Draft talk:Kristen Clarke

I don't believe the source solidly supports the first claim just from skimming. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole thing, but I believe the author is talking about this: " (...) Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards." GeeJayK (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortly after the article was published, Clarke clarified the intentions of the article to Elie Kaunfer, a student leader for the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel, Harvard's campus center for Jewish life, who published Clarke's explanation in another article for The Crimson in 1994.

"I was confused and concerned about the content of Clarke's letter, which mentioned various theories claiming Blacks are genetically superior to whites. But I took the time to talk to Clarke and realized that she did not share those views," Kaufner wrote.

"The point of Clarke's letter, as explained to me, seemed to be that racist opinions of white Harvard 'scholars' are publicly debated while racist opinions of Black 'scholars' are categorically rejected. I wish Clarke had made this reasoning clear to The Crimson from the start."

Clarke addressed recent criticism following Carlson's show in an interview with The Forward on Wednesday night when she again said that her article Blacks Seek an End to Abuse was a direct response to The Bell Curve.

The Forward reported Clarke saying that The Bell Curve "was generating wide acclaim for its racist views," so she introduced her article "with an absurd claim that Black people are superior based on the melanin in their skin" in order to "hold up a mirror to reflect how reprehensible the premise of Black inferiority was set."

"It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view—fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory," Clarke told The Forward.

That's what prompted my comment. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The Newsweek article still says she actually wrote about this. My opinion is that the claim should stay, but we should expain that that she also gave a new explanation about what she meant later (though there's nothing on the original 1994 article about her being ironic on that time). What do you think? GeeJayK (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah just say she's trying to be ironic but communicated that poorly. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for me. I'll edit it in a few hours, but I'm having a beer right now and I don't think beer and wiki editing should mix. GeeJayK (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)