Cagle World

It was more than just another manic Monday for the Trump administration last week, when the Department of Justice announced Jeffrey Epstein’s death in jail in 2019 was a suicide and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had no “incriminating client list.”

While such an ambiguous response resulted in seismic reverberations across all corners of the MAGAsphere, intense and fierce outrage toward the Justice Department and FBI has transcended partisan lines.

Alt-right podcaster Jack Posobiec skewered Attorney General Pam Bondi on his show for saying the Epstein case was closed, saying he felt “angry, upset, used . . . from having gone to the White House and receiving this binder full of baloney that was completely publicly available information already.”

“It’s some form of Shakespearean absurdist tragedy,” former FBI Chief Andrew McCabe, who served as head of the agency during the previous Trump presidency, commented in an CNN interview. “Anyone in the FBI, you’re watching this circus take place at the absolute highest levels of the organization, and you’re asking yourself, like, ‘These are our leaders?’”

It does not take a rocket scientist to realize the Trump administration’s handling of the so-called “Epstein Files” has been far from stellar. In response to a question from a host on an interview on Fox News earlier this year as to whether the Justice Department would release a “list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients,” Bondi stated the list was “sitting on my desk right now to review.” Several months later, she did a U-turn and claimed investigators had no access to any sort of list.

Understandably, such a political about face was never going to sit well among some skeptics, let alone supporters. People are hungry for answers.

Trump certainly did not do himself or his staff any favors by his dismissive reactions to the controversy: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years. Are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste time?”

A few days later he defended Bondi and questioned his own supporters on Truth Social, going so far as to blame to former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the controversy. Talk about political theater of the obscene.

Perhaps the president fails to understand there are many across the political spectrum interested in this controversy. We are not talking about a group of adults who attended adult-themed events where hedonistic activity occurred solely with other adults’ consent. The Epstein case, as it was presented to the public by several administration officials, involved searing, sordid, and scurrilous allegations that underage young girls from marginalized backgrounds were being recruited to perform sexual favors for grown, adult men (in many cases, wealthy VIPs or prominent citizens). In essence, these girls were being sexually exploited.

The feds closely examined “over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography” by influential pedophiles.

As many of us see it, this is an important issue to be “obsessed” with. Most people, regardless of their political persuasion, believe the individuals who participated in such a sadistic exploitation of minors need to be exposed and brought to justice. There is no such thing as “moving on” from such heinous criminal activity.

Whether such a badly handled scandal will end up becoming the administration’s Achilles heel is unclear at the moment. Nonetheless, one thing is certain: unlike Signalgate, this is a controversy that has enraged many members of the MAGA faithful and does not demonstrate any signs of abating in the near future. A

s the old saying goes “what a tangled web we weave when we try to deceive.” President Trump, Pam Bondi and others in the administration are unsparingly learning such a truthful reality.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Last week, a New York City jury found music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, while acquitting him on most serious charges involving racketeering and sex trafficking.

Combs’s partial acquittal allows him to avoid a potential sentence of life in prison. While he faces a maximum of 20 years behind bars, prosecutors said  sentencing guidelines suggest a range from a 51 to 63 months.

Incarcerated since his arrest in September, Combs had already served nine months. Combs’s lawyers have stated that under federal sentencing guidelines, he would likely face about two years in prison. “We fight on and we’re going to win,” commented defense attorney Mark Agnifilo, “And we’re not going to stop until he walks out of prison a free man to his family.”

Arun Subramanian, the judge who presided over the trial, denied Combs’s request for release on bond ahead of sentencing, telling the court it was “impossible” to show Combs posed no danger to the community. The judge set a tentative sentencing date for October 3.

The government claimed Combs used his power and wealth, as well as violence and threats of blackmail, to coerce women into complying and participating in what were described as drug-induced sexual marathons called “freak-offs.” The trial exposed Combs’s dysfunctional, toxic, personal relationships, in which he perversely utilized his power and connections as a businessman, hip-hop mogul, and self-described “bad boy” over employees and sexual partners — occasionally engaging in sexual abuse.

From the trial’s outset, Combs’s lawyers conceded their client engaged in domestic violence — segments of wanton physical abuse were witnessed on surveillance video — but insisted he’d never committed sexual abuse of any kind and declared all of his relationships as consensual. However, various accusers, including Combs’s former girlfriend and musician Casandra Ventura, contested that framing in graphic testimony depicting Combs as a violent employer and romantic partner.

Throughout the trial, the defense conceded prior examples of domestic violence but disputed that any coercion or sex trafficking occurred and maintained that all sexual activity was consensual and part of a “swingers lifestyle.” They argued that Combs was being wrongly prosecuted for his private sexual peccadillos and vehemently contested that any criminal conspiracy existed.

Over several weeks, the government called almost three dozen witnesses, including two of Combs’s former girlfriends, multiple former employees and assistants, male escorts, hotel staff, law enforcement agents, and public figures such as rapper Kid Cudi and singer Dawn Richard. Combs did not testify. Both Casandra Ventura and Jane recited raw, searing, and emotional testimony alleging that Combs coerced them into participating in the frequent and sometimes days-long “freak-offs.”

Defense attorneys said Ventura Fine was in essence a gold digger. This has been a common trope pushed in previous notable, high-level sexual abuse case defenses such as those involving Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, Bill Cosby, and Johnny Depp. Ventura filed a civil suit against Combs in November 2023, when the New York Adult Survivors Act gave sexual abuse victims a short window to file civil claims even after the statute of limitations had lapsed. Combs settled the case the next day for $20 million.

The verdict forces Combs to reckon with accountability, though more than a few spokespeople against domestic violence are understandably upset and disappointed with a less than absolute total conviction. They argue the trial is another instance of the legal system demonstrating it is ill-equipped to handle the often complex dynamics of intimate partner violence. Supporters of Combs are eager for him to resurrect his career and are salivating for him to make a comeback.

It’s unclear what kind of time Combs will serve. Donald Trump hasn’t ruled out pardoning Diddy, and it is not inconceivable that he might. Hopefully, he will recede into the darkest, most remote corners of society. However, as I see it, it is highly unlikely that Sean “Puffy” Combs will be able to return to even a fraction of the mega celebrity he once enjoyed.

This would be the most effective and just verdict of all.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Zohran Mamdani’s unlikely victory in New York’s Democratic primary for mayor shell-shocked the nation’s political establishment, forcing pundits and party officials to entertain the possible reality there are sizable numbers of Democratic voters eager for radical and dramatic change.

If elected, Mamdani will instantly challenge the incremental and milquetoast Republican approaches to issues of crucial importance to the Democratic Party’s base  —  childcare, affordable housing, rent control, health care, etc.

Naturally, Mamdani’s victory resulted in fraught bipartisan meltdowns across the political spectrum, as pockets of Democratic donors, party leaders, and others went into panic mode. Some insisted on challenging and defeating Mamdani in November. Time will tell which outcome occurs.

Much of the vitriol reserved for the 33-year-old socialist, who hails from an upscale pedigree, has emerged from the political right.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted an image of the Statue of Liberty clothed in a burqa with the message, “This hits hard.” Her equally menacing fellow conservative, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) shared a photo of Mamdani and wrote, “After 9/11 we said ‘Never Forget.’ I think we sadly have forgotten.” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who is weighing a gubernatorial bid, called Mamdani an “antisemitic, jihadist, Communist candidate.”

Rep. Andrew Ogles (R-Tenn.) referred to Mamdani as “little muhammad” and distributed a letter he forwarded to Attorney General Pam Bondi encouraging the Justice Department to investigate Mamdani, claiming “he may have procured U.S. citizenship through willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism.”

Mamdani is Muslim and a naturalized citizen born in Uganda who moved to New York at seven years old and became a U.S. citizen in 2018. He has denounced such attacks, saying earlier this month they demonstrate the “very sad burden of what it means to be the first Muslim candidate to run for mayor, is to deal with dehumanizing language.”

Growing emotional, he explained the verbal barrage made him feel “as if I am a beast.” He said he has received death threats and “messages that say the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.”

Lekha Sunder, a spokesperson for the Mamdani campaign, echoed those comments last week. “In typical MAGA fashion, lawmakers like Congressman Ogles and Mace have responded to our historic victory in New York City with hatred, division, and a desire to suppress the will of the people. Our movement will not cower in response. In the coming months, we will continue our efforts to listen to every New Yorker, usher in a new generation of leadership, and build a city that is affordable for everyone.”

Such malicious rhetoric should hardly come as a surprise given the reality that the current Republican Party is led by a commander-in-chief who has referred to immigrants as “animals,” claimed that “they’re poisoning the blood of our country,” and remarked to a radio host that they commit murder because “it’s in their genes.” He avidly embraces the “Great Replacement” theory, which posits that Democrats have deliberately encouraged mass illegal immigration in order to transform the electorate.

As it related to more inspirational messages, David Freedlander wrote in New York Magazine Mamdani told him on the phone that “We won College Point, Brighton Beach, Bensonhurst, Bath Beach,” ticking through neighborhoods known to be among the most right-leaning  in the city.

Although Mamdani’s victory is a signal of an undeniable shift happening in the Democratic Party with younger, more motivated, and more active voters, party leadership elites don’t seem willing to share equitable power. Such impervious resistance could prove to be problematic.

If the recent election outcome is any indication, the party had better get prepared to listen to, embrace, and recruit a wider swath of voters, in particular, younger and disenfranchised voters.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Earlier this month, it didn’t take long for many Republicans to blame Democrats for the assassinations of Minnesota political couple Mark and Melissa Hortman.

Several Republican politicians, including Vice President J. D. Vance, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, and Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, (whose life a Black, liberal, lesbian police officer saved), blamed the shootings on the “far left” and liberals’ continual demonization of President Donald Trump.

Others on the right avidly jumped into the political fray. Right-wing social media personality Mike Cernovich, with 1.5 million followers, amplified the falsehood that Governor Tim Walz demanded the assassination. Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist and Trump whisperer, posted that “Walz’s goons are now assassinating lawmakers who support legislation Walz opposes” and denounced the Democratic Party as “a terrorist organization.”

Elon Musk, a Trump “frenemy” and frequent poster of unproven right-wing claims, enhanced the narrative to his 200 million followers, quote-tweeting claims “the left” killed Hortman and writing, “the far left is murderously violent.” Viva Frei, a far-right X user with more than 700,000 followers, posted a thread casting doubt on suspected shooter Vance Boelter being a Trump supporter.

Such nonsensical and despicable lies overlook indisputable evidence of Boelter’s authentic political leanings. His roommate, David Carlson, told reporters Boelter voted for Trump and “was a strong supporter” of the president. Other longtime friends told local media Boelter was right-leaning. His recorded sermons expose his extremist views. In a sermon he delivered in Congo a few years ago, he is documented as stating “The churches are so messed up, they don’t know abortion is wrong.” He ranted against LGBTQ+ people as “confused,” claiming “the enemy has gotten so far into their mind and their soul.” His alleged hit list included abortion providers, pro-choice advocates and other Democratic politicians. His most recent voter registration indicated he was a registered Republican in Oklahoma in 2004.

Police captured Boelter on June 15 after allegedly murdering Hortman, a Democratic house speaker, and her husband. He also wounded state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Wearing a mask, the suspect reportedly went to the homes of the state lawmakers in the early morning hours disguised as a police officer. According to the Department of Justice, he allegedly first drove to the Hoffmans’ home and repeatedly shot them after they tried to close the door on him. The gunman later went to the Hortmans’ home and killed them.

The Republican Party of 2025 is alarmingly and tragically duplicative of the Democratic Party of the 1850s: callous, arrogant, confrontational, violent, and prone to dishonest messaging and propaganda. The primary issue of that era was slavery. Today, the dissension is stratified across several issues, including immigration, race, abortion, sexuality, free speech, and religious freedom.

The current Republican Party has become so rapacious, barbarous, and amoral in its blind thirst for power that it seems determined to attack and, if possible, overturn any social movements and political norms established in our constitution’s fabric. The party is willing, even eager, to disregard any organization, laws, or movements not conducive to its agenda. We have already seen the GOP engage in this sort of undemocratic activity with the voter registration and education laws enacted in various state legislatures.

The far right’s acrimonious rhetoric betrays an undeniable truth: they are terrified and aware their current political stronghold will erode if they are unable to manipulate the laws and future elections. Thus, they are attempting to establish a form of minority rule. As many left-wing activists have observed, such retrograde antics are a form of “Jim Crow 2.” In fact, some scholars have argued that November 5, 2024 was the end of America’s second reconstruction (1964–2024).

I hope they are wrong.

Fear, resistance, and anxiety permeate the current political climate. Things certainly are tense and depressingly adversarial but, in my opinion, redeemable. Those of us committed to maintaining equality and equal rights for all citizens as opposed to a select few are facing an uphill battle, but we must continue to fight and fiercely agitate against such repressive forces. We can and must do it.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Michael Tait, the Christian music legend whose hit song “God’s Not Dead (Like a Lion)” became a symbolic tune for Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, has been accused of sexually assaulting three men, according to a months-long investigation by The Guardian.

Additionally, four other men have made similar claims that Tait, a founding member of DC Talk and later a frontman for Newsboys, engaged in inappropriate behavior, unwanted touching and acts of sexual aggression. Tait posted a “confession” on social media in which he “disputes some details” but conceded the substance of the scurrilous allegations and drug use contained in the report were “largely true.”

Such sordid revelations against entertainers are hardly unusual. Louis C. K., Sean Combs, Russell Brand, Bill Cosby, and others spring to mind. The difference is Tait had unabashedly aligned himself with conservative politicians and activists over the years. You know, the people who denounce such sinful and vile acts as unworthy of God.

Back in 2019, Tait joined other well-known evangelical figures in signing an authored letter denouncing an op-ed in Christianity Today magazine that advocated for then President Trump’s impeachment. Down the road, he stood on-stage next to Trump at a rally encouraging evangelical support. Eventually, Tait posted a video last year attempting to persuade his supporters to vote for Trump.

Recent charges about Tait’s behavior dramatically conflict with the highly austere, sanitized public persona he stealthily and shrewdly cultivated for decades. Tait has sold more than 18 million albums, with songs encouraging young Christians to refrain from drugs, alcohol, and sex and to embrace heterosexual norms. The reality appears to be that, according to people that various news sources interviewed, Tait’s alleged drug use and wayward and untoward behavior were the “biggest open secret in Christian music.” Go figure.

A majority of the more than two dozen individuals in the Christian music industry interviewed by The Guardian said they had been aware of rumors Tait engaged in abusive behavior Each of these young men grew up in evangelical churches where Tait’s music was central in their youth groups, summer camps, and mission trips. Having taken Tait’s message as gospel, they were naive about sex and drugs throughout their youth. As can be imagined, these youth were mesmerized when they eventually met their childhood idol but rapidly saw their image of him disintegrate as he led them on a sordid and harrowing journey of musical deviance.

Young and occasionally gullible male musicians say Tait supposedly targeted them by dangling the possibility of career or other lucrative options, then abruptly ceased all contact once it was evident they would not offer him sexual favors. Several of his victims recited that Tait would allegedly invite them to parties at his house in Nashville, encouraging them to drink alcohol and partake in drugs before making sexual advances.

A larger question to consider from this unfortunate drama is why a person like Tait would find themselves so comfortably at home in and pledge allegiance to a movement such as Christian nationalism that tends to deride, degrade, denigrate, and disparage many things he represents.

Christian nationalism is not an ideology where an individual’s belief system defines their political values. Human beings can certainly hold divergent opinions as they relate to arguments around racial politics, immigration, religious freedom, reproductive rights, or any other issue of political conflict. Christians routinely spar among one another on such issues. Debate and diversity of viewpoints are often beneficial to both the debaters and the larger society. What distinguishes Christian nationalism is not religious participation in politics, but the myopic perception that Christian primacy and theology must saturate virtually every aspect of our society.

The movement ties to a visceral sense the church’s well-being and survival depend on the outcome of any given political race. Christian nationalism’s supporters have little if any compunction about attempting to impose their personal value system upon others. Such beliefs often manifest themselves through linear ideology, a specific identity, and unbridled passion.

Regardless of why Tait aligned himself with a reductive, reactionary movement, he now finds himself in the middle of a tawdry, high-profile saga. Perhaps such a trying moment will enable him to engage in deep rumination and self-reflection, as well as confront his private demons that have been publicly exposed to the larger world. May God be with him at this most challenging time.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Santa J. Ono recently received an opportunity to serve as president of the University of Florida. It was a position the university’s board of trustees had previously supported him unanimously. However, he was shell shocked when, in a 10–6 vote, the board of governors of the State University System of Florida rejected his bid.

It’s the first time in Florida’s public university history such an outcome has occurred.

Critics from across the political spectrum celebrated Ono’s failure. “This is a massive win for conservatives,” hailed right-wing activist Christopher Rufo, while Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott – who called for an investigation into the search that yielded Ono – called it “the right decision.”

On the left, there was satisfaction as well.

“I don’t know how many times this needs to be said: there is no winning with these people. If you’re willing to sell your soul to try and appease them, then I’m sorry but you deserve whatever they do to you,” wrote Neil Lewis Jr., a communication professor at Cornell University.

In the wake of conservative attacks, Ono made a sharp U-turn on virtually every position he once espoused, from climate change to transgender rights. He talked about shuttering the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion during his tenure at the University of Michigan, but failed to mention a majority of the program was able to weather the brutal attacks it endured. He disingenuously dismissed the option of addressing the topic of race, resorting to the default position that people are better off if they refrain from discussion.

Ono proudly announced he had declined to sign an op-ed promising he was committed to endorsing and implementing President Trump’s wanton and outlaw approach to higher education, despite being a formerly staunch critic of the administration’s education policies. Earlier this year, he quietly disbanded Michigan’s DEI office.

Once the political weathervane shifted — when the right began its sinister and well-planned assault on equity — Ono didn’t anchor down. He drifted. This brazen and shamelessly opportunistic move resulted in him launching to the top of the list of candidates to lead the University of Florida.

The fact that someone would be eager to depart from one of the most prestigious academic jobs in the nation, only to eventually lose it, is simultaneously incredulous and fascinating. It is incomprehensible that such a seemingly intelligent and capable person would have so little self-regard for themselves. It is baffling someone is willing to become a part of a university system currently represented by far-right wing cultural ideologies that are increasingly and unapologetically demonstrating their disdain, distaste, and disregard for any form of inclusive higher education.

Ono’s failure had nothing to do with his credentials and everything to do with perceived loyalty. The far right despises anyone who dares to demonstrate any level of moral integrity. For all its disparagement of DEI and race and gender-based programs, the conservative right values only blind, unwavering loyalty — not merit, qualifications, and principles and certainly not honesty, integrity, fairness, and truth.

It is unfortunate that such a distinguished and accomplished person was so keen to sacrifice his soul to curry favor with people doing everything in their power to debase and demolish higher education and transform it into an autocratic, predominantly white dystopian entity.

These conservatives dislike individuals such as Ono and me. They are attacking higher education with a viciousness not seen since the McCarthy era, with our colleges and universities face unrelenting scrutiny across the political spectrum.

At the moment, for varied reasons, we are viewed with a largely bipartisan, jaundiced eye. This is why it is incumbent on us to continually go on the offense, to refuse to compromise human decency, and to never practice anticipatory obedience like Santa Ono and a growing number of members of academia.

Such antics are the epitome of cowardice.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

You’ve probably been bombarded with messages about how the Democratic Party is frantically attempting to regain young men’s support.

As a professor who teaches courses in gender and sexuality studies, I have followed this recent development with avid interest. “Speaking With American Men: A Strategic Plan” (SAM) is a $20 million plan to “study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality.”

Ilyse Hogue, the former president of the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, and John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, are leading the project, whose fundraising pitch lists former Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas), a one-time NFL player who lost a Senate race to Ted Cruz last year, as part of the SAM project team.

It isn’t just policy experts. Numerous governors have made such an effort a major priority. During her annual State of the State address, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced plans to help boost young men’s enrollment in higher education and skills training. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont declared what he called “a DEI initiative, which folks on both sides of the aisle may appreciate” to recruit more men into teaching. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who has spoken at length about his own challenges as a teenager, recently announced plans to direct his “entire administration” to find ways to help struggling boys and men.

“The well-being of our young men and boys has not been a societal priority,” Moore said in an interview. “I want Maryland to be the one that is aggressive and unapologetic about being able to address it and being able to fix it.”

A report released last month from the data firm Catalist revealed the Democratic Party saw a nine-point drop in support among men between the ages of 18 and 29 from 2020 and 2024, including substantial drops among young men of color. The party has been hemorrhaging support among the group, 56% of whom supported Donald Trump in 2024, according to one study.

Shauna Daly, a Democratic strategist and cofounder of the Young Men Research Project, argues candidates need to do more than show young men that they can relate.

“Where the Democratic Party has really fallen short with this cohort is that they don’t feel like Democrats are fighting for them,” she said.

Statistics reveal in every state, women surpass men in the number of college degrees earned. Boys are more likely than girls to be disciplined in class and more likely to fail to graduate high school on time. Men die by suicide at greater percentages than women and are more likely to self-medicate with illegal drugs and alcohol. And while women increasingly participate in the workforce at higher rates, men have steadily withdrawn from the labor market for quite some time.

While economic deprivation and despair have no doubt contributed to the gravitation of men toward Donald Trump, other factors are relevant as well. To a sizable percentage of men, Trump is the ultimate representation of manhood. He is ultra-wealthy, owns multiple businesses and several luxury homes and apartments, and has an attractive wife and millions of followers who practically worship him. Additionally, he possesses a brazen, unapologetic combativeness, swagger, and arrogance that a segment of men admire, yet cannot emulate without either actual or potential consequences.

There was a kernel of truth in those who argued that swaths of men viewed former Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidency negatively because she was a woman. Sexism, like racism, is a perverse vice deeply embedded in American society’s fabric, and a number of men are frantically probing the darkest corners of their personas. Nonetheless, sexism notwithstanding, the reality is that many men are likely to vote based on pocketbook issues. A lot of young people believe the American dream has become unattainable. And Democrats failed to provide any answers regarding what sort of programs or vision could aid these men in securing a higher-paying job.

Manufactured, disingenuous propaganda is unlikely to seduce younger people. This is a generation that has lived their entire lives through a screen. Condescension and insincerity will not endear them to the Democratic Party or anyone else.

This is something that Democratic strategists, policy experts, and other supposedly well-informed party honchos need to understand.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

It’s commencement season, where friends and family gather to celebrate those that just graduated.

While one chapter of these student’s lives has concluded, another is about to begin. Over the past several weeks, many parents have received information as to which preschool, elementary, middle, high school, or college their children will attend this upcoming fall. Given the frantically competitive nature of both students and parents to land coveted spots at our nation’s most elite institutions, more than a few will be disappointed.

Rejection always hurts. It can sting with the force of a hornet’s nest. Many people internalize rejection, assuming they are less than capable. We may amplify insecurity to such a degree that we conclude the outcome will be nothing short of devastating. Most adults can recall a moment(s) where they encountered negations that seemed cataclysmic. Thus, it’s totally rational for parents to want to protect their children from harboring feelings of inadequacy or being deprived of setting their goals. Reading the words “we regret to inform you that we are unable to” can conjure up emotions such as sadness, grief, anger, or despair.

Competition in gaining admission to more selective institutions has become dramatically more intense. Augmenting academic standards, ever-rising tuition costs, drastic cuts in state funding for higher education, and increasingly abrasive attacks coupled with fiercely acerbic debates about the value (or lack) of a college education have steadily increased in various segments of our society.

It’s important to remember there is no one pathway to success, and a student’s first-choice school may not necessarily be the best one for them. Many successful people often failed along the way, but things tend to have a way of working out.

There are several reasons a particular institution denied a student admission. Their SAT or ACT scores were strong but not exceptional (trust me, test scores will not predict your future success), or their transcript was good but not outstanding. Working in an admissions office as a graduate student (not an actual admissions officer) in my mid-20s afforded me the opportunity to hear stories from admissions officers. They described what stood out about applicants that led to the unpredictable decisions they often made. One student who gained admission was a first-rate violinist, another grew up on a pig farm in Kansas, and a disabled student was an outstanding poet. Hearing such stories was revelatory.

In his national best-selling book “Where You Go Is Not Who You Will Be,” New York Times columnist Frank Bruni makes a convincing case that too many people far too often overemphasize prestige when choosing a college, as if this is the only factor that matters. Published almost a decade ago, Bruni’s book is still relevant today. I would add that not everyone is cut out for or should even pursue a traditional path toward earning a college degree. The old adage “no one size fits all” is certainly true regarding higher education. Vocational education, apprenticeships, and internships are just a few alternative paths that some students can or should pursue.

Consider the following list of significant achievers and where they attended college:

– Stephen King: University of Maine
– Timothy Busfield: East Tennessee State University
– Oprah Winfrey: Tennessee State University
– Ronald Reagan: Eureka College
– William Macy: Goodard College

Get my point? Each of the aforementioned individuals attended well respected, quality schools, but not necessarily elite institutions. Life doesn’t depend on which school you attend. Those of us who are well into adulthood know the hard reality that life will not always deliver what you want it to. You may not get that coveted job or promotion. You may lose a dear friend or parent(s) to an untimely death. You may endure a bitter divorce. You may become afflicted with a life-altering disease.

Over the years, I have counseled and mentored a number of students who have experienced acute disappointment, be it academically related or otherwise. I’ve also endured my fair share of misfortunes, and can personally attest to the fact bad luck and personal misfortune are beyond our control. There is nothing smooth about life.

Dealing with adversity early in life can be a positive experience for children because it can make them stronger and more resilient as they get older. People who have been knocked down early in life are often able to cope much better with the occasional roadblocks and curveballs that will undoubtedly come their way as they get older.

These are the sort of experiences that can make rejection from their first-choice school seem trivial. The reality is that, for the vast majority of these young people, by early summer they will probably have moved on from any initial disappointment and by fall will likely be happily settled into the fabric of campus life at the school they ultimately decide to attend. Life will indeed go on.

For the mothers and fathers whose children are facing such a predicament, this would be sagacious advice to pass on.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

What began as a cordial exchange of comments between Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House this week rapidly disintegrated into an acrimonious affair.

Trump baselessly claimed there was a genocide against white people in South Africa, which Ramaphosa and other South Africans have vigorously denied. It’s just the latest surreal and theatrically tense Oval Office meeting Trump has had with a foreign leader, and comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and South Africa over the false claims. The misinformation, pushed by Trump South African-born adviser Elon Musk, prompted the U.S. to recently admit white South African refugees — while barring refugees from other countries.

Ramaphosa came prepared with receipts effectively counterpunching each of allegations, even providing testimony from South African whites and members of opposing parties, who debunked charges hurled by Trump.

Dating back to his first term, Trump has been fixated on unfounded reports of white South African farmers being slaughtered so the government there can confiscate their land. These falsehoods have been promoted by AfriForum, an Afrikaner rights group the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and extremist groups, calls “white supremacists in suits and ties.”

Just a week earlier, a State Department official gleefully welcomed a group of newly minted South Africans at an airport. In contrast, administration officials removed protections for nearly 10,000 Afghan refugees, making it easier to deport them and all but guarantee an end of their lives. Many of those seeking asylum placed their lives in jeopardy to assist American service members during the two-decade long war in Afghanistan. So much for loyalty.

Race relations in our nation have never been serene. But for most of the last several decades — at least since the late 1960s — the U.S. appeared to be progressing. However, we currently have President Trump eagerly, deviously, and sinisterly dismantling DEI. His administration flew in the 49 white Afrikaners —  descendants of the European colonizers whose discriminatory policies resulted in the oppressive establishment of apartheid in South Africa — and bestowed refugee status upon them while working overtime to do everything possible to deport Black and brown migrants.

The Afrikaners were warmly greeted by Christopher Landau, the U.S. deputy secretary of state, and given little American flags. Not content with engaging in a perverse form of tribalism, Landau equated the Afrikaners to “quality seeds” that when put in “foreign soil” can “blossom” and “bloom” for the good of this country.

Notably absent from this event were sordid and salacious discussions about Black and Latino people from supposedly “shit–” nations that Trump derided in 2018. There were no reductive discussions about criminal invasions or scurrilous allegations these new immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the nation. It was even more revealing when a reporter asked Landau why an “exception” has been allowed for Afrikaners when so many others who “fit the criteria of fleeing persecution” have been denied refugee status. “Some of the criteria are making sure that refugees did not pose any challenge to our national security and that they could be assimilated easily into our country,” Landau said.

Such an arrogant comment speaks volumes.

These so-called refugees are also highly critical of and do not accept the majority Black-led government in South Africa. A sizable percentage (not all) of these individuals believe that there is a racial hierarchy that results in whites being superior to non-whites. For these men and women, whites are at the top, colored people are in the middle, and Blacks are at the bottom. They would regard me, a Black person, as barely human.

The previously whispered, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic rhetoric that has flourished within sacred circles of the conservative right for decades has now been brutally unleashed, promoted by the president himself.  Fortunately, there are those of goodwill who reject such blatant appeals to racism.

Sean Rowe, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, wrote in an open letter the church has decided to end refugee work with the federal government by the end of the fiscal year, “in light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.”

Rowe further stated, “It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years. I am saddened and ashamed that many of the refugees who are being denied entrance to the United States are brave people who worked alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now face danger at home because of their service to our country.”

It is incumbent upon all those committed to racial equality and justice to mobilize and relentlessly combat such menacing and arrogant efforts tied to an immigrant’s skin color. Such discriminatory antics are unfair, unjust, unlawful, and intolerable.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Earlier this month, Shiloh Hendrix, a white woman from Rochester, Minn., was caught on camera using the N-word toward a five-year-old Black autistic boy who she claimed had taken her diaper bag.

A surveillance video showed Hendrix being belligerent, combative, and defiant, gleefully repeating the derogatory racial slur while being recorded and verbally berated by a witness. Not content to be quiet after being exposed for such embarrassing behavior, Hendrix went on a perverse form of offense, claiming, “I called the kid out for what he was.”

It goes without saying any person who would use a racial slur to attack a child of any race is deviant, demented, depraved, deplorable, and disgusting.

Hendrix took things on step further by launching a fundraising plea, claiming she’d been doxed: “I am asking for your help to assist in protecting my family. I fear that we must relocate.” Her rabid bigotry has proven to be a boon – promoted by several X users known to push anti-Black, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic rhetoric, Hendrix’s campaign has received over $700,000 from over 26,500 donors. Many of the donation comments contain white supremacist and antisemitic messaging under usernames linked to racist and pro-Nazi slogans.

Left-wing critics made their displeasure known as well. Commenters on Bluesky wrote: “Normalize sending death threats to Shiloh Hendrix,” “Make her famous (and unemployable),” “Shiloh Hendrix, you made your bed. Now die in it,” and “I take comfort in knowing that wherever Shiloh Hendrix goes, she will never find peace.

Passions ran wildly and rapidly in both directions. Omar, the person who filmed the incident, told NBC News the child is on the autism spectrum and the parents, whom he knows, have expressed support in filing charges against Hendrix. A local chapter of the NAACP has raised more than $300,000 for the family since the video went viral. Local police, meanwhile, have said that they completed an investigation of the incident.

There has always been a segment of Americans harboring fanatical levels of hostility and hatred toward non-white Christians. The difference was that in the past, such men and women were largely forced to discuss and reaffirm their racist and bigoted viewpoints with like-minded individuals. For much of our recent history, their outpourings were confined to secret conferences, white supremacist communications, obscure far-right radio programs, and the darkest and most racially sordid corners of the web. However, to quote a line from the music of iconic musician Bob Dylan, “The times, they are a changin’.”

Apprehension about engaging in racially inflected behavior has all but evaporated for many individuals. Blunt, acerbic, and outright racially-arrogant antics have become the order of the day. Some blame Trump for the current state of affairs. There is no question that the current administration, with its vile attacks on diversity, gender, fairness, equality, and free speech, has contributed to such an acrimonious climate. That being said, racial animus has long been a part of American society. It has been firmly woven into the fabric of our society since the dawn of the republic.

Hendrix has been lauded as a “folk hero” supported by the so-called “woke right,” but the reality is contributors to her efforts (at least a sizable percentage) do not harbor any genuine feelings for her. On the contrary, they see this as a battle in the culture war to further their right-wing agenda. Whether legal action would prevail is a huge question given the first amendment. However, there is a very credible argument to be made that the rhetoric espoused by Hendrix transcended into harassment and hate speech.

The sad and indisputable reality is when a racist is showered with almost $1,000,000 dollars from people with screen names such as “kill all jews and blacks,” we still have quite a way to go as it relates to race in America.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.