Students are heading back to college, but I don't expect to see any new campus hate crime hoaxes until spring. The simple reason: spring is hoax season. Who wants to march and protest out in the cold?
But last spring saw a bumper crop! And this year, there will no doubt be more—because of the dynamics of "diversity" in Obama's Brave New America.
It's important to remember that the Hate Crime hysteria has real (white) victims. My May 26 VDARE.COM story, Report from Occupied America: Free the Mizzou Two! , told the increasingly common tale of two young men at University of Missouri Columbia ("Mizzou"), arrested, indicted, and coerced into copping guilty pleas, who hadn't committed any crimes—beyond being white, male, and heterosexual.
Meanwhile, Mizzou does have a serious problem—violent black crimes against members of the university community on and near campus. But university chancellor Brady Deaton, who denounced the innocent Mizzou Two, is silent about that.
Between late January and late March of this year, black students on seven different college campuses in Ohio, California, Missouri and Tennessee were the victims of "hate crimes".
Except that the people behind these "hate crimes", all obvious hoaxes, aren't laughing. They seek to intimidate, disenfranchise, and imprison people who have broken no laws, based solely on the color of the latter's skin—and at the same time extort huge sums of money and take over their respective campuses.
The real campus racism story, the one the MainStream Media refuse to tell, is one of black racial animus.
The past 23 years have seen one black race hoax after another, on and off campus. Though many of these "hate crimes" remain technically "unsolved," I don't know of any claims by campus "blacks" (or their non-black leftist comrades) that weren't hoaxes. Thus the rational response to each lurid new claim should be skepticism—on a par with what we bring to the daily e-mails promising us millions of dollars.
And yet each new claim is treated by college administrators, police, and the media, as if no black race hoaxes had ever been exposed.
And even after they are exposed as hoaxes, black students and their white enablers act as though they had been real. Simultaneously, they variously ignore, cover up, and lie about, the constant violent, racially-motivated crimes being perpetrated by blacks against whites (and Asians) on and off campus, and vilifying and attempting to destroy those whites who complain. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)
Get out your scorecards. During the 2010 spring semester, these campus "hate crimes" were allegedly committed:
"We will not tolerate disrespect, racism or bias on our campus. One of my top priorities as chancellor is to increase diversity on our campus, and one of the best ways to do that is to create and maintain a welcoming campus climate for all."
[UT reports detail bias incidents; chancellor calls for change by Chloe White Kennedy, Knoxville News Sentinel, March 26, 2010.]
("Hate crimes" that were almost certainly copycat hoaxes targeted Jews and homosexuals at UC Davis, gay activists at the University of Idaho College of Law, and Jews at UC Berkeley. Hoax envy runs rampant.)
What makes for a successful race hoax?
The Hocking College Hoax never caught fire. The MSM doesn't much care about community colleges. The Johnson & Wales Hoax also failed to get a national stage.
You never know which race fraud will attain media stardom. But UCSD can serve as a case study.
In retrospect, the reasons for the great success of the UCSD hoaxers were:
Media support: The MSM opposed California's 1996 anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 and have sought to destroy it ever since its enactment, and thus devoted credulous, saturation coverage to the UCSD hoaxes;
Numbers: With over 28,000 students—only 26 percent of whom are white—UCSD is a huge, high-profile campus;
Historic significance: In spite of a limited amount of stealth affirmative action, UCSD had held the line on academic standards better than any other UC campus, as witnessed by blacks comprising only 1.6 percent of its student body. Success at UCSD could presage the end of any standards in the UC system and the de facto gutting of Prop. 209 The UCSD hoaxes and protests appear to have been coordinated with the long-planned, March 4 statewide black and Hispanic student and faculty protests demanding more illegal privileges—more race and ethnicity-based money, admissions, jobs and programs.
Tenacity: The UCSD hoaxers never quit, committing hoax after hoax, lying about each in turn, and various additional crimes (trespassing, vandalism);
Help on the Ground I: The hoaxers were supported by the faculty and students of entire programs and departments of pseudo-scholarship that exist, in order to maintain race-focused job mills, and promote race consciousness and irredentism: Ethnic Studies, "Chicano/a and Latino/a Arts & Humanities," and African-American Studies;
Help on the Ground II: Student government President Utsav Gupta [Email him] exploited the situation by illegally shutting down all student media until the student government overrode him and by seeking to institute illegal rules which would have permanently silenced all student media that was not anti-Western, with himself the arbiter. If a report that "Gupta said he is working with UCSD legal counsel" is true, Gupta also feloniously conspired with the UCSD administration to violate white students' civil rights;
Help on the Ground III: Chancellor Fox exploited the situation by illegally "investigating" perfectly lawful behavior by white students, and by entering into negotiations with, and signing an agreement with the BSU, that violated the California Constitution and white students' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Her administration conspired to cover up the true nature of the incidents by manipulating the UCSD Police Department, and withholding information. Instead of investigating the BSU students for possible race hoaxes and conspiracy to commit extortion, and arresting them for trespassing and vandalism, Fox praised them. She seeks to impose a joint Fox-BSU dictatorship on the school;
As a veteran Hate Crime watcher, this naturally aroused my suspicions. But on March 31, CA Goldsmith's communications director, Gina Coburn, e-mailed me:
"In regards to your inquiry on the recent incidents at the University of California San Diego, the case having to do with a noose found in the library remains open and is under active investigation. We cannot comment for that reason."
Coburn [Email her] repeated her claim, during an April 1 telephone conversation, that the case was still "under investigation," adding, "we are in the process of reviewing the case." When I interjected, "reviewing, but not investigating?" she switched to "it's an investigation and a review of the case."
I pointed out to her that the UCSD PD had completed the investigation, and handed over its case file and evidence to the City Attorney's office on March 2. Coburn acknowledged that, but stayed on message.
I retorted, "I've never heard of a case where a white suspect was alleged to have committed a hate crime, in which his name was suppressed. Ever."
Apparently, City Attorney Goldsmith does not believe that the Hate Crime law applies to non-whites. His illegal suppression of the confessed noose-hanger's name was, I believe, part of a strategy to "disappear" the crime. The legal term for that is "conspiracy to obstruct justice."
In mid-February, Chancellor Fox announced that she was investigating, and looking to discipline white fraternity members who, she said, had advertised the "Compton Cookout." But as the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, Will Creeley, pointed out in a February 23 letter to Fox, for her even to "investigate," much less discipline the fraternities, would violate their constitutional rights.
In a February 22 letter to Gupta and Fox, Adam Kissel, the director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, argued that Gupta's actions in shutting down student media were "unconstitutional and morally questionable."
After FIRE's Creeley and Kissel, and David Blair-Loy, the legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, notified Chancellor Fox that she was violating the law, she ignored them (and UCSD spokesman Rex Graham declined to respond to them), but quietly removed her threats.
However, whites on campus still do not know their rights. At this point, it will likely require the UCSD administration losing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, to change how it does business.
Thus far, no individual or group has announced plans to file such a suit, and Creeley told me that FIRE does not engage in litigation.
On February 22, 23 (PDF), and 24 (PDF), the ACLU's Blair-Loy wrote variously to Chancellor Fox and student government president Utsav Gupta, pointing out that they were violating students' First Amendment rights.
But those letters were contradicted, and thus neutralized, by a February 25 letter from Andrea Guerrero, the policy & field director of the same ACLU branch, and a longtime, embittered foe of Prop. 209, heartily supporting Fox' illegal, racist, anti-civil liberties campaign, and offering the ACLU's help, in implementing it!
In March, despite leaving detailed voice and e-mail messages at the ACLU's national media office in New York, and speaking with someone there named "Pam" about the UCSD and Mizzou cases, I never got a response.
But that was not surprising. In February, I had asked "Pam" for a statement regarding the terrorist threats that had caused four hotels in a row to cancel their bookings for the American Renaissance conference. She never responded the either.
Blair-Loy notwithstanding, the ACLU is not a civil liberties organization. In line with its founding by a Communist, it is a civil rights a.k.a. civil privileges organization. It supports "Racial Justice" and "[Illegal] Immigrants' Rights," i.e., it seeks to disenfranchise and dispossess America's white majority.
The knowledge that the "Compton Cookout" was the work of a black comedian, whose stage name is Jigaboo Jones, and that the noose was probably hung by a "minority student," had no effect on the black students, Chancellor Fox or, for that matter, the media.
But say that white students had indeed committed the acts in question—save for the noose: They weren't crimes anyway! Only the noose was illegal, due to an unconstitutional state law that blacks had demanded, and that the race hoax-mongering (here and here) NAACP had sponsored (PDF), following a wave of black noose hoaxes—do I detect a pattern here? And that was only a misdemeanor.
Conversely, virtually all of the black students' 32 demands were illegal. They entail giving unqualified black students and personnel huge sums of money, admissions, and jobs, based solely on the color of their skin, in violation of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment; instituting segregation (a "safe space" for black students), in violation of historic Supreme Court precedents; and violating white students' First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Though the Black Student Union avoided directly antagonizing Asian students, its demands also violated most of the same rights regarding Asians.
The BSU depicted UCSD—where white-on-black crime is virtually non-existent—as a place where blacks are unsafe, and where vague "racial tension" rules, which the administration must somehow cause to disappear.
The UCSD Police Department, which has jurisdiction for all on-campus matters, is supposed to be a professional, independent police agency, but on March 11, I learned otherwise. When I asked to speak with a Department public information officer, I was transferred to Rex Graham, [Email him] at UCSD Communications and Public Affairs. The interview consisted of my asking one question after another, and Graham refusing to answer me.
Graham claimed that he couldn't so much as tell me the race or ethnicity of the noose-hanger. But according to the booklet, Covering Campus Crime published by the Student Press Law Center (who can't help their initials), that was untrue. No law prohibited him from giving me that information. More importantly, since the perp has now confessed to committing a crime, UCSD is legally obligated to release her name and other information about her.
If UCSD is hiding the name of a confessed criminal—even if the law in question is obscene and unconstitutional, and the crime only a misdemeanor—UCSD is, at the very least, violating the federal Clery Act, and at worst, engaged in a felonious conspiracy to obstruct justice. Chancellor Marye Anne Fox [Email her] should at least be fired, and at worst be arrested and prosecuted.
UCSD Chancellor Fox' talk of "horrific acts of hate" expresses both her pomposity and lack of any moral compass. Truly "horrific acts of hate" would entail carnage such as the crimes against academics that I linked to earlier, or the racially-motivated atrocities that blacks regularly commit against non-academic whites.
Nevertheless, the UCSD race hoaxes were so successful that on March 24 the UC Board of Regents "apologized" for the (non-existent) white hate crimes against black students, and proposed reintroducing affirmative action at UCSD (which it already did last year at UC Berkeley and UCLA), via the euphemism "holistic review" of applications. Someone will have to sue the Regents, in order to stop their illegal actions.
If Chancellor Fox is not stopped from acceding to the black students' illegal demands, she will turn UCSD into a diversitopia.
Footnote: UCSD's handling of a May 10 incident dispelled any last doubt that Fox had any principles, as opposed to leftwing loyalties.
During the Q&A following a David Horowitz speech, an Arab Muslim coed named Jumanah Imad Albahri made the mistake of trying to intimidate him. He turned the tables on her, and in a Perry Mason moment, got her to admit, on camera, that she supports genocide against all Jews, worldwide.
UCSD's response was underwhelming. Albahri lied, in insisting that her remark did not represent her true beliefs, and made a non-apology-apology condemning Horowitz. Even though the entire exchange had been captured on camera, the administration gave her a pass.
Radical Muslims are part of the multicultural alliance; thus the UCSD administration sees them as allies, whereas it sees white, heterosexual, Christian men—unless they wage war on their own—as enemies.
The role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous.
Jews who embrace genocidal anti-Semitism (parallel to white gentiles like Jane Elliott and Tim Wise, who embrace genocidal anti-white racism) are assured of privilege. Other Jews who are not anti-Semitic, e.g., those at Berkeley, are demanding a seat at the multicultural cannibals' feast. Jews who do not fit into either of the aforementioned groups are in trouble.
Normally law enforcement authorities typically start with a crime, and then investigate said crime, in order to hopefully determine the identities of the perpetrators, and to arrest and prosecute the latter. But that isn't the way things typically work when police say that they are "investigating a possible bias crime." In such cases, either:
No crime was committed, but police are seeking to intimidate whites (but never blacks) out of exercising their legal rights;
No crime was committed, but the authorities seek to find, arrest, prosecute, and imprison a white, simply because he exercised his legal rights in a manner that they don't like; or
As in the UCSD noose case, a statute (which may be unconstitutional) may have been violated, but the authorities will only arrest and railroad someone (e.g., a white, Christian, male heterosexual) not from an unconstitutionally "protected class."
The modern academic race hoax movement began at Columbia University in March 1987. As I wrote in my January 2007 VDARE.com exposé on the Duke Rape Hoax:
"In three separate attacks, a mob of seven young black men—students and non-students—beat up a total of five white Columbia University men students.
"Following a by now dog-eared script, a group called Concerned Black Students at Columbia (CBSC), represented by "activist attorney" C. Vernon Mason, claimed that "a mob of white students had kicked and stomped a single black student and then went on a rampage shouting, 'We're going to kill you f——g n——s!'"
"Although 22 witnesses had already contradicted the black attackers' claims, the latter were never arrested, and indeed, demanded that their white victims be arrested.
"When CBSC held mini-riots, in which as many as 50 supporters, black and white alike, were arrested, protesting "against racial violence" and against the failure of the NYPD to follow their demand that police arrest the white victims, Columbia responded by promising more affirmative action in admissions and faculty hiring.
"The Columbia race hoax received months-long saturation coverage by the national media; once the hoax was exposed, the media went silent.
"Black students at six other East Coast university campuses, including Duke, were inspired to take over campus buildings. In each case, the black students decried "resurgent [white] racism" on campus and demanded and got concessions from the institution in question in the form of expanded affirmative action for black student applicants and professors.
"There was a campus racism problem, alright, but it was that of resurgent black racism."
(Mason had just come off staging the Howard Beach Hoax with his accomplices Al Sharpton and Alton Maddox; later that year, the trio would promote the Tawana Brawley Hoax. Mason was later disbarred for misconduct and neglect regarding 20 different clients. Maddox was suspended indefinitely from practicing law for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into his conduct during the Brawley hoax.)
But institutional racism was now entrenched at Columbia:
In 1993, a black security guard managed to get three white man undergraduates who worked for the school escort service fired, based on a fake "racism" charge;
(An escort service for students means a guard service that walks them from place to place late at night, to keep them safe, not what it means for adults like, say Eliot Spitzer. Q: Why is this service necessary for Columbia University? A: because it's located near Harlem.)
Around the same time, a black Columbia Law student claimed, without a shred of evidence, that a third-year, white man classmate, a devout Catholic, had made an obscene telephone call to her late at night. Columbia's counsel turned the burden of proof upside down, making the impossible demand that the man prove that he was not guilty. Only when the white man's lawyer threatened to sue Columbia did the school drop its persecution campaign. [Diversity at Columbia U.: When "Chocolate" and "Vanilla" are Fighting Words (PDF) by Jeffrey M. Duban, Heterodoxy, January 1995.].
Fast forward to October, 2007. When Madonna Constantine, a black affirmative action hire who was a tenured full professor (see here, here (PDF), and here) of multicultural counseling psychology at Columbia's Teachers College, learned through her department sources that she was about to be fired for having engaged in serial plagiarism and other misconduct, a noose appeared on her office door.
Though no one cited any laws that had been broken, the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force and three different DOJ agencies investigated. The MSM promoted the myth that white racists had been planting nooses all over the country. The evildoer was never brought to justice.
When Columbia finally fired Constantine in August, 2008, she asserted that she was the victim of a racist conspiracy, "structural racism," and an "academic lynching," and sued Teacher's College for $200 million. (The suit is pending.)
If anything, there was a conspiracy in support of Constantine.
Meanwhile, as always, black criminals habitually target white and Asian Columbia students and personnel with robberies and burglaries; assault and battery (including gang assaults); rape and attempted murder; and murder (also here).
And yet, none of these black attacks, as opposed to the black race hoaxes, has ever issued in rallies, "bias crime" charges, public denunciations by law enforcement or colleges, or saturation coverage by the MSM.
Fred Reed recently defined affirmative action as "the calculated recruitment of incompetence." But since the myth of white discrimination against blacks is the entire rationale for Affirmative Action, multiculturalism requires constant race hoaxes in order to generate its talking points.
Affirmative Action has always been inseparable from the project of expanding racial power bases. Little work is expected of AA hires, leaving them ample leisure for making racist mischief. In addition to hiring racist black professors to fill departments of pseudo-scholarship, universities hire racist black counselors and officials to staff the bureaucratic underworld (e.g., "Student Life", the office that "investigated" white UCSD fraternity members). FIRE's founders, historian Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey J. Silverglate, dubbed this "the Shadow University" in their eponymous, landmark book. Over the past 20 years or more, administrations have ruthlessly reduced their proportions of full-time faculty, while massively expanding their hiring of the highly-paid, full-time "Shadow University" personnel, who promote racial intimidation (e.g., "sensitivity training"). This group benefits directly from Hoax Crimes
One of the central experiences of higher education is coming into contact with ideas one disagrees with. White students know this experience in spades. Conversely, however, black and Hispanic students are simply provided with an echo chamber for their own prejudices. And now, though they break no laws, whites who criticize or mock those prejudices face arrest.
For all of the talk of its enriching qualities, college "diversity" almost always means the admission of black and Hispanic students and staff who are cognitively and morally unfit for college life.
The demand by UCSD's black students, like black students elsewhere, that all campus whites be forced to submit to their will, was the expression of their moral unfitness to function in a university setting. They insist that the university be transformed into the antiversity: Jim Snow U.
That they are not expelled and arrested for their crimes, is evidence that the white bureaucrats running schools like UCSD and Columbia are likewise morally unfit for college life
Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at
Men's News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York