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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.