Jesse Jackson At Harvard

The Harvard Crimson reports the following Jesse Jackson comments during a recent visit to Harvard:

On the need for racial preferences in capital accumulation:

“The next stage of our struggle is not just to have our share of students and faculty or our share of administrators, but our share of capital,” Jackson said.

Why it is illegitimate to compare discrimination against gays to discriminations against blacks:

“No slave was ever enslaved because he was gay,” Jackson said.

And in remarks to a group of student leaders over lunch yesterday, Jackson said he would not be inclined to perform weddings for same-sex couples, according to Christopher R. Hughes ’06, who attended the event.

Say What? (10)

  1. Sandy P. February 19, 2004 at 12:39 am | | Reply

    A couple or so years ago, Larry Elder made the point that US black GDP would be 14th in the world.

    And compare that to the African countries.

    Harvard has a multi-billion $ endowment, Reverend. Maybe they could spare some for you?

  2. Jeff Findel February 19, 2004 at 9:15 am | | Reply

    The good reverend must have forgotten that Blacks were not enslaved during the civil rights movement, just discriminated against simply because they were black. Much like gays today are discriminated against simply because they are gay. hmmm…

    Anyway I think that we SHOULD work toward equality in terms of capital accumulation, African-Americans are AMERICAN after all so comparing their incomes to African countries is irrelevant. Reperations however are a silly idea that I would never support, then again, affirmative action is basically indirect reperations right? I guess its all in the ‘context’ huh…

  3. Stephen February 19, 2004 at 11:55 am | | Reply

    I have never witnessed the purported discrimination against gays. In fact, in New York City and San Francisco, where I’ve lived the past 35 years, the exact opposite is true. I work in the arts. Being straight in the arts is a disadvantage because gays enforce their domination in that turf with a vengeance. And, for the past 35 years I’ve observed that just about all my gay friends and associates have good jobs, good incomes and a very good lifestyle. The discrimination is imaginery and it is summoned up solely for the purposes of political extortion.

    The business world that I’ve operated in for the past 35 years actually discriminates against white, hetero men in favor of gays. Catty remarks by gays against hetero men are commonplace in the office. Gays promote and advance the careers of other gays. Try working in the theater in NYC if you are not gay. For that matter, try to succeed as a model without attending gay sex parties.

    The traditional religious proscriptions against homosexuality are not bigotry. And the notion that the gay identity is innate has always left me cold, because in my experience gays themselves deny it in their personal conversations with me. I’ve said this often, and I’ll repeat it:

    1. Gays who’ve entered the workforce over the past 35 years consistently tell me they’ve chosen to be gay because they are smarter than me. The reason they are smarter is because of the numerous perks they obtain from being gay.

    2. Gays tell me routinely that they chose to be gay because they don’t want responsibility for women and children. They tell me that they are smarter than me because I did not chuck these responsibilities.

    3. Gays have routinely tried to seduce me by telling me that I am stupid not to take the perks of the gay lifestyle, the most important of which is self-absorption.

    4. In 1995 in New York City, you could attend a lesbian activist event in which every speaker would claim that she became gay because of father incest and male physical abuse. Across town you could attend a gay activist event in which every speaker claimed that homosexuality had no cause and was absolutely innate. Disagree with either and you were (what else?) a bigot.

    I believe some gays were born that way. I believe that most made a conscious choice. Homosexuality is about behavior, not skin color. The analogy is false, dangerous and deliberately misleading. The attempt to graft the gay rights movement on the black civil rights movement is, frankly, an insult committed by some very spoiled children.

  4. Mary February 19, 2004 at 1:22 pm | | Reply

    I don’t think that gay/lesbian activism really has anything to do with civil rights, discrimination, or equality, but rather, legitimating behavior. The ultimate goal, and one that I think will never be reached, is for the “religious” community to embrace and accept those who live the lifestyle without question or criticism (or at least be forced into the appearance of doing so). It is not enough that there are already many so-called “gay churches.” After all, what was it the Massachusetts judge recently said – “separate is rarely ever equal” – or something like that? The mainstream culture has already been indoctrinated. Take a look at the proliferation of gay/lesbian roles in TV, movies, gay/straight alliances in high schools (?!!!), etc. My daughters know quite a few kids in their high school who claim to be gay and quite a few more who simply don’t see anything wrong with it. But there will always be a core group of Christians who will never accept the legitimacy of the lifestyle, and that is what keeps the activism alive.

  5. Modesitt February 19, 2004 at 10:56 pm | | Reply

    Stephen:

    I’ve an amusing anecdote regarding the art industry and gay people. A friend of mine works at a graphics art company of about 40 people. His co-workers refer to him as The Token Straight Guy because he is the only straight male in the company. Literally everyone else is either gay or a woman.

    It’s not that gay people are all good artists. My off-the-cuff thought is that gay people are often derided as sissys, artists are often derided as sissys, well if you’re already being called a sissy and need a hobby that doesn’t involve being around other peole, why not take up art? It also may be that society subconciously railroads them towards art, as it is what they are sterotyped as being good at. I imagine at least one person has written papers on this.

    I really don’t have much more to say to you beyond to please read this article. In particular, take note of the links towards the bottom to speeches made by Ms. King.

    And Mary – The Gay/Straight Alliance thing is kind of funny. They’re pretty much just gay support groups. A lot of them spawned as a result of Boyd County. The Federal Equal Access Act means schools can’t discriminate on what clubs are allowed to use school grounds. For conservatives, this is good because they could have their bible study groups no matter what the liberal school district thought! For conservatives, this is bad because it meant they had to allow Gay/Straight Alliances. Some districts have cut off their nose to spite their face by proceeding to ban all clubs just to stop the GSA’s. Anyways, Boyd County was one of the big showdowns between conservatives, the Equal Access act, and GSA’s, even made it into the New York Times. Google for it if you have some time to burn.

    More topically to your comment, the current gay rights movement is aiming for two things. 1. The government to allow them to get married. Civil unions will not cut it. It’s a matter of getting it all now instead of having to take another case to the supreme court the next time the government adds another perk for married couples just to get it added to the list of perks civil unions have too. 2. Have sexual orientation added to the list of things you cannot discriminate based on.

    As for your daughters and knowing people who don’t have a problem with it – Link regarding a poll done by Zogby of high school students.

  6. Stephen February 20, 2004 at 10:46 am | | Reply

    Modesitt:

    Well, you’ve omitted the possibility that gays may be enforcing their dominance of the arts through deliberate discrimination and cronyism.

    That is in fact the case.

    They just think it’s good when they do it, and bad when straights do it.

  7. Modesitt February 20, 2004 at 2:15 pm | | Reply

    I gave a random justification I thought up that didn’t come back to “Gay people hate straight people”. I don’t doubt that there are some gays that deliberately exclude straights as a sort of revenge – But as a whole? No. I can not believe that, no more than I can believe that the reason African Americans tend to be poor because whites deliberately make them so. Such actions are completely contrary to my own personal experiences with gays. I’d definitely be interested in studies on gay domination of the arts though, if they haven’t been done already. Might serve as a catalyst for me to revamp my political beliefs or at least re-examine them.

    I have heard some other gay rights activists admit that bigotry towards straights from gays happens. This would generally be followed up by pointing out that adding ‘Sexual orientation’ to the list of things you could not discriminate based on would stop that too. ‘Stop’ is misleading, ‘Give them recourse’ is much more accurate.

    Vaguely relatedly, you commented before about how the gay people you knew all had well-paying jobs and such. Looked up studys on this and was rather amused by what I found. The one I liked the most was this one.(Note: 664 kb PDF file) It confirmed for me something I’d long suspected from reading individual studies – The people reporting that gay people had higher than average incomes were either trying to sell The Gay Demographic to advertisers or they were conservatives trying to prove gays didn’t need protection because they had greater than average incomes.

  8. Stephen February 20, 2004 at 3:28 pm | | Reply

    It’s very odd, this insistence that we should ignore the experience of our lives in favor of “data.” I believe what I’ve seen and experienced, and that’s the result of 35 years of living in the gay dominated communities of San Francisco and New York City. I am, after all, an artist. I believe in the truth of individual experience.

    Here’s the bottom line for me about whether gays are victims of discrimination. The gay agenda has been at the top of the list for 50 years. We’ve talked about, it seems, little else. Gays, by various estimates comprise somewhere between 2% to 4% of the populace.

    Thus, the dominance of the gay agenda is a testament to the political, social and economic power of gays. It’s an obvious fact. Far from being a persecuted, victimized minority, gays enjoy attention that is far disproportionate to their numbers. Think about it. Of that 2% to 4%, how many actually want to be married — half? a quarter? So, all this public hubbub is over a very tiny segment of the populace.

    Gays have dominated the agenda for 50 years. It’s time to ignore them. I am very much in favor of doing so. I hope that when this happens, they are ignored for a very long time. At least, for 50 years. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will happen. “Drama queens” is a term that could be applied to almost every gay man I’ve ever known.

  9. Jeff Findel February 20, 2004 at 4:55 pm | | Reply

    Ignoring it… Ok, I can dig that. I don’t think people should be forced to learn about the myriad of problems that other people face. Just like I don’t think people should be made to think they need to experience everyone else’s culture/religion ect whether its understanding Islam or the plight of native Americans.

    My point is that a private behavior, between consenting adults, that damages no one else, should not be a matter of the US government. The only reason to disapprove of homosexuality is for religious reasons and I don’t like theocracy! Therefore, the Gov shouldn’t give any benefit, perceived benefit, support or endorsement to any hetero couple that it restricts from gay couples.

    As for business, sure some gays are discriminating, drama queenish, or obnoxious but so are a lot of other people. They don’t deserve any favors in this regard either, give ’em a big New York ‘up yers pal!’ just like you would anyone else. Who knows, it just might help make gays feel a little more accepted…

  10. Stephen February 20, 2004 at 7:23 pm | | Reply

    Oddly, Jeff, I mostly agree with you.

    I could get picky about a few things you say, but what’s the point? I think that the traditional reservations about homosexuality have a much stronger base than you want to represent.

    However, I do agree with Prez Bush. I think that the issue of gay marriage should go before the people or their elected representatives. Overturning thousands of years of social, legal and religious tradition is an extraordinary thing to do. Consulting the people on this issue is not the same as imposing a theocracy.

    The habit that has developed on the left of regarding any issue that can be framed as a “human rights” issue as outside the electoral process has become a nightmare.

    The left seems to always speak as if it represents the people, but it seems to have remarkably little respect for the will of the people. In fact, the left seems determined to paint the American people as bigots. I have the uneasy feeling that, as soon as the issue of acceptance of gay marriage passes, the left will find another issue to use to brand the American people as bigots.

Say What?