Charlie Kirk’s fans say he wasn’t racist or misogynist, but simply wanted to preserve positions of power for deserving people. He wanted a meritocracy. Yet Kirk’s examples of “incompetent,” “moronic” people were all either Black or female, as if there were not an ample supply of incompetent white males to merit his concern.

Kirk’s supporters seem comfortably unaware, or just choose not to mention, that all of our history, prior to the 1960s , was structured by law, custom and religious belief to exclude from education, business, the professions and political office the very people that DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) sought to bring into the arena of competition for positions in these various fields. 

Prior to this, there was definitely a quota system — one that reserved 95 to 100% of the available slots for white males. Doesn’t it make more sense to try to redress the centuries of imbalance rather than belittle those so recently allowed to compete and succeed?

Robert M. Schaible
Professor Emeritus, Humanities, University of Southern Maine
Portland