Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a busy woman. When she’s not posting thirst traps on social media, she’s apparently planning a 2028 presidential run.

And she has no intention of letting anything derail her ambitions, least of all a dirty diaper.

A woman giving birth to her first child at age 42 faces the reality of attending high school graduation at age 60.

The 36-year-old’s recent decision to freeze her eggs, coming shortly after her split from ex-fiancé Riley Roberts, has only heightened speculation. Left-leaning commentators quickly hailed the move as a triumphant act of personal autonomy, a source of inspiration for career-minded women trying to balance climbing the ladder with the inconvenient realities of human biology.

But while Ocasio-Cortez has been canny about harnessing the attention her decision has generated, dismissing her Instagram announcement as an isolated stunt would be a mistake.

Across America, thousands of young women are making the exact same play, putting motherhood on ice to prioritize graduate credentials and promotions.

On ice

Now, a man — and a “privileged” white man in particular — critiquing women’s reproductive choices inevitably invites comparisons to a hyper-liberal female columnist lecturing men on the finer points of masculinity. But there is a crucial difference. While woke gender commentary relies entirely on ideological grievance, hard biological and demographic data back up every single one of the following points.

A single egg-retrieval cycle costs anywhere between $12,000 and $20,000, with annual cryogenic storage fees adding another $1,000 or more just to keep the deep freeze running. Add in injectable hormone regimens that rack up thousands more per round, and the invoice quickly resembles a down payment on a house.

The financial gamble becomes outright predatory when weighed against the clinical evidence.

Eggs retrieved after age 35 have live-birth rates below 20% per batch. Recent studies show that 94% of women who freeze their eggs never even end up using them. In other words, many women put having a child on a mental to-do list right below traveling the world, making partner, or running for office, assuming medical technology will hold the door open indefinitely. They treat cryogenic storage as a biological safety net, paying thousands in annual storage fees for an insurance policy they will likely abandon. By the time they realize the safety net is largely psychological, the biological window has closed, leaving them with an empty nursery, a mountain of storage receipts, and a harsh lesson in the limits of corporate empowerment.

Time’s up

Human biology runs on a clock, and no amount of liquid nitrogen can stop it. The medical risks associated with late-in-life pregnancies expand rapidly with every passing year. The probability of chromosomal abnormalities, including Down syndrome, rises from 1 in 1,250 for a mother at age 25 to 1 in 100 by age 40, spiking to 1 in 30 by age 45. Modern obstetrics performs modern-day miracles, but older pregnancies still carry significantly elevated rates of preeclampsia and premature deliveries.

The physiological tax continues long after leaving the delivery room. For parents entering their 50s, keeping up with energetic ankle-biters can be a torturous affair. A woman giving birth to her first child at age 42 faces the reality of attending high school graduation at age 60, rapidly approaching retirement age while simultaneously taking on university tuition bills. The prospect of ever seeing a grandchild reach adulthood becomes a statistical long shot.

National demographic stability relies on baseline replacement fertility. Specifically, it requires an average of 2.1 births per woman to maintain a functional society. In 2025, the total fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low of 1.62 births per woman. By 2034, it is expected to fall to 1.6.

Normalizing the deferral of motherhood into a woman’s late 30s drives birth rates off a demographic cliff. Converting childbearing from a foundational milestone of young adulthood into an afterthought for middle-aged professionals is a slow-motion recipe for economic and cultural suicide.

RELATED: Allie Beth Stuckey responds to AOC blaming ‘hysteria’ for women having kids young

Blaze News

Double burden

For those wondering how we got here, one needn’t have an advanced degree in sociology to connect the dots. Modern feminism dismisses family life as little more than a foolish career setback. It sells women the lie that a cubicle, a stronger CV, and a performance review are inherently more fulfilling than creating a family. This same careless disregard extends to the political ideology that drove it.

During a recent interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Ocasio-Cortez said, “Woke 1 was crazy,” punctuating the remark with a dismissive chuckle. She may find that era of radical activism amusing in retrospect, but the consequences were anything but funny. Innocent people lost their lives due to defunded police forces. Livelihoods vanished. Reputations were ruined. Social trust was completely incinerated. Yet now that the political winds have shifted, she stands atop the wreckage and simply laughs it off.

Just as that ideological crusade upended social norms, the cultural elevation of cryopreservation now seeks to upend basic human biology. When childbearing is delayed by 15 years, the generational bridge that historically sustained extended families begins to crumble. Grandparents who would otherwise provide vital child care and daily support in their 50s and 60s are instead in their 80s, requiring intensive care themselves just as their adult children are attempting to navigate the demands of newborn parenting.

This dynamic transforms what was once a natural, thriving family support network into a brutal double burden. Exhausted middle-aged parents in the “sandwich generation” are left caught between aging elders who need care and young children who also need care.

So for those who applaud Ocasio-Cortez, it’s worth asking what happens to America if more young women follow her lead. The uncomfortable reality is that many already are. She may yet become a mother in her 40s, but there is no guarantee she will — and many of the women now freezing their eggs may never become mothers either.

​Alexandria ocasio-cortez, Aoc, Childbearing, Cryopreservation, Culture, Egg freezing, Family life, Fertility, Men and woman, Replacement fertility, Woke, Lifestyle, Men and women 

You would think that growing up under an abusive, personality-disordered mother would immunize a writer like me from shock at women’s bad behavior. That’s what I always thought at least.

Then I witnessed the extraordinary outpouring of female sympathy for Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three children in 2023.

Some Clancy girls now claim Lindsay’s poor husband, Patrick, actually killed the kids and framed her. How do they know this? Astrology of course.

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, is now on trial for murder. Her children were Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months old.

There is no dispute about who killed them. Clancy’s defense admits she strangled all three children with exercise bands in the basement of the family’s home while her husband, Patrick, was out picking up medicine and takeout. The question for the jury is whether she was criminally responsible when she did it.

Her lawyers say she wasn’t. They argue that Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder and that psychiatric medications worsened her condition. Prosecutors say she deliberately arranged to get her husband out of the house and knew exactly what she was doing.

Clancy girls

I don’t know what the jury will decide. What I do know is what thousands of women have decided already.

Across social media, a group of women I’ll call “Clancy girls” have turned Lindsay Clancy into an object of identification and affection. They see her as a poor, unsupported, overwhelmed mother who begged for help and was failed by everyone.

Does this shock you? I hope it does. It is real, and it is deadly serious.

We have a dire, immediate, society-wide problem of women identifying with evil, sympathizing with evil, and financially supporting evil.

It should be socially unthinkable for anyone, let alone thousands of women, to openly weep for a woman who killed her three children by strangling them with exercise bands. Even 20 years ago, this moral derangement would have made a woman a pariah if she dared to speak it out loud.

Not anymore. In fact, the Clancy girls are going out of their way to exonerate this modern Medea.

‘Wonderful mom’

Take the Musgrove Family Fund. It has raised almost a million dollars for Clancy’s parents, Mike and Paula Musgrove, who have relocated from Connecticut to Massachusetts and incurred substantial expenses while remaining close to their daughter throughout the criminal proceedings. The organizers are careful to say that donating does not require taking Lindsay’s side: “Nothing about this fund asks anyone to share their view of Lindsay or the criminal case.”

Yet judging from the comments, many of the female donors are more than happy to offer Lindsay absolution:

Strong support and hugs for Lindsay and her supportive parents. My sister was also an RN when she went through PPD+PPS. It was so hard to watch her go through it.

We stand beside and behind you Lindsay and family. I struggled with PPD and PPA and many times it felt like I was asking for help, reaching up only to grab air. I am sending lots of love and virtual hugs.

I know it feels like it now, but you’re not alone Lindsay. Your emotion and love for your babies is felt through the screen. From one mom who’s been through psychosis to another — I just want to wrap my arms around you and shower you with love and support. You ARE a wonderful mom. It wasn’t you that day. It may have been your body, but it certainly wasn’t your mind or thoughts. — from a Kentucky mom

Love and “virtual hugs” for this “wonderful mom.” Personal emotional identification with a woman who committed a crime so depraved it forms one of the darkest psychological archetypes in Western mythology.

In the stars

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe Lindsay Clancy had a psychotic break. I don’t believe she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. I don’t believe that “too many psychiatric drugs” caused her to hallucinate and lose her mind. It’s hard to see how that’s possible when the evidence shows Clancy didn’t even take the recommended dosage of the drugs, or took them for a few days and stopped after that.

I believe Clancy shows the signs of narcissistic personality disorder and that she’s lying about having hallucinations to cover up the fact that she wanted her children dead because they interfered with the lifestyle and attention she believed she was entitled to. I think she killed them because their existence on earth meant that everything couldn’t be about Lindsay all the time.

It gets worse. Some Clancy girls now claim Lindsay’s poor husband, Patrick, actually killed the kids and framed her. How do they know this? Astrology of course.

Whatever the truth may be, it doesn’t ameliorate the shocking, reflexive sympathy countless women are displaying. Instead of being stunned by a diabolical, almost unthinkable murder, women across social media (and in hair salons, according to reports from my friends overhearing chitchat) see the mother who killed her children as the real victim.

This is moral depravity at a scale nigh unbelievable.

RELATED: ‘Carrie’ and the monster who raised me

Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

The patriarchy did it

No one would make these excuses for a male family annihilator, which is what Lindsay Clancy is. Almost no one popped up to defend Chris Watts. No one wanted to “start a conversation about the pressure fathers are under” to deflect from the fact that he murdered his family.

No one makes mental health excuses for men who exterminate their children. It’s only women who get this sympathy.

Why?

Since the 1960s, Americans have been under a delusional spell called “feminism.” This magical spell managed to convince an entire country that women in the richest country in the world were unbearably oppressed. All of a sudden, all traditions were overturned. Motherhood became a burden. Children became a ball and chain forced on women by patriarchal men.

Feminism took over everyone’s mind, left, right, and center. Men and women. It has long been accepted as fact that women were always and ever subjugated by men. That having children was a prison sentence imposed on women. That being married and raising a family deprived women of making their mark in the world.

Feminism is a lie, and it is a tool of the narcissistic, resentful mind. It has pitted women against men and against their own children. It has convinced millions of women in the freest and most wealthy country in world history that they are “unsupported” and “exploited.”

Shock and despair

It would be hysterically funny if the consequences weren’t so egregious.

But they are. Lindsay Clancy stands a decent chance of being let off under the insanity plea because we refuse to acknowledge a fundamental aspect of human nature that everyone knew until the mid-20th century: Women have the capacity to do evil.

I put my abusive, narcissistic, psychopathic mother out of my life permanently 10 years ago. That’s long enough to be over the initial shock and despair of discovering that the one person I was supposed to be able to trust tried to destroy me. It doesn’t keep me awake nights any longer.

But I’m sleepless this week after discovering a new horror: If my mother had succeeded in killing me, my sister, or my brother, our names would be forgotten. Our mother would be seen as a tragic victim, a single mother “failed” by everyone.

At least she’d get hugs.

​Crime, Lindsay clancy, Filicide, Culture, Postpartum depression, First person, Motherhood, Feminism, Intervention 

Barack Obama once delivered the line Republicans never let him forget: “You didn’t build that.”

Today, the Democratic Party could say something similar to him. Barack Obama didn’t build Barack Obama alone.

The transformation Obama promised in 2008 is still under way, and he is content to let others finish it.

The talent, intelligence, and ambition were his. But the stage belonged to the Democratic Party. Its donors supplied the money, its convention supplied the audience, and its voters supplied the office that transformed a little-known Illinois politician into a global figure.

Now the institution that helped build Obama is struggling to decide what it believes.

Obama turned 65 this month. He is four years younger than Donald Trump was when Trump descended the escalator and began remaking the Republican Party.

Whatever one thinks of Trump, the Republican Party did not build him. He arrived with his own fortune, celebrity, audience, and brand, then captured the party despite the resistance of much of its establishment.

Obama’s path was nearly the reverse. In 2000, he couldn’t even obtain a floor credential at the Democratic National Convention. Four years later, Democrats put him behind the convention lectern. Four years after that, he was their nominee for president.

The Democratic Party didn’t merely nominate Barack Obama. It introduced him to America.

For more than a decade, opposition to Trump supplied Democrats with something resembling a governing philosophy. Rage generated money, turnout, and unity.

But rage is fuel, not a destination. And Democrats are discovering that when Trump is removed from the sentence, they have difficulty completing it.

The party’s ascendant left has now captured Michigan’s Democratic Senate nomination through Abdul El-Sayed, backed by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Hasan Piker. After El-Sayed’s victory, Obama called him for what the candidate described as a “really warm” conversation.

RELATED: El-Sayed aide says Rogers ad with vintage truck and US flags is like a ‘KKK cross burning’

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

That call raises a question Obama has so far avoided: Does the party’s left represent an unruly faction, or is it becoming the party’s center of gravity?

Democrats talk endlessly about the virtues of a big tent. But a big tent without a center pole is just a tarp.

Obama remains the one Democrat with enough stature to supply that center.

He has not disappeared. He endorses candidates, gives speeches, and meets privately with lawmakers. Those appearances may help individual candidates. They do not provide direction for a party that increasingly seems unsure where it wants to go.

Obama once possessed the power to name a destination. “Hope and change” invited millions of Americans to imagine a country beyond the politics they knew.

Where is he asking his party to go now?

He could tell Democrats what liberalism must preserve, what progressivism must not replace, and what conduct the party will not tolerate.

Unless, of course, the ascendant left is the destination.

What are Democrats for when they are not against Donald Trump?

Endorsing candidates spends celebrity. Leadership spends political capital.

Democrats describe Trump as an existential threat who may destroy American democracy. Yet Obama confines himself largely to endorsements, private conversations, and measured speeches.

Either the danger is as grave as Democrats insist, in which case Obama’s restraint is difficult to defend, or the rhetoric is exaggerated, in which case his restraint helps expose it.

And if the party’s left threatens traditional liberalism, why won’t he confront it? If it represents the party’s future, why won’t he say so?

His warm reception of El-Sayed suggests a third possibility: The transformation Obama promised in 2008 is still under way, and he is content to let others finish it.

RELATED: Woke 2.0 is coming … and it will be worse

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

Perhaps Obama believes his duty is done. Perhaps the party has moved somewhere he does not wish to follow. Perhaps he wants influence without ownership of the consequences.

Or perhaps the Democratic Party was always more useful to Barack Obama than Barack Obama intended to remain useful to the Democratic Party.

He once reminded successful Americans that they had benefited from institutions they did not create.

He was right about at least one American.

The Democratic Party helped build Barack Obama. Now the Democratic Party needs rebuilding.

Kennedy pointed to the moon. Reagan pointed to a certain wall he wanted torn down. Trump descended an escalator pointing toward a wall he wanted built.

Where is Barack Obama pointing the Democratic Party?

​Barack obama, Bernie sanders, Democratic party, Donald trump, Hasan piker, Republican party, Progressivism, Abdul el-sayed, 2026 midterms, Opinion & analysis 

The battle for censorship online has been raging on social media for more than a decade.

Netizens have clamored for unfettered free speech, while their detractors say that some things are better left not said. Somewhere in the middle, though, exists a new app that is going viral for one line: “Jesus is watching you!”

‘Half of the songs nowadays have no clean version.’

A post seen by more than 1 million people on X alluded to a Big Brother-style app that monitors the listening habits of music lovers. However, one chat with the app’s founder is likely to put that idea to bed.

The app is called Verso, and while on its face it is indeed an app designed to help censor music, the application’s stated intent is to fill in the gap of parental control settings on streaming services by acting as an intentional filter between the service and the listener.

Citing that around 92% of today’s top streaming songs are explicit, Verso says it wants to put parents and families in control of what they hear.

Co-founder Jonathan Bernal told Blaze News directly that he left his former job with the Google Gemini AI team because he wanted to use his skills to develop technology that supports the family unit, unlike most tech out there.

“Kids hear everything,” Verso says in its video. Bernal backs that up.

“Half a billion families are listening to music, and half of the songs nowadays have no clean version,” he said. “Parents are constantly reaching for the mute or skip button.”

In order ensure a listening experience in which parents don’t have to worry about blasting out adult content, the app syncs with music streaming services and filters out profanity or certain themes entirely. The system is akin to a time when content moderation on television could be trusted.

RELATED: Tracking device exposes Amazon’s secret plans for rare books

To avoid a one-size-fits-all application, Bernal said it was important for the app to be able to make any song instantly “customizable.”

“You can make it family-friendly; you can make any song align with your values,” Bernal said.

This comes through the settings, where users can filter out sexual innuendo, profanity, sacrilegious messages, or anything they consider to be unpalatable. All of those options can be applied globally, but the fun part comes in the individual settings.

Any song specifically can be changed, and users are free to customize how the music gets censored. Bernal noted how many videos have gone viral of parents on TikTok using duck sounds for when their kids are in the car.

RELATED: Wi-Fi. Microwaves. Electromagnetism. It’s all connected — and so is the damage.

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto/Getty Images

For clarification, the entrepreneur said yes, the viral image of the app asking users to repent is real.

Bernal said he is a Christian man and hopes to continue the app’s success so he can help promote the family unit.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Censorship, Streaming, Tech 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle evidently weren’t cut out for the land of the free. After braving a few years of luxury in Los Angeles, they’re now planning to pull up stakes and retreat to Britain.

Royal flush

After British taxpayers were squeezed for roughly $3 million to refurbish the couple’s 18th-century home on the grounds of Windsor Castle estate, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced in January 2020 their decision to “carve out a progressive new role within this institution” and “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family.”

‘I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back.’

They dawdled around Canada for a time, then moved to the United States in 2020 to purportedly pursue a “more peaceful,” private life free of royal duties.

In February 2021, Buckingham Palace announced that Queen Elizabeth had informed the duke and duchess that:

in stepping away from the work of the Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by the Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of the Royal Family.

Liberated from the responsibilities and honors bequeathed to the prince by his forefathers, the duo has spent recent years chasing the limelight.

The DEI duchess — who upon settling in California suggested on multiple occasions that Britain is racist and that she and Prince Harry left because of supposed bigotry in the House of Windsor — has not, however, enjoyed the kind of media success for which she apparently pined.

RELATED: INGRATE BRITAIN: ‘Good Place’ star Jameela Jamil calls fellow Brits ‘evil,’ likens them to Marvel villain

Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images

Netflix announced in July 2021 that Markle’s animated feminist series “Pearl” was going into production. The project was flushed the following summer.

‘F**king grifters.’

While the couple’s 2024 Netflix docuseries “Polo” — dubbed an “unintentional comedy” by the Guardian — actually made it to air, it was a total flop.

Earlier this year, Netflix divested from Markle’s lifestyle brand As Ever and decided not to renew her cooking show “With Love, Meghan.”

The couple had a lucrative deal with Spotify valued at roughly $20 million, but that collapsed in 2023 after the duke and duchess failed to produce more than one series and a holiday special. At the time, a Spotify executive branded them “f**king grifters.”

The couple’s latest flop, a documentary called “Cookie Queens” that they executive-produced, had made less than $600,000 as of Aug. 18, according to reported box-office figures.

Retreat

The couple has decided to move back to Britain sometime this month, according to an exclusive report from the Telegraph.

King Charles was reportedly informed of the couple’s decision on Sunday.

Their children, 7-year-old Prince Archie and 5-year-old Princess Lilibet, have been enrolled to start school in the U.K., a part of the world that Prince Harry once complained “has been created by white people for white people.”

The Telegraph noted that the couple plans to keep their homes in Montecito, California, and Portugal, and that Markle will run her lifestyle brand from the United Kingdom.

When asked about what motivated the return, a source close to the couple told CNN only that they enjoyed their family visit to Britain in July.

On the question of security for the duke and duchess, a Home Office spokesman told the Guardian, “The U.K. government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate,” adding that “it is our longstanding policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said, “We wish them well in the move that they’re making.”

The royals’ decision to return comes one year after Prince Harry stated that despite missing his homeland, “I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the U.K. at this point.”

Blaze News did not immediately receive comment from Buckingham Palace or the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Meghan markle, Prince harry, Duke of sussex, Royal family, House of windsor, Britain, Netflix, Politics 

A Wisconsin man allegedly stabbed his father in the neck after asking him for a hug, then chased him when he tried to flee, police said.

The Racine Police Department said in a statement that officers responded to a report of a stabbing at a residence around 1 a.m. on Aug. 12.

‘As they went to hug, Joseph quickly presented a knife and stabbed [the victim] in the neck.’

Citing the arrest affidavit, Law&Crime reported that officers found a man with a stab wound who was “covered in blood and holding pressure on his neck.”

The man told police that his son, Joseph Michael Niemiec, stabbed him and then fled.

The father claimed to officers that he heard a noise coming from the back door, which he believed could be an intruder, but realized it was his son.

According to the arrest affidavit, Niemiec asked his father if they could talk because he was having a “rough go at life” and had attempted suicide several times and didn’t know what to do.

Police said Niemiec stepped away to use the bathroom, and when he came back, he asked his dad for a hug.

“As they went to hug, Joseph quickly presented a knife and stabbed [the victim] in the neck,” the affidavit said, according to Law&Crime.

The father said he “felt a punch to his throat and immediately placed his hand over it as he stumbled backwards.”

Law&Crime reported, “Niemiec allegedly came at his dad a second time, but the victim disarmed him and pushed him away. The victim ran away with his son in pursuit, cops said.”

According to the outlet, the father ran to a neighbor’s house, where he called 911.

Meanwhile, his son allegedly fled in a Chevrolet Malibu.

RELATED: Fatally stabbed elderly man found with his heart cut out; victim’s daughter charged with murder

Approximately 10 hours after the alleged stabbing, troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol spotted the Chevrolet Malibu on Interstate 80, roughly 650 miles from the crime scene.

Niemiec was arrested and hit with a charge of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, WITI-TV reported.

Jail records show that Niemiec was booked into the Hall County Jail, where he was being held pending extradition proceedings.

WITI added that the extradition hearing is scheduled for Sept. 15 in Nebraska.

Niemiec appears to be smirking in his mug shot.

The Racine Police Department said the father was treated at Froedtert Hospital and is expected to make a full recovery.

Tracy Kiesler, a neighbor, told WITI: “Oh my gosh, this is right down the road. What the heck is going on? So close to home, it makes you wonder what was going on that someone would do that.”

Kiesler added that the suspect only being 18 years old is “sad and scary.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Nebraska, Wisconsin, Stabbing, Crime 

There is something almost touching about the astonishment with which American universities are discovering that racial discrimination is illegal.

The Justice Department announced Monday that it is investigating the College of William & Mary over scholarships and student benefits that allegedly discriminate according to race. The Civil Rights Division says it is examining whether those programs violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination by recipients of federal funding.

Universities spent years teaching America that racial discrimination could cure racial discrimination. They may now receive an expensive lesson in return.

One might have supposed that this was not a particularly difficult statute for universities to understand. These are, after all, institutions populated by people who pride themselves on detecting racism in places where ordinary mortals see friendship and community.

And yet when discrimination appears in their own programs, their racial acuity suddenly fails them. Universities have spent years building programs around concepts such as “whiteness,” “decolonizing,” privilege, and equity. The problem is not that administrators forgot the Civil Rights Act. It is that many convinced themselves they had discovered a morally superior exception to its basic rule.

The old civil-rights principle was admirably simple: Do not discriminate on the basis of race.

The newer DEI principle often works differently: Unequal treatment may be justified if it is meant to correct an earlier inequality.

The distinction is the whole game.

Under the older understanding, the injustice consisted in treating an individual differently because of his race. If a university told an applicant, “You cannot have this opportunity because you are black,” we knew what to call it. If it told another applicant, “You cannot have this opportunity because you are white,” we also knew what to call it.

The genius of DEI was to make the second sentence sound morally different from the first.

This required an impressive amount of academic labor. Entire vocabularies were constructed to explain why unequal treatment could become virtuous when practiced by the right institutions, against the right groups, for the right reasons. We learned about privilege, power, positionality, systemic racism, dominant identities, marginalized identities, intersectionality, and the rest of the lexicon.

RELATED: Trump’s Justice Department is shining a light on woke universities — finally

Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

The result was an ethical system of remarkable convenience. It condemned racial discrimination while supplying a vocabulary for practicing it.

The trick was accomplished by shifting the unit of moral judgment from the individual to the group.

Once people are sorted into historical categories of oppressor and oppressed, equal treatment begins to look suspicious. If Group A has enjoyed advantages and Group B has suffered disadvantages, treating individual members of A and B according to the same rules can be recast as perpetuating injustice. “Equity” then becomes a justification for unequal treatment today in the name of unequal treatment yesterday.

There is only one troublesome detail: The person standing before you today is an individual human being, not an installment payment on a historical debt.

A white 18-year-old applying for a scholarship did not write the Jim Crow laws. An Asian student applying to medical school did not build the transcontinental railroad with exploited labor. A black student is not the personal embodiment of several centuries of American suffering.

The civil rights tradition understood this. That is why the law speaks in the language of persons rather than assigning inherited moral credits and debits to racial castes.

The DEI worldview has spent years trying to reverse that achievement.

And now comes the awkward part.

The law is still there.

The Civil Rights Act does not contain an asterisk reading, “Discrimination permitted when performed in the service of social justice.” Title VI does not say recipients of federal money may discriminate according to race provided that a diversity consultant has explained why it is virtuous.

Last year, the Justice Department expressly warned recipients of federal funding that antidiscrimination laws apply regardless of whether discriminatory practices are packaged under the label of DEI. Now William & Mary is discovering what that warning means.

Nor is William & Mary alone. The Justice Department has been examining race-conscious practices across higher education. My own university, Arizona State, is under investigation. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions should already have alerted universities that the legal ground beneath racial preferences had shifted dramatically.

But something deeper than law is involved here. Universities are supposed to teach students how to reason. So let us try an elementary syllogism.

Racial discrimination is wrong. Denying someone a benefit because of his race is racial discrimination. Therefore, denying someone a benefit because of his race is wrong.

You don’t need a doctorate in critical theory to follow the argument. Indeed, a doctorate in critical theory may be an impediment.

RELATED: Warning: This college course may be bad for your brain

Andi Purnomo/Getty Images

The great moral achievement of the civil rights movement was not to rearrange the racial hierarchy so different people could enjoy their turn at discrimination. It was to attack the hierarchy itself. The principle was equality before the law — not equality before the law except when our preferred theory of historical oppression recommends otherwise.

There is a useful lesson here for universities accustomed to believing that noble intentions confer immunity from ordinary moral rules.

They do not.

You may call discrimination “equity.” You may put it in a strategic plan. You may hire a vice president to administer it. You may surround it with the soothing language of “belonging” and “inclusion.” You may even persuade yourself that treating students differently according to ancestry is the latest advance in American civil rights.

But eventually somebody will ask the embarrassingly primitive question: Did you treat this person differently because of his race?

If the answer is yes, all the fashionable vocabulary in the world cannot make the question go away.

Universities spent years teaching America that racial discrimination could cure racial discrimination. They may now receive an expensive lesson in return.

The Civil Rights Act never learned DEI.

And the next shoe may be even more expensive: lawsuits from students who say they were denied scholarships, admissions advantages, or other benefits because of race. Once universities concede that race determined access to an opportunity, the legal question becomes much harder to explain away with the language of equity.

​American universities, Critical theory, Federal funding, Justice department, Racial discrimination, Social justice, Racial preferences, Dei, Civil rights act, Arizona state university, Opinion & analysis 

I don’t recall when I applied to become a checker at a grocery store. In fact, I’m fairly certain I am a writer by trade and have never worked in a grocery store, honorable work though it may be.

And yet it seems most stores I wander into to make a purchase have enlisted me to check out my groceries.

Well, I QUIT this unsought job I’ve been shanghaied into.

The self-checkout machine has been around longer than you might think.

I had that thought once again recently, standing beneath the cold fluorescent lights of a large American retailer, attempting to make my purchase — avocados, paper towels, toothpaste, and a package of hamburger — from a machine that clearly regarded me as a criminal. It beeped red and sounded an alert as if a thief were attempting to steal the Mona Lisa. After what seemed like an eternity, a bored, obese woman with four-inch nails ambled over to look me up and down and punch numbers into the screen.

No, I thought. Your look of annoyance notwithstanding, no — I’m not a grocery store checker, and I have no clue how your machine works.

Last year, the day before Thanksgiving, I found myself in an unsurprisingly packed grocery store with only one lane open. I guessed the implication was that everyone with full carts needed to scan them themselves. I watched the cattle plod their way to automated slaughter. How long can we continue this way and remain Americans?

The machines never work. There’s a never-ending requirement for some person to come unlock them (because you didn’t scan the Coke correctly). Half the time, they don’t even provide bags to put your food in. Never mind if you make the mistake of trying to buy fruits or vegetables; you have to scroll through screens to find what you want to buy. Guess what: those organic apples? I’m scanning them as regular old Galas. Oh, is that not right? Maybe you should have someone working here then.

When did we decide that companies could just jettison their workforce and have their customers fill in the slack? Are we going to start waiting and bussing our own tables? Well, there’s actually an entire genre of “restaurants” doing just that. Maybe we can save money by performing our own surgeries? Actually, let’s not give them any ideas.

The rot runs deep

The self-checkout machine has been around longer than you might think. One of the earliest recognizable systems appeared in a Kroger outside Atlanta in 1986. The idea was simple enough. Barcode technology had already transformed the supermarket. If a machine could read the barcode, why did an employee have to hold the box of Cheerios over the scanner?

For retailers, the appeal was obvious. Of course, they never asked customers how they felt about this.

Grocery stores are enormous businesses built on small margins. Labor is expensive, and checkout labor is particularly irritating from a management perspective because demand comes in waves. A store might need a small army of cashiers at 5:30 on a Friday afternoon and only a handful two hours later. Hire enough people for the rush, and you are paying workers to stand around during slow periods. Staff for the slow periods, and customers abandon carts when the lines stretch halfway down the cereal aisle.

RELATED: A huge pagan statue just went up in Texas. Is this the Western civilization we should be cheering?

Darko Mlinarevic/Getty Images

Here’s the thing: That’s a faceless corporation’s problem. I want to avoid becoming a team member at Kroger just to buy my groceries. A normal checkout lane required a human being. Eight lanes required eight human beings. Human beings are expensive and troublesome creatures. They need wages. They take lunch. They get sick. They quit. Some even expect health insurance. So, as with almost every bit of technology in our lives, it made our lives worse by outsourcing it to ourselves. All those low-level jobs, I’m guessing, were very important to those employees sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.

The human element

There was another function, harder to place on a corporate spreadsheet.

The cashier was a person.

For most people, that hardly mattered. The interaction might consist of nothing more than “How are you?” and “Have a good one.” But those tiny exchanges accumulated into something that once characterized ordinary American life. The butcher knew what cut you liked. The bartender remembered your drink. The hardware-store clerk knew which screw you needed. The grocery cashier asked about your kids.

Commerce involved people because life involved people.

The self-checkout machine represents a different vision. It is efficient, anonymous, and frictionless when everything works. The ideal transaction requires no conversation at all. Enter the store, locate the product, scan it, tap the screen, and leave. God forbid you have to talk to another human being. For years now, chains have known that error rates are high, shoplifting is up, and popularity is in the tank. Apparently, companies are considering scaling them back. Schadenfreude, I say. But will they ever go away? Or will the America we love disappear first?

Consider this, then, my two weeks’ notice. I refuse to scan my own products any more. From now on, even if it means I have to harass a manager to open a lane, I’m deciding to check out of doing unpaid labor. I choose the humans over the machines.

​Tech, Lifestyle 

I wanted a reckoning. I did not want Jason Arday dead.

Three days before he was found dead at his London home last week, I published a column entertaining what I admitted was a mischievous theory: Maybe the disgraced Cambridge professor was not merely a fraud but a world-class trickster who understood liberal institutions well enough to play their racial and ideological anxieties for all they were worth.

Maybe the cruelty was not that somebody finally checked. Maybe the cruelty was that almost nobody checked sooner.

I hoped someday he would confess. I even had the title of the book I wanted him to write: “I Thought You’d Believe Me.”

I wanted that book. I did not want an obituary.

Graeme Wood, writing this week in the Atlantic, makes a persuasive case that my trickster theory was a tad too generous. Arday apparently did not respond to exposure with the wink of a con man finally caught. He insisted he was not a liar. Wood reaches for Henrik Ibsen’s “The Wild Duck” and its livsløgn — the “life-lie,” a sustaining self-delusion that eventually becomes impossible to let go.

Maybe that’s closer to what happened. We’ll likely never know.

What we do know is that Arday lied. A lot. His public biography accumulated claims about academic appointments, fundraising, extraordinary athletic feats, and racist attacks that proved false, dubious, or impossible to verify. His scholarship contained extensive passages alleged to have been lifted from the work of less prominent academics. Cambridge ultimately opened investigations into his academic work and qualifications and, after his resignation, agreed to an independent inquiry into his appointment.

Enough of these lies!

That includes the lie now being told about the people who exposed them.

The fraud Ibram X. Kendi titled his response “The Media Lynched Jason Arday.” He says journalists have blood on their hands and treats Cambridge’s decision to investigate Arday as an abandonment of a prominent black scholar under racial attack. Wrong.

A lynching is not a metaphor for journalism you dislike. Reporting true and newsworthy facts does not become murder because the subject later dies.

What, exactly, should reporters have refused to investigate? The dissertation? The nonexistent appointments? The millions supposedly raised for charity? The 30 marathons in 35 days? The stories of racist attacks? The memoir?

RELATED: 5-star reviews for a fabulist memoir

Denise Baker/Getty Images

Precisely which question was forbidden?

Thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square on Monday to mourn Arday. The grief was real. So was the anger at the press and at Nathan Cofnas, the academic whose investigation of Arday’s work helped start the avalanche. Cofnas has controversial views about race. So what? If he found copied work, the relevant question is whether the work was copied. His politics cannot restore originality to somebody else’s prose.

This is how the evasion works: Stop talking about the evidence and start talking about the man who found it.

Now comes the possibility of “Arday’s Law.” A petition circulating in Britain actually proposes legislation limiting how many articles may be published about one individual within a given period, on the theory that excessive coverage causes mental anguish. It had garnered more than 3,500 verified signatures as of Wednesday.

The answer to too much journalism, apparently, is a government quota on journalism.

I sometimes fear Britain is lost. Thank God for the First Amendment!

This idea did not appear from nowhere. We have spent years teaching people that speech itself can constitute harm and that institutions therefore have a duty to build ever-safer spaces around anyone who might be harmed by it.

But no space is ever safe enough.

Once speech becomes violence, censorship becomes “care.” Eventually, as we’ve seen, the safe-space logic escapes the campus. A reporter asks too many questions. Too many newspapers publish the answers. Somebody suffers. Therefore, the state must decide when everybody has said enough. No thanks.

RELATED: No, the founders did not ‘tell you so’

Guy Smallman/Getty Images

That is not “liberalism.” Liberalism properly understood demands something harder: accepting that free speech can be intrusive, offensive, unfair, and occasionally cruel while recognizing that giving government power to decide when enough has been said is much worse.

If we want to talk about who failed Jason Arday, look first at the institutions that elevated him.

Graeme Wood’s harshest argument is also his most compelling. Arday was placed in a position for which the evidence increasingly suggests he was nowhere near prepared, while colleagues and institutions such as Cambridge, the BBC, and Simon and Schuster amplified an extraordinary biography instead of bothering to check it. Eventually somebody was going to notice.

Maybe the cruelty was not that somebody finally checked. Maybe the cruelty was that almost nobody checked sooner.

After I learned that Arday had been found dead, I wrote one of my writers: Hubris met Nemesis. And the outcome was invariably the same.

That does not mean Arday got what he deserved. Quite the opposite. Nemesis in tragedy is not proportional justice. It is catastrophe. Recognition comes too late, the machinery is already moving, and the ending is worse than anyone wanted.

Arday’s family and friends deserve compassion. His kids especially. They lost someone they loved.

But compassion does not require one more lie.

Death does not authenticate a false claim. It does not make plagiarism original. And if Arday took his own life, suicide does not retroactively turn reporters into murderers.

The tragedy is terrible enough. Don’t lie about that, too.

​Antiracism, Free speech, Ibram x kendi, Jason arday, Opinion & analysis, Racism, Plagiarism, Media, Truth, Cambridge university, Fraud 

Two years ago, high school freshman Colt Gray shot up Apalachee High School in Georgia, killing two teachers and two students and wounding nine others. School resource officers quickly ended the rampage, and Gray was taken into custody before the death toll climbed higher. His father, Colin Gray, who bought him the gun, was later convicted of manslaughter and second-degree murder.

Colin Gray’s prosecution drew much of the attention because it was a rare case of a parent being held criminally responsible for a child’s violence. But Colt Gray’s own punishment deserves attention too: life imprisonment without parole.

Healing is harder when justice is denied.

Gray’s age, troubled home life, and prior experience of being bullied could have been invoked as reasons for leniency. Instead, the judge concluded that his crime and his motives justified the harshest sentence available for a juvenile offender.

That’s significant because justice is not merely a tool for rehabilitation or deterrence. It also concerns what is owed to victims and to the community after an irreparable wrong.

Gray murdered four innocent people without anything resembling a justification. I would have no moral objection to the death penalty in a case like this. Because he committed the murders as a minor, however, life without parole is the most severe punishment available.

Even that cannot restore what was taken. As the older brother of one victim put it: “The defendant’s family will still get to see their son, talk to him, and know he is breathing. … My mother (and) my father don’t get that privilege. The only way to visit Christian now is by standing over his grave.”

Aristotle defined justice in terms of giving each person what he is properly owed. Whatever one makes of that formulation, it captures something modern criminal-justice debates often neglect: Punishment is not only about what might improve the offender. It is also about recognizing the gravity of the offense.

A sentence cannot bring the dead back. But a legal system that treats grave crimes with proportionate seriousness tells victims, families, and the broader community that what happened to them was not trivial and will not be waved away.

RELATED: ‘Why do we have an FBI?’ Georgia school shooter was on FBI’s radar months before attack

Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Justice should also force us to confront the nature of the crime. As I wrote at the time, Gray displayed warning signs before he ever brought a gun to school. The lesson is not that every troubled teenager should be treated as a future murderer. It is that threats, fixation on mass killers, access to weapons, and other concrete warning signs should be taken seriously before tragedy makes hindsight easy.

The strongest objection to a sentence like this is that even terrible offenders, especially young ones, may be capable of change. That is a serious argument. But mercy and rehabilitation do not erase agency, nor do they undo the harm already done.

In Gray’s case, the record described an obsession with school shooters and a desire for notoriety. He was obsessed with school shooters. His home life may have been chaotic and his parents may have failed him badly. None of that means he lacked the capacity to understand that murdering classmates and teachers was wrong.

Judge Nicholas Primm made the point directly, saying the shooting “wasn’t done out of fear or anger” but “for the infamy of it.” As such, he doesn’t deserve another chance at living a “normal life.”

Gray may someday understand the evil of what he did. He may repent. He may even become, within prison, a radically different person. But none of those possibilities can make four murdered people less dead or obligate society to restore to him the freedom he deliberately took from others. Explanations are not the same as excuses.

This is where some accounts of restorative justice become inadequate. Restoration may have a place in criminal justice, especially where offenders can make meaningful amends. Murder imposes a limit on that logic because the central harm cannot be repaired.

RELATED: Jordan Salinas: Another ‘good guy with a gun’ ruins the gun control lobby’s narrative

Jason Armond/Getty Images; Facebook/JordanSalinas

The same caution applies beyond this case. It is a mistake to assume that every young violent offender is beyond redemption. It is equally mistaken to assume that redemption, if it occurs, necessarily entitles an offender to release. Recidivism among released prisoners is a real problem, though rates vary substantially by offense, age, and time horizon. The point is not that mercy is impossible. It is that mercy must be ordered to justice, not substituted for it.

By holding offenders accountable, courts can give victims and their families something no therapy program can supply on its own: a public judgment that the crime was real, grave, and deserving of punishment.

Assuming Gray’s punishment sticks, the Apalachee High School community will still have a long road ahead. Students and faculty can honor those they lost, support one another, and take warning signs more seriously in the future. None of that requires pretending punishment itself is healing. But healing is harder when justice is denied.

In this case, justice prevailed.

​Death penalty, School shooting, Criminal justice, Colt gray, Apalachee high school shooting, Mental health, Justice, Nicholas pimm, Restorative justice, Opinion & analysis