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.

Will this SAVE America’s children? SCOTUS upholds trans ban in red states

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

On Saturday, June 14, 2025 (President Trump's 79th birthday), the "No Kings" protest—a noisy spectacle orchestrated by progressive heavyweights like Randi Weingarten and her union cronies—will take place in Washington, D.C.

Thousands will chant "no thrones, no crowns, no king," claiming to fend off authoritarianism and corruption.

But let’s cut through the noise. The protesters' grievances—rigged courts, deported citizens, slashed services—are a house of cards. Zero Americans have been deported, Federal services are still bloated, and if anyone is rigging the courts, it's the Left. So why rally now, especially with riots already flaring in L.A.?

Chaos isn’t a side effect here—it’s the plan.

This is not about liberty; it's a power grab dressed up as resistance. The "No Kings" crowd wants you to buy their script: government’s the enemy—unless they’re the ones running it. It's the identical script from 2020: same groups, same tactics, same goal, different name.

But Glenn is flipping the script. He's dropping a new "No Kings but Christ" merch line, just in time for the protest. Merch that proclaims one truth: no earthly ruler owns us; only Christ does. It’s a bold, faith-rooted rejection of this secular circus.

Why should you care? Because this won’t just be a rally—it’ll be a symptom. Distrust in institutions is sky-high, and rightly so, but the "No Kings" answer is a hollow shout into the void. Glenn’s merch begs the question: if you’re ditching kings, who’s really in charge? Get yours and wear the answer proudly.