Janet Levy – When the current occupant of the White House openly asserts that white supremacy is the greatest threat to America, it shows that demonizing whites is now an acceptable part of American life. Conservative writer Ed Brodow dubs this phenomenon the “new national sport” in the subtitle of his book The War on Whites.
In a Townhall article, he says hating whites is a disease of epidemic proportions that must be called out for what it is – racism. He explains how, in the woke-perverted world of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), white people – by dint of pigment alone – are the default oppressors, obliged to feel guilty and do penance for imagined crimes of “systemic racism.”
This reversal has its roots in critical race theory (CRT) and Marxist ideology, which are working overtime to replace the American ideal of equality (of opportunity, not outcome) with a distorted version of equity. The word itself means fairness or impartiality. But the new discourse interprets it to mean providing special opportunities to minorities and groups perceived as disadvantaged and denying them to the majority and those perceived as advantaged.
With woke ideas well entrenched in academia and diffusing therefrom to the corporate world and government, this perverse interpretation is increasingly translating into a sidelining of whites. Although government programs are required by the Constitution to be non-discriminatory, instances abound of anti-white racism becoming their salient feature. Such discrimination even extends to COVID relief programs, as if whites were not affected (or were less affected) by the pandemic.
Fortunately, these are being challenged as unconstitutional in federal lawsuits. One involves a discriminatory COVID relief program for businesses in Massachusetts. The $75 million program is deceptively called the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program, but accepts applications only from firms owned by minorities, women, veterans, the disabled, or LGBTQ+.
Challenging this, the pro bono Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Dalton, whose New England Firearms Academy cannot receive aid because he happens to be heterosexual and white. Dalton, a retired law enforcement officer, opened the academy in 2013 to provide firearms and safety training. During the pandemic, he was forced to sell assets and use his savings to cover business expenses. Upon reopening, he incurred additional costs to comply with mandated safety measures. So, he wanted to apply when the program was first announced, but found he was ineligible.
In Brian Dalton et al v. Hao and MA Growth Capital Corp, filed on May 31st at the U.S. District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, PLF attorneys argue that the program violates the 14th Amendment guarantee for “equal protection under the law.” They rightly characterize the program as inclusive in name, but in fact exclusive in its application. Broadening the argument to make a case for the American ideal of individual rights, the PLF states on its website:
When the government benefits or burdens us based on traits we cannot control, it unjustly diminishes our individuality and institutionalizes and reinforces stereotypes. Such treatment also hinders opportunity. Business owners have a right to be treated as individuals, and not as part of a group to which the government arbitrarily assigns them. Our country has had a terrible history of discrimination that cannot be remedied with more discrimination.
A similar case was filed in 2021 by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) on behalf of Tennessee restaurateur Antonio Vitolo against the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA prioritized women and minorities during an initial three-week period for grants from the $28.6 billion Restaurant Revitalization Fund, a COVID relief program. White males were relegated to the back of the line. On May 27, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled (with Judge Bernice Donald dissenting) that such prioritizing amounted to “racial gerrymandering.” It ordered the government to fund Vitolo’s grant application, if eligible.
In 2020, two whites and a Chicano sued Oregon in two lawsuits for racial discrimination when it designated $62 million in COVID relief specifically for blacks, presuming that the pandemic affected them disproportionately. Under pressure from the nightly Black Lives Matter (BLM) mayhem in Portland, state officials initially defended the program. Later, though, they admitted to its potential unconstitutionality. In an editorial commentary, the WSJ called the program “blatantly unconstitutional.”
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had denied a request from one of the plaintiffs to block disbursements, but agreed to examine the constitutional issues “later in this litigation.” Eventually, the state settled both cases, paying out grants to 1,252 non-black applicants.
In December 2020, Etienne Hardre, a barbershop owner from Colorado Springs, sued the state of Colorado for denying him relief under a state program due to minority eligibility criteria. Hardre’s business was hit hard by the pandemic lockdown and the restrictions under which he could reopen at reduced capacity. The program requirements were later amended, but still conferred preference to minorities. The case, however, was closed, with the judge saying in an April 19, 2021 order that it was filed before “implementing regulations had been adopted” – in short, too early.
There are other examples, too, of government programs discriminating against whites. The California Underserved and Small Producers Program (for drought relief) advantages farmers of color and illegal immigrants by awarding them 50% of available funding. A Covid relief grant in Stamford, CT, and the Source Grow Grant of Cook County, IL, both reserve one-third of funding for small businesses owned by minorities, women, the disabled, and veterans. The latter was rescinded for redesigning after PLF filed a lawsuit.
White-bashing is so pervasive now that a Rutgers professor, Brittney Cooper, had no qualms about saying “we got to take these [white] motherf*****s out,” and another from Drexel, George Ciccariello-Maher, tweeting that “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” Anti-white racist screeds abound: White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo and Michael Eric Dyson, and How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi, for instance.
Denver councilwoman Candi Lee CdeBaca believes in correcting what she perceives as past inequities committed by whites through higher taxes on white-owned businesses. Describing herself as more of an anarchist than a communist, she justifies such punitive measures to redistribute wealth to minority businesses on the grounds that capitalism was built on “stolen land, stolen labor, and stolen resources.”
Throughout the university system, faculty keep such extremism alive in the classroom, fanning the embers with CRT and DEI. One technique Leftist academics have deployed successfully, as Australian authors Harry Richardson and Frank K. Salter point out in their book Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, is the weaponization of victimhood, actual or perceived. Young, impressionable minds – often catalyzed by the induced guilt of being born white – absorb these ideas and perpetuate them after graduation through activism and at their workplaces.
Race has become such a dominant factor in government funding, university admissions, and hiring and promotion decisions that there is a climate of tremendous animosity against whites, who are excluded while favored categories are given preference. Former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich calls it a “cult of anti-white racism.” What is lost to the CRT-DEI ideologues is that racism is always wrong, regardless of who is targeted.
Government benefits and special privileges must be distributed on objective criteria of need and merit, not by arbitrary classifications of race, sex, or sexual orientation. The latter is both unjust and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Worse, such policies encourage privilege seeking and wallowing in victimhood, both of which demean the human spirit, its quest for excellence, and its ability to rise above circumstances. This threat to our meritocracy signals the end of an America that achieved greatness through endeavor, innovation, and excellence. We can’t allow that to happen.
SF Source American Thinker Jun 2023