It’s never been clearer that far-left ideologies have overtaken American universities.
Political correctness, critical race theory, Marxism, gender theory and social justice are all concepts being taught mostly radical, leftist academics.
A person purporting to be a University of California, Berkeley professor has had enough of these ideologies, however, and decided to speak out against them in an anonymous letter.
The letter was first shared on Twitter by Tracy Beanz, editor in chief of UncoverDC. Wilfred Reilly, an assistant professor of political science at Kentucky State University, who is referenced in the letter, confirmed to The Western Journal that the letter had been sent out, but could not confirm the identity of the sender.
“I can’t confirm the sender. I was sent the letter, and will note that it contained direct e-mails for me, [economist Thomas Sowell] (via National Review), and what looked like much of the Berkeley History Department,” Reilly told The Western Journal in an email.
The letter began with the alleged professor apologizing for the need to remain anonymous, citing the prevalent nature of cancel culture in modern-day America.
“I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field,” the anonymous party wrote.
“In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.”
The letter then went on to explain the illogical reasoning behind critical race theory, the academic theory that played a major role in the popularization of ideas such as white privilege and systemic racism.
“The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions. Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly,” the letter read.
“Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.”
The purported professor then proceeded to take the Black Lives Matter movement head-on, explaining his rejection of its “problematic view of history.”
“I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.”
“The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.”
Rather than contending with the many counterpoints that the alleged professor made to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the U.C. Berkeley history department openly condemned the letter as “against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.”
An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member. We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.
— UC Berkeley History (@UCBHistory) June 13, 2020
By dismissing the letter’s arguments out of hand, the department all but proved the writer to be correct in his or her evaluation of U.C. Berkeley and other Black Lives Matter advocates. The least Berkeley’s faculty could have done was put together a thoughtful rebuttal, but even that seemed to be too much to ask of them.
James Lindsay spoke to The Western Journal about the reported professor’s letter and what it meant for the social justice movement at large. Lindsay is a mathematician, political commentator and co-founder of the website New Discourses, an apolitical resource for those opposed to political correctness and the various ideologies of social justice.
When asked if this open condemnation of social justice politics was a trend in the right direction for American colleges, Lindsay seemed unconvinced.
“Colleges are not yet trending in a positive direction. It is probably the opposite, but there is still time to reverse that course if more academics and professors speak up like this. This is the kind of reply scholars should be making and then debating,” he told The Western Journal in an email.
When asked about claims made by the letter, he affirmed the anonymous professor’s assessment of critical race theory.
“I cannot speak to the specific data-driven claims, but the academic theory he cites (Critical Race Theory) is accurately described in terms of how poisonous, anti-intellectual, anti-society, and even intrinsically anti-black it is.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.