Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism

Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment

I have long argued that the end-game of the “politically correct” crowd is a full-blown totalitarian state comparable to fascism and communism. This article is an example.

Ibram X. Kendi is an influential figure in the “social justice” movement. The essence of what he is proposing here amounts to giving a single government agency the power to overrule any other policies made by any kind of organization or institution anywhere. Would this only apply to the public sector or to the private sector as well? What about the Supreme Court? Could the Department of Anti-Racism overrule the court? If it is determined there is not enough of some particular group in, say, the medical profession, will hospitals be ordered to hire more doctors of some specific ethnic background? What counts as a “race” for these purposes anyway? This idea is eerily reminiscent of the Khomeinist Council of Guardians or William Pierce’s idea of the highest body of government as some kind of racist religious order.

By Ibram X. Kendi, Politico

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.


1 reply »

  1. “>The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold,”

    Except notice that recent Harvard case on discriminating AGAINST Asians, and presumably FOR blacks and hispanics. It is said that Harvard’s admissions would be about 40% Asian if done in a “race-blind” fashion, but somehow that isn’t acceptable to the PC-powers-that-be.


    I, for one, am very much against the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting PRIVATE discrimination (against companies, corporations, etc): I think the 14th Amendment only authorizes prohibiting discrimination by governments and government employees. Congress has no general authority to prohibit private discrimination, but they did it anyway.

    NEVERTHELESS, I think that having passed such a law, Universities like Harvard (which is supposed to be bound by that law) should not be allowed to engage in precisely the kind of racial discrimination (even if it is ostensibly for a ‘good’ reason) that the law was intended to prohibit.

    I think this will go to the Supreme Court, and the SC will rule that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as long as it exists, must prohibit the discrimination it is claimed to prohibit.

    Or, the Title VII of the 1964 CRA must be declared unconstitutional as not being authorized by the US Constitution.

Leave a Reply