BRETT: No doubt you’ve heard this story about the psychiatrist, Dr. Aruna Khilanani, who now has come out and said “she does not regret” saying that she wanted to go take a gun and empty it into a bunch of white people. “Dr. Aruna Khilanani has said she does not regret the word choice of her lecture. She gave a controversial virtual talk to Yale University staff and students in April.
“In it, she said she fantasized about ‘unloading a revolver’ into white people. She has faced criticism from university staff and others over her comments. On Saturday, she said her words had been taken out of context…” Of course they’ve been “taken out of context.”
They’re always “taken out of context” when it’s a liberal. You don’t understand. You’re not sophisticated enough. You don’t! That’s what we always get from these folks. But hold on. The very notion that we can even call this a controversy or a controversial virtual talk? A controversy is a ball game ending with a questionable call from a referee or an umpire.
A controversial moment might be a particular outfit worn to a television awards show that nobody watches anymore. Like, that can be controversy. Controversy can be a dramatic plot twist on a nighttime show. Going to a place of education at a prestigious university and declaring that you had fantasized openly as a psychiatrist — meaning somebody who is working with other people to work through their problems.
And that you have “fantasized about ‘unloading a revolver’ into white people,” that’s enough, if you’re not a psychiatrist, to get probably held on a Baker hold so that you’re gonna be checked out by professionals, and they’re probably gonna take your guns from you, for real, even if you just say that in some jurisdictions.
Now, she says it’s a controversy. She says, “Well, you know…” But I have to ask the question, why is this okay? Why haven’t the cancel culture trolls gotten hold of her career and sunk it? If you or I said this about a group of people — white people or any other group of people — we’d be called white supremacists and every other name under the sun.
But when an elite New York doctor speaking at an elite ivory tower institution like Yale speaks, well, we kind of know what happens. We’re supposed to just see it as racism in ourselves for being offended. And that is absolutely, 100% wrong. I can’t even imagine — and I’m dead serious when I say this.
I can’t even imagine going into a public space where there are people I’m going to be lecturing to and speaking in this way. So she said what she was trying to do is she was trying to, like, shake it up a little bit. The talking about shooting people was part of a shaking it up. Quote, “Too much of the discourse on race is a dry, bland regurgitation of new vocabulary words with no work in the unconscious.
“‘And, if you want to hit the unconscious, you will have to feel real negative feelings. My speaking metaphorically about my own anger was a method for people to reflect on negative feelings. To normalize negative feelings. Because if you don’t, it will turn into a violent action.’
“Khilanani, who is of Indian descent, went on to say that she did not regret her word choice.” Okay. You don’t even get an “I’m sorry if anybody was offended,” one of those dodges in this. It’s really incredible when you think about it. You don’t even get a “I’m really sorry if it was taken out of context, if you didn’t understand the analogy, if you were offended by my words.”
Instead she says, “‘Something is emotionally dangerous about opening up a conversation about race. No one wants to look at their actions or face their own negative feelings about what they are doing. The best way to control the narrative is to focus on me, and make me the problem, which is what I stated occurs in the dynamic of racism.”
Oh, please! Spare me, spare us.
If you are fantasizing about shooting a group of people, then you should probably sit down with a psychiatrist in a moment of therapy, a moment of trust and try to work your way, way through it. But walking into a public space and say that you fantasize about killing people is a negative reflection on yourself. I know it’s shocking, but it’s true.
If you say, “I hate blank,” whatever the people are, whoever the people are, there’s going to be a reaction. And it’s going to be negative. And the fact that this happened in a college campus doesn’t give it any protection. See, because this is a long, drawn-out process of how you inculcate these kids into becoming the disastrous sort of folks that they grow up to be.
It comes down to this, okay? It comes down to this. It comes down to the notion of liberal privilege. She will not be fired ’cause she checks the right number of boxes, and she gets to say what she wants to say. Other people who go to say what they want to say will find a great deal of resistance and likely unemployment. Here’s Rush talking about liberal privilege.
RUSH: This is Sandy in Atascadero, California. It’s great to have you. I’m glad you waited, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Yeah, hi, Rush. Thanks a lot for taking my call. The thing that’s always been interesting to me is, you know, oftentimes they talk about “white privilege,” and I think there has been a truth to that over the years. Well, I think nowadays we’re facing “liberal privilege.” It seems like anything a liberal wants to say, whether it’s on television or in public — wherever it may be — it’s okay, and it’s just accepted. And if you are so bold as to contradict them, you know, God have mercy on you.
RUSH: It’s hate! If you disagree with anything liberals believe, you automatically are declared to be a hater.
RUSH: This is how they silence people. It’s either that or you are a racist.
CALLER: It’s suddenly personal attacks. It’s not a good conversation, a good back-and-forth of exchanging information. It’s just these sudden personal attacks, and it’s very difficult to handle. I’ve even had one of my sons mention that, you know, he just has to be very careful what he says whenever he’s in public just because, you know, of this very issue.
RUSH: Look, they don’t desire a cross-talk and back-and-forth. They don’t want to debate anything. As far as they are concerned, your attitude, my attitude, my views, your views are illegitimate and ought not have a platform, ought not have a mechanism of amplification. They don’t want a level playing field. They don’t want anybody else on it.
They immediately smear. They make things up and then they start trying to attack character. They lie about things that you say, take things out of context, and then the mainstream media picks it up and amplifies it, and they basically attempt to destroy your reputation. They’re not interested in what you think. They don’t care about free and open debate.
BRETT: And so as once upon a time you might have had somebody come out and do a presentation like this this was incredibly controversial in the pre-social media world, if you then challenge this person, what will happen is those who are allied with the person that you’re disagreeing with will suddenly…
Well, they’ll dox you, they’ll come after with you, they’ll try to ruin you, they’ll try to get you fired, they’ll try to get you run off the planet or the world, depending whatever your orientation is, the planet or the world. People get very upset when you say “the planet.” But when you listen to somebody like this, a New York City psychiatrist…
Okay, that conveys certain qualifications and certain expertise — and that New York City psychiatrist comes to Yale University. This is not some truck stop. This is not some neighborhood park where we’re all gathering to kind of air it out. So it’s a New York City psychiatrist coming to Yale University, one of the elite institutions (so we’re told) in the world — or the planet, depending on your orientation.
You have this situation where you say, “Okay. I expect this person will be expert in this subject.” And then this person says, “Yeah, racism’s a problem. I have fantasized about emptying a revolver into white people, watching them die, and then, you know, doing whatever comes next.” That’s not acceptable, and I don’t care if it’s at Yale University or if it is at a truck stop or it is at a neighborhood park.
People in that setting ought to be like, “Ew. You got a problem. I’m outta here. Not interested.” Now, if she had set it up by saying, “Let me tell you a story. Let me give you an example of some feelings,” then you can do that. But the audio has been released by Barry Weiss. The audio is out there. You can hear it. You can peruse it.
You can hear her terms. You can hear her mind-set. You can hear all of it. So if she wanted people to react and then now people react, well, that kind of goes with the business, doesn’t it? And where does this come from? This starts very early. She’s talking to college kids here, right? They’re going to half a million dollars in debt to walk around with a Yale degree, and I understand that.
But we’re talking about, where does this come from? That field has to be plowed. That field has to be fertilized. That field has to be prepared so that when you get to Yale and you hear from this psychiatrist, you’re interested in hearing what she’s saying. So where does that start? Where it starts is at the elementary-, middle-, and high-school level.
This is where critical race theory becomes a very serious conversation.
And in a matter of moments, we’re gonna dive into that conversation. Former President Barack Obama has come out, and he’s mocking your concerns over critical race theory. The fact that he’s mocking your concerns sort of tells you that you’re hittin’ pay dirt in the argument. But I’m gonna give you a very real world example from right where I’m standing of the sort of things being taught in the schools without parental consent.
BRETT: Critical race theory. Critical race theory. It seems to be talked about just about everywhere, and the critique of critical race theory has drawn the ire of former President Barack Obama. He was on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 last night. During a discussion about race in America, former President Obama said this.
OBAMA: There are certain right-wing media venues, for example, that monetize and capitalize on stoking the fear and resentment of a white population that is witnessing a changing America and seeing, eh, demographic changes and — and do everything they can to give people a sense that their way of life is threatened and that people are trying to take advantage of them.
And we’re seeing it right now, right? Where, uh, you would think, with all the public policy debates that are taking place right now, that, you know, the Republican Party would be, uh, engaged in a significant debate about, eh, how are we gonna deal with the economy and what are we gonna do about climate change and what are we gonna do about… Lo and behold, the single most important issue, uhh, to them apparently right now is critical race theory. Who knew (snickers) that was the threat to our republic?
BRETT: The fact that he’s dismissing it means he’s most frightened that this is getting focused upon. Why? Have you ever known the Democrats to deride the ideas of improving the education system, spending more money on education, doing more work inside of education? Have you ever known Democrats to run away from that? He’s telling you to go embrace what? What did he say?
Hold on. He’s telling you to go embrace the economy, climate change. Not silly education. Why would you need to embrace silly education? This is the very crux of the matter. Ladies and gentlemen, we just had a pandemic for 14 months. Schools were shut down. Randy Weingarten still won’t reopen many of the schools out there! The NEA, the AFT, the UFT, they will not reopen the schools.
My wife is a schoolteacher. My wife was in class every day of this academic year that’s about to wrap up — every day — teaching in person at the school that she was at. They had the dividers. They had all the complications that went with teaching kids in a classroom, and the kids were fine. The kids were fine and they were safe. But it’s the progressives that shut the schools down.
And I’m surprised that they did, because one of the things that was most risky for these teachers was to be teaching these classes on Zoom and on virtual platforms, because the parents had access to hearing what the lessons were. Well, now that they’ve got the kids back in school, starting to get back in the school, something very unusual is happening.
And we all know what he means when he says “certain right-wing venues.” Rush has been living rent free in Obama’s head since he wanted Obama to fail. But I want to take you to an elite school right here in Charlotte, maybe the most elite high school that there is, Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte. A reporter by the name of Brett Jensen at WBT News came upon information and ran this story down, and this is a blockbuster story.
Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte is mandating social justice curricula. None of it’s been cleared with the parents, the teachers hate it, and when the principal of the high school was asked about it, she said: We don’t give “opt-out” on social justice. “It’s a Thursday morning at Ardrey Kell High School in the Ballantyne Area of Charlotte, and a teacher walks into what has been designated as their ‘Social Justice Homeroom,’ to begin that week’s lesson and discussions on what can be an extremely sensitive, and even controversial, topic.
“For instance, the teachers that have an expertise in science, math, English, foreign language, but with little to no background in areas of social justice or race relations, are required to engage their students on topics such as coming out as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, how to become an activist or how a student is essentially inherently biased in thoughts and actions.
“These weekly lessons, many of which fall under the hot-button issue known as Critical Race Theory (CRT), are mandatory, at least at” the high school. “WBT News obtained over a dozen of the lesson plans and PowerPoint slides provided by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools,” that’s right, the school district is at the top of this, “and those created from within the school. However, each parent interviewed for this story was unaware these topics, and many others, were taught to” their children.
Many others were shocked.
“One of the touchier subjects these social justice homerooms have delved into concerns the LGBTQ+ community. So delicate are these discussions that some wonder if Ardrey Kell is violating state law by not getting written permission from parents to allow their kids to either opt-in or opt-out of discussions” the discussions of these sensitive topics.
They quote several teachers at Ardrey Kell.
“[A] teacher asked during an in-school advisory forum about whether or not parents should know the school was requiring teachers, who do not possess the necessary background to discuss topics like ‘coming out,’ to address sexual identities. Those teachers said Brooks emphatically answered ‘no,’ parents should not be told because, ‘Social justice is not something we “opt out” of.'”
By the way, they’re having some of the students create the lesson plans themselves. “What is even more troubling to teachers and the parents that … were put together by students from within the school. Parents and teachers alike say these students don’t have the wherewithal or life experiences to be the origins of difficult topics…” These are 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds. They’re writing these curricula.
How does that work? How do you feel about that as a parent being told, “It’s none of your business! Don’t worry about it. You can’t opt out of social justice.” Here’s what’s interesting. Many, many, many big city school districts, as you well know, are dealing with real challenges in terms of performance. Not being able to teach math, science, writing, English, what have you.
But why have they now pivoted over to the critical race theory approach and the Social Justice Thursday approach? Why have they done that? Is it because they have given up on the ability to bring these kids up to standards so that they’re gonna become productive members of our society, or is it something a little deeper?
Are they priming the pump for that pipeline to the colleges and universities, so these kids are just primed enough — just germinated enough — to head to college and get the next round of live indoctrination? And one does wonder, when you consider all the challenges that are facing especially big city school districts around this country ,whether or not these lesson plans are only being taught in the elite, the elite high schools, where the voters are “progressive.”
Your Upper West Side of Manhattan, Ballantyne and Charlotte, and of course in the outer areas surrounding New York City. Are they doing these same as sorts of lessons, or are they working fundamentals at the underperforming schools? These are the big challenges, but it is awfully telling based on the reporting from one Brett Jensen, that Jaime Brooks — the principal of that school — would declare a resounding “no” when it comes to getting parental consent.
The district has clearly signed off on it, and this is merely one example of what I’m sure is legion around our country. So the question for you is, “How do you feel as a parent or as an educator being compelled to have your kids exposed to this or being compelled to teach this?”