Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse WOKE

Newsom takes in Disneyland’s first Pride Nite — gets rightfully hammered for it

Visits: 20

Newsom takes in Disneyland’s first Pride Nite and gets hammered for it © Provided by Washington Examiner.

Story by Luke Gentile for The Washington Examiner

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) took in Disneyland’s After Dark: Pride Nite Tuesday and shared his experience with followers across social media.

“Great to be at Disneyland’s first ever Pride Night,” Newsom, a suspected 2024 Democratic hopeful, tweeted.

Newsom posted a clip of himself taking in the fireworks over the park’s iconic Sleeping Beauty Castle with a rainbow cascading in the background.

The California park is hosting what is being touted as its official LGBT “Pride Nite” festivities from June 13 to June 15, Disney posted to social media.

This will be its first after-hours event in celebration of pride, according to the park.

“Disneyland Park will host the first ever Disneyland After Dark: Pride Nite during a separately ticketed evening event,” a statement from Disney announcing the event read. “Guests can enjoy special after-hours park access to shorter attraction wait times, special entertainment, Character experiences, photo opportunities and much more!”

From 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., visitors will be able to partake in dance parties with their favorite Disney characters in “special attire” amid “pride-themed backdrops,” according to park officials.

Following his post, Newsom was hammered with tweets criticizing his areas of focus as governor.

Kevin Dalton @TheKevinDalton
Gavin Newsom: you won’t see me discussing any of the mass shootings in California, you won’t see me at the funerals of any police officers murdered by violent felons that should be behind bars, you won’t see me doing anything effective to prevent homelessness.

Skylarking @EmpressLibra25 replied:

You WILL find him at a restaurant during a lockdown…without a mask.
Kenrik March @KenrikMarch
How about you do something for the other 90% of your state for a change?
Sam Dawson @SamsGarageSale
Move in. You won’t be missed.

This event certainly is no “E-ticket!”

Even the MCU and Star Wars franchises won’t save Disney at this rate.
Yeah, given the known quantity of mentally ill gender-confused loons in Cali, they just might make up 10% of the state’s population. But what about the other 90%?


Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Politics The Law

Office of Special Counsel Determines Karine Jean-Pierre Violated Federal Law, Given Wrist Slap

Visits: 15

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has been ever-so-gently reprimanded for politicking from the podium.

The Office of Special Counsel last week ruled that Jean-Pierre’s attack on the “Make America Great Again” wing of the Republican Party — largely associated with former President Donald Trump — violated the Hatch Act, according to NBC News. The Hatch Act seeks to prevent federal employees from using their official positions for political purposes.

Jean-Pierre attacked that group prior to the 2022 midterm elections (and has continued to do so with regularity).

“Unfortunately, we have seen mega MAGA Republican officials who don’t believe in the rule of law,” she said in the Nov. 2 comment that triggered the complaint against her. “They refuse to accept the results of free and fair elections and they fan the flames of political violence through what they praise and what they refuse to condemn. It remains important for the president to state strongly and unequivocally that violence has no place in our democracy.”

The complaint was filed on Nov. 3 by the watchdog organization Protect the Public’s Trust.

“We have decided to close this matter without further action.”

In a letter Wednesday to the group’s director, Michael Chamberlain, Ana Galindo‐Marrone, who leads the OSC’s Hatch Act Unit, wrote, “Because Ms. Jean‐Pierre made the statements while acting in her official capacity, she violated the Hatch Act prohibition against using her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”

But despite the finding, Galindo‐Marrone said, “we have decided not to pursue disciplinary action and have instead issued Ms. Jean‐Pierre a warning letter.”

The letter said Jean-Pierre “used the phrase ‘MAGA Republicans’ repeatedly during official press briefings prior to the November 2022 midterm election.”

“Although Ms. Jean‐Pierre never expressly instructed viewers to vote for or against Republican candidates for elected office, OSC concluded that the timing, frequency, and content of Ms. Jean‐Pierre’s references to ‘MAGA Republicans’ established that she made those references to generate opposition to Republican candidates. Accordingly, making the references constituted political activity,” it said.

The letter said that “we have decided to close this matter without further action.”

By way of explanation, the letter said that “the White House Counsel’s Office did not at the time believe that Ms. Jean‐Pierre’s remarks were prohibited by the Hatch Act, and it is unclear whether OSC’s contrary analysis regarding the use of ‘MAGA Republicans’ was ever conveyed to Ms. Jean‐Pierre.”

Getting tough will take place the next time, Galindo‐Marrone said.

“We have advised Ms. Jean‐Pierre that should she again engage in prohibited political activity, OSC would consider it a knowing and willful violation of the law that could result in OSC pursuing disciplinary action,” the letter said.

Chamberlain derided the letter, according to NBC News.

“This episode illustrates exactly what people hate about Washington, DC and why they increasingly distrust the Biden Administration’s promises to be the most ethical in history,” he said in a statement.

“The Hatch Act was a law used to pillory previous administrations but officials now appear content to sweep it under the rug,” Chamberlain said, referring to multiple complaints about Hatch Act violations made during the Trump administration.

White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement, “As has been made clear throughout the administration, we take the law seriously and uphold the Hatch Act. We are reviewing this opinion.”

Other Hatch Act violations in the Biden administration took place when Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra made a public show of support for Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California and when former Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted a political message using his official Twitter account.



Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Opinion Politics The Law

McCarthy Destroys CNN Reporter in Less Than 1 Minute: ‘You Can’t Put Words in My Mouth’

Visits: 23

Corruption News Network

Commentary by

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy offered a masterclass in regard to how to deal with hostile reporters on Monday when he obliterated one of them from CNN.

The California Republican’s argument was one that CNN and its partisan coverage of the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents is disingenuous.

CNN anchors, contributors and guests routinely feign outrage at Trump by portraying him as playing loose with national security.

But the network also platforms a classified documents leaker in former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and one who abused his power in 2020 in former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

That wasn’t lost on the speaker in the Capitol on Monday when a CNN reporter asked him about Trump’s indictment.

McCarthy said he was concerned the government was being “weaponized” by the Biden administration for political purposes and that he and other Republicans are working to ensure there is not a two-tiered justice system in the country.

“You’re with CNN, right?” McCarthy asked the CNN reporter during an interview in which she interrupted him repeatedly.

After the reporter confirmed her affiliation, the speaker grinned and pointed out that it was only appropriate to speak about the two CNN contributors.

When he invoked the name McCabe, the reporter cut in and made a perilous attempt to redirect the conversation.

She asked the speaker about topics such as defunding the FBI and defending Trump.

McCarthy ignored every word she said and hit her with his own line of questioning. It took him all but one minute to put her on the defensive.

“Are you prepared to defend your network, CNN?” he asked.

After a number of interruptions, McCarthy then took command of the conversation and lit CNN up.

“You can’t put words in my mouth, even though your network hired Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for leaking classified documents,” he said.

McCarthy followed up, “Did you remove him from your network? No, you continue to put him on to give judgment against President Trump.”

In spite of multiple interruptions, McCarthy continued his criticism of the beleaguered network:

“So your network hires Clapper, who literally lied to the American public — one of 51 other individuals that had briefings — and used it politically to tell the American public that a laptop was Russian collusion, even though it had all this other information about the Biden administration.”

He then asked, “Are you prepared to get rid of those people from your network?”

After he received no answer to his question, he laid into CNN for weaponizing information in the same manner Clapper and McCabe weaponized their access to intel.

“My concern as a policymaker is that when you weaponize government and now you’re weaponizing networks, that is wrong,” he said.

He concluded, “I have a real problem that your network actually pays people who [used] classified information and then lied to the American public to try to influence a presidential election, and then you put him on your network to try to give an opinion about a president.”

Had McCarthy been holding a microphone, an appropriate measure would have been to drop it and then walk away.

The corporate media has been up in arms about Trump and his relationship to classified information since the FBI raided his home last summer.

The same people have not been concerned by the fact then-Vice President Joe Biden made off with classified documents — none of which he was authorized to declassify — when he left office in 2017.

Clapper’s signature on a letter that falsely portrayed the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation also never bothered anyone at CNN.

Nor did the fact McCabe was fired from the FBI in 2018 for leaking classified information to the media.

The answer to the discrepancies here are obvious: the establishment media mostly exists to protect the Democratic Party and its interests and to target people such as McCarthy — the most powerful Republican in the country.

While the speaker is often maligned by people on both sides of the aisle, he can’t be accused of being dull.

Not one person at CNN has the privilege of speaking about Trump’s classified documents case from any position of moral authority.

McCarthy was savvy enough to know that and to turn what could have become a hit job on him into a referendum on the blatant bias in media.



How funny is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Politics

Oregon Liberals Risk an Ugly Legacy as Another County Joins ‘Greater Idaho’ Movement

Visits: 38

Here’s a solution for Oregon residents suffering from bad government in their state — just leave. And take much of Oregon with you.

A 13th Oregon county will be voting on a citizens’ resolution to escape Oregon liberalism and join the state of Idaho, KTVZ reported.

Voters in Crook County, Oregon, will participate in advisory balloting next May, joining a dozen other counties in the state which have already approved starting the steps to attach eastern Oregon to Idaho.

It’s part of the Greater Idaho movement, whose website states the current Oregon-Idaho line, set 163 years ago, “is now outdated.”

“It makes no sense in its current location because it doesn’t match the location of the cultural divide in Oregon,” according to the website. “The Oregon/Washington line was updated in 1958. It’s time to move other state lines.”

Ultimately, any new change in the state line would require approval by both Oregon and Idaho legislatures and by Congress.

Wednesday, Crook County voters approved allowing the electorate to conduct an advisory vote in May 2024. The advisory vote would be “to determine voter attitudes of whether your Crook County elected officials should inform state and federal officials that the people of Crook County support continued negotiations regarding a potential relocation of the Oregon-Idaho border to include Crook County,” according to a ballot summary reported by KTVZ.

Also on Wednesday, the Wallowa County Clerk ruled that results on the Greater Idaho question on the ballot in that county were too close to require a recount, so the measure was deemed passed.

Instead of county commissioners, some Oregon counties are overseen by a “county court” which consists of a judge and a pair of county commissioners. Seth Crawford is county judge of Crook County and he said the boundary vote is “100 percent” advisory.

Crawford said he has always wanted “to have people weigh in” on the boundary question.

The Greater Idaho website lists a half dozen reasons to join Idaho, including Oregon’s 1) violation of American values by the state’s western majority; 2) lack of law and order plus infringement on the right to self-defense; 3) high taxes; 4) mismanagement of forests; 5) higher regulation, unemployment, and cost of living, and 6) lack of rural representation.

With eastern Oregon moving to Idaho, it would improve things for western Oregon, the Greater Idaho website says.

The substantial western Oregon income tax revenue would remain without the state having to continue to subsidize the east; legislative gridlock would be reduced; both remaining Oregon and Greater Idaho would have increased self-determination, and, with the change of only one-half electoral vote, the number of seats in the U.S. House and Senate would not change.

It’s a long shot for Greater Idaho. But, as their website points out, border realignment has been done before.

And elsewhere, rural areas of Illinois, New York and Colorado are hosting movements to carve out entirely new states removed from influences of large urban areas, according to The Center Square, a publication aimed at covering state governments.

Given its distance from the state capital of Lansing and southern Michigan urban areas, the idea of the sparsely-populated Upper Peninsula of Michigan dividing into its own state of Superior has long been kicked around.

And if Democrats get greater control of Congress, there is little doubt they will seek to retain that power by granting statehood to the District of Columbia and possibly Puerto Rico.


Back Door Power Grab Corruption Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) MSM Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

I don’t want to live in a country where Trump could be held accountable.

Visits: 34

USA TODAY Opinion columnist Rex Huppke.

From Rex Huppke, USA TODAY,  also reprinted on

[* It is clear from the word choices, UPPER CASE WORDS, and quotation marks that this person’s article is saying the opposite of what he claims to be for or against. He is mocking at least half the country. — TPR]

Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I’m not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he’s not supposed to have and say, “This is secret information. Look at this,” and then be held accountable for his actions.

I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,” and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 37 alleged “crimes”?  Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN’T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no “evidence” they did crimes. THAT’S TOTALLY UNFAIR!

It’s like Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin wrote in a tweet Friday: “These charges are unprecedented and it’s a sad day for our country, especially in light of what clearly appears to be a two-tiered justice system where some are selectively prosecuted, and others are not.”

TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don’t like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.

It’s like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I’ve done and refuse to look up the definition of “banana republic.”

Sure, they’ll tell you that the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence.

But that’s complete nonsense, unless we’re talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that The New York Times reported he “charged no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either” is something I will ignore.

This is a WITCH HUNT, and I believe that because Trump said so!

Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand – he’s bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith’s investigation is a witch hunt, and I’ve never known Trump to lie about anything.

Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: “I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”

So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn’t protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there’s a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: “See, as president I could have declassified it. … Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

You call that “damning evidence.” I call it, “What about Hunter Biden’s laptop?”

Putting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden in prison? Now THAT makes sense!

Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it were Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn’t be saying a word about two tiers of justice or the weaponization of the Department of Justice or anything like that.

Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.

It’s like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, “Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up.”


And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train’s a comin’.

[* I have not done any editing for grammar errors. This snide, self-important turkey is representative of the amount and level of pandering being done on behalf of the Leftist regime. –TPR]


Back Door Power Grab Corruption Economy How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Medicine Privacy Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

National Digital ID System: It is Already Here — And You thought Real ID was Bad!

Visits: 23

The only question is when, not if…

Reposted from Who is Robert Malone on substack (with comment by TPR.)

The National Digital Health ID is being implemented by the Federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

Most US Citizens have no idea it is being implemented.
The National Digital Health ID system is in direct conflict with the US Constitution Bill of Rights.

Please carefully review the following slides. An essay on this subject will be forthcoming shortly From Dr. Malone.

First Real ID, now THIS. How soon until they institute a SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE? Welcome to the Peoples’s Republic of Sino-America — TPR


Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Left-Wing Extremism Tied To Psychopathy And Narcissism, Study Finds

Visits: 23

Left-wing extremism and aggression are linked to psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies, a new study has found.

People with narcissistic or psychopathic tendencies are more likely to strongly endorse left-wing aggression against authority, according to a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Psychology.

The study found that people with dark personality traits like narcissism and psychopathy tend to be drawn more to certain aggressive left-wing political and social activities. Their desire to engage in these activities is not always rooted in a genuine desire for social justice, though, but rather is a way to satisfy their ego, the study suggests.

The study introduced a new term for this behavior called the “dark-ego-vehicle principle.”

“According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities – such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits – are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality,” study authors Dr. Ann Krispenz and Dr. Alexander Bertrams told PsyPost.

Bertrams is the head of the Educational Psychology Lab at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and Krispenz is a postdoctoral associate at the same university.

The study was actually made up of two studies, both of which found that “individuals who strongly endorse anti-hierarchical aggression to overthrow those in power are narcissistic individuals with psychopathic attributes and thus driven by ego-focused motives.”

“In particular, certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill seeking,” the authors told PsyPost.

The study authors warned that, “minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways.”

Narcissists pretend to be prosocial, they said, but actually tend to have “low empathy,” the authors said.

The authors said they wanted to investigate the personality traits linked with left-wing authoritarianism because the concept has been met with skepticism by many researchers and there is not a lot of research on the subject.

“We were interested in the psychological factors behind authoritarianism,” they said. “There is a wide range of literature and research in the field of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). However, research on authoritarianism observed in individuals who are supportive of left-wing political ideologies are still rare,” they said.

They used another researcher’s new measure for left-wing authoritarianism.

That new measure defined left-wing authoritarianism as a combination of three things, anti-hierarchical aggression or wanting to use force to overthrow established hierarchies, anti-conventionalism or embracing progressive moral values, and top-down censorship or wanting to use the government to suppress speech.


Violent left-wing activism has cropped up frequently in the U.S. in recent years, most notably during the summer of 2020, when activists destroyed the downtown areas of major cities during protests around the death of George Floyd.


Back Door Power Grab Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics

Going Too Far: Children’s Choir Singing National Anthem Stopped

Visits: 9

Thanks to the Western Journal.

Capitol Police have come under scrutiny after stopping a children’s choir from singing the national anthem inside the U.S. Capitol.

A video of the May 26 incident has gone viral on social media, showing the moment Capitol officials approached David Rasbach, who was leading the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir in their performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

The video shows a female officer in the background apparently instructing a congressional staffer to stop the singing. The staffer then approaches Rasbach, speaks into his ear, and Rasbach halts the choir.

Rasbach, alongside Micah Rea — who organized the children’s trip from South Carolina to Virginia and Washington D.C. — explained what actually happened to The Daily Signal.

When they had arrived at the Capitol that day, the choir had been briefly stopped by Andrew Tremel, the visitor operations manager at the Architect of the Capitol; Rea told the Daily Signal.

Tremel was informed that the choir had been given permission to sing and, after speaking into his earpiece, he told them they could do so, Rea said.

Rasbach, alongside Micah Rea — who organized the children’s trip from South Carolina to Virginia and Washington D.C. — explained what actually happened to The Daily Signal.

The Twitter hate-squad quickly claimed that the choir wasn’t stopped but merely asked to move from a high-traffic area. Really? Why were they allowed to assemble there in the first place if it was interfering with a “high-traffic area??? –TPR

Rasbach then reportedly asked the officer: “How do you think this is going to affect these children? Their first time visiting their Capitol and then they have this disappointment.”

“She shrugged her shoulders, saying, ‘They sounded beautiful, but… They can go outside and sing,” he said of her response.

According to Rasbach, the female officer went on to claim that multiple people had complained about the offensiveness of the anthem.

Rasbach explained to the Daily Signal that the choir was given permission to sing in the Capitol by Reps. William Timmons and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, as well as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

The three lawmakers have since responded to the incident online, condemning the Capitol Police and reaffirming their support for the choir group.

Naturally, the Capitol Police immediately blamed the staffer and McCarthy for their actions:

“Although popup demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol without the proper approval and permit, due to a miscommunication, the U.S Capitol Police were not aware that the Speaker’s Office had approved this performance,” USCP said in a statement to Newsweek.

And the Twitterheads took the bait:

The Capitol Police also responded to the incident, placing most of the blame on the congressional staffer, who they labeled a liar.

“Recently somebody posted a video of a children’s choir singing the Star-Spangled Banner in the U.S. Capitol Building and wrongfully claimed we stopped the performance because it ‘might offend someone,’” Capitol Police said in a statement to the Daily Signal.

“Here is the truth. Demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol,” they claimed, adding: “Of course, because the singers in this situation were children, our officers were reasonable and allowed the children to finish their beautiful rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner.”

They then said that the congressional staffer “lied to the officers multiple times about having permission from various offices.

“The staffer put both the choir and our officers, who were simply doing their jobs, in an awkward and embarrassing position.”

Rea and Rasbach have both responded to the statement with a fierce rebuke, with Rea calling it a “bald-faced lie.”

“You can see clearly in the video, they literally stopped him before they finished singing ‘The Star-Spangled Banner,’” Rea said. “That is absolutely, irrefutably wrong.”

“[The female officer] did everything she could to stop us and not let us continue singing, period,” he said, adding that the staffer did nothing wrong and did not lie to Capitol Police.

“That is not true—he did not lie to anybody,” Rasbach said in response to the Capitol Police’s statement about the staffer.

The two also refuted the claim that musical performances aren’t allowed in the Capitol, pointing out that as recently as March 29 a group of 80 pastors sang in the Rotunda. Sean Feucht, a Christian pastor and singer, also held performances in the Capitol in February and March, as the Daily Signal noted.

The Capitol Police have since apologized to the choir in a separate statement to Newsweek, this time blaming the incident on “miscommunication.”

“Although popup demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol without the proper approval, due to a miscommunication, the U.S Capitol Police were not aware that the Speaker’s Office had approved this performance,” the statement read.

“We apologize to the choir for this miscommunication that impacted their beautiful rendition of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ and their visit to Capitol Hill.”!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg?w=580&ssl=1

The USCP has shielded murderers [Ashli Barrett was shot — in a crowd of on-lookers, no less! — and  Roseanne Boyland was beaten to death by USCP (video of the attack exists and was known as early as late January 2021) then dragged inside the Capitol (presumably to make it appear she was inside the building when she died.)] When is the USCP and those who direct it going to be held accountable? This latest attrocity with the children shows they just don’t give a f*ck about the rest of us who don’t share their ideology.



Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Racism The Courts WOKE

This Supreme Court case could spell the beginning of the end for affirmative action. DEI-ers are bracing for a crisis.

Visits: 19

This article appears in the June/July 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The end of affirmative action?”

**Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above**
Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR

Why diversity advocates see a Supreme Court case on college admissions as a looming crisis for corporate America.

It may seem like a harsh assessment of human nature, but people don’t generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do, says Natalie Gillard, who has worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion for over a decade. That’s why laws and mandates exist.

And that’s why Gillard has been anxiously watching the Supreme Court. While the ruling had not come down when this issue went to press, court watchers say the conservative majority is very likely to strike down or severely restrict race-based college admissions programs in June. Many fear that prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions will unleash a legal dismantling of over half a century’s worth of laws and rulings aimed at remedying the systemic inequities racial minorities face in the U.S.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization founded by the anti-affirmative-action legal activist Edward Blum, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accusing the institutions of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.

While this decision on affirmative action will most directly affect higher education admissions, legal analysts say it could open the floodgates to upending diversity initiatives in other areas, including the corporate landscape.

And Gillard and her colleagues in DEI are bracing for a crisis. Gillard created Factuality, a 90-minute interactive game and “crash course” in structural inequality that has been used as an employee-training tool at companies such as Google, Nike, and American Express, as well as at Yale University, among others. Factuality has seen an uptick in demand in recent years, but Gillard is under no illusions about why companies hire her: “I really feel that there are people who participate in these programs and initiatives because it’s required and mandatory,” she tells Fortune, “and that with this decision they’re just emboldened to stop.”

Last year the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, had a transformative cultural and legal effect—leading to a cascade of states passing near-total abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive rights. The affirmative action ruling may not be as far-reaching, but it is a bellwether for a shift in the conversation about race and racism broadly, says Richard Leong, a senior strategist at Collective, a DEI consultancy headquartered in Brooklyn.

“I think it really begins to throw into jeopardy whether or not we can continue to use race and ethnicity as a demographic identifier,” Leong says, adding, “The DEI industry as it is today is already under fire.”

Indeed, DEI initiatives at public universities have been challenged in Florida and Texas this year. Corporate DEI programs have been the target of rage and ridicule in op-eds from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. And amid a wave of layoffs, many tech companies are rolling back their diversity pledges, cutting DEI roles at disproportionate rates.

Gillard says she has already seen the effects in her business: She used to collaborate often with companies and organizations in Texas and Florida, she tells Fortune, but she no longer works in those states because organizations are unsure about what they can and cannot do, and fearful of causing controversy.

“I’m concerned the decision will only further curtail our efforts,” Gillard says. “After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

A ripple effect

Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decision goes as expected, it could have a ripple effect on corporate diversity programs. The decision could “augur where the court might go with respect to certain programs for private employers,” says Kevin Cloutier, a partner in the law firm Sheppard Mullin’s labor and employment and business trial practice groups. The courts may rule to strike down affirmative action programs for federal contractors, or be more receptive to reverse discrimination claims against private companies

The most direct impact of the Supreme Court prohibiting race-based admissions decisions is that universities will very likely become less diverse over time—as has happened in public university systems in states where affirmative action is already banned. If so, companies will be left with a more homogenous talent pool to recruit from.

And there are likely to be knock-on effects for companies, says Camille Bryant, an attorney and member of the labor and employment practice group at McGlinchey Stafford. It may be harder to live up to the ESG commitments that companies have made to investors, for example. And less diverse workforces may turn off customers, who increasingly expect brands to be inclusive. More homogenous workplaces are also less appealing to millennial and Gen Z workers, who have high expectations of workforce diversity.

“After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

Natalie Gillard, creator, Factuality

Less diverse talent pipelines could have a substantial effect on outcomes at some organizations. A recent study found, for example, that a higher prevalence of Black doctors led to lower mortality rates among Black residents in those counties. But with less diverse medical programs, hospitals will likely employ fewer Black doctors, negatively impacting patient care.

Backlash to the backlash

The Supreme Court case comes at a critical time for the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has been three years since the murder of George Floyd brought about a reckoning on racism in the summer of 2020, and many Black and brown workers remain skeptical of their companies’ lip service to the ideals of diversity, dismissing them as “performative allyship.”

“DEI is a journey, not a destination,” says Ericka Brownlee-Keller, DEI head at a renewable energy company. “It really depends on the fabric and culture of the company you’re in.”

BlackRock is one company that decided to take a hard look at its own record, and the results were revealing. In March 2022, the asset management firm hired a third-party law firm to audit the progress it had and hadn’t made on its multiyear racial equity plans, launched in 2021. The audit found that BlackRock was adhering to the letter of its diversity goals—increasing Black and Latinx hires by 30% and improving representation at senior levels—but was failing in some respects when it comes to the spirit of those goals. It has struggled, for example, to retain its Black and brown employees.

BlackRock is also an early case study of a trend DEI professionals say is growing, and the Supreme Court decision could accelerate: backlash to perceived “wokeness.”


Percentage of companies that have a senior role fully dedicated to DEI. Source: Paradigm’s State of Data-Driven DEO, 2022

In April, the conservative group America First Legal (founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller) said it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting a civil rights investigation into whether the BlackRock Founders Scholarship, an internship for minority students, discriminates against students who don’t qualify as minorities.

Incidents like that are why DEI professionals Fortune spoke with don’t believe it’s overblown to see the looming Supreme Court decision as a time bomb. They’ve kept tabs on the responses to the court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, and watched as state legislators quickly moved to severely restrict or ban abortions in the wake of the decision. They’ve braced themselves as anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives have gathered steam in recent years, leading to new state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care and accommodations. And they’ve watched as bans have throttled discussion of sexual orientation and Black history in schools.

“What we’re seeing is in a lot of ways a backlash to us being able to have made so much progress,” says Brownlee-Keller. “We often talk about ‘When’s the other shoe gonna drop?’ A lot of this is people’s fears being realized.”

Some argue that diversity initiatives won’t completely crumble on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the field has come too far and the people doing the work are too committed. “This might hinder the progress we’ve made in DEI, but I think we’ll find other avenues,” Brownlee-Keller says. “People in these roles are resilient.”

Strategize now

Many DEI professionals are coming up with lists of actions for employers to consider, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. The first is to review DEI programs and ensure the company has a robust and evidence-based case for these initiatives, says Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist and president of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm Paradigm.

For example, a company may discover that the promotion pipeline for Black leaders falls off at a specific ranking, based on 10 years of company data. If the company determines that it has failed to support this talent for promotions, it might implement a program to address the problem. Using data to explain these moves helps ensure that company initiatives are not “misconstrued as things that are being done because Black folks or folks of color are deficient,” says Carter, “but rather recognizing it as what it is: righting systemic inequities.” It could also help ensure that the program would survive a legal challenge.

It’s crucial, too, for companies to diligently vet public statements related to diversity initiatives. For example, in today’s climate, making public promises that a company’s board will be 25% female could create a legal vulnerability, Bryant, the McGlinchey Stafford lawyer, says. “Sometimes messages that are very well intended can get an organization in hot water if it’s not necessarily done and crafted in the right way.”


Percentage of employees who don’t think their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine. Source: Catalyst Survey, 2022

That’s a lesson several of Carter’s clients learned last year after announcing plans to pay for employees’ travel costs if they have to cross state lines to get abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead of just applause, they faced controversy and complaints.

“There were employees who said, ‘This goes against my values, and I am upset that you would be seen as a company supporting abortion,’ ” Carter says. “A lot of clients said, ‘We thought we did the right thing. But now these people are upset.’ ” Developing internal FAQs to respond to questions or complaints from employees will help managers and human resources teams avoid being caught off guard if and when such a controversy erupts.

Creating new pathways for diverse recruitment will also be key, and might include doubling down on partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities and other minority institutions and on sponsorship and mentorship programs, as well as more actively developing the pipeline for diverse talent.

“This is the time to help your DEI team.”

Evelyn Carter, president, Paradigm

Most important, company leaders should ask what their DEI teams need. These often small and under-resourced teams may soon have to respond to an influx of reverse discrimination claims and handle a slew of complex internal and external communications. That might involve training managers to see and address bias and harassment and training HR to understand how discrimination impacts employee performance.

Employees may also have to navigate more internal strife, microaggressions, and harassment, so companies might consider increasing access to mental health resources such as therapy services and warmlines for employees—free, confidential lines where employees can seek guidance, support or a listening ear.

“That’s a lot. So this is the time to help your DEI team,” Carter says. “Ask your team what they need, and then deliver on it.”




Child Abuse Education How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) WOKE

College Student Got a Zero on Project for Two True Words: ‘Most Biased Grade Ever’

Visits: 46

“Biological woman” is now hate speech

A college student named Olivia posted a viral TikTok video in which she revealed she received a zero on her final assignment based on woke ideology, not the content of her work merely because she used the term “biological woman” in her project.

Olivia does not reveal her last name, nor does she identify her woke college or professor, but in her now-viral TikTok video, she tells her followers that she got a zero because she used the term “biological woman” as a description. She said her professor told her that the term was “exclusionary” and perpetuates “heteronormativity.”


In other words, “We’re here, we’re queer, deal with it!”

The student even noted that the professor told her that her paper was good except for that one verboten term.

“Olivia, this is a solid proposal,” Olivia said the woke teacher allegedly wrote. “However, the terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity.”

The student called the grade thoroughly “the most biased grade ever” and said her project “is about transgenders competing in biological women’s sports. How am I supposed to do my final project if I can’t use the word ‘biological women,’ but that’s what my project is about?”

Since that first video, Olivia has posted several follow-ups to explain what is happening in her school.

“This is exactly the issue nowadays. It is not OK or acceptable to be a biological woman,” Olivia said in one video. She said she was told in a meeting with her professor that “it’s transphobic to use the term ‘biological woman’” and that doing so is “implementing T.E.R.F. ideology, which is trans-exclusionary radical feminism,” which the professor said means “women who fight for women’s rights but exclude trans because they think that women’s rights are being affected by trans people.” Olivia then quipped, “Which is literally true.”

Olivia also said she took her case to the school’s Office for Equal Opportunity.

In yet another clip, Olivia said that the rules in her class actually said outright that what the professor did was not proper. Her syllabus says students “will not be graded on the content of your opinions, so long as your opinions do not create emotional and/or mental harm for your diverse classmates or espouse bigoted or anti-scientific views.”

The student said that in her estimation she was using the term in a “scientific” sense, not a political or “emotional” one.

That doesn’t make sense!

Olivia also said the professor insisted that she alter the point of her paper to focus on “women” not “females” so that it satisfies the professor’s political goal of saying anyone can be a woman.

“I know what she’s trying to say, but it doesn’t work because for my project, if I change the wording, it would be … ‘women’s rights and opportunities are being affected because women are competing in women’s sports.’ That doesn’t make sense,” Olivia said.

Who is the real sucker here?

Many people on social media were energized by the school’s political attack on Olivia. But host Jesse Kelly had an extremely important point, saying, “Who is the real sucker? The communist professor?” and adding, “Or the upper middle class Republican parents paying six figures to have their daughter ‘educated’ by said professor?”

Kelly is right. Parents and students who are paying these colleges tens of thousands and sometimes going decades into debt as these crooked, left-wing schools peddle this anti-American ideology that passes for “education.”

It’s bad enough that these extremist, left-wing ideals so permeate our system of higher education, but what is worse is that these biased schools are not even permitting the opposing ideas to be heard. College should be a place for the free exchange of ideas, not a place of stifling bias and indoctrination.

This garbage is happening all over the country. Just this month a boy in Massachusetts was censured by his school for daring to wear a T-shirt that states his personal beliefs about the gender discussion.

Olivia deserves much credit for standing her ground, for keeping her videos centered on the issues, and for not using her platform as a weapon against her school and professor.

Regardless of how you view yourself or how you mutilate yourself, if you have a “Y” chromosome, you are a male. (This does not include those EXTREMELY rare individuals born XXY rather than XX or XY.) — TPR



Verified by MonsterInsights