A professor of history at Harvard took a parting shot at that venerable institution in his retirement letter. While not as epic as Bari Weiss’s epic flounce from the New York Times half a decade ago, it is nevertheless a scorching indictment of what used to be one of the premier institutes of higher learning in the world.
Back in the 80s when we were coming up, we had a term for it then - "reverse racism". Oh they gussied it up in terms like "affirmative action" and "equal employment opportunity", but the message was clear where this was going. But it didn't affect us directly because back then, if you were a high performer, you still got the job and got the raises and promotions - and if it checked the ignorant passions of the few remaining "bad racists" (and we all had met a few) so much the better. So we tolerated a little "reverse racism" in order to drown the few remaining embers of actual racism, but mostly we just "went along to get along" because we were young and compliant with "the system" which just didn't affect us. Now, along comes our kids and "the system" has grown into a frightening beast of virulent, strident, soul-crushing, anti-white, anti-male bigotry. For whose sins, precisely, are my kids paying this price? And why should they?
You hated the term (the wording) or what it is in practice? Because in my mind, the term was always pejorative - as in "two wrongs don't make a right". See Chief Justice Roberts...
The irony is thick here. Universities that claim to combat systemic racism have themselves become systemic gatekeepers wielding immense power over who gets access to elite institutions. The Harvard professor's letter highlights how "systemic power" isn't some abstract concept from the past—it's very much present in admissions offices making race-based decisions. When institutions with this level of influence systematically exclude qualified candidates based on race, they're embodying the exact definition of institutional racism they claim to oppose. The cognitive dissonance required to maintain that only certain forms of discrimination "count" is astounding.
Back in the 80s when we were coming up, we had a term for it then - "reverse racism". Oh they gussied it up in terms like "affirmative action" and "equal employment opportunity", but the message was clear where this was going. But it didn't affect us directly because back then, if you were a high performer, you still got the job and got the raises and promotions - and if it checked the ignorant passions of the few remaining "bad racists" (and we all had met a few) so much the better. So we tolerated a little "reverse racism" in order to drown the few remaining embers of actual racism, but mostly we just "went along to get along" because we were young and compliant with "the system" which just didn't affect us. Now, along comes our kids and "the system" has grown into a frightening beast of virulent, strident, soul-crushing, anti-white, anti-male bigotry. For whose sins, precisely, are my kids paying this price? And why should they?
I've always hated "reverse racism," because it implicitly concedes the Left's artificial guardrails on the concept of racism.
You hated the term (the wording) or what it is in practice? Because in my mind, the term was always pejorative - as in "two wrongs don't make a right". See Chief Justice Roberts...
Using "reverse racism" instead of just "racism" when the racism was directed at whites. Racism is racism, full stop.
In my case, it's my grandkids, but the outcome is the same.
The irony is thick here. Universities that claim to combat systemic racism have themselves become systemic gatekeepers wielding immense power over who gets access to elite institutions. The Harvard professor's letter highlights how "systemic power" isn't some abstract concept from the past—it's very much present in admissions offices making race-based decisions. When institutions with this level of influence systematically exclude qualified candidates based on race, they're embodying the exact definition of institutional racism they claim to oppose. The cognitive dissonance required to maintain that only certain forms of discrimination "count" is astounding.
When it comes to racism there's no such thing as being color blind anywhere on the spectrum.