George Yancy

The following counter-essay was sent to the Chronicle of Higher Education.  It did not respond.  It was also sent to the student editors of The Emory Wheel.  They did not respond.  George Yancy, however, did respond... or sort of.  The counter-essay is posted here.  After all, who else would publish it?  The Washington Post?  The Washington Examiner?  The New York Times?  No way, Jose!  

The Ugly Truth of Being a White Professor in America… Who Dares Exercise Free Speech

Well, I was going to title this essay, “A Simple Solution for Professor George Yancy:  If You Can’t Take the Heat, Get out of the Limelight,” but decided instead to paraphrase Yancy’s latest contribution to the great racial divide, “The Ugly Truth of Being a Black Professor in America,” published in the Chronicle of Higher Education.    

Because I disobeyed a direct order from my bosses at American Public University to cease responding to criticism lodged against me, I was fired, uh “separated from the university.”  That was my last job in higher education.  In fact, for openly expressing my opinions, I was essentially fired from most of my other professorial jobs, including at Elmira College, Fitchburg State University, Davenport University, Bennett College, and Grambling State University.  Document accounts regarding each of them are published on The American Dissident website.  

I am white.  I never got tenure.  Generally, I have to self-publish my essays because I place truth above pc-compliance.  Yancy is black.  He got tenure, a lucrative sinecure at Emory University.  He gets to publish his essays in the New York Times and Chronicle of Higher Education.  Editors in general do not possess a sufficient appreciation for vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, to publish essays like mine.  Will the new Emory University student editors, Michelle Lou and Richard Chess, fall in that line?  Likely.  My experience indicates that most student editors do fall in that sad line.  But there’s always hope… or so they say.  

Professor Yancy incarnates today’s pc-culture of stereotypes and double standards, where the main issue tends to be racism, racism everywhere.  And indeed his latest essay is the same unoriginal racism, racism everywhere.  In it, he lists a litany of racist insults he received.  And, of course, I do not deny that he received them, nor do I excuse them.  After all, I am against the use of ad hominem, a puerile and intellectually-lazy substitute for reasoned counter-argumentation.   Calling whites racist is ad hominem.  

Sadly, Yancy is stuck, fully entrenched, in the past.  After all, he seems to make his living out of that entrenchment.  He writes that “Years ago, Malcolm X asked, ‘What does a white man call a black man with a Ph.D.?’ He answered: ‘A nigger with a Ph.D.’”  Racist stereotype!  Need I write that again for the ignorant with PhDs in pc-culture?  Racist stereotype!  All white men do NOT call all black men with PhDs, “niggers with PhDs.”  Yancy’s stereotyping of whites is insulting and downright racist.  And yet the editors of the Chronicle of Higher Education and New York Times are quite content to push that insulting anti-white racist narrative.  Why?  Readership?  Indoctrination?  

The litany of insults, including “dear nigger professor,” stems from Yancy’s op-eds.  But why does Yancy choose to ignore the points made by those like me, who did not employ ad hominem insults, but rather point-by-point counter-argumentation?  Why did Yancy choose not to respond to my email correspondence, satirical cartoon, and counter critiques:  “Blancophobia: A Case Study” and “The White Bad/Black Good Derangement Syndrome”?  Will he respond to this critique, which I shall also send to him and the student editors of The Emory Wheel?  Why do academics like him seem to abhor and reject vigorous debate?  Rarely do I ever receive a response from an academic whom I’ve criticized.  And I’ve criticized so many of them over the past several decades.  When I do receive a rare response, it tends to be fully aberrant in nature, completely avoiding the points I made, like the one recently received from Poet/Professor Dan Chiasson of Wellesley College and New Yorker contributor.  

In the interest of transparency I will also now forward to The Wellesley News, and to The College Police, the borderline harassing note you sent to me yesterday, and copies of the racist cartoons you attached. Please cease and desist contact with me and everyone associated with the College.

What was my crime?  Well, I’d sent Chiasson three cartoons critical of the New Yorker, as well as an essay critical of his poet colleague Frank Bidart.  In fact, not one English professor at Wellesley College deigned to respond to that essay.  My “borderline harassing note,” whatever the hell that means, can be examined on the three-cartoon link.  Well, I digress… or maybe not.  

Professor Yancy needs to open his eyes.  He writes that after the publication of his New York Times op-ed, “Dear White America,” that “I needed police presence at my invited talks at other universities. It all felt surreal—and dangerous.”  But what about white conservatives like Coulter, Yiannopoulis, Shapiro, Murray, and others who needed police presence before he needed it?  Did he give a damn about that?  Not in the least!  He notes that “Some of my students of color have asked me, ‘Why talk about race with white people when at the end of the day everything remains the same—that is, their racism continues?’”  

What the professor fails to do, however, is evoke the existence of continued and encouraged black racism against whites.  For him and likely for those pc-brainwashed black students, such a thing does not/cannot exist.  Uncomfortable facts like black on white racist crimes, black slaveholders, and black slave traders do not/cannot exist.  Educated professors ought to stick to the facts and decry stereotyping and double standards.  Instead, Yancy and far too many of them reject facts and espouse stereotyping and anything else that fits the woe-is-me black narrative.  Yancy needs to be exposed, not espoused.  

Surprisingly, the professor notes, “It is probably true that I would not have my job were it not for affirmative action.”  Sadly, he cannot really deal with the implications of that statement, instead arguing that Affirmative Action “is not anti-white, but pro-justice.”  And yet it has clearly become anti-white for whites rejected by colleges or employers because blacks have been accepted or hired, thanks to Affirmative Action.  It sadly also places a big question mark on every black person accepted or hired because of the color of his or her skin, quite anti-MLK indeed.  And it is not as simplistic as the professor imagines.  

Yancy is a racist stereotyper and needs to be outed in his privileged ranks.  Other professors need to stand up and decry his stereotyping.  Where are they?  Where are they?  Yancy states, “It is as if white people are driven by a colonial desire to possess everything. Du Bois asked, ‘But what on earth is whiteness that one should so desire it?’ He answered, ‘Whiteness is the ownership of the earth forever and ever, Amen!’”  Well, I have no “colonial desire” whatsoever to “possess everything.”  What an absurd, if not infantile and simplistic thought!  Apparently, “whiteness,” for example, does not include the ownership of South Africa, where racist blacks are now the owners of that country and murderers of white farmers.  

Clearly, severe indoctrination is a solution to the racial divide, but is it really a solution?  White students must be indoctrinated early on in the pc-principles of privilege and colonialism.  But what about black students?  They are being indoctrinated to hate white students and to be victims.  That part of the indoctrination process will not work to solve the divide.  The other solution is currently being adopted in South Africa:  genocide and the absence of diversity (i.e., the creation of a black-only nation).   In other words, that solution is separate nations for separate races.  Again, the pc-diversity solution is really a non-solution because its result is racial division ad infinitum.  

Finally, a solution for Yancy’s feeling of being “traumatized” would be, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the limelight, and don’t keep putting yourself into it with op-eds.  Other blacks do not echo Yancy’s complaints because they have learned to build backbone and have become staunch individuals.  Yancy concludes his diatribe with the same evocation he’d made in his previous op-ed, regarding what he wished he had said to his students:  “Fuck it all! It is not worth it. White people will never value my humanity.  So, let’s end this class session on that.”  But will the black Yancys of America ever value my humanity?  Well, actually, I don’t give a damn if they will or won’t, nor do I give a damn if white professors ever will or won’t.  I give a damn about truth, freedom of speech, and vigorous debate, not pc-compliance…

George Yancy

The White Bad/Black Good Derangement Syndrome

“Should I Give Up on White People?” is Professor George Yancy’s latest New York Times op-ed.  Just about everyday, the Times publishes at least one white bad/black good op-ed.  All the news that fits the narrative!  I’d written Yancy several years ago and sent the cartoon I’d sketched on him, as well as the  counter op-ed I’d written vis-a-vis his “Dear White America” op-ed also published in the Times (2015).  He, of course, did not/would not respond, nor would the Times.  

Yancy begins his article with complaints—“a wave of white hatred and dehumanization”—of being threatened and otherwise mistreated by mostly faceless internet anti-black racists, who of course exist… as do faceless internet anti-white racists.  Sadly, however, he does not recognize the latter.  He says he shared one critical letter he received with his grad students and ended up in tears and walked out of the class for a moment.  “Looking back, I wish that I had said: “To hell with it all! It is not worth it. Too many white people will never value my humanity. So many whites in America will never be honest about their hatred of black people.”  

Well, why should I value the humanity of a person who makes his living by constantly judging those like me on the color of our skin?   To paraphrase Yancy, so many blacks in America will never be honest about their hatred of white people.”  Now, how does that sound, Mr. Yancy?  And at least I have had some personal experience with that regard.  Three blacks attacked and robbed me in Baton Rouge, for example… and The Advocate would not even publish my account of that racist occurrence.  Thankfully, the black student editors at Grambling State University, where I was teaching at the time, were open-minded and thus willing to do so!  

Evidently, Yancy has benefitted partly thanks to his skin color.  He now has a hefty salary and lifetime job security as a tenured academic at Emory University.  As for me, I never did get tenure… because I chose and choose to speak rude truth even and especially when that perturbs academics like Yancy and especially their narrative.  I was fired from my last job in academe (American Public University) because I disobeyed my chairperson’s order to cease engaging in vigorous debate.  

Yancy notes when he came back to class his students “bore witness to my vulnerability, my suffering, the sting of unmitigated hatred. And they saw the impact in an otherwise safe academic space.”  What to say about that?  Well, if you can’t take the heat, then stay out of the limelight!  Don’t keep publishing anti-white stereotype articles in the Times!  Or accept that not everyone is going to love what you write.  

“I wanted to model for my students what it is like to be a contemporary philosopher who remains steadfast in the face of hatred,” declares Yancy in typical Yancy half-truth fashion.  For in reality, he reinforces that very hatred by joining in the PC-stereotyping of whites.  And yet, he seems to think he is some kind of modern-day Jesus: “I was pushed to rethink what I assumed was a mission of love, the kind of love that refuses to hide and requires profound forms of vulnerability.”  

Until Yancy embraces reality, he will remain just another tenured fraud.  If he is going to blather about white privilege, then he needs to examine poor white people w/o privilege and white farmers in South Africa and the realities of slavery, which the PC-crowd seek to coverup.  He needs to take a close look at black on white crime.  But of course he will not/cannot do that.  

“I am convinced that America suffers from a pervasively malignant and malicious systemic illness — white racism,” he declares.  Political correctness demands adherence to that conviction.  Truth, on the other hand, demands non-adherence to ideology.  PC demands turning a blind eye to Affirmative Action black privilege, the existence of wealthy blacks like Yancy himself, black race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, who make a living off of that, and overt black racism (think of South Africa, Nation of Islam, BLM, etc.).  

“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster,” wrote James Baldwin.  Yes, Yancy actually quoted that line in his article, but is so blind that he cannot see his own eyes are amongst those shutting to reality.  Victimization always causes cecity!  

Yancy’s reasoning is simplistic—black and white without nuance—and certainly is surprisingly lacking for a grad school professor.  For Yancy, because whites sold slaves long ago, then all whites today are guilty and should be shamed if not punished.  Yet, blacks sold slaves to whites long ago in Africa.  Should not all blacks thus be shamed if not punished?  And what about Muslim slaveowners who exist today?  Should not all Muslims be shamed if not punished?  And what about Aztec ritual murder and Spanish slaughter of Mexican autochthones?  Should not all Mexicans be shamed if not punished?  Yancy is so simplistic in his thinking that these things—and many others, including the many black Americans who owned and traded slaves—are not to be evoked.  They are to be erased from history.  The narrative demands it!  

In conclusion, Yancy’s own anti-white racist stereotypes not only evoke but promote anti-black racist stereotypes.  With so many Yancys out there today, the racial divide will ever increase.  Yancy’s wo-is-me victim op-ed reminds of Hillary and Comey’s wo-is-me victim books, book tours, and book interviews.  It’s the sales, stupid!  In fact, Yancy is pushing his own wo-is-me victim book:  Backlash: What Happens When We Honestly Talk About Racism in America."  Honestly?  Bullshit!  Ideologically would be a hell of a lot more accurate!  And so I send this counter-essay to the Times, Yancy, his Philosophy Department colleagues, and Editor-in-Chief Michelle Lou, Executive Editor Richard Chess, and Editorial Page Editor Madeline Lutwyche of The Emory Wheel, the student newspaper.  If all of them are inline with groupthink requisites, then I shall hear nothing at all… or perhaps a little ad hominem.  Will the student editors possess the independence and courage to publish it?  And how about the Times?   Full disclosure:  I am not a Nazi.  I do not believe in socialism.  During my past career as gypsy college professor, I knew far too many Dr. PhDs in the Humanities to hold any respect at all for the title—I too hold a PhD.  Instead, my respect is held for the rare few staunch individuals on the left or right who not only brook, but encourage vigorous debate and freedom of speech… 

George Yancy

...................................................................................

Read below the essay I wrote, "Blancophobia: A Case Study," with regards Yancy.   Unsurprisingly, neither he nor the student editors at Emory University deigned to respond. 
Ideologues detest vigorous debate, cornerstone of a thriving democracy... 

From: George Slone

Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 12:11 PM

To: george.d.yancy@emory.edu

Cc: zachary.j.hudak@emory.edu; julia.munslow@emory.edu; critchls@newschool.edu

Subject: A rebuttal of your op-ed

To Prof. George Yancy, Philosophy Dept., Emory University:

The following rebuttal to your most recent New York Times op-ed is also, as you can see, being forwarded to the Emory University student newspaper editors, Zachary Hudak and Julia Munslow, as well as to The Stone (New York Times).  Of course, I expect no response from them... or you.  But miracles do happen, n'est-ce pas?  Might the student editors actually publish it?  Might Simon Critchley publish it?  Pipe dream?  You bet!  After all, only the privileged in America, black or white, have voice...

Blancophobia:  A Case Study

George Yancy is a black privileged Emory University philosophy professor.  Unsurprisingly, his latest New York Times op-ed, “I Am a Dangerous Professor.” constitutes an exercise in blancophobia.  The Times had been publishing many such anti-white op-eds.  In fact, that was all its journalist Charles Blow ever seemed to write… and on a weekly basis.  

The op-ed title immediately grabbed my attention because I’d never encountered a “dangerous” professor.  After all, the “dangerous” ones tended to be weeded out early on, leaving the obedient and unquestioning ones to fill the well-remunerated tenure sinecures.  Sure, now and then, a few professors likely succeeded in duping the tenure system.  But still, I’d never encountered such exceptions.  Might Professor Yancy be one of them?  Instinctively, I knew that would be highly unlikely.  The term “dangerous professor” was an oxymoron.  Did the professor fight against the intrinsic intellectual corruption likely festering at his university?  If so, how to explain his entrenchment in its philosophy department?  Instead, it was likely that he followed, mirrored, and spewed the same anti-white bigotry firmly in place at so many of the nation’s universities today.  Thus, at Emory Professor Yancy was probably not at all “dangerous,” but rather quite common. 

Always on the lookout for satirical cartoon ideas, I thought perhaps the op-ed might prove fruitful, then reading through it I realized I’d already done one on the professor and the blancophobic New York Times op-ed he’d written a year ago, “Dear White America.”  Apparently, I’d forgotten to send it to him.  I’d always made it a point to inform my targets, in a usually in vain effort to incite a little much needed debate in academe.  When dealing with academics, I also liked to inform the particular student newspaper editor, most of whom, however (that’s been my sad experience), would not respond and otherwise buck the system, despite hollow pronouncements of independence.  

Thus, I posted last-year’s forgotten cartoon (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=239569862679528067#editor/target=post;postID=1609290798865680431) and sent notice of it with this rebuttal to both Professor Yancy and The Emory Wheel student newspaper editors Zak Hudak and Julia Munslow. 

Perhaps the idea for the right-wing Professor Watchlist that Professor Yancy decried in his latest op-ed was actually incited by the Hatewatch list kept by left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to monitor the “American radical right.”  Had the professor also decried SPLC’s targeting?  Likely not, for that list aided and abetted his ideological victimization narrative.  In any case, a watchlist per se is certainly not unAmerican, nor is flagging someone to be “unAmerican” unAmerican, contrary to the professor’s statement.  Both are clear manifestations of America’s freedom of speech.  

Contrary to Professor Yancy’s assertion, the Professor Watchlist was probably not a threat to academic freedom at all.  According to one of its organizers, Matt Lamb, “We aim to post professors who have records of targeting students for their viewpoints, forcing students to adopt a certain perspective, and/or abuse or harm students in any way for standing up for their beliefs.”  In essence, the site might also be compared with RateMyProfessors.com.  

The real deep-seated threat to academic freedom was certainly not Professor Watchlist, but rather professor cowardice, as well as self-censorship… regarding the university administration and “dangerous” anti-PC thoughts.  Challenging political correctness did take courage in academe, especially in humanities departments like Professor Yancy’s.  To be part of the PC-mindset took no courage at all, though the professor seemed to believe he had lots of courage because he not only decried the Watchlist… but also he pushed the black victimization narrative in his classes.   

The basic question that needed to be posed was how intelligent people like Professor Yancy failed so egregiously at the gates of reason.  How did such people so easily fall to the spell of indoctrination?  Deep anger could perhaps block out reason.  Also, deep-seated psychological need to be part of a group, to belong, could probably do that also?  How to explain intelligent people who espoused double-standards, White Privilege racial stereotyping, two wrongs make a right Affirmative Action (now, what would MLK have said about judging people by their skin color?), and anything else but reason. 

Oddly, if not absolutely aberrantly, the professor began his op-ed with a quote from Orwell, who of course wrote extensively against PC-speech before it even really existed: “Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought.”  And indeed that was precisely what Professor Yancy and his academic colleagues had been successfully doing on the nation’s campuses with their safe spaces, people of color-only spaces, trigger warnings, disinvitations, microaggressions, and of course speech codes.  Emory University still possesses the poor red-light rating accorded by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (https://www.thefire.org/schools/emory-university/). 

Professor Yancy states that he was accused by the Professor Watchlist of advancing “leftist propaganda in the classroom.”  Yet was that a false accusation?  Then he transformed the Watchlist into a criticism of Trump, as if the latter had incited its creation, yet conservative campus watchdog groups (e.g., Campus Reform and The College Fix) existed long before Trump’s advent.  He noted, “The Watchlist appears to be consistent with a nostalgic desire ‘to make America great again’ and to expose and oppose those voices in academia that are anti-Republican or express anti-Republican values.”  But are freedom of speech and vigorous debate only Republican values?  If so, what might be Democrat values?  Suppression of freedom of speech and vigorous debate?  

Professor Yancy argues:  “For many black people, making America ‘great again’ is especially threatening, as it signals a return to a more explicit and unapologetic racial dystopia.  For us, dreaming of yesterday is not a privilege, not a desire, but a nightmare.”  And yet haven’t we seen under Obama, not Trump, a definite increase in that racial dystopia?  The separation of whites and blacks had increased on college campuses like Emory over the past decade, where anti-white racism had been accorded the seal of academic approval with the widespread campus “White Privilege” and only Black Lives Matter PC-mantras, “designed to mark, shame and silence,” to use the professor’s words.  The Double-standards mindset blocks the ability to reason with objectivity.  Moreover, clearly Trump’s mantra, contrary to the professor’s clear implication, never meant let’s go back to the Antebellum South!  

For Professor Yancy, spokesperson of black people, the Professor Watchlist would rather that “we run in shame after having been called out.”  And yet the professor sure didn’t give a damn that he and his PC-comrades have made whites run in shame after having been called out via the White Privilege denunciation.  And the professor waxed poetical, though always unreasonable, “Its devotees would rather I become numb, afraid and silent.  However, it is the anger that I feel that functions as a saving grace, a place of being.”  

And it was that anger that prevented him from perceiving that he was guilty of precisely what he decried, though with regards whites.  In reality, his entire op-ed constituted a confusion—a mea culpa written as a j’accuse.  He argued in full hyperbolic mode, “The list is not simply designed to get others to spy on us, to out us, but to install forms of psychological self-policing to eliminate thoughts, pedagogical approaches and theoretical orientations that it defines as subversive.”  Yet he failed to note that was precisely what the anti-white racist “white privilege” and only Black Lives Matter movements and, more generally, campus political correctness ended up doing. 

It was possible that racial harmony will never exist to the point where the only solution might be racially separate nations.  The left’s intentional social engineering, racial mixage, might never succeed.  Certainly, the ingrained hatred and victimization and paranoia of Professor Yancy and so many others trumpeting racism ad infinitum would seem to point to that failure.  The professor  summarizes it nicely:  “Honestly, being a black man, I had thought that I had been marked enough — as bestial, as criminal, as inferior. I have always known of the existence of that racialized scarlet letter. It marks me as I enter stores; the white security guard never fails to see it. It follows me around at predominantly white philosophy conferences; I am marked as “different” within that space not because I am different, but because the conference space is filled with whiteness. It follows me as white police officers pull me over for no other reason than because I’m black.”

What of course the professor could not envision was his own privilege.  And he could not see it because seeing it would break the victimization narrative that fed him, that gave him privilege.  One would think that Yancy in his self-professed racism hopelessness and racism despair that he might consider moving to an all black nation like Liberia, where he could attend all black elitist philosophy conferences filled with blackness and all black police officers would pull him over not because he was black and all black security guards would not see the racialized scarlet n-word burned into his forehead because there he wouldn’t have one.       

Professor Yancy then declared, self-congratulating as so many academics love to do, standing up on his hind legs like a hero in cap, gown, and chevrons:  “Yet I reject this marking. I refuse to be philosophically and pedagogically adjusted. To be ‘philosophically adjusted’ is to belie what I see as one major aim of philosophy — to speak to the multiple ways in which we suffer, to be a voice through which suffering might speak and be heard, and to offer a gift to my students that will leave them maladjusted and profoundly unhappy with the world as it is. Bringing them to that state is what I call doing ‘high stakes philosophy.’”

And yet clearly Professor Yancy did not reject that victimization marking because it was precisely what provided him with a life of remunerated elitism.  How interesting to suffer so deeply, while simultaneously living a life of Riley!  His “high stakes philosophy” was nothing but another term for political correctness.  Hopefully, while making his students feel profoundly unhappy, he would also warn them that they might not be fortunate to live his life of privilege because to be profoundly unhappy and truly unprivileged could be a deadly combination.  

Throughout his op-ed, the professor patted himself on the back:  “I refuse to entertain my students with mummified ideas and abstract forms of philosophical self-stimulation. What leaves their hands is always philosophically alive, vibrant and filled with urgency. I want them to engage in the process of freeing ideas, freeing their philosophical imaginations. I want them to lose sleep over the pain and suffering of so many lives that many of us deem disposable. I want them to become conceptually unhinged, to leave my classes discontented and maladjusted.”  

And yet those “mummified ideas” were precisely what political correctness and the professor had been espousing.  Political correctness incarnated double speak, as in the freeing of ideas by limiting ideas. Did Professor Yancy want his students to question the claims of Black Lives Matter and deny the rise of black privilege, including black multimillionaires, or simply swallow those claims and ignore the latter?   Would his students leave his classes “discontented and maladjusted” because if they dared question the claims and the black privilege of their professor, their grades would suffer?  

“So, in my classrooms,” declares the professor, “I refuse to remain silent in the face of racism, its subtle and systemic structure.”  And yet did he raise his voice against the growing not-so-subtle anti-white racism spreading across the nation’s campuses?  Did he teach his students that two wrongs somehow make a right?  “I refuse to remain silent in the face of patriarchal and sexist hegemony and the denigration of women’s bodies, or about the ways in which women have internalized male assumptions of how they should look and what they should feel and desire,” he states.  And yet did the professor raise his voice against Islam and Sharia Law and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Palestine with that regard?  

“I refuse to be silent about forms of militarism in which innocent civilians are murdered in the name of “democracy,” he proclaims.  And yet did he raise his voice when murder was committed in the name of Islamic theocracy?  “I refuse to remain silent when it comes to acknowledging the existential and psychic dread and chaos experienced by those who are targets of xenophobia and homophobia,” notes the professor.  But what about blancophobia?   And what about fraudulent claims of xenophobic and homophobic hate crimes?  

“I refuse to remain silent in a world where children become targets of sexual violence, and where unarmed black bodies are shot dead by the state and its proxies, where those with disabilities are mocked and still rendered ‘monstrous,’ and where the earth suffers because some of us refuse to hear its suffering, where my ideas are marked as ‘un-American,’ and apparently ‘dangerous,’” he argues.  And what about Islamic child marriages and Islamic genital mutilation?  And what about unarmed black bodies being shot dead right and left by black thugs in Chicago?  And what about the San Bernardino and Orlando massacres?  Were they committed by evil whites?  

Professor Yancy concludes, “Well, if it is dangerous to teach my students to love their neighbors, to think and rethink constructively and ethically about who their neighbors are, and how they have been taught to see themselves as disconnected and neoliberal subjects, then, yes, I am dangerous, and what I teach is dangerous.”  And yet how did teaching divisiveness and white privilege and black victimization help students learn to love their neighbors, including the white ones?  The professor was dangerous, but not in the way he assumed.  He was dangerous only if he succeeded in indoctrinating his students to stand like him at antipodes to reason and fact.   Would he teach his students when lecturing on racism and slavery that the very first legal slave owner in America was a black man, Anthony Johnson; that thousands of black slaveowners existed during the Antebellum period, including over 3000 in New Orleans alone; that some of those black slaveholders used their slaves as human sacrifices in religious rituals; that Muslim (i.e., blackness, not whiteness) slaveholders “marched vast numbers of human beings from their homes where they had been captured to the places where they would be sold, hundreds of miles away, often spending months crossing the burning sands of the Sahara; that the death toll on these marches exceeded even the horrific toll on packed slave ships crossing the Atlantic” (Thomas Sowell); that blackness Muslims enslaved millions of whiteness Europeans; that the word “slave” derived not from blacks, but from Slavs, who were white Europeans, many of whom were enslaved; and that today, blackness Muslims still own slaves?