvious plagiarism, which was finally deemed enough cover to follow through with what Harvard’s donors were demanding.

The narrative that we’re being sold is that the reason Gay was fired is racist sexism, when in reality the reason she was hired, and then the reason it took so long to fire her, was sexist racism.

Now, Fani Willis is an elected DA, and so the base qualification is really just “50%+1”, but she is a lawyer, she was an ADA for 16 years, she was in private practice, and she was a judge for a couple years. She seems, on paper, to be qualified. But competent is different from qualified, her actions speak for themselves, and the very first statement she made in response to the conflict allegations very quickly referenced her melanin and sexual organs.

What are we supposed to do with that? Say, “Well, she’s black and has a vagina, so even though I hate her politics, and even though she fucked up, and even though I wouldn’t think twice about commenting on this were we talking about a white dude, maybe I’ll sit this one out”?

I don’t think this is by designed necessarily; I think that Progressives really are interested in shoehorning in as much diversity as possible… But I do think this is considered, and counted on. If progressives thought for a second that these scandals were actually hampering their future prospects, I think we’d see fewer of these scandals because they’d put more effort into the selection process. But I think between media complicity, voter apathy, and the reality that shouting about racist misogyny still carries some weight among some populations, they think that they can continue to do this and get away with it. (And they’re right.)