How the WNBA’s biggest star became its biggest embarrassment



There are moments when an entire ideology reveals itself to the American public — not in a faculty seminar, not in a university land acknowledgment, not in a mandatory “inclusive excellence” module administered by a deputy assistant associate vice provost of DEI, but on a basketball court.

Caitlin Clark being struck in the throat by Alyssa Thomas was one of those moments.

DEI, whether it appears as decolonizing, social justice, critical race theory, BLM activism, or ‘inclusive excellence,’ is not a path to justice. It is a catechism of resentment.

The WNBA later decided the incident was a “non-basketball act,” a useful clarification for those of us who had not noticed that punching a player in the throat is not among the standard fundamentals of the game. Dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding — yes. Throat strikes — apparently, no.

The referees, however, seemed to be conducting an advanced seminar in nonintervention. They saw nothing. Or more precisely, they saw what everyone else saw and did not think it required interruption.

The WNBA reviewed the play and assessed Thomas a Flagrant Foul 2 with a one-game suspension. Fever guard Sophie Cunningham has publicly said Clark is being targeted and that the league and refs are not protecting her. Meanwhile, Clark’s presence has coincided with major WNBA attendance and ratings growth.

This is where the Caitlin Clark story becomes larger than basketball.

For years, America’s universities have devoted themselves to replacing character formation with grievance formation. Students are taught, with all the solemnity of medieval theologians but none of the metaphysical seriousness, that the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed, privileged and marginalized, white and non-white.

Every inequality of outcome receives the same explanation: whiteness. Every frustration becomes resentment. Every failure gets assigned a villain.

This curriculum does not produce justice. It produces vice.

It teaches envy and calls it “equity.” It teaches resentment and calls it “consciousness.” It teaches contempt for one’s neighbor and calls it “liberation.” It tells young people that the chief moral fact about another person is skin color, then professes shock when people begin treating one another accordingly.

Enter Caitlin Clark.

The WNBA has long existed less as a product of overwhelming public demand than as an institutional cause. It was the league America was instructed to support. Like many progressive projects, it was sustained not by market interest but by moral instruction: Watch this. Celebrate this. Subsidize this. Affirm this.

Then, something embarrassing happened.

RELATED: The latest violent attack on Caitlin Clark exposes the WNBA’s real problem

Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

A player arrived whom the public actually wanted to see.

Clark did not require an ideological sales pitch. She did not need a campus office to explain her importance. She did not need a seminar on representation and patriarchy. She could shoot from the logo. She could pass as if she had seen the play unfold three seconds before everyone else. She brought eyes to the league, filled arenas, moved merchandise, and made casual fans care.

That is precisely the problem.

The DEI imagination can handle excellence only when it can be absorbed into its preferred categories. If Clark’s success could be explained as “white privilege,” the story would be safe. But basketball is a cruelly empirical game. The ball either goes in or it does not. The pass either arrives or it does not. The defense either stops her or it does not. No diversity consultant can revise the box score.

Clark’s excellence is infuriating because it is visible. It is not a theory, a grant proposal, or a paragraph in a strategic plan. It is the fruit of natural ability disciplined by relentless work.

Even family support, private schooling, and access to good coaching do not manufacture Caitlin Clark. They may provide opportunity. They do not produce logo threes, court vision, and competitive fire. Many athletes have access to lessons. Few can do what Clark does.

That fact is intolerable to a culture that has taught itself to scoff at diligence, fortitude, self-control, patience, hope, faith, and love. The old virtues are too demanding because they require personal responsibility. DEI prefers a more comforting doctrine: Your failures are someone else’s fault, your anger is moral insight, and your neighbor’s success is evidence of systemic injustice.

We have seen this moral theater before.

After George Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, the image played endlessly across America. Universities made it the centerpiece of institutional repentance. Faculty meetings became revival services for Black Lives Matter. Professors who had never shown much interest in moral absolutes suddenly discovered original sin, provided it could be located in “whiteness” rather than in the human heart.

The radicals had their icon. They had their liturgy. They had their marches. They had their administrative decrees.

But what happens when the image does not serve the approved narrative? What happens when the visible act is not a white officer restraining a black man but a black WNBA player striking a white superstar in the throat?

Suddenly, the moral machinery becomes less efficient. The referees miss it. The league responds later. The commentators explain. The defenders contextualize. The public is asked not to notice too much.

But we do notice.

We notice that Clark is not merely guarded. She is battered. We notice that punishment often comes after public outrage rather than during the game. We notice that the league seems oddly embarrassed by the very player who has made it more relevant than ever. We notice that when excellence appears in the wrong demographic package, the apostles of equity become strangely tolerant of abuse.

RELATED: Caitlin Clark gets fist to the throat as WNBA primed to explode: ‘She’s a straight white basketball player’

Justin Casterline/Getty Images

This does not mean every foul against Clark is a racial incident. Basketball is physical. Stars get hit. Great players attract aggressive defense.

But the pattern surrounding Clark has become hard to ignore, and so has the ideological atmosphere in which it is interpreted. When a society is trained to see whiteness as a moral defect, it should not be surprised when white excellence is treated as something to be punished rather than admired.

DEI has trained institutions to cultivate suspicion, bitterness, and selective compassion based on skin color and sexuality. It has trained people to blame their problems on abstractions rather than repent of their vices. It has trained the public to redistribute honor and resentment according to race.

Its hope is not in virtue but in power, not in truth but in control, not in love of neighbor but in the forced rearrangement of social goods around resentment.

Caitlin Clark has become the face of DEI abuse because she exposes the lie. She shows that excellence is not reducible to privilege. She shows that work counts. She shows that talent must be disciplined. She shows that the public will still respond to greatness when it sees it.

And for that, she must be punished.

The throat strike was not merely a foul. It was a parable. It showed what resentment does when it cannot refute excellence. It tries to silence it, intimidate it, and make it pay for existing.

We should learn the lesson. DEI, whether it appears as decolonizing, social justice, critical race theory, BLM activism, or “inclusive excellence,” is not a path to justice. It is a catechism of resentment.

It does not teach us to love our neighbor. It teaches us to hate by skin color.

The answer is public rejection of DEI in all its forms.

HOT STOCK: SpaceX IPO is making even its welders rich



A welder named Juan Hernandez joined SpaceX in 2015 at $28 an hour. He took stock instead of a fatter paycheck. The day the company was listed, those shares were worth about $880,000.

He has company. More than 4,000 current and former SpaceX employees became millionaires when the company began trading on the Nasdaq at $135 a share. The valuation hit $1.77 trillion, the seventh-largest public company and ahead of Tesla. It was the biggest IPO ever recorded. About 400 of those workers now hold stakes above $100 million, and some of them ladle soup in the cafeteria.

The teenager weighing a coding boot camp against welding school should study the leaderboard in Brownsville.

Learn to weld

That last part flips the usual script. Rank-and-file employees have struck gold in stock debuts before, but most often they were the ones writing code or creating marketing decks

This time it’s very different.

SpaceX handed equity down to welders, machinists, and line workers at Starbase, many of whom took below-market pay for shares. The bet looked reckless a decade ago, back when SpaceX still lost rockets on the launchpad. Today, the only thing still exploding is their net worth.

The setting makes it stranger. Brownsville sits near the bottom of every income chart in Texas, and SpaceX put more than 3,000 jobs there. Home prices in Cameron County have more than doubled since the rockets arrived, climbing from around $131,000 in 2014 to over $281,000.

Critics call that unaffordable, but the complaint misses who is doing the buying. The new money was earned in the county, by people who lived there before SpaceX showed up. When a poor town's home values double on the back of local paychecks, the residents hold the deeds. Rising prices turn dangerous when wages sit still. Brownsville got richer faster than it got expensive.

Deskbound

Now for the mandatory dread about machines coming for our jobs and, in the more ominous forecasts, our throats. But now automation is a white-collar problem. AI can draft a deal sheet or pass the bar exam. What it can't do is snake a wire past a joist or seal a fuel tank that holds at cryogenic temperatures without splitting. The jobs vanishing first are the ones done sitting down. Paralegals should sweat. Plumbers can light up a cigarette and relax.

In April, a humanoid robot built by the phone maker Honor finished a Beijing half-marathon in 50 minutes and 26 seconds, quicker than any human has run the distance. A year before that, at the first such race, one machine toppled at the start and another walked into a barrier, and every robot needed a human handler jogging beside it like a parent at a toddler's first steps. Ask one of those to fish a cable through a finished wall and find the live wire before something ignites. Fine motor control and sound judgment still belong to people. The robots can run, but keep them away from your breaker box.

So the trades have an opening, and it widens if manufacturing returns. A factory needs hands long before it needs a wellness coordinator. The teenager weighing a coding boot camp against welding school should study the leaderboard in Brownsville.

RELATED: The first trillionaire: SpaceX goes public — and it's not just Elon Musk who's striking it rich

Marvin Joseph/Washington Post/Getty Images

Elon earned it

Then there is Musk. The IPO makes him a trillionaire, the richest man alive. Bernie Sanders, the millionaire who wrote a best-seller about the immorality of millionaires, calls the number obscene. Paul Krugman blames a "rigged system."

None of this started with the IPO. Attacking Musk has been a fixture on the left for years, somewhere between a hobby and a second income. The trillion-dollar number raised the stakes. The objections write themselves and skip the question worth asking first. How did he get there?

Plenty of fortunes start with a dead grandparent and end in an offshore account. But this one came from hardware that lands itself and flies again. Musk bet on factories and launchpads while easy money chased apps. He keeps hours that would bury most executives. He sleeps on factory floors when a launch date slips, a habit his critics conveniently ignore.

And he paid everyday Americans in stock when cash would have cost him less, allowing them to win as well.

Before wheeling out the guillotine and inviting Mark Cuban to drop the blade, separate the fortunes built on extraction from the ones built on output. Musk is a visionary, a builder of truly great things. He made the rocket cheaper and the cook richer. Capitalism has never looked so hard to hate.

Trump Admin Ends Biden’s Organ-Transplant-By-Race Policy

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ended a Biden administration policy that required racial considerations be made to determine who was eligible to get a kidney transplant. CMS published a final rule Monday governing the Increasing Organ Transplant Access (IOTA) Model, a mandatory, six-year program that ostensibly sought to “increase access to kidney […]

Supremely Progressive: Iran Becomes First Nation in World History Led by Gay Amputee

Credit where credit is due: Iran appears to have scored a remarkable victory for inclusive representation on the global stage. The U.S. intelligence community recently assessed that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the dearly departed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is "probably gay," the New York Post revealed on Monday. The news comes amid reports that "one or two" of the younger Khamenei's legs were amputated after he suffered severe injuries last month in the U.S.-Israeli airstrike that killed his father.

The post Supremely Progressive: Iran Becomes First Nation in World History Led by Gay Amputee appeared first on .

Parents, Staff Claim Expensive Nashville Christian Prep School Has Gone ‘Woke’

Lipscomb Academy officials vehemently deny claims that the private school's leadership has injected DEI into the Church of Christ school.

Hockey Loss Should Awaken Canada To Its Long-Running Anti-American Decline

Canada lost to the United States on the largest stage and in the one domain in which its superiority felt metaphysically guaranteed.

How ‘structural racism’ came to dominate medical research



President Trump's recent push to send federal health care dollars directly to individuals, rather than insurers, reflects a broader demand for transparency and effectiveness in how public funds are used. Government-funded medical research, which forms the foundation of much clinical care, also requires such scrutiny.

In recent years, academic medicine has advanced a nebulous theory of “structural racism” that echoes the 19th century “miasma” theory, which blamed disease on “bad air.” Despite scant evidence, studies attempting to validate this vague framework have multiplied, often funded by largely unaware taxpayers. Refocusing federal research dollars on rigorous science and evidence-based care is essential to correcting this trajectory.

The incentives were clear: Few researchers — early-career or established — would decline funding in an area where the NIH was investing heavily.

How did this happen? The construct of “structural racism” was virtually absent from medical literature until a decade ago. Since then, it has become the default explanation in academic medicine for differences in health outcomes across racial and ethnic groups. Its rise accelerated during the 2020 anti-racism craze, which swept through corporate boardrooms and university administrations while also becoming a core ideological pillar of Black Lives Matter and other political movements.

Academic medicine was no exception. This philosophy quickly gained favor in medical education, academic health centers, elite journals, and professional associations, eventually influencing federal agencies that distribute research funding.

The result: a surge of grant-funded studies built on the premise that racism causes health disparities. Of the nearly 2,300 articles indexed under the term “structural racism” in PubMed, the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s database of leading biomedical and health journals, 95% were published after Jan. 1, 2020. In 2025 alone, PubMed lists 400 such papers — nearly four times the total published before 2020.

This proliferation has been supported by a tsunami of federal taxpayer dollars coming from the National Institutes of Health. From 2020 to 2025, an NIH database search found nearly 750 projects mentioning “structural racism” in their abstracts, totaling almost $533 million in funding. More than 70 of those projects were funded in 2025 at just under $40 million — significantly down from more than 220 projects in 2024 totaling $150 million, but still far above 2020, when only 12 projects received a little over $12 million in the aggregate. Before 2020, the NIH had funded just 10 such projects at a combined cost of $4 million.

Funding patterns across NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers from 2020 to 2025 make clear that ideology, not medical science, drove much of this growth. The largest investments came from the National Institute on Drug Abuse ($147 million in total funding), National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ($70 million), and National Institute on Aging ($57 million), each pouring substantial resources into “structural racism” research.

In 2025, for example, NIDA supported a project under the Healthy Brain and Child Development National Consortium that identified “structural racism” as a risk to babies before and after birth, alongside more recognizable factors like maternal health, toxic exposures, and child abuse — thereby conflating an abstract, ill-defined, and ideological social theory with measurable, scientific variables as a threat to child development.

Also in 2025, NIMHD funded the Clinical Research Scholars Training program, a “health-equity focused” initiative created in part due to NIH calls for research on “the impact of structural racism and discrimination on health disparities.” Eligibility for this program was limited to those deemed “underrepresented in biomedical research.” All others need not apply.

RELATED: Who really controls behavioral health care — and why it matters now

Douglas Rissing / Getty Images

And just last year, a NIA-funded project invoked “interrelated systems of structural racism” and “race-specific stress” as risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline, diverting attention and resources away from well-established contributors such as genetics, medical conditions, lifestyle and environmental factors, and core biological mechanisms like amyloid plaques and tau tangles.

Unfortunately, a commitment to science gave way to ideology years ago. Under Francis Collins, the NIH “acknowledged and committed to ending structural racism,” without even defining the concept itself. “Structural racism” was accepted despite its questionable validity and lack of explanatory power.

With vague boundaries and mechanisms difficult to measure, claims of “structural racism” far exceeded the empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the idea was accepted wholesale and used to justify a wave of DEI initiatives, effectively recasting the NIH as an “anti-racist” institution in the Ibram X. Kendi mold. Objective science was no longer sufficient; the agency was expected to take an activist stance.

Proponents embraced this shift, seeing an opportunity to move health research from “individual-level risk, health behavior, and functioning” to “structural level concepts” with “structural racism” named specifically. Research dollars supported tools like the Structural Racism Effect Index to “guide policies and investments to advance health equity.”

The incentives were clear: Few researchers — early-career or established — would decline funding in an area where the NIH was investing heavily, especially when that support could provide a path to publication in top journals.

Yet the instruments used to quantify “structural racism” expose a basic flaw: They don’t measure racism.

The SREI’s nine dimensions, for example, largely track socioeconomic conditions — wealth, income, housing, employment. In practice, a high score identifies communities facing poverty. Even researchers linking SREI scores to hypertension, obesity, smoking, and low physical activity concede they “cannot make causal inferences.”

RELATED: Teaching kids to hate America will have real-world consequences

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

These health risks may result from poverty, contribute to it, or arise from entirely different causes. Labeling them as products of “structural racism” adds no explanatory value, miscasts economic hardship as race-based, and downplays individual responsibility. It overshadows far more consequential drivers of outcome disparities, including access to care, personal choice, medical comorbidities, and genetics.

Nonetheless, no alternative explanation for health disparities has received anywhere near the same attention in leading medical journals — such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and JAMA — as “structural racism.” This concept has been treated as settled fact, with disparities alone offered as proof: If disparities exist, racism must be the cause. Likewise, many medical organizations have reinforced this view through policies and position papers that embed an anti-racism framework into scientific inquiry.

But change is in the air. The NIH’s recent miasma-like fixation on “structural racism” is finally clearing. Under Director Jay Bhattacharya, the agency is refocusing on its core mission of funding rigorous, evidence-based science rather than ideology-driven research. This shift will direct scarce taxpayer dollars toward work grounded in medical science and its practical application — research that can genuinely improve health rather than feed political currents.

This course correction is timely, and while sustained effort in 2026 will be needed to fully restore the NIH to its rightful mission, taxpayers can take comfort: America’s leading biomedical and medical science research institute will once again prioritize their dollars and their health.

Editor's note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy



When a dictator in a distant, war-torn nation announces a plan to shrink an ethnic group inside his borders, the Western world erupts. Anchors denounce it. Newspapers detail the plight of the targeted people. Sanctions follow. Diplomats whisper about regime change. The moral verdict arrives quickly, and it arrives correctly: ethnic cleansing.

Yet Western leaders now make a parallel declaration in a cleaner suit. Their countries, they insist, have grown “too white.” The white population must fall. The electorate must change. No denunciations follow. No sanctions arrive. Corporate press treats the project as enlightened policy. A global consensus that once claimed to oppose ethnic cleansing now tolerates it — provided the target is white people in Western nations.

If the West still claims to oppose ethnic cleansing, it should start by opposing it at home and refusing the polite lies that protect it.

French writer Renaud Camus gave us the "Great Replacement.” For years, polite society treated the phrase as radioactive. Say it on television and you became a pariah. Post it online and platforms erased you. That taboo held only as long as people could be bullied into denying what they could see.

The concept’s explanatory power proved stronger than the gatekeepers. Major conservative outlets now discuss replacement openly. YouTube will still attach warnings to videos that mention it, yet the subject refuses to disappear because the policy keeps showing up in schools, boardrooms, and border statistics.

A taboo cannot survive daily evidence.

Quest for permanent power

“Diversity” served as a euphemism for replacement long before anyone had heard of Camus. When a corporation, movie studio, or university says it wants to “increase diversity,” it never means it plans to hire more white, straight men because it has too many trans black women on staff.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion never aimed at demographic proportionality. Leadership announced a preference: more non-white members, fewer white members. Declare a goal of reducing any other demographic, and the public would recognize the project as naked discrimination.

Private institutions practicing anti-white discrimination is bad enough. Governments adopting the same objective is a nightmare. Progressive voices in the United States celebrate the declining share of white Americans and brag that demographic change will lock Democrats into permanent power. They frame replacement as destiny, then use policy to accelerate it, then denounce anyone who notices as a “conspiracy theorist.”

Project Veritas recorded a State Department official admitting that replacement migration functions as a political strategy meant to secure electoral victory. That admission matters less than the broader point: Public and private rhetoric have normalized the idea that a party may change the electorate to entrench itself.

‘Diversity’ invades the countryside

Even if ethnic hatred played no role — and it does — the effort to subvert democratic accountability through mass migration amounts to a political coup. A ruling class that imports a friendlier electorate to escape judgment for its failures announces contempt for the people it claims to serve.

Spain offers a clear example. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the Socialist Workers’ Party plan amnesty for 500,000 immigrants. Sánchez could not secure parliamentary support for the scheme, so he bypassed Parliament with an amnesty decree. Spain’s population runs about 49 million. Scaled to American size, that’s roughly 3.5 million people granted legal status by executive fiat. Far-left politician Irene Montero went farther, telling a crowd she hoped for “replacement theory” and meant to use new migrant voters to wipe out her political opponents.

The United Kingdom looks worse. Visitors to London joke that the Englishman has become an endangered species in the cities his ancestors built. Officials now want the countryside next. The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs has decided rural England feels “too white” and “too middle class.” It has launched programs to “diversify” protected landscapes and village life.

Officials then discovered an awkward detail: Many Muslim migrants dislike dogs, a staple of country living, and avoid living around them. Planners treat dogs, solitude, and preserved land as “white culture,” then hunt for ways to remake rural life so it attracts Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

Listen to the admission hiding inside that language. The government intends to make the countryside less like a place where white people live so that fewer white people will live there. It plans to change the character of the land, the habits of the residents, and the public culture, all to engineer a demographic outcome. That is social transformation by state design.

RELATED:The left is at war in Minnesota. America is watching football.

Blaze Media Illustration

Drop the euphemisms

Diversity, equity, inclusion, decolonization — the euphemisms multiply, but the goal stays constant. Even the Great Replacement argument, while useful, still softens what the policy does. When a party, an institution, or a government targets a group for reduction, removal, or displacement, the correct term is not “diversification.” It’s ethnic cleansing.

This process does not arise from a neutral demographic ebb. Politicians announce it. Activists demand it. Bureaucrats implement it. Corporate managers enforce it. Then they threaten anyone who objects with professional ruin. Fear keeps the system humming, and euphemism keeps the conscience quiet.

Enough. That taboo deserves to die. When politicians, corporate leaders, and professors declare their intention to replace white populations, they deserve the same disgust any advocate of ethnic cleansing would receive in any other context. If the West still claims to oppose ethnic cleansing, it should start by opposing it at home and refusing the polite lies that protect it.