In my state of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota (at Duluth) has recently begun a new campaign. Inherently, this is nothing new, except for that it is aimed at combatting “white privilege.”

First, the required definition of “white privilege”: though it is a rather self-explanatory term, it may be summed as the natural privilege that whites have in our society. There are numerous “examples”—at least, in the minds of supporters of this. Some examples of this include being viewed merely as a person—rather a black, Hispanic, Indian, or Asian—, not having stereotypes widely used as judgments against them, or exemption from police “brutality” or “harassment.”

There was a video released from this campaign. Here is the oxymoron and delusion of the cesspool from which these opinions were plucked: it is all done in a spirit of anti-racism, yet Caucasians are not viewed merely as people. Rather, they are shown to be the unaware and numb to the struggles of the “non-whites”—perhaps in a similarity to how Marxists how the rich, in relation to proletarian struggles. Even though I dislike identifying people by their race—a completely unimportant factor—it will be necessary to use such identification in this instance.

As a student of philosophy, one thing becomes apparent after viewing this video. Apart from the previously noted qualities that whites apparently possess—although with some Progressive exceptions, one should reason—then it must also be true that the whites are the main aggressors against other races. This is rather racist, is it not? If this was a different situation and a national campaign was started in response to, say, blacks, the reaction would be completely different. The force of the confused, yet gleefully violent thugs, known as the New Black Panther Party would be put into play. The soundtrack to all of such would—of course, apart from Bob Marley—consist of the glorified conspiracy theories of Louis Farrakhan, the quasi-intellectual speeches of Jesse Jackson, and the megaphone rants of Al Sharpton. In a sense, then, it is only the whites that are racist, and that have committed innumerable acts of aggression against all others.

Perhaps the most dangerous—and deranged—part of this campaign is the assertion that “…society was set up for us ….” First, the base premise is completely invalid. In the United States, at least, there was no societal “setting up.” No matter how far one wishes to go, whether to the early colonists or the United States before the advent of the Progressive infiltration, society was never manipulated. The United States acknowledged the inherent liberties of all people, and thus left them alone. Therefore, society was “set up” by the actions of free individuals—not a grand plot, or manipulation of some shadowy group. (This was not Franco’s Spain, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or Lenin’s Russia.) Further analysis also brings to light an absurdity. If, then, there was no organized effort to “set up” a “racist” society, then there must be something naturally racist in either white people or Western culture—both ideas have been both proposed and argued for by the left.

The University of Minnesota—no matter at Duluth, Minneapolis, or its other locations—has a liberal reputation. The status of the University of Minnesota as a state school, and thus receives tax-payer funds, also complicates matters. Say, for example, that the hypothetical Marcus Garvey College—a completely private school—wished to institute a similar policy, would such be a problem? Most likely not. They are a private institution and may do as they wish.

The entire campaign to “end white privilege” is an example of a much deeper problem in politics, education, and ideas in general. In spite of an overall posture of “fairness” people are still divided up into groups. The KKK and Nazis divide the very same people up into groups, and they are vilified—with good reason. In spite of this, there is no general outcry over the actions in the name of “fairness.” Why is this the case? While a number of factors may be attributed to such, I believe that it, like so many other issues, may be traced back to education. The public school system, though there are many good teachers (and right-wingers), has been completely overtaken with Progressive ideas. Because of this, students have been exposed to concepts such as “white privilege”—many of them simply accept these.

“White privilege” is merely another example of the paradox of liberalism. Liberals decry seeing a person first by their race, yet gladly do this with whites. They claim to be “anti-war,” yet desire to turn the United States into a peace-keeper and handmaiden of the United Nations. Liberals maintain that they support individual liberties, but will violate those rights whenever convenient. In short, there is no difference between “white privilege” and something like “black privilege.” The fallacy of “white privilege” continues the great liberal paradox, and denies viewing humans as people. In this manner, I ask “What of people?” When will liberals give up their racial opinions, view race as a meaningless amount of melanin, and simply look at the people (not their race)?