- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Hating Whitey At Stanford

Racism and classism is a virtue at Stanford — as long as poor Southern whites are the targets: [1]

A week ago, residents of Enchanted Broccoli Forest [a residential co-op at the university [2] — RD] discovered the words “No crackers!” scrawled in paint across their bus. Targeted towards whites from the South, especially ones who are poor and rural, the term “cracker” is widely recognized [3] as a racial slur.

You would think that residents of a supposedly progressive and racially conscious house would jump to remove a racial epithet from house property. Not so. When a resident posted a picture in the EBF GroupMe last Thursday, peers brushed aside the incident with off-color jokes.

A white Southerner resident in the house asked that the graffiti be removed, as it is racist and classist. Well, that did it:

Other residents accused Ian of piggybacking on the complaints of people of color to raise his less-important “white” concerns, while others shamefully tried to excuse the slur for being “deserved.” The graffiti didn’t matter because white people are, by nature, oppressive and racist, they said — all while enjoying the best university in the world, while rural whites suffer grinding poverty. If anything, a blatantly racist act of vandalism is far more clear-cut than the murky concept of “cultural appropriation.”

Residents repeatedly brushed aside Ian’s discomfort with the racist graffiti. Finally, a staff member explicitly endorsed the message on the bus, telling him (erroneously) that since “the word cracker, has been historically defined to mean ‘racist white person,’” that she agreed with the graffiti. Apparently too enlightened to take ten seconds to read the definition [4] of “cracker” as a term “for white people, used especially against poor rural whites in the Southern United States” (never including the idea of racism), she told her first-generation white Southern resident: “I hope we have no crackers here.” If such ignorant and bigoted remarks are not grounds for immediate dismissal from a staff position, we are not sure what are.

Here’s what it looked like:

And another resident of the house weighed in thus:

Anna Mitchell and Philip Clark of the Stanford Review comment on the controversy: [1]

As much as the co-op counterculture may delude students into believing they are not privileged and different from their “sellout” classmates, the bottom line is that every one of them attends the best university in the world. Meanwhile, many poor rural whites, written off as “trash,” face [5] rising jobless rates, drug epidemics, and familial decay. Supposedly “woke” EBF residents would benefit from looking outside the Stanford bubble to avoid what law professor Joan Hastings condemns [6] as “class cluelessness — and in some cases, even class callousness.” Though they claim to recognize intersectionality, these students failed to recognize poverty as one of the most obvious ways that anyone could be disadvantaged, instead buying hook, line, and sinker the catchphrase “white people can’t be oppressed.” To allow these staff members to continue to hold their positions as community leaders would be a tacit endorsement of this sentiment.

Read the whole thing here.  [1]

Students at Stanford, no matter what their color, are among the most privileged people in this country, and on this planet. And yet, look: they justify hating poor white people on the basis of their class and their color, and they exalt themselves based not on anything they’ve done, but merely on the basis of their skin color and sexual desire.
Meanwhile, at Yale, the admissions office says [7]:

To the students who have reached out to us with these concerns, we have made clear that they should feel free to participate in walk-out events to bring attention to this issue without fear of repercussion. Yale will NOT be rescinding anyone’s admission decision for participating in peaceful walkouts for this or other causes, regardless of any high school’s disciplinary policy. I, for one, will be cheering these students on from New Haven.

I have the pleasure of reading applications from San Francisco, where activism is very much a part of the culture. Essays ring of social justice issues. In the fall of 2016, students in San Francisco were campaigning on behalf of Proposition F, a measure which would have lowered the voting age to 16 for local elections and ballot measures. The proposal did not pass, but the message was loud and clear: this generation of teenagers care about the issues and are ready for their voices to be heard.

Now, high schoolers have taken the issue of gun control personally. And rightly so. The phrase “school shooting” is now ingrained in our national vocabulary; how could our teenagers possibly stand idly by? In high school, we teach students calculus and US History, literature and physics. We teach them how to write analytical essays and lab reports. But we also have to teach them how to think and feel and be proud and involved citizens of wherever they live. I believe it is our duty to teach them the latter just as much as the former.

For those students who come to Yale, we expect them to be versed in issues of social justice. We encourage them to be vocal when they see an opportunity for change in our institution and in the world. We value student voices on campus and we encourage discourse and action. To punish our applicants for doing just that would go against the very beliefs that make Yale such a special place to study. Instead, I support those high school students around the country and urge other educators and administrators to do the same.

What high schoolers across the nation are doing right now is brave, it is good, it is larger than an absence from school or a blemish on an academic record or a college admissions decision. If you can’t march beside them, at least stand behind them. And at the very least, do not stand in their way.

“Versed in issues of social justice”? Oh? What if students protested against abortion? What if they protested in favor of gun rights? Or what if their social activism included mission trips with their church? Would these things hurt their Yale applications? I am certain that any student who wanted to get into Yale, and thereby join the American elite, would do well not to mention any non-progressive activism. The gatekeepers know the kind of people they want, and do not want. The message they are sending is coming through loud and clear.

Just two glimpses into how the culture and institutions of the elite Left make Trump voters…

165 Comments (Open | Close)

165 Comments To "Hating Whitey At Stanford"

#1 Comment By MM On March 17, 2018 @ 7:17 pm

Siarlys: “My last comment was based on a careful perusal of the links you provided. Now you cast aside that data and offer a whole new set of statistics.”

No, sir, it’s the same source, RCP, and you clearly haven’t perused them carefully, nor can interpret basic statistics.

First you said: “Polls never showed Hillary more than 2-4 points ahead of Donald overall.”

Factually wrong, as I indicated above. I cited all relevant polling collected by RCP.

Then you changed the argument to: “The polls never showed Hillary winning by a landslide.”

Totally irrelevant to the point I was making. The polls were systematically wrong, beyond any reasonable margin of error. They showed Clinton winning by a healthy margin, anywhere from 4 to 6 points on average. That goes for national polls as well as state level polls. She was predicted to be the popular and electoral winner, with 90%+ certainty, by every media outlets except one or two.

Then you said: “But more often than not, in more polls than not, the gap between Hillary and Donald was 1-4 percent, more often 2 or 3.”

Factually wrong again, for the same reasons. I cited all relevant polling collected by RCP.

What is your problem, honestly? I cited all polling done between the two candidates, and for the three blue states Trump won, in detail?

Too arrogant to admit you’re wrong? Or does Marxist Socialism require a rejection of basic math and statistics?

Which is it?

#2 Comment By MM On March 17, 2018 @ 7:37 pm

JonF and Siarlys: I’ll quote a key conclusion by the industry itself:

“American Association for Public Opinion Research, An Evaluation of 2016 Election Polls in the U.S.”


“The state polls had a historically bad year in terms of forecasting the state outcomes.
In contrast, the state-level polls, had an average absolute error of 5.1 percentage points and a signed error of 3.0 points. This is the largest average absolute error in the elections starting in 2000. And the overall signed error was in the direction of over-estimating support for Clinton and under-estimating support for Trump.”

#3 Comment By MM On March 17, 2018 @ 8:17 pm

JonF: “They simply could not predict the electoral college.”

One last point on this erroneous conclusion of yours. The following polling organizations and individuals predicted a Clinton electoral college victory on the eve of the election:

ABC News
Associated Press
Emerson College
Fox News
Huffington Post
L.A. Times
Larry Sabato at UVA
Moody’s Analytics
Nate Silver at 538
New York Times
Princeton Election Consortium
Rassmussen Reports
Rothenberg & Gonzales
Time Magazine

I can think of one, IBD, which predicted a Trump electoral victory, though it was wrong on the popular vote.

Would you mind enlightening me as to any other polls that *didn’t* predict a Clinton electoral win?

I’m all ears…

#4 Comment By Karl On March 17, 2018 @ 10:48 pm

While one can point to excesses from any end of the political spectrum it’s pretty clear that how policies match up with personal values (or don’t) is the biggest factor in explaining why people vote one way or another.

With that in mind I’d argue the GOP is creating more leftists than elitists liberals are creating Trump voters. That is where the real story lies. It also explains why the GOP has so heavily engaged in egregious gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. Their policies are out of step with broader American values and they cannot win without tilting the playing field in their favor.

#5 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 17, 2018 @ 11:50 pm

No, sir, it’s the same source, RCP…

Yes sir, I was quoting numbers directly off the pages your links led me to. I didn’t exhaustively review every page RCP had to offer, but I read what you linked to. So when you didn’t like the conclusion, you went off and found new numbers, and you aren’t doing very well with those either. Denial does not make a good case for you.

Its ludicrous for you to say that the polls not showing a landslide for Hillary was irrelevant to the point you were making. You butted into a conversation between me and Fran over… whether the polls predicted Hillary winning by a landslide. Your tangent can stand in line.

Factually wrong again, for the same reasons. I cited all relevant polling collected by RCP.

That’s precisely what I did. I referenced the numbers that showed up on the pages you linked to. Why don’t you try arguing some numbers instead of crying “Does not” like a first grader on the playground?

I cited all polling done between the two candidates…

And I looked at the numbers you linked to, summarized them, and drew rational conclusions. But they don’t add up the way you claim they do.

I don’t like Hillary Clinton. I come down hard on anyone who claims she “won a majority” (she didn’t) or “she was the people’s choice” (a good forty percent of those who voted for her had to hold their nose to do so). But all those polls you cite have a good grasp on what her level of support was, and a lot of undecided voters who obviously (and understandably) went for Trump in the end. The numbers you referenced are that simple.

A simple and common problem with interpreting poll results is to assume that the undecided vote is going to split about evenly, more or less, give or take a small margin. IF this is true, then one candidate having 48 percent and another having 41 percent is a good indicator of which candidate will win. But, if you remember that the total universe is 100 percent, not 89 percent, a prudent interpreter would withhold judgment. The numbers weren’t bad. More people had made up their minds to vote for Clinton than had made up their minds to vote for Trump. Both had consistent 70 percent negative ratings in polls for a good part of the autumn.

What did happen was those who really couldn’t commit to either one broke much more for Trump than for Clinton. Which is entirely consistent with the polling results. We could perhaps agree that fixation on the “gaps” is greatly over-rated.

#6 Comment By MM On March 18, 2018 @ 12:41 pm

Siaryls: “And I looked at the numbers you linked to, summarized them, and drew rational conclusions. But they don’t add up the way you claim they do.”

One plus one still equals two, sir. I used a simple excel spreadsheet to calculate those polling averages and statistics. All of the polling details are right there at the RCP cite, aggregated together. Anyone with half a brain can valiate the numbers I cited in detail.

You can keep going round and round all you want. You and JonF stike me as prototypical older commenters that belch out unqualified opinions, with no facts to accompany them (repeat: NO facts cited), and then the original erroneous conclusions by disputing facts provided by others.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, sir. Even the polling in your home state of Wisconsin, you seem to be totally ignorant of what they actually say.

I also consider this exchange proof positive that your brand of socialism is nothing more than pseudoscience.

Basic math, good grief…

#7 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 18, 2018 @ 6:55 pm

One plus one still equals two, sir.

A truism does not sustain an assertion of disputed fact. I’ve done the math.

Now, let’s try this. One of my most recent observations was that the last batch of polling you linked to was reasonably accurate in estimating the votes Hillary actually got, showed Trump with fewer votes firmly committed, and showed a substantial and decisive bloc of undecided votes, which remained undecided up to the end, then swung to Trump.

Show me in cold hard numbers how this is wrong. All you’ve done so far is sling epithets and insist you were always always always right and how could anyone look at the same numbers and point out any other pattern.

P.S. Socialism has nothing to do with it. This was an election pitting four liberals against each other, all of them full of hubris.

#8 Comment By MM On March 18, 2018 @ 7:49 pm

Siarlys: “Show me in cold hard numbers…”

I’m still waiting for you to cite a single solitary relevant fact in this entire discussion. You began digging a hole to bury your credibility 5 days ago by deriding Fran and claiming your opinions, unqualified by the way, were based on “cold hard numbers.”

I cited actual polling data in detail, cold hard numbers, which were aggregated by Real Clear Politics. You have not addressed any of these statistics in any detail whatsoever, and I will cite them all again:


Nationwide: Of 173 polls taken between May and Election Day, Clinton led in 155 of 173 national polls by 4 points on average, and led in 105 of them by 4 to 14 points. In the month leading up to Election Day, Clinton led in 61 of 64 polls taken by 5 points on average, and led in 43 of them by 4 to 14 points.


Michigan: Of 31 polls taken between July and Election Day, Clinton led in 30 of them by 6 points on average, and led in 25 of them by 4 to 13 points.


Pennsylvania: Of 47 polls taken between June and Election Day, Clinton led in 44 of them by 5 points on average, and led in 29 of them by 4 to 13 points.


Wisconsin: Of 19 polls taken between June and Election Day, Clinton led in every one of them by 6 points on average, and led in 17 of them by 4 to 13 points.

I asked before and I’ll ask again: Comment on these statistics, sir?

Come on, last chance to show a little knowledge or humility…

#9 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 18, 2018 @ 9:25 pm

We weren’t talking about who was leading… I said from the beginning that the polls showed Clinton leading. In fact, when the popular vote was tabulated she DID lead. But not by quite as much. I’ve also discussed at length the “gap” between candidates. You seem to be infatuated with the size of the gap, when its obvious from the polls you cite that five percent or more voters were NOT committed to ANY candidate. (There appear to have also been voters who toyed with voting for Gary Johnson right up to the end, then dropped it and voted for Trump also).

Take your latest link on Wisconsin. RCP average 10/26 to 11/2, 46.8 percent Clinton. Actual vote total 46.5 percent.

Now another site:


reports that exit polls showed Clinton with 48.2 and Clinton only actually got 47.6. No matter which source you rely on, as I’ve been saying throughout your interminable tantrums, polling was close, not right on the dot, but close, as to what Clinton’s support was. Polling cannot tell how voters who answer “undecided” will in the end vote, and this often produces surprises. I mentioned Reagan in 1980, and I’ve noted how the data you linked to shows a similar trend… the undecided ultimately broke for Trump.

Further note: Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 out of 2.7 million, Pennsylvania by 66,000 out of 5.7 million, Michigan by 12,000 out of 4.5 million. In short, you continue to bark up the wrong tree because you have an ax to grind, and can’t even see the trees in your own forest.

And no, at no time ever did polls report anything remotely resembling a “landslide.”

#10 Comment By MM On March 18, 2018 @ 9:42 pm

Siarys: “Take your latest link on Wisconsin. RCP average 10/26 to 11/2, 46.8 percent Clinton. Actual vote total 46.5 percent.”

That average showed Clinton at +6.5 points. Trump won the state. That’s beyond any reasonable margin for error.

You’ve been claiming something totally different this whole time, and I’ll quote you again, twice:

“Polls never showed Hillary more than 2-4 points ahead of Donald overall.”

“More often than not, in more polls than not, the gap between Hillary and Donald was 1-4 percent, more often 2 or 3.”

These are statements that are demonstrabl false. All polling data from RCP show that to be the case. The margins and averages are quite clear. You just cited data on Wisconsin that prove that. I never argued that the polls predicted a Clinton landslide, though all but one predicted a healthy Clinton electoral victory, and ALL of them were wrong about that.

That’s it, Strike #3, you’re out.

You do realize how you come across, don’t you?

Even if I thought you were correct on something, and it will never be on economics, I’d be embarrassed to agree with you…

#11 Comment By MM On March 18, 2018 @ 11:27 pm

Siarys: “We weren’t talking about who was leading…”

Wow, that was not only one of your earliest statements, which I quoted in my previous response, but it’s the only one I’ve been arguing against, with specific facts from RCP. It was totally erroneous then and it’s totally erroneous now.

I couldn’t figure out why you kept coming back and arguing it over and over. It you’re going to change the argument, fine, be honest about it. I was arguing the same point the whole time: who was leading consistently and by how much in the polls.

You’re the one who brought that up!

You really don’t remember contradicting yourself, do you?

Why don’t you just go back and read what you wrote?

#12 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 19, 2018 @ 1:18 pm

“Jane you ignorant slut…”

MM, you are probably to young to know that line, but your redundant expostulations have brought the conversation down to that level. I think everyone else can recognize that.

#13 Comment By JonF On March 19, 2018 @ 4:25 pm

Re: JonF: “They simply could not predict the electoral college.”
One last point on this erroneous conclusion of yours. The following polling organizations and individuals predicted a Clinton electoral college victory on the eve of the election:

I suppose my “could” can be read in multiple ways.
But yes, they did predict the electoral college– but they did not get it right.
Pollsters however cannot directly poll the electors– so as a practical matters their predictions are derivative and as such introduce greater uncertainty into their predictions.

All of this is just whistling past the graveyard for the desperate Right (I have no idea if you fit that description). Polls have gotten far more things right than wrong (2008, 2010, 2012…) and the notion that because they got one race wrong once they are suddenly wrong about everything and Trump is wildly popular and the GOP a shoo-in for this year’s midterms is not well founded, to say that least– especially since we have some real world results (VA, NJ, AL, now PA) to the contrary.

#14 Comment By MM On March 19, 2018 @ 8:18 pm

JonF: “The notion that because they got one race wrong once they are suddenly wrong about everything.”

I’ve never argued that, and don’t subscribe to such arguments.

But this is ironic, considering you’ve said elsewhere that Rasmussen Reports should be thrown out as an outlier, despite the fact that its prediction of the winner/spread of the national popular in 2016 (not electoral vote) was the most accurate of all.

Quite ironic…

#15 Comment By MM On March 19, 2018 @ 8:35 pm

Siarlys: “You are probably to young to know that line.”

I know the line, thanks. And I’ll accept the charge of overstating my case, and providing you with plenty of rope.

But I doubt anyone would trust you to balance an empty checkbook.

Your persistent refusal to acknowledge your own erroneous and inconsistent statements in the face of very simple facts to the contrary just goes to prove the old adage:

“Arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand-in-hand.”

But that’s Marxism for you…