Bill O’Reilly on what a Kamala Harris victory means.

TRANSCRIPT:

O’REILLY: 

If Kamala Harris wins, and both houses were to go to the Democrats, this is what would happen to this country. All right. Number one, amnesty for all undocumented aliens who have not committed a felony. All of them. So we’d have 15 million new citizens. Amnesty. Reparations for slavery. That would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Money would be given to African-Americans who had ancestors in the slave situation. I don’t know how that would ever happen. Logistically, it would be a nightmare to try to trace all that back. But that’s what Kamala Harris wants. You don’t believe me? Listen to this. Go.

“You would be willing to lead a conversation of what reparations for black people will look like?”.

“Yeah, including things like what we should be doing to take very seriously undiagnosed and untreated trauma. Take that very seriously.”

Yeah, okay. No. All right. Three Allowing the government to undermine parental authority from coast to coast in abortion and gender matters involving their minor children. So there would be federal laws passed that say, hey, if your kid wants to transition from a male to a female, you can’t stop it. If your daughter wants to have an abortion, you don’t even know about it. That girl can get an abortion with no parental notification. That’s what Kamala Harris supports. And I’m not even going to get into the taxpayer money that would pay for the gender operations of convicts of migrants. No restraint. Remember, there’s no restraint on abortion for Kamala Harris. None. And she’d bring that same mentality over to the gender transition.

(more…)

Disparate Impact Thinking Is Destroying Our Civilization

Heather Mac Donald

Manhattan Institute

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and The New Criterion, and is the author of several books, including The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe and When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives.

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on February 15, 2024, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Naples, Florida.

The most consequential falsehood in American public policy today is the idea that any racial disparity in any institution is by definition the result of racial discrimination.

If a cancer research lab, for example, does not have 13 percent black oncologists—the black share of the national population—it is by definition a racist lab that discriminates against competitively qualified black oncologists; if an airline company doesn’t have 13 percent black pilots, it is by definition a racist airline company that discriminates against competitively qualified black pilots; and if a prison population contains more than 13 percent black prisoners, our law enforcement system is racist.

The claim that racial disparities are proof of racial discrimination has been percolating in academia and the media for a long time. After the George Floyd race riots of 2020, however, it was adopted by America’s most elite institutions, from big law and big business to big finance. Even museums and orchestras took up the cry.

Many thought that STEM—the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—would escape the diversity sledgehammer. They were wrong. The American Medical Association today insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. Nature magazine declares that science manifests one of “humankind’s worst excesses”: racism. The Smithsonian Institution announces that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness.

As a result of this falsehood, we are eviscerating meritocratic and behavioral standards in accordance with what is known as “disparate impact analysis.”

Consider medicine. Step One of the medical licensing exam, taken during or after the second year of medical school, tests medical students’ knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and pathology. On average, black students score lower on the grading curve, making it harder for them to land their preferred residencies. Step One, in other words, has a “disparate impact” on black medical students. The solution, implemented last year, was to eliminate the Step One grading disparity by instituting a pass–fail system. Hospitals choosing residents can no longer distinguish between high and low achieving students—and that is precisely the point!

(more…)