More from Breitbart:
In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a "classic" in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Cynthia Gordy interviewed Charles Ogletree in May 2010 for Essence Magazine, about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. You can read it at the Huffington Post, where Gordy described Ogletree as the "renowned Harvard law professor, who has known her for 25 years (and has also been a longtime mentor to President Obama)..."
CYNTHIA: What do you think of Elena Kagan as the President's Supreme Court pick?
CHARLES OGLETREE: I think Elena Kagan is a superb nominee. I started my teaching career at Harvard Law School in 1985, when she was a student there. I watched her work as an editor on the Harvard Law Review, and saw the phenomenal edits she did on a classic article by Professor Derrick Bell, the first African American to receive tenure at Harvard Law School, that addressed civil rights in the Constitution....
All but five Republians voted in favor against of Kagan's nomination. Those five were Lindsey Graham (SC), Judd Gregg (NH), Richard Lugar (IN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snow (ME). And only one Democrat voted against -- Ben Nelson (NE).
You might wonder where we've been all these years, that none of this has been mentioned until now -- not even when Eric Holder reprimanded us that we "simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial."
Well, we certainly do now (I hope he's happy). And it seems that Derrick Bell never talked about anything else! According to his eulogy in the New York Times (Oct. 2011), Derrick Bell was soft-spoken and erudite... and, well, fair and balanced:
... he attacked both conservative and liberal beliefs. In 1992, he told The New York Times that black Americans were more subjugated than at any time since slavery. And he wrote that in light of the often violent struggle that resulted from the Supreme Court’s 1954 desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education, things might have worked out better if the court had instead ordered that both races be provided with truly equivalent schools.
You can read more about his specific arguments at Bearing Drift: "Derrick Bell, Barack Obama and Liberalism" --
.... Bell posited that “Whites may agree in the abstract that blacks are citizens and are entitled to constitutional protection against racial discrimination, but few are willing to recognize that racial segregation is much more than a series of quaint customs that can be remedied without altering the status of whites.”
In other words, whites may only believe in diversity until it infringes upon their comfort. Bell applauds the argument that “when the directive of equality cannot be followed without displeasing the white, then something that can be called a ‘freedom’ of the white must be impaired.” That is to say, the security, liberty, and property of a certain group is absolutely expendable in the name of equality. This is liberal justice....
So the don't be surprised when the President, his Attorney General, a Supreme Court Justice (or some other radical recently risen to governmental power) next tries to alter your status or impair your freedom. Nevermind coexistence, liberal justice trumps all.
You do see that now, don't you? If not, then ask the nearest Wise Latina Woman to explain it to you.