Pandering for Diversity

            As we move into the debate phase of presidential election politics, Democrat aspirants to the Oval Office are honing their vote-getting skills, particularly their ability to pander to every voting group.  Pandering becomes identity politics in action. It’s what you do when you have no positive ideas: you stoke the envy of every group that does not enjoy the advantages of social, cultural or financial privilege.

            Listen to Bernie Sanders as his promises of equality drip with contempt for the “rich.”  Was Beto O’Rourke’s switch to Spanish at the debates anything but a transparent appeal to Hispanic voters? And what's the latest count of candidates who have done a pilgrimage to New York to kiss Pope Al Sharpton's ring?

            Identity politics has infected academia as well. Harvard administrators are under fire for adjusting SAT scores in its pursuit of a “diverse” student body. In the process it has clearly discriminated against Asian applicants whose SAT scores are consistently higher than applicants from favored groups.

            While an overwhelming percentage of Americans say that college admissions should not be based on race or ethnicity, colleges are using “adversity scores” to boost admissions for applicants from poor or crime-ridden neighborhoods, thus devaluing the academic achievement of students with higher SATs. All in the name of diversity.

            Virginia Tech this year held separate graduation achievement celebrations for Jews, Muslims, American Indians, Blacks, Hispanics, and LGBT.  Am I the only one who thinks this is taking diversity a little too far?  What exactly does academia seek to achieve by pandering to diverse groups? Politicians at least have a clear objective: votes.

Eugenics in Practice

            In Indiana two years ago, then Governor Mike Pence signed a bill banning abortions for reasons of sex, race, or disability. For example, a woman would have been prohibited from aborting a fetus because it has Down Syndrome. But a federal appeals court sided with abortion rights advocates and ruled against the bill. It was then bumped up to the Supreme Court, which has put off ruling on it.

            Justice Clarence Thomas commented that the court, having created a right to abortion (in Roe vs. Wade) is going to have to rule on the its scope eventually. In the meantime, he accused opponents of the Indiana law of hypocrisy, insisting that aborting a baby because it has Down Syndrome smacks of eugenics.

            Eugenics is the science of improving the genetic quality of the human population. Selective breeding, if you will. The Nazis practiced it in trying to achieve a purified Germanic race. So did China when it forced the abortion of girl babies.

            Abortionists are up in arms, saying they oppose eugenics. But Thomas has a point. The termination rate for babies with Down Syndrome is already estimated to be around 67% in this country. In the UK the rate is 90%, in Denmark 98%, and in Iceland 100%. In fact, Iceland allows abortion after 16 weeks of any fetus with a deformity. This sounds very much like eugenics to me. Is this where we’re headed?

A Safe Space Invasion

            I have criticized institutions of higher learning for creating safe spaces to protect sensitive students from ideas or speech that they might find offensive. Snowflakes, I’ve called these fragile souls. Well, I’m afraid I need my safe spaces, too, because I am offended by the pervasive immorality of our entertainment industry.

            Two seasons ago I began watching a show called “Designated Survivor,” a series about a good man who becomes president of the United States after the Administration and Congress are wiped out by a terrorist act. I thought it was a good show. I watched the second series as well, although it lacked the drama of the first. I thought the third, which I started watching last week, would be better. I was wrong. I was not only disappointed—I was offended.

            The third season of “Designated Survivor” had become Hollywood’s latest propaganda for non-judgmental tolerance of moral depravity. By the end of the third episode, viewers had been treated to a wide range of fornication: between a Chief of Staff and his mistress, between a female campaign manager and a gigolo, plus a Vice-Presidential candidate two-timing his live-in girlfriend with a White House staffer, To top it off, the show lingered on the orgasmic coupling of two black gay men. I shut off the TV and will never watch another episode.

            Call me a prude, a racist, and a homophobe, if you will. But I was disgusted by what I saw and upset with myself for allowing such garbage to pollute my safe space.

           

Three Anniversaries

            This week marks anniversaries of two momentous events. June 6 was the 75^th anniversary of D-Day, and June 3^rd the 30^th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. On both days thousands of lives were lost, sacrificed for freedom from repressive regimes, one Nazi and the other Communist. One succeeded, the other failed. The heroism of one was celebrated, the sacrifices of the other met with enforced silence.

            I have walked the sands of Omaha Beach and I have also stood where thousands of Chinese protestors were murdered under the enormous portrait of Chairman Mao.

            In Normandy, caravans of buses disgorge hordes of tourists every day. They come to stand on the beach to visualize American soldiers coming ashore and climbing the cliffs under enemy fire. They also pay their respects to the dead interred below the endless rows of crosses above the cliffs. Few emerge from the experience with dry eyes. I can personally attest to that.

            Hordes of tourists also visit Tiananmen Square. But they will see no evidence of the slaughter that took place there. As many as a million people had gathered in that enormous space in the days preceding the massacre to call for democratic reforms. In response, the government mowed them down with tanks and machine guns.

            When I stood in that square some years ago, I did not see tears on the faces of the tourists or the local population. There were no signs to remind them of the atrocities committed there by the Chinese authorities against their own people, except perhaps for the presence of armed patrols who were there to enforce the public’s oblivion. Today, the brutal reality of that event has been blotted out, eradicated from history books, and forbidden from mention.

            Later this year we will mark the 30^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event surely not forgotten by China’s communist dictators. They must know that the desire for freedom is part of human nature, and that their repressive regime must also fall…eventually. I hope to still be alive see it.