Open Site Navigation

 Judge by content of character, not color of skin 

In some ways more chilling than Fox’s cast of race-grievance peddlers are the voices in left-wing spaces who openly proclaim their desire to divide communities by race. While Mr. Carlson and his cohort largely play footsie with ideas of race-based hierarchies, universities, think-tanks, and even hospital systems are increasingly willing to openly proclaim skin color as the guiding light that informs their policies and procedures. In July 2020, roughly 350 faculty members at Princeton University signed an open letter to President Eisgruber demanding that the college atone for the “powerful role” that racism plays on its campus by enacting policies that explicitly favor faculty based on the amount of melanin in their skin.[1] The letter advocated for allocating nonwhite faculty additional pay, time off, and sabbaticals to reflect the “invisible work” that they perform in combatting the racism and bigotry that abounds on an Ivy League campus where, incidentally, over half of undergraduate students are minorities.[2] The signatories also advocated for the creation of a faculty-only tribunal to investigate and discipline racist behaviors and incidents, with the criteria for what constitutes a racist act to be determined later.[3]

 

In theory, moral panics on university campuses are largely localized phenomena that have little to no effect on Americans’ daily lives. But it has become clear that aspects of the thinking laid out above have penetrated more directly impactful institutions, a chilling development for those committed to racial equality. In January 2022, reports emerged that hospitals in New York, Utah, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Minnesota used race as a factor in choosing which patients were to receive limited supplies of monoclonal-antibody treatments.[4] SSM Health, a health system with 23 hospitals in three states, utilized a point system in determining who would have priority access to the Regeneron drug, with the stated aim that patients more at risk of serious illness from Covid would receive priority. Under the SSM rubric, comorbidities like obesity would net a patient one point; being “non-white or Hispanic” would net a person seven points. After receiving warnings of possible lawsuits, SSM and other providers later removed criteria for race.[5]

 

We are not arguing that there are no racial disparities in health outcomes, complications, and deaths from Covid-19. But the notion that skin color alone can dictate whether a patient is at increased risk from Covid, and that it is a more important factor in rationing medicine than comorbidities like obesity or hypertension, seems to paint too broad a brushstroke. Distributing scarce supplies of medicine based in part on race is a policy that no politician could advocate for openly because, again, most Americans believe race-based discrimination to be fundamentally opposed to their sense of fairness as members of a democratic and free society. Dividing communities by race diminishes civility in politics.

              

[1]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfPmfeDKBi25_7rUTKkhZ3cyMICQicp05ReVaeBpEdYUCkyIA/viewform

[2] https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

[3]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfPmfeDKBi25_7rUTKkhZ3cyMICQicp05ReVaeBpEdYUCkyIA/viewform

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based-covid-rationing-ideology/621405/

[5] Ibid.