In typical leftist fashion, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey just promised a grant of $10 million to a Boston University “scholar” whose “anti-racist” policy proposals are, of course, avenues of increasing political favoritism and speech-policing based on race, accusations of racism, or claims of racial “insensitivity.”
Reason’s Robby Soave reports that Dorsey -- whose “free speech platform” is continually cited for mislabeling and stifling the expression of conservatives and libertarians – announced on August 20 that he would be granting $10 million to Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University.
And, as Soave notes, Mr. Dorsey is free to donate his cash to whatever peaceful endeavor he likes. The trick is that, as Dorsey himself observed, Mr. Kendi’s center is not just involved in research. The goal is to increase the size and scope of government threats over private human interaction – and that’s far from peaceful.
In fact, Soave points out that in 2019, Kendi proposed a constitutional amendment that would “prohibit racism.” And if you’re familiar with collectivist ideology, that lovely sounding term translates into politically systemic policies that not only favor race-based treatment of people, but also promote government policing of everything from hiring, to journalism, to voluntary association and speech. In his piece exposing this move by Dorsey, Soave offers a sizeable portion of Kendi’s lovely idea:
To fix the original sin of racism…
Sorry. Gotta stop there. Why do so many leftists seem self-impelled to imply that:
- Racism was historically and societally universal in the US, or that, if so, it was targeted at one racial group?
- Individuals alive today are responsible for, or willing beneficiaries of, the racism of previous individuals?
- Even if those two presuppositions are valid and ethical to hold (which they are not), somehow, today’s government can equitably “rectify” this problem of “original sin” and do so without, itself, engaging in race-based policies?
Okay, let’s continue with Mr. Kendi’s screed:
Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.
This harkens back to Jean Jacques Rousseau’s envy-based 18th Century conception of socialism, something that was picked up by the violent revolutionary Jacobins as they bathed the streets of France with blood even as they proclaimed, “Liberté, fraternité, égalité,” or “liberty, brotherhood, equality.”
They are fine sentiments, but the very ideal of liberty requires that the “brotherhood” be voluntary, and the state is not voluntary at all. Furthermore, “equality” is supposed to mean equality under Natural Law, not equality of outcome based on a government agent’s judgment of what is “equal”. The very act of placing a government agent in the position of determining such a thing is, by definition, the elevation of someone who is “above” the equality.
The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with 'racist ideas' and 'public official' clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
Soave offers key thoughts on this last bit:
Such an amendment would constitute a brazen assault on the principles of a free society. Kendi would like to empower a team of government bureaucrats who are beyond even the normal accountability of the political process. Their job would be to investigate both public and private racism, and 'monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas.' Kendi's promise that what constitutes a 'racist idea' would be 'clearly defined' is hardly reassuring: There's no way such a department could avoid becoming an Orwellian nightmare—indeed, the very program would necessitate the formation of a kind of speech police.
Is it any surprise that Dorsey should back a figure who is actively working to get the government involved in speech-policing?
After all Dorsey’s Twitter has, for years, been accused of hiding Tweets, accused of de-platforming users for Tweets that actually do NOT infringe on Twitter policy, and has been cited by millions of Americans for booting people simply because Dorsey and his collectivist gang disagree with the sentiment or facts.
At least we are free to go elsewhere. Yes, Dorsey and his team appear to be arbitrarily making decisions, and they appear to be running afoul of their own “rules” they offer to users upon signing up for Twitter, but Dorsey and his speech-hypocrites don’t have the power to get the state to shut us down.
People like his friend, Kendi, would like to change that, and it seems that Dorsey would like to see that outcome, as well.