Some of you may remember that last year I blogged about an incomprehensible plan by Brown University to form a “slavery reparations panel.” I called it Gospel of Oppression. About the president of Brown, a black woman named Ruth Simmons, I wrote:

How could a black woman, who made it all the way to the presidency of a school like Brown, come up with something as absurd as a reparations panel? That an educated, free black woman and 15 of her educated colleagues think this is a worthwhile endeavor speaks volumes about the absence of shame and rational thought.

Simmons and others are fully engaged in the “gospel of oppression.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “Gospel” as the “proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.” A more appropriate definition here is “Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true.”

The gospel of oppression, preached by liberals, is accepted as unquestionably true by the majority of people who vote for liberals. Sold a bill of goods by black “leaders” and white liberals, some blacks have bought the idea that they will never get ahead in America because of white people. And even if they manage to get ahead (like Simmons), its their responsibility to make white America pay.

As you can tell, I don’t like it.

I’ve put myself through this again because Stephen Beale, writing for FrontPage Magazine, has information about what the panel’s been up to:

With campus conservatives — spurred in large part by David Horowitz — becoming more vocal in their fight to attain academic freedom at colleges and universities nationwide, the academic Left has had to conjure new ways to mask its radical agenda.

A case in point: Almost one year has elapsed since its debut, yet the mission of Brown University’s Committee on Slavery and Justice remains unclear. Is the controversial committee a good-faith attempt to instruct the campus community in the virtues of disinterested dialogue, as university officials insist, or is Brown flirting with yet another politically correct, Leftist-inspired fad, as many conservatives suspect?

Last March, The New York Times reported that Brown had convened a committee to undertake “an exploration of reparations for slavery and specifically whether Brown should pay reparations or otherwise make amends for the past.” In support of this claim, the article quoted Brown President Ruth Simmons: “If the committee comes back and says, ‘Oh it’s been lovely and we’ve learned a lot,’ but there’s nothing in particular that they think Brown can do or should do, I will be very disappointed.” This statement appears to suggest that Simmons is very open to the idea of reparations.

Contrast that quote with a comment she made to The Boston Globe the following month: “The committee’s work is not about whether or how we should pay reparations. That was never the intent nor will the payment of reparations be the outcome. This is an effort designed to involve the campus community in a discovery of the meaning of our past.” Yet the committee would appear to be more than a grand historical inquest. It is, after all, designated as the University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. Does not the word “justice” suggest some sort of corrective action — such as reparations?….Simmons’ column in The Globe seems to exclude the possibility that the final committee report will specify how or to whom Brown should pay reparations. But there is also no doubt that the committee will examine the idea of reparations even if it does not actually recommend that Brown itself pay reparations.

Read the rest.

Related links and posts: Committee on Slavery and Justice, Alan Keyes, Disgruntled Token, Charity Schmarity