Guilty of Being White

OK, I’m guilty. I’m white.

But why is being white a crime?

Some people claim that I must be a racist. Others believe that I benefit from “white privilege.” Still others assert that I owe them for being white. Some see my whiteness as “unbearable.”

When will we get past this obsession with race?

“Whites are Racist”

In the late 1990s, I was shocked to see a special issue of the Plain Truth magazine, the flagship publication of the Worldwide Church of God, which was devoted to the subject of race but incorporated every conceivable left-wing PC shibboleth imaginable. In big, bold letters, it stated: “Whites are racist and need to repent. Blacks are victims and need to forgive.

Did the writers, editors, and publisher not see the racism inherent in those sentences? Apparently not. Even after lengthy correspondence with the writers and publisher, not one word or concept was retracted.[1]

“Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American”

Last year, in the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, David Sirota’s Salon headline caught everyone’s attention: “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.”[2] I will address Sirota’s flawed analysis at a later time. Meantime, ponder why he would “hope” the bomber would be 1) white and 2) American. Xenophilia? Self-hatred?

“The Unbearable Whiteness of CPAC”

Last month, another headline caught my eye: “The Unbearable Whiteness of CPAC.”[3] Why is “whiteness” “unbearable?” Although the writer condemned CPAC and the organizations gathered under the umbrella of its conference – roundly asserting the racist nature of the entire event – the writer offered no rationale for the evils of whiteness. Its claims of a conference filled with racists, bigots, and white nationalists were both hyperbolic and unsubstantiated. But, once again, why is whiteness “unbearable?”

Published by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR), the report’s opening paragraph read:

“For years, white nationalists found themselves on the outside looking in, faces pressed against the glass to get a glimpse at the movement happenings at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). But the times they are a changing. Not since Pat Buchanan’s racially-tinged insurgent campaign at the 1992 conference have white nationalists found a more hospitable environment in the halls of CPAC.”

White nationalists? Not at the conference I attended.

Its closing paragraph read:

“Therein lies the problem. You can’t passively brush bigotry aside. It must be confronted. White nationalists have found a voice and an audience in the conservative movement. Until CPAC organizers, and the leaders they put on-stage, publically stand up and wholeheartedly reject the politics of bigotry, panels on minority outreach will continue to be empty, and white nationalists will roam the halls looking for new recruits to join Ann Coulter’s death squads to enforce their hegemony.”

Clearly, IREHR disagrees with the conservative agenda. Fine. But it shouldn’t besmirch the intent or the character of conservatives just because it doesn’t agree with their ideas. IREHR provided a photo of the minority outreach panel showing an empty room. That room was later filled by an engaged audience. Timing is everything.

As for Coulter’s unquestionably over-the-top “death squads” joke (which never should have been said), a conservative “hegemony” would certainly never be enforced by conservative “death squads.”

Supreme Court on Affirmative Action

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced its decision in a case involving affirmative action.[4] The Court has recognized that the United States has moved on since the heyday of racial discrimination and it has upheld Michigan’s law which actually reiterated the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Justice Sotomayor was one of only two justices to dissent. Sotomayor’s dissent was particularly troubling in that she presumes racist motivation on the part of the Michigan electorate.

In her dissent, Sotomayor used the Orwellian technique of changing the terms of the debate. Her redefinition of the state constitution is stated and repeated in her dissent. She wrote: “Although the term ‘affirmative action’ is commonly used to describe colleges’ and universities’ use of race in crafting admissions policies, I instead use the term ‘race-sensitive admissions policies.’”

Sotomayor morphed the half-century-old (“commonly used”) term “affirmative action” into an ambiguous and easily-manipulated phrase, “race-sensitive admissions policies.”

Sotomayor continues:

“But instead, the majority of Michigan voters changed the rules in the middle of the game, reconfiguring the existing political process in Michigan in a manner that burdened racial minorities. They did so in the 2006 election by amending the Michigan Constitution to enact Art. I, §26, which provides in relevant part that Michigan’s public universities ‘shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.’”

Once again, Michigan voters reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act of 1964. But Sotomayor views that as going backwards because she wants affirmative action (and racial preferences which ensued) to continue. By actually abiding by the legal and moral intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, racial preferences should be discarded. This is anathema for Sotomayor because she somehow believes a colorblind society is detrimental to minorities.

Sotomayor continues: “The race debate ‘must be resolved in constitutionally permissible ways.’” Having provided a lengthy and detailed history of civil rights in America, does Sotomayor now view the Voting Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional? Doubtful. But that Act, legally and literally interpreted, is detrimental to her goals and its invocation by the Michigan electorate obstructs her purposes: racial preferences.

In all of these instances, an inordinate, unhealthy, and obsessive emphasis is placed on race. Sotomayor and others may eschew Rev. King’s historic exhortation to a color-blind society, and they may deny the foundational tenet of American jurisprudence (equal justice under the law), but by doing so they are ensuring the continuation of some level of racial animus in society and they are impeding the healing of the soul of America.

Why must outward skin color trump inward character?


[1]               See Daniel Borchers, “Race Doesn’t Matter,” BrotherWatch, February 1998,

[2]               David Sirota, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” Salon, 4/16/13,

[3]               Devin Burghart, “The Unbearable Whiteness of CPAC,” IREHR, 3/21/14,

[4]               For the Supreme Court decision, see For analysis of Sotomayor’s dissent, see Thomas Lifson, “Justice Sotomayor and the affirmative action bitter-enders have lost big time,” American Thinker, 4/23/14,

3 thoughts on “Guilty of Being White

  1. esq.reflections

    Your points are well noted, but last week’s decision on Michigan’s ban of “affirmative action” was not about whether it should or should not continue to be used. You are right, Sotomayor does make her stance on the issue very clear, but so do the other Justices. The real issue in that case was not whether affirmative action should be banned. The issue was whether voters can use the ballot box to ban affirmative action. Justice Sotomayor says very clearly in her dissent that yes, in states where decisions regarding “race sensitive admissions policies” are not subject to the political process in the first place, voters are entirely free to eliminate such policies because in that scenario there would not be a reallocation of power. All citizens have the right to participate meaningfully and equally. But Michigan’s amendment interferes with this right.

    1. newbrotherwatch Post author

      Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Three quick points.

      First, you write that in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent: “in states where decisions regarding ‘race sensitive admissions policies’ are not subject to the political process in the first place, voters are entirely free to eliminate such policies.”

      I am not a fan of legalese or parsing of words. Having said that, doesn’t the statement above say that, sure, voters can vote on it, but only if they can’t vote? “Voters are entirely free to eliminate such policies” if they live in states where such policies “are not subject to the political process” (i.e., voting). (Yes, I know, some Southern states with a notorious record had restrictions.)

      Moreover, if “voters are entirely free to eliminate such policies,” then why is it a problem that Michigan did so? (Michigan was not a recalcitrant state.)

      Why not keep it simple and simply adhere it the actual meaning and intent of the constitutionally-oriented law: “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

      Second, you write: “All citizens have the right to participate meaningfully and equally. But Michigan’s amendment interferes with this right.”

      Michigan’s amendment restores equilibrium, returning to the intent of the Constitution.

      For years now, the Justices have been wrestling with when racial preferences will end. At some point they must. At that point, some may (rightly or wrongly) feel unequal. But unless that day comes, King’s dream of a color-blind society will, to some degree, continue to elude us.

      In America today, race relations are vastly different from fifty years ago. The debate over what is right – equality under the law – is over. A few die-hard racists (of every color) remain. They cannot long endure. The culture will not tolerate their intolerance.

      The Michigan decision recognizes and appropriately addresses that reality. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in 2007: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Sotomayor obvious disagrees. Nevertheless, preferences prolong the problem.

      Three, the fact that Sotomayor changed the terminology from “affirmative action” into “race-sensitive admissions policies” suggests she knows Americans of all races understand that employing racial discrimination to combat racial discrimination is counterproductive and runs contrary to the purpose of the law.

      The term “race-sensitive” is non-threatening and well-suited to our age of tolerance, but it disguises the intent of the term: racial preferences. If one individual or group is preferred due to race, another individual or group is discriminated against due to race.

      Let’s move forward. Instead of focusing on race, why not view one another as fellow Americans and fellow children of God?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s