Democrats Want to Close the Prisons, Except Not for People Like You

Kurt SchlichterFollow @KurtSchlichter

Aug 03, 2026

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

The current trend of Democratic Socialists of America goobers going on Fox and proudly coming out for all the weird and stupid things they support is akin to the phenomenon of a few years ago where you had furries publicly and proudly proclaiming their bizarre identity, except the people pretending to be cartoon foxes and wombats were less embarrassing. As dumb and creepy as it is to dress up as an anime marsupial and admit that their furry fetish tops “sincere people” and “long walks on the beach” on their list of turn-ons, at least the furry strange-os didn’t murder 100 million people over the last century. Of course, it’s probably only because their costumes don’t provide opposable thumbs to hold the guns.

It’s both amusing and horrifying to watch these DSA out n’ proud people in action. It’s pretty clear they never got the memo: you’re supposed to hide the most insane parts of your agenda so normal people can be suckered in. It’s like being inside a Trojan horse, which probably has a slightly different meaning to these perverts; you want to come across as someone vaguely relatable and then only reveal your true self when you come to power. But it’s hard for them to resist the limelight. They’ve never been in the limelight before. Look at these goofs. They are a hapless collection of weirdos, losers, and mutations, the kind of people who, in a civilized society, would’ve been bullied in middle school and high school into something near normality. Along the way, our society made the mistake of celebrating freaks, and now we’re overrun by them. Worse, in some places, we’re going to be run by them.

And that’s a problem. Socialism is bad. It’s strange that you have to say it, but people seem to forget most of the 20th century when socialism, the fantasy ideology of the evil, the envious, and the cruel, was both put into practice and thoroughly repudiated. The heaps of the dead are testimony to its inevitable result. They try to get around the truth of history by claiming that true communism has never been tried—yeah, I know there is supposed to be a difference between socialism and communism, but that’s like the difference between syphilis and AIDS; one is an inevitable gateway infection for the other, and you certainly don’t want either. But based on the world’s experience with this political pathology, true communism probably means 200 million dead. Maybe even more.

Some people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept the fact that other people are just plain evil will try to whitewash Marxism by arguing that it’s merely bad policy. See, it doesn’t work, they tell you, as if that’s the reason you don’t want to put it into practice. But it’s an inhuman and anti-God ideology that twists and perverts human nature to elevate lies and murder over truth and justice. As these creeps demonstrate, socialism is simply a means for losers to take from productive people what they’re too lazy and stupid to generate on their own. That’s why you never see one of these Marxists looking forward to the revolution where they get to be the guy digging the sewer line or manning a garbage truck; no, after the revolution, the cadres are going to be the ones composing genderfluid poetry or doing interpretive dances in their gardens, conveniently forgetting that the gardens wouldn’t be theirs, nor would anything else.

No, the evil of socialism is not a bug, but rather a feature. Remember, it’s driven by hate—hate of the normal, hate of the smarter, hate of the better, hate of your parents who just didn’t get you. And every single time it’s put into practice, we see the same thing. Since everything in socialism goes against human nature, you need an apparatus of repression designed to force people to accept what nature rejects. There’s not a socialist country without thuggish police. There’s not a socialist country where you can speak freely. There’s not a socialist country where you are free because your freedom defeats the whole purpose of socialism, which is ensuring your submission to the cadres.

We could go through all their policy prescriptions, from open borders to amnesty to free everything for everybody, thanks to the people like you who have to work to generate this bounty while the cadres are busy playing their lutes. Socialism is not about making lives better or creating prosperity or security or any of those things. It’s about jerks living out their personal psychodramas while they get off on making you miserable.

Nothing demonstrates that more than the idea of defunding the police and getting rid of prisons. After all, you wicked normal people deserve to have thugs, junkies, murderers, rapists, and other Democrat constituencies turned on you to make you pay for the crime of being you. You need to understand the deep hate that lives within all these people, and that’s why, in every single leftist sector of society, you see the actual criminals not merely being ignored but being idolized. The DSA types would free these barbarians for the express purpose of allowing those barbarians to hurt you, because you deserve to be hurt. You deserve to be killed. You deserve to be raped. Why? Because these freaks don’t like you and it amuses them to see you in pain.

But there’s a practical side to it too. The old Soviet Union understood it. Regular criminals were victims of society, and you, being the foundation of society, need to be victimized in return. If you were a regular criminal, you were treated infinitely better than someone who committed a real crime, that is, a political crime. If you opposed the regime, then you were a real criminal.

So all this stuff about closing the prisons is just nonsense. Same with defunding the police. The DSA types have no intention of ending prisons or ending the police. They just intend to change the target demographic from actual criminals to people like you who stand up and demand your rights. In the socialist paradigm, the only real crime is opposing the socialists. And they would not hesitate to lock you up or murder you if you get in their way.

Now, some people point to the social contract by which we give up our natural right to seek justice from those who wrong us in favor of the procedures we set up through our democratic government. This allows prosecution and punishment to be taken away from what are sometimes called vigilantes and given to our properly constituted government. And these folks critique the DSA prison-closing/police-defunding agenda by pointing out that we could just become vigilantes and do the justice dispensing ourselves. But of course, that would never happen, because the socialists would see vigilantism as an actual crime. Exercising power outside of the socialist structure is unforgivable. Oh, you can rape and molest and murder to your heart’s content, but cut into the party’s action? That’s when the gloves come off. That’s when the underfunded secret police are set upon you and haul you off to the unclosed gulag with the other uppity kulaks.

Socialism isn’t a bunch of 1960s ethnically homogeneous Swedes paying 55 percent in taxes to live moderately comfortably in clean and safe Stockholm. It’s Los Angeles in 2026 where a hobo is crapping on your lawn. It’s London in 2026 where you get arrested for tweeting unapproved things. It’s Spain in 2026, where a zillion Third World barbarians without shirts jump the border and run past cheering 20-something lefty girls in a grand de-reconquista.

We’ve actually been spoiled when it comes to defeating socialism. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan smashed the big socialist enchilada without firing a shot. The USSR collapsed under its own weight, but that was in large part because there was a counterexample, the glorious United States of the ’80s, a beacon to the rest of the world demonstrating that there was something better. But now, the socialists are hitting everything at once. They don’t want a counterexample hanging around out there. They don’t want people to know that there’s an alternative and to be able to peacefully undo their color revolution. We were spoiled, because we defeated socialism without much bloodshed in the big scheme of things.

But this time, we may not get off so easily. Socialists don’t always just give up. Chile overthrew the communists by throwing a bunch of them out of helicopters. The Spanish Nationalists defeated a communist-run revolution through years of fighting. Once the DSA-types get power, do you think they’ll just give it up if we ask nicely? Understand what kind of America these DSA types want. Understand that they will use the engines of government, including the courts and law enforcement, against you. Understand that there will still be crimes; it’s just those crimes will be saying what you think, praying how you want, and owning guns.

The last part is key. The last part is your backstop against perpetual tyranny. The last part is why they want you disarmed. So, buy guns and ammunition, because once the suckers and saps vote us into socialism, there is no voting our way back out of it.

BIG NEWS! Kurt’s next action-packed conservative novel, “American Warlord,” is out for presale now! Read Kurt’s Kelly Turnbull/People’s Republic series, including his latest “Panama Red,” and follow Kurt on X @KurtSchlichter!

JUST IN: Max Miller’s Lawyer Takes Responsibility for Making Sensitive Pic Public: ‘Completely My Fault’

Rep. Max Miller’s (R-OH) lawyer has taken full responsibility for making an inappropriate photo of the lawmaker’s young daughter public on social media.

In a statement to Mediaite, attorney Aaron Minc apologized for what he called a “completely unintentional” inclusion of the 2-year-old’s image.

Lawyers for Miller’s wife, Emily Moreno, filed a letter in court claiming the image appeared to show the child’s genitals and could constitute Child Sex Abuse Material.

Emily Moreno has accused Miller of scalding her with boiling water, and other abuse. Her father, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), finally called for Miller to quit Congress on Sunday.

Read Minc’s statement in full:

In the course of assembling and publishing a large volume of documents, I was responsible for ensuring that any sensitive information was redacted and removed from the files.

I took several steps to do this, made multiple passes and searches to redact and delete anything I could find, including the child’s name throughout and any other private information. I bleeped audio mentions of her name. I converted video files to audio so her image would not appear. I redacted current addresses and dates of birth that I could find referenced for any of the parties. I deleted metadata or converted files into PDFs where relevant. (Although I did not edit information already in publicly filed court documents and news article attachments.)

Unfortunately, I missed the last three pages of a 40+ page document with sensitive content. It was completely unintentional and a mistake. The moment I discovered the issue on Monday morning, I corrected the file immediately.

To be clear, this was completely my fault. I am solely responsible for what happened. I was the only person responsible for assembling, creating, reviewing, adding, deleting, redacting, or making any changes to the information and files that were in this folder. I am Mr. Miller’s personal counsel. I am not paid by, and do not work for, his campaign.

I am truly sorry to Congressman Miller, Ms. Moreno, both of their families, and, especially, to their daughter. I deeply regret the mistake. I find it egregious and shameful that Ms. Moreno and here counsels have decided to make a media spectacle regarding this unfortunate mistake and attract media attention to this incident as a means to try to gain leverage in court and distract from the underlying evidence that exonerates Mr. Miller from the false allegations he is accused of, and we are attempting to fight on his behalf.

Miller has vehemently denied abusing Emily Moreno and issued a video statement on Sunday to again reject the allegations.

Kathianne Boniello, Mediaite

It’s the Candidates, Stupid

Don Surber

Democrat nominees are creepy and kooky, mysterious and spooky. They’re all together ooky.

Aug 04, 2026

Democrats should be in the driver’s seat this fall. Mid-term elections usually go to the party out of power. The SAVE Act won’t be passed in time to stop fraud and corruption at the polls. The president is unpopular. The war is unpopular. The economy is as slow as Jessica Tarlov. And MAGA is almost as enthusiastic as Detroit Tigers fans.

The problem for Democrats are the openly communist Democrats who primaried the ones who can pass for normal. The crop of Democrat nominees this year look like they should live at 1313 Cemetery Lane with their children, Pugsley and Wednesday. Click, click.

Let’s start with Morticia, who was played by Kamala two years go.

Today, Democrats likely will nominate Francesco Hong today. If elected, she would be the first woman governor of Wisconsin, its first Asian governor, and its first bipolar governor.

She is a restauranteur—or was until her restaurant folded last year.

In a 2023 interview with Meal Magazine, she said, “At 18, I had a mental breakdown. I didn’t actually walk at my high school graduation because I had been hospitalized for a week at a child psychiatric hospital. I just felt like nothing had meaning anymore. It was a numbness that took over, and a pain that I couldn’t describe. I couldn’t feel anymore, and that scared the hell out of me. And I found myself self-harming to feel something.”

When asked about cutting, Hong said, “It was cutting. I was diagnosed with bipolar disease. I was taking SSRIs and I’d overdosed on lithium. I didn’t know why I couldn’t connect with people deeper, and that pushes you into isolation.”

Darrell McGraw served on the West Virginia Supreme Court for 12 years and then as the state’s attorney general for 20 years. He was DSA when DSA wasn’t cool. He also was bipolar and had episodes that flared up. I witnessed one. It was not pretty.

But a case for the role of Morticia could be made by Melat Kiros. At 29, she primaried a 30-year congresswoman in Colorado, who was the most leftist member of that state’s congressional delegation.

Colorado Newsline reported, “Kiros was fired from her position at the New York office of law firm Sidley Austin in late 2023, after she posted an open letter defending students protesting Israel’s war in Gaza from charges of antisemitism. She moved back to Denver, where she was raised after her family immigrated from Ethiopia when she was 11 months old, and worked as a barista before and during her campaign.”

Click, click.

Then there’s Gomez. Last year, he was played by Mamdani.

This year, Abdul El-Sayed gets the role. He likely will win the Democrat nomination for the U.S. Senate in Michigan. He bills himself as a physician and has a medical degree but he is not licensed as a doctor in Michigan or anywhere else.

El-Sayed supported erecting the Ground Zero mosque near the World Trade Center site, describing it in a 2010 column as an “exemplary response” to the attacks that would “transform grief into hope.”

His pal at rallies is Hasan Piker, a news celebrity who said “America deserved 9/11.”

El-Sayed argued that does not constitute an endorsement of those specific remarks, while emphasizing their shared economic and anti-war views—the war being the one against the Iranian regime, which has cried Death to America for 47 years.

Well, Obama survived Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s reaction five days after 9/11. Ilhan Omar dismissed 9/11 as “some people did something.” The power of the media to turn Muslims into the victims of 9/11 shouldn’t shock anyone who ever worked at a newspaper.

Then there’s Uncle Fester. Tampon Tim played him in 2024 as Democrats sought the white male vote. They presented him as a high school football coach and war hero. Indeed, he said in 2018, “We can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place where those weapons are at.”

Walz never was in a war. He retired after 24 years in the National Guard to avoid deployment to Iraq in 2005.

This year, two Maine Democrat nominees for the U.S. Senate vie for the role of Uncle Fester. The first one was a rich kid who cosplayed being an oyster farmer. Democrats were OK with his Nazi tattoo, misogynist posts online and him saying instead of shooting an intruder, he would rape him but not in a homosexual way.

After his nomination, the allegations of his rape of women in a heterosexual way soured voters. Polls showed his rapid decline and he withdrew. Failed gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson replaced him on the ballot.

Jackson is a lumberjack who hasn’t jacked any lumber in 28 years. He’s shacked up with a cousin for 29 years, with whom he had two children.

Click, click.

(Yes, today’s newsletter is click, click bait.)

Finding a new Pugsley after Fire Alarm Puller Jamaal Bowman lost two years ago is a little harder because the IQ required is so low. Thankfully, Democrats nominated James Talarico for U.S. Senate in Texas. He plays with dolls—Tony Fauci dolls.

But a case alsocould be made for Scott Wiener, who seeks to replace Nancy Pelosi, attended and praised San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, which has included public “piss play” in kiddie pools by fetish groups. He authored decriminalizing giving AIDS to people, as well as having sex with minors. Strait-laced people are not the ones obsessed with sex.

And there’s California congressional nominee Randy Villegas. He is Wiener-lite becauseas a member of the board for the Visalia Unified School District, he re-hired a pedophile.

Click, click.

Finally, there’s the daughter, Wednesday Addams. (Democrats have not had a good Lurch since John Kerry lost to Bush 22 years ago.)

The nominees for Wednesday are:

Darializa Avila Chevalier, who primaried Congressman Adriano Espaillat. She called the United States a “fucking disgrace.” She supports abolishing borders, the police and prisons.

JoAnna Mendoza, who is the Democrat nominee to unseat Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani. She’s a retired Marine DI and lesbian—who mysteriously married a Syrian man in 1998. The marriage last 16 days.

Washington state Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez beheaded a chicken while in college, which explains why DSA did not primary her.

And the winner is: Congressional nominees Sarah Trone Garriott of Iowa who officiated at a Satanic wedding. Nice day for a black wedding.

What all these rejects share in common is their unfitness for office as communists seek the worst candidates because if elected, they will more likely bring chaos than normal people would.

Ah for the good old days when Democrats let a klansman and a rich kid who left a woman to die underwater in the Chappaquiddick run the Senate.

Oh, there are a few old codgers screaming at clouds. James Carville said, “I am not going to be in the same party with Hasan Piker. I can tell you that right now. If he becomes a force in the Democrat Party, I’m out of here. I have no intention of ever being in the political party with that guy.”

Somebody needs to inform Carville that Democrats don’t want him because he’s 81.

An equally impotent Bill Maher said, “I would vote for Sara Palin” over a DSA candidate. Who cares? She ain’t on the ballot.

Just remember, this year’s Democrat nominees may be creepy and kooky, mysterious and spooky—all together ooky—but there is a good chance they will win in 

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get?

Posted on August 3, 2026 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Education, Great Britain, Race

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get? More corrupt, I suspect, than we can imagine. This is a big topic, but for now let’s take the case of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday. Arday’s story, as related by himself, is almost miraculous. And, it turns out, almost entirely false. Greeted as a hero just a few years ago–Cambridge’s youngest black professor!–his career is now on the rocks.

The story can be told in a chronological series of London Times articles:

February 2023: Jason Arday becomes Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

An autistic sociologist who could not read or write until he was 18 has become Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

Wait, what? Did this not strike anyone in academia as improbable?

Jason Arday, 37, was diagnosed with global development delay as well as autism spectrum disorder at the age of three and did not learn to speak until he was 11.

Less than eight years ago he was working in Sainsbury’s after therapists and career advisers predicted he would spend his adult life in assisted living and need lifelong support.

Arday, from Clapham, south London, has told how he defied the difficulties he faced and worked his way up in academia to land his dream role at Cambridge.

He couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t read or write until he was 18? And now is a professor at Cambridge? It is notable that Arday’s parents, who presumably know something about his ability to speak and read, have never given an interview to any news outlet.

You may wonder, in what field of study has Arday so distinguished himself that, after such a slow start, he is now a Cambridge professor? No, you probably don’t need to wonder:

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at the University of Cambridge, said: “Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities.

“His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities.

Posted on August 3, 2026 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Education, Great Britain, Race

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get? More corrupt, I suspect, than we can imagine. This is a big topic, but for now let’s take the case of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday. Arday’s story, as related by himself, is almost miraculous. And, it turns out, almost entirely false. Greeted as a hero just a few years ago–Cambridge’s youngest black professor!–his career is now on the rocks.

The story can be told in a chronological series of London Times articles:

February 2023: Jason Arday becomes Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

An autistic sociologist who could not read or write until he was 18 has become Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

Wait, what? Did this not strike anyone in academia as improbable?

Jason Arday, 37, was diagnosed with global development delay as well as autism spectrum disorder at the age of three and did not learn to speak until he was 11.

Less than eight years ago he was working in Sainsbury’s after therapists and career advisers predicted he would spend his adult life in assisted living and need lifelong support.

Arday, from Clapham, south London, has told how he defied the difficulties he faced and worked his way up in academia to land his dream role at Cambridge.

He couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t read or write until he was 18? And now is a professor at Cambridge? It is notable that Arday’s parents, who presumably know something about his ability to speak and read, have never given an interview to any news outlet.

You may wonder, in what field of study has Arday so distinguished himself that, after such a slow start, he is now a Cambridge professor? No, you probably don’t need to wonder:

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at the University of Cambridge, said: “Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities.

“His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities.

Next: July 2026: Cambridge University pioneer Jason Arday in plagiarism row.

The youngest black professor ever ­appointed at Cambridge University has been accused of plagiarising the work of other academics, a month before the release of his memoir, which details his “improbable triumphs and heart-breaking setbacks”.

Concerns about Jason Arday’s work have circulated within academic circles since 2023, the year he was made ­professor of sociology at the age of 37.

They were aired publicly this week in an article published on the blog of a former Cambridge academic, who presented a side-by-side comparison of ­Arday’s PhD dissertation with the thesis of another student.

This Times article takes a neutral stance on the plagiarism question, and devotes equal time to undermining the person who raised the issue. It also repeats, uncritically, Arday’s origin story:

Arday’s achievement in becoming a professor at such a young age was even more impressive for the fact that he was unable to read or write until he was 18. Diagnosed at age three with autism spectrum disorder, he was non-verbal until the age of 11 and left school with two GCSEs, in PE and textiles.

But Arday’s fantastic claims now began to draw scrutiny.

July 2026: Cambridge University professor faces scrutiny over fundraising claims.

A Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism is facing fresh questions about claims he made of long distance running feats and charity fundraising.

Jason Arday, who at 37 became the youngest black professor ever ­appointed at the University of Cambridge, has repeatedly spoken about extraordinary endurance running challenges, which he said raised vast sums of money for charity.

Experts in ultra-distance running have now cast doubt on some of his claims, some of which have been removed from the internet or the references changed. *** Arday has spoken often of undertaking endurance running challenges to raise money for charity. He told the Greenbelt Festival in 2024: “When I was 25, I ran 30 marathons in 35 days. And then I did a series of challenges after that and then I ran 300 miles in 3 days on the treadmill. And then the final challenge when I was 30, I ran 600 miles in 6 days. And I was fortunate that I got to that target of a million pounds before I turned 30.”

Extraordinary claims. But at this point, both the London Times and Cambridge University were on Arday’s side:

On Friday June 24, Cambridge defended Arday, ­saying that the allegations of plagiarism against him were unfounded and part of “a vile campaign to undermine his credibility”. Liverpool John Moores University said it had investigated the allegations and cleared Arday of any wrongdoing.

August 2026: ‘Plagiarist’ professor Jason Arday faces scrutiny over pig’s head claim.

A Cambridge academic at the centre of a plagiarism row is facing further scrutiny over claims that police investigated a pig’s head he said was sent to his parents.

Jason Arday was fêted as the youngest black professor at the university, but has become embroiled in a plagiarism scandal after he was alleged to have used the work of other academics in his dissertation.

In an interview with The Times last week, he acknowledged a series of errors in his work but denied he was “a liar”.

He has now faced further scrutiny over claims he has made about his personal life, including the level of abuse he is alleged to have suffered. In an interview with The Guardian, published on Saturday, he claimed a severed pig’s head was delivered to his parents’ home in south London.

However, the Metropolitan Police told The Times they could find “no record of any allegation involving a pig’s head and no record of any of the subsequent claims about officers visiting butchers [as Arday alleged]”.

The Times article also describes Arday’s claim, obviously false, that he was featured in a television series that aired before he was born.

The Times article also describes Arday’s claim, obviously false, that he was featured in a television series that aired before he was born.

August 3, 2026: Cambridge academic loses backing over plagiarism claims.

The president of a Cambridge college has withdrawn her support for the Cambridge professor Jason Arday after he appeared to admit plagiarising parts of his PhD thesis.

Professor Dame Ijeoma Uchegbu, a nanoscientist and the head of Wolfson College, had previously signed an open letter in support of Arday that was circulated by the Good Law Project.

Arday, who was the youngest black professor to be appointed by the university, has been accused of plagiarism and making exaggerated claims about his sporting and fundraising achievements.

This is notable:

Significant parts of his PhD thesis appear to have been copied verbatim from another researcher, Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, who wrote a PhD thesis on the same topic several years earlier.

When LJMU investigated the case, Arday did not dispute the specific allegations of plagiarism but said the misconduct panel should consider the political context of a “war on critical race theory” and the weaponisation of plagiarism allegations against black researchers.

So, a guilty plea. But the “political context” makes it OK. We are all on the same side, aren’t we?

Posted on August 3, 2026 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Education, Great Britain, Race

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get? More corrupt, I suspect, than we can imagine. This is a big topic, but for now let’s take the case of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday. Arday’s story, as related by himself, is almost miraculous. And, it turns out, almost entirely false. Greeted as a hero just a few years ago–Cambridge’s youngest black professor!–his career is now on the rocks.

The story can be told in a chronological series of London Times articles:

February 2023: Jason Arday becomes Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

An autistic sociologist who could not read or write until he was 18 has become Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

Wait, what? Did this not strike anyone in academia as improbable?

Jason Arday, 37, was diagnosed with global development delay as well as autism spectrum disorder at the age of three and did not learn to speak until he was 11.

Less than eight years ago he was working in Sainsbury’s after therapists and career advisers predicted he would spend his adult life in assisted living and need lifelong support.

Arday, from Clapham, south London, has told how he defied the difficulties he faced and worked his way up in academia to land his dream role at Cambridge.

He couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t read or write until he was 18? And now is a professor at Cambridge? It is notable that Arday’s parents, who presumably know something about his ability to speak and read, have never given an interview to any news outlet.

You may wonder, in what field of study has Arday so distinguished himself that, after such a slow start, he is now a Cambridge professor? No, you probably don’t need to wonder:

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at the University of Cambridge, said: “Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities.

“His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities.

Next: July 2026: Cambridge University pioneer Jason Arday in plagiarism row.

The youngest black professor ever ­appointed at Cambridge University has been accused of plagiarising the work of other academics, a month before the release of his memoir, which details his “improbable triumphs and heart-breaking setbacks”.

Concerns about Jason Arday’s work have circulated within academic circles since 2023, the year he was made ­professor of sociology at the age of 37.

They were aired publicly this week in an article published on the blog of a former Cambridge academic, who presented a side-by-side comparison of ­Arday’s PhD dissertation with the thesis of another student.

This Times article takes a neutral stance on the plagiarism question, and devotes equal time to undermining the person who raised the issue. It also repeats, uncritically, Arday’s origin story:

Arday’s achievement in becoming a professor at such a young age was even more impressive for the fact that he was unable to read or write until he was 18. Diagnosed at age three with autism spectrum disorder, he was non-verbal until the age of 11 and left school with two GCSEs, in PE and textiles.

But Arday’s fantastic claims now began to draw scrutiny.

July 2026: Cambridge University professor faces scrutiny over fundraising claims.

A Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism is facing fresh questions about claims he made of long distance running feats and charity fundraising.

Jason Arday, who at 37 became the youngest black professor ever ­appointed at the University of Cambridge, has repeatedly spoken about extraordinary endurance running challenges, which he said raised vast sums of money for charity.

Experts in ultra-distance running have now cast doubt on some of his claims, some of which have been removed from the internet or the references changed. *** Arday has spoken often of undertaking endurance running challenges to raise money for charity. He told the Greenbelt Festival in 2024: “When I was 25, I ran 30 marathons in 35 days. And then I did a series of challenges after that and then I ran 300 miles in 3 days on the treadmill. And then the final challenge when I was 30, I ran 600 miles in 6 days. And I was fortunate that I got to that target of a million pounds before I turned 30.”

Extraordinary claims. But at this point, both the London Times and Cambridge University were on Arday’s side:

On Friday June 24, Cambridge defended Arday, ­saying that the allegations of plagiarism against him were unfounded and part of “a vile campaign to undermine his credibility”. Liverpool John Moores University said it had investigated the allegations and cleared Arday of any wrongdoing.

August 2026: ‘Plagiarist’ professor Jason Arday faces scrutiny over pig’s head claim.

A Cambridge academic at the centre of a plagiarism row is facing further scrutiny over claims that police investigated a pig’s head he said was sent to his parents.

Jason Arday was fêted as the youngest black professor at the university, but has become embroiled in a plagiarism scandal after he was alleged to have used the work of other academics in his dissertation.

In an interview with The Times last week, he acknowledged a series of errors in his work but denied he was “a liar”.

He has now faced further scrutiny over claims he has made about his personal life, including the level of abuse he is alleged to have suffered. In an interview with The Guardian, published on Saturday, he claimed a severed pig’s head was delivered to his parents’ home in south London.

However, the Metropolitan Police told The Times they could find “no record of any allegation involving a pig’s head and no record of any of the subsequent claims about officers visiting butchers [as Arday alleged]”.

The Times article also describes Arday’s claim, obviously false, that he was featured in a television series that aired before he was born.

August 3, 2026: Cambridge academic loses backing over plagiarism claims.

The president of a Cambridge college has withdrawn her support for the Cambridge professor Jason Arday after he appeared to admit plagiarising parts of his PhD thesis.

Professor Dame Ijeoma Uchegbu, a nanoscientist and the head of Wolfson College, had previously signed an open letter in support of Arday that was circulated by the Good Law Project.

Arday, who was the youngest black professor to be appointed by the university, has been accused of plagiarism and making exaggerated claims about his sporting and fundraising achievements.

This is notable:

Significant parts of his PhD thesis appear to have been copied verbatim from another researcher, Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, who wrote a PhD thesis on the same topic several years earlier.

When LJMU investigated the case, Arday did not dispute the specific allegations of plagiarism but said the misconduct panel should consider the political context of a “war on critical race theory” and the weaponisation of plagiarism allegations against black researchers.

So, a guilty plea. But the “political context” makes it OK. We are all on the same side, aren’t we?

It seems clear that Jason Arday’s entire story is a lie. Academia is most sensitive to the plagiarism issue, but that is perhaps the least of it.

On X, we have The Great Unchecked Fairy Tale of Jason Arday:

Arday has said he was diagnosed with autism and global developmental delay at three. Non-verbal until eleven. Couldn’t read or write until eighteen. He claimed three hours of speech therapy every day, six or seven days a week, from the age of three. In a later video he upped it to four to five hours every day from the age of three. He has also said his mother “holds five degrees” and that he comes from “a family of nurses.”

His parents have never given a public interview. Not once. No clinic named. No therapist. No school records from Wandsworth, Southfields or Merton confirming any of this. The five-degrees claim for his mother only appeared recently. Earlier profiles just called her a mental health nurse. Daily private therapy on that scale for eight years would have cost a fortune. No one has ever produced a single independent source for any of it.

Developing normal speech after being non-verbal until eleven is medically improbable. He left school with GCSEs in PE and Textiles — tests that require literacy and are normally taken at 15 or 16. His forthcoming memoir now softens it to “left secondary school with two GCSEs… still barely able to read or write.” The story moves when it needs to.

He has also claimed to be deaf in one ear. This claim appeared only recently and has never been independently verified.

His parents have never given a single public interview, never confirmed the diagnoses, never confirmed the speech therapy, never confirmed the five degrees, and never spoken in support of any part of the early-life story.

There is much, much more at the link. To be fair, though, there is one aspect of Arday’s story that is actually documented: at one time in his life, he was a physical education teacher. From P.E. teacher to Cambridge professor! It took chutzpah, if nothing else. And it shows the utter corruption of academia, desperate as always for “an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education.”

John Hinderaker

Iran’s Leaders Now Doubt a Peace Deal Is Possible

What I’ve learned from speaking with Iranian officials and analysts.

Last week, I was invited to join a program hosted by an independent Iranian media platform called Azad, which specializes in facilitating debates between policy experts in Iran and further abroad. My debate was with Majid Shakeri, who gained prominence as a foreign policy advisor to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (the current speaker of the country’s parliament) during Ghalibaf’s most recent presidential campaign. Shakeri was also part of the negotiating team that went to Islamabad earlier this year to hammer out the (now-moribund) MOU with the United States.

These days, when you listen to Shakeri’s interviews, you will hear him insist that he holds no official position. But he remains influential. His worldview, which brings together—not always convincingly—the principles of a son of the revolution with the pragmatism of an academic economist, is ascendant in Tehran. It is a reflection of Iran’s intellectual environment, which retains significant space for public discussion of political, economic, and social issues, that I would be invited on to talk with Shakeri. It was also characteristically Iranian that the discussion lasted three hours.

Our debate, at its core, was about how much pessimism is warranted on the war. Shakeri, like other Iranian analysts and officials I have spoken to in recent weeks, simply does not believe a deal with the Trump administration is possible. As a result, his prescriptions for Iranian policy are not focused on maximizing the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough. Instead, he is calling for proactive management of an ongoing U.S. threat.

Interestingly, we were not miles apart in our understanding of the causes of the U.S.–Iran war or the nature of the crisis now unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. For many years, the divergence between Western and Iranian policy analysis reflected fundamental differences in worldview. But recently those differences in perspective have become less pronounced. Policy analysis in Iran has been fully professionalized, with think tanks, research institutes, and media platforms adopting the same kinds of methodologies and modalities as their Western counterparts. Moreover, the crises at hand have become more legible. Whereas analysis during the War on Terror leant itself to a significant degree of esotericism about ideologies and their impacts, the crisis unfolding in the Persian Gulf is a question of material realities, including stockpiles of missile interceptors and inventories of crude oil. It is easier for analysts to be objective when all they must do is count.

And when it comes to diplomacy with the United States, Iranian analysts are often counting. They are counting the times the Trump administration has violated agreements, or interrupted negotiations with military attacks. They are counting the reasons a comprehensive agreement seems impossible to reach with this White House.

First, at a technical level, the Trump administration was unable to execute even the most basic confidence-building measures of the MOU. After it was signed, no Iranian assets were released; while a waiver was initially issued to permit Iranian oil exports, it was never fully implemented and ended up being rescinded. Iranian leaders are also looking to other contexts. In Venezuela, where the administration has used its complete political control to make a full-court press for economic engagement with the U.S., reports indicate that American oil companies are struggling to make headway, even as Trump touts his big investment targets.

Second, in the domain of politics, Iranian policy experts discern a growing rift between the Rubio and Vance camps and are concluding that the administration is inherently dysfunctional. As NBC recently reported, the president is “exasperated” because “there is no unity” among his top aides. During the Biden years, the issue was whether the president could defend his deal from political rivals in Congress. Now, the rivals are within the cabinet itself.

Finally, at an individual level, there is a growing sense that Trump is too erratic to stick by his own deals. Even Saudi Arabia, the Mideast country with perhaps the greatest influence in the White House after Israel, could not protect its own recent nuclear deal from the President’s inconstancy.

Facing the perceived inexperience and irrationality in Washington, policymakers in Tehran are struggling to find a way out of this crisis. Advocates for diplomacy have been forced to acknowledge that talks have a low chance of success, even as they insist that Iran cannot afford to sustain this war for much longer. For more hawkish figures like Shakeri, there is no strong, positive case for diplomatic engagement. They believe that Washington’s dysfunction will continue to manifest in the form of economic pressure and kinetic action against Iran—and it is therefore necessary to “win” the war before any discussion of new diplomatic understandings, whether with regional neighbors or the United States.

Stuck between the U.S. and Iran are the regional countries, which have borne a huge cost during the last six months of fighting. But the war arguably would have been much worse were it not for the strength of regional diplomacy. As I insisted to Shakeri, Iran’s shift towards a more constructive “neighborhood policy,” a move that began seven years ago in response to Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA and imposition of “maximum pressure” sanctions, prevented the outbreak of a full regional war. While Iran struck its Arab neighbors in retaliation for the American and Israeli attacks, regional countries have been able to forestall further escalation through direct dialogue with Tehran. In other words, the region has been trying to compensate for Washington’s strategic errors for the better part of a decade, and it is this compensatory approach that offers the best chance to bring the war to a close and restore security and stability in the Persian Gulf.

Amid growing pessimism about what Washington can do to resolve this war diplomatically, perhaps there should be optimism that Trump can be convinced to step away from the crisis altogether. If he tries to do less, the negotiations underway between Iran and its regional neighbors will provide an opening for the United States to reduce its military and economic interventionism in the region. The Trump administration should rely on regional allies—especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—to advance their own interests in a manner that also addresses American concerns over potential Iranian hegemony.

Shakeri insisted that Iran would not allow the Strait of Hormuz to reopen until it saw a definitive change in U.S. strategy—not just a shift in tactics. We might hope that he is wrong in that assessment, but I too am skeptical the crisis can be resolved in any other way.

About The Author

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is the Founder and CEO of Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.

The American Conservative

Spain Proudly Announces That Ceuta Is The Fastest-Growing City In The World

MADRID — The Spanish government proudly announced that after a recent demographic change, the city of Ceuta is now the fastest-growing city on the planet.

Spain stated that Ceuta has become something of an overnight sensation, with tens of thousands moving into the city over the course of mere hours.

“It has become the hot destination, especially for young men,” said Spanish government spokesman Alejandro Via. “There are so many people pouring into the city, we literally cannot stop them. The population growth is explosive and unprecedented, a true reflection of the amazing work the Spanish government has done in making Spain such a desired destination. Move over, Texas and Florida. Cueta is now the fastest-growing place in the world!”

According to local reports, the population of Ceuta, previously 85,000, increased by 75% over the course of just two hours last week. “What a testament to how wonderful Spain is,” said local man Carlos Pineda. “People are actually killing each other by the dozens just to get here. There are a bunch of people sleeping on my lawn because there are simply no beds left in the city. It is a proud accomplishment for all of Spain.”

At publishing time, thousands of the new arrivals had returned to Morocco, prompting the Spanish Tourism Board to announce that Ceuta had quickly rebranded itself the top tourist destination on the planet.

Babylon Bee

Don’t Forget: There Are Two Multi-Trillion Dollar Pseudoscience Scams

The news this past week has been filled by Rand Paul’s Senate hearings exposing the extent of the scientific fraud perpetrated by ex-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci in the matter of Covid-19. First Paul released Fauci’s “diaries,” otherwise known as personal musings recorded in various places on the government’s servers. Then Fauci was compelled to testify, whereupon he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege more than 100 times and never provided a word of substantive testimony.

However, the diaries on their face revealed numerous instances where Fauci’s public statements were blatant deceptions. As just one example, on January 20, 2020, Fauci wrote “Now we know the market was not the source [of the virus], it was the amplifier.” But even as he admitted that in private, he was going to extraordinary lengths in public to cover up that conclusion, apparently in order to deflect blame from himself for having funded the research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that actually unleashed the pandemic. Among other things, Fauci induced the writing of papers to promote the theory that the virus arose in the Wuhan wet market — a theory he knew was wrong. From Matt Ridley, writing in Spiked on July 31:

[A] week [after his January 20, 2020 entry, Fauci] convened a group of 12 scientists, most of whom thought it possible, perhaps even probable, that the virus had been engineered in a laboratory, to discuss their concerns. He then tasked four of the fairly junior ones in the meeting (a fifth author joined later), some of whom depended on grants from his agency, to write a paper, ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2’. This paper outright dismissed the possibility of a lab leak as the origin of Covid. He and Jeremy Farrar, the then director of the Wellcome Trust, edited and promoted the publication of that paper. Fauci then disguised his own role in doing so. . . .

Similar levels of deception characterized everything about Fauci’s Covid-19 regime, from the promotion of lockdowns, to masking, to mandatory vaccination, and more. Dissenters were silenced and ostracized. The overall cost of the deceptions reaches easily into the multiple trillions of dollars. As the level of blatant deceptions has been revealed, millions of people have realized that official government “science” cannot be trusted to any degree. As likely as not, it is no more than a convenient cover story to justify protecting or enriching the politically powerful interests of the moment. As the amount of government funding backing a particular “scientific” narrative rises, and reaches into the hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars, the likelihood that that narrative can be trusted declines until it approaches zero.

So therefore keep in mind that the Covid-19 “science” narrative is not the only recent narrative cloaked with the mantle of “science” that has been showered with government funding into the multi-trillions of dollars. There is a second. That second narrative is the “climate” scare — that is, the claim that human use of hydrocarbon fuels and release of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere is leading to some kind of existential climate crisis.

Is there any reason to believe that the still ongoing climate scare narrative is any more trustworthy than the Covid-scare narrative has proven to have been? Both have been backed by a vast research apparatus, almost entirely government funded, which looks to lose most of its funding and associated careers and promotions and prestige if there really is no underlying existential crisis.

Fauci’s disgrace came from a world of perverse incentives. His goal as a public servant should have been to get the public through the pandemic with the least possible death, costs and inconveniences. But his personal fame, funding and wealth could be maximized by exaggerating the danger of the virus, deflecting away from himself the blame for the origins of the problem, and demanding sacrifices from the public in the form of lockdowns, masking or the like.

Very comparable perverse incentives bear on the “climate scientists” who continually proclaim a climate crisis and demand sacrifices from the public. Without a manufactured crisis, there is no need at all for 95% of them. In my recent post on the litigation concerning the Endangerment Finding, check out the list of some of the dozens of organizations trying to preserve this underlying basis for hundreds of billions of dollars of government funding, supposedly to “solve” the climate crisis.

In fact, we’ve known at least since the Climategate emails were released from the University of East Anglia way back in 2009 that the whole climate scare has been characterized by data manipulation, orthodoxy enforcement and suppression of dissent. Fauci’s embarrassment from his conduct as to Covid-19 serves as a timely reminder to remain skeptical at all times about government-funded science, and even more so when the money involved reaches into the trillions.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

Iranian revolution can happen ‘any day now’ as protest leaders try to arm: sources

 

David Spector

The streets of Iran are near a breaking point over public executions, economic collapse and a war that’s been raging on for more than five months, anti-regime figures in Tehran told The Post.

“A revolution can happen any day now — people want revenge,” a protest leader said, referring to the regime’s brutal January crackdown that President Trump said killed 52,000 people.

An independent journalist active in the Iranian underground said that preparations are already being made for the next uprising, and that activists from all walks of life are determined to make a final, decisive blow against the regime.

Both Iranians spoke with The Post through a translator by cellphone after signing on to a VPN.

“We’re studying the protests from January, determining what tactics worked and which didn’t; we’re analyzing maps to determine the safest and most dangerous areas to congregate,” the journalist said.

He claimed that the Iranian resistance has hidden crude weaponry and tools throughout the country — bricks, rocks, wooden clubs, chairs and tires used to block roads — waiting for the day that people once again take to the streets.

Small groups are working clandestinely to procure firearms to distribute to demonstrators — utilizing guns stored in certain private homes and smuggled from abroad, the protest leader claimed. They did not specify who would be providing these weapons.

“When we went out in January, we were like lambs to the slaughter; the Basij forces were using firepower that you couldn’t believe; the streets were like a graveyard, corpses everywhere, the streets ran red with blood,” she said, unable to contain her rage and grief.

She warned regime forces: “Next time we come out, we’re coming out armed.”

The trauma from the January protests where thousands of unarmed demonstrators were mowed down by the regime is the primary reason a popular uprising hasn’t sprung up yet, both Iranians claimed.

“Everyone has lost somebody,” the protest leader said.

Also keeping a revolution at bay are foreign mercenaries the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has brought in from countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“They pull people out of their cars when they’re driving and search them and search their vehicles,” the independent journalist said.

“They gallivant around our country as if they’re the locals and we’re the foreign invaders, instead of defending our skies, the regime has decided to go to war with its own citizens,” the protest leader said.

The journalist also claimed that the regime has resorted to arming teenagers — some as young as 13 or 14 — to patrol neighborhoods.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.

The war has also created uncertainty in the region, with activists unsure of how far the US will ultimately go in its strikes against the regime and its assets — though President Trump on Saturday night said he halted the latest planned attack as peace talks appeared to be heading in the right direction.

Cracks in the tyrannical regime are already starting to show, with up to 2,000 demonstrators coming out in Isfahan to protest the public hangings of anti-regime protesters Abolfazl Sepahi Badjani and Amir Hossein Safari Hosseinabadi, according to the journalist.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.

The war has also created uncertainty in the region, with activists unsure of how far the US will ultimately go in its strikes against the regime and its assets — though President Trump on Saturday night said he halted the latest planned attack as peace talks appeared to be heading in the right direction.

Cracks in the tyrannical regime are already starting to show, with up to 2,000 demonstrators coming out in Isfahan to protest the public hangings of anti-regime protesters Abolfazl Sepahi Badjani and Amir Hossein Safari Hosseinabadi, according to the journalist.

Sky-high inflation, as well as electricity and water shortages in the country’s southern regions, are also fueling public anger at the mullahs, the journalist said.

Even middle-class people are skipping one or two meals a day, there’s food on the shelves at grocery stores, but nobody can afford it,” he said.

Neither Iranians could say exactly when a widespread uprising would come, but they said that if the executions and repression continue and the economy doesn’t improve, any single incident could be the spark.

“We know the stakes, either the regime goes, or we do,” the protest leader said.

David Spector, New York Post

Rubio: Cuba Has Built an ‘Espionage Superpower’ Inside US Institutions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Saturday that communist Cuba has spent decades burrowing agents into the highest levels of the U.S. government, calling the island nation an unmatched threat to American security despite its tiny size and crumbling economy.

“A failed state 90 miles from our shores that happens to be aligned with adversaries to the United States is a national security threat to our country,” Rubio told “My View with Lara Trump” on Fox News.

Rubio’s remarks came days after the State Department released a 100-page report accusing Havana of running influence operations across American universities, activist groups and protest movements, including ties to Antifa. The report described Cuba as the capital of 21st-century communism.

“They actually are an influence and espionage superpower,” Rubio said. “If you look at the history of espionage in the United States, Cuba is the only country that consistently has implanted and embedded spies in our system without even paying them.”

Rubio pointed to Manuel Rocha, a former U.S. ambassador and national security official who pleaded guilty to acting as a secret Cuban agent for decades and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He also cited Ana Belen Montes, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst convicted of feeding American secrets to Havana, calling her penetration one of the worst intelligence failures in U.S. history. “We’ve had them penetrate the highest levels of Defense Intelligence Agency,” Rubio said.

The secretary went further, tying recent pro-Hamas, anti-ICE and pro-Maduro demonstrations to a common Cuban-backed protest apparatus designed to pressure lawmakers in Washington.

“There’s nothing organic about it. It is funded, it is organized and Cuba is a part of that network and in some cases a critical part of the network,” Rubio said. “And it’s a network they will weaponize against us. And they talk about it openly, about how they will use that network to pressure American policymakers.”

Rubio also blamed Cuba for decades of leftist unrest across Latin America, saying nearly every communist insurgency that has destabilized governments in the region traces back to Havana. “Every single one of them over the last 40, 50 years has found its support, its help, in many cases, its birth, from a Cuban influence operation,” he said.

Some critics have dismissed the State Department report as an attempt to manufacture a pretext for U.S. military action against Cuba. Rubio did not address that criticism directly Saturday, but he took aim at American academics and journalists who he said continue to defend the Diaz-Canel regime.

“I know there are plenty of people in American academia and, frankly, in American press that sympathize with the Cuban regime and have for a very long time,” Rubio said. “Part of it is motivated by their anti-Americanism and part of it motivated by ideological affinity.”

“But it doesn’t mean we can ignore this threat,” he warned.

American Greatness News Staff

Why Can’t WNBA Coaches Define What a Woman Is?

I have a question, and I promise I’m asking it in good faith, with a smile on my face and my hands raised in the universal gesture of “I genuinely just want to understand.” Here it is: why does defining the word “woman” appear to be the single hardest pop quiz in professional sports right now?

Because this week, not one, not two, but three WNBA head coaches were asked some version of the same basic question—should biological males compete in women’s sports—and all three responded like I’d asked them to derive the Riemann hypothesis on a napkin.

Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White led off. “I don’t know that I would say I’m educated enough from a scientific standpoint,” she said, before noting she’s not “educated enough at the different levels” to weigh in further. Fair enough, except that Stephanie White coaches in a league whose name has the letter W built directly into it. Not a hidden W. Not a silent W. The very first letter. It’s right there on the jerseys.

Portland Fire coach Alex Sarama went next, an hour earlier, actually, so if anything he had a head start. His answer: “To be completely honest, I don’t think I’ve ever had to think about that.” A basketball coach in a women’s professional league had never once had occasion to think about what makes his league a women’s league. I don’t know whether to call that refreshing honesty or the setup to a very expensive joke.

Then, the next day, Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve stepped up to the mic and—credit where it’s due—actually said a sentence with content in it. Reeve said it’s “not the case” that biological men are in girls’ locker rooms, calling the framing “problematic” and full of “innuendo.” Which is a real position! I disagree with it, but at least it’s a position, built out of actual words that mean actual things, unlike her colleagues’ interpretive dance around the subject.

So now we’ve got a nice little sampler platter: one coach who isn’t “educated enough,” one coach who’s “never had to think about it,” and one coach who has thought about it and landed on an answer a great many biologists, endocrinologists, and frankly common-sense grandmothers across America would dispute. Three different answers. Zero consistency. And somehow all three still manage to avoid using the word “biology,” almost like it’s a name you don’t say out loud in a horror movie.

Here’s my favorite part of this whole circus, though: it’s not actually that hard a question. A fifth grader can define “woman.” A dictionary can define “woman.” Even a Supreme Court confirmation hearing tried to define “woman” a few years back, and famously ran into a Justice who told the Senate Judiciary Committee she couldn’t answer because she wasn’t a biologist. I mean, if a sitting Supreme Court nominee can’t get it right under oath, maybe we shouldn’t be shocked when a basketball coach can’t either. But somewhere between the Senate hearing room and the WNBA locker room, “I’m not a biologist” went from an awkward dodge to an entire institutional talking point.

Which brings me to the part that isn’t funny anymore, even though I’ve enjoyed making fun of it for six paragraphs. These coaches are not confused. Nobody who has spent a career recruiting rosters, negotiating scholarships, and building game plans around the specific athletic realities of women’s basketball is secretly baffled by biological sex. This isn’t a “can’t.” It’s a “won’t.” And there’s a difference between a person who genuinely doesn’t know something and a person who knows exactly what they’d have to say next if they answered honestly—and would rather stand at a podium and simply not say it.

There’s also a delicious irony sitting under all of this that nobody in that press room seems to want to touch: every single one of these coaches has an entire career, salary, and professional identity built on the premise that the WNBA is a women’s league. The W is not decorative. It’s the business model. Somebody, somewhere, had to know what a woman was in order to found a whole league around protecting a space for them to compete. Ask these same coaches to explain what makes their league distinct from the NBA, and I promise you the answer arrives instantly, no hedging, no science degree required.

So here’s where I’ll land, gently, because this isn’t really about mockery. If the people running women’s sports won’t stand up for what “women’s sports” means, then it falls to the rest of us—fathers, brothers, coaches, fans, anyone who actually loves the women in their lives—to do it for them. Protecting a safe, fair space for women and girls to compete isn’t a scientific mystery. It’s a promise—and promises don’t require a biology degree. 

Kevin McCullough, Townhall