Monday, January 22, 2018

Fordham Professor Calls for Blackness to be Recognized as a Legal Disability

Here's the latest in the evolution of wacky intersectionality theory.

A law professor from Fordham University argues that African Americans should be allowed to present their blackness as a recognized legal disability to better combat inequalities and prejudice, reports Breitbart.

“Blackness in the United States has an independent disabling effect distinct from the effects of socioeconomic status,” Kimani Paul-Emile has written in an upcoming article titled “Blackness as Disability” for the Georgetown Law Journal.

“Understanding Blackness as disabling,” she contends, “brings to the fore a surprising new approach to addressing discrimination and systemic inequality that has been hiding in plain sight: disability law.”

“Rather than focusing on malicious intent, disability law accepts the impact of even neutral actions, policies, and programs, directly confronting the ways in which social structures, institutions, and norms can ‘substantially limit’ a person’s ability to perform ‘a major life activity,’” the law professor wrote.

According to Breitbart, Fordham Law News published an excerpt from the forthcoming article, praising Paul-Emile as a “foremost thinker and writer in the areas of law and inequality, race and the law, law and biomedical ethics, and health law,” while declaring she is just the person to furnish “a fresh perspective on racial discrimination.”

Via email, College Fix reporters asked her whether Hispanics or other minorities could also claim disabilities, while also inquiring what her opinion would be if it were a white person who made the claim that black people are disabled. Paul-Emile did not respond.



  1. She's not really covering any new ground, Milton Friedman identified being black as a disability decades ago. After all Friedman pointed out the minimum wage was disproportionately negatively effecting young minorities especially young black teenagers making their labor to expensive.

  2. She's feathering her nest and humiliating self-respecting blacks.

    1. Yes she is indicating that society should stigmatize blacks with strong moral character and impeccable work ethic.

      Sounds not only like a disingenuous attitude but one that is quite racist at its core

  3. --- “Understanding Blackness as disabling,” she contends, “brings to the fore a surprising new approach to addressing discrimination and systemic inequality that has been hiding in plain sight: disability law.” ---

    It's an ingenious argument. One would have to concede that black Americans deserve disability payments because of institutional racism and discrimination, but there's just one small problem: it would also imply that, just as it is with truly disabled people, blacks are unable to change their own situation no matter how much society changes to reduce or eliminate all possible sources of discrimination and bigotry--they're always going to be at a disadvantage, being black and all. This sounds pretty insulting for people who put effort on improving their lot through personal industry, education, hard work or innate athletic skills, and who generally succeed. That would include Paul-Emile, which tells you a lot about her lack of awareness.

  4. Who would want to be considered disabled by virtue of their skin color? Who would not be embarrassed if they were determined, by academics and bureaucrats, to be disabled due to their “blackness”. Wouldn’t this be more detrimental to blacks?

    Paul-Emile is trying to make being the subject of discrimination a disability. We are all subject to discrimination. We all subject others to discrimination. In fact we subject those that have real disabilities such as paralysis to discrimination. Discrimination is needed. Discrimination is part of our freedom of association.

    The choice on how to associate with someone based on skin color may not be admirable but should not be illegal. In my experience non-whites do it to whites more than the latter. Non-white may be effected by this more than whites because whites still hold more economic power than non-whites. But there are reasons for this that go beyond skin color. I touched on this here:

    "I contend that there is white privilege (at least in the USA). I argue though that it is NOT based in bigotry. It is based in the fact that the civilization in the USA has been built primarily by those that are now consider white. Those that are most responsible for a civilization are most likely to reap the benefits of that civilization.

    People are more inclined to associate with their own kind, this includes race and skin color. This is probably a vestige of tribal life. White privilege is a function of whites being most responsible for our current civilization and the inclination to associate with your own kind carried through multiple generations.

    There is little nefarious about so called white privilege. There is no reason for whites to be ashamed of having it. The justification to use force to try to eliminate it are extremely weak."

    I will add that privilege within a group for the people that are responsible for the group is the usual state of things. Does this lead to inequality? Yes, of opportunity. Can the benefits realized because of this inequality of opportunity be considered inequality? There is no wrong answer here, but it’s the wrong question. There are two correct questions. Has the NAP been violated? By trying to eliminate this perceived inequality will the NAP be violated?

    1. Re: Alex Zougle,

      --- People are more inclined to associate with their own kind, this includes race and skin color. This is probably a vestige of tribal life. ---

      Hmm, no. It's familiarity and the opportunity cost of getting to know new people, but not tribalism.

      The NAP is not violated when you discriminate. Everybody discriminates, even the "good souls" who claim discrimination is bad.

      You violate the NAP, however, when you ask the State to place itself between parties engaging in contractual agreements whenever one party is an immigrant. Your justifications for it would be totally irrelevant.

  5. Kimani Paul-Emil, current wanna be US Handicapper General, seeking the 212th Amendment to the US Constitution to make all equal. By 2081, everyone is finally equal. The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

    See the trailer of 2081, video of the short story by Kurt Vonnegut named Harrison Bergeron.

  6. Well, most blacks in a collective sense are not worth much:

    Yet open border libertardians would be more than happy to import more dis-function.

    1. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      You know, your trolling and your racist pap is becoming quite tiresome. I've found most trolls like you happen to be Marxians planting false flags on libertarian and conservative blogs and publications in a futile attempt at smearing us, but after a while it stops being dumb fun and turns creepy.

    2. I"m a Ron Paul Republican who knows about reality. I would say the same of you. If all cultures are equal, why are they such a problem? Being the coward you are, you never answer any questions from any of us about which racial group you would prefer to live around.

      I spit on open border libertarians who are oblivious to cultural and ethnic realities.

    3. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      --- I"m a Ron Paul Republican [...] ---

      And Inwas right: a false flag.

      Ron Paul is a gentleman, a lover of individual liberty, a principled individualist, the furthest possible to someone who would agree with your racist rants. You're no Ron Paul follower.

  7. Well, what do you know, David Duke agrees.