n the rush to proclaim that women and men are equals in every single respect, radical feminists have gotten a lot wrong.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of sexuality.  There was a song that intoned that women want sex is as much as men do.  I have no qualms with that claim.  What is of importance is not whether women and men want sex to the same extent or not.  After all, any generalization in this regard must be adjusted to the particular woman and man involved.  The real issue is whether or not the ineliminable differences between the bodies of women and men have fundamentally different implications for the sexual experience of women and men.  

Radical feminism has made the mistake of suggesting that when it comes to sexuality the only substantive difference between women and men is that men have a penis whereas women have a vagina.  But this radically under characterizes the difference between men and women.

Even allowing that the sexual experience is vastly richer than vaginal penetration, what has to be acknowledged as well is that there is a vast psychological difference between women and men when it comes to the act of coitus.  During that act, women are penetrated and men are not; and that difference is absolutely profound.  For instance, it involves trust on the part of women that has no parallel whatsoever on the lives of men. 

Between couples deeply committed to one another and united by love, women have to trust men in a way that no man ever has to trust a woman during the act of coitus. 

Imagine, then, the very vulnerable position that hooking-up puts women in.  For the best analogy that I can think of would be that a man submitting to a rectal examination by anyone who walked through the door and claimed to be a physician. 

The very nature of hooking-up is that two people get together and have sex and if, per chance, they happen to learn anything about one another, including one’s another’s name, that is an unintended consequence.  Yet, women are supposed to have sex with a complete stranger with all that this involves in terms of making herself extremely vulnerable during the act of coitus.  And let us be brutally honest, any guy who is out to hook-up with a gal for sex wants there to be coitus at some point during that sexual encounter. 

This might explain why there is such a high correlation between women who drink and engage in hooking-up.  This is because the alcohol serves to numb women to the vulnerability that they take on in having coitus sex with a complete stranger. I regard the vulnerability to be so great as to constitute a form of psychological duress that will not go away, no matter what story of female-male equality that one puts forth.

It is this truth that radical feminists have ignored; and their doing so has caused young women great damage; for it has resulted in young women going against their better instincts.  After all, no self-respecting women can think it a good thing to make herself vulnerable sexually to a perfect stranger.

Changing gears entirely, another difference between women and men is that women become pregnant and men do not.  Of course, abortion is available nowadays.  Just so, there is the poignant fact that abortion is an operation.  It is not on the order of a manicure or a haircut.  This is surely yet another reason for hooking-up to be something that women find repulsive. 

Of course, the possibility of pregnancy underscores in a most dramatic way that women and men have quite different bodies.  On the one hand, from none of this does it follow that women cannot have or should not have an insatiable sexual appetite.  On the other hand, given the fundamental ways in which the bodies of women and men differ, why would anyone think it appropriate for women and men to be equally open to uncommitted sex?  Of course, men like the idea.  But that should come as no surprise.  For them, never has equality felt so good.  And I meant to use just those words. 

If before the era of hooking-up, it was a man’s world, radical feminism with its embracing of hooking-up has made things even more of man’s world. 

What I have argued?  I have not claimed that sex is wrong for women or that women should not be desirous of sex.  I hold no such view.  Nor, again, have I denied that women have been inappropriately excluded from positions of authority and power.  It seems to me obvious that they have.  But equality in the work place, which is as it should be, will never change the fact that women and men have fundamentally different bodies. 

Both women and men should take one another seriously.  And this means that genuine differences in the bodily configuration of women and men should be acknowledged.  A vagina is one kind of organ; a penis is an entirely different kind of organ.  Neither can be defined in terms of the absence of the other.  Accordingly, a body with a vagina and a body with a penis do not have an identical perspective on the interaction that takes place between these two organs.  No one thinks for a moment that the tongue and the hands should yield identical sensations of the same object.  And we expect people to have a concern for protecting their tongue that they do not have for protecting their hands.  Interestingly, we have more of an analogy here than not between the vagina and the penis. 

The mistake of radical feminism lies in the presupposition that equality between women and men has meant eradicating all differences in social behavior between women and men.  Ironically, because the bodies of women and men are constituted quite differently, eradicating all differences in social behavior between women and men is possible only at the expense of the well-being of either women or men—or perhaps both. 

There is no doubt in my mind that women are the worse off for the attempt to eliminate all differences in social behavior between women and men.  And one bit of proof of this is that while men are now more demanding of women—expecting them “to put out sexually” from the very start, it is hardly the case that men are more respecting of women.  This constitutes a loss-loss situation for women.  The expression “bitches and hoes” has become a part of the lingo for referring to women.  That ought to have been a hint that what wss countenanced as progress for women was anything but that.  It is, though, the language of hooking-up.  Men go out looking for “some bitches and hoes” to lay.  And that is preicsely what men find. 

very now and then, one hears a story that is so outrageous that one thinks that the story has to be false.  I am going to tell one such story.  To begin with, the story is about a man, namely Mr. Keith Sampson, reading a book; and the title of that book is How the Fighting Irish defeated the Klu Klux Klan by Ted Tucker.  Now, even if the words “Klu Klux Klan” gave one pause, the rest of the title should certainly put one at ease.  I mean defeating the Klu Klux Klan is surely a good thing; and in some cosmic sense, it is even a better thing if it is the Fighting Irish of the University of Notre Dame who is giving the Klu Klux Klan a whipping.  How could anyone with an ounce of commonsense not see this as just wonderful? 

Well, leave it to political correctness and a black person, namely Ms. Nakea Vincent, who fixed upon the words “Klu Klux Klan”.  Oh, did I mention that Sampson is a white man?  No, I did not.  But should it matter?  Absolutely not.  Sampson was not reading a book entitled “How to Burn Niggers on Sunday”.  Rather, he was reading a book whose very title made it clear that the book was about the Klu Klux Klan having been defeated.  How is it even possible for a black person who has an ounce of common sense to be offended by that? 

Worse, how is it possible for that the black person’s complaint to be upheld by the Affirmative Action Office of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis?  It would be one thing obviously if he were reading the book when he should have been doing his job.  But no: Sampson read the book during his break. 

Now, what exactly is the charge?  Well, the charge is that by reading the book with that title in front of black people Sampson was thereby creating a hostile environment for blacks. 

I actually have a somewhat surprising explanation for what might have happened.  I shall offer it momentarily.

But first, let me pause here to say that I think a person is entitled to read whatever he pleases on his own time.  Besides, (a) there is what a person reads and then (b) there is the person’s intent in reading it.  I might read be interested in reading the book How to Burn Niggers on Sunday (NoWhere: In Da Hood Press, 2022) precisely because I might want to learn about the kind of thinking that went into that sort of racist activity.  A white person could read the book for the very same reason.  But if a racist wants to read How to Burn Niggers on Sunday, then so be it.  Likewise if a black wants to read a book entitled How to Drown White Crackers without Getting Wet (NoWhere: UpYours Press, 2029). 

Back to Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, however.  Lillian Charleston is the name of the Affirmative Action Officer who wrote a letter reprimanding Keith Sampson for creating a hostile environment by reading How the Fighting Irish defeated the Klu Klux Klan in front of black employers.  Here are her letters: one; two. 

Now, while I am all for protecting folks from racism, it sometimes turns out in the matter of race that the learning moment is on the other foot, as they say.  That is, it is the black person rather than the white person who needs to do the learning.  And that was imminently so in this case. 

Thus, by supporting Ms. Vincent’s hyperbolic accusations against Mr. Sampson, the truth of the matter is that Ms. Lillian Charleston insulted the intelligence of black people everywhere.  Indeed, she did more harm than good.  How much more decent—politically correct, even—can a white person be around black people than reading about how white people acted to defeat the Klu Klux Klan?  And if the title did not make things evident enough, all that Ms. Vincent had to do was pick up the book and browse through it; and that would have settled any doubts that she could possibly have had about the nature of the book.

This is so obvious that Vincent's not so behaving cries out for an explanation.  And I have one.  My suspicion is that Ms. Vincent could not read very well; accordingly, it was actually not possible for her to ascertain what the contents of the book might be about.  So Ms. Charleston supported Ms. Vincent in order to cover for the fact that Vincent could not do the obvious, namely browse through the back and see what it is about.  If the only words that a person can confidently recognize in a title are “Klu Klux Klan”, then the rest of the words in the title are irrelevant. 

Now, the explanation that Vincent cannot read makes sense of her reaction to the book that Sampson was reading.  If this is right, then Sampson’s real so-called problem is that he made Vincent feel woefully inadequate by reminding her that she could not perform a rather basic task at a relatively elementary level, namely read.  The issue was about race only en passant: Simpson is white and Vincent is black.  From what I can tell, it has not crossed anyone’s mind that Vincent probably cannot read. 

If this explanation is right, then Ms. Lillian Charleston did what I regard as wholly unconscionable.  It is obviously unfortunate that Vincent cannot read.  This misfortune, however, does not excuse in any way Charleston’s tainting the character of a very, very decent man.  For Charleston could have turned the event into a most extraordinary learning moment for all involved.  Charleston could have brought out the decency of Sampson and she could have inspired Vincent to learn to read (or to read better).  It was a miscarriage of justice to invoke the veneer of racism by claiming that Sampson was creating a hostile climate for blacks by reading the book in their presence.  Given what the book was about, he could no more have been doing that by reading the book, then a priest could be hinting at a lynching by wearing a cross around his neck. 

I do not know Ms. Vincent.  So I do not know that she cannot read.  But if she can, then she is an utter ass and a morally despicable person.  My assumption that she cannot read makes more sense of her reaction then the presumption that she can do so.  My assumption even allows a little pitty for her.  Otherwise, she is a detestable human being.

The behavior of Ms. Lillian Charleston, though, is another matter entirely—if, that is, what Charleston did is hide behind the veneer of racism in order to cover up the fact that Vincent cannot read.  Although it is embarrassing not to be able to read, there is so much moral goodness that Charleston could have wrought from the moment.  Sampson, for instance, could have been instrumental in helping Vincent and others to learn to read.  And everyone would have come out ahead.  But that would have taken both foresight and moral courage.  And this tells us what we have always known or, in any case, should know, namely that fighting wrongdoing and its effects requires depth of insight and courage.  Indeed, we must sometimes be willing to make victims feel uncomfortable in order to make them better off.  Moral progress is like that.  Charleston was too busy being black to do for the black janitors—Ms. Vincent, in particular—what they most needed.  Everyone suffered.  Mr. Sampson was no doubt deeply hurt; and we still have a black woman who cannot read. 

Ms. Lillian Charleston: The next time black people need someone to stand up for them.  Be sure to step down. 

s Raymond Kurzweil brilliant?  Absolutely.  Is he right that in the very near future—say, the next 21 years—that the computer will be able to simulate human emotions so well that they will be the equal of human beings?  I think not.  In fact, I think that the evidence against Kurzweil is rather compelling in this regard.  Indeed, he just glosses over just how remarkably rich the human being is in terms of the sentiments and just how relevant emotions are to being a human being and to interpreting human behavior.  The best evidence of this comes from a rather unsuspecting source, namely translations.  In general language presents problems for Kurzweil that he has not considered.  However, I shall start with translation itself.

Sentences like “Turn right”, “Go three blocks south” and the like are easily translated, as are sentences like “The second plane arrived earlier than the first one” and “Mary is a very gifted physicist”.  These are all literal sentences and have no metaphorical meaning.  This is so even for a sentence like “Mary is a very gifted physicist,” which can be understood as rather subjective claim. 

But consider, for example, a great speech such as Martin Luther King’s famous speech “I Have a Dream”.  No computer could flawlessly translate that speech from English to, for example, French.  A computer could translate the factual aspects, but not the more rhetorically eloquent parts of the speech. 

This is because translation at its best is tied to having a profound sense of how words are used in both the original language and the language in which the text is to be translated.  And computers do not even come close to having that kind of sense of how words are used merely in virtue of having all the words of the language.

Now, to have a sense of how words are used is, of course, to have a sense of the feelings that words evoke when uttered: (1) the feelings evoked by the utterer and (2) the feelings evoked by the target of the utterance and (3) the feelings evoked by mere hearers (not targets of the utterance who heard the utterance).  A man who calls a male “faggot” in front of others may have one feeling in making the utterance; he intends, though, that the target of the utterance have a different feeling; and in many cases, he will intend that the mere hearers of the negative sobriquet have yet another set of feelings. 

Some words are intended to insult; others are intended to invoke shame; and so on.  I once said to a good friend and colleague in his 70s “Man you are the shit”.  He understood ever single word, but had not a clue what the sentence meant.  Because I made that utterance with a smile and we had already known one another for at least a dozen years, he assumed that I was not being nasty.  I told him that I was giving him a compliment.  I think he believed me.  My colleague's problem, of course, is that for him it was very nearly a conceptual truth that the word "shit" only had negative connotations. 

Knowing what words work with whom and what impact that they will have upon whom is part of being a competent speaker of a language.  No 20-year old expects her or  80-old grandmother to understand the expression “Grand Ma, you are the shit,” unless Grand Ma’s use of language reveals her to be astonishingly avant-garde. 

And what about the word “nigger”?  Will a computer be able to get away with saying this word to a black person?  Will a computer grasp why some can utter this word (namely, blacks) and others cannot (namely, non-blacks)? 

In effect, what I am arguing is that computers will have the emotional capacity of a human being when and only when it is the case that computers are capable of the fluency of language that is characteristic of being a competent speaker of a natural language, be it Chinese or Arabic or French or English.  And so on. 

To date, computers do not come even close to exhibiting the competency of a natural language that even the most uneducated scoundrel has.  A scoundrel can express a wealth of emotions via language from utter hostility to fear to rhapsodic pleasure to disappointment to sheer hurt.  And the way in which the scoundrel speaks would be the tell-tale sign.  An incredibly sad person never ever sounds like his cup runneth over with joy; nor, for that matter, the other way around.  "I am so tired" said after a night of wild sex is not the same "I am so tired" said after having studied all night.

The computational capacity of computers is absolutely extraordinary.  Thanks to that capacity gigantic airplanes can land flawlessly with little to no visibility.  However, it is simply a mistake to suppose that the emotional capacity of human beings reduces to sheer computations.  And one reason for this is that we can sometimes predict how a person is going to behave and yet be extremely moved when it happens.  For example, you may very well realize that Mom will shed tears of joy when you give her the mink coat that she has always wanted but has never been able to afford.  Yet, when she sheds those tears of joy, you are likewise moved to tears.  The problem is not that you failed to predict her behavior.  Rather, it is that correctly predicting her behavior is no substitute for experiencing that very behavior.  Punishing a child can have a like reaction in the opposite direction, as when a parent has to struggle to stick to a punishment because, as predicted, the child cries.  So, emotions can have enormous significance in ways that have nothing to do with making the right calculations. 

And all of this is particularly interesting because language is not static.  Nowadays, men feel comfortable saying “I love you”, something that was not at al an opton a mere 5 years ago.  This "I love you" is none other than an expression of admiration; and it is not quite the same as when I say “I love you” at the end of a lecture to the 389 students in my Ethics and Value Theory course this semester, which (yet again) is not at all akin to the utterance “I love you” said between two lovers holding hands and looking one another in the eyes. 

The truth is that (a) having a vocabulary is one thing and (b) knowing how to use it is quite another.  And the move from (a) to (b) is as extraordinary and profound and sublime as things get. 

There is no evidence at all that the move from (a) to (b) is simply a matter of sophisticated computations.  After all, it is impossible to give a computational account of every time a person utters the expression “I love you”.  I do not, for example, say this after every lecture; nor do I say it after every lecture that I deem to be moving.  In fact, I have been moved to tears in a lecture and yet did not end the lecture with “I love you”. 

Let me conclude this essay by changing direction.  Let us suppose for just a moment that Raymond Kurzweil is right and that within the next 21 years or so, computers will be the emotional equal of human beings.  There is another fundamental question that arises, namely: Is that a good thing for human beings?  And it is rather stunning to me that Kurzweil seems not to have given this question any thought at all.  For he seems to suppose that once computers become the emotional equivalent of human beings, then they will be a formidable ally of human beings.  However, this view of computers the emotional equivalent of human beings requires one amazing argument; and, to date, no one has produced any such argument to that effect.  I do not see that they can. 

For I assume that computers can be the emotional equivalent of human beings if and only if they have as much freedom as human beings have.  And if such computers have that much freedom, then it cannot possibly follow that such computers will by their very nature be an ally of human beings.  For computers who are the emotional equivalent of human beings will be like human beings from the standpoint of interaction.  And if there is anything we know to be true it is that there is nothing at all about the nature of human beings that entail that human beings, in virtue of being such, like one another.  So why would computers that are the emotional equivalent of human beings like human beings? 

Indeed, why would all computers (the emotional equivalent of human beings) like one another?  Then there is this question: Would we human beings like computers who are our emotional equivalent?  We seem to have enough anxiety over being liked by one human being and then another.  In what respect could we possibly be better off having to contend with being liked by by one computer and then another?  To these and similar questions, there is deafening silence on the part of Kurzweil and company.  And that, alas, is a problem.  For success in this regard may mean nothing less than Pandora's Box for humanity itself.

hat most intrigues me regarding the remarks of Alicia Keys is that if she is right that gangsta rap was an invention on the part of whites for the purpose of having black people kill one another, then black people are truly dumb.  Again, if black people started killing one another because whites set up some stupid competition, then what follows is not only that at least the white people in question are racists, but that blacks are incredibly stupid. 

After all, there can be no mistake whatsoever that killing a person with a gun constitutes harming that person.  It is thus impossible for any two black people to kill aim to kill one another  with a gun without realizing that they are aiming to harm one another.  It does not matter who set up the killing, be they racist whites or greedy blacks or whomever. 

So, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there were white folks sitting around who dreamed up the idea of using gangsta rap to have blacks kill one another.  What needs to be explained is how did it turn out that blacks fell for that idea!  And Ms. Keys has not uttered a single word that would explain how blacks might have fallen for this white racist idea. 

Let me see.  How many black people would have to kill one another before it occurred to black folks that “Gee, we are harming one another by killing one another”?  Does Ms. Keys suppose that black folks would need an insightful person like herself in order to grasp the profound consequences of blacks shooting one another? 

After all, her point is so subtle that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both missed it, as did various black-nationalist groups. 

The point of course is that what Keys has claimed makes sense only if one holds that blacks are dumber than dumb.  For what she has implied is that all whites have to do is think of a way of having blacks complete against one another in a vicious way and guess what: Blacks will do just that!  And this entails that blacks are utterly bereft of any sort of meaningful reflection regarding the consequences of their behavior.  This is black pride that blacks can do without. 

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am prepared to accept that there is still racism in the American society.  The point rather is that there are certain forms that racism cannot possiblly take unless black folks themselves are either (a) incredibly inferior intellectually or (b) profoundly indifferent to one another’s well-being. 

It is somehow supposed that since blacks have all been a victim of racism, then they cannot all be profoundly indifferent to the well-being of one another because they are united by having been victims of the same wrong.  This is an interesting point of view.  However, it is not borne out by reality. 

Racism against blacks to the contrary notwithstanding, blacks have been no more and no less opportunistic than people of any other ethnic group. 

If Keys is right about gangsta rap having been invited by whites in order to destroy black people, what follows rather poignantly is that the whites who gave rise to gangsta rap grasped a truth that Ms. Keys herself will not acknowledge, namely that blacks can be manipulated even to the point of harming one another.  And the question that obviously arises is: Whose fault is that?  Is it the faults of the whites who did the manipulation or the blacks who allowed themselves to be manipulated?

It has been said that a “A man cannot ride one’s back if one is walking upright”.  Certain modes of manipulation are utterly impossible unless I, myself, go along with the manipulation. 

We are not talking about an investment scheme where, through a wealth of deceitful practices, access to someone’s money is obtained.  No, we are talking about a very explicit harm: death by killing—killing with guns no less.  The manipulation of blacks by whites to this end is simply not possible unless blacks themselves allow themselves to be so manipulated owing to greed or whatever.  Either that, or it follows that blacks are horrendously stupid. 

In the end, what painfully follows is this.  With friends like Alicia Keys, black people do not need enemies.  The same holds for all the so-called brothers and sisters who claim that Keys is on to something.  No one can force a black person to pull the trigger on a gun. 

There is a painful truth that must be accepted by blacks if there is to be moral progress in the black community, namely that no one is to blame for the violence that blacks commit against one another but blacks themselves. 

Owing to racism, black people can be charged exorbitant rent or interest rates by white people.  Or, black people can be charged outrageous prices by white people for bad food.  But black people cannot be made to commit violence against one another unless they themselves are indifferent to the well-being of one another. 

The simple and unexpurgated truth is that there is a limit to what white people can control.  And that limit stops at the heart.  I do not rape women; and you can show me women in every conceivable lascivious pose and I will still not commit the act of rape.  That act is entirely within my control regardless of the images that are shown all around me. 

More to the point: I am black; and it has never crossed my mind to kill another black person.  And I have been around white people just about all of my life.  On the one hand, I know what it is like to be told that “You are different”.  Translation: "You are smarter than the other blacks that I know".  On the other, I know what it is like to be profoundly resented by blacks for my intellectual interests.  Still, it has never ever crossed my mind to kill another black person.  It is simply inconceivable that anyone of whatever race could trick me into killing a black person with a gun.  I mean the gun would have to look and feel like a teddy bear, or whatever. 

Now, on the assumption that I am not at all smarter than other black people, be they in the hood or elsewhere, then what follows is that the explanation for why black people are killing black people has nothing whatsoever to do with the ingenious manipulation of black people by white people.  Rather, it has to do with the brazen indifference of black people to the life of other black people—an indifference occasioned by greed.  The sin of racism is one thing; and the sin of indifference owing to greed is quite another.  Black people have shown themselves more than a little susceptible to the sin of indifference owing to greed.  And insofar as Ms. Keys is unable to acknowledge this, she is not a friend of black people, no matter what she wears around her neck.  Indeed, her AK-47 jewelry notwithstanding, what she has done by her remarks is tantamount to putting a noose around the necks of black folks. 

If I were a KKK person, I would be loving this Alicia Keys moment. `For precisely what KKK folks think is that blacks are too dumb to know what is good for black people.  Hence, the title of this blog-entry. 

The KKK person asks: How dumb are black people?  Alicia Keys answers: Black people are too dumb to know that they are harming one another by killing one another. 

ffhand, it might seem that George Wallace and Barack Obama have only three things in common: (1) both were born in the United States; (2) both are men; and (3) each sought (with Obama still seeking) the office of President of the United States.  Well, they both have a fourth commonality, namely that each affiliated himself with a racist ideology.  Wallace affiliated himself with racist ideology against blacks; Obama affiliated himself with racist ideology against whites.

There was a time in George Wallace’s life when KKK folks were heroes for Wallace.  Likewise, there was a time when a man called Jeremiah Wright was a hero for Obama.  (There is also the case of Pastor James Meeks, but let us leave that aside.) 

Wallace freely chose to identify himself with the racist ideology of the KKK.  Obama freely chose to identify with the racist ideology of Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Before the end of his life, George Wallace repudiated the racist ideology of the KKK.  And in doing so, he made no excuses for his past identification with those who espoused that racist ideology.  He did not claim that this or that Grand Master of the KKK was rather like an uncle or a father figure to him.  No, Wallace entirely repudiated that past.

Although Barack Obama has, of late, distanced himself mightily from Pastor Wright, there is the truth that Obama has sought to excuse his affiliation with Pastor Wright, claiming that the Pastor is rather like an old racist family member with whom one disagrees but nonetheless tolerates.  What a bankrupt analogy for such a smart man. 

Now, it is a fact about life that people make moral mistakes—even moral mistakes that I find rather unfathomable.  Just so, there is nothing that beats fully owning the moral mistake that one made.  Of course, sometimes we make a moral mistake because we have been deceived or misinformed.  That was not so with Wallace.  That was not so with Obama.

Wallace once took blacks to be niggers.  Obama profoundly identified, of his own free will, with a black minister who took whites to be an incarnation of the devil himself.  Surely, both ideology are utterly inexcusable.

Now, before someone reminds that blacks, unlike KKK members, have not gone around lynching whites, let me just note that if ne’er a KKK person had lynched a white the KKK ideology itself would rightly be deemed utterly despicable nonetheless and any white who identified with that ideology would be correctly countenanced as a racist.  After all, there are lots of ways to be racist without ever lynching a black.  One could merely go around insisting that all blacks are vastly inferior to blacks.  This would be horrible though ne’er a black is lynched.

In a like vein, racist blacks can be racist towards whites in lots of ways without ever lynching a white.  One form of black racism could be the horrendous sullying of the moral character of all whites.

Getting back to the difference between George Wallace and Barack Obama, I ask a very simple question: Who is the more morally upright person in terms of how he dealt with his racist inclinations of the past?  It should come as no surprise that I regard Wallace as the more morally upright person.  What is more, in the absence of some very strong considerations that I have not taken into account, I think this is the correct comparative assessment of the two.

Notice that I am more than prepared to allow that Obama made a mistake in associating with and identifying with the ideology of Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  What I find absolutely unconscionable is Obama’s attempt to excuse his doing so.  Try as I might, I cannot find a way to excuse his doing so, though I can accept without any difficulty a genuine admission of wrongdoing in this regard. 

Now, it seems to me that a great many of my liberal friends are prepared to excuse Obama’s embracing of racist ideology in the name of justified black rage against whites.  Well, this is just so much nonsense.  Obama received a B.A. from Columbia University (1983) and a J.D. from Harvard University (1991).  This makes Obama rather privileged—not just more privileged than most blacks in the United States but more privileged than most whites in the United States. 

Without denying for a moment that Obama has experienced some form of racism, it is simply not plausible for him to maintain that racism was a serious impediment to his succeeding in life.  That is, the justified black outrage strategy gains very little traction in the life of Obama. 

If Obama were to claim that a family had been lynched by a white racist, then a plausible case for moral outrage on Obama’s part towards whites would at least be understandable.  But one cannot, as a black, have his life of remarkable good fortune and then have a case for warranted moral outrage towards whites.  This is a most fulsome stance.  There are far too many of whatever ethnic identity who can barely dream of the life that Obama has been fortunate enough to live for it to be remotely plausible that he has a case for black rage. 

To my mind, this makes Barack Obama’s identification with Pastor Jeremiah Wright even more suspect and unacceptable.  Why, I can think of a number of blacks whose views I find problematic who nonetheless I have stopped considerably short of identifying with the ideology of Pastor Wright.  These include Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  Let me also point out that Cornel West, who reminded us of his bouts with racism in Race Matters, has nonetheless stopped considerably short of embracing views that are akin to Pastor Wright’s views.

So let me note once more that Wallace fully acknowledged the wrong of his despicable past.  He made no attempt to excuse it.  Obama, by contrast, has endeavored to excuse it when he could simply have acknowledged that he was wrong and that he no longer identifies with that line of thought.

Of course, we know precisely why Obama has not done that.  For it is not at all clear that he would have distanced himself from Pastor Wright had his affiliation with Wright not become an albatross.  So, if George Wallace were alive and running for office, there can be no doubt that from the standpoint of racial equality Wallace would make a far more morally superior candidate than Barack Obama. 

In a word, here is the difference: Whereas Wallace had the courage to denounce unequivocally his racist past, it is precisely that kind of defining courage that Obama manifestly does not have.  It is only with one of these individuals that we have an upright person.  Or so it is at least with regard to the issue of race.

oral Progress is on the decline.  And that is rather striking; for there is a perfectly good sense in which there has been increasingly greater equality in society.  This much already tells us something extremely important, namely that the measure of moral progress cannot be explicated simply in terms of equality.  And we have lost sight of this fundamental truth in the rightful press for equality across gender, race, and sexual orientation.  So we would do well to distinguish between virtuous equality and vapid equality. 

Moral Progress is on the decline precisely because vapid equality has been given priority over virtuous equality.  One sign of vapid equality is the idea that all opinions should be accorded equal worth.  No one really believes.  Indeed, it is virtually impossible for a sane and sober-minded person to believe this.  With good reason, I rarely accord much weight to the hoodlum on the street.  Similarly, I rarely accord much weight to the views of those who have no experience whatsoever regarding the matter about which they are expressing an opinion.  Surely, I am right about this. 

Vapid equality has come about because virtuous equality has been viewed as racist or sexist or homophobic. Virtuous equality takes seriously the view that the intentions with which a person behaves matters greatly.  Vapid equality, by contrast, focuses primarily upon the behavior.  As a result, we have the following absurd situation: On the one hand, rappers use the word “nigger” in the lyrics to their music and they count upon white youth to buy their music.  On the other, it is viewed as inappropriate for precisely these white youth to utter the word “nigger” while singing along to the lyrics.  If a white is not a racist for listening to music peppered with the word “nigger”, then how exactly is he a racist for merely saying that word along with the rapper?

Zero-tolerance is yet another instance of privileging vapid equality over virtuous equality.  Here, too, intentions are ignored.  The policy does not distinguish between the bully and the person who is protecting himself or another from a bully.  At the very outset, any policy that collapses the distinction between bullying and self-defense should be considered utterly untenable.  But in the name of vapid equality, precisely such a policy has been embraced by one school district after another. In the meantime, we are undermining a fundamental aspect of child development, namely the differentiation between good and bad intentions. 

There can be no moral progress in society if we obliterate the significance of the difference between good intentions and bad intentions in terms of what a person does.

Of course, there are instance where we have bad intentions no matter what.  Barring something utterly fanciful and thoroughly improbable, rape cannot take place with good intentions.  By contrast, it most certainly is possible to have good intentions even in the case of having killed the wrong person. 

To state the obvious, the idea that we should respect the humanity of all individuals regardless of their physical features is a most noble one.  But that noble idea has morphed into what is untenable, namely that the obvious absence of certain capacities (such as hearing or sight) should not be countenanced as an absence but merely a difference.  Accordingly, it is now said by some that there is nothing wrong with intentionally bringing a child into the world who does not have the capacity to see or to hear.  This is none other than a form of perverse narcissism.  I mean Frederick Douglass might as well have argued that since he went from slavery to freedom and excelled beyond anyone’s wildest imagination, everyone should take that route; for surely slavery builds character. 

A defining feature of DeafGeoff, a former student of mine, is that he is deaf.  Correctly assessing his accomplishments as a DJ requires that I take seriously the fact that he did not let his being deaf stand as an impediment to his becoming a DJ.  But this makes no sense if we do not acknowledge that there is a significant difference between having the capacity to hear and not having it. 

Moral progress consists in our acknowledging that deaf people and blind people can exhibit extraordinary talent and make formidable contributions to the good of society.  This is virtuous equality.  Vapid equality, on the other hand, has us paying lip service to the incredulous by saying that being able to hear and not being able to hear are simply two different and equally desirable capacities.  The stunning part of it all is that this line of thought is being taken seriously. 

Vapid equality is born of the deep recognition that horrendous misjudgments were made in the past and the deep, deep determination that such mistakes not be made in the future.  That, needless to say, is quite laudable.  But vapid equality succeeds only by imposing a moral grid that trivializes the extraordinary powers of discernment that are a defining feature of our humanity. 

Our human powers of discernment can be used for bad and they can be used for good.  We set ourselves up to be pawns in the hands of evil by deadening our powers of discernment.  And it is this truth that brings me to the title of this essay.

It is a dizzying fact that with more access to knowledge than ever before we are making stunningly stupid mistakes.  And it is this truth that I take as rather poignant evidence that moral progress is coming to an end. 

The decline of moral progress is easily missed because we have allowed for equality to be the sole measure of moral progress.  Equality by itself, though, is simply not a measure of excellence.  After all, we can all be equally moral scoundrels.   Needless to say, nothing can be more incongruous than a bunch of moral scoundrels all patting themselves on the back because there is equality among them. 

Virtuous equality requires courage and marvelous powers of discernment along with an unshakable resolve to do what is right.  of the past and vows never to make mistakes like that again.  This is the stuff that made for moral progress.  It is utterly foolish to think that once in place moral progress is sustainable by a conception of equality that undermines the very gifts of human excellence that made moral progress possible in the first place.  Not happening.