Despite President Trump’s Executive Order 14151 declaring DEI initiatives illegal, wasteful, and discriminatory, and mandating their termination across all government agencies, DEI appears to be a sort of zombie — dead by decree, but animated by cultural and institutional inertia. On the same day — February 4, 2025 — that the so-called “Dismantle DEI” bill was introduced to both the House (H.R. 925) and Senate (S.382), I optimistically fantasized about a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dei-deserves-an-accurate-eulogy">eulogy for DEI</a>. Unfortunately, while some progress has been made, largely at the individual state levels, the leftist leviathan that is DEI remains well-entrenched across a wide swath of our institutions.
As we close out the year, there are no scheduled hearings, markups, or votes on the bill; and <a href="http://www.apple.com">a 2025 survey by Paradigm </a>(via DiversityResources.com) found that over 80% of major companies have either held their DEI budgets steady or increased them, with only 19% reducing them. These numbers are harder to track for universities and non-profits, partly because many schools and organizations have strategically rebranded DEI programs with titles such as “student success,” “inclusive excellence,” and “community equity,” but a report from <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/DEI-Funds-UNIVERSITY-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-Funds-and-Fundraising_Final.pdf">Defending Education</a> earlier this year showed that DEI funds still exist for schools in at least 44 states, and hundreds of millions of dollars are still being poured into the cause. Non-profits are finding that many <a href="https://diversity.com/post/dei-in-philanthropy-equity-nonprofit-funding-trends">donors are doubling down</a> on DEI efforts, albeit tying funding to more measurable outcomes.
The velocity and volume of DEI spending over the past 15 years is staggering — not merely in millions or billions, but plausibly trillions of dollars. In 2011, Obama kick-started the campaign with <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Executive Order 13583,</a> which directed the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Management and Budget, and EEOC to develop strategic plans and metrics for DEI across over 50 agencies. It had no specific budget or spending allotments, but it served as the blueprint for such programs across non-governmental institutions, as well as corporations, universities, and non-profits. President Joe Biden&#8217;s subsequent <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EO 13985</a> required every federal agency to file an Equity Action Plan.
The Biden administration shifted DEI into overdrive, allocating some <a href="https://www.bizpacreview.com/2025/03/10/biden-admin-went-on-trillion-dollar-spending-spree-embedding-dei-across-govt-study-says-1527980/">$1.1 trillion to 460 programs across 24 agencies</a> based on the FY2025 Equity Action Plan filings. Importantly, all of these dollar amounts exclude indirect costs such as litigation, compliance audits, and opportunity costs from DEI-related mandates.
Universities <a href="https://www.emerging-strategy.com/dei-spending-in-u-s-higher-ed-a-carnegie-classification-analysis/">spend billions of dollars</a> per year on DEI programs, with the University of Michigan alone famously spending some $250 million for one of the more <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/magazine/university-of-michigan-dei.html">spectacular DEI failures</a>. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-dei-staff-at-public-universities-pocket-massive-salaries-as-experts-question-motives-of-initiatives">Salaries for the top officers</a> in these departments, which typically range in size from 3 to 25 people, average between $180,000 and $250,000 annually.
In the private sector, JPMorgan Chase committed $30 billion to racial equity and DEI initiatives over just five years (2020-2025). Microsoft invested $150 million in one year alone (2020) to expand its existing racial equity grants and DEI programs. Google previously contributed to over 200 groups dedicated to DEI  and has invested billions of dollars since 2014 in personnel, training, and supplier diversity programs. It is estimated that nationally, annual corporate DEI spending has averaged approximately $10 billion to $20 billion per year (see <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/private-capital/our-insights/discussing-the-state-of-diversity-in-global-private-markets">here</a> and <a href="https://buildremote.co/companies/keeping-dei/">here</a>).
Secretary Hegseth is working to repair the DEI damage in our Department of War, but he has a Herculean task in front of him. A host of veterans and patriots have written and spoken about the tremendous damage that DEI policies have inflicted on our military — eviscerating combat readiness, eroding standards, crippling morale and recruitment, and threatening our national security. [See Air Force<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Revolution-Marxisms-Conquest-Unmaking-ebook/dp/B0952DZ46D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3ISCOE04FCUYF&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.5ikuS0t11e1M8t_dVKVrK0TTRBBR-k0bvxb066YffGm6BPUZBcpEf9jSv9lIp0DqErCYDn-r2fzbdMYNma9Kf7N7olk95VSUBkM_oaV0VVY.g1mUHZ8H8y2vc0tRanN4ob_E0DV-GUXH8iuHQnuttM4&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=matt+lohmeier&amp;qid=1762282380&amp;sprefix=matt+lohmeirer,aps,333&amp;sr=8-1"> Under Secretary Lohmeier</a>, <a href="https://starrs.us/message-to-senators-dei-is-a-trojan-horse/">Major General Arbuckle (retired)</a>, <a href="https://starrs.us/mike-rose-dei-is-manifesting-itself-in-the-military-in-very-dangerous-ways/">South Carolina state Sen. Rose</a> (retired), <a href="https://starrs.us/report-of-the-national-independent-panel-on-military-service-and-readiness/">Lieutenant General Bishop</a> (retired), and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cigarettes-dei-and-our-military">Greg Salsbury</a>.]
Prominent scholars such as <a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=christopher+rufo+america%27s+cultural+revolution&amp;crid=23UXO1WIKCS3R&amp;sprefix=christopher+rufo,aps,559&amp;ref=nb_sb_ss_p13n-expert-pd-ops-ranker_3_16" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christopher Rufo</a>, <a href="https://victorhanson.com/ten-problems-with-dei-that-frighten-the-public/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Victor Davis Hanson</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America-ebook/dp/B095JLK96B/ref=sr_1_2?adgrpid=1343603773906492&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.IhO6sgetZ4xjVYkCQv6_yN8VU__vAYMgkAqNPiX-0dg5DjQYq04Sjw2s-sKvWOJnMVupxX_Yerqm02TXT5B99DUIyB6pCi2aSAbobw3mofKWFaCzcP5WxvsIn-bzbW5hLWqIQK9PimIL3x5tcvJkDnH6Gj8YaNot26qk2IxCtX0f2lnyfnYcAGD-3IwUM6JLr2cjH0ijk_I-zVPciT0hJFosnOibZXf_9SCjg30tpbb_LQpGO9MhO0grSda6P182tAWtWRCGRXAkcV_NXXLRrlPhJOhSlFSAt4kPEbl-oHo.pjLOCn7X5k3CptyBF2TDIFGiFcVN5Oqg_cKEOeGgdlU&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;hvadid=83975558545606&amp;hvbmt=be&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvlocphy=71501&amp;hvnetw=o&amp;hvqmt=e&amp;hvtargid=kwd-83975581857106:loc-190&amp;hydadcr=8480_13544230&amp;keywords=john+mcwhorter+books&amp;mcid=359b8020a2b43364bd749073b564a123&amp;msclkid=0565530031fc1a91b3bc3a078790b5f4&amp;qid=1762113141&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John McWhorter</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=heather+macdonald+author&amp;crid=2GWXB3DP1BDRH&amp;sprefix=heather+mac,aps,328&amp;ref=nb_sb_ss_p13n-expert-pd-ops-ranker_1_11" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Heather MacDonald</a>, and many others have written extensively about similar destruction inflicted across our other governmental, academic, and private sector institutions and culture. <a href="https://starrs.us/the-dei-ruse-is-imploding/">Dr. Hanson</a> concludes: “In the end, DEI will implode because of its many contradictions: it is racist to the core; it is illegal and violates court decisions and the Constitution; it destroys meritocracy; and it is utterly incoherent in adjudicating who and who does not deserve racial preferences.” 
The implosion may take a while. The enormous spending led to an unprecedented propaganda campaign, helping to cement deep-seated misconceptions in a large portion of the population. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/19/views-of-dei-have-become-slightly-more-negative-among-us-workers/">Pew Research Center</a> reports that while the American public’s support for DEI has decreased slightly over the last couple of years, the country remains roughly split on whether it is a positive or negative influence. About half still view DEI as being about fairness and opportunity.
In a recent viral video, comedian Adam Carolla discusses the best way for the current administration to combat the anti-ICE protesters as it pursues illegal immigrants across the country. He wryly recommends that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement be retitled as something like National Immigration and Customs Enforcement — thus adding the letter “N” to the current ICE acronym, making it “NICE.” He goes on to make several jokes about how difficult it would be for anyone, including the media and Democrats, to attack NICE people.
In all seriousness, Carolla has identified the brilliant but insidious invulnerability of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and why it is so difficult to drive a stake through its heart (to mix zombie and vampire metaphors). Who could possibly argue with the promotion of such congenial-sounding words? Of course, the words are not the issue. Rather, it is the programs and policies that are implemented under their banner.
<a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-dei-corrupts-americas-universities">Christopher Rufo</a> observed that, in practice, the policies bearing these labels usually promote precisely the opposite of what the words would imply. Diversity almost always involves implicit and explicit racial discrimination, excluding or limiting some groups by their skin color or identity. This is how you get things like segregated dorms and graduation ceremonies (“affinity celebrations”). Equity involves disparate and often unfair treatment of various identity groups (typically based on race, color, gender, and sex) in an attempt to equalize not opportunities, but outcomes. This is what produces outcomes like the elimination of standardized test scores to ensure that underqualified candidates are still considered. Inclusion usually restricts ideas and people who oppose the prevailing doctrine of the oppressed and oppressors. This is how you end up with things like conservatives being blocked from employment consideration or targeted for special IRS consideration. Perhaps most importantly, as well argued by <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/new-clerisy-how-thomas-sowell-predicted-rise-and-ruin-dei-bureaucracies">Thomas Sowell</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/0593423062">John McWhorter</a>, these programs ultimately harm more than help the very groups they claim to champion.
I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cigarettes-dei-and-our-military">previously identified</a> commonalities between the propaganda campaigns for cigarette smoking and DEI. Sadly, thanks to billions of dollars of marketing — akin to views of cigarette smoking in the past — many, if not most, Americans are blind to the real impact of DEI, and that it is part of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-state-of-our-political-divide?author=Greg+Salsbury&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+State+Of+Our+Political+Divide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new Marxism.</a>
The challenge lies in how to open their eyes. Which message resonates more: a rigorously documented essay by a scholar like Dr. Hanson, or a 30-second TikTok clip decrying that we “should not be haters,” and that “diversity is our strength” — with music, dance, and millions of likes behind it? Perhaps Adam Carolla could assist with a counter.
Killing off the other half of the DEI zombie will require a three-pronged initiative focusing on education, litigation, and legislation. 
Firstly, we must educate the public by exposing the specific and measurable harms caused by DEI — from the erosion of meritocracy to the suppression of dissent. The more the public hears about the specifics — such as biological men dominating women’s sports competitions — the more they understand and oppose DEI policies.
Secondly, many DEI policies and practices have been and remain illegal — often blatantly violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More plaintiffs must come forward to challenge these violations in court. A few significant settlements or verdicts in such cases could have a massive impact nationally. Additionally, any non-profit organization engaging in ideological enforcement under the guise of DEI should face a review of its 501(c)(3) status and an investigation to determine whether it is violating nondiscrimination laws.
Thirdly, right now, formal opposition to DEI rests solely on President Trump’s recent executive order, which could disappear as quickly as the next presidential election. We must demand that our representatives advance the House and Senate “Dismantle DEI” bills — codifying reform beyond executive fiat.
* * *
Greg Salsbury, Ph.D., serves on the Board of Advisors for <a href="https://starrs.us">STARRS.US</a>., and is the former president of Western Colorado University. He earned his Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Southern California and an M.A. from the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at USC.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Fist power painted on a wall

DEI: The Billion-Dollar Zombie That Won’t Stay Dead

American Universities

Biden Administration

Christopher Rufo

Diversity

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Thomas Sowell

Trump Administration

Economist Thomas Sowell suggested that President Donald Trump may be taking a “ruinous” approach to tariffs and international trade.
Sowell commented on Trump’s trade policies during an interview on April 1, a day before Trump enacted sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries. The “Liberation Day” announcement, as the White House billed it, put in place a system of “reciprocity” on international trade where foreign countries are tariffed in accordance with the trade barriers they impose on the United States.
Prior to Liberation Day, Trump has vacillated on tariffs and tariff threats to allies and adversaries. Sowell was critical of Trump’s handling of foreign trade, comparing the president’s tactics to those of the 1920s that contributed to the 1929 Great Depression and the tepid U.S. recovery in the 1930s.
“It&#8217;s painful to see what a ruinous decision, from back in the 1920s, being repeated,” the 94-year-old Sowell said on an episode of “Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.” “Now, insofar as he&#8217;s using these tariffs to get various strategic things settled and that he is satisfied with that.”
“But if you set off a worldwide trade war, that has a devastating history. Everybody loses because everybody follows suit and all that happens is that you get a great reduction in international trade,” Sowell said.
The elderly economist then brought up former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who held the United States’ highest office from 1933 to 1945. Sowell said that Roosevelt would experiment and discard ideas until “you come across something that does work.”
The approach Trump has taken to international trade and tariffs is fundamentally different, according to Sowell.
Roosevelt’s approach works “if you are operating within a known system of rules. But, if you are the one who&#8217;s making the rules, then all the other people have no idea what you&#8217;re going to do next,” Sowell said. “And that is a formula for having people hang on to their money until they figure out what you&#8217;re going to do. And when a lot of people hang on to their money, you can get results such as you got during the Great Depression of the 1930s.”
“If this is just a set of short-run ploys for various limited objectives limited in time. Fine, maybe,” Sowell granted. “But, if this is gonna be the policy for four long years, that you&#8217;re gonna try this, you&#8217;re gonna try that, you&#8217;re gonna try something else. A lot of people are gonna wait.”
Sowell noted the recent dips in the stock market that have followed many of Trump’s announcements on tariffs and said that “people are holding on to their money before they do anything because they don&#8217;t know where this is gonna lead.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In an interview recorded yesterday, Hoover Senior Fellow Thomas Sowell criticizes the tariffs President Trump instituted earlier today. Watch the complete interview with Dr. Sowell on <a href="https://twitter.com/uncknowledge?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UncKnowledge</a> with Peter Robinson (<a href="https://twitter.com/p_m_robinson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@P_M_Robinson</a>) on April 15th, 2025. <a href="https://t.co/i0Ver1QIp4">pic.twitter.com/i0Ver1QIp4</a>
— Hoover Institution (@HooverInst) <a href="https://twitter.com/HooverInst/status/1907630250135273527?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2025</a></blockquote>

Economist Thomas Sowell Alarmed Trump’s Tariffs May Spark ‘Worldwide Trade War’

Donald Trump

Economy

Politics

Tariffs

The day after Donald Trump was confirmed the winner of the 2024 presidential election, the U.S. stock market took off like one of Elon Musk’s rockets. Major stock indices posted gains for the day ranging from 2.5% (S&amp;P 500) to 6% (Russell 2000). The stock market is forward-looking, a mechanism for discounting expected future cash flows into present valuations of companies’ shares.
Clearly the market applauds the election results and is anticipating a return to strong growth and huge investment returns in the second Trump Administration.
Is the hype warranted, or is this just another Wall Street bout of irrational exuberance? Let’s take a look under the hood of the Trump economic program and assess what Trumponomics has in store for the U.S. economy in 2025 and beyond.
<h3>Supply-Side Economics </h3>
To appreciate Trump’s economic policy program, we need a basic understanding of supply-side economics. In turn, understanding supply-side economics requires a working knowledge of that essential tool of economic analysis, the supply and demand model.
As all first-year econ students know, market “equilibrium” occurs at the intersection of the demand and supply curves. Demand represents the quantity of any product consumers will buy at each possible price. Demand will slope down as consumers buy more of a product when its price declines.
The level of the demand curve will shift up or down based on a number of factors — changes in the number of consumers, shifts in buyers’ incomes, preferences, and expectations, or conditions surrounding related products. Demand for pickup trucks, for example, will shift upward after a prolonged drop in gas prices.
Supply, on the other hand, represents the cost of production for different quantities of any given product. Supply typically slopes up when more “factors of production” — workers, tools, equipment — are required to meet the demand. 
As the great economist Thomas Sowell continually <a href="https://ichthyoid.writeas.com/what-is-economics#:~:text=The%20definition%20of%20economics%20is,resources%20which%20have%20alternative%20uses." target="_blank" rel="noopener">reminds us</a>, “Economics is the study of scarce resources which have alternative uses.” To increase production of any one good means pulling resources away from the production of other valuable goods. In a market economy, these resources must be “bid up” in price to give their owners sufficient incentive to redeploy them to an alternative productive use. Hence the supply curve — a.k.a. the cost curve — slopes up for most products in the short run. The level of the supply curve is based primarily on factors that alter any business’ costs of production.
When it comes to “cost of production,” economists identify five categories: Technology, taxes, price of inputs, the number of producers and producers’ expectations. If changes in one or more of these factors lead to an increase in costs of production, the supply curve shifts “up and to the left,” and market forces will move the market to a new equilibrium with a higher price and lower quantity produced.
Likewise, if one or more of these factors changes in a way that reduces the costs of production, the supply curve shifts “down and to the right” and the market will move towards a new equilibrium featuring lower prices and larger quantities produced and purchased.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-838525 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-1.png" alt="" width="512" height="209" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-1.png 512w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-1-300x122.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 512px) 100vw, 512px" /></div>
Supply-side economics starts with the simple truth that economic growth and wealth creation ultimately stem from the supply side of markets — the economic situation facing producers of goods and services.
In other words, the recipe for economic growth is to push the supply curve to the right.
When the supply curve for any good or service shifts to the right, the cost of production is reduced, meaning businesses can produce at a lower cost. In a competitive marketplace, lower costs will soon be passed along to consumers in the form of lower prices. Shifting the supply curve to the right leads to a new equilibrium at a lower price and higher quantity of output. When prices fall and quantities rise, we all get richer.
Hence the mantra: the recipe for economic growth is to push supply curves to the right. 
Only by pushing supply curves to the right consistently over time can we increase the production (and thus consumption) of goods and services, improve our standard of living, and achieve economic prosperity. 
So what can government do to push supply curves to the right? Plenty. Donald Trump — the entrepreneur-turned politician — knows this well and is promising supply curve-shifting policies like never before.
Three policy areas in particular are ripe for large “positive supply shocks” and a rapid return of the U.S. economy to a high-growth, low-inflation situation: Energy production, Taxes, and Regulations. 
<h3>Energy Production</h3>
My personal favorite plank of Trump’s supply-side program is summarized in Trump’s refrain, “Drill, baby, drill.” Indeed, President-elect Trump knows that the economy runs on energy, he knows that reducing energy costs will benefit everyone in a direct and obvious way, and he knows that America is sitting on vast amounts of “liquid gold,” as he so charmingly refers to &#8220;America’s yuge oil reserves.&#8221; Trump further understands that government can help or hinder American energy through its stance on regulation, permitting, and taxation of energy production.
Trump has promised a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-commits-to-slashing-energy-prices-by-half">50% reduction in energy costs</a> for Americans by the end of his first year back in office. Elites in both parties probably laugh this off as mere Trumpian rhetorical hype, but it’s economically realistic and very doable.
Here’s why.
The demand for energy products like gasoline is “inelastic,” meaning the quantity people will buy is not very sensitive to changes in price. If the price of gasoline goes up, most of us will keep on buying gas because we have set patterns of commuting for work, school, and the like. We might be able to trim gas spending by cutting some non-essential trips, but it’s difficult to drastically alter consumption, at least in the near term. Consumers, therefore, have to eat the costs and feel the pain of high energy prices in the form of lower real incomes. On the flip side, if energy prices fall, consumers will not ramp up purchases all that much — they’ll mostly just enjoy the cost savings and expand their purchases of other nice things.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-838529 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-2.png" alt="" width="512" height="435" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-2.png 512w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-2-300x255.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 512px) 100vw, 512px" />In the big picture, inelastic demand means that when we steadily increase oil and gas production, their prices can fall substantially. We saw this coming out of the recession of 2008, when the perfection of new methods of shale oil production — fracking and directional drilling — led to an explosion of U.S. production.
Oil prices were initially rising along with the economic recovery, but once the production boom set in and inventories expanded, prices eventually tumbled. Oil prices hovered around $100 in the early 2010s, and then collapsed during 2015, all the way down to the $50-$60 range.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
The post-Covid recovery saw another run-up in prices — partly based on demand recovery, but partly due to the overall inflation wrought by the terrible combination of <a href="https://aier.org/article/the-fed-is-responsible-for-great-inflations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">loose monetary policy</a> and massively wasteful government spending via stimulus checks and the Inflation Reduction Act. Even with Biden’s unfriendly regulatory environment, U.S. production of crude oil recently hit an all-time high of 13.4 million barrels per day, and U.S. proved reserves of both oil and natural gas are also at all-time highs.
With Trump’s pro-energy policy mix, oil and gas production is likely to once again take off, with the potential to crush prices, as we saw in the early 1980s and again in the 2010-2015 era.
<div id="attachment_838533" style="width: 522px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838533" class="wp-image-838533 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-3.png" alt="Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/) " width="512" height="218" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-3.png 512w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-3-300x128.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 512px) 100vw, 512px" />Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data</div>
<div id="attachment_838535" style="width: 522px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838535" class="wp-image-838535 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-4.png" alt="Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency (https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/)" width="512" height="261" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-4.png 512w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/Supply-4-300x153.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 512px) 100vw, 512px" />Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency</div>
With his cabinet nominations, Donald Trump has shown a serious commitment to “energy dominance.” As governor of the third largest oil and gas state, North Dakota’s Doug Burgum knows the industry well, and as the incoming Secretary of the Interior he will be in a position to greenlight drilling permits on over 500 million acres of federally-managed land — permits that Biden’s cronies either slow-walked or denied outright.
Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy, helped perfect the fracking techniques that vaulted America to the forefront of global energy production. As Energy Secretary, Wright can quickly undo Biden’s moves to hamstring U.S. exports of natural gas.
Lee Zeldin is a former GOP congressman from New York and a strong supporter of American oil and gas. As EPA Administrator, he will be able to mitigate regulations that stifle fossil fuel production and delivery.
Overall, Trump’s picks present a strong and united pro-fossil fuel front. The stage is truly set for an American energy renaissance, the largest piece of Trump’s supply-side economic package.
* * *
Tyler Watts is a professor of economics at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Donald Trump Campaigns In Iowa

Supply-Side Trumponomics, Part One: ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’

Supply-Side Trumponomics, Part One: 'Drill, Baby, Drill'

Economics

Energy

Oil and Gas

Supply Chain

Economist and bestselling author <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/thomas-sowell" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Thomas Sowell</a> said that relying on the government to enforce so-called “social justice” would only lead to a loss of freedom in an interview with Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro.
In an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7gh68Weimg&amp;t=654s">interview</a> posted to YouTube, <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/black-rednecks-and-white-liberals?_pos=1&amp;_sid=9ad91683a&amp;_ss=r">Sowell</a> joined Shapiro to talk about his new book, “Social Justice Fallacies,” and the dangers of the ideology that has been widely embraced across college campuses, large corporations, and by Democrat politicians.
When asked what the greatest dangers of social justice ideologies were, Sowell pointed to the belief held by many on the Left that the government should be used to make everything equal.
“When you simply give more and more power to the government on the illusion that they can [make everything equal], all that you&#8217;re doing is setting yourself for more and more of your freedom to be taken away by other people,” he said.
Shapiro and Sowell also discussed the social justice fallacy of assuming that disparity was caused by discrimination. Sowell pointed to the representation of black players in professional basketball and white tennis players as examples of disparities that were not caused by anything malicious.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700275166814000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0_FgIWtLXx8w2fSdMb8L-V">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING GUIDE</a>
The two also discussed what the future would look like and how to fight back against the spread of social justice ideology, especially among young people.
Shapiro pointed to polling showing that young generations had embraced the social justice mindset, saying that “it&#8217;s hard to be optimistic in the face of a lot of the polling statistics that are showing that younger Americans believe an enormous number of these fallacies.”
Sowell responded by saying that educational resources not steeped in leftist ideology needed to be made available to young people.
“What I think needs to be done is to open up some other avenue of information for young people that they won&#8217;t get the constant propaganda indoctrination that they find in most colleges around the country,” Sowell said, pointing to free online courses from Hillsdale College.
“I think what needs to be done is for someone to organize a central place where people can hear other ideas that they are not likely to hear in the major institutions &#8212; whether someone will be able to do that or not, it remains to be seen,” Sowell added.
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Dr. Thomas Sowell | Social Justice Fallacies" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f7gh68Weimg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

MixCollage-18-Nov-2023-03-55-PM-1835

Thomas Sowell And Ben Shapiro Discuss How Social Justice Ideology Leads To Loss Of Freedom

Ben Shapiro

Education

General

Social Justice

U.S.

In the latest five-minute video for PragerU, the Manhattan Institute’s Jason Riley, author of a new biography on Thomas Sowell, talks about the life and significance of economist, philosopher, and all-around intellectual giant, Thomas Sowell. 
Although Sowell is known well in conservative circles, not nearly as many people know about him in America at-large, where his notoriety is dwarfed by more institutionally favored left-leaning academics, such as Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi. In fact, argues Riley, Sowell may be “the most important scholar you’ve never heard of.”
Sowell overcame many obstacles early in his life. Born in the Great Depression, he was orphaned at a young age, raised in Harlem, and dropped out of high school. After a stint in a homeless shelter, Sowell was drafted into the Marines during the Korean War. 
His time in the Marines, however, taught him discipline, enough so that after leaving he went to college, and found himself studying at Harvard and the University of Chicago.
“He began his intellectual journey as a committed Marxist, but soon reached a life-altering conclusion: Marxism didn’t work,” says his biographer. “After studying the effects of various government regulations, including minimum wage laws, he concluded that free markets were a far better alternative, particularly for disadvantaged groups.”
Later, as his career bloomed, Sowell wrote what many consider to be his best work — A Conflict of Vision — an analysis of the two visions that undergird U.S. policy disputes. 
So if Sowell is so great, why isn’t he better known? Riley argues it’s because of the racial controversies that have surrounded his work. 
Sowell, a black man, has criticized “liberalism’s misguided efforts” to help poor African Americans escape from poverty, says Riley. 
“His targets over the decades have included welfare programs, racial preferences, multiculturalism, and opposition to school choice. Sowell brings the same empirical approach to writing about social policy that he brings to writing about economics,” notes the Sowell biographer. “His focus is on the facts and the evidence.”
“The actual results of a policy matter much more to him than the good intentions of politicians and policy makers. This is perfectly captured in his concept of ‘Stage One’ thinking. Liberal politicians propose expensive policy solutions and never ask the only questions that really matter: what are the long-term costs and consequences? In other words, what happens beyond stage one? By the time these costs and consequences fully manifest themselves—and they’re usually disastrous—the politicians who originally set the policies in motion are long gone. They’ve derived all the political benefit and paid none of the cost,” says Riley. 
WATCH: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1RN7X-De2RA" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

WATCH: The Great Thomas Sowell: Who Is He?

America has lost an inarguably great man. Walter Williams, one of the nation’s great economists and public intellectuals, died in the early hours of Wednesday morning after teaching his final class at George Mason University on Tuesday. He was 84.
A self-described &#8220;crazy-ass man&#8221; and libertarian economist with a black belt in karate, he focused on government&#8217;s role in perpetuating racial inequality.
A ferocious defender of free markets and a powerful explainer of the virtues of liberty, Williams brought a personal toughness honed as a Philly cab driver to his work; a contrarianism born of growing up poor in the city’s racially segregated housing projects. But he never allowed himself to be a victim of his circumstances.
A disciple of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, Williams worked for 40 years at George Mason University, putting his heart and soul into transforming the economics department into a highly respected center of free market scholars. Talking with Robert Chatfield of the Free To Choose Network, Williams said he tried to avoid using anything written within the last 40 years in his economics class. He wanted students to know that Mises, Hayek, and Friedman were right then, and they’re still right today.
A nationally syndicated columnist and author of ten books including his seminal work, &#8220;Race and Economics&#8221;, a highly acclaimed must-read on the subject, his research was rigorous and his writings bold and unequivocal. His book, The State Against Blacks, was made into the television documentary &#8220;Good Intentions&#8221; in 1985, with his most recent documentary, “Suffer No Fools” debuting in 2015. He was one of the few economists who knew how to engage with the public. 
A libertarian in the truest sense, Williams refused the title as a descriptor, saying &#8220;I just do my own thing,&#8221; when asked by Reason Magazine in 2011 whether he saw himself as part of the libertarian movement. 
In a moving elegy to his best and closest friend of more than half a century, Thomas Sowell wrote, “There was no one I trusted more or whose integrity I respected more. Since he was younger than me, I chose him to be my literary executor, to take control of my books after I was gone. But his death is a reminder that no one really has anything to say about such things.”
Sowell shared a running joke between he and Williams, that there was a time when the entire black conservative community would have only consisted of the two of them, “Walter used to say the two of us should never fly on the same plane otherwise the whole movement will disappear if the plane goes down.”
To misquote slightly a line from Hamlet, “He was a man, Horatio, take him for all in all, we shall not look upon his like again.” 
Walter Edward Williams, rest in peace.

Walter Williams

Walter E. Williams, R.I.P.

George Mason University

Larry Elder often lets filmmakers interview him at his radio studio, but the syndicated talker rarely sees the results.
Well-intentioned filmmakers get distracted or come up short on the funding front, Elder explains.
Director Justin Malone, eager to capture what it’s like to be a black conservative in America, was different. Malone shared his footage with the best-selling author and talk show host.
“It was beautifully shot in black and white. I liked the angles,” Elder recalls. So he asked Malone how far along he was on the project. If this were a baseball game, Malone explained, he’d be in the top half of the first inning.
That didn’t scare Elder. He offered to help raise funds for the documentary. Two years later, “Uncle Tom” is available for rental at <a href="http://uncletom.com/">UncleTom.com</a> and has made back its modest budget and then some, says Elder, who co-wrote and produced the film.
“Uncle Tom” showcases the abuse black conservatives like Elder receive from the Left, something the L.A. native begrudgingly accepts as part of modern culture.
“I’ve been called an Uncle Tom for 35 years,” Elder says. Malone asked him the critical question on the subject.
Why? Why can’t liberals have an open discussion with black conservatives? Why does common sense scare them? Why slam black conservatives as “coons,” or worse?
“The more he said, ‘why,’ the more I thought, ‘this is pretty asinine’ … that was the tone of the whole documentary,” says Elder, whose self-titled radio show can be heard from noon to 2 p.m. PT weekdays on CRN with a rebroadcast from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on KRLA AM 870 in Los Angeles.
“Uncle Tom” features familiar faces like Herman Cain, Candace Owens, and Lt. Col. Allen West sharing why they believe in smaller government and more freedom. The film also interviews blue-collar black conservatives who favor the American dream over &#8220;handouts.&#8221;
That describes Chad Jackson, a contractor from Texas featured in the film. He was a lifelong Democrat who had a change of heart after reading the specific platforms of both political parties.
You may not know much about “Uncle Tom,” though, if you only read mainstream U.S. media outlets. Elder says he’s been interviewed by reporters from Sweden, Australia, and England about the film.
The response stateside? Mostly crickets save select conservative outlets. Newsweek ran a piece on the film prior to its June 19 release, Elder notes. A conservative pundit covered it for the Chicago Tribune.
Elder can’t hide his disgust that the L.A. Times, his hometown paper, ignored the film, too. It’s part of a noticeable pattern.
“Not a single one of my books has been reviewed by the L.A. Times,” he says. “I’m a hometown boy and I can’t get arrested by the L.A. Times.”
<div id="attachment_131642" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-131642" class="wp-image-131642" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Allen-West-973x576.jpg" alt="Allen West" width="800" height="474" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Allen-West-973x576.jpg 973w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Allen-West-300x178.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Allen-West-768x455.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Allen-West.jpg 1351w" sizes=" (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Courtesy Larry Elder</div>
So how could a film with little media coverage or film critic interest recoup its costs so quickly? The film’s talking heads, from Elder to Owens and Brandon Tatum, spread the word via their sizable social media accounts.
The film’s audience did its share, too. “Uncle Tom” has more than 2,000 reviews at imdb.com, most of them raves. The film’s overall rating stands at 9.4 out of 10.
Even liberals are giving the movie a chance, Elder says. Some say they were “suckered” into watching the documentary. No matter the explanation, the results are similar.
“I had no idea the grief that people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams get for having a different point of view,” he says.
Here’s one dramatic example from IMDB.com:
<blockquote>As a young black male who was psychologically entrenched in the &#8220;liberal sunken place&#8221; throughout his formative years, this documentary was the finalization of my red pill moment.
Uncle Tom provides all Americans a holistic understanding of when, how, and why Democratic policies have damned black America since the 60&#8217;s bringing a nuanced perspective to the issues plaguing black Americans today.
Uncle Tom is a must see documentary!</blockquote>
It wouldn’t be the first time Elder changed some hearts and minds. His long-running radio show likely does that on a regular basis. He also famously coaxed author and YouTube star Dave Rubin to leave the progressive movement following their famous dustup on race relations, captured in Rubin’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/toto-read-dave-rubins-dont-burn-this-book-before-its-too-late">“Don’t Burn This Book.”</a>
“Uncle Tom” isn’t Elder’s first foray into filmmaking. He previously wrote and directed 2005’s “Michael &amp; Me,” an attempt to correct far-left auteur Michael Moore’s Oscar-winning film, “Bowling for Columbine.”
<div id="attachment_131643" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-131643" class="wp-image-131643" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Herman-Cain-1003x576.jpg" alt="Herman Cain" width="800" height="459" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Herman-Cain-1003x576.jpg 1003w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Herman-Cain-300x172.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Herman-Cain-768x441.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Herman-Cain.jpg 1392w" sizes=" (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Courtesy Larry Elder</div>
“I had no idea what I was doing. It’s a mediocre project at best,” he says. “‘Uncle Tom’ is light years better than that.”
“Uncle Tom’s” success has Elder thinking about a sequel among other possible film projects. And he’s not alone. He says other conservatives are getting into the film business – witness recent triumphs like “<a href="https://nosafespaces.com">No Safe Spaces</a>,” powered by talkers Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager.
“If we don’t make our own fare it’s not gonna be made,” Elder says, adding actor Antonio Sabato, Jr.’s <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/07/16/antonio-sabato-jr-plans-conservative-movie-studio/5456728002/">experience with the Hollywood Blacklist 2.0</a> reflects a growing body of frustrated conservative talent.
Dinesh D’Souza, the author and conservative pundit, considers himself a full-time filmmaker now, Elder notes, following films like “Hillary’s America” and the upcoming “Trump Card.”
“I think he’s on to something. It is that profound a medium,” Elder says.
More from Christian Toto: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-adam-carolla-gets-raw-about-our-all-woke-no-joke-culture-friendship-with-jimmy-kimmel-truth-about-trump">Adam Carolla Gets Raw About ‘All Woke, No Joke Culture,’ Friendship With Jimmy Kimmel, Truth About Trump</a>

Larry Elder

EXCLUSIVE: Larry Elder Says U.S. Media Is Ignoring His Film On Black Conservatives

Candace Owens

Conservatism

Herman Cain

Tim Allen

Famed economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, warned on Sunday that the U.S. might be approaching a &#8220;point of no return&#8221; and that the tipping point that breaks the country could be the election of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to the nation&#8217;s highest office.
Appearing on Fox News&#8217;s &#8220;Life, Liberty &amp; Levin,&#8221; Sowell was asked by host Mark Levin what he thought about the current events that were taking place across the nation in reference to the riots and crime surges in the country&#8217;s inner cities.
&#8220;Well, I must say, even though I&#8217;m regarded as pessimistic, I was never pessimistic enough to think that things would degenerate to the point where they are now, where adult human beings are talking about getting rid of the police, where they&#8217;re talking about reducing the number of police, reducing the resources put into police work at a time when murder rates have been skyrocketing over what they were just a year ago in 2019,&#8221; Sowell responded.
&#8220;I never dreamed we&#8217;d come to this point,&#8221; Sowell continued. &#8220;It just seems such utter madness, and what is frightening is how many people in responsible positions are caving in to every demand that is made, repeating any kind of nonsense that you&#8217;re supposed to repeat.&#8221;
&#8220;I do believe that we may well be, we may well reach a point of no return. I hope that of course, that will never happen. But there is such a thing as a point of no return,&#8221; Sowell said. &#8220;The Roman Empire overcame many problems in its long history, but eventually it reached the point where it simply could no longer continue on, and much of that was from within, not just the Barbarians attacking from outside.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Conservative economist Thomas Sowell on the United States and the point of no return: 
&quot;I never dreamed we&#39;d come to this point. It just seems such utter madness. And what is frightening is how many people in responsible positions are caving in to every demand that is made.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/sL5Cg8dc6W">pic.twitter.com/sL5Cg8dc6W</a>
&mdash; Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1283321994625220608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;You hear this phrase systemic racism, systemic oppression,&#8221; Levin said. &#8220;You hear it on our college campuses. You hear it from very wealthy and fabulously famous sports stars. You hear it from media types.&#8221;
&#8220;First of all, what does that mean?&#8221; Levin asked. &#8220;And whatever it means, is it true?&#8221;
&#8220;It really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses,&#8221; Sowell responded. &#8220;It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels during the age of the Nazis, in which he is supposed to have said that people will believe any lie if it&#8217;s repeated long enough and loud enough, and that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re getting.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think — it&#8217;s one of many words that I don&#8217;t think even the people who use it have any clear idea what they&#8217;re saying,&#8221; Sowell said. &#8220;Their purpose is served by having other people cave in.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thomas Sowell condemns &quot;systemic racism&quot; as a nonsensical, meaningless concept. 
&quot;It really has no meaning that can be specified and tested that one tests hypotheses. It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels from the age of the Nazis.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/MZLQA33PZk">pic.twitter.com/MZLQA33PZk</a>
&mdash; Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1283322392693977088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I want to know if you agree with me or not – you don&#8217;t have to, obviously,&#8221; Levin later said. &#8220;I see the 1860 election and the 1864 election as the two most important elections in American history. And now I see 2020 as one of the most important elections in history.&#8221;
&#8220;Even apart from the candidates, we&#8217;re talking about the 1776 Project versus the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-backlash-from-historians-nyt-forced-to-issue-significant-correction-to-1619-project">1619 Project</a>, and you can see where the Democrats have tied into the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/historians-shred-nyt-1619-project-claiming-slavery-defines-america">1619 Project</a>, and many of the Republicans are trying to defend the founding and the 1776 Project,&#8221; Levin continued. &#8220;Do you see it that way?&#8221;
Sowell responded, &#8220;What I see is that if the election goes to Biden, that there&#8217;s a good chance that the Democrats will then control all the two branches of Congress and the White House, and considering the kinds of things that they are proposing, that could well be the point of no return for this country.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thomas Sowell says electing Joe Biden would be the point of no return for the United States. 
&quot;If the election goes to Biden, there&#39;s a good chance the Democrats will control all two branches of Congress and the White House.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Q4hbODUbfs">pic.twitter.com/Q4hbODUbfs</a>
&mdash; Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1283322868810440705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Thomas Sowell: Biden Win Maybe ‘Point Of No Return’ For U.S.; Claims Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Nazi-Like Propaganda

2020 Election

Defund The Police

Joe Biden

Mark Levin

Race

Dr. Thomas Sowell has been both a friend and a colleague of mine for over a half-century. On June 30, he will have completed his 90th year of life, and I want to highlight some important features of that life. Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina, in 1930. As part of the great black migration northward during the 1930s and &#8217;40s, he and his family moved to Harlem, New York. Sowell attended the prestigious Stuyvesant High School but dropped out. In 1951, he was drafted into the military and assigned to the U.S. Marine Corps where he became a photographer. Photography remains his hobby today.
After his military tour of duty, Sowell took night classes at Howard University where he was encouraged to apply to Harvard University. He earned a bachelor&#8217;s degree in economics and graduated magna cum laude in 1958. The next year, he earned a master&#8217;s degree from Columbia University. Ten years later, Sowell earned a Ph.D. in economics, from the prestigious economics department at the University of Chicago. As Sowell explains in his autobiography, &#8220;A Personal Odyssey,&#8221; for most of his time in college, he considered himself a Marxist. After studying the effects of a variety of government regulations such as the minimum wage law, Sowell concluded that free markets are the best alternative, particularly for disadvantaged people.
Sowell taught economics at several universities including Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College and UCLA. Since 1980, he has been a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds the Rose and Milton Friedman fellowship. By the way, Nobel laureates Milton Friedman and George Stigler were two of Sowell&#8217;s tenacious mentors as a student at the University of Chicago.
Most of those familiar with Sowell&#8217;s writings do not have any idea about his early research interests in the history of economic thought. His dissertation, titled &#8220;Say&#8217;s Law and the General Glut Controversy,&#8221; analyzed the work of French economist Jean-Baptiste Say. His early research in the history of economic thought that appeared in refereed academic journals included writings on Sir Thomas Malthus, Thorstein Veblen, Karl Marx, Samuel Bailey and Jean Charles Leonard de Sismondi. These and later writings make up his 19 scholarly publications.
Most academics do not publish that many scholarly articles in a lifetime. And, in addition, Sowell has written 56 books, among them &#8220;Say&#8217;s Law: An Historical Analysis,&#8221; &#8220;Knowledge and Decisions,&#8221; &#8220;A Conflict of Visions,&#8221; &#8220;Late-Talking Children,&#8221; &#8220;Basic Economics,&#8221; &#8220;Discrimination and Disparities&#8221; and most recently &#8220;Charter Schools and Their Enemies.&#8221; A full list of his publications can be found on his website.
Sowell&#8217;s writings do not end with scholarly publications and books. He has authored 72 essays in periodicals and books, wrote 32 book reviews and was a regular columnist for Creators Syndicate for 25 years, Forbes magazine for eight years, Scripps Howard News Service from 1984 to 1990, and the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner from 1978 to 1980. Sowell has had occasional columns in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Washington Star, Newsweek, The Times (London), Newsday and The Stanford Daily. My colleague not only writes when you and I are asleep or enjoying ourselves, but he might write with two hands.
Sowell cares about people. He believes that compassionate policy requires dispassionate analysis. He takes seriously the admonition given to physicians, &#8220;primum non nocere&#8221; (first, do no harm). In many respects, Sowell is an Austrian economist like the great Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, who often talked about elites and their &#8220;pretense of knowledge.&#8221; These are people who believe that they have the ability and knowledge to organize society in a way better than people left to their own devices — what Hayek called the fatal conceit. Their vision requires the use of the coercive powers of government.
In my book, Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest economist-philosophers of our age, and I am proud to say that he is one of my best friends. Sowell demonstrates something that is uniquely American; namely, just because you know where a person ended up in life, you cannot be sure about where he started. Unlike many other societies, an American need not start at the top to get to the top. That is something all Americans should be proud of and jealously guard — the socioeconomic mobility that comes from a relatively free society.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Book

WILLIAMS: An Underappreciated American Scholar

My longtime friend and colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell has just published a revised and enlarged edition of &#8220;Discrimination and Disparities.&#8221; It lays waste to myth after myth about the causes of human differences not only in the United States but around the globe. Throughout the book, Sowell shows that socioeconomic outcomes differ vastly among individuals, groups and nations in ways that cannot be easily explained by any one factor, whether it&#8217;s genetics, sex or race discrimination or a history of gross mistreatment that includes expulsion and genocide.
In his book &#8220;The Philadelphia Negro&#8221; (1899), W.E.B. Du Bois posed the question as to what would happen if white people lost their prejudices overnight. He said that it would make little difference to most blacks. He said: &#8220;Some few would be promoted, some few would get new places &#8212; the mass would remain as they are&#8221; until the younger generation began to &#8220;try harder&#8221; and the race &#8220;lost the omnipresent excuse for failure: prejudice.&#8221;
Sowell points out that if historical injustices and persecution were useful explanations of group disadvantage, Jews would be some of the poorest and least-educated people in the world today. Few groups have been victimized down through history as have the Jews. Despite being historical targets of hostility and lethal violence, no one can argue that as a result Jews are the most disadvantaged people.
Jews are not alone in persecution either. The number of overseas Chinese slaughtered by Vietnamese mobs and the number of Armenians slaughtered by mobs in the Ottoman Empire in just one year exceeds the number of black Americans lynched in the history of the U.S. From 1882-1968, 4,743 total lynchings occurred in the United States, of which 3,446 of the victims were black. Sowell concludes this section suggesting that it is dangerous for society to depict outcome differences as evidence or proof of malevolent actions that need to be counterattacked or avenged. Politicians and others who are now calling for reparations to blacks for slavery should take note of Sowell&#8217;s argument.
There&#8217;s considerable handwringing among educational &#8220;experts&#8221; about the black/white academic achievement gap. Part of the persistence of that gap can be laid at the feet of educators who replaced what worked with what sounded good. One notable example of success is the achievement of students at the all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C., from 1870 to 1955. During that period, Dunbar students frequently outscored white students on achievement tests in the Washington, D.C., area. Sowell, who studied Dunbar and other high-achieving black schools, says, Dunbar &#8220;had unsparing standards for both school work and for such behavioral qualities a punctuality and social demeanor. Dunbar&#8217;s homework requirements were more than most other public schools. Some Dunbar parents complained to the D.C. Board of Education about the large amount of homework required.&#8221;
Dunbar High School was not the only black school with a record of success that would be the envy of today&#8217;s public schools. Schools such as Frederick Douglass (Baltimore), Booker T. Washington (Atlanta), PS 91 (Brooklyn), McDonogh 35 (New Orleans) and others operated at a similar level of excellence. By the way, these excelling students weren&#8217;t solely members of the black elite; most had parents who were manual laborers, domestic servants, porters and maintenance men.
Observing the historical success of these and other black schools, one wonders about the catchwords of Chief Justice Earl Warren&#8217;s statement that separate schools &#8220;are inherently unequal.&#8221; That vision led to racial integration going from being a means to an end to racial integration becoming an end all by itself. Sowell doesn&#8217;t say this, but in my view, integration becoming the goal is what has made diversity and inclusion the end all and be all of today&#8217;s educators at many levels.
Dr. Thomas Sowell&#8217;s &#8220;Discrimination and Disparities&#8221; is loaded with pearls of wisdom from which we can all benefit, and as such, this will not be my final discussion of his masterpiece.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

WILLIAMS: Discrimination And Disparities

Discrimination

I don&#8217;t mind saying that this column represents a grossly understated review of &#8220;Discrimination and Disparities,&#8221; just published by my longtime friend and colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell. In less than 200 pages, Sowell lays waste to myth after myth not only in the United States but around the globe.
One of those myths is that but for the fact of discrimination, we&#8217;d all be proportionately represented in socio-economic characteristics, such as career, income, education and incarceration. The fact of business is that there is no evidence anywhere on earth, at any time in human history, that demonstrates that but for discrimination, there would be proportionate representation in anything by race, sex, nationality or any other human characteristic. Sowell shows that socio-economic outcomes differ vastly among individuals, groups and nations in ways that cannot be explained by any one factor, whether it&#8217;s genetics, discrimination or some kind of exploitation.
A study of National Merit Scholarship finalists shows that firstborns are finalists more often than their multiple siblings combined. Data from the U.S., Germany and Britain show that the average IQ of firstborns is higher than the average IQ of their later siblings. Such outcomes challenge those who believe that heredity or one&#8217;s environment is the dominant factor in one&#8217;s academic performance. Moreover, the finding shows that if there is not equality among people born to the same parents and living under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected under other conditions?
In Chapter 2, Sowell provides evidence that people won&#8217;t take racial discrimination at any cost. The higher its cost the less it will be tolerated, and vice versa. One example is segregated seating on municipal transit in the South. Many companies were privately owned, and their decision-makers understood that they could lose profits by offending their black customers by establishing segregated seating. Transportation companies fought against laws mandating racially segregated seating, both politically and in the courts, but lost. Companies even chose to ignore the law. Faced with heavy fines, though, they began to comply with the law.
The point is that the difference between the white transportation owners and the white politicians and segregationists was the transportation company owners had to bear the cost of alienating black riders and the politicians and segregationists didn&#8217;t. Sowell broadens his analysis to show that regulated companies and organizations &#8212; such as public utilities and nonprofit entities, including colleges and government agencies &#8212; will be at the forefront when it&#8217;s politically popular to discriminate against blacks but also will be at the forefront when it&#8217;s politically popular to discriminate in favor of blacks. Why? Because in either case, they don&#8217;t bear the burden of forgone profits.
In Sowell&#8217;s chapter titled &#8220;The World of Numbers,&#8221; he points out what I&#8217;m going to call out-and-out dishonesty. In 2000, a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights study pointed out that 44.6 percent of black applicants were turned down for mortgages, while only 22.3 percent of whites were turned down. These and similar statistics led to charges of lending industry discrimination and demands that government do something about it. While the loan rejection rate for whites was 22.3 percent, that for Asians and native Hawaiians was only 12.4 percent. Those statistics didn&#8217;t see the light of day. Why? They didn&#8217;t fit the racial discrimination narrative. It would have been difficult for the race hustlers to convince the nation that lending institutions were discriminating against not only black applicants but white applicants, as well, in favor of Asian and native Hawaiian applicants.
At several points in the book, Sowell points to the tragedies created in the pursuit of social justice. He gives the example of the Gujaratis expelled from Uganda and the Cubans fleeing Cuba. Many of the Gujaratis arrived in Britain destitute but rose again to prosperity. It&#8217;s the same story with the Cubans who came to the U.S. and prospered. By losing their most productive people, both Uganda and Cuba became economic basket cases.
The general public, educators and politicians would benefit immensely from reading &#8220;Discrimination and Disparities,&#8221; if only to avoid being unknowingly duped.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

The Trump Justice Department recently announced to its civil rights division through an internal memo that it would begin &#8220;investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.&#8221; The Left responded by shamelessly insisting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted to promote the enshrinement of white nationalism in admissions processes.
Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers&#8217; Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, insisted even challenging the notion of Affirmative Action &#8220;could invite a lot of chaos and unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities who may fear that the government may come down on them for their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.&#8221;
I cannot help but reflect on these wise words from Thomas Sowell: &#8220;Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.&#8221;
The black Hoover Institution economist has spent years proving the vitriolic language and policies of the Left have disproportionately hurt minorities&#8217; socioeconomic wellbeing across the country and around the globe.
Now the DOJ has challenged Affirmative Action due to empirical evidence proving it damages majority and minority groups alike. One recent Princeton University study revealed that Affirmative Action policies gave black students a bonus of 230 points on SAT scores based on the 1600 scale. Meanwhile, Asian applicants were penalized 50 points. Despite the facts, the Left is in a panic.
Clarke argues that the Civil Rights Division was &#8220;created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation&#8217;s most oppressed minority groups,&#8221; revealing that the leftist concept of &#8220;intersectionality&#8221; has crept into institutions obligated to protect the civil rights of all peoples. Yet, it is proven affirmative action disproportionately affects Asian and Jewish communities.
General consensus would claim Affirmative Action is intended to aid the black community. However, study after study concludes quite the opposite: Affirmative Action hurts the black community.
Sowell recounts when he was a professor at Cornell, the average white student scored in the 99th percentile on their SATs. Therefore, the professors taught to that level. Since black students were on average the 75th percentile, they lacked the proficient skill set to keep up. Sadly, this led to academic probation for 50% of Cornell&#8217;s black students. On standardized tests, Blacks admitted into MIT scored in the top 10% of math nationwide, but once at MIT they predominantly scored in the bottom 10%.
This has been found to be consistent across higher education. According to Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., students that were mismatched with their schools because of affirmative action were left in the &#8220;bottom 20% of their classes (and the bottom 10% in law school).&#8221;
Plenty of these minority students are capable of thriving at crawling vine institutions like UCLA or Vanderbilt, just not the more elite ivy league school that admitted them for the sake of diversity.
Campus administrators and professors like Sowell understand this. In fact, when anonymity protects academia from public scrutiny, a majority of professors oppose affirmative action in hiring and admissions according to a 1996 Rapper Poll.
Why does the Left continue to turn a blind eye to empirical evidence?
Thomas Sowell argues the reason is that the left would lose their moral pedestal. &#8220;Perhaps that is because, whatever its economic and social benefits, it offers few rewards to politicians, activists, and intellectuals or to those who wish to seem morally superior by denouncing society,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Only if the goal is the advancement of the less fortunate, rather than the aggrandizement of those who would be their guardians or spokesmen or elected officials.&#8221;
Sowell said this in 2004, and he is still exactly correct. Virtue signaling about the principles of affirmative action far outweigh its negative outcomes for the Left. If the Left actually addressed the issues of affirmative action, they&#8217;d be forced to look in the mirror and confront the reality that demagoguery, intersectionality, and virtue signaling have little to do with successful policy.
Below is a video of Thomas Sowell in 2013. WSJ live and the Hoover Institution came together to discuss his book &#8220;Intellectuals and Race.&#8221; Minutes 17-21 are the most pertinent to this article.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="288" width="512"></iframe></div>

Thomas Sowell Perfectly Predicted How The Left Will Defend Affirmative Action

Racism

Menu

Thomas Sowell

DEI: The Billion-Dollar Zombie That Won’t Stay Dead

Economist Thomas Sowell Alarmed Trump’s Tariffs May Spark ‘Worldwide Trade War’

Supply-Side Trumponomics, Part One: ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’

Thomas Sowell And Ben Shapiro Discuss How Social Justice Ideology Leads To Loss Of Freedom

WATCH: The Great Thomas Sowell: Who Is He?

Walter E. Williams, R.I.P.

EXCLUSIVE: Larry Elder Says U.S. Media Is Ignoring His Film On Black Conservatives

Thomas Sowell: Biden Win Maybe ‘Point Of No Return’ For U.S.; Claims Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Nazi-Like Propaganda

WILLIAMS: An Underappreciated American Scholar

WILLIAMS: Discrimination And Disparities

WILLIAMS: Discrimination And Disparities

Thomas Sowell Perfectly Predicted How The Left Will Defend Affirmative Action