<p>During the recent Politicon <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/19181/watch-shapiro-destroys-cenk-politicon-debate-hank-berrien">debate</a> between Cenk Uygur and Ben Shapiro, a lot of time was spent discussing tax policy, and the pros and cons of setting tax rates at different levels. At one point, Uygur responded to Shapiro&#8217;s claim that tax revenue is at an all time high by stating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So when you say tax revenue is at its highest point, now you know that that is misleading because everything economically is at its highest point, meaning that we have a lot more people in the country than we did in the 1950s and 1960s, so hence we are collecting more overall taxes. But, the reality is, as a percentage it is clearly down, the top tax bracket now is around 39%, it used to be at 91%, that&#8217;s inarguable right? &#8230; To say that it [tax revenue] is at record collection is misleading.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cenk is right that measuring things in terms of total dollars doesn&#8217;t mean much, if for no other reason than population growth alone would keep resulting in record-high tax collection. But the rationale behind Cenk&#8217;s argument, that contemporary tax receipts must be lower in population-adjusted, inflation-adjusted, and growth-adjusted terms simply because the rates that exist in the law today are lower than they were before is itself very flawed, and actually flat-out incorrect. There is a very simple way to measure how much of our national output the Federal government is collecting, and has collected historically in this country &#8212; by looking at Federal tax receipts as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.</p>
<p>As I&#8217;ve written previously at<em> </em><em><a href="http://www.redstate.com/diary/NPappas/2017/05/22/transfer-state-americas-fiscal-march-towards-collectivism/">Red State</a></em>, &#8220;according to <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S">data</a> supplied by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, all Federal tax receipts (from income, to payroll, to business taxes) as a percentage of GDP were just above 13% in 1950, and hit a short-term peak of about 18% in 1952, before coming in below that percentage every year until 1969. The highest percentage for any single year from 1950-2016 was the year 2000, during the end of the 1990s economic boom, when Federal tax receipts reached 19.69% of GDP.&#8221; By 2015, we were back to collecting almost 18% of GDP through Federal taxes, and in 2016 it was 17.54%.</p>
<p>The average for 1950-2016 was about 16.9% of GDP collected as Federal taxes, meaning we are currently collecting slightly more than we have on average since 1950. The primary driver of spikes and drops in the percentage over the years has been cyclical changes in the health of the economy. When the economy is booming it tends to go higher, and vice versa.</p>
<p>People are often surprised to hear this, since they&#8217;ve assumed that because marginal income tax rates were higher on everyone up and down the income spectrum in the 1950s/1960s, that surely taxes must have taken a larger share of our national income than they do today. The reason why this isn&#8217;t the case, however, is because it was easier to avoid paying taxes back in the 1950s, especially for rich people. Tax shelters, loopholes, deductions, tax-free securities, and so forth made the tax code the equivalent of Swiss cheese. </p>
<p>This is why the alternative minimum tax was introduced in 1969, and why loopholes were tightened that year and again in 1986. When Cenk and other progressives claim that we&#8217;ve tried taxing high income individuals at 91%, and that nothing bad happened as a result of doing so, they&#8217;re ignoring the fact that we never truly taxed people at those rates. Effectively, the tax burden in this country was never that high for anyone who could afford an accountant, or was willing to game the system. The reality is, we simply do not know how disastrous the economic effects of ultra high marginal tax rates like 91% would be for the economy, at least from experience.</p>
<p>Of course, what progressives are really worried about is how the tax burden in this country is distributed. Sure, America as a whole may not have seen a tax cut over the decades, but what does the tax burden look like for high income people specifically? Aren&#8217;t they getting away with paying less than their &#8220;fair share&#8221; of taxes?</p>
<p>That certainly is not the case today. In June of last year, the Congressional Budget Office published a report titled &#8220;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-householdincomefedtaxesonecol.pdf">The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2013</a>.&#8221; That year was the first year after the Bush tax cuts expired on the highest income Americans, and no parts of the tax code have been changed much, if any, since then. The report looks at all &#8220;individual income taxes, payroll (or social insurance) taxes, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes&#8221; and breaks down what different income brackets paid relative to the share of the national income they took home. And to be clear, let&#8217;s repeat something &#8212; these results include payroll taxes. They were not calculated with income taxes alone, which are highly progressive. In fact, the calculations even exclude estate taxes, which are taxes paid only by wealthy households once an estate is passed onto heirs.</p>
</p>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="CBOChart.png" height="315" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/NpFSTsFtF-a0JBtgb07jRgeGXdGR8A2sz-qcKwXh9bxFwsDx96NRpn24hcQ84t6CcgcIgxTusmV-LHlqXD4YFad4vgc8EBwkvARy-IkX52-Pg3Xw4VgIPHPwQ4gM8fO9XdXblONx.png" width="624" /></div>
</p>
<p>As you can see in the above chart taken from the CBO&#8217;s report, the top two quintiles, and the top percentage of income earners specifically, paid for a greater share of all Federal tax receipts (orange bars) than they received in before-tax income (silver bars). In fact, the top 20% of income earners alone paid close to 70% of all Federal taxes, while earning just over 50% of all income.</p>
<p>The average effective Federal tax rate for someone in the top percentage of income earners was 34% (if you live in a state like California or New York, that percentage gets much higher once state and local taxes are added). It was 23.2% for those between the 80th and 99th percentiles, and was 13.8% for the middle three quintiles (the &#8220;middle class&#8221;). The bottom quintile, the 20% of Americans with the lowest incomes, paid an effective tax rate of just 3.3% to the Federal government, primarily because the money they received back from negative income taxes offset much of their payroll tax burden. It&#8217;s clear that America has a very progressive tax system.</p>
<p>Even as a conservative, I have no issue with high-income Americans carrying a larger load. In disagreement with many fellow members of the Right, I actually support a progressive tax system. However, any notion that those making a lot of money don&#8217;t pay their &#8220;fair share&#8221; is both insulting and flatly idiotic. Everything the Federal government does nowadays is paid for almost exclusively by upper-middle class and wealthy Americans (the top two quintiles carry almost all of the burden). Maybe progressives should thank them every now and then instead of demonizing them for their success.</p>
<div> </div>


NpFSTsFtF-a0JBtgb07jRgeGXdGR8A2sz-qcKwXh9bxFwsDx96NRpn24hcQ84t6CcgcIgxTusmV-LHlqXD4YFad4vgc8EBwkvARy-IkX52-Pg3Xw4VgIPHPwQ4gM8fO9XdXblONx

Everything Cenk Uygur Knows About Taxes Is Wrong

Ben Shapiro

Cenk Uygur

Taxes

<p>On Wednesday, The UMass Amherst Student Government Association&#8217;s President sent out an email to the student body titled &#8220;IMPORTANT: 6 Things You Should Know.&#8221;</p>
<div>What &#8220;important&#8221; pieces of information warranted the email&#8217;s headline? The first was a warning about Halloween costumes:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>&#8220;Halloween Costumes: Cultural appropriation is members of a dominant culture copying elements of a minority culture, and then using these elements outside of their original cultural context- sometimes even against the expressed, stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture. Someone else&#8217;s culture is not a costume and is never funny. The Women of Color Leadership Network has some great guidelines to help you make an appropriate costume choice to avoid cultural appropriation: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/UMassWOCLN" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/UMassWOCLN</a>&#8220;</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Women of Color Leadership Network provided the following flow chart on their Facebook page. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="Inline image 1" height="415" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&amp;ik=e3711eaf2c&amp;view=fimg&amp;th=150b5c939ea3d468&amp;attid=0.1&amp;disp=emb&amp;realattid=ii_150b5b5d9c710381&amp;attbid=ANGjdJ-6ztG3Mkss24OWWosDMdxNBC0-pcfxSkfb7qijI4Brkil9vNnhHCtn4nc2Ivib4oS-cJu7UN_peQkEXmGJdNs_T-nvXFk5JRHTx56PfD1OAaw9uTjs60RzASY&amp;sz=w912-h830&amp;ats=1446225596484&amp;rm=150b5c939ea3d468&amp;zw&amp;atsh=1" width="456" /></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Welcome to the latest trend that offends the left &#8211; Halloween costumes based on human cultures. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is a cowboy cultural appropriation for Western Americans? Does anyone really care? When Italian-Americans wear togas to parties, are they just self hating and internalizing their biases? Apparently that&#8217;s how the left would explain such a phenomenon.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to the above flow chart, sexy bananas are preferred when you&#8217;re unsure who to be. And of course, you can always email your leftist betters to get permission to use the costume you bought or made. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<p>&#8220;Someone else&#8217;s culture is not a costume and is never funny.&#8221;</p>
<p>UMass Amherst Student Government Associati</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The other five points from the email include watching out for substance abuse on Halloween weekend (good), liking the SGA Facebook page, attending a conference, consulting student advisors, and of course, participating in an upcoming &#8220;Million Student March&#8221;:</p>
</div>
<div>&#8220;On November 12, students across the country are organizing rallies and marches on college campuses and high schools to demand tuition-free public college, a cancellation of all student debt, and a $15/hr minimum wage for all campus workers! UMass Amherst students will be making demands specific to the needs of our campus. Join students from a broad coalition of student groups who are demanding change at UMass, in Massachusetts and across the country.&#8221;</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks to the President of the UMass SGA, Si&#8203;onan Barrett, for using her platform on partisan causes. Conservative and moderate UMass students really appreciate it. </div>


UMass Amherst Student Government Warns: Stop Imitating People of Color!

<p><a href="http://www.oxy.edu/faculty/lisa-wade">Lisa Wade</a> is an associate professor of sociology at Occidental College. She is also a writer and editor for the leftist blog <a href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/">Sociological Images</a>.</p>
<p>Professor Wade is very outspoken on many issues, as sociologists tend to be. However, some of her comments are rather disconcerting coming from a professor, and much of what she has written is supported by ridiculous notions.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://twitter.com/lisawade/status/613770000147595265">tweet</a> from June, Professor Wade shared a link that was critical of the conservative student group Turning Point USA’s literature, adding the caption, “Well, this is both hilarious and horrifying. A booklet on how to combat your liberal professor.”</p>
<p>Aside from being “horrified” that conservative students are fighting back against leftist bias, Wade has been making personal attacks against students in majors outside of sociology.</p>
<p>On March 25th of this year, she posted an article on Sociological Images titled “<a href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/03/25/are-economics-majors-anti-social/">Are Economics Majors Anti-Social</a>?” The opening paragraph reads: “Yep. Economics majors are more anti-social than non-econ majors. And taking econ classes also makes people more anti-social than they were before. It turns out, there’s quite a bit of research on this, nicely summarized <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/socf.12153/abstract">here</a>. Econ majors are less likely to share, less generous to the needy, and more likely to cheat, lie, and steal.”</p>
<p>How does the Professor know this? She cites one <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268111000746">study</a> in particular, which says economics majors are less “generous” because they are less likely to give to WashPIRG, a leftist advocacy organization, than other majors.</p>
<blockquote><p>“Well, this is both hilarious and horrifying. A booklet on how to combat your liberal professor.”</p>
<p>Occidental College professor Lisa Wade</p></blockquote>
<p>For those who aren’t familiar with the PIRGs on various campuses, they’re basically foot soldiers for the Democrat and Green parties. As is the case at other schools, students at the University of Washington are hit up for a “fee”, which is really a donation to WashPIRG. They can waive said fee since it isn’t mandatory, and is simply an option at registration. Economics majors are more likely to decline the payment. Therefore, since the study used donating to WashPIRG as one of its criteria for being generous or charitable, economics majors are greedy.</p>
<p>Did anyone involved in this process think to themselves “are economics majors more conservative than sociology majors, and therefore don’t want to donate to a group that advances leftist dogma?” The study also looked at a “non-partisan” group that lobbies to keep tuition rates low, and econ majors were less likely to donate to that as well. Of course, a group that lobbies to keep tuition rates low is still not a charity, and not a good way to measure generosity. It’s also not non-partisan. Often budget disputes for public universities come down to party line votes. How high tuition should be at a public university is political, since tax dollars are involved. In fact, it’s political at private universities, too, since so much tax money gets pumped in those institutions every year.</p>
<p>Wade finishes her piece by saying: “Being exposed to a variety of views, including ones that question the premises of neoclassical economics, may be one way to make economists more honest and kind. And doing so isn’t just about sticking one to econ, it’s an issue of grave seriousness, as the criminal and immoral behavior of our financial leaders is exactly what <a href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/09/18/why-dont-more-women-commit-fraud/">triggered</a> a Great Recession once… and could again.”</p>
<p>Economics with Professor Wade. Expose yourself to more Marxism or you are a bad person.</p>
<p>Other pieces from Professor Wade include: <a href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/07/16/there-are-22-million-angry-impulsive-americans-with-guns/"><em>There are 22 Million Angry, Impulsive Americans with Guns</em></a> and <a href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/07/30/white-american-male-with-a-weapon/"><em>White American men with their weapons and the bloody summer of 2015</em></a>.</p>


Occidental College, Obama’s Alma Mater, Features Professor Calling Conservative Group ‘Horrifying’

Occidental College

Turning Point USA

<p><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/cola/rhetoric/faculty/profile.php?id=clouddl">Dana Cloud</a> is a well-known leftist activist and professor of Rhetoric &amp; Writing from the University of Texas Austin. Currently, she is listed on Syracuse University&#8217;s College of Visual + Performing Arts&#8217; website as a <a href="http://vpa.syr.edu/faculty-staff/dana-l-cloud">Graduate Program Director</a> in the Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies. As it turns out, it appears she&#8217;s a riot apologist/conspiracy theorist who believes George W. Bush stole the 2000 election.</p>
<p>Professor Cloud was previously featured in David Horowitz&#8217;s 2006 book, <em>The Professors &#8211; The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.</em> In it, Horowitz describes Cloud as &#8220;a member of the International Socialist Organization, a Leninist vanguard that considers itself part of the Fourth Communist International.&#8221; He also writes, &#8220;Professor Cloud was quick to blame American policies for having provoked the 9/11 attacks, singling out the United States as the world&#8217;s number one terrorist state.&#8221;</p>
<p>Cloud runs a website called &#8220;<a href="https://txcommie.wordpress.com/">TXCommie</a>&#8221; (Texas Commie). Since Horowitz wrote his book, Cloud has posted many controversial speech transcripts and pieces of writing to the site.</p>
<p>For starters, in a <a href="https://txcommie.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/undemocratic-democracy-the-us-political-system/">post</a> of a 2008 talk titled <em>Undemocratic Democracy: The U.S. Political System,</em> Cloud claims that George W. Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election and that the administration was &#8220;one long propaganda campaign in defense of anything but democracy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But by any criterion, the Bush administration has used the defense of our alleged democracy to undermine it, from the unprecedented use of signing statements&#8212;which basically say he will do whatever he wants regardless of the law&#8212;to the Patriot Act&#8212;not to mention stealing the 2000 Presidential election. As Scott McClellan noted in his recent memoir What Happened, the administration has been one long propaganda campaign in defense of anything but democracy.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&#8220;We have to understand riot shaming and the other arguments &#8230; used to discredit Ferguson activists and the claims about race and policing as ideological diversions from the fundamental racism that divides US society with tragic, deadly consequences for people of color, especially young men.&#8221;</p>
<p>UT Professor Dana Cloud</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a separate 2014 <a href="https://txcommie.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/we-cant-win-our-rights-by-voting-how-abortion-rights-were-won-and-how-to-get-them-back/">post</a> titled &#8220;<em>We can&#8217;t win our right by voting. How abortion rights were won and how to get them back,&#8221;</em> the professor argues that a capitalist elite benefit from the oppression of women, which she defines simply as upholding a traditional nuclear family:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why have I spent so much time discussing the family under capitalism? Because we need to see clearly who benefits from the oppression of women and why the bullying of women is so virulent and vile. It&#8217;s not a matter of some men just being jerks; it&#8217;s not a matter of re-educating people to have egalitarian ideas. It&#8217;s not a matter of making sure everyone knows the science of reproduction and abortion, although that helps. The fact is, elites in capitalist society benefit from perpetuating sexism and holding up the family ideal. It is necessary to their ongoing power and profits. In other words, the problem of sexism is a system problem. And system problems require system solutions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cloud has also weighed in on the recent conflict between communities and the police. In December of last year, she <a href="https://txcommie.wordpress.com/2014/12/">argued against</a> &#8220;riot shaming&#8221; people, and compared Wall Street to rioters in a meme posted in the article:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have to understand riot shaming and the other arguments (for example, &#8220;he was no angel,&#8221; &#8220;he was monstrous and scary,&#8221; &#8220;other racial groups have made it successfully&#8221;) used to discredit Ferguson activists and the claims about race and policing as ideological diversions from the fundamental racism that divides US society with tragic, deadly consequences for people of color, especially young men.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In her <a href="https://twitter.com/danaleecloud">Twitter profile</a>, Cloud describes herself as a &#8220;socialist, lgbtq activist, anti-racist for women&#8217;s rights and workers&#8217;power. UT professor of communication studies. Parent and partner.&#8221; In other words, no surprises here.</p>
<p>Cloud has not responded to a request for comment.</p>


UT Professor: Bush Cheated in 2000, Nuclear Family Oppresses Women, ‘Riot Shaming’ Sucks

Austin

University of Texas

<p>The Black Lives Matter movement is known for having its fair share of anti-police and anti-conservative radicals, and unfortunately, those radicals are frequently found in the corridors of higher education. Professor Lawrence Brown, an “assistant professor of public health” at Morgan State University,a public university, is one of those individuals.</p>
<p>Professor Brown is an active member of Twitter’s social justice community. His account has sent out over 14,000 tweets, with a significant number of them displaying hateful, racist, anti-police, and anti-Israel views.</p>
<p>For starters, on August 8th, the Professor tweeted, “At this juncture, we need to question if white cops have the moral capacity to know and act on the knowledge that #BlackLivesMatter.&#8221;</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>At this juncture, we need to question if white cops have the moral capacity to know and act on the knowledge that <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackLivesMatter?src=hash">#BlackLivesMatter</a>.</p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/630108398667730944">August 8, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>In addition to questioning the moral “capacity” of individuals based on their skin color and occupation, Professor Brown previously tweeted the following statement to fellow activist Shaun King on July 29th: “@ShaunKing You have to wonder to what degree white police see policing Black folk as going to the safari given the way we are dehumanized”:</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/ShaunKing">@ShaunKing</a> You have to wonder to what degree white police see policing Black folk as going to the safari given the way we are dehumanized.</p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/626468723830956032">July 29, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>He also believes that modern “policing power” in America is derived from slavery and Native American genocide, and that gun culture itself is a result of slavery to boot.</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Policing power in America is derived from the ability to use guns to put Indigenous people in reservations &amp; Black folk on plantations.</p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/653319611744669696">October 11, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>On the issue of gun control though, that legislation won&#8217;t happen without confronting the legacy of why gun culture runs so deep: slavery.</p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/653315464442064896">October 11, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>How is a pro-Second Amendment or pro-police student expected to speak out against leftist professors when the professors are linking contemporary conservative viewpoints to slavery? It’s a way of bullying people with opposing ideologies into silence, as no one wants to be seen defending a system built on slavery or genocide.</p>
<blockquote><p>How is a pro-Second Amendment or pro-police student expected to speak out against leftist professors when the professors are linking contemporary conservative viewpoints to slavery?</p></blockquote>
<p>But the professor’s ideological bullying doesn’t stop at policing and guns. He thinks the Republican Party, as well as conservative media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart, are on the same level as white supremacist outfits.</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Fox News &amp; conservative media are nothing more than the White Citizens&#8217; Council of today. Their whole aim is to preserve white supremacy.</p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/634502541938659329">August 20, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As I&#8217;ve argued before, you don&#8217;t understand Brietbart or Fox News until you understand the White Citizens&#8217; Councils <a href="https://t.co/GTXw1hhjmr">https://t.co/GTXw1hhjmr</a></p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/638927473565151232">September 2, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>This is so real yall. The CCC, the KKK, the GOP, these are the groups that should be shamed for their outright acts. <a href="https://t.co/mRsxBWtIdd">https://t.co/mRsxBWtIdd</a></p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/638923200999632896">September 2, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>For those who are unaware, the White Citizens’ Councils and the CCC (Council of Conservative Citizens), were and are groups which support, or have been accused of supporting, white nationalism, a disgusting racist ideology. Why this professor thinks a party supported by nearly half the country’s voting base can be compared to something like the KKK is unknown &#8212; unless he&#8217;s just reminiscing about the Democratic Party of the 1950s.</p>
<p>Of course, like so many other leftists, Lawrence Brown must throw some jabs at the state of Israel</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Israel hands out deportation notices to asylum seekers (aka the other apartheid in Israel that nobody talks about) <a href="http://t.co/J7smpGoFpl">https://t.co/J7smpGoFpl</a></p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/588846843083284480">April 16, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>It’s rather unclear how rejecting asylum seekers is comparable to apartheid. Apartheid generally refers to forced legal separation of people who are already citizens of a single country.</p>
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>And advanced white allies don&#8217;t quote Dr. King! Stop quoting Dr. King! Start quoting Fannie Lou, Assata, Stokely, SNCC &amp; the Panthers.</p>
<p>— Lawrence Brown (@BmoreDoc) <a href="https://twitter.com/BmoreDoc/status/631549706536030208">August 12, 2015</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>Professor Brown’s command to white allies is also problematic. Why can’t white people be free to quote whom they want? Why does he want them to propagate the rhetoric of more radical activists, like the Black Panthers, instead of the generally caring and humane messages of Dr. King?</p>
<p>Perhaps it would be best to prepare your children for the kind of professors they’ll run into in modern academia. Unfortunately, Professor Brown is the rule, not the exception.</p>


Menu

Nicholas Pappas

Everything Cenk Uygur Knows About Taxes Is Wrong

UMass Amherst Student Government Warns: Stop Imitating People of Color!

Occidental College, Obama’s Alma Mater, Features Professor Calling Conservative Group ‘Horrifying’

UT Professor: Bush Cheated in 2000, Nuclear Family Oppresses Women, ‘Riot Shaming’ Sucks

Morgan State Professor: Police See Blacks as ‘Going To The Safari’