First, about the source of the link I mocked.

The link went to a site called “Frontpagemag.com” and to an article by David Horowitz. My comment was regarding the racist nature of the site and author of the article.

That comment led to a response by Mr. Baldwin saying that claiming something is “racist” shuts down conversation.

The statement is ironic to say the least and my guess is that generally when someone posts something from such a source they don’t actually want a conversation. Of course Mr. Baldwin asked for proof that the site was racist.

Additionally, he made a statement that calling the site racist shows an intolerance of intellectual diversity.

If it walks like a duck…-Plato

To the first question:

Is the site racist?

Race as a social construct is complex and its meaning is quite fluid. Our history as a nation includes groups moving from “race” to “race” sometimes through litigation and sometimes through the process of acceptance and basic (but not complete) assimilation. Racism can also be a complicated. There are a variety of definitions of racism spanning from the – arguably so simple as to be meaningless – “a decision made using race” to the more complex “power+prejudice” to the laughably stupid “saying something is racist is racist”.
Racial slurs directed at someone are usually accepted as racism depending on the context (comedy routine not so much). Another pretty commonly accepted version is when someone stereotypes and generalizes about a “racial” group and attributes some “failing” to their culture or genes. Now that simple slurs have gone out of style for anyone that doesn’t immediately want to get called racist white supremacists have regularly started to claim that they are the victim of, and oppressed by, minority groups and the system. Sort of a systemic racism claim in reverse made by people who deny the existence of systemic racism (pretty funny if you think about it).

Legalized racism was the norm (and it had devastating effects) (e.g. 1 & 2) until very recently and its effects and the thinking that undergirded racist policies didn’t vanish with the stroke of an executive’s pen no matter what people want to argue.

It’s important to note that the wealth created by legalized racism policies means that many in the majority are starting on 3rd base metaphorically speaking. Some people really hate to hear that:(

Wealth creation and accumulation were denied to most minorities until very recently. This explains the lack of savings even for the minority middle class (middle class in salary only not wealth – property & savings for example) and how they’re more quickly effected by an economic downturn.

That being the case it goes without saying that there is a large amount of research that shows that racism and the effects of racism are still with us today.

Every facet of American life is affected by racism – either current or past.

Here are a few examples:
Housing
Jobs
See also
Criminal Justice (Drug “War” as one example)
Health Care
Education (funding as an example)

However, Frontpagemag’s founder is far more comfortable with, or perhaps interested in, denying the existence of racism and he prefers to blame minorities for their plight. Well that’s not 100% correct. He absolutely has no problem calling minorities and others racists but majority racism against minorities simply does not exist.

Looking at the site Mr. Baldwin linked to (and to a certain extent the site at which Mr. Baldwin blogs, including his own posts) one finds ideas that are substantially similar to those as you’ll find on the sites of white supremacists:

Let’s compare a few posts!

If sites share the beliefs and values of white supremacy and white supremacists and traffic in the language of the same does that make them racist sites? It would be hard to draw a conclusion to the contrary however I’m certain they’d deny it vehemently (unlike the white supremacist sites who are proud of it) because – despite having the same arguments – if they’re recognized as racist they’ll be pushed to the fringes.

“Intellectual Diversity”

Everything you have said makes no sense – unnamed law professor

Mr. Baldwin argued that calling the site racist and therefore disregarding the arguments presented showed a lack of respect for intellectual diversity.

First, if he’s saying that even bigoted arguments should be taken as serious intellectual arguments since when have white supremacists been considered intellectual by anyone who isn’t a white supremacist? Arguments by white supremacists are irrational and not grounded in logic or fact. If he’s saying the article itself – ignoring the site – should be taken seriously well…

The article in question was a 12 year old screed by David Horowitz condemning a NYT article about the “Communist Manifesto”, Marx, academia, liberals, progressives, and more!

I found this part the most amusing:

He [Marx] was, in particular, disastrously deaf to all the resonances of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition and the accumulated democratic wisdom ascending from the Magna Carta to the American Constitution.

As noted in the NYT article, the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. What ever problems there are with Marxism, Horowitz actually expected Marx to think that a slave holding nation is somehow wise? Really?

Marx thought American slavery barbaric and it would be bizarre for him to believe that it was a wise foundation on which to create a nation. Is this actually supposed to be considered an intellectual argument? Is anything in that article supposed to be intellectual? Are the attacks on basically everyone respectful of diverse opinion?

“Race Hustler” examined

Cookie Power! – Cookie X

Amusingly, Mr. Baldwin, upon discovering that I was an attorney who handled civil rights matters immediately called me a “race hustler“.

A term that can also be found in use on white supremacist sites – among others.

Note: I repeatedly asked for clarification on this matter but received none so my first impression will have to stand.

To understand the issue more fully it’s probably helpful to first explore what a “race hustler” is according to the right wing. Mr. Baldwin suggested that I use the definition of “race hustler” proposed by Thomas Sowell, a right-wing African-American academic.

Basically, Sowell describes a “race hustler” as a person who keeps racial tensions up to further some political or economic objective. Keeping racial tensions up appears to be simply a matter of pointing out that they think something is racist or asking that racism be addressed.

From the definition it appears that all civil rights activists, everyone who ever supported civil rights legislation or programs, all civil rights attorneys and plaintiffs, and anyone else who points out racism, is a “race hustler”. Is racism against minorities dead? Certainly David Horowitz thinks so. Does Sowell? Does Baldwin?

To me, immediately focusing on and using the term “race hustler” says a lot about Mr. Baldwin. Civil rights laws protect people who are discriminated against based on race, but also religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and from sexual harassment.

I wonder, since his immediate reaction was to claim that civil rights laws are part of a “race hustle” game, does he also believe there is no sexism, religious bigotry, discrimination because of sexual orientation, or sexual harassment?

When I represent a US citizen against a company which won’t hire US citizens for particular positions is that a “race hustle”? Is it some other sort of hustle?

When I defend pregnant women against workplace discrimination is that a hustle?

Or a woman or man who was sexually harassed?

Does he believe that these things exist but racism does not?

Does he believe the civil rights movement responsible for these laws were part of the “race hustle”?

I’d very much be interested in the answers to those questions.

Another question that’s raised, and has direct bearing on my practice of law, is whether or not a person who immediately thinks “race hustler” when he sees or hears civil rights lawyer is even capable of understanding racism in any meaningful way. Can a person who thinks like this ever find for a non-White plaintiff? How would you identify a person with these beliefs on a jury? How would you get beyond the irrational thinking to present your case in a manner which they could understand and empathize with?

More on Multiculturalism

You’s miscegenated. All you boys is miscegenated! – Homer Stokes

A review of the Mr. Baldwin’s writings shows that he appears to have a penchant for connecting just about everything he disagrees with to marxism and totalitarianism and that he also likes to attack what he perceives as “multiculturalism” .

He even attacks Sesame Street for saying kids are equal.

He disagrees. Kids are not equal. I have to assume since he believes kids aren’t equal, that he also believes adults aren’t equal.

Which then raises a question about his use of the term “race hustler”.

Is his claim of inequality simply a version of race hustling? He’s certainly fomenting division for a political purpose.

Or is he saying that we aren’t equal but that’s how it’s supposed to be so live with it?

Presumably Sowell believes that we are all equal as he derides those who claim otherwise.

In fact, the only other group I could find that both uses the term race hustler and thinks we are not equal are white supremacists.

Anyway, attacks on “multiculturalism” in America appear to be based in a belief that there is a legitimate and single “American culture” (a White Anglo-Saxon culture?) that is being diluted by non-Western European foreigners.

Of course that’s just silly. Europe, including Western Europe, has many different cultural influences.

If (big if) there is something that one could define as an American “culture” it would be built from multiple cultures, ethnicities, languages, and ideas.

Of course this sort of “>nativism is nothing new. Same argument, different targets over time..

At various times in our history the same arguments were used against groups like the:

Catholics (Irish & Germans)
Italians
Chinese
Asians and Specific Europeans
African-Americans
Mexicans

Why are these things important?

As an immediate matter they’re important in my practice because at some point someone who thinks like this is likely to be a juror or judge on my case. Studies suggests that people will simply ignore evidence that conflicts with their world view. The inability to see beyond one’s own perceptions and ingrained prejudices will have a dramatic effect on cases of the sort that I handle.

Furthermore, a substantial number of politicians seem think the same way and combining that with the fact that civil rights law and immigration policy are political battlegrounds it means that if we can’t figure out a way to show these folks other ways of looking at the issues we’ll be fighting about “immigration reform” forever and civil rights forever. Stagnation isn’t good for anyone.

Also, clients and callers routinely ask why the Congress is (& the government, the judge, the employer, the harasser, etc…) acting a particular way and don’t they see that it’s wrong. Because of that I think it’s important for people to realize that the group or individual may be completely incapable of ever seeing a different point of view. What clients are running into is a hurdle that’s seen but rarely understood.

My guess (a conclusion bolstered by the genuflecting to GWB – ball dropper extraordinaire) is that I’ve run into an example of a “right-wing authoritarian follower” mindset.

Learning how to communicate effectively with someone like that is an uphill battle no doubt but important as it’s clearly a common way of thinking and ignoring it isn’t making it go away.

Oh yeah and I get an autograph!

In Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc the SCOTUS said that it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that age was the motivating factor (not just one of the factors) in the adverse employment decision.

Because of that decision the Eight Circuit has ordered a new trial in the matter.

Congress is pushing back against this move by the SCOTUS through the “Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act to put plaintiff’s rights back where they were.