news-record.com

One can often determine the worthiness of a social or political cause based on the language utilized by its champions. Words have precise meanings, which are established and agreed on by common usage. Consider the term “culture.” By definition, a culture consists of shared, or common, beliefs and practices. Consequently, “multiculturalism” is an oxymoron; there is no such thing as a multiculture.

Those who are interested in the restoration of cultural cohesion and unity cast a skeptical eye at the multiculturalist, whose objectives are at odds with culture, as traditionally (and properly) understood. Those who adopt the term “multiculturalism” are guilty of linguistic anarchy, among other offenses.

Closely related to multiculturalism, and chanted maniacally by the same crowd, is the term “diversity.” Of course, as traditionally understood, diversity is a useful word, one that is frequently deployed as a synonym for “variety.” Yet the linguistic anarchists have transformed diversity into a progressive political philosophy.

At the mere utterance of the term, diversity’s disciples all but bow their heads and genuflect. “Diversity,” they self-righteously proclaim, “is our strength!” (Apparently, all of these folks study and memorize the same pamphlet full of silly platitudes.) For obvious reasons, no one ever asks for evidence of this claim; nor is any provided.

Another term that has devolved in recent decades is “equality.” Although American citizens enjoy equal opportunity and equality under the law, we do not have a “right” (another abused term) to equal outcomes and an equal share of material goods. Members of Occupy Wall Street and their egalitarian allies are profoundly mistaken about this (and much else).   

Such as “justice,” which Webster’s defines as “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” When it comes to justice, linguistic anarchists are like kids in a candy store. Progressive community organizers speak about, and often demand, something called “social justice.”

But justice is social by definition. When pressed to define social justice, the flustered community organizer will announce his belief in equal distribution of wealth, without actually using the term “socialism,” which has a negative connotation (for good reason).

Another perversion of justice is something called the “Racial Justice Act,” which was effectively repealed last week. “Racial justice,” like multiculturalism, is an oxymoron. Justice is colorblind; therefore, a law that takes into account an individual’s skin color (either the perpetrator’s or the victim’s) is an injustice.

Suppose Mr. Washington, who is black, kills Mr. Smith, who is white. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, a white man, Mr. Jones, kills Mr. Stevens, who is black. The Racial Justice Act would allow particular scrutiny of cases such as these, in which race was a factor. Why? Because, among advocates of “racial justice,” there is a presumption of guilt — not toward the accused killer, but toward the system. That is, in their view, prosecutors, judges and juries (that’s you and me) are guilty of racism.

A black jury, RJA enthusiasts would contend, will not convict a black defendant, such as Mr. Washington, regardless of the evidence in the case. Likewise, a white jury will not convict a white defendant, such as Mr. Jones, regardless of the evidence in the case. According to defenders of the RJA, black folks are monolithic and tribal thinkers. They all think alike, and protect “their own.” According to defenders of the RJA, white folks, too, are monolithic and tribal thinkers. They, too, all think alike, and protect “their own.”

This is absurd. There are 157 two-legged wolves on North Carolina’s death row; 154 have filed for review under the RJA. If the monolithic-thinking theory is correct, there never would have been unanimous jury verdicts in all of those cases, because every jury was composed of blacks, whites, and often, other races. Alas, in the real world, blacks do not always think like they are “supposed to,” according to race-obsessed progressives, and neither do whites.

If the RJA is not removed (if the governor vetoes the repeal), the first case reviewed will be that of Marcus Robinson, who was sentenced to death for the murder of 17-year-old Eric Tornblom in 1991. Robinson and an associate encountered Tornblom, a stranger, at a convenience store and convinced him to give them a ride. Robinson, wielding a shotgun, forced Tornblom to drive into a field, where he shot Tornblom in the face and stole his car and $27.

Every news account of the episode mentions the race of Robinson and Tornblom, which is irrelevant. Justice is blind, and “racial justice” is linguistic anarchy.

Charles Davenport Jr. (cdavenportjr@hotmail.com) writes on the first and third Sundays of each month.