Gavin Newsom’s racial pandering knows no bounds



Leaders should seek to unify people. Instead, California governor and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom (D) embraces politics, dividing his constituents into those entitled to privileges and subventions by reason of their melanin, sex, or sexual orientation — and those who are required to fund the largesse.

He opposed race-neutral admissions to the California state university system (overruled by the people of California — twice), imposed gender and racial requirements on corporate boards (held unconstitutional — twice), required ethnic studies and ethnically dumbed-down math in K-12 curricula, and is carefully advancing a potentially multitrillion-dollar reparations plan for California’s black residents.

Whether born of intense self-loathing or kowtowing to the radical left, Newsom’s support for reparations is racist political pandering at its worst.

Newsom’s unconstitutional quest to curry favor with, undermine the confidence of, and potentially spend trillions of dollars on California’s 2.5 million black residents began in 2020 when he signed AB3121 into law, which required the state to study and develop reparation proposals for black Californians, with “special consideration” for descendants of slaves.

Then, in 2022, Newsom established a commission to develop policies that impact racial equity and disparities. The following year, it recommended payments exceeding $1 million for each descendant of slaves, as well as housing assistance, guaranteed wages, racially segregated education, and overturning California’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions, among hundreds of other racially abhorrent policies.

Now, Newsom has established a new bureau nominally to develop programs to implement the commission’s report, but with legislative authority to “expand” its mission to address remedies for the “lasting harms” of disenfranchisement, segregation, discrimination, exclusion, neglect, and violence impacting black Californians. The bureau is also authorized to collect nonpublic personal and genetic information to identify those who should obtain preferential treatment.

Newsom vetoed legislation to give admissions preferences to descendants of slaves, which he said colleges can already do; investigate racist property taxes, which is already within the new bureau’s mandate; and allocate 10% of state loans to slave descendants, which is clearly unconstitutional. An appearance of balance is important for a nascent presidential campaign.

Nonetheless, whether born of intense self-loathing or kowtowing to the radical left, Newsom’s support for reparations is racist political pandering at its worst.

Reparations are particularly inappropriate in California. The state was admitted to the Union in 1850 as a free state, in which slavery was prohibited. Its population today is about 37% non-Hispanic white, 39% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and 6% black. Over a quarter are foreign-born.

There is no doctrine in the United States that holds children liable for the crimes of their parents, much less their distant ancestors; nor do children inherit their ancestors’ debts. In 1860, there were 395,216 slave owners in the 15 states that permitted slavery and none in the other 18 states. In total, about 5%-6% of all U.S. households owned slaves.

Today, most blacks are at least middle class, live in diverse suburbs, and pursue the same careers as whites. They are doctors, lawyers, and chief executives. With about 12.5% of the population, blacks account for a somewhat larger share of U.S. House members and about one-third of the mayors in America’s 100 largest cities. Blacks have held the highest offices in government, from president and vice president to numerous Cabinet positions and 22% of current Supreme Court justices.

RELATED: Gavin Newsom lashes out at Joe Rogan for accusing him of ruining California: ‘He did horrible s**t!’

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

In a 2002 Gallup poll, 14% of Americans favored the payment of cash reparations to descendants of black slaves. A 2019 Associated Press-NORC poll found 29% approval. In 2024, a Princeton University-Liberations poll found that 36% of Americans supported at least some form of reparations, with 15% strongly supporting cash payments. A 2022 Rasmussen poll and a 2025 YouGov poll had similar results. About a quarter of blacks oppose reparations.

At least 23 cities and states are considering paying reparations, including New York City, San Francisco, and Boston. Under most reparation proposals, the national cost would range from about $12 trillion to $20 trillion.

While polls usually ask about reparations for descendants of slaves, most commissions also consider payments to other black Americans. A Brookings Institution report justifies giving reparations to wealthy blacks and recent immigrants due to the wealth gap between black and white families.

Polls and partisan commissions aside, the 14th Amendment prohibits governments from allocating benefits based on race. The Supreme Court has been clear that our detour into justifying affirmative action and other race-based programs was a “pernicious aberration.” There have been trillions of dollars of transfer payments to black Americans through welfare, food stamps, loan payments, enterprise zones, minority contracting, and affirmative action. These giveaways deprive blacks of agency and create dependency, not a path toward self-actualization.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it well in the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial preferences in college admissions: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. … [T]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.”

Gavin Newsom knows all this. He just doesn’t care.

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

Medical School Accreditors Surrender To Trump In Battle Over DEI

'Responsible for injecting identity politics into medical education'

Why Trump’s war with Harvard hits closer to home than you think



Harvard University — the gold-plated symbol of American elitism — is in the fight of its life, and it’s a battle of its own making.

For the past month, Harvard has been locked in a standoff with the Trump administration over student visas, foreign money, anti-Semitism, and compliance with federal law. This is more than just another Beltway spat. This is a tectonic clash between the people who built this country and the elites who now believe they own it.

Why are taxpayers subsidizing institutions that actively undermine the very values that built this country?

To most Americans, Harvard stands for privilege, power, and a snobbish culture far removed from the everyday citizen. So why should you care what happens to Harvard?

Because this isn’t just about one Ivy League school. It’s about whether America will remain a free republic — or continue down the path of ideological capture by radical institutions.

It all began in April, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard provide records of foreign students involved in illegal, violent, or disruptive activities — like the kind of protests we saw last year that devolved into pro-Hamas encampments. Harvard missed the deadline. So the Trump administration pulled the plug: No more international student enrollments for Harvard.

To say that hurt would be an understatement. Foreign students make up 27% of Harvard’s student body — more than 6,700 individuals. Their tuition is a massive cash cow. Harvard sued, of course, and a federal judge has temporarily paused the visa ban. But the message from Trump’s Department of Homeland Security was clear: Comply with federal law or face the consequences.

Then came a broader move: The administration paused all new student visa interviews nationwide while it considers expanding social media vetting for foreign applicants. After the chaos we saw on campuses last fall, that seems like basic common sense.

Shut off the spigot

Next, the Trump administration turned off the federal funding faucet — more than $3 billion in research grants and contracts frozen. Harvard screamed censorship and filed another lawsuit, claiming this was a First Amendment violation. But let’s pause here: Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. That’s more than the GDP of more than 120 countries.

Why does an institution that rich receive any federal funding, let alone billions? Since World War II, the federal government has been throwing money at universities for research, including the development of the atomic bomb. Once the spigot opened, it never shut. Today, your taxpayer dollars are funding a $50,000 research project into the effects of coffee.

Congress is finally waking up. A bill is working its way through the Senate that would slap a tax on massive university endowments. Harvard alone could be facing an $850 million annual tax bill. About time!

Behind the crackdown

Three key factors are driving Trump’s fight with Harvard.

The first reason is anti-Semitism. Harvard, like many elite schools, turned a blind eye to vile anti-Jewish sentiment after the October 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel. The administration says enough is enough — and it’s right.

Second, Harvard has refused to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court decision declaring race-based admissions unconstitutional. The message from Harvard? We’re above the law.

Third, Harvard has been deeply entrenched in woke ideological corruption. Trump said it plainly on the campaign trail: Elite universities like Harvard are controlled by “Marxist maniacs and lunatics.” That’s not hyperbole. Harvard has abandoned its motto, Veritas — truth — in favor of radical conformity.

RELATED: Higher ed’s shield shatters under Trump’s new directive

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Just 9% of Harvard students identify as conservative. Among faculty, that number is a jaw-dropping 2.5%. This is a monoculture, not any sort of “marketplace of ideas.”

And it’s getting worse. In March, a Harvard professor openly called for firing any faculty who don’t support “gender-affirming care” for children. Think about that. This is not education. This is indoctrination.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression recently ranked Harvard dead last in the country for free speech. It scored zero out of 100.

A fight beyond Harvard

Maybe you’re thinking, “Yeah, Harvard’s always been liberal. What else is new?” Here’s what is new: The radicalism cultivated behind ivy-covered walls has spilled into the real world.

We’ve had a cultural lab leak. Academic ideas once confined to lecture halls — critical race theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion measures, gender ideology, climate hysteria — are now infecting K-12 classrooms, human resources departments, government agencies, and even the military.

This is no longer a theoretical problem. It’s practical. It’s personal. It affects your children’s education, your job, your freedom of speech, and your values.

So here’s the question we should all be asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing institutions that actively undermine the very principles and beliefs that built this country?

Trump’s war on Harvard is about more than visas, lawsuits, or even money. It’s about reclaiming the soul of America from those who have hijacked it. Harvard may have prestige, but it no longer has integrity. It certainly doesn’t need your money — or your consent.

It’s time to cut off the funding, tax the endowment, and force accountability. Because in the fight for America’s future, no institution should be above the people who pay the bills.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

DEI Should Have Ended Harvard’s ‘Elite’ Status 60 Years Ago (Or More)

Racial discrimination in favor of minorities at so-called elite schools was already widespread by the early 1970s.