Having assembled its unruly horde of increasingly ill-allied resentments, the Narrative doesn’t know whether to shit or go blind:
Harvard University had only just announced its next president before he came under attack — not for anything he did, but for who he is. That is, in the eyes of his critics, at least, a “white male.” The New York Times greeted the selection with a news article reporting in its second paragraph that, in selecting Lawrence Bacow earlier this month, the search committee had missed “an opportunity for Harvard to choose a leader who would reflect the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements.”
Get that? The most prestigious newspaper in America told the most prestigious university in America it just blew the opportunity to hire its president based on one hoax and one hysteria.
But this is Harvard, and can’t be run by a token hire, no matter how much the institution pushes the practice on others.
No longer did Wall Street or Pierce and Pierce mean Protestant Good Family. There were plenty of Irishmen, Greeks and Slavs. The fact that not one of the eighty members of the bond department was black or female didn’t bother him. Why should it? It didn’t bother Lipowitz, who took the position that the bond trading floor at Pierce and Pierce was no place for symbolic gestures.
–Bonfire of the Vanities
Money is at stake after all.
But there’s a narrative wrinkle. Problematic intersectionality. The new president, predictably, is Jewish. The former editor of the Harvard Crimson goes on:
Such intense reaction tells two newsworthy stories: a negative tale about the politics of race and gender on campus and a positive one about America and its Jews.
I know this Ivy grad is my better, but the naivete is adorable. Somebody owns “the politics of race and gender on campus”–a thoroughly negative development of decades now–and it isn’t “white people”. Parentheses, not quotation marks.
American Jewry is faced with a choice whether to emphasize its identity as non-white and cast its lot in finally with the furious fringe or continue to absorb some of its wrath as white people. Either way, antisemitism is sure to increase.
Had those critics bothered to look beyond appearances, they might see someone who introduced himself to the university in a YouTube video as the son of two Jewish refugees. His mother was an Auschwitz survivor and his father was an immigrant from Minsk. As the grandson of a Jewish immigrant from Minsk myself, I’ve got experience with this issue. Personally, when the racial record-keepers ask me to check a box, I don’t go with “white,” but put “other” and write in “Jew.”
Other with a capital O? Critical race theory holds white privilege to be perpetuated by white skin and appearance–“bodies”. A consistent reading of it would hold that Jews do in fact benefit from white privilege and are white in every meaningful way. Critical race theory is largely Jewish, of course.
So it shouldn’t be that Jews individually or as a group get to opt out of responsibility for their “whiteness”, after having benefited more than anyone else thereby (applying disparate impact logic to their remarkable wealth and success).
So the only way for a Jew or Jews to slip out from under the boot they’ve created with anti-white theory is to invoke the Holocaust, yet again, like a junkie seeking out a vein.