By David Harsanyi
Thursday, April 15, 2021
Yesterday, Texas senator John Cornyn asked Kristen
Clarke, Joe Biden’s nominee for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights
Division, about a letter she wrote promoting pseudoscientific racist
theories in The Harvard Crimson back in the 1990s. Clarke
claimed she was merely “holding up a mirror” to the “racist theory that defined
the Bell Curve book.”
“But this was satire?” Cornyn asked.
“Absolutely, senator,” said Clarke.
Cornyn moved on quickly, but was still skewered by the
usual characters. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell asked:
“Why can’t Texas senators hire staff who save them from their public
idiocy?” Vox’s disinformationist, Aaron Rupar, mocked Cornyn
for being “seemingly oblivious to the fact it was satire.” Cornyn had
“performed a spectacular ‘‘Gotcha!’ fail,’ a reporter at Mediate noted.
All of this mockery was contrived, of course. Yesterday,
a New York Times editorial-board member already declared that “the letter was a satirical response to
‘The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.’” Weeks
ago, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin argued that Clarke, was “attempting, in Jonathan Swift
fashion, to mock race-based claims to superiority.”
As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it
was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack
Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the
ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work.
In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives
“Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and
Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.
Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous
evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in
the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to
concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in
fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of
irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the
theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”
Again, believing stupid things when you’re young is no crime.
(Though Clarke still supports the occasional Farrakhanite.) But it seems
quite likely that Clarke lied to Congress — with the help of a number of people
in the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment