If you were looking for further proof that the rational among us will never be able to satisfy the race-obsessed left, look no further — MSNBC’s got you covered.
On Saturday’s edition of “The Mehdi Hasan Show,” guest host Melissa Murray devoted an entire segment to the so-called “glass cliff” — the notion that women, particularly women of color, are only appointed to prestigious positions to be “set up to fail.”
Craziness to the extreme without foundation in fact? Of course. I’m just surprised MSNBC’s race-hustler extraordinaire, Joy Reid didn’t hit this first; it’s right up her race-baiting alley.
As reported by NewsBusters, Murray, and guests Fatima Goss Graves, head of the National Women’s Law Center, and Christy Glass, a Utah State University sociology professor, found a reason to inject “racism” into the appointment of Claudine Gay as the next president of Harvard, which Murray said was an honor well-deserved, but “there is a big ‘but’ to this story.” The trio also took aim at the ascendance of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court as an example of the “big but” to her story.
Murray kicked off the race-baiting festivities in typical race-baiting fashion:
History is being made at Harvard. The Ivy League university named its 30th president last week, and the honor went to political scientist Claudine Gay . . . Well, it is certainly a well-deserved honor, but, and there is a big but to this story, President Gay will take over at Harvard next July, right around the same time that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the university’s long-standing race-conscious admissions policy.
This means that Claudine Gay will likely be stepping into a huge legal and political mess as soon as she’s sworn in. Now, I feel this so acutely. In 2016, I became the interim dean at Berkeley law after a major sexual harassment scandal. It was obviously an amazing career opportunity for me, but it was also amazingly fraught with career risks, and I know I’m not alone.
[…]
You’ve obviously heard of the glass ceiling. Well, this is a little bit like a glass cliff. The idea that women get a better chance of breaking through that ceiling only when someone is needed to clean up an intractable mess. The danger, of course, is that in cleaning up the mess, you run the risk of falling off the cliff.
Seems to me that life in the no-longer-hallowed halls of academia is always in some kind of intractable mess — of their own leftist doing, but Ketanji Brown Jackson and the Supreme Court? How so? We’ll get to KBJ and SCOTUS in a bit.
Glass “shockingly” agreed with Murray, painting a further dire picture of women of color being appointed to prestigious jobs.
White women, and women of color, and men of color as well, tend to be appointed CEO, or head coach, to losing teams or to organizations in crisis. And what we also find is that they’re often blamed for the crisis that was not of their making, that predated their leadership trajectory, and held to account for the crisis.
Notice what’s missing, here? The same thing that’s always missing on MSNBC during ridiculous discussions about racism and such: Facts and specific examples.
Murray then got all melodramatic calling the made-up nothingburger “vicious” — a scenario in which (black) “women are essentially set up to fail.” Do you suppose it occurred to any one or more of these successful black women that none of them have fallen off the pretend glass cliff? Not a snowball’s chance.
Finally, Fatima Goss Graves weighed in with her opinion, which pretty much parroted the opinions of Murray and Glass — in slightly more ridiculous words:
You know, the irony that [Ketanji Brown Jackson] she joined the Court in the wake of Dobbs, during the arguments for the affirmative action cases, the cases before the court on voting, on LGBTQ equality, and more.
And in many ways she’s sort of a singular voice around blackness on the Court right now. It is a burden that no human can bear … It’s too much for any singular person’s shoulders, but it is exciting to see nonetheless, I have to say.
Look, I don’t want to sound insensitive here, ladies [sarc] but KBJ is simply one of nine associate justices on the Supreme Court, so why would she be singled out in a controversial majority decision? Oh, wait — you mean the way Clarence Thomas was viciously attacked and called names we can’t print after the Roe overturn?
Justice Thomas was just one of five justices to vote in the majority, so why was he singled out and targeted so viciously with blatantly racist attacks? Why you don’t suppose it was because Clarence Thomas is black, do you? And who called Justice Thomas those unprintable names, ladies?
The question is rhetorical, of course.
