The stabbing in Frisco was a tragedy everyone saw coming



A high school student fatally stabbed another student last week during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, not far from where I teach. The story gained national attention when details emerged: the alleged killer is a black delinquent, and the victim, Austin Metcalf, was a white all-star athlete, top student, and professed Christian. Initial reports indicate the conflict began when the suspect sat in the wrong area, although new information suggests he may have been rummaging through other people’s belongings.

This tragedy has reignited tough conversations about racial violence among youth, school security, and the role of discipline. Yet raising these issues often prompts accusations of racism rather than honest discussion.

In this case, as in so many others before, district administrators will continue with the same disciplinary policies that failed to prevent the violence.

In response, proposed solutions once again focus on broad, institution-wide measures — calls for increased security and metal detectors at track meets — rather than targeted discipline. This mirrors the post-9/11 approach, when the newly formed TSA frisked elderly women for bombs rather than focus on military-age Middle Eastern or South Asian men.

None of this should be controversial. Schools have a basic duty to keep students safe. At a minimum, institutions should remove students with a history of rule-breaking, harassment, or lack of self-control — especially if they display a pattern. That’s not exclusion; it’s responsible stewardship of public safety.

This only becomes controversial because, as most people know, the great majority of students who fall into this category are black males. For whatever reason (lack of fathers, rap culture, the soft bigotry of low expectations, etc.), young black men are far more likely to exhibit aggressive, antisocial behavior that is incompatible with a safe environment. To be clear, this is no preliminary judgment against black people. It’s simply the outcome of enforcing one standard of conduct for everyone.

Prejudice ... or protection?

Enforcing consistent discipline should not be seen as targeting, but as a necessary step to ensure safety and fairness. If a student’s behavioral record indicates a higher risk of disruption or violence, schools should take appropriate precautions, especially during events with large crowds such as assemblies, athletic competitions, or pep rallies.

Unfortunately, common-sense safety measures are often mistaken for prejudice. But bias involves acting on assumptions without evidence. When schools act on documented behavioral patterns — not stereotypes — they’re not discriminating; they’re fulfilling their duty to protect students and staff.

By contrast, society often treats certain groups differently under far less justification. For example, young white males are sometimes portrayed in media and politics as inherently dangerous or extremist, even when statistical evidence does not support such claims. That kind of unfair generalization undermines trust and distracts from real issues in school discipline and public safety.

Unfortunately, such precautions are confused with prejudice. Yet to qualify as prejudice, a policy needs to be based on a biased assumption, not extensive data.

This kind of prejudice often targets young white men. Despite minimal evidence supporting the claim that they are more prone to radicalization or violence, popular shows like “Adolescence” promote this view. Many on the political left continue to promote the lie that white supremacy among young white males represents a widespread threat.

Schools must take student misconduct seriously and intervene early — especially when patterns of aggression or rule-breaking emerge.

Missed warning signs

Based on my experience working in education, I have seen many similar cases in which students with cases of misbehavior were not disciplined and know where it leads.

Despite warning signs, young men with behavior problems are allowed to remain in class, play football, and attend track meets. Administrators, coaches, and teachers may hesitate to discipline them out of fear of being accused of racism. That kind of reluctance enables escalation. In this case, it may have allowed the student to bring a knife to the track meet, rifle through bags, and start fights without fearing the consequences.

It’s hard not to wonder how different things might have been had someone intervened earlier. A timely response to the accused’s possible first offenses might have steered him toward accountability — or, if necessary, removed him from settings where he posed a risk.

At the very least, staff should have monitored him more closely on the day of the incident. Instead, he was left unsupervised, and a promising young student lost his life. The community is now left to mourn a tragedy that might possibly have been prevented.

To be clear, this is not about race. Many have argued that schools should take steps to intervene with students who fit the behavioral profile often associated with school shooters. If a student shows signs of suicidal ideation, acts suspiciously, and has a documented history of serious mental illness, he should receive intervention — and if necessary, be removed from the campus to ensure safety for others.

Instead, many mentally disturbed white school shooters and hyped-up black wannabe thugs are neglected and could go off at any moment. In this case, as in so many others before, the district will likely respond by spending millions on added security, legal counsel, and public relations efforts. But administrators will continue with the same disciplinary policies that may have failed to prevent the violence.

Emerging alternatives

That might frustrate families who understand this death could have been avoided — and who know that many underlying problems still haven’t been addressed. Yet most have no alternative but to send their children back to the same schools, hoping for change that never comes.

That may no longer be the case. With new alternatives emerging — such as charter schools and the potential expansion of Education Savings Accounts — families concerned about safety and discipline in the Frisco Independent School District may have more options. FISD has long been seen as one of the top public school districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but clearly the district has a problem with safety and discipline.

District leaders should feel urgency to address these problems directly. Failure to act will risk greater reputational damage and an accelerating decline in enrollment — which is already under way.

Something needs to change. Not only for the safety of students and staff who deserve better support and protection, but also for the memory of those who paid the price for a system too cowardly to act for fear of being tarred as biased and bigoted.

Bill Maher DESTROYS guest who jokes all WHITE people are ‘problematic’



On a recent episode of the “Club Random with Bill Maher” podcast, guest Larry Wilmore highlighted his own hypocrisy.

“I have a healthy outlook on this,” Wilmore told Maher. “I just view all white people as problematic. So, it doesn’t matter what party you’re in,” he laughed.

Maher then did what he does best and pointed out Wilmore's hypocrisy.

“I know that’s a joke, and you can make every joke in the world on it. I just want to point out that we do live in an era now where lots of stuff can’t happen in reverse. Like, I can’t make that joke about you,” Maher said.

“You could, you just can’t say it in public,” Wilmore responded.

“I believe everything is in public now, what in the f***ing world is not in public,” Maher said, laughing. “I mean, you can find a lot of TikToks of young black women, usually women, saying ‘I just can’t deal with white people today,’” Maher shot back.

“Can you imagine if a white person said that in reverse though?” he then asked.

Wilmore then continued to claim that white people just don’t put it online.

“But the fact that you make a TikTok out of it says a lot,” Maher continued, to which Wilmore agreed that black people have “cultural permission” to poke fun of white people.

“It’s so interesting, because Wilmore when he says that ‘I just view all white people as problematic’ and then he laughed,” Dave Rubin comments. “You, Larry Wilmore, I think you’re a TV star, you’re probably worth millions of dollars. There you are hanging out with elite Hollywood celebrities.”

“We’re allowed to make fun of you. I’m not making fun of you because you’re black, I’m making fun of you because your ideas are thin and stupid and you don’t get a force field because of the color of your skin,” he adds.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

NYU prof rips hate speech double standard: If I said 'lynch the blacks' or 'burn the gays' I'd 'never work in academia again'



Amid the anti-Israel protests erupting on colleges campuses of late — which have boiled over into anti-Semitism — New York University professor Scott Galloway blasted what he sees as a "double standard" when it comes to repercussions for hate speech on campus.

Galloway on Tuesday spoke to MSNBC host Willie Geist — and as video showed pro-Palestinian protesters donned in their familiar black-and-white checkered Keffiyeh scarves hollering their chants, Galloway noted that "if I went into the NYU square with a white hood on and said 'lynch the blacks' or 'burn the gays,' my ID would be shut off by that night."

The Stern School of Business prof added, “I would never work in academia again. There would be no need for the words 'context' or 'nuance'; I wouldn’t be protected by terms like 'First Amendment' or 'free speech.' I would be out of the world of academia. It seems like we have a double standard when it comes to hate speech — as long as it's against Jews."

Some examples of anti-Semitism at Columbia University were caught on video:

— (@)

Geist readily agreed and asked Galloway, "Why is there that double standard? Because of course you're right; you don't even have to say it out loud. If these things were being said about black people or gay people or Latinos or Asians or anybody else, forget it. Shut down the school. Everybody's expelled. Why is there still that double standard?"

Galloway had a few theories, among them that Israel in the last several decades has moved from being a David to a Goliath — and that college students have wrongly conflated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s with the Israel-Hamas war.

He added that students also have "digressed unfortunately because of an orthodoxy promoted by me and my colleagues that there are oppressors and oppressed, and the easiest way to identify oppressors is how white and how rich they are. Fairly or unfairly, Israel is seen as ground zero for whiteness and how wealthy they are."

Galloway also said young people are being “manipulated” by TikTok, given the popular Chinese video platform is the young generation's "frame for the world."

“If you look at TikTok, there are 52 videos that are pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian for every one served on Israel,” he told Geist. “I think that we are being manipulated. I think Americans are easier fooled than convinced they've been fooled, but if I were the CCP, I'd be doing exactly the same thing." He added that social media is "sowing division and polarization."

— (@)

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

As Michigan Charges Trump Electors With Felonies, Recall How Leftists Everywhere Urged 2016 Electors To Defect To Hillary

If you’re a leftist urging electors to change their votes, you’re a hero. If you do the same for a Republican, you might be a felon.

Liberals find themselves handcuffed by their Jan. 6 'insurrection' rhetoric after Democratic radicals storm various state capitols



The Associated Press attempted to do some damage control Friday with an article criticizing Republicans' alleged exploitation of the rhetorical precedent set by the American left concerning what makes for an insurrection. The Washington Post attempted something similar earlier this month, denouncing comparisons between the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and the various Democratic attacks on legislatures ever since.

For years, the characterization of the Jan. 6 riot was used to great effect, particularly as a rationale for applying harsher sentences to protesters, censoring speech online, and preventing Republicans from holding, seeking, or staying in office.

However, in recent months, Democrats and other radicals have stormed various state capitols, threatening the lawmakers therein and holding democratic processes for ransom. As keen observers have noted the staggering similarities between these incidents and the 2021 episode that the media continues to call an "insurrection," liberals have sought move the linguistic goalposts.

The duo behind the AP article, Kimberlee Kruesi, a pronoun-providing self-titled "reporterette" based in Tennessee, and so-called misinformation journalist Ali Swenson, accused Republicans of inappropriately painting recent leftist attacks on state legislatures in "darker tones."

The duo referenced the suggestion that Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, born Zachary Raasch, was responsible for "encouraging an insurrection" as the latest instance of Republicans taking Democrats' lead on adopting inflammatory rhetoric.

TheBlaze previously reported that LGBT extremists stormed the Montana Capitol in support of Zephyr, who had been censured over hateful anti-Christian comments directed at his Republican colleagues last week for which he refused to apologize.

The Democratic rioters besieged the House doors, crowded the House gallery, and hurled obscenities at the Republican lawmakers below, who were instructed to clear the floor out of concern for their safety.

Hours after police restored order and carted several rioters away, the Montana Freedom Caucus issued a statement, claiming, "Representative Zephyr encouraged these actions by standing in the middle of the floor encouraging an insurrection after all members were told to move to the sides and clear the House gallery to remain in a safe location."

The AP duo noted that this was the third time in the last five weeks that Republicans "have attempted to compare disruptive but nonviolent protests at state capitols to insurrections."

Ever since the Jan. 6 riot, where an unarmed protester was killed, Kruesi and Swenson claimed, "Republicans have attempted to turn the phrase on Democrats."

Andy Nelson, Democratic Party chair in Missoula County, told the AP, "They want to ring alarm bells and they want to compare this to Jan. 6. ... There’s absolutely no way you can compare what happened on Monday with the Jan. 6 insurrection. Violence occurred that day. No violence occurred in the gallery of the Montana House."

\u201cBREAKING: The Montana House of Reps has been shut down by left-wing protesters who are there protesting the censure of transgender Democrat Rep. Zooey Zephyr, that was led by the @MTFreedomCaucus, for telling his Republican colleagues they have "blood on their hands" for passing\u2026\u201d
— Greg Price (@Greg Price) 1682374006

Another instance where Republicans saw fit — on the basis of the standard set by Democrats and the media — to intimate an insurrection took place was in late March when leftists stormed the Tennessee Capitol on March 30, threatening, "No action, no peace."

Whereas the corporate media claimed the incursion was a "peaceful protest," as they had with the BLM riots that did nearly $2 billion in damage and killed between 6 and 20 people, House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R) suggested the behavior was "at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, of doing an insurrection in the Capitol," reported the Washington Post.

Democrats were angered by Sexton's application of their own standard.

Tennessee Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons said, "They are trying to dismiss the integrity and sincerity of what all these people are calling for. ... They’re dismissing what it is just to avoid the debate on this issue."

Here is some footage of the scene at the Tennessee Capitol on the day of the attack:

\u201cI deleted the last tweet because I wasn\u2019t as clear. This was a peaceful protest. Students, parents and their supporters went through Capitol security to lobby for gun control in the Capitol. No one was arrested. This shoving started when THP needed to make way for lawmakers.\u201d
— Kelsey Gibbs (@Kelsey Gibbs) 1680201705

Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who adamantly pushed for former President Donald Trump to be impeached, similarly downplayed the Tennessee incursion, telling the Associated Press, "Disrupting things is a far cry from insurrection. ... It's just a protest, and protesters are not insurrectionists."

Citing legal experts, the AP duo provided the following definition of "insurrection": "a violent uprising that targets government authority."

Although the duo strongly intimated the Jan. 6 riot satisfied this definition, having allegedly constituted "an assault on American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power," they did not spill much ink in the interest of distinguishing the episode from recent Democratic state capitol attacks.

They did, however, appeal to Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe's sense that the Montana and Tennessee Capitol attacks did not involve "real attempts to dismantle or replace a government, so it's wrong to call them insurrections" — something that perhaps could also be said of Jan. 6.

In fact, Tribe's sense echoes past Republican remarks about Jan. 6.

Sen. Ron Johnson noted in a May 19, 2021, Fox News interview that "even calling it an insurrection, it wasn’t. I condemned the breach, I condemned the violence, but to say there were thousands of armed insurrectionists breaching the Capitol intent on overthrowing the government is just simply a false narrative. … By and large it was peaceful protest except for there were a number of people, basically agitators, that whipped the crowd and breached the Capitol."

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) said, "There was an undisciplined mob. ... There were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism. But let me be clear: There was no insurrection."

American attorney and investigative journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro noted in the Wall Street Journal last year that the "events of Jan. 6, 2021, are misunderstood, and the failure to correct the record could be damaging to both America’s future and its justice system. Words have to have meaning, and the continuous mislabeling of the U.S. Capitol breach as an 'insurrection' is an example of how a false narrative can gain currency and cause dangerous injustice."

While recognizing that various crimes were committed on January 6, Shapiro underlined that "not one defendant is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. That’s because insurrection is a legal term with specific elements."

"The events of Jan. 6 also fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as 'an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government,'" continued Shapiro. "A real insurrection would have required the armed forces to quell an armed resistance. ... The misuse of words, especially involving criminal accusations, can easily result in overreaching enforcement of the law and a chilling effect on free speech, all of which have already happened — and in this case, endanger the very system the rioters’ accusers purport to protect."

Although the AP and the Washington Post are critical of Republicans' possible misuse of the terms "insurrection" or "insurrectionist," such as when Florida Republicans accused Democrats accordingly in April 2022, they are not similarly critical of the precedent set by their peers and favored politicians.

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

CNN host uses Democrat's own words to show how she is using double standard to defend Biden over classified docs



CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota offered Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) an opportunity to be fair regarding criticism of politicians who mishandle classified documents.

But she declined to take it.

What is the background?

Last September, when the government had revealed the scope of Donald Trump's retention of classified documents, Jayapal demanded the full force of the law be used against the former president.

She even went so far as to claim that Trump "stole" the documents.

"Donald Trump stole classified documents," Jayapal said. "He put not only our national security at risk, but the security and safety of our allies around the world. He must be held accountable to the full extent of the law."

What did Jayapal say?

During an interview on "CNN Newsroom," Camerota asked Jayapal about her tweet and whether she believes the same standard should be applied to President Joe Biden in light of classified documents being discovered in at least two areas private to him.

"Should President Biden be held to that same standard?" the CNN anchor asked. "Isn't it possible that President Biden is putting our national security at risk also?"

But immediately, Jayapal began to equivocate and defend Biden.

"I absolutely think that is why the Department of Justice has appointed the special counsel," she said.

"But again, I would just point to the fact that these documents so far that we know, what we know is that they were kept in a locked place. That was a very small number and I don't know how important these are, they might be incredibly important. They were marked top secret," she added. "But the storage and the approach to this is completely different."

Jayapal acknowledged that Biden's retention of classified documents is a "political problem for all of us as Democrats." But she tried to emphasize distinction between Biden's mishandling of classified information and Trump's. Biden, Jayapal claimed, is "cooperating completely."

However, she has no way of knowing that.

After all, the White House declined to disclose the discovery for more than two months, and when it finally admitted to the existence of classified documents inside Biden's private office, it refused to disclose the second batch of documents that had already been found at Biden's private residence.

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

Feds Suddenly Remember To Decry Threats Of Violence After Ignoring Violent Dobbs Backlash

This is the latest flip in the FBI's constant flop between excusing one brand of political violence and making a dramatic example of another.

Media Sugarcoat 78-Year-Old Biden’s Covid Test After Threatening School, Church, And Work Could Kill You

Now that Biden has Covid, those people who warned you to be in constant fear for your life are awkwardly trying to avoid eye contact.