Connect with us

Nation

‘Proud to be’ Black and Republican: Tim Scott defends ‘woke supremacy’ remarks

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 03 23 at 4.29.22 PM scaled

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott (R) this week defended his remarks that “woke supremacy” is as bad as white supremacy.

“My comments were a sound-bite-length reaction to yet another media figure accusing me of being a token for Republicans,” Scott wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Tuesday, saying he was responding an opinion piece the newspaper published last week calling the senator a “fool” for his comments.

On March 8, Scott made his initial “woke supremacy” comments when firing back at MSNBC host Joy Reid for accusing the GOP of using him as a “patina of diversity”.

In his Tuesday piece, Scott explained that he was not “comparing the long history of racial hate to the very short history of wokeism” and that he is “painfully aware that four centuries of racism, bigotry and killings does not compare to the nascent woke movement.”

“I spoke out,” he wrote, “because I am gravely concerned for our future if we ignore either type of supremacy,” saying both “are rooted in racism or discrimination.”

Being the first Black senator from South Carolina, Scott has served in the upper congressional chamber since 2013. He is joined by only two other Black senators.

The senator then illustrated the racist comments he has endured for being a Black Republican and argued that woke supremacists believe diversity doesn’t matter if it isn’t paired with progressive thinking, to which Scott said, “my ideology does not match that which they prescribe based on my complexion.”

“It is the ‘tolerant’ left’s intolerance for dissent,” Scott added. “It is a progressive conception of diversity that does not include diversity of thought. It is discrimination falsely marketed as inclusion.”

“I am proud to be both a Black man and a Republican,” he also stated. “Because of those aspects of my identity, many critics have ignored things I have actually done,” he continued, going on to list his accomplishments in Congress such as securing funding for historically Black colleges and fighting for school choice, among other things.

“Critics discount these accomplishments for the Black community because it conflicts with the caricature they’ve created of what it means to be Black and to be a Republican,” Scott wrote.

Toward the end of his Washington Post op-ed, the senator painted a picture of an increasingly divided and segregated America, blaming “woke culture”.

Closing out his piece, Scott brought up the late civil-rights icon and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), whom the senator described as “my friend,” and when Lewis asked him to co-chair the march on Selma back in 2015 to mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

“When I think of my vision for America,” Scott wrote, “I think about standing shoulder to shoulder on that bridge with John and Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, walking forward together.”

Scott then concluded that the United States can let “woke culture” continue to divide the the country, “or we can choose to create equality of opportunity and access to the American Dream for everyone.”

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.

Continue Reading

Nation

Minnesota farmer’s lawsuit prompts removal of race and sex-based grant program

Published

on

GettyImages 2059551148 scaled

Five months after Minnesota farmer Lance Nistler filed a federal lawsuit with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the state has removed race- and sex-based preferences from its Down Payment Assistance Grant Program. This significant policy change followed Nistler’s legal challenge, which highlighted the discriminatory nature of the program’s selection process.

Pacific Legal Foundation writes involvement in Nistler’s case drew attention and criticism from Minnesota progressives. Writing in the Minnesota Reformer, Sigrid Jewett accused PLF of using Nistler “as a pawn in a larger culture war game.” She questioned why a California-based legal firm with numerous Supreme Court victories would be interested in representing a small Minnesota farmer pro bono.

PLF opposes all race- and sex-based preferences in the law, and that’s the real reason the firm chose to represent Nistler. The foundation stands against discrimination in various domains, including government board selections, school admissions, government contracts, and grant distributions, such as in Nistler’s case.

Here are the facts: Minnesota’s Down Payment Assistance Grant Program offers up to $15,000 toward the purchase of farmland. Recipients are chosen through a lottery system. However, before the policy change, even if a recipient was among the first picked through the lottery—as Nistler was, being selected ninth—they could be bumped to the back of the line if they were not a racial minority, female, LGBTQIA+, or otherwise designated as an “emerging” farmer by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Despite being chosen ninth in the lottery, which awarded grants to 68 applicants, Nistler did not receive a grant. He was moved from ninth to 102nd on the waitlist because he is a white male.

Nistler grew up on his family farm, milking cows. “They would lose money every year,” he says of the family operation. After he left for school, his family sold the cows and switched to farming soybeans, oats, and wheat. Lance’s father and uncle now run the farm, but they’re getting older. Lance, who has a degree in electronic engineering and worked in HVAC, is interested in buying a 40-acre chunk of the family farm, becoming the fourth-generation farmer in his family.

The land isn’t just going to be given to Lance. This is a working farm, and the Nistlers aren’t a wealthy family that can transfer land from one generation to the next without consideration. “My dad and uncle, they don’t have 401(k)s or anything,” Lance says. “I mean, the land and the equipment, that’s their retirement. This stuff isn’t given away. I’m not just going to get it handed down to me and inherited. It has to be purchased, and it is not cheap.”

Despite being from a farming family, Lance considers himself a new farmer—he has never owned farmland before, and he has an electronics background. Buying these 40 acres would be a huge step for Lance, planting him firmly in the farming world, which is what Minnesota’s grant program aimed to do. The idea that he would have qualified as an emerging farmer if only his skin were a different color struck Lance as wrong.

“The country we live in, the idea is it’s equal opportunity for everyone,” he says. “And if that’s what it is, then well, why shouldn’t I have the same chances?”

When Lance filed his lawsuit in January, the complaint argued that the discriminatory process violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The complaint stated:

“Nistler brings this lawsuit to vindicate his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. He brings it to give all Minnesotans a fair chance at a difference-making grant program. He brings it in the hope that he will be able to own that small farm in the near future. He brings it because he is not giving up on his dream.”

In May, after Lance called attention to the unconstitutional policy, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed legislation removing the race and sex prioritization from the program. Now, Minnesota will treat farmers equally—as the Constitution promises.

Continue Reading

Trending