What’s the Matter With “Kindness Is Everything”?

Oh, just everything.

This lawn sign message (and it’s on bumper-stickers too) was referenced in a sympathetic blog post about the ridicule being heaped onto Kristi Noem’s cross-dressing husband Byron. I will write about poor Byron later, if I can work up some enthusiasm for the job. Right now I’ll focus on the fatuous message above.

Kindness is not “everything.” It’s not even close to everything. Anyone who publicly declares such nonsense is either stating something they don’t believe in order to be nice (or seem nice), shamelessly virtue-signaling, or is too stupid to trust with sharp objects. Ethical living, thinking, inter-personal relations and problem-solving requires an acknowledgement of all the ethical values and virtues and a carefully learned and practiced system of balancing them.

Consider the Six Pillars of Character. None of those virtues designated by the Josephson Institute of Ethics are “everything,” and many, though legitimately important ethical consideration in the right context, have proven to be catastrophic when societies consider them to be “everything.” Perhaps the most blazing example is loyalty. Loyalty was the engine of the Third Reich. Even honesty isn’t “everything”; there are situations in which honesty is disastrous.

I find it significant that kindness didn’t even make the cut when the Josephson folks were compiling their “pillars” and the components of each. It could easily be included in the “Caring” pillar, which isn’t #5 in the hierarchy by accident.

“Kindness” is a favorite obsession in the Age of the Great Stupid. Kindness rationalizes open borders, “restorative justice,” and, naturally, “diversity, equity and inclusion.” It also undergirds irresponsible socialism, the destruction of personal responsibility and accountability, and the forgiveness of conduct that should not be forgiven or forgotten. Kindness was exploited to allow Joe Biden to be a zombie President.

No, kindness isn’t everything, or even the most important thing. I recommend caution and suspicion toward anyone who extols kindness to the exclusion of the other ethical values. The Ethics Alarms “Brel” designation comes to mind, awarded to those who embody the French troubadour’s memorable quote, “If you leave it up to them, they’ll crochet the world the color of goose shit.”

The Women’s History Museum Mess

Ugh. I won’t call it an ethics train wreck, because this is really another subset of the nation’s victim-mongering/tribal/white male vilification problem as well as the already running “DEI Ethics Train Wreck” and the “Trans Activism Ethics Train Wreck.”

Of course we have to have a Women’s History Museum. There are four historically “marginalized” groups, and women are the largest and longest suffering of them all. D.C. already has huge museum dedicated to African Americans, and there is a Smithsonian museum called the National Museum of the American Indian. Women have every right to feel snubbed in the current obsession with group identification. You know an LGBTQ+ museum on the Mall will be next: how could it not be?

Conservatives who argue, as one did in the comments to a recent online item about the museum, “[The museum] continues to foment the balkanization of America. The accomplishments of women are just that: accomplishments. Their fruits are enjoyed by all, not just by those of the gender/race/religion, etc of the person who made the accomplishment” are trying to lock the barn door after the horse has escaped and won the Kentucky Derby. This is “National Women’s Month.” The Democrats had a national convention celebrating “The Year of the Woman” (with Bill Clinton as a keynote speaker, but never mind…). Half of the arguments for voting for Hillary and Kamala was their lady-parts. We’re stuck with U.S. women seeing themselves as a special, separate, aggrieved and superior group for the foreseeable future, probably forever.

But there is a problem: the party that at least pretends to be the “party of women” can’t figure out what a woman is. This week House Democrats blocked legislation to establish the “Women’s History Museum” because of an amendment attached by Republicans stating, “The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.”

Harvard Grade Inflation Ethics and the DEI Train Wreck, Part I: A Depressing Protest From Students “Of Color”

[This is a long post, but I urge you to read it all the way through. I cannot imagine a more powerful rebuttal to the advocates of “diversity, equity and inclusion.”]

Last October, in “Harvard’s Self-Indicting Grade Inflation Report,” I wrote about the school’s embarrassing report that revealed that 60% of the grades handed out at the supposedly elite college (my alma matter, and my sister’s, and my father’s, where my mother was Dean of Housing once-upon-a-time) are now As, making Harvard resemble Garrisons Keilor’s imaginary Minnesota community where “all the children” seem to be are “above average” even though that’s impossible.

In a prescient comment (as is often the case), AM Golden wrote in part, taking off from a Dean Amanda Claybaugh’s statement that it was desirable to “ produce a broader distribution of grades,”

That’s the problem. They don’t want to admit they accept unqualified applicants because many of those applicants will be disproportionately minorities. Returning standards to what an elite institution should have will mess with the faculty push for D.E.I. The standards have to stay low if the experiment is to be prioritized over pure academics. They have set too many precedents to easily back away now…

They have created bubbles where remote learning, mask wearing, protesting for the correct causes and making equal outcomes are virtues valued over a solid education. Backing up now will cause mass revolt on campuses. Like the news media, the colleges will be accused of caving to Trump. The asylum has been run by people who should have been inmates for so long that the actual inmates can’t be helped.

Sometimes I think Ethics Alarms is the only online community where clear-eyed vision dependably resides. For right on cue, as Harvard announced a long term effort to start grading seriously again, a coalition of “of color” Harvard students sent this open letter to the campus:

Unethical Quote of the Day, (Also Stupid): Theater Critic Nuveen Kumar

“But I don’t think it’s necessarily antiwoke to tell an all-white story or to relegate nonwhite characters to the margins, if that’s where they fit the creative intentions.”

Former Washington Post theater critic Naveen Kumar in the paper’s “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights.'”

Oh, well that’s really big of the critic, don’t you think? How generous of him! He is willing to concede that a director might still be regarded as a good person if he or she doesn’t cast actors “of color” (you know, like the critic) to play characters written as white, visualized by the playwright as white, in a story obviously about white people!

Yes, this fatuous, offensive statement came late in an essay that was already obnoxious, with the biased and reductive headline, “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights’.” [Gift link!] The Post post was defending, sort-of -but- not-really, Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” film, in which Heathcliffe, Emily Bronte’s hormonal romantic anti-hero, is played…

…by a white actor. Never mind that previous film adaptations have cast Heathcliff as white, notably the classic starring Lawrence Olivier in the role, probably because he was the best actor alive at the time.

Yes, it is true that the ethnicity of Heathcliff has always been a matter of debate: with Bronte describing him as “dark-skinned,” a “gypsy,” and a “little Lascar,” a term for South Asian sailors. The idea is that he is an outsider and at the bottom of the social ladder; that certainly would justify casting a black, Indian or other non-white actor, but certainly doesn’t mean he has to be played that way. (I would not think that casting Heathcliff as Swedish would work, but you never know: I could see one of the Skarsgaard boys pulling it off.)

BREAKING: DEI Bias Eats The A.P.’s Brains

Why would the Associate Press feel the world needs this “news” when Savannah Guthrie’s mother is still missing?

The Associated Press is troubled that there are so many white athletes at the Winter Olympics. No, it really offered a new story that says this. No I am NOT kidding. The apparently woke-mad Chris Nisi complains in “Europe’s rising diversity is not reflected at the Winter Olympics. Culture plays a big role” [Note: “Culture plays a big role”= “Bulletin: Water is Wet.”]…

Immigration from Africa and the Middle East has transformed the demographics of Europe in recent decades. And while the growing diversity is reflected in many sports such as soccer — Sweden’s men’s national team has several Black players including Liverpool striker Alexander Isak — it hasn’t made a dent in winter sports…At the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics, Sweden is sending a team made up almost exclusively of ethnically Swedish athletes, with NHL player Mika Zibanejad, whose father is from Iran, a rare exception. That hardly reflects the diversity of the Nordic country: About 2 million of its 10 million residents were born abroad, about half of them in Asia or Africa, according to national statistics agency SCB.

The lack of athletes of color at the Winter Olympics — and in winter sports in general — has been a recurring theme in the U.S., which is sending one of its most diverse teams to the Games. It hasn’t gotten the same attention in Europe.

The Olympic rosters of France, Germany, Switzerland and other European winter sports nations look a lot like Sweden’s: overwhelmingly white and lacking the immigrant representation seen in their soccer or basketball teams…”

 

The DEI Slippery Slope Goes Here:

Suraj Bhaskar, 20, from Uttar Pradesh, one of the Indian states, failed the NEET medical school admission exam twice. Determined to become a doctor, however, the plucky young man wouldn’t give up. Indian law mandates a 5% set aside in admissions for people with disabilities (PwDs) in government-aided higher education institutions, including medical colleges.

So he cut off his foot.

A police investigation indicated the violent assault on Suraj that his older brother reported was in fact a carefully planned ruse. The aspiring doctor was indeed found unconscious with a severed foot, but the plot fell apart rapidly.

“The accused tried to mislead the investigation with a fabricated story, but his claims did not stand scrutiny during sustained questioning and examination of evidence,” a police spokesperson told local reporters. A diary belonging to Suraj conatined an entry that read, “I will become an MBBS doctor in 2026,” and his girlfriend testified to Suraj’s obsession with getting into medical school. He had unsuccessfully tried to obtain disability-related documents a few months prior, but was foiled. The medical report determined that Suraj’s foot had been cleanly cut off, most likely with a machine, and the incision was too clean to have been inflicted with a violent knife attack as the two brothers claimed. The syringes found in a field near where Suraj lay strongly suggested that used a drug to numb his legs before performing the self-amputation.

His foot is still missing.

There appears to be some doubt as to whether any charges or punishment will follow with this scheme, which is widely seen as self-punishing. If nothing else, Suraj’s medical career has definitely gotten off on the wrong foot.

I’m sorry, but I regard it as unethical to pass up an obvious punch line like that.

Stop Making Me Defend Harvard’s Ex-Trump Deranged “Dean”!

In addition to its leftist bias , its throbbing arrogance, and its incompetence as the supposed role model for American higher education, Harvard also lacks courage. The latest example is that the school recently removed Gregory K. Davis as Dunster House “resident dean” and sent him packing “immediately.”

Why? Trump Deranged, hysterically woke and anti-white tweets from the George Floyd freak-out and before, that’s why.

“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as the Resident Dean for Dunster,” Davis wrote. “I will miss my work with students and staff immensely.” Davis was appointed to the role in 2024 when Harvard’s DEI mania, exemplified by its disastrous selection of black, female Claudine Gay as its president despite her slim qualifications (besides being “historic.”) Dean Davis was plunged into controversy in October 2025 when Yardreport, a new anti-Harvard news aggregator, dug up old social media posts in which Davis advocated violence and looting at protests while making inflammatory statements about police and President Donald Trump.

In a 2020 thread on X, for example, Davis wrote that he would not fault individuals who wished harm upon Trump and attached a meme that stated, “If he dies, he dies.” In other posts, Davis characterized “rioting and looting” as part of a democratic process and called police officers “racist and evil.” Yardreport concluded that Davis was biased against “white people, police, Republicans, and President Trump” and called on Harvard to fire him immediately.

So Harvard did.

That decision reinforces everything I, conservatives and Donald Trump have been saying about Harvard and elite universities for years. Too frequently, all that mattered (matters?) to these schools is whether an administrator is marginally qualified, sufficiently progressive, and checks the right demographic boxes. As with Gay, other qualities that Harvard should have been concerned about in the vetting process were exposed to public scrutiny, and the school had no defense at all. It then defaulted to “Oopsie! Never mind!”

In saying that I’m defending Davis, then, I do not question that Harvard was foolish, irresponsible and lazy to appoint him in the first place. Maybe a better description is that I feel sorry for Davis. Now his character and reputation is being scarred because he will carry around the stigma of being summarily fired by Harvard from a rocking chair position for having the same attitudes that helped get him the job in the first place. I read Harvard’s alumni magazine, and for months it has been trying to get contributions by posing as a brave, defiant champion of academic freedom that refuses to “bend a knee” to the fascist dictator, then it does this. Davis is such a marginal figure that even the President wouldn’t waste time attacking him.

I bet that a disturbing proportion of Harvard’s faculty, administration and woke-programmed students agreed with Davis’s dumb tweets when he made them and do now.

Continue reading

Unethical Website of the Month: Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy

This, you see, is why the D.E.I. societal pathogen will be harder to kill than the Hydra.

Northwestern University’s School of Education and Social Policy site has a web page titled “Leading Change with Inclusion, Courage, and Global Perspective.” It explains why educators must “skillfully” attempt to “pursue equity and inclusion,” including instructions on how “good discrimination” can be preserved by a campaign to “anchor equity in strategy.” 

Dress up the pig any way you want, the policy being extolled on this site is still institutional and societal discrimination against whites, Asians, and men. Our corrupt and thoroughly politicized educational institutions are the ethics villains here, and the Northwestern University’s School of Education and Social Policy website is a smoking gun.

Continue reading

The Tide May Be Turning Against DEI, And It Had Better

In the post earlier this week, “Donald and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week, Part II: The Important Stuff,” one of the items I included as important was Jacob Savage’s disturbing essay on how white males of the Millennial generation were crushed by the DEI policies that even predated the term. He wrote in part,

“As the Trump Administration takes a chainsaw to the diversity, equity, and inclusion apparatus, there’s a tendency to portray DEI as a series of well-meaning but ineffectual HR modules…This may be how Boomer and Gen-X white men experienced DEI. But for white male millennials, DEI wasn’t a gentle rebalancing—it was a profound shift in how power and prestige were distributed.”

The rest of the article was so powerful regarding how white males saw their ambitions and futures hamstrung purely because of their race and gender, with striking statistics to back up his narrative, that it landed like a splash of ice water on the still-raging policy debate. DEI was, and is, simply wrong, unethical, as well as being unconstitutional and illegal. My Trump Deranged Facebook friends keep calling the President “inhuman,” but, strangely, he was the only one with both the power, the guts and the perception to set out to end what has been a cruel form of societally- approved prejudice and discrimination.

I should have devoted a whole post to Savage’s article, but a substack called eugyppius: a plague chronicle did, and expands on what Savage began, well, savagely. He writes,

Continue reading

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: A Democratic House Member Says White Children Should Be Taught To Feel Guilty About Their Skin Color

What this says about her party and its ideological moorings is obvious. So is what it tells us about anyone who would vote for someone like this to have any power or influence over our society. We have had the “gotcha!” privilege debate here extensively in the 20-teens, and it was insufficiently slapped down to prevent the DEI and “presumed racism” pathogens.

The ethics mystery is why anyone white swallows this crap? I can see the advantages to minorities, since they can, by accepting it, absolve themselves of all failures, misdeeds and shortcomings. However, whites (and men) who fall for this argument are agreeing to be metaphorically hobbled, like Kunta Kinte in “Roots.” Worse, they are endorsing the hobbling of their children too.

I get why extreme, ruthless, unethical progressives push such garbage: it’s a means to an end, and the end is power. I do not understand why anyone privileged with a functioning brain and critical thinking skills tolerates officials like Stalker, never mind actually voting for her.