Read on Twitter
In response to the President of Princeton declaring the school to be racist, the Department of Education will investigate (educations that racially discriminate violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/exclusive-education-department-opens-investigation-into-princeton-university-after-president-deems-racism-embedded-in-the-school">https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/e...
Is there any way we can get the entire Ivy League and other inequality-reproducing institutions to follow Princeton& #39;s noble example and declare themselves something that causes them to lose all federal funding?
This case is the first time a lot of America will examine the woke definition of racist (basically a spirit that inhabits all interactions between white and nonwhite people) and compare it to the one in the Civil Rights Act, advocated by King/Rustin.
The difference between the woke definition and the traditional definition is that the latter is material enough to address with legal remedy whereas the woke one is designed to be a ritualistic declaration: what did Princeton university& #39;s president want done? He wanted nothing.
If you argue that there can be racism without racial discrimination, and basically everything is racist, then Civil Rights Act becomes irrelevant -- you& #39;re arguing we *should* subsidize racism. Under CRA definition, which is one most people subscribe to, you don& #39;t subsidize it.
Ultimately the traditional and legal definition of racism can sustain itself and the critical theory one can& #39;t because the critical theory one can& #39;t coexist with application of US law as written...unless someone rewrites the Civil Rights Act.
Civil Rights enforcement is based on having a workable definition of racism based on racial discrimination. If you start stretching the word racism into meaning virtually anything, you& #39;re going to ruin civil rights enforcement.
