Over the past few weeks, several instances of what passes for logic in the liberal sphere have come to light. First, there was the “passionate” dissent offered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in response to a Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in college admissions.
An article at the National Review summed it up best:
In a perfectly Orwellian dissenting opinion, which she read dramatically from the bench, Justice Sotomayor argued that the decision of the people of Michigan to end racial discrimination is itself an instance of racial discrimination and that the only way to mitigate such racial discrimination is through the mandatory maintenance of racial discrimination.
Or as I wrote at the time,
To enshrine in a state’s constitution a provision that forbids giving racial preference in college admissions is discrimination. It’s discrimination to forbid racial preferences for “persons of color”. In other words, you discriminate by forbidding discrimination!
That’s liberal “logic”.
Next up is an example of discrimination combined with hypocrisy. New “research” by two of the liberal usual suspects informs us that there isn’t enough diversity (in their opinion and as they define it) among U.S. public school teachers. They complain:
Almost half the students attending public schools are minorities, yet fewer than 1 in 5 of their teachers is nonwhite.
New studies from the Center for American Progress and the National Education Association are calling attention to this “diversity gap” at elementary and secondary schools in the United States. The groups want more to be done to help teachers more accurately mirror the students in their classrooms.
Here’s where the Orwellian “logic” comes in:
Teachers are always pushing their students to excel, said Kevin Gilbert. … It becomes easier for students to believe [they can excel] “when they can look and see someone who looks just like them, that they can relate to,” said Gilbert, a member of the NEA’s executive committee. “Nothing can help motivate our students more than to see success standing right in front of them.”
I’ll leave it to you to determine exactly to whom Mr. Gilbert refers when he says, “our students.” Whatever the case, he clearly states and believes that for a student to “excel”, it is best for that student to “see success standing right in front of them” in the form of a teacher who “looks just like them, that they can relate to.” Hold that thought and then try to digest this, as spoken by Ulrich Boser, an author of the report:
“Even in a place like North Dakota, where the students aren’t particularly diverse relative to the rest of the country, it’s important for our social fabric, for our sense as a nation, that students are engaging with people who think, talk and act differently than them but can also be just as effective at raising student achievement in the classroom.”
Got that? Some students appear to be more equal than others. Is this logical, or is it straight up racism and discrimination?
Do students excel when their teachers look like them, so they are able to relate to them, or not?
Or is it only “students of color” who must have teachers who look like them in order to excel?
Can teachers of no color “be just as effective at raising student achievement in the classroom,” or it is only teachers of color who teach in a “place like North Dakota” who can be “just as effective?” Does anybody truly believe that?
Why is it “important” for students of no color to be taught by teachers of color, but not vice versa?
Why is it “important” for students of no color to have their need to excel sacrificed on the altar of political correctness?
Somehow, it’s “important” that students of no color have teachers who do not look like them and to whom they cannot relate.
Do these researchers care one whit for the futures of children who happen to have no color?
Is it important to our nation to deliberately stunt the academic achievement of those students who don’t have “color”? How is it that teachers of color can magically “be just as effective at raising student achievement” when they teach students of no color, but teachers of no color cannot be just as effective if they are teaching students “of color”?
Should females be taught only by other females? Should males be taught only by other males? Should Asian-Americans be taught only by Asian-Americans? Or can any “person of color” be substituted for another such that an African-American can teach Native-Americans but you better not have a teacher of no color teaching either African-Americans or Native-Americans? How does a “Hispanic” of Filipino descent relate to a “Hispanic” of Puerto Rican descent? Where will the silliness end? Whatever happened to Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of judging people by the content of their character?
Does this look to you like affirmative action for teachers “of color”? These teachers of color must be hired to teach students of color and they also must be hired to teach students of no color in any un-diverse “place like North Dakota.” In essence, the teachers of color get preference for all the teaching jobs. What a racket, as my dad would say.
Finally, these two stories seem similar and yet not the same, depending upon whether or not they’re viewed through the liberal looking glass. The UN makes an offensive analogy, and nobody seems to care:
A U.N. committee compared the Vatican’s handling of the global priest sex abuse scandal with torture Monday, raising the possibility that its failure to investigate clergy and their superiors could have broader legal implications …
“I wonder if you could tell us how you ensure that the criminal prohibition against torture in Vatican City covers all individuals for whom the Holy See has jurisdiction,” asked committee member Felice Gaer. …
Distorting language. That’s something else that liberals do. Torture! Compare that story to this one and the response to it:
A state Senator’s blog post likening the insurance requirement under President Barack Obama’s health care law to the forced deportation of Jews during the Holocaust drew swift condemnation Monday from leaders of both parties in Tennessee.
Republican Sen. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville wrote the comment in a post titled “Thought of the Day.”
“Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare is like Germans bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for ‘train rides’ for Jews in the 40s,” he wrote.
At first glance, his analogy probably is offensive to some. On second glance, however, Obamacare hasn’t been in effect long enough. Too many people have to see to believe. Is Campfield referring to the death panels? When they come to pass, when people’s lives and their families’ lives are touched by the death-panel angel, then perhaps more of them will understand Campfield’s analogy.
Is anybody complaining about the UN’s offensive analogy? As you see, it all depends upon who is being offended and who is doing the offending. In the end, it all depends upon “liberal logic”.