Because Derrick Bell lives on in Barack Obama. Bell was Obama’s ideological mentor. Compare the following excerpts:
Bell believe that the US Constitution was a form of original sin.
At the nation’s beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction. The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all. And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery….
…The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy — that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks’ failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.
…The reason that the Civil War amendments failed to produce equality for blacks remains an all-too-familiar barrier today: effective remedies for harm attributable to discrimination in society in general will not be granted to blacks if that relief involves a significant cost to whites. Even in northern states, abolitionists’ efforts following the Revolutionary War were stymied by this unspoken principle. Today, affirmative action remedies as well as mandatory school desegregation plans founder as whites balk at bearing the cost of racial equality.
Barack Obama believes the Constitution is “deeply flawed.”
Obama in 2001:
“The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments,” he replied. “But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
“African-Americans were not — first of all they weren’t African-Americans — the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
“And in that sense,” Obama continued, “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Can there be any doubt from where Obama draws these impressions?
Derrick Bell was a highly intelligent man. It’s a shame that he spent so much time on hating and hand-wringing. In Bell’s world there was no solution than “abolishing the white race by any means necessary” as he believed “[R]acism is an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society.”
Bell was wrong pretty much on all counts. Many Framers had profound objections to slavery.
I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule [“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Matthew 7:12].
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade].
and Jefferson also had this to say:
The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
John Quincy Adams:
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves.
That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection.
That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part.
Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.
Walter Williams explains the 3/5 clause:
It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.
As for the media’s and left wing’s continual misrepresentation of the 3/5 clause, Prof. Williams nails them:
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.
Derrick Bell does matter. He tells us what is in Barack Obama’s heart.
A racist socialist named obama.
The hits keep on coming.
In 2004 Obama hailed Davis as “one of the greatest congressmen” in America.
But obama isn’t a socialist. That’s just crazy talk. (roll eyes)
More from Obama via Media Matters (via Big Journalism) :
In other words, Obama in 2008, when his allies were hiding his radical words and acts was critical of the Warren Court as NOT RADICAL ENOUGH!
Big Journalist RB adds:
One is who she or he associates with! This is a cold hard fact that has been proven time and again throughout history. As Nan G says, his words and actions speak for themselves as do his radical associations! How sad a mind dead electorate refused to do their homework when they had a chance and actually learn exactly what this guy was! Buyers remorse? Wrong! Sheer idiocy demonstrated by the electorate in general? For sure!
Obama’s radical associations are at the core of why he looks at things with “Marxist-colored glasses,” if you will. The idea of individual liberties is as foreign to Obama as Professor Bell’s racist views of white people are to anyone with a thinking, open mind.
Bell bought into the hoax that statistical differences in outcomes for different groups are due to the way other people treat those groups.
Obama is taking that false premise to the next level.
Turns out that the few thugs and bullies in public school classrooms get disciplined much more often than the GOOD STUDENTS!
But Obama is unhappy about this.
According to Obama’s basketball buddy and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, this disparity in punishment violates the “promise” of “equity.”
Just who made this promise remains unclear, and why equity should mean equal outcomes despite differences in behavior is even more unclear.
But it is true.
Black males get disciplined much more often than, say, Asian females (or even males).
Now, we will have to throw the baby out with the bathwater to please Obama.
All students will either get more punishment OR classrooms will have to put up with a few disruptive bullies and/or thugs.
And, from my long-ago experience, I know even one disruptor can ruin the learning experience for the whole class.
Times that by every public school in the country.
And, after he was elected, I actually believed Obama was going to be good for black students!
What a fool I was!
Most of the black thugs/bullies are in majority black classrooms.
Obama’s new ”right” to equality of outcome will cost many blacks whatever quality of education they had before this new nightmare came upon them.