Vincent J. Curtis
26 Aug 21
RE: Trustee’s response to racism probe revealed. News item in the Hamilton Spectator by Katrina Clarke.
You have to admire Trustee Carole Paikin Miller’s pluck. Beset on all sides by idiots, she refuses to yield. When confronted with an idiotic pile of crap as proof of her evil, she patiently showed that it was crap.
All the characters in the drama are women, and the drama shows that women can be stupid and petty. Take the lawyer who wrote the report. She deemed it “more probable than not” that Paikin Miller expressed unprogressive sentiments, that she demonstrated a “blatant disregard” for those precious equity issues, and most damning of all made observations on the relative proportion of anti-Black to anti-Semitic and Islamophobic focuses that “are in themselves racist and offensive.” Who is this lawyer to inject her own sentiments and opinions in a fact-finding report?
Ahona Medhi was the 18 year old complainant, a Gen-Z something who absorbed the ennui of the moment and took offense when no one paid attention to her high opinion on matters of importance to her. The states of geography and history instruction in Hamilton schools were not her concerns.
The clueless Kojo Damptey was invited to weigh in, and demonstrated he knows nothing specific about the matter. Likewise, Professor Ameil Jospeh gave boilerplate answers about racism in general. Funny how no one is concerned about grades or curriculum but they’re all in on “equity.”
The mad-house is run by the inmates, and
Paikin Miller is one of the old guard under siege.
-30-
Is the intersectionality scale of victimhood responsible for the vilification of Paikin Miller? Muslims have been determined to be “People of Colour” (POC) and Paikin Miller is obviously white and being white she is considered to be privileged. Not as privileged as a white male, but privileged nevertheless.
ReplyDelete