By David N. Harding, Staff Writer
In a society where words are policed more than actions, certain terms are taboo not because they’re false, but because they threaten the prevailing narrative. One of those terms is “Black privilege.”
While America has spent decades addressing the sins of racism and inequality—and rightly so—there’s a growing argument that the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that race-based favoritism now operates under the guise of social justice. But to even mention this possibility is to risk immediate cancellation, not because it lacks evidence, but because the progressive media-academic complex refuses to allow the conversation to happen.
The Liberal Stranglehold on Thought: Media and Academia as Gatekeepers
The reason terms like “Black privilege” fail to gain traction in public discourse isn’t because they lack merit—it’s because liberal-dominated institutions silence them before they can be debated.
In academia, the ideological imbalance is staggering. A 2021 report published by the National Association of Scholars found that liberal professors outnumber conservatives by a ratio of nearly 10 to 1 in social sciences and humanities departments (NAS.org). In New England, the ratio is even more dramatic: 28 to 1. This academic homogeneity doesn’t foster open debate—it crushes it. Topics like affirmative action, racial crime statistics, or the consequences of DEI are avoided, not for lack of relevance, but for fear of reprisal.
Mainstream media is no better. In the 2020 election cycle, over 96% of political donations made by journalists went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets (OpenSecrets.org). Is it any wonder, then, that newsrooms promote race-based narratives that cast all minorities as perpetual victims and all dissenters as bigots?
In this one-party media ecosystem, dissent isn’t refuted—it’s erased. And that’s precisely why the concept of "Black privilege" remains invisible in mainstream conversations.
Preferential Treatment Disguised as Equity: DEI’s Dangerous Double Standard
Nowhere is “Black privilege” more visible than in the hiring practices and corporate culture shifts ushered in by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
Following the death of George Floyd in 2020, DEI initiatives exploded across corporate America. Companies rushed to hire Chief Diversity Officers and launched aggressive recruitment strategies focused primarily on racial quotas. The intent may have been to level the playing field—but the effect was to tip the scales in the opposite direction.
In 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a formal reminder that employment decisions must not favor or discriminate based on race, even in the name of diversity. This came after growing concerns that many DEI programs were illegally excluding qualified white and Asian applicants (Fisher Phillips).
Yet this legal clarification hasn't stopped companies from openly prioritizing race over merit. In some cases, white job applicants are being told directly they “don’t meet diversity requirements.” That isn’t equality. That’s privilege—racial privilege.
Selective Leniency in the Criminal Justice System
Another domain where this new form of racial favoritism plays out is the criminal justice system, particularly in progressive-run cities like San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
Reform-minded district attorneys—many backed by leftist megadonor George Soros—have adopted policies that eliminate cash bail, reduce prosecutions for "non-violent" crimes, and emphasize “restorative justice.” The stated goal is to combat systemic racism, but the outcomes are troubling.
In Philadelphia, for example, DA Larry Krasner’s soft-on-crime policies correlated with record-high homicide rates, disproportionately affecting Black communities themselves (The Philadelphia Inquirer). Meanwhile, violent offenders are often released without bail under the assumption that incarceration is a greater injustice than the crimes committed.
These reforms overwhelmingly benefit Black defendants under the assumption that they are the victims of systemic oppression. But where is the justice for their victims—often other minorities? When one race receives preferential leniency in sentencing, isn’t that a form of privilege?
Affirmative Action and the Harvard Hypocrisy
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard finally struck down race-based college admissions, concluding that affirmative action policies discriminated against Asian-American applicants in favor of Black students with lower academic credentials (SupremeCourt.gov).
For decades, elite universities like Harvard used “holistic” admissions criteria to boost the chances of Black applicants—often at the expense of more academically qualified Asians and whites. Internal data revealed that if admissions were based on academic merit alone, the percentage of Black students would fall sharply (Reuters).
This isn't equality of opportunity. It's equality of outcome, rigged from the top down—and it’s been framed as “progress.”
England’s Two-Tier Justice System: A Warning to America
The dangerous precedent of racial leniency is not limited to the United States. In England, the Sentencing Council of the United Kingdom recently issued new guidelines recommending that judges consider a criminal’s race, religion, and cultural background when deciding punishment.
The new rules call for pre-sentence reports on individuals from minority groups—specifically ethnic, cultural, or faith minorities—to assess mitigating factors, potentially resulting in lighter sentencing. Critics have warned that this could lead to a system where white Christian males receive harsher punishments for the same crimes (The Guardian, New York Sun).
While framed as an effort to address systemic disparities, this kind of "equity sentencing" creates a two-tiered justice system, eroding the foundational legal principle that all people are equal under the law.
The U.S. should take notice—because this is where DEI ideology ultimately leads.
Why the Term ‘Black Privilege’ Must Be Allowed in Public Discourse
The refusal to even consider the concept of Black privilege is not rooted in truth—it’s rooted in fear. Fear that the carefully constructed narrative of racial victimhood will begin to crumble under scrutiny. Fear that Americans will start to see that the push for “equity” has created a new racial caste system—one in which accountability, merit, and even justice are contingent on skin color.
Open societies must be willing to examine hard truths. If we’re going to discuss “white privilege,” then we must also be free to examine the ways in which Black Americans are advantaged—especially in elite institutions, corporate pipelines, and urban legal systems shaped by progressive ideologues.
Conclusion: Rejecting the Double Standard
This is not a call for resentment or retribution. It's a call for honesty. America cannot heal racial wounds by pretending that favoritism in reverse is not still favoritism. The progressive left wants to dictate which privileges matter—and which ones don’t. But privilege is privilege, whether it’s rooted in oppression or overcorrection.
Until conservatives are allowed to speak openly about these realities without fear of censorship or cancellation, we don’t have equality—we have ideology masquerading as justice.
It’s time to stop pretending. It’s time to talk about Black privilege.
#blackprivilege #EqualJustice #DEI #TwoTierJustice #harvardcase #uksentencing #conservativecompass #TruthOverNarrative
Add comment
Comments