Diversity for the virtue of diversity.

Honestly, there must be someone better somewhere whom the Democrat party can select for the position of Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

When Kristin Clarke was a student at Harvard College, she was an overt and outspoken racist.

On October 28, 1994, Clark co-authored a Letter to the Editor of the Harvard Crimson, which the paper duly published. I’ll just quote from her letter here at some length so her thoughts are expressed in exactly the manner she expressed them:

In response to those who defend The Bell Curve (“Defending The Bell Curve,” Opinion, Oct. 24, 1994), please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites.

One: Dr. Richard King reveals that at the core of the human brain is the “locus coeruleus” which is a structure that is Black because it contains large amounts of (neuro) melanin which is essential for its operation.

Two: Black infants sit, stand, crawl and walk sooner than whites.

Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin–that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcification or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent, Asians 15 to 25 percent and Europeans 60 to 80 percent. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between Blacks and whites.

Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities–something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.

We can readily admit that an abused child is less likely to achieve academically than a child that has grown up in a supportive atmosphere. Black children, whether rich or poor, grow up with an added abuse which white children never have to face. Imagine the message that misguided information like The Bell Curve would send to a Black child who is trying to find her place in school. It’s degrading, belittling and outrageously false.

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a 1994 book, in which the authors explored the question of the extent to which intelligence — as influenced biologically and environmentally — has more impact on the course one’s life will take than the socioeconomic status of one’s upbringing.

The question that has attached to Clarke is whether or not her letter is an expression of support and advocacy or the “scientific” views of Dr. Richard King and Carol Barnes whom she cited. Was she arguing in support of the claims, as a matter of science, that the presence of a higher level of “neuro” melanin in the biological composition of blacks gave to them “superior physical and mental abilities,” as she quotes Carol Barnes as advocating?

On January 12, just days after the controversy first arose, Clarke gave her “it was all satire” explanation a trial run. Given that all media attention at the time was focused on the aftermath of January 6, and the approaching January 21 inaugural date, her escape plan worked without anyone taking notice.

The narrative that has now spread far and wide is that her letter was meant to equate the absurd conclusions of The Bell Curve authors with equally absurd conclusions by black academics and scientists — i.e., both sides have their “crazies” who should be called out and disowned.

During testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. John Cornyn asked her about the letter. Clarke responded that she was “holding up a mirror” and that the Bell Curve’s authors advanced similar kinds of racist theories that she referenced.

Cornyn asked if she was saying her letter was “satire,” and she claimed that it was.

Same day and next day news reporting from the likes of the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC, et. al., rushed in to lambaste Cornyn for not having done his homework in advance, in order to save himself from such embarrassment. Any reasonably competent advance work by his staff, they claimed, would have made it obvious to him the nature of her letter.

But the “I wasn’t a racist, it was all meant as satire” sophism is belied by her OTHER overt racist episode a mere 33 days later in 1994.

As the leader of the Black Students Association at Harvard, she invited author and well-known racist and anti-Semite, Prof. Tony Smith to speak to students at Harvard.

In 1993, Martin had published a book titled The Jewish Onslaught, and he devoted his hour-long speech at Harvard to spew conspiracy theories about a Jewish “tradition” of persecuting Blacks, and accused Jews of having a “monopoly” on the notion of African inferiority.

So, let us consider the calendar and how it reflects on these two events from Clarke’s time as a leader among black students at Harvard.

On October 28, 1994, the Harvard Crimson published the letter she co-authored in which Clarke — according to her — was ridiculing the racist theories of The Bell Curve by comparing them to equally racist and absurd theories advanced by black scientists and academics.

On December 3, 1994, the Crimson published an article critical of Martin’s speech at Harvard and the decision to invite him there, and referred to Martin’s speech having taken place “last Wednesday.”

December 3 was a Saturday. That means that Martin’s speech the prior Wednesday would have been on Nov. 30.  That is 33 days after Clarke’s Letter to the Crimson.

The reality revealed by the calendar is that ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after citing the racist work of Dr. Richard King and Carol Barnes advocating ideas that greater levels of melanin make blacks physically and intellectually superior, Clarke summoned to Harvard another academic cut from the same racist cloth and spouting the same racist claims that she had made in her letter — which she now claims she was holding up as “absurd.” Did she express similar views about Tony Martin in 1994? Hardly — quite the opposite in fact.

In response to criticism leveled against her for having brought Martin to campus, Clarke put out a statement DEFENDING Martin’s comments during his speech.

Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.”

Interestingly, Prof. Martin attacked “The Bell Curve” in his speech, stating that it exemplified the racism of Jews directed at Blacks.

To believe Kristen Clarke in 2021 you have to accept that she spotlighted racists advocates of “melanin-based racial superiority” science to expose them as absurd, but one month later advocated and later defended a racist anti-Semite academic

Put me at the front of the line for the “We shouldn’t crush adults for things they wrote and did when they were 19” group.

But Kristen Clarke was 45 when she testified last week and lied about her October 1994 letter.

She lied.

Is there no one else with a “D” next to their name who is worthy of occupying the post of Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division?