Expected backlash to Regressive Leftism hits American colleges in the pocketbook

At least 18 months ago, several of my savvy friends predicted that the rise of Regressive Leftism among students would have a serious backlash Older alumni, whose donations are crucial for American Universities, would, said my friends, begin withholding their money, appalled by the shenanigans of Regressive students and the way that colleges like Yale, Harvard, Brandeis, Amherst, and Oberlin give in to ludicrous student “demands” or, like Harvard, even impose their own regressive standards (see below).

Well, it’s happening; alumni money is tapering off as donors don’t like seeing what’s going on on campuses.

Anybody could have seen this coming, but a new article in the New York Times calls this alumni reaction “an unexpected aftershock”:

Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered his future métier as a theatrical designer. But protests on campus over cultural and racial sensitivities last year soured his feelings.

Now Mr. MacConnell, who graduated in 1960, is expressing his discontent through his wallet. In June, he cut the college out of his will.

“As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,” Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5.

A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of complaints.

And these disapproving alumni aren’t all Clint Eastwood style Curmudgeonly Conservatives. In fact, they seem to be people much like me—and perhaps you.

Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech.

Scott C. Johnston, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, that he had failed “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college.

“I don’t think anything has damaged Yale’s brand quite like that,” said Mr. Johnston, a founder of an internet start-up and a former hedge fund manager. “This is not your daddy’s liberalism.”

“The worst part,” he continued, “is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.” Yale College’s alumni fund was flat between this year and last, according to Karen Peart, a university spokeswoman.

Good! And I hope the fund begins declining. The way Yale treated the Christakises was appalling. Both fine teachers, neither now teaches at the school because of a dustup over Halloween costumes. Nicholas might return to teaching, but neither he nor his wife Erika will be masters of Silliman College, and Erika will no longer teach. And although student complaints about the racism of former college President Woodrow Wilson were worth hearing, Yale summarily expunged some images of Wilson from the school (one is the mural below):


A mural of Woodrow Wilson in the Wilson College dining hall at Princeton University, which has been removed. Protesters have unsuccessfully called for the removal of Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs. Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times

Harvard, my own alma mater, has threatened to punish students who belong to single-sex associations that are not affiliated with the University, violating their freedom of association. I wrote to President Drew Faust about it, and got a noncommittal and generic response. Harvard Faculty have protested, and we’ll see what happens.

The Times reports that donations have dropped, on average, at 35 small liberal arts colleges, precisely the places where Entitled Students hold sway. These apparently include Amherst and Princeton. The article reports that some alumni are also chagrined at the replacement of core curricula in favor of more multifarious ones. I can share their sentiments, but I think it’s much more valid to complain about how universities bow to ridiculous student demands than to dictate curricula in a changing world.

And speaking of student demands, do you think the mural above should have been removed because Wilson was a racist (he certainly was, as judging by his statements)? But if you hold those standards, then there could be no portraits of people like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, who were worse than racists, for they held slaves. Tomorrow we’ll deal with a similar case, but this time dealing with Native Americans.


  1. Hempenstein
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Anything like this @ Wm&Mary?

  2. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    The most pernicious aspect of the regressive left is the total demonizing of and disregard for the contributions to human progress made by people who were unable to transcend the mores of the times in which they lived. George Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Does that negate the fact that they helped create the USA? The delicate flowers at Safe Space University would scream “Yes!”

    • Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      All great (human) achievements have been made by imperfect humans.

    • Filippo
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      Were Washington’s and Jefferson’s circumstances, financial or otherwise, such that they each could have freed at least one token slave during their lifetimes? (I know Jefferson is said to have said to the effect that he was “resolved” to free his slaves. Was his “resolve” of the sort the young St. Augustine had regarding chastity?) Maybe let one slave free and (being the gentlemen farmers that they were) one day a week, for a few hours and for the pleasure of a bit of manual labor, hoe a small section of those gardens through which I gather they thoroughly enjoyed strolling and taking their leisure? Or if it’s a house slave, take ones turn clearing the table and doing the dishes and washing the clothes and experience the job of emptying ones own chamber pot?

      Regarding abolitionists, were they somehow less on “the right side of history” at that time (as I’ve heard moderns put it during the last several years regarding certain social and political issues), or was their cause somehow less right and just and compelling, on account of having been born and having lived when they did?

      Same with regard to the treatment of native Americans (and women). In the Times article one alum supports Amherst in his smallpox initiative, saying to the effect what general would not have done that? Were the natives less justified in their hatred of the treatment they themselves had received from the noble Europeans, and in their responses to it? Trail of Tears and all that, eh?

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      Not just your founding fathers. This principle goes far wider than that.

      Isaac Newton was a religious nut with bizarre beliefs. I am sorry to say that the whole of physics (which is largely built on Newton’s foundation) will have to be dismissed since Newton’s religious beliefs are quite unacceptable to every right-thinking atheist.


  3. Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Amherst might itself be an interesting case – Native Americans of various sorts have told me that the one honoured at least in these parts is one of the worst as far as “evils of colonialism” go. I don’t know what to say there since in part the actual details of his involvement in biological warfare are complicated.

  4. Randall Schenck
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Yes I have said this before on the subject at hand, but if you take your 21st century values and attitudes back in time to study history, you just as well not make the trip at all.

    Trump, as an example,is a throw back to earlier attitudes on women, on race and other things. He is now going to pay for it dearly because he is judged, rightly so, on his views today. However, if he were suddenly removed to 1915-20 some of his views would hardly be noticed.

    By today’s standards Lincoln was a fairly bigoted fellow concerning African Americans in many ways. But if this is your conclusion of him you are missing familiarity with the most important president this country ever had.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      To that we could add a very long list. Charles Darwin (progressive by the standards of his time; racist by todays’ standards), Ghandi, and so on.

    • Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      Very well said.

    • Geoffrey Howe
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      IIRC, Wilson may have been bigotted against blacks, but he did advocate for better treatment of Jews and Catholics.

      As divisive as everyone else on one issue, but tolerant and accepting of others who weren’t accepted on another issue.

      Life is too often complicated like that.

  5. Zado
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    To be fair to the students, that mural is (was) kind of an eye-sore.

    • Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      How so?

      (It’s a B&W photo rendered in red & white. Probably Wilson as President throwing out a first pitch of a baseball game.)

  6. jay
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Erasing history. Tool of authoritarian rule.

    To help this along, several leading liberal arts schools are removing the American history requirements . That way they won’t learn about the fee speech they’re losing.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      So it’s true…ignorance is bliss.

  7. Ann German
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    When I was a student at Antioch College in the late 60’s – early 70’s (class of 72), we were seriously engaged in “political correctness,” to the point where, because we would not accept federal funds because of connections to the WAR, etc., the college almost closed. It did, later, and has only just recently reopened. One part of our campus was closed to non-blacks by black students and we were sued by the feds over that. We “struck” our graduation in sympathy with striking custodians . . . don’t think our parents who had driven many miles appreciated it. Etc., etc., and so on. BUT I am very grateful for those experiences, which could only truly have happened in that “laboratory” setting. They helped me sharpen my notions of possibilities for tactics and change, which have stood me in good stead as an attorney. Now, realpolitik is teaching these students a good lesson about the consequences of ill-advised tactics and strategy. I’m prepared to withhold judgment.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      I had heard about efforts today to have a building or some such area be restricted to blacks or other minorities.
      I struggle to see how re-introducing officialized segregation in any form is ‘progress’. I expect that was the federal governments argument as well.

  8. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    What might help to turn the situation is if notable sources for social mockery increase their attention to it. I would love to see John Oliver have a go at it, along with SNL. There would be less of a ‘cool’ factor that goes along with the virtue signaling, and this trend would lose steam.

  9. Historian
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    It is well known that many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. In fact, the following presidents were slave owners during their terms of office: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor. To varying degrees they intellectually opposed slavery, but, in practice during their presidencies they did little or nothing to end it, partly because their power to do so was limited.

    Other early presidents were friendly toward the slave holding interests: Martin Van Buren, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. By the way, Van Buren was an odd duck. In 1848, he ran as a third party candidate for the anti-slavery Free Soil Party.

    Whether or not to honor these presidents, particularly the most noted such as Washington and Jefferson, is a conundrum. For example, Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was a fairly brutal owner slave owner who in his later years rebuffed appeals for help from those who opposed slavery. I have spent much time mulling over whether or not these people should be honored. I must confess that I have not reached a conclusion. On the one hand, most of them played major roles in the development of the country. On the other hand, they were supporters of an institution they knew violated the ideals they supposedly stood for. I think the mental battles going on in their heads must have been terrible. The best we can do is recognize the good some of them did (some such as Tyler, Pierce, and Buchanan did very little good) with the recognition that the country was tainted by slavery from the day it was founded until it was ended by a bloody civil war. The contradiction between a nation supposedly founded on the concepts of freedom and liberty, yet built on keeping a race of people in bondage should never be forgotten.

    • Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

      Well said.

      To “not honor” the founders because they were racist and/or slave holders (they were all racist, I’d be willing to bet*), would mean honoring no one. That doesn’t make sense. The birth of the nation was extremely difficult (as you well know). It was imperfect. Recognize that and celebrate the good of it.

      Expunging history doesn’t make any sense. Great achievements are made by imperfect humans.

      (* Even Lincoln did not believe in equality for black people)

      • jimroberts
        Posted August 5, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

        Lincoln did not not believe that That black people were the moral and intellectual equals of whites, but he did support their common humanity and hence equality before the law. I am not a USAan, so my views on USA history may be unreliable.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted August 5, 2016 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

          Lincoln’s beliefs regarding the African Americans were always evolving. He always hated the idea of slavery as morally wrong. But he was also a believer, as many were, that once freed they needed to go or be shipped someplace else. He did not change on that – ship them out business until after he met with some of the leaders in the black community and they explained to him that it was not what they wanted and America was their home. He was not thinking “full citizenship” until late in the war.

          Lincoln was a lawyer and he knew the Emancipation in 1863 was only temporary. The 13th Amendment was required to abolish slavery permanently. I don’t believe that Lincoln believed black and white could ever live together but that is true for nearly everyone in 1864. Hell, it is true for many thousands today.

          Slavery was built into the Constitution without ever saying the word slavery. If we say, yes, those guys blew it back in 1786, the fact is, we never would have had a constitution otherwise and who know what then. The problem in 1860 was there was no more reasonable people to compromise – kind of like today.

          • jimroberts
            Posted August 5, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

            Thank you for giving me more information.

          • Posted August 5, 2016 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

            I would be interested to learn what these students know of the history of Woodrow Wilson.
            I would hope that all students carefully had studied U.S. history, but have my doubts. Although I’ve been told by historians that’s there’s a tendency for revisionist histories to be written every 25 years or so, that does not include totally expunging certain historical figures or periods. Knowledge of the past, however unsavory parts may be, must be known in order to intelligibly make forward progress. Would you exclude members of your own immediate family if they were racists, joked about disabilities or LGBTQ issues (I hazard a guess that most of us have such relatives)? How many citizens of this country are you unwilling to deal with because they are insensitive to your particular sensibilities?

            Re Lincoln: He did modify his views about blacks over time. Some of his earlier speeches make this very obvious. During his presidency, he tried to come up with programs to buy slaves from their owners and send them to Central America (or wherever it was). That didn’t meet with much success. Towards the end of the war, he tried his damnedest to get the states to come up with their own resolutions to slavery, and none would do it. When they wouldn’t, he did. However,the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all black slaves, but only those who were in the states that had seceded. And, it may have been done more as a tactic to reduce the manpower available to the South to support the war effort than to emancipate slaves.

            Orwellian methods will not make it possible for these students, or anyone else, to create the type of world they think they want. All
            history must be available to be learned and evaluated; “the good, the bad and the ugly”. All concepts must be able to be freely expressed and discussed. As with Lincoln, we must be able to learn throughout our lives and be free to change our minds.

            • Randall Schenck
              Posted August 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

              And this guy, Lincoln, who had almost no formal education at all, simply self educated, becomes a pretty fair lawyer, Representative to Congress, President of the U.S. and prevents the country from total failure. Not bad.

              Just not that interested in dissecting his flaws, particularly if that means holding him up to 2016 standards.

              Now Jefferson, there was a guy with a few flaws but being a slave owner, he inherited that and came by more through marriage. From birth he was with and around slavery. He was trapped in it, it was almost in his DNA. It also put him into poverty along with his spending habits and he borrowed a lot of money. What did they use for collateral to borrow money…Slaves.

          • Historian
            Posted August 5, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

            This is not the forum to write a detailed essay about Lincoln’s evolving views during the Civil War regarding slavery and the place of black people in America. Suffice it to say that his views evolved rapidly. On December 1, 1862, Lincoln sent to Congress his annual message, a written document (not a speech), similar to today’s State of the Union Address. In some detail, he advocated for constitutional amendments to provide compensation to states that abolished slavery by January 1, 1900, to provide compensation to loyal slaveholders whose slaves were freed during the course of the war (via the pending Emancipation Proclamation), and to provide funds for free blacks who voluntarily agreed to leave the country (which was referred to as colonization). These proposed amendments went nowhere.

            Yet, by mid-1864 Lincoln supported what was to become the 13th amendment, which freed all slaves without any reference to compensation to slaveholders. Moreover, he no longer talked about colonization. By 1865, he was talking about letting at least some former slaves have the vote. Finally, he supported the recruitment of former slaves into the Union army. Thus, in a short time he had come a long way.

          • Filippo
            Posted August 5, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

            ” . . . also a believer, as many were, that once freed they needed to go or be shipped someplace else.”

            Do you know if he had a similar perspective on native Americans?

            • Randall Schenck
              Posted August 5, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

              Oh, just happened to see this, much too late. I do not think he was any friend to native Americans. The only thing I recall was that earlier in his life he signed up during an Indian uprising but did not see any action that I remember. Later, as president, I think he had a bunch of Indians executed – did not pardon or lower the sentences they had been given.

              • Doug
                Posted August 5, 2016 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

                Actually, Lincoln did commute the death sentences of most of the Indians in this case.

                In 1862, the Sioux in Minnesota, responding to years of broken promises on the part of the government, began murdering white settlers. According to some reports, at least 800 white men, women & children were killed. After the Sioux surrendered, the army sentenced 303 to death. Lincoln reviewed each case, and commuted the sentences of all but 38 who were convicted of rape and murder (as opposed to killing whites in battle). This outraged many whites at the time, who wanted to see as many Indians killed as possible. I give Lincoln credit for resisting the political pressure to string ’em all up.

              • Randall Schenck
                Posted August 6, 2016 at 8:00 am | Permalink

                Thanks for that…I was going on memory and that’s not a good idea. I recall the incident but not the entire outcome.

              • Robert Bray
                Posted August 6, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

                Most interesting thread on what a historian friend of mine calls ‘presentism,’ that mistaken thinking that applies contemporary norms to judgment of past behavior. While Abraham Lincoln is one of my favorite subjects, and I quite agree with Mr. Schenck that he is almost beyond criticism in his greatness, the thread has already covered most of what I might have said concerning his moral growth on the matter of racial equality.

                So let me ask a few questions that have the fate of Native Americans in their historical context. As several comments have noted, Lincoln had to deal with a large Sioux uprising in Minnesota at the very time he was also fighting a two-front Civil War. He was not blameless in his handling of the outcome of that event, but he certainly showed more magnanimity than most other leaders would have. So some few were executed, the larger remainder pardoned, and the Sioux nation moved on. . . westward, into the Dakota Territory.

                Lincoln, like so many thousands of other across the U. S.,assumed that westward expansion was not only a good thing, but a right and legal thing (e.g., Homestead Act, 1862). After all, there were all those treaties signed with nation after nation as the Euro-whites moved west (for the most part ignoring at least the ‘fine print’ of the treaties). But, at the root, what gave the U. S. the ‘right’ to all that land stretching west and northwest from Louisiana to Oregon?

                The textbooks tell us: the Louisiana Purchase, of course, in 1804, from France to the U. S. Well, ok. Then what had given France the ‘right’ to it? Uhh, some other agreement with Spain? or maybe just the claim of discovery back in the 16th or 17th century? Ok. And before that? Well. . . nothing. Nothing whatever.

                So who or what people is the ‘sovereign owner’ of these millions and millions of acres? By European law, the only just answer is, ‘those who inhabit it first or obtain it by treaty.’ They did not live in the Louisiana Territory, and they obtained it by treaty from other polities whose people did not live there either.

                Here’s my point: Irrespective of whether they had any ‘right’ to it, Europeans claimed land they had no knowledge of. Not even of its extent, let alone of its geography or its inhabitants. Though the Spanish/French/English/Americans could not be aware of the fact, this claim would lead to what may have been the greatest dispossession of humanity in all of history (I do not have the facts to back this speculation up). Not in numbers of persons, but in size of territory. And the work of the dispossession fell largely to the United States, a nation whose principles explicitly stated it wasn’t supposed to do such things!

                The wars of dispossession lasted almost two centuries and ended with the near-genocide of dozens of Native American nations. As with the horrific legacy of slavery, neither the moral nor the economic blood price of this wrong has been ever been paid to the peoples wronged.

                So when I hear Amherst College students complaining shrilly about Jeffrey Amherst or some other founding father of the the institution who had some dark dried blood on his conscience that couldn’t be whitened by building a college, I’m not entirely put off because of the manner of their protest. For they do have history behind them.

  10. Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    ” But if you hold those standards, then there could be no portraits of people like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson”

    This is correct. More or less everyone was a racist in those days.

    But, maybe they are after full-on revisionist history (and the accompanying reeducation camps.)

    • Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      html fail. Close bold was supposed to be after “everyone”.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      There are also shades of the Soviet Union in the approach. Everyone who knows anything about that knows about the complete removal of people from history to the extent even of removing them from photographs in books. Trotsky was one who was wiped from existence within the USSR.

      • Historian
        Posted August 5, 2016 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        We must be careful to differentiate between honoring or not honoring a person and wiping whatever that person did from the history books. To the degree a person should be honored subjective factors come into play. A contemporary person’s opinion as to whether or not Woodrow Wilson should be honored is largely determined by the person’s attitude towards race or economic policy or involvement in world wars. But, regardless of contemporary opinion about Wilson, there is no doubt that he was a major figure in early 20th century America and must be studied. In other words, people who played major roles in historical events should be studied, regardless of what people may think of him or her. Wilson’s name may be expunged at Princeton, i.e., he would no longer be honored, but this potential act is irrelevant to the necessity of studying this important figure.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted August 5, 2016 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

          I agree – I’m just pointing out where this sort of thing leads, though I also acknowledge that “slippery slope” is a bad argument.

  11. Michael Scullin
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Old Elihu Yale himself seems to have been an unsavory character by today’s snowflake standards – Colonialist, capitalist, cheat. Wikipedia notes the following:

    For 20 years (Elihu) Yale served the Honourable East India Company. In 1684 he became the first president of Fort St. George, the company’s post at Madras (now Chennai)), India. He succeeded a number of agents from Andrew Cogan to William Gyfford. Yale was instrumental in the development of the Government General Hospital, housed at Fort St. George.

    Yale amassed a fortune while working for the company, largely through secret contracts with Madras merchants, against the East India Company’s directive. By 1692, Elihu Yale’s repeated flouting of East India Company regulations and growing embarrassment at his illegal profiteering resulted in his being relieved of the post of governor.

  12. Graham Head
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    I’m in the UK and I never went to university so I’m writing this from more or less a position of total ignorance but I would imagine many of those protesting would be happy that the rich white men are pulling out and losing influence.

  13. Filippo
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    ” . . .the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis . . . .”

    The NY Times mentions Christakis by name, but declines to name the screaming snowflake or to fully quote her dulcet, ennobling warblings to him. I wonder what is their reasoning for not doing so.

  14. somer
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink


    • somer
      Posted August 5, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      I agree but that was meant for the”expected backlash to regressive leftism hits US colleges in the pocket”

  15. Hempenstein
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Poor Woodrow. Hammered from the right during his lifetime for championing the League of Nations. Now after ~100yrs the Left has found a reason to hammer him.

  16. sponge bob
    Posted August 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Where is my safe space!

    • Doug
      Posted August 6, 2016 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

      Bikini Bottom.

  17. Robin
    Posted August 6, 2016 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    If we were to eradicate every person who ever held a racist, sexist, or exclusionary thought from our history books – we would have no history. Yes, our past is filled with people of their time, their culture and their upbringing that is different than ours. Why must we be so intolerant of their circumstances, yet tolerate the subjugation of women, the brutality against homosexuals because it is their ‘cultural heritage’? The hypocrisy is beyond my ken.

  18. Jp
    Posted August 6, 2016 at 3:07 am | Permalink

    The more I read about people being accused of being or accusing “the regressive left”, the more I see the patterns of :
    a)Young liberal folks overreacting on simple issues (e.g. Black woman attacking a White male for his… dreadocks)
    b)Minorities expressing out loud their opinions making White folks uncomfortable
    (e.g. protesting against White slave master’s legacy in schools)
    c)Minorities frustrated with the soft left (e.g. liberal Muslim or ex, tired of excuses used by many leftists to respect Islam no matter what)
    d)White people who feel uncomfortable when minorities point out their privilege (brushing off legacy of colonialism, racism and sexism)

    Each case might be different, single issue or intersectional.

    As a Black person, I wish the White majority had more empathy toward minorities so that they could understand their different viewpoint…as the viewpoint of the majority is taught, learned or expressed broadly.

%d bloggers like this: