"[M]any on the left are blaming the media. 'The media lynched Jason Arday,' declared Ibram X. Kendi...."

"Important British progressives... signed an open letter demanding some sort of official oversight of journalistic decision-making. 'Self-regulation of the press has comprehensively failed,' it said. The writer Will Self called, in an open letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham, for the police to begin 'impounding computers,' presumably belonging to people involved in covering the scandal... Some who once championed Arday seem to be trying to deflect from their own embarrassing credulity, and it is unlikely to work...."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "After a Scholar’s Awful Death, Mistaken Calls for Censorship" (NYT gift link).

"Many of the people who didn’t bother questioning Arday’s back story should have known better; today their oversight looks less like respect than condescension, as if no one took him seriously enough to think hard about what he was saying. 'Arday was treated not as a scholar but as a mascot,' Jason Okundaye wrote in the left-leaning Guardian.... For people on the left, it’s sure easier to talk about the feral excesses of the right-wing press than the willful gullibility of certain elite progressives."

What she's politely calling "condescension" and "the willful gullibility of certain elite progressives" is racism. The way they treated him reflected a belief in his inferiority.

"Setting aside the plagiarism and fabrication allegations, I’m struck by just how … bad Arday’s work is."

"It makes me cringe to watch video of Professor Hilary Cremin, head of Cambridge’s faculty of education, fawning over him: 'We’re so lucky to have you. You’re the best in the world in terms of the research you do.' I’m gobsmacked that she didn’t think it might be worth trying to read the book he’d claimed to have written before offering him a plum academic job."

Writes Sonia Sodha, in "Jason Arday is the product of academia’s soft bigotry/Universities risk undermining genuine equality of opportunity when they reward identity over merit and sideline proper scrutiny" (London Times). 

And here's a London Times review of that book: "Jason Arday’s memoir is mawkish, self-aggrandising and hard to believe/The embattled former Cambridge professor’s autobiography, Great and Unfortunate Things, feels precision-tooled to flatter the biases of the sappiest white liberals."

Excerpt from the review: "As young Arday failed to hit his milestones, doctors declared him 'deficient' and said he was 'no better than a vegetable.' Arday was, by his own account, a profoundly intellectually disabled child. He claims that he could 'register sounds, but I couldn’t shape them into meaning.' He also says that smearing his faeces on the wall was one of his few sensory releases.... 'Most of my memories of my early childhood are of generalised images, sounds, sensations, feelings, rather than specific events, perhaps because language helps us to form memories, and I didn’t have access to that until I was older.'"

"Democrats stopped talking about trans politics long before the court’s ruling this week."

"In June, which is L.G.B.T.Q. Pride month, no Democratic candidate mentioned the word 'transgender' in their TV ads, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm. Their silence may be an attempt to deprive Republicans of campaign-trail ammunition.... A New York Times/Ipsos poll conducted in January 2025 showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans opposed allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports.... May Mailman, director of the conservative legal organization Independent Women’s Law Center, said the ruling was less animating than it might have been a few years ago, because transgender advocacy feels 'less in your face' now, particularly in red states. Ms. Mailman recalled walking into retail stores across the country back when gender was one of the party’s most galvanizing topics and seeing mannequins of transgender people. That sort of display has become less prevalent, she said, as the opinion of most Americans has become clearer. By winning in the court of public opinion, Republicans in some ways lost ground on a potent political issue, she said.... 'It’s kind of like D.E.I.,' Ms. Mailman said.... 'Is D.E.I. gone, or is it hibernating?'"

From "Ruling on Trans Athletes Gave the G.O.P. a Win. Most Democrats Looked the Other Way. While Republicans celebrated the ruling, many Democrats stayed quiet on an issue that had proved divisive in the last election" (NYT).

"A woman caught on video emptying a public trash can on the street then stealing it during New York City’s Knicks championship parade was a director at JPMorgan Chase who was fired Tuesday over the incident...."

The NY Post reports.

Angie Báez, 40, was promoted to Executive Director of Community and Industry Engagement for Card and Connected Commerce at JPMorgan Chase more than a year ago, according to her LinkedIn profile. She previously served as Executive Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at New York-based review website The Infatuation, which Chase acquired as part of its broader push into lifestyle and experiential content...

What's "experiential content" and why am I "experiencing" that as bullshit?

Here's the viral video:

@mel_aston Those trash cans didn’t stand a chance 😭😭 I don’t condone the bullying of this woman. I’m not going for it!! #knicks #knicksparade #knicksin5 #nyc #fyp ♬ original sound - Melrose Aston

"What's 'experiential content' and why am I 'experiencing' that as bullshit?" is the one question I took to Grok. If I understand it correctly, instead of marketing the product itself, consumers are invited to picture themselves living some kind of life that somehow relates to the product. The honest restaurant content will, supposedly, be woven together with references to Chase cards. Even though Grok told me "It's not 'bullshit' as a pure concept" — because it can work as a marketing technique — it's obviously a bullshit expression designed to elevate a practice that deserves ridicule.

But you would probably prefer to ridicule this lady who did something stupid and who, you may think, doesn't deserve her job, and you probably think it's her job, her erstwhile job, that sounds like bullshit.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday..."

"... claiming that the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' and had discriminated against a white male employee who did not get a sought-after promotion.... The complaint quotes from Times diversity and inclusion reports in recent years, including a 2021 'Call to Action' that set a goal of increasing the number of Black and Latino employees. The reports 'detailed N.Y.T.’s express efforts to make employment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals,' the complaint says. 'A decrease in the percentage of White male employees (whether new hires, existing employees or those in leadership, as appropriate) was a necessary consequence for the N.Y.T. to achieve these results.'..."

The New York Times examines litigation brought against it, in "U.S. Sues The New York Times, Claiming Discrimination Against a White Man/The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' against the man, who did not get a sought-after promotion."

"According to the complaint, the complainant was interviewed for the job but was not selected for a panel interview. 'The four candidates advanced to the panel interview stage matched the race and/or sex characteristics N.Y.T. sought to increase in its leadership,' the complaint says. According to the complaint, the final pool of candidates consisted of 'a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female.'..."

What do you think is more likely?

There was something wrong with that one white male employee who didn't advance to the panel interview.

That one man exemplifies how many white men have fared at the NYT and elsewhere over the years.

 

pollcode.com free polls

"Mr. Hegseth has said repeatedly that he is determined to change a culture corrupted by 'foolish,' 'reckless' and 'woke' leaders from previous administrations."

"But his heavy scrutiny, especially of female and minority officers, is eroding confidence in a promotion system that is supposed to be apolitical and merit based, his critics have said.... In his 2024 book, 'The War on Warriors,' Mr. Hegseth disparaged many of the senior officers who rose up under Mr. Austin’s tenure as 'cowards hiding under stars' and 'whores to wokesters.' 'The Left captured the military quickly, and we must reclaim it at a faster pace,' he wrote. 'We must wage a frontal assault. A swift counterattack, in broad daylight.'..."

From "Hegseth Strikes Two Black and Two Female Officers From Promotion List/Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s highly unusual decision to remove officers from a one-star promotion list has spurred allegations of racial and gender bias" (NYT). The sources for this article are anonymous current and former military and administration officials.

Note that the language purports to know why one person was targeted:

"The reaction from the student body points to a larger issue: many people my age don’t want to take the easiest path but..."

"... if it’s being offered to hundreds of your peers, giving them the chance to earn higher grades or better job opportunities, that’s what you do. Otherwise, you feel like a sucker.... "

Writes Elsa Johnson, in "I exposed Stanford’s disability racket. I was stunned by the reaction on campus After my revelation that elite students are claiming to be disabled to get cushy perks, I expected blowback — but what happened next surprised me" (London Times).

"Many of my peers and I wouldn’t mind — and might even prefer — our teachers and administrators being tougher on us. After all, the accommodations we’re gaming today won’t help us in the real world. In the workplace you won’t have sympathetic OAE advisers giving you extra time to perform a surgery if you’re a doctor. No one is going to excuse you from a tricky business presentation because you claim 'anxiety.'..."

Here's my post from a few days ago about Johnson's original essay.

"It’s certainly a conspicuous choice following a year in which D.E.I. programs have been dismantled and the party in power..."

"... has been debating how friendly to be with a white nationalist. That may not be what Pantone means by 'peace, unity and cohesiveness,' but I have to imagine it will come up for some viewers.... This white, in particular, strikes me as a little flavorless. It’s the color of cottage cheese and dental floss, of marshmallows and AirPods."

Said Callie Holtermann, participating in a NYT conversation titled "Pantone’s 2026 Color of the Year Is ‘Cloud Dancer’/A shade of white will be the defining color of the next year..." (NYT).

"It reminds me of the clothes I put on when I’m in a rush and the foods I eat when I have a stomach ache.... Personally, I miss Viva Magenta from 2023. An insane choice, but at least it was a choice. Cloud Dancer feels like a product of being too tentative to make a statement in any direction. Which is, of course, its own kind of statement."

Here's how Pantone presents its color:

"At the heart of Mr. Hegseth’s vision is an insistence that waging war is fundamentally different from other vocations in society because it is deadly and is meant to be."

"'This is life or death,' he said. 'As we all know, this is you versus an enemy hellbent on killing you.'... [T]he government’s duties to citizens who find themselves in harm’s way, fighting for their country, are not like its duties to citizens in other circumstances.... In a life-or-death occupational setting, there is no room for preferential treatment like affirmative action. No soldier should ever be led or covered by someone who has been promoted for reasons other than military effectiveness. That criterion is not bigoted. It arises from a reasonable philosophy of the limited mission of the military...."

Writes Christopher Caldwell, in "That Hegseth Speech Was Actually Pretty Good" (NYT).

Should the widow stand back and know that her place is to quietly mourn and to express no opinions?

I'm reading The Washington Post: "Erika Kirk emerges as vocal public figure, redefining role of political widow/Vocal and stridently determined to advance her husband’s work, she has embraced her public role" (gift link).

In modern times, the number of women who have found themselves in this unenviable and tragic situation in the United States is small. The group is largely limited to the widows of the men slain in the tempestuous mid-1960s. Some biographers who chronicled the lives of those men — Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and John F. and Robert F. Kennedy — are wary of drawing historical comparisons that might by extension elevate Charlie Kirk, who made numerous disparaging remarks about Black people...

Inflammatory characterization casually inserted. 

... to the stature of an iconic civil rights leader or a president. But they see important distinctions between the ways the widows of the ’60s acted in their unwanted roles and the ways Erika Kirk is defining it.

“It’s such a different era and the partisanship is so much more extreme now,” said David Margolick, who wrote a book on the relationship between Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, and whose journalism is being turned into a documentary about Coretta Scott King and the Kennedy widows flying RFK’s body home after he was killed. “And people are all in their respective political communities and have very little interaction with people on the other side. In [the era of the earlier widows], as partisan as it was — and some people really hated the Kennedys — there was respect for the presidency that crossed party lines. The mourning wasn’t red and blue.”

"The solipsistic escapism of post-grunge lived on earlier this month too, when Alpine Valley [Wisconsin] became a respite from the real world...."

"A few festivalgoers wore their politics on their sleeves in the form of T-shirts about 'Making the Gulf America Again,' but there were more faux campaign tees emblazoned with Creed ’24 ('Take Me Higher') than MAGA shirts.... Eventually, it was time for Creed to close out the festival.... [A]ll eyes were on front man Scott Stapp, who looks fit and focused.... [I]t was fascinating to watch him interrogate his own failings and turn them into inspiration for the audience... issuing Facebook status wisdom like, 'The past is the past — it does not define today'.... Things threatened to come off the rails when Stapp was at his most political. The meandering message touched on surveillance, taxes, bank runs, credit card interest rates and the true meaning of 'power to the people.' 'If you want change, stop being gaslit by the media, the government and by everyone in charge,' he said conspiratorially, before course-correcting and calling for positive, constructive change — not disruptive anarchy. Then the band launched into 'One,' an anti-affirmative-action missive that preaches unity and now sounds like the theme song to the All Lives Matter movement...."

Writes Chris Kelly, in "I went to see the world’s most hated bands party like it’s 1999/Creed, Nickelback and other leading lights of the post-grunge era explored the nostalgic limits of rock’s most reviled sound at the Summer of ’99 and Beyond Festival" (WaPo).

That's a free-access link, so you can see some interesting photographs of the deplorable crowd and a good overview of the Alpine Valley setup. Maybe you're planning to — or wonder if you should — go to Alpine Valley to see Bob Dylan there on September 19th. I went to Alpine Valley. Once. It was 2 decades ago. I would not go back. Not for Bob. And therefore not for anybody.

Mamdani didn't lie. He is an African American.

I see that among the many attacks on Zohran Mamdani is the charge that he filled out a college application form deceptively. But the fault was in Columbia's form — and, some will say, in its policy of race consciousness:

[A]s a high school senior in 2009 ... [a]sked to identify his race, he checked a box that he was “Asian” but also “Black or African American,” according to internal data derived from a hack of Columbia University that was shared with The New York Times.

I'm reading "Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application/Zohran Mamdani, the Democrat running for mayor of New York City, was born in Uganda. He doesn’t consider himself Black but said the application didn’t allow for the complexity of his background" (NYT). 

So it depends on what the meaning of "or" is. It could mean "African American" is another way to say "Black," but it could mean check this box if you are either black or African Amercan or both. Mamdani didn't write the form. He filled it out. Now, of course, he knew there was a special advantage to be gained and that "Asian" wasn't much help if any, but he didn't lie. He perceived the potential for selfish advantage and he took it, and now he is offering to bring his advantage-taking skill to the people of New York. Where there is an edge to be gained, Mamdani will grab it for you, the citizens of New York City.

By the way, it is almost surely the case that Columbia wanted applicants to err on the side of claiming to belong to one of the minority groups Columbia gave an advantage to. It may have cared how the class looked when assembled in the auditoriums, and it may have even cared about the much touted educational benefits of a diverse student body. But it's safe to assume that Columbia wanted the racial percentages to look good on paper. If self-advantagers like Mamdani allowed Columbia, back in 2010, to say it had 14.5% "Black or African American" students instead of, say, 10%, Columbia would benefit. What's the problem? Fairness to applicants without the guts to interpret the form in their favor

ADDED: The Times of India explains to its readers:

[I]n America, Blackness is recognised as a political identity born of struggle and oppression. Indian-American identity, by contrast, is often invisible—treated as an immigrant economic niche rather than a racial group needing justice. This is why even Kamala Harris, with a Tamil mother, emphasised her Black identity throughout her rise.

"Would the American public stand for [Trump using a tricky path to a third term]?"

"It would obviously be an attempt to technically circumvent the prohibitions of the 22nd Amendment. But you know that's what lawyers do all the time. Democrats and Republicans. You always try to find loopholes in in the law. Religious authorities do that. Secular authorities do that. Certainly,  constitutional lawyers do that all the time. For example, when the Supreme Court was about to write its decision saying you couldn't use race-specific affirmative action to give benefit to black applicants over white applicants, Larry Tribe issued a bunch of tweets and stuff figuring out how to circumvent that, how to get around that.... Would the American public stand for it if they felt that, yeah, we'd like Trump, yeah, we'd vote for him, we think he's probably the best president, but you know the framers of the 22nd amendment, when they said you can't be elected to the third term, I think they really meant you can't serve the third term but they didn't say it but they didn't say it um so it depends what is is and it depends what elect it is, and these are very very technical arguments but, hey, I'm a constitutional lawyer, I'm a law professor.... " 

"If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Straight, White people everywhere could be filing."

Said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., chief executive of the human resources association SHRM.

Quoted in "Her claim of anti-straight bias could upend discrimination law/The Supreme Court will hear a case that could unleash a wave of workplace bias claims by Whites, men and people who are straight" (WaPo).

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in [Marlean] Ames’s bid to revive her case, which was stymied in the lower courts because of past rulings that set a higher legal bar for men, straight people and Whites to prove bias in the workplace than for groups that have historically faced discrimination. That higher standard is unconstitutional, her suit says.... 

Some worry a ruling for Ames could chill workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at a moment when President Donald Trump has made it a priority to roll back such initiatives across the country and squash “anti-White feeling.”

I went to that internal link and didn't see the phrase "anti-White feeling." Why is that in quotes? I can only infer that Trump said it, but it's odd to put it in quotes — and odd to capitalize "White" and to use the verb "squash" here. You know, I stick closely to mainstream news reports, especially The NYT and The Washington Post, and I believe I'm seeing an abrupt decline in quality, and it feels like an effort to get Trump.

"The issue of the female aviator’s identity is particularly sensitive as Mr. Trump has also blamed diversity, without evidence, for the crash."

"In addition, Pete Hegseth, the newly confirmed defense secretary, has said that the military has diminished its standards by welcoming women and racial minorities into its ranks. He has echoed Mr. Trump’s comments on rooting out diversity programs in the government.... Mr. Hegseth said on Thursday that the Black Hawk helicopter was 'doing a required annual night evaluation' flight and was being flown by 'a fairly experienced crew.'..."

From "Army Withholds Identity of Helicopter Pilot Killed in Crash/The names of two male crew members were released, but the family of the third aviator requested privacy" (NYT).

The reason the Army gave for withholding the name, we're told, was "her family’s request for privacy." And "It is unclear what specifically motivated the aviator’s family to make the request."

If we had the name, everyone would be able to research her, to read anything she may have written on social media, to look at photographs of her, and to express all sorts of opinions about her, including — taking a cue from Trump — theories about how she was promoted beyond her merit. Her death — and the death of everyone else in the disaster — would merge with the discussion of DEI and Trump's dramatic effort to snuff it out nationwide.

Trump press briefing, just now, on the air disaster.

 

Much of this was an attack on the FAA's diversity and inclusion hiring plan, "which says diversity is integral to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel":

Headline for another unread column.

"Donald Trump's war on DEI is not about 'merit.'"

That's a piece in Salon by Amanda Marcotte.

I didn't read the column. The headline made me feel as though I'd already read it 100 times. But I did prompt Grok:"Make the argument that the dismantling of DEI is racist" and "Make the argument that the real racists are those who make the argument that the dismantling of DEI is racist."

There's an authenticity to getting robotic things from a real robot. If it's going to be automatic, I'd like a crisp 7- or 8-point list.

Maybe it's not automatic. Maybe I'm being unfair to Amanda Marcotte. But how many chances to surprise do you get in this world?

The effort to trick Trump into making race the central issue and Trump's countervailing trickery.

This gets a little complicated, but let's begin where I began this morning, reading Shawn McCreesh, at the NYT (I've added the boldface):

Trump’s campaign seemed to have been holding onto some hope that their candidate would refrain from attacking his opponent based on race and gender. It was just last week that Trump’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, was asked at a rally if Republicans ought to be labeling Kamala Harris a "D.E.I. candidate." Cheung said then that "from the campaign’s standpoint, we haven’t done that." Asked if such attacks were "off-limits," Cheung replied: "I don’t know if it’s off-limits, but it’s not something that we’ve done. So, it is not even on our radar." Now, it is certainly on their radar. It was ABC’s Rachel Scott asking the former president if he believed Harris was a "D.E.I. hire" that set him off on his long tangent in which he questioned her ethnicity. Prodded again as to whether he considered Harris a "D.E.I. hire," Trump concluded: "I really don’t know. Could be, could be. There are some."

"Steven Cheung, was asked" — who asked him? It seems that the anti-Trump side is trying to force Trump and his spokespeople to say Kamala Harris was a "DEI hire." It seems that Harris supporters want race to be an issue, and ABC’s Rachel Scott made that happen at Trump's appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists Convention.

Let's look at the transcript in some detail and see how Scott achieved her goal. I'm using the automatic transcript generated at this YouTube video of the event, and I've corrected and punctuated it based on the video:

SCOTT: "Republicans on Capitol Hill have labeled vice president Kamala Harris, who is the first black and Asian-American woman to serve as vice president be on a major party ticket, as a DEI hire. Is that acceptable language to you, and will you tell those Republicans and those supporters to stop it?"

TRUMP: "How do you how do you define DEI? Go ahead...."

SCOTT: "Diversity Equity Inclusion."

TRUMP: "Okay, yeah, go ahead. Is that, what, your definition?"

Scott limited herself to saying what the letters stand for.

"Yes, I think Donald Trump should step down as his party’s presidential nominee. He is manifestly unfit to serve, both dangerously incompetent and clearly out of his mind."

Said Dana Milbank, one of 5 Washington Post columnists participating in an exercise called "If not Biden, who? Five columnists rate the field of potential replacements for the Democratic presidential nominee" (WaPo).

That's a gift link, so you can click over there and see them dream up the Whitmer/Booker ticket. Perry Bacon Jr. says:

Why pair Whitmer with Booker? He, like Kamala D. Harris, tried to run in between the left (Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) and the center-left candidates (Biden) during his 2020 presidential run. That strategy didn’t work in such a crowded field. But a candidate who is not a clear leftie or moderate could be a unifying figure. Booker remains very well-liked in the party. Diversity matters, so it’s important to have a non-White candidate. Booker (who is 55) combined with Whitmer (52) are a ticket that could address some of Biden-Harris’s current shortfalls among younger and Black voters as well as appealing to the majority of voters who don’t want a president in his 80s.

Diversity matters, that's why we're kicking our diversity-matters VP Kamala Harris to the curb and replacing her with a new repository of diversity. We'll split the diversity of Kamala in two and run with a white female presidential candidate and a black male vice presidential candidate. The young folks will love it. And besides, we can do what we want because Donald Trump is clearly out of his mind.

But the "out of his mind" man knows it's got to be Kamala:

HIGHER QUALITY VIDEO:

Trump says Joe Biden is “quitting the race"

"I got him out” he’s an “old broken-down pile of crap… Now we have Kamala. She’s so f—king bad”

(looks like Barron Trump in passenger seat 👀👀) pic.twitter.com/GXBZjxiP7p

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) July 4, 2024

"I got [Biden] out of there, and that means we have Kamala. I think she's going to be better. She's so bad. She's so pathetic. She's so fucking bad."

***

There's much more at that WaPo link — so many crazy statements from people who smugly declare Donald Trump to be out of his mind. I could write 10 blog posts excerpting different quotes and riffing on them, but I need to spread the love around. Happy 4th of July!

A new front in the battle against affirmative action?

I'm reading "Lawsuit: Northwestern’s law school is biased against White men in hiring/The complaint alleges that the private university’s law school gives hiring preference to 'mediocre' women and applicants of color" (WaPo).

A lawsuit filed Tuesday against Northwestern University opened a new front in the battle against affirmative action....

“For decades, left-wing faculty and administrators have been thumbing their noses at federal anti-discrimination statutes,” contends the suit, which was filed Tuesday in federal district court in Illinois. “They do this by hiring women and racial minorities with mediocre and undistinguished records over white men who have better credentials, better scholarship, and better teaching ability.”...

The suit names three White men it says were not hired despite strong qualifications, and names four Black women and one Black man who it alleges were offered faculty positions because of their race and/or gender, painting several of these academics in harshly unflattering terms.

This sounds not new but old to me, because I remember when the University of Wisconsin Law School was sued in exactly this way. The case went to trial, and I testified, because I'd served on the Appointments Committee. This was many years ago, and the jury found in our favor. It's very difficult to look at particular individuals who were hired and compare them to individuals who were not hired. This was decades ago, and the relevant case law has evolved since then.

Eugene Volokh is not one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, but the complaint contains allegations about him.