I have told you that people like Eric Holder Soledad O'Brien, CNN, the mainstream media and leftists in general are the primary racists in this country . They are also the real cowards in this country who are unwilling to have an honest, logical discussion about race. And I can prove it. You may find that hard to believe, but I can.
You have to come back with me to 1972, or so, in Austin, Texas. I was a law student at the University of Texas School of Law, where I was to graduate 3rd in my class. I even got a "Clue" board game from one of the most liberal professors in the law school (saying a lot, even then), as a reward for tying for high grade in his class. He was almost embarrassed, and commented: "I guess good thinking cam be independent of politics." I do not really regress here, because I am making the point that I was an outspoken conservative, even then, at a time and place where few dared to speak out as conservatives. That kindof courage has never been my problem. That same class is the class where we debated abortion, and two liberal laaw students came up afterward and said: "notice how no one could answer your arguments (and they couldn't). We still think you are wrong, but we don't have any answer to what you said, and did not see that anyone esle did either."
Well, at that time the Daily Texan (student newspaper) was as leftist as you can get--on the editorial pages. Perahps it is not surprising that the paper was more objective on its "news" pages than most modern mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press itself. "Journalistic" standards had not yet totally died then. This was still the time of the Vietnam War, and George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon--losing 60% of the vote even after the Watergate break in had occurred. However, McGovern got about 97% of the vote in student precincts at the University of Texas. The outspoken people on campus were not only leftist, but radical leftist of the William Ayers type (Weather Underground). These far leftists are today's "journalists" who put their opinions on both the "news" and editorial pages, and comprise the majority of present university faculty members.
The Daily Texan had a policy of supposedly encouraging "guest columns" (the op-ed kind of stufff for input beyond the scope of a short letter). Even then, of course, leftists did not believe in real debate or free speech, especially about race (as Eric Holder and leftists today do not believe in real debate and free speech, and count on intimidating cowards out there into silence Yes, leftists were also already sanctimonious hypocrites of the most virulent kind.
This was also the time of the Bakke (sp.? whocares?) Supreme Court decision that first called into question "reverse discrimination": racial preferences discriminating in favor of "minorities" based on the color of their skin and against "white males" based on the color of their skin (and sometimes sex, although white females were often part of the discriminated against class). The Bakke decision was followed later by a 5th Circuit decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, specifically preventing "reverse discrimination" in admission to the University of Texas School of Law (Hopwood? something like that was the case name--mermory fails me). As far as I know, this is still the case law that controls admissions at the University of Texas School of Law, and I personally think it is why my older daughter was denied admission at that law school, while accepted at Cornell University. As I have previously told you, my two daughters are 50% Hispanic, with a totally Mexican-American mother (my ex-wife). Yes, I told them to claim it on law school admission applications, and am not sure why every single applicant does not calim some such thing (see below). My daughters certainly have as much right to claim Latina status as President Obama has to claim African-American status. In 1972, that was still in the future. But the Bakke case was already being debated on campus--along with the issue of racial preferences for minorities. I say "debated", but the left then, as well as now, was uninterested in debate. They wanted to dictate what "enlightened" people should believe.
I don't know if it was before or after the Bakke decision of the Supreme Court, but I submitted a "guest column" to the Daily Texan explaining what was wrong with racial preferences--discriminating against "whites" (and maybe Jews, orientals, etc.--non-preferred minorities) on the basis of the color of their skin. The Daily Texan did not print the "guest column". As I said, I can prove that leftists are cowards, and did not believe in free speech, or debate on race, even 36 years ago. You might want to consider why leftists still favor racial preferences 36 years after I wrote that "guest column". There never was any excuse for government mandated racial preferences, which still continue today and are likely to get worse in the Age of Obama, even in 1972. 36 years later leftists should be ashamed to still be making the same arguments for evil.
Yes, I called it evil then, in effect, and accurrately labeled leftists who would then discriminate against people based on the color of their skin as "racists". That is what I call them today.
"But", you say, "you could be making this up. The column was never printed."
Oh, but you are wrong. It was printed. I see you are confused. I said that the Daily Texan, run by leftist students who had no belief in free speech and free debate, failed to print the "guest column", as they printed no conservative material on the editorial pages that entire year. But I did not let it go at that. Even then, I had it up to here with leftist hypocrites and intellectual dishonesty Yes, Eric Holder, I was tired of leftist cowards unwilling to have a "conversation" on race, and racial preferences.
I wrote the Texas Legislature. Yes, I mean I wrote the ENTIRE Texas Legislature. I objected to taxpayer money being spent to promote solely a leftist point of view, with no attempt to even allow "diversity" of opinion in the newspaper. Lloyd Dogget was one (student elected, leftist) state senator who received this letter. I think he is now a Congressman (leftist) from Austin.
Without any kind of apology or acknowledgement (to me, about my letter), the "guest column" was printed. If you can find the right back issue, you can look it up. It is there under the name "Gordon Stewart" (my name). Now I was not too happy with the subheadings, which seemed an attempt to sabotage the article (the cynic in me says). I still remember one subheading: "the fatal flow". That section of my article did not deal with the "fatal flow", but with the "fatal flaw" of racial preferences. I guess the yound people of the Daily Texan were no better at typos and proofreading than an aging, retired lawyer with macular degeneration (me today). Or you can believe it was an attempt at deliberate sabotage.
What was this "fatal flaw" I talked about 36-37 years ago, when the families of maybe half the Hispanics now residents of this country were still residents of Mexico (hardly being kept down by "discriminating" in THIS country!)? That "fatal flaw" is that all Americans are mongrels, and there is no definition of who is a member of a particular racial or ethnic minority. Oh, there is definitely no adequate definition But I mean what I said then, and say now. There is simply no definition at all of who is African-American and who is not; who is Native American and who is not; and who is Hispanic and who is not. The definition simply does not exist, and cannot exist. That makes no difference if we treat people as individuals, and do not assign benefits based on the color of a person's skin. In other words, it makes no difference if the government is "color blind". It makes a huge difference if we are giving preferences based on racial and ethnic identies we cannot define, and which would make no sense if we even tried to define them.
To be continued. The next part of my personal attempt at a "conversation" on race, and why leftsts are generally racists, will continue with a fuller explanation of why it is impossible to identify who is a member of a particular minority, and why it is an evil thing to even try to define people by their race or ethnic origin.