“Our Standards? Can He Drive The Baseline? Hit A Three-Pointer?”

     I sometimes lament how little of the news I manage to cover each day. There’s certainly plenty going on. But I have an actual life – the C.S.O. reminds me about that frequently – a home, animals to tend, and miscellaneous other things that deserve some attention. So I miss a lot.

     However, courtesy of 90 Miles From Tyranny, I didn’t miss this story:

     UCLA accounting lecturer Gordon Klein is demanding well over $19 million in damages in a lawsuit scheduled to go to trial March 4 in a Santa Monica courthouse.
     The two sides have engaged in legal wrangling since September 2021, when Klein first filed suit — including a failed attempt by UCLA’s lawyers to get the case tossed by summary judgment.
     The causes of action to be hashed out next month are breach of contract, retaliation, false light, and negligent interference with prospective earnings.

     But why was Klein suspended?

     The crux of the controversy took place following [convicted felon George] Floyd’s death, when Klein received a request asking that he provide academic leniency for his black students enduring emotional duress….
     Klein responded June 2, 2020, by asking how he was supposed to identify black students in the online class; whether he should also go easy on white students from Minneapolis; how much leeway to show half-black students; and how the student feels about Martin Luther King Jr.’s admonition to not evaluate people based on “the color of their skin.”…
     In response, Anderson School Dean Antonio Bernardo wrote in a June 4, 2020, memo to the campus community that Klein was suspended and an investigation was underway.

     Klein’s response to this request for preferential treatment by race tossed the whole enterprise into a flaming dumpster. It was an effortless lay-up. But UCLA’s “refs” called foul and ejected him from the arena.

     UCLA, of course, is famous as a “basketball college.” Its basketball teams routinely make the national standings and have often triumphed at the annual NCAA tournament. There have been several controversies about the university’s preferential treatment of its hoops stars. The subject even inspired a movie that was moderately popular at the time.

     As high-level basketball is dominated by blacks, “lenient grading” of black students would be consistent with UCLA’s emphasis on that program. Less to worry about in the classroom means more time and energy available for the hardwood court. Faculty and staff who object to such preferential academic treatment get the response Gordon Klein got, or something much like it.

     Now, you may think “But what of it? These kids aren’t going to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, or public officials. Their future is on the court, so let them play. If that takes some surreptitious bending of the standards in their favor, we can let it pass for the sake of a good jump shot.”

     Enter the forces of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” powerfully backed up by equal-opportunity commissions at the local, state, and federal levels. Those dribblers and jumpers will become “doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, or public officials,” the latter mainly in Democrat administrations. And they will bring with them the attitude that grows from lenient treatment in college: i.e., that “the standards don’t apply to us.”

     You think not? Have a gander at this:

     Some “experts” are saying that professionalism at work — which they pejoratively call “code-switching” — takes a toll on black Americans and should not be expected of them. They should be able to “be themselves” in the workplace, is the idea.

     What is meant here by “professionalism at work?” Oh, nothing of great importance. Mainly punctuality, clarity in communication, behavior consistent with a calm and orderly workplace, and adequate performance at one’s job. But the standards of the workplace can be loosened so those poor, oppressed blacks can “be themselves,” can’t they?

     Some don’t just ask. Some demand – and they do so with the cudgel of “racial inequality” in hand:

     Code-switching is a form of self-protection for Black Americans, who regularly face anti-Black bias on the job, said Darin Johnson, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication and a member of the Communication Neuroscience Lab.
     “At work, Black folks have dealt with a lot of racism and a lot of bias,” said Johnson, who studies code-switching.
     Deep racial inequalities persist at every level in the business world, creating sharply disparate outcomes for Black Americans. But Black women face multiple layers of bias that prevent them from truly being themselves at the office, said Y-Vonne Hutchinson, CEO and founder of the DEI consulting firm ReadySet and author of “How to Talk to Your Boss About Race.”

     Oh no! “Disparate outcomes!” Sound the general alarm! All hands to their battle stations! But what’s the battle about? Conformance to workplace standards…which inevitably includes the performance of black workers and the effect their nonconformance has on the non-black portion of the workforce.

     When these things are measured and publicized, things get ugly. For black nonconformance to workplace standards isn’t entirely a matter of preference. It’s partly a matter of ability. In recent years, that aspect of the thing has become ever more visible.

     Thomas Sowell has said that to hold blacks to lower standards does them no favors. But who pays attention to him? Mostly those heartless conservatives, and they’re all white, aren’t they?

     There is also this: preferential treatment of any sort inevitably engenders resentment and anger among those who aren’t members of the favored category. When it’s race-based, it stimulates and nourishes interracial animosity. The consequences are building toward large-scale violence. No one will like where that will lead.

     As the point has been made, I think I’ll stop here. Have a nice day.


Skip to comment form

  1. Some more research first uncovers some of the usual Leftist suspects getting the cancel ball rolling. Here is one: the Change.org’s petition.

    OTOH, the Change site surprisingly allowed comments supporting Klein. The upvotes for those greatly outnumber the latest upvotes for comments supporting the petition (which garnered only about 21K signatures in 4 years.) This is another sure sign of how much Woke is a top down project. The Progs’ hatred for the common man is deadly earnest.

  2. Further research locates Professor Klein’s blurb for his expert witnessing.

    It is for the loss of this business — “That practice went to ashes right after he was suspended” —  that comprises the foundation for his call for $19M from UCLA.

    Now I find this wrinkle interesting. Due to fellow members of a club I was in for 30 years before I left L.A., I knew people who were expert witnesses. Each one was a good liberal and had connections to elite bastions in CA.

    I’m guessing that Prof Klein, prior to George Floyd, went easy on jocks solely for them being needed on a team. Not necessarily racially based as I knew from my undergrad years now more than 60 years ago. But somehow this underlying reason for this additional request to go easy was beyond the pale for Prof Klein. It is a good sign. The good-old-boy network is fraying as many good old boys see they are themselves in danger.

    Lying and misrepresentation may start small, but at some point it becomes an unsustainable burden as the worst offenders inevitably go too far. What is right must prevail. When it emerges, it will topple any rotten edifice that was built on false supports.

    Which brings me to “Expert” witnessing itself. It is tolerated in courts where the guilty party neglects or is unable to touch the judge who can disallow such testimony on whatever grounds he chooses. It’s tough to beat it on appeal.

    Face it. Anything recognized as expert by established authorities is quite long in the tooth. I find it delightful that Prof Klein is basing most of his claim for lost income on his expert witnessing. He’d have lost it simply for challenging the latest Woke move. Where UCLA blew it was for outright suspending him rather than use the well-worn back-channel methods. Word of mouth spread around would have sufficed to send him the message. That was the way it was mostly done in the past. Someone close might have said: “Hey Klein. I thought you were smart. That’s a nice sideline you’ve got there. Today.” The radical push to cancel Klein, on weak sauce at that, probably made the old ways too slow, and UCLA honchos couldn’t take the heat.

    Simply as a side note to this.
    In all, allowing radicals free reign to do all we are witnessing will upend everybody’s applecart. The most malevolent, lame-brained Progs think that is superb.

    Pray that some significantly high Progs repent of such nihilism and turn the tables on all who support the death cults. Godspeed.

      • Evil Franklin on February 14, 2024 at 7:06 AM

      In a different conversation regarding the identification of evil this qualifies.

      Evil Franklin

      1. Indeed. Some useful idiots aid it, at least that’s the possition historian Niall Ferguson takes when, a few minutes later in the clip I added a few minutes ago, he says:

        back in the 1960s and70s people persuaded themselves that there
        was a terrible problem of overpopulation that Malthus was going to be vindicated and therefore there had to be drastic
        population control especially in Asia and that turned out to of all kinds of unintended consequences in our time.

    1. Today I discovered how Jordan Peterson adds biblical imagery to my conclusion above, that What is right must prevail. When it emerges, it will topple any rotten edifice that was built on false supports.

      Listen from 35:00 to 36:15

    • Ownerus on February 12, 2024 at 11:28 AM

    All this reminds me of something that I saw roughly forty years ago. A melanin enriched employee was lamenting that “people don’t like me because I’m black”. To which a coworker accurately and tactfully replied “No, it’s because you’re an asshole”.

    An accurate summation of “racism”.

    • Rick T on February 12, 2024 at 5:57 PM

    Ownerus, were you on my submarine in about 1978? I watched that exact exchange on my boat but the coworker was a more senior black man.  QM3 was ranting everyone hated him because he was black.  RM1 replied “No Joe, they hate you because you’re an asshole.”

    • Botched_Lobotomy on February 12, 2024 at 10:22 PM

    “Black women face multiple layers of bias that prevent them from truly being themselves.”

    Well, its not just bias. There are also sanitary reasons and public indecency laws that prevent black women from coupling with every black male in the office place.

    • Rich on February 12, 2024 at 10:27 PM

    I saw an Amish woman who was so incompetent that we suffered through three inspections in two years.   One inspection in four years was the norm.   Despite this the section head put her up for an award.   The head of the awards committee said it would be over his dead body.   Later it was found that this same critter had awarded herself living space normally given to married couples based on the basis of her boy friend who was living with her.   No penalties.   She was in short a disaster in all respects.   Stupid, arrogant but always flashing the race card.  Imagine my surprise when I recently saw her as a top State official for DEI.

Comments have been disabled.