Student Claims White Privilege Is Blocking People of Color From Going Outside

Did you think everyone is born with the right to go outside, smell the roses and maybe enjoy some hiking? According to one student’s analysis of white privilege in outdoor culture, you’re wrong.

A student at Claremont Colleges in California has claimed that the schools’ outdoor programs are “predominately white spaces” that are “uncomfortable” for students of color. “The image of the ‘outdoorsy individual’ is an exclusive classification that gives white people the authority to venture into the outdoors freely, leaving people of color behind,” Malcolm McCann wrote.

Doc stood in for Glenn on today’s show and talked about this story with Kal. Both were puzzled by the idea that being “outdoorsy” is exclusively for white people.

Want the full story? Read our explainer here.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Take part in any outdoor activities? Do you golf? How about hiking? Do you bike ride? Go for walks? Anything outdoors other than just, you know, going and getting in the car? You spend any significant time outdoors? Do you camp, any of that stuff? Well, if you're saying yes, that's because you're white.

KAL: What?

DOC: It's because you're white.

KAL: I beg to differ. I've seen many races outdoors.

DOC: Trust me, they were masquerading as some other race. Trust me they were. I think they were likely white people in disguise. That's probably what it was.

I say that because a student at Claremont College in California wrote an op-ed that says non-white people are excluded from the outdoors because of white supremacy.

And I can't tell you all the times I've gotten together at the Klan meetings. And we're there with the hoods. And burning the crosses, just to keep everybody else from outside.

You know, it's our goal, you know, to keep as many people inside as possible.

KAL: As many white -- you want white people outside.

DOC: Yeah. We want the non-white people inside. The white people outside. You know, that's the goal.

What?

KAL: This is a white-only hiking trail. Sorry.

DOC: He explains it this way in his op-ed piece, he says, due to the predominance of whiteness in the outdoors.

KAL: That sounds like -- that sounds like a bad combination.

DOC: You know what, I've seen white people outside. I have seen them outside.

KAL: I have seen one or two.

DOC: Due to the predominance of whites outdoors, people of color have been denied access to outdoors. What? With the boarding up of doors, windows, barring them.

KAL: I don't really think this person lives in another country.

DOC: You haven't seen this?

KAL: I haven't seen any of this.

DOC: That's likely because you're one of those white people.

KAL: Has he been outside? Because seems quite a few other people outside.

DOC: Hmm. Let me think. He said, due to the predominance of whiteness outdoors, we're getting into wintertime.

Is that what he means? Well, with all the snow and what not. And the whiteness.

KAL: The whiteness is causing the winter.

DOC: I don't know. He says, outdoor clubs are the most funded on campus. Yet, are saturated with white supremacy. The outdoor clubs.

So likely what they did, okay. It's our hiking club. Welcome to the hiking club.

KAL: Yes. Hi, my name is Jim.

DOC: Hey, Jim, welcome to the club. And we've all been here for a while, for a few years. Tell you all about the hiking. We go on a couple trips for year. Here's the list of things you'll need to hike.

KAL: Oh, great, great.

DOC: You'll see here it has the shoes. The white sheets. You're going to need --

KAL: Why do you need a sheet to go hiking?

DOC: For the outfit, for the outfit. You'll need that. A cross to burn.

KAL: Hold on.

DOC: A lunch. A picnic lunch.

KAL: Cross to burn, I'm not cool with that. Pointy hat.

DOC: You'll need some nooses. We go lynching people, to keep them inside. That's our goal.

KAL: Going to have to avoid this group.

DOC: He says the outdoor clubs are saturated with white supremacy. He admits the clubs are open for all people, yet saturated with white supremacy, because no matter the color of someone's skin, you can attend these clubs, but not everyone feels safe to attend.

So it's a safety issue that is having the whites rule supreme at these outdoor clubs at Claremont Colleges in California. Oh, they must be.

See, apparently, this is part of the systematic racism, where it's scaring people to keep them away. It's a scare tactic. Well, we don't want them as part of our outdoors club. You know.

He went on to write in his op-ed piece, this discomfort is unfortunately caused by existing racial boundaries. Historically, white people in imperialist conquests have appropriated land as their own. North America rightfully belongs to indigenous communities, yet it has been taken away from them by force. Consequently, a false sense of ownership of nature permeates white America.

We know we own --

KAL: Nature?

DOC: We own nature. Whitey, of course.

KAL: Do the trees and the birds and the squirrels.

DOC: White. Absolutely white.

You mean do tell me any non-white people out there, somewhere -- a non-white person owns a tree.

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: Please. Yeah, yeah.

KAL: I'm pretty sure.

DOC: You're so naive, Kal. So naive. The image of the outdoorsy individual, he said, is an exclusive classification that gives white people the authority to venture into the outdoors freely, leaving people of color behind.

KAL: This is so ridiculous.

DOC: How do you even come up with this? How can you even write this?

KAL: I have no words.

DOC: I think I may understand it. They smoke a lot of dope in Claremont Colleges. That's the only thing I could come up with.

KAL: Or his head is so far up his other thing, that's -

DOC: Maybe there was a fall in his past, and he hit his head a lot, repeatedly.

He went on to say, racial barriers that prevent nonwhites from stepping outside. But also, financial barriers are a problem.

KAL: Really?

DOC: To non-white people being allowed into the great outdoors. He said, only people with economic privilege can participate in outdoor activities.

KAL: I don't know if you know this, you don't need that much to go hiking.

DOC: Oh, walking is -- you know how expensive walking is?

Every time I head out -- I mean, I can afford it because I'm white.

KAL: Okay.

DOC: Every time I head out, they're like, that's going to be $450 billion. And I just write the check. And I'm like, man, fortunately, I make 700 trillion as a week, you know, as a white person, and I can afford it.

KAL: That's right.

DOC: But crazy expensive to walk. I mean, that's -- you know, and running. You know, I run now --

KAL: You do run.

DOC: Even more expensive.

KAL: Secret white trail.

DOC: Me and my economic privilege participating in activities.

He also says understanding obscure outdoor lingo is something that -- that white people get. Nonwhites don't.

You know, we have this special -- special language like -- well, I'll give you some examples of special coded things that apparently non-white people don't understand about the great outdoors, like walk. Walk.

KAL: Walk. That's a white-only thing?

DOC: I assume. I mean, these are outdoorsy terms. Run. Picnic. Maybe they don't know that.

Golf. Maybe they don't know what that word means. Frisbee. Okay. That's pretty white. That's a bad example. Don't use that. That's actually a really bad example. I think that just may be for white people. Stupidly, but, yeah.

Not because nonwhites are excluded. It's just they're smarter than whites and they don't actually take part in fraul (phonetic) -- they're not a part of that.

So can you think of any other lingo that may be throwing them off, where they're like, I don't understand what they're talking about. The cracker is over there. What with words like --

KAL: Run and jump.

DOC: And swim. Fish. They don't -- they don't understand them apparently.

KAL: Throw the ball.

DOC: So you got the financial barriers. Economic privilege. You got the special lingo. I imagine garb is a part of that.

KAL: So it's a recipe for --

DOC: It also said friendship can act as a portal for the whiteness, for those who have historically been denied the privilege of comfort.

KAL: What?

DOC: Let me share that again. Friendship can act as a portal to the wilderness, for those who have been historically denied the privilege of comfort.

So I guess invite a non-white friend to the great outdoors. You'll have to explain to them, this is a -- sidewalk. Sidewalk. Repeat after me.

KAL: What we're going to do now, 1 foot in front of the other.

DOC: Like this. You need to get them used to it. How to do this.

KAL: It's called jogging. The J is silent.

DOC: Now, he offers some solution to the outdoors being part of white supremacy. Would you like to know his solutions?

KAL: I would be thrilled.

DOC: Number one, affirm that nature belongs to all humans, not just white ones.

KAL: Okay.

DOC: We need that affirmation.

KAL: We need to know that. Okay. I didn't know nature belonged to humans at all, but okay.

DOC: No. For all you whites out there, that are walking around like nature belongs to you exclusively, it does not. And I'm here to affirm that it does not just belong to you. It belongs to the other folk as well, not just to the crackers. Not just to the honkies. Not just to the peckerwoods, but everybody. I'm here to affirm -- how do we affirm -- how many times do I have to say this?

No, no, no. So how do I -- do I have to put it on signs, or is there a public -- I mean, I just affirmed it.

KAL: Yeah, I think you probably have --

DOC: Am I done affirming, or do I have to keep affirming? Does everybody have to affirm it all the time? I don't know -- I wish he would offer a clarification. But anyway --

KAL: Kind of like if you're white, you have to affirm it.

DOC: Affirm that nature belongs to all humans, not just white ones. Number two, the image of the outdoor enthusiast should not belong to just white people. That's one of the solutions.

KAL: The image of the outdoor enthusiast.

DOC: Yes. Should not belong to just white people.

KAL: Okay.

DOC: Which means, Kal, we proceed to fix that by --

KAL: Making more nonwhite people --

DOC: The image of outdoor enthusiasts should not just belong to white people.

KAL: Are you talking about, like, magazines and ads and things?

DOC: I was hoping you could help me out with this. I have no idea what this means. I don't know.

KAL: Do they know that the guy who -- well, not this year. But the last 50 New York City marathons have been won by, like, an African guy. Like a Kenyan.

DOC: No! It's white guys.

KAL: This is the first year in I don't know how long.

DOC: I don't think they let blacks enter. They don't even let them enter, do they?

In fact, there's none in Manhattan. That's entire outdoors, been exclusively white people.

You're telling me there are blacks that enter the New York marathon? Is it like a separate, but equal marathon?

KAL: No, no, no. They all run together. They all run together.

DOC: Okay. You run in Harlem. And we'll all run around Central Park.

KAL: No, no, everyone runs together. It's kind of co-mingling.

DOC: Okay. You're embarrassing yourself here. Let me just stop you. You obviously are misinformed. I'm just going to stop you before you embarrass yourself even more.

KAL: There's this game called basketball, where they play --

DOC: And that is primarily played, where?

KAL: Indoors.

DOC: There it is. How often is the MBA played inside?

KAL: Not quite often.

DOC: Okay. How often does the NFL play outside?

KAL: Sometimes they're open domes. You know, they're not always --

DOC: Like I said, it's 50/50.

Number three, white people should exert caution as not to dominate ownership of the word outdoorsy.

KAL: You guys own that? I didn't know that. Okay.

DOC: I own the word "outdoorsy." I mean, I say it at least once every millennia. Once every maybe decade. How often do you say outdoorsy?

KAL: When describing myself, not often at all.

DOC: Does it ever -- you would say outdoors? I will go outdoors.

KAL: I don't even think I say outdoors.

DOC: That often?

KAL: No.

DOC: Outdoorsy.

KAL: Where is the car? Outside.

DOC: All right. I'm going to go ahead and give it to you. I'm happy to never say it again. I feel comfortable with that.

KAL: You're giving up your white privilege?

DOC: I am. Because I don't want to dominate ownership of the word outdoorsy. I'm going to exert caution as to not dominate it.

KAL: All right. Thank you. Thank you for --

DOC: It's the least I could do.

KAL: Okay. Thank you.

DOC: And finally, he says, outdoor clubs on college campuses should work to increase accessibility and to help people learn the skills they will need. Increase accessibility to the outdoors.

KAL: Okay. All right.

DOC: I'm thinking more doors, more windows. Is that what we need? So colleges and dorms -- you know what we need? Maybe a white door and a black or non-white door.

KAL: You might want to be careful. Because they used to do that.

DOC: Well, yeah, but see, what we would do was have more nonwhite doors, so they would have greater accessibility to the outside. Apparently, they're getting bottlenecked at the door.

Maybe their doors are more narrow or something. Maybe like garage doors or more of them.

Until we get more teleportation, that's what I'm going for. More windows. More escape hatches. I'm willing to hear it all because I don't want to dominate the great outdoors.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.