If you thought the University of Michigan had exhausted its supply of woke insanity, think again. Their latest virtue-signaling stunt? Deciding that Latin plant names, the backbone of centuries of biological taxonomy, might be racist (Latin plant names could be racist, warns University of Michigan).
Using Latin names for plants may be racist, the University of Michigan has warned, in guidance to prevent the influence of colonial “power structures” on visitors.
A strategy document for the university’s botanical gardens and arboretum warns against using the traditional combination of an English name and Latin name on plaques next to its plants, amid concerns they could erase “other forms of knowing”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/17/latin-plant-names-racist-suggests-university-michigan
Yes, you read that right: apparently, the language that has served as the scientific community’s universal classification tool for hundreds of years is now a symbol of oppression. This is what happens when academia, long the cradle of knowledge, decides to trade in rigor for ridiculousness, replacing logic with ideological pandering that borders on absurdity.
We’re now in an age where a centuries-old system, grounded in practicality and proven effectiveness, is being labeled as problematic because it doesn’t fit into today’s ever-shifting, ever-demanding social justice landscape. The University of Michigan’s position that Latin names could somehow perpetuate colonialism or reflect systemic racism is not only absurd—it’s dangerous. It takes a hammer to the foundations of science and replaces them with the brittle bones of political correctness.
The practice of naming plants, animals, and virtually every organism in existence using Latin names has been an essential tool for scientists since the 18th century. Introduced by Carl Linnaeus, the Latin binomial nomenclature system gave scientists across the globe a shared language to describe the natural world. In one brilliant stroke, Linnaeus standardized taxonomy and provided a way for researchers to categorize species based on their relationships, physical traits, and evolutionary history. This was an advancement, not an act of colonialism.
Yet, the University of Michigan, in a move that screams We will be the wokest of them all, has decided that this scientific breakthrough is somehow offensive. How, exactly? They argue that Latin names could have ties to colonization, or that they might reflect outdated societal structures of power. The absurdity of this claim cannot be overstated. It’s as if someone decided to pick apart the scientific bedrock for no other reason than to meet the ever-expanding demands of social justice warriors. Apparently, it’s not enough that biology has been made universally understandable and that countless lives have been saved through the precise identification of species for medical and ecological purposes—no, what matters now is that some contrived sense of “inclusivity” has to trump scientific merit.
Let’s put this bluntly: this is what happens when academia stops caring about science and instead bows to the social justice mob. They throw out what works—what has always worked—because someone somewhere might claim to be offended. It’s the intellectual equivalent of smashing your own compass because someone once claimed the company that made it had ties to explorers who mapped uncharted lands. Or, the intellectual equivalent of dismantling your own telescope because someone decided the stars it helped you discover were named by people with outdated beliefs.
And here’s the kicker—this isn’t just an isolated instance of madness. The University of Michigan has been on this woke trajectory for a while now. If we track their descent into ideological oblivion, it becomes clear that the Latin plant name fiasco is simply the next notch in their progressive belt. Before this, they had already made headlines for their overzealous adoption of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies that value identity politics over academic merit. Their DEI initiatives are now at the point where scientific facts and long-established academic practices are being sidelined in favor of social justice lunacy.
A decade ago, Michigan’s leaders set in motion an ambitious new D.E.I. plan, aiming “to enact far-reaching foundational change at every level, in every unit.” Striving to touch “every individual on campus,” as the school puts it, Michigan has poured roughly a quarter of a billion dollars into D.E.I. since 2016, according to an internal presentation I obtained. A 2021 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation examining the growth of D.E.I. programs across higher education — the only such study that currently exists — found Michigan to have by far the largest D.E.I. bureaucracy of any large public university. Tens of thousands of undergraduates have completed bias training. Thousands of instructors have been trained in inclusive teaching.
When Michigan inaugurated what it now calls D.E.I. 1.0, it intentionally placed itself in the vanguard of a revolution then reshaping American higher education. Around the country, college administrators were rapidly expanding D.E.I., convinced that such programs would help attract and retain a more diverse array of students and faculty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/magazine/dei-university-michigan.html
What we’re seeing is a growing culture in universities where the pursuit of scientific excellence takes a back seat to the fashionable causes of the day. It’s more important to look “progressive” than to actually make progress. Latin taxonomy, which has been used to describe over 1.2 million species, is suddenly suspect because someone is worried that using Latin might remind people of colonial times? It’s sheer insanity.
The fundamental question that no one at the University of Michigan seems willing to ask is: who does this serve? Is a scientist in Brazil or South Africa clamoring for the overhaul of Latin taxonomy because it somehow limits their ability to conduct research or make groundbreaking discoveries? Of course not. The global scientific community has thrived precisely because of the universality of Latin names. A plant species in Kenya has the same name as it does in France or Japan. That’s not an accident; it’s by design, and it’s been the basis for collaboration, communication, and discovery for centuries. To suggest that this system is somehow exclusionary is not only a gross misrepresentation of reality but also an affront to the very nature of science, which should always prioritize clarity and universality over ideology.
The sheer practicality of Latin nomenclature cannot be overstated. There’s a reason why Linnaean taxonomy has endured for nearly 300 years—it works. Scientists from vastly different cultures, speaking different languages, can communicate seamlessly when they refer to Homo sapiens, Rosa rubiginosa, or Panthera leo. Imagine a world where instead of these clear and consistent labels, we’re forced to use colloquial or politically sanitized versions that change based on geography or, worse yet, political whims. Chaos would reign, and scientific advancement would be hampered by this petty insistence on catering to today’s ideological trends.
And make no mistake, this kind of ideological trend-following comes with real consequences. If the University of Michigan’s position becomes mainstream, it won’t just be Latin plant names that are targeted. Once the ideological floodgates are opened, where does it end? Do we stop using Latin names for diseases because someone claims it’s insensitive to ancient Roman slaves? Do we toss out mathematical terms like “algorithm” because of its Arabic origins, lest someone feels excluded by the reminder of historical conquests?
What makes this even more insidious is that these attacks on taxonomy are being framed as acts of progress or justice, when in fact they are the exact opposite. The destruction of a universal scientific language hinders progress, confuses the process of discovery, and throws us into an intellectual free-fall where no standard is safe from ideological scrutiny. Latin names have nothing to do with colonialism, racism, or oppression. They are about precision, utility, and the advancement of knowledge. That the University of Michigan can’t—or won’t—see that is a testament to how deeply DEI ideology has infiltrated and corrupted academia
If the goal of the university is to truly educate and prepare students for the world, this kind of nonsense does them a disservice. It teaches them that science is malleable, that facts can be rewritten if they make someone uncomfortable, and that the pursuit of truth can be set aside in favor of scoring points with the loudest activists. This is the antithesis of intellectual rigor. Instead of challenging students to rise to the demands of scientific inquiry, Michigan is telling them that the tools of that inquiry are part of the problem if they don’t align with the prevailing social justice narrative.
The real world, however, doesn’t operate on feelings and woke platitudes. The scientist in the field, the conservationist trying to protect endangered species, the doctor identifying a disease—they all rely on the accuracy and consistency provided by Latin names. They don’t have the luxury of renaming things because a handful of ideologues have decided those names are problematic. This is why the broader scientific community should reject this ridiculous notion outright. If we let woke politics dictate how we name and categorize the world around us, we’re no longer doing science—we’re doing activism.
In the end, this debacle at the University of Michigan is a symptom of a much larger problem. Academia is no longer the bastion of free thought and the pursuit of knowledge; it’s become a breeding ground for the latest woke fads. Latin taxonomy isn’t the problem—it’s the people who see racism behind every tree and under every rock. It’s the people who’ve become so blinded by ideology that they can’t recognize the value of a system that has stood the test of time.
Here’s a message for the University of Michigan and anyone else buying into this madness: stop politicizing science. Stop twisting every aspect of life into a debate about race, gender, or oppression. There’s no need to dismantle the very systems that have allowed us to understand, classify, and protect the natural world. If you truly care about progress, about inclusivity, then uphold the universal standards that allow science to thrive. That’s how you ensure everyone has a seat at the table, not by turning that table upside down because it was made in the 18th century.
H/T strativarius
Carolus Linneus was Carl von Linne, a Swedish naturalist, and one of the last major scientists to write in Latin.
Bud Light proved that if you get woke, you go broke.
U Michigan just proved that if you get woke, you also go stupid.
My brother and his wife met as undergrads at Michigan. She became a big time corporate lawyer, he became an ecology PhD who recently retired from running all U Washington animal research labs. They have lived for many decades in Seattleland, and are the two wokest Liberals I have ever met. Needless to say, we don’t converse much anymore.
We choose our friends, families are random.
“U Michigan just proved that if you get woke, you also go stupid.”
But if in a woke state- the money will pour in- what really counts.
The wokeness is just a tool for the continued destruction of the west.
DEI is like Marxism, it reduces people to the lowest common denominator.
It’s worse than that. It displaces the more qualified with the less qualified, on purpose. Guaranteed recipe for failure.
My up close and personal example is Harvard’s recently removed DEI President Claudine Gay. Plagiarized her PhD thesis, in whole academic career published less than ten papers (most as a joint ‘tag along’ author), rose thru University admin system rather than academic system. Failed Harvard on anti-semitism, then failed to explain her failure to Congress. Gone, but her damage to Harvard will be long lasting. Alumni gifts down 15% this past year. Mine went to zero when Oreskes was hired years ago, so is others protesting DEI Gay.
Gay is hardly gone unfortunately. The last I heard, she was retained as a Professor at a salary of about $900K/yr.
wow! Probably smart to overpay her so she won’t make a fuss.
Harvard? Once a centre of excellence?
Racism, CRT, DEI, are all collectivist by definition, where a person’s categorization trumps his individuality. Whether class, race, gender, identify, or whatever the latest fads are, they are all collectivist twaddle.
So much for diversity, eh?
Except those with competencies are disallowed.
Perhaps they should run a course in the names given by the people of Cameroon to their vast array of medicinal plants. There is plenty of scope left for research.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153003/
I suspect the framers of the courses at Michigan wouldn’t get much beyond “dope”.
Meanwhile I note that at the UC San DEIgo where they are now instituting compulsory climate courses for all future students they already have compulsory DEI courses.
Probably taught by someone with a PhD in DEI.
1.2 million species. What a job opportunity! If we can divert all of the DEI money to a global effort to bring inclusion into this field, say by appointing, with appropriate fanfare, a series of interlocking committees charged with establishing just the ground rules for the undertaking.
First, of course, establish an approved set of languages including all known dialects. (Can’t ignore the dead languages either. Egypt,of course, gets to expand hieroglyphics).
Next comes geographical ranges. Beginning with countries and their multiple political subdivisions. A special effort must be made to include Postal Codes as plant or animal ranges will not conform to political subdivisions.
Once established this organization will be self regenerating. Lock them all up and allow the rest of us to go on our merry way promising to adopt the new naming structure once it is complete.
A win-win! 🙂
And they will have an international conference, each year, at some exotic location, for a week. That conference will be planned at various preceding meetings, held in other exotic locations, throughout the preceding year. The MSM will cover it with 5,000 – 6,000 journalists.
The Telegraph seems to function as a general outrage machine, which it seems WUWT wants to echo. And as is typical, we never get to see what we are supposed to be outraged about. Not even a link.
The 2022 MBGNA strategic plan in question is here. It is indeed full of waffle, much of it DEI based. But I can’t see anywhere a proposal to abandon Latin taxonomy, or that it is racist. It does suggest at one point that extra information could be added.
“Other ways of knowing.” What “other ways,” pray tell?
Also shows their ignorance. The common names for most unique plants here are NOT English. They are Spanish. Ocotillo, palo verde, saguaro, cholla, etc. There are at LEAST a dozen “other ways of knowing” among the “indigenous” tribes that live here – but they use the common name when talking to each other.
This is just another way to divide people into smaller and smaller buckets, providing more opportunities to dominate tiny minorities.
Give some context, please. However, it says nothing about Latin taxonomy being racist, etc.
The fact is that these strategic plans are given to the local DEI person to write. No-one except the Telegraph/WUWT will take any notice of them.
So DEI is a waste of time and space?
The scientific names also tend to be a mixture of Latin, ancient Greek and latinised “other names”, such as the location of the discovery or the discoverer’s name.
It would seem useful to add the other names which were used historically.
“other ways of knowing” reeks of pretentious prattery 🙁
Who actually cares if pretentious prattery can be found in the strategic plan of the Matthaei Botanical Gardens & Nichols Arboretum?
Pretentious prattery can be found all over the place. It’s an essential component of b.s. bingo, which was the best part of sales presentations and “corporate town halls”.
You’ve already pointed out that the strategic plan is pretentious prattery (in slightly different terms), so one assumes that you noticed it as well.
Yes, and I asked, why do you care?
No, you asked “who actually cares”.
As to why I care, as noted above, pretentious prattery is great fodder for b.s. bingo.
Like the IPCC?
“Who actually cares if pretentious prattery… blah blah… “
We are very used to your comments.. and we just laugh at your pretentious prattery.
Just as long as not one single tax penny is used to support pretentious prattery. But is it a sate-funded school?
Yes both State and Federal funding.
And also -“In this paper, we brought compelling clarities as to why the current practices of binomial nomenclature should be revised and adjusted by the scientific governing bodies.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00975-8#Abs1
“scientific governing bodies”
Nobody should be governing science.
The WEF claims it “owns the science.”
“It is indeed full of waffle, much of it DEI based.”
Much like your comments… and any other far-left manifesto.
I suppose being willfully obtuse gets this guy the attention he seeks.
Latin was the Lingua Franca of science for many centuries for several reasons—Catholic Church, all ‘educated’ learned Latin,…. Then it fragmented predominantly into German, French, and English in the 18th century (when ‘colonialism’ began). Marie Curie’s chemistry papers were originally all in French. Einstein’s seminal physics papers were all in German at the beginning of the 20th century.
Then, mainly thanks to the slowly growing ‘dominant’ rise of UK and then US science research, the new scientific lingua franca also slowly became English. Darwin’s masterpiece was in English. Maxwell’s EM equations were in English. Rutherford’s physics papers were in English. Wolfgang Pauli’s first quantum physics paper was in German, but all the rest were in English. Cemented globally by US global victory in WW2–gave Hawaii Spam, and science English.
The notion that botanical Latin usage today somehow represents ‘colonialism’ is factually wrong and historically absurd.
“The notion that botanical Latin usage today somehow represents ‘colonialism’ is factually wrong and historically absurd.”
And is also nowhere to be found in the Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum Strategic Plan, Somewhere else?
You made that ‘wrong’ belittling point already before.
You ignore two important qualifying ‘corollaries’:
My unsolicited advice would be to up your game here, or don’t play, ‘Racehorse’. For those not ‘inside baseball’, that is an old Steve McIntyre reference to his Nick Stokes ‘contributions’.
“they just respond to what MSM interprets for them”
So do you recommend that? But this isn’t MSM. It is the outrage machine. The fact is, no identifiable person has said anything to the effect that “botanical Latin usage today somehow represents ‘colonialism’”
“the climate PR game”
Where does climate come in here? The NYT report said nothing about botany or climate.
Just an outrage machine.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03245-0
That isn’t anything DEI, or anything to be outraged about. It’s just pointing out that US seasons don’t apply everywhere. A rather trivial point, which from OZ I can relate to, but I have long since got used to it. But it’s true.
It’s finding offense where there is none. It is part of the extended search for victimhood.
It isn’t offense. It is just practicality. It is Spring here.
Don’t speak the wrong phrase for someone may get offended or feel something something…
Yes, and my wife an I enjoyed most of a month in Summer in New Zealand, when it was winter here at home, and the temperatures were warmer her for the most part. Definition of seasons is very local, and many of us, even here in “outrage central” do know that. Stop looking down your nose at other people, Steve.
The real victims are the people paying the salaries of woke burro-ocracies and academics.
Yet here you are.
Darwin, Maxwell and Rutherford were English.
Rutherford was from New Zealand.
Why just plants? What about Latin binomials of animals, fungi, protists and prokaryotes?
There are many examples of this going on, apparently too many don’t have enough real work to do. There is an International Commission on Zoology that shut this down for animal names because of both practical and ethical reasons (below). This is a either form of bigotry or some sort of zealotry, or maybe the new phrase “virtue signaling” applies. Something bad about the road with good intentions and rewriting history. In any case it would be ignored except too many in the top of the ‘tribes’ are pushing it, and my impression is that outside of the ‘tribes’ it is a pain in you know where. As suggested by a colleague it might be job security for many future taxonomists.
Tracy, B. H. 2022. What’s in a fish species name and when to change it? Fisheries 47: 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10750
“Honorific scientific names have recently received intense scrutiny because societal values have changed. Across disciplines groundswells of support for renaming species have occurred; specifically those named after dishonorable people or with culturally inappropriate common names.”
The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologist changed the very long standing name of their journal, Copeia, because of this sort of judgement about Cope who had been very important to early Ichthyology. I had been a long time member and wrote them, with no reply, something like we knew that Cope was a jerk, but there still plenty of them around.
I’m looking at a paper in the numerous ones on the newly popular shark fad that I have to deal with. Most are at least presenting data about splitting species, as in E & W or N & S Atlantic and vary as to their insistence on the new names. It is difficult to judge this one without the original of which they gave a few quotations with their translation which show that these authors they wanted designated were well appreciated. For example, “Zu den gütigen Beförderern unsers Unternehmens hatten wir nun auch noch die Herren Duméril, Valenciennes, Biberon [sic] und Rüppell zu rechnen und sagen ihnen hiermit.” What I didn’t understand was that it was followed with “Müller and Henle, 1841, their capitalization.” Maybe the new German doesn’t do that anymore as they said an Austrian helped with the translation? These are all well known and appreciated ichthyologists.
Jones, C. M., W. B. Driggers III, J. I. Castro, and M. R. de Carvalho. 2015. On the attribution of authorship for several elasmobranch species in Müller and Henle’s Systematische Beschreibung der Plagiostomen (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii). Zootaxa. 4052(5):569-572.
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4052.5.4
Communication from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 197:283–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107
“It is well outside the scope of the Commission to assess the morality of persons honoured in eponyms or the potential offensiveness or inappropriateness of certain names. Owing to the inherently subjective nature of making such assessments, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to assert judgments on such matters of morality, because there are no specific parameters to determine thresholds for offensiveness of a scientific name to a given community or individual, either in the present day or in the future…”
A common name that doesn’t stand a chance.
Monte Python?
Well then, what are we supposed to call Black widow spiders (Latrodectus mactans), Red-cockaded woodpeckers (Dryobates borealis), Western white pines (Pinus monticola), Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp), or Baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata) without offending some wokie mental dwarf having a sob session.
The Decline and Fall of Civilization, at 6pm on all channels. Have your popcorn ready.
What will they now call Homo Sapiens?
Or worse yet, Homo Erectus
oooo, that’s SO offensive 🙂
Homer Simpson?
Latin was used for better communication between philosophers from different countries. The ones that contributed the most to modern science came from Europe where universities sprang up from Christian cathedral schools.
People fighting racism did not come with this anti-Latin rubbish. It’s an unhealthy hate of Christians.
Wouldn’t that be “Latinx?”
Gets my vote.
Thank you Charles for a superb piece. After going against Latin names, they might go against the Indian mathematical symbol of zero because President Modi is allegedly a “chauvinist” Hindu as the BBC never ceases to announce to us.
What about Arabic numerals? Do we go back to Roman Numerals? That would be fun. Think spreadsheet.
There are no other forms of knowing.
There’s only knowing and knowledge of the physical world comes only from science.
Well there’s a naive statement. Epistemology isn’t quite so cut and dry.
What other classification system should we consider?
I am glad you said that. I would have said that knowledge is a strange beast, and very little of it comes from science.
Why stop at Latin words, using the same logic the Latin alphabet itself must be ‘racist’.
Cyrillic too.
Greek.
Hebrew.
Arabic.
nearly two dozen others.
I suppose we could all learn the NATO phonetic alphabet but I bet there would be objections.
Koo-koo birds
the issue is rather simple.
the author writes:
The document states: “When botanical gardens and arboreta display Latin taxa, English ‘common name’, and perhaps a brief scientific description, what other ways of knowing are not only missing but actively erased?”
first understand that naming and categrizing is a way of knowing.
latinbasedd taxonomy is binary,
what other ways of knowning are erased? indigenious ways of knowing.
lets take tobacco
The Latin name for the most common species of cultivated tobacco is Nicotiana tabacum.
Here’s a breakdown of the name:
what is erased?
It’s important to understand that “tobacco” encompasses various plants used for different purposes by Indigenous peoples. Some are specifically cultivated for ceremonial or medicinal use, while others have been adopted more recently. Here are some Indigenous names for tobacco and related plants:
Specific Cultivated Tobacco:
what is erased is the spiritual connection between the people, the plant and the spirit world
The scientific name for peyote is Lophophora williamsii.
Indigenous names for peyote! It highlights the importance of recognizing the plant’s cultural significance beyond its scientific classification. Here are some Indigenous names for peyote, primarily from groups who have traditionally used it in ceremonies:
Huichol (Wixárika)
Other Indigenous Groups
so the Latin naming points at and honors the nglish naturalist and it erases th cultural knowledge that the plant is medicine.
of course now people are researching its effctiveness as a medicine
latin naming erased the use.
Okay, so the pretentious term “way of knowing” equates to “a subset of aspects”, and “other ways of knowing” covers “additional information” or “other aspects”. Got it.
It’s not, actually, but the genus (often just the initial is used) and species are usually a sufficient subset to distinguish the example. Charles missed this as well.
Erased, or not covered?
So,
Similarly,
“the Latin naming points at and honors the nglish naturalist”. That’s what happens when you name something after yourself. Summat like months or comets but on a smaller scale.
“and it erases th cultural knowledge that the plant is medicine.” So does genus Salix. It’s an unfortunate fact that names are just labels, and miss a lot of the additional information.
Now people are researching its effectiveness as a medicine? That’s been done for well over a century.
Latin naming and use are orthogonal.
Latin naming also “erases” the biochemistry, best planting time, optimal temperature range, optimal rainfall patterns, …
The scientific name is a label, and a suboptimal way of lumping things together.
Did you read what you just wrote? There has long been a strong historic honor code in taxonomy to honor the first species describer and name, even when higher categories are changed, which is sometimes difficult and can be erroneous whatever the motivation. Both Latin and common names often tried to include relevant points like geography or something significant about the species. The system works because it is brief and specific. I got curious and pulled out my botany text from college and put my finger randomly on Rattlesnake Fern, Botrychium virginianum. After a column about the features it ended with “Indians used plant medicinally in treatment of bites.” Vernacular name wasn’t about bites or racism either, unless rattlesnake now is. There has been an old movement to standardize common names which may have started some of this, although it has produced well researched checklists but some confusion.
United States Board on Geographic Names, Department of the Interior has been in existence for decades. In 1973 they changed the name of the central Texas coast island St. Joseph’s to San Jose without an explanation as they usually did. Rumor was that it was named by the Spaniards and Joseph wasn’t Spanish so not used on their maps which was nonsense. Politicians change names all the time, if you look at the National Data Buoy Center website you will see South Bay near the Rio Grande and the new spaceport named Verdolaga Lake, I’m guessing for a new development there. They missed a few derogatory names still on my maps and some of the ones they changed have caused problems in finding old locations. We’ve got enough problems about politics in science.
“…of course now people are researching its effectiveness as a medicine” You need to do homework about erasures, check my post on malaria, also you might read “The Ecological Indian.”
Were you replying to me or to mosh?
There are at least 3 species of Lophorphora and quite a few botanically accepted varieties and 2 species of Pelecyphora all of which were probably used in the same way by native Mexicans and probably called peyotl or any one of a number of names by different tribes.
So much for your argument. Indigenous NAMES are only important for indigenous people and should be left with them and out of scientific classification.
I am sure if we started using native American words for those two species we would be charged with ‘cultural appropriation’.
Latin is used as a common standard because it is not the property of any living national language.
If you think there are no needs for unique transcultural names for things, well so be it, and I hope your bank account sends you statements in Roman numerals, or binary.
Cultural appropriation.
Nailed it.
If it is a botanical garden, that kind of information would be enlightening and appropriate.
Language is racist. We should all use point and grunt from now on.
And be careful which finger you use to point with!
(Somebody might be offended.)
Wasn’t the Koran written in a Semitic language?
(Oh! What a tangled web “woke” weaves!)
Modern “liberals” insist that the US Constitution was written slave owners/slavery supporters and the Bill of Rights was written at a time slavery was legal.
(Usually in order to discredit gun rights.)
Do they realize that freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to an attorney and many rights date back a long time and can be crushed and destroyed under the same “old = shît” doctrine?
Are you trying to deny that the US Constitution was written by slave owners? That is a simple historical fact. And while ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of association date back a long time the people who espoused them never intended them to apply to everyone until very recently. You have to admire the hyprocrisy of people who can both claim that all men are created equal but that slaves should only count as 3/5 of a human in the US constitution.
While the freedom of association clearly didn’t mean that african-americans could attend the same university as whites until the 1960’s. Similarly when exactly did women get the right to vote in the US?
Poor Izzy…. always making a VICTIM of itself.!!
Yes, all men are created equal…
… your problem is that you choose to be a non-entity. !
“Are you trying to deny that the US Constitution was written by slave owners?”
Not all of the writers were slave owners. The fact that some were means what? That we dismiss the constitution?
The depth of your ignorance in writing this post is amazing.
He doesn’t care.
Please enlighten us on just what standard of Government (That you would want to live under.) was ever set up that did not have those involved that fell short of that standard?
Do you have personal standards or goals that you have fallen short of?
When you’ve fallen short, does that make those standards or goals BS?
I smoke. I never hid that from my kids. I told my kids not to start smoking.
They both did start while they were teens but quickly stopped after a year or so.
Was I wrong to tell my kids to not start smoking?
Nothing wrong with the ideals of what the purpose of Government should be as stated in The Declaration of Independence.
While not perfect, the Government formed to practically apply those ideals, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights were and still are the “best thing going”.
It just has taken time for the US to “stop smoking”.
I ask again, Izaak, what is the form of Government you would prefer to live under?
If The Declaration of Independence was SO bad at expressing the just purpose of any Government and The Constitution and The Bill Bill of Rights SO evil a form of Government; what’s your better idea?
John Adams was not a slave owner.
The article states “ this what happens when academia stops carrying about science & bows to the social justice mob”. I would say academia is part of, if not the leaders , of the social justice mob.
absolutely the leaders- followed by mostly ignorant politicians- followed by obedient and salary loving burro-ocracies- then parroted by the MSM
Been going on since the 60s with indications of movement in the 50s and earlier.
“It’s more important to look “progressive” than to actually make progress.”
That’s their motto.
Dismantling systems and existing structures is the whole point. DEI is not a goal, it is a tool for the demolition of what IS to make way for what WILL BE, that being a neo-Marxist utopia to be ruled by sef-styled Philosopher Kings. The only way to do that is to also demolish individuality. That requires an ignorant mass of conforming, confused sheep. People who think are not desirable.
Jenny Johnson, my high school Latin teacher from 1962-1964 would beg to differ.
Defund. It’s obvious that the University of Michigan has run out of worthwhile things to study. Put the capital used to fund this nonsense back into the productive economy where it might actually do some good for someone other than the intellectually lazy behind this nonsense.
It seems those Skunk Bears (aka Nasty Cats, aka Indian Devils, aka Gluttons) are jousting windmills again.
As far as it goes, which indigenous nickname shall we use for the Gulo Gulo?
Chaos would reign, and scientific advancement would be hampered by this petty insistence on catering to today’s ideological trends.
That, it seems, is the point.
Air Traffic Control around the world uses English.
I suppose we should just have each of the pilots learn 129 different languages fluently and not worry about safety until they all pass their exams.
Wait. Exams is out. Meritocracy is not allowed. So just wait until the thousands of pilots CLAIM they speak the language of the air port they will soon be landing at.