Canadian Prof Who Criticized Ideology of ‘Diversity and Mass Immigration’ Accused of Racism
“None of the individuals who signed this letter has any scholarly background in the subject of Canadian immigration or multiculturalism.”
The professor who is under fire here is from Puerto Rico and has mixed racial heritage, but he defied the left’s preferred narrative.
The College Fix reports:
Canadian profs want colleague investigated for ‘racist positions’
Faculty at the University of New Brunswick in Canada have signed on to a letter lambasting a “controversial” sociology professor as a “racist without academic merit.”
According to The Globe and Mail, the academics also allege the way Professor Ricardo Duchesne “cloaks his views in academic legitimacy is an abuse of his status as a professor.”
In response, Duchesne pointed out he is an immigrant (from Puerto Rico) of mixed-race parentage who merely “questions an ideology initiated and supported by privileged whites”: that of the “mandated ideology of diversity and mass immigration.”
“It is rather rich for the academics who signed this letter to claim that the ‘hallmark of academic freedom’ is to subject views to criticism while at the same time seeking to deny my right to criticize [diversity and immigration],” Duchesne wrote. “None of the individuals who signed this letter has any scholarly background in the subject of Canadian immigration or multiculturalism.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“I can say there isn’t a single historian that I know – and I know historians from around the world – who would be afraid to call what he says ‘racist.’ It just is.”
Racism is a strange concept. It’s not defined in the law as far as I know. There’s discrimination and prohibited discrimination, with certain racial bases being prohibited. But I’ve never seen the word “racism” given a legal effect.
This lack of definition allows it to be modified to suit. “Racism = prejudice + power” if that suits. “Only whites can be racist” if that suits. Whatever. And all the while, it’s not per-se illegal. It’s just an epithet.
So what meaning of “racist” is being applied here? They don’t bother to say. Because of this ambiguity and lack of justificatino as a standard for anything, I think the statement is of no effect.