The beautiful thing about the Social Justice™ left is that it is inherently unsustainable and self-immolating.
Maintaining the coalition of identity-obsessed factions hellbent on winning the zero-sum competition to ascend to the apex of the victimhood hierarchy between various identities of protected classes is impossible in the long run.
The only thing that unites them is opposition to the White Heteronormative Christian Patriarchy™. But once the whites, the straights, the Christians, and the men have all been driven from the organizations or sufficiently castrated, where to then? The entire ideology thrives on identity conflict, and so it needs deeply an out-group to despise and hate.
The beast must be fed, and now it’s feeding on the rotting corpse of the ACLU.
I don’t mind claiming that the ACLU, regardless of its longstanding nominal association with the left, once did great work defending civil liberties, and the United States desperately needs an organization with funding and manpower to continue that legacy.
But it ain’t the ACLU anymore.
The ACLU is gone — fully turned over to the Social Justice™ dark side, now spending most of its time filing lawsuits on behalf of bereaved transgender “surgeons” denied access to children’s genitals or diverse pilots’ sacred right to fly commercial jetliners into ditches with no credentials for Equity™ or whatever.
Via New York Times (emphasis added):
Kate Oh was no one’s idea of a get-along-to-go-along employee.
During her five years as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, she was an unsparing critic of her superiors, known for sending long, blistering emails to human resources complaining about what she described as a hostile workplace.
She considered herself a whistle blower and advocate for other women in the office, drawing unflattering attention to an environment she said was rife with sexism, burdened by unmanageable workloads and stymied by a fear-based culture.
Then the tables turned, and Ms. Oh was the one slapped with an accusation of serious misconduct. The A.C.L.U. said her complaints about several superiors — all of whom were Black — used “racist stereotypes.” She was fired in May 2022.
The A.C.L.U. acknowledges that Ms. Oh, who is Korean American, never used any kind of racial slur. But the group says that her use of certain phrases and words demonstrated a pattern of willful anti-Black animus.
In one instance, according to court documents, she told a Black superior that she was “afraid” to talk with him. In another, she told a manager that their conversation was “chastising.” And in a meeting, she repeated a satirical phrase likening her bosses’ behavior to suffering “beatings.”
Let this be a lesson, boys and girls: the #MeToo tables will also turn, on a long enough timeline. Once you give yourself over to the Social Justice™ cult, it’s only a matter of time before you’re in the crosshairs yourself.
This Diversity™ Lady made her career on accusing all of her colleagues of various forms of discrimination — and then they came for her.
Continuing:
Did her language add up to racism? Or was she just speaking harshly about bosses who happened to be Black? That question is the subject of an unusual unfair-labor-practice case brought against the A.C.L.U. by the National Labor Relations Board, which has accused the organization of retaliating against Ms. Oh.
A trial in the case wrapped up this week in Washington, and a judge is expected to decide in the next few months whether the A.C.L.U. was justified in terminating her.
If the A.C.L.U. loses, it could be ordered to reinstate her or pay restitution.
The heart of the A.C.L.U.’s defense — arguing for an expansive definition of what constitutes racist or racially coded speech — has struck some labor and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the right to say it.
The ACLU once notoriously and valiantly fought for the rights of the KKK to march through American towns hurling racial epithets because that’s what freedom of speech requires. Now, it’s arguing for expanding the definition of proscribed “hate speech.”
Amazing.
