Year End Reflections, Part II (Privilege)

"Privilege," especially the idea of "white privilege," is currently a very big deal on college campuses and generally on the Left. One professor at the City University of New York expressed this: "the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy." The professor also complained about "reproducing white children" that are "part of the problem." Also, when white people leave their homes to their children, they are perpetuating inequality.

At an Ohio State University workshop students were told "whiteness grants you power and access to things." And students were also told that only white people are capable of being racist, and that whites can never be "victims." None of this compares to the comments by a now terminated nurse at the Indiana University Health Hospital. "Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves b....."

My first observation is that post Obama we are clearly not a post-racial society. As I mentioned often during Obama's eight years in office, rather than acting as a unifying President, he was divisive and encouraged a sense of "victimhood" in the black community. The idea of "white privilege" is by its very nature a racist concept. After all, racism is treating people a certain way simply based on their race or skin color. The individual is not even recognized as such.

This idea of "privilege" is, unfortunately, not restricted to white people. In a recent edition of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, a UCLA student penned an article with this title: "Are Jewish College Students Privileged?" Discussing another Jewish student's comments, the writer states that this other student suffered from a "moral conflict he felt as an American Jew. Yes, Jews face anti-Semitism, sometimes subtly and other times hideously, but Jews also have a come a long way - succeeding at getting our foot in the door of American politics and, by extension, American privilege."

Here's a question. When I think about the Jews who came here after the Holocaust with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, but managed to make a life for themselves and their families, should they be embarrassed about their success? Said the UCLA student: "If Jewish students want to be true partners to our progressive peers, it is our responsibility to check our privilege..." Check our privilege? What does that mean? Stop being white? Stop being Jewish? Don't speak?

This is the kind of drivel that young people are taught at college. I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned that we treat people as individuals. That is also what I taught my children. It is not just discriminatory/racist to treat people as members of groups (black vs white, for example). Think of the various genocides committed throughout history. Genocides were committed because one group was unable to see the individual humanity in others. If the above referenced professor thinks white children are the problem, I am reluctant to ponder what that professor would see as a solution. And the nurse mentioned above? If whites are rapists and killers, well, we can only imagine what her solution would be. Would it be similar to Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jews? So, allow me to correct myself. This is not simply drivel that college students are being taught about "privilege." It is dangerous and evil.

Year End Reflections, Part I (Sexual Harassment)

On the old TV show Laugh-In (1968-1973) there was a recurring skit with Ruth Buzzi sitting on one end of a park bench, clutching her purse. Arte Johnson, playing the dirty old man, would sit down on the opposite side of the bench, and then sidle over next to Buzzi. He would then ask her: "Do you believe in the hereafter?" She would nod or state her agreement, after which he would reply: "Then you know what I'm here after." Newsflash: all men believe in the hereafter.

The number of famous, wealthy and powerful men now accused of sexual harassment is getting too numerous for me to list them all. I have often held, however, that the rich and famous do not believe that the regular norms of society apply to them. Clearly, the behavior of these men confirms my belief. Journalist Angela Rocco DeCarlo recently wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal that her mother told her: "Never go to a man's hotel room." Noting that her mother likely was never in a hotel room, DeCarlo concurred: "...going to a man's hotel room alone is rarely a smart choice."

Then, DeCarlo referred to a story in her local paper showing a picture of a teenage girl with a low neckline holding this sign: "Instead of body shaming girls, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects." DeCarlo then commented on the idea that "girls should be able to appear in any state of undress and no one, especially boys, (has) any right to react." DeCarlo: "Sorry, young lady. The world doesn't work that way. Somebody should have told you."

But, the Left would never teach that. Not only would that idea be contrary to their idea of sexual "equality," and their idea that men and women are the same, it is a further reminder of my oft repeated truism that the Left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). After all, look at how the Left mocked Mike Pence for saying that he would not dine alone with a woman, or be at an affair where alcohol is served unless his wife was also present. What's wrong with Pence? Isn't he able to control himself? I am sure that a man such as Pence is able to do that, but he also understands the concept of temptation, and that sometimes we may do things which we will immediately regret doing.

Earlier this year, Robin Abcarian wrote a piece for the LA Times about Pence. First, she states that "removing temptation (in the form of women) from men is a staple of many patriarchal faiths." But, she then asserts that there is "a more important principle...in the eyes of the law and the government, women are equal to men. They are deserving of the same workplace opportunities that historically have presented themselves to men. If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out."

I agree that Ms. Abcarian makes some legitimate points. What is left out of the analysis, however, is that the law is one thing, reality is another. Just how many cases of sexual harassment cases do we need to hear about before that point sinks in? Before I receive any criticism, allow me to make clear that I do not condone sexual (or other) harassment. I have never cheated on my wife and do not condone those who cheat on their spouse. I do believe women should be treated as equal to men under the law. And I do believe that men should control themselves. But I do not see how not understanding men's sexual nature benefits anyone. It is a matter of letting reality dictating my beliefs.

After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he believed the women accusing Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled "Republicans Finally Believe Women." The Times never passes on an opportunity to score political points - even when the facts are not on their side. I am curious as to how the Times would explain the utter silence of the Leftists in Hollywood ignoring for decades the cases of sexual harassment occurring all around them. Then, the Times makes this feeble concession: "Some Democrats maligned the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, molestation and rape as looney tunes and trailer trash." Some Democrats? Don't they mean most Democrats, including their 2016 Presidential choice Hillary Clinton? I have long ago abandoned hope of Times' editorials demonstrating journalistic integrity.