Source: Bigstock

STUDY REVEALS WHICH MAGISTRATES SHOW “INGROUP FAVORITISM” AND WHICH DON’T
When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, many elderly and sclerotic white people took umbrage at this comment of Sotomayor’s:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Despite the fact that Sotomayor was effectively admitting that her ethnicity would color her decisions, leftists reacted in horror during the 2016 election when Donald Trump said that a judge might be biased against him in a court case because the judge is “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. (The judge eventually ruled in Trump’s favor anyway.)

But a recent study titled “The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence” found that Donald Trump may have been right about minority-judge bias and people may have been right to be suspicious of Sonia Sotomayor.

Using the criteria of what other judges are cited in a judge’s rulings, researchers Rachael Hinkle and Michael Nelson reached the following conclusions:

There is evidence of ingroup favoritism among female and minority judges but none for male or white judges….There is evidence that both women and nonwhite judges are less likely to negatively cite members of their ingroup compared with members of their outgroup.…They are also more likely to both string cite and substantively cite ingroup members compared with outgroup members. In contrast, there is no evidence the white or male judges favor ingroup members. In fact, white judges are significantly more likely to substantively cite their outgroup than their ingroup….There is no evidence of male or white judges showing favoritism toward their own demographic group. In fact, white judges are actually more likely to substantively cite minority judges.

We’ve known this all along—if you want to define “racism” as “preference for one’s own group,” white males are the least racist people on the planet and have been for a long, long time.

THE ONGOING DECLINE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
The media has made it quite obvious—or maybe they’ve just been pushing a narrative—that the only thing Trump supporters want is violence, violence, and more violence, all of it against gays, blacks, minorities, transgendered persons, and the hopelessly crippled. It should come as a little bit of a surprise, then, to hear that a Minneapolis high-school student who was carrying a pro-Trump flag during one of those idiotic anti-gun National School Walkouts last Wednesday was set upon by a mob of other students and had his arm broken in two places.

Last week a religious studies major at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (truly the Ruth’s Chris Steak House of colleges) was forced to watch video of a 15-minute Ted Talk by “transgender ex-pastor Paula Stone” in which the delusional Man of God talked about “male privilege” and “mansplaining” and “sexism from men.” When Lake Ingle—we don’t name ‘em, we just report the names—told the professor after viewing the film that he felt there are only two genders, and that this is the official view of biologists, his feminist professor banned him from the class and accused him of having “angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism.”

This week at the University of Minnesota, a black female named Lisa Anderson-Levy—who recently experienced the privilege of a $600,000 grant just to prattle on about “Inclusive Leadership”—will speak about “dismantling whiteness” and discuss ways to “decenter whiteness” because she feels that whiteness is an “existential threat” to the United States.