The American Mind: In Telling Citizens To Just Sue the Schoolboard Rather than Use Voter Power on CRT, French Is Recommending That People Pursue a Path He Knows Will Fail

At the American Mind, Helen Roy writes a great piece about David French's new "True Conservative" position that people whose children are being taught that they are oppressors and racially inferior should not limit school's "Free Speech" rights to stigmatize their children and indoctrinate them into self-loathing.

No, David French says, they should contact a leftwing lawyer like himself and pay him many, many thousands of dollars to each pursue justice in every individual school district.

This is preposterous, Roy notes: "Whites" have a very tough uphill climb in court getting equal rights protection based on their race.

And David French knows it.

He's recommending a course of action -- in his capacity as a lawyer giving expert advice, note -- which he knows will fail and which he intends to fail.

The authors' final rhetorical strategy is to tell the reader that they already have all the protection they need in the form of existing anti-discrimination laws. Rather than pursue legal action as a group, the authors suggest that it would be "wiser" for victims of anti-white bias to file individual complaints："Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act both prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, and they are rooted in a considerable body of case law that provides administrators with far more concrete guidance on how to proceed. In fact, there is already an Education Department Office of Civil Rights complaint and federal lawsuit aimed at programs that allegedly attempt to place students or teachers into racial 'affinity groups.'"

Has any white person ever succeeded against the courts in a case where they were discriminated against for being white? The cited civil rights campaign was filed for the sake of high-achieving Asians seeking college admission. Of course, the open secret of civil rights law, which these authors know yet deny, is that it simply doesn't apply to white people. "White" is not a protected legal category. By practice, it is instead the implicit aggressor category against which all others collectivize to secure legal privileges. The authors know that official recourse for aggrieved whites is impossible. Yet they encourage the reader to pursue only the impossible, not to mention alienating, route, rather than that which is at least effective in elevating awareness of overt racism. You have to wonder why.

I'm sure that whites are not per se excluded from seeking equal rights protection -- but, as I said, it's an extremely heavy lift. It may not be written in the law itself, but all the judges know: This doctrine is for the protection of minorities. Whites need not apply.

It should also be noted that judges will take states' lack of action on the point -- that is, their refusal to ban CRT -- as evidence that the state intends for CRT to be taught, and thus will say, "We decline to set aside the wisdom of our elected representatives and impose the ban the legislature has refused to implement itself."

David French knows this.

But he's a leftwing hustler being paid by leftwing donors.

The piece is titled:

David "Vichy" French
Real appeasement has never been tried.

That's cute, and I did chuckle, but it's false.

David French is not on our side counselling us, with his effeminate voice, to surrender; he is on THEIR SIDE, commanding us to surrender.

He's not shying away from aggressiveness; he is acting with complete aggressiveness.

It's just that you are the people he's aggressing against.

Do not take the "c*ck coward" thing literally about NeverTrump.

Literally, they are on the other side, and literally, they do not shy from battle, but are in fact bloodthirsty for it.

It's just that you are the people whose blood they thirst for.

Zaid Jilani noted that Conservative, Inc. once again has no idea how to fight a cultural aggression from the identitarian left:

Conservatism, Inc. had basically no idea how to combat the new racial essentialism until Chris Rufo appeared on the scene, which is telling about how little Conservatism, Inc. actually thinks about governance or public policy.

Progressives whether you agree or disagree with them are full of ideas, some of which I agree with and others where I don't, but they're always thinking. If you comb through conservative think tanks it's just rehashing the same stuff they've been saying for 40 years.

Anyway I think it's slowly changing because the GOP old guard is aging out and the younger generation is more interested in actually using the tools in front of them and not just repeating mantras about tax cuts over and over. But it'll be a rough t

...

Up until late 20th century school prayer was common in public schools. Left worked the legal system to eventually get judges that got it removed. They did this because they understand what you teach kids in schools matters. This is what you do when you're serious about policy.

The right complains that it has lost control of all kinds of private institutions -- universities, media, arts -- and yet with government institutions where it has wide leeway to influence society it often throws it's hands up in the air and let's...the left run them anyway.

Constitution was ratified in 1700s and school prayer wasn't removed until the 1900s. All interpretations of Constitution are political and about power. It's naive to think people at NRA or Planned Parenthood are just dispassionate constitutional scholars

I don't know if it's that Conservative, Inc. doesn't know how to fight these cultural battles, or if they're very ambivalent about whether they should.

The reason they babble endlessly about tax cuts for corporations is that it's a culturally safe point to babble about. They won't get disinvited from the DC cocktail circuit for talking about tax cuts.

But they will get disinvited for attacking any of the left's core cultural claims.

And so Conservative, Inc. finds any kind of cultural defense of traditional values very... problematic. They are very squeamish about daring to say, for example, that drag queens should not be twerking for children in public libraries.

Conservative, Inc. is paid by AEI, the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch Foundation, and various other "libertarian" billionaire-funded outfits -- and surprise, surprise, the media the left-liberal billionaires has created is left-liberal.

Except for enforcing the law on minorities, or taxing billionaires to pay for Democrat Green New Deal programs they tacitly support.

Below, an example of what happens when citizens attempt to deliver their complaints about CRT to a public comment meeting at a schoolboard.

Just hire David French, guys. Do not dare use your power as citizens with the vote to simply bar the teaching of CRT to your own children.

Talk like that might get you kicked off the cocktail party circuit, peon!

posted by Ace at 06:41 PM

| Access Comments