Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the controversy over President Biden receiving Communion:

Should President Joe Biden be given Communion? That’s not for the Catholic League to say.

Our job is to defend the right of the Catholic Church to proclaim the truth, to teach the faithful and to disseminate Church teachings. We have no theology: We are a watchdog, a civil rights organization that fights defamation and discrimination. We also monitor those who seek to deceive the public or distort the Church’s teachings. Importantly, we know our place and are no substitute for the bishops or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Do others have a right to opine on this issue? Catholics do. If this were a matter of public policy, everyone else would, too. But this is an internal Church matter, and it is therefore no one’s business but that of Catholics.

David Crary of the Associated Press, with whom I have publicly differed with, wrote a very fair piece on this subject that was widely picked up by many media outlets. He said the bishops will discuss what to do about offering the president Communion when they meet in June. Fair enough. It didn’t take long, however, before the Church’s critics took to the keyboard.

Michelle Boorstein wrote a story for the Washington Post contending that since Biden was elected, “the increasingly loud right wing of the church has made it clear that Biden cannot continue to expand abortion rights and call himself Catholic and go unchallenged.”

There is nothing “right wing” about the bishops enforcing the Church’s teachings on any subject, whether it be immigration, the death penalty, school choice or euthanasia. Nor is there anything “right wing” about addressing public figures who boast of their “devout Catholic” status while constantly undermining what the Church teaches, especially on life and death issues.

They have in-house strictures at the Washington Post, don’t they? Are they not enforced?

Boorstein teed it up for some genius at the Washington Post who tweeted about “a rising group of right-wing U.S. Catholic bishops” who are clashing with our “very Catholic” president over abortion. A website that monitors conservative thought, conwebwatch, was incensed by what the bishops are considering; they took the opportunity to rip CNSNews for allegedly “bashing” Biden over its critical coverage of the president.

Catholics for Choice, an anti-Catholic pro-abortion letterhead with no members (it is funded by left-wing foundations), issued a statement saying it “condemns U.S. Bishops for Attacking Biden on Abortion.” New York Magazine asked, “Will conservatives weaponize the Eucharist?” In the U.K., The Independent urged Biden to stand fast against the bishops; otherwise he will “let down the people who turned up for him at the ballot box.”

If these people were just voyeurs looking into the Catholic Church, that would be one thing. But they are not. They have an agenda.

Not to be mistaken, writing about this subject is one thing; using it as ammunition to whip up public opinion against the bishops is quite another. That’s exactly what is going on.

The goal is to portray Biden as a loyal son of the Church—”look, he carries rosary beads”—while defending his lust for abortion rights. In other words, those who radically dissent from the Church’s teaching on the beginning of life, which is grounded in science as well as theology, are “very Catholic” and should therefore be emulated. In short, those who reject the Church’s teaching on abortion are Catholics in good standing the same way those who accept it are.

Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said it best. “He [Biden] doesn’t have the authority to teach what it means to be Catholic—that’s our responsibility as bishops. Whether intentional or not, he’s trying to usurp our authority.”

If we had a Catholic president who announced that he wants to make the death penalty a more common practice, or sought to weaken the laws against racial discrimination, he would not be called “very Catholic” by those who are convinced Biden is.

As we get closer to the June meeting of the bishops, we will have much more to say about this issue. Stay tuned.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on promoting social justice through school choice:

As Catholics, we are called to support a preferential option for the poor. While some may debate what is the best way to achieve this, evidence suggests providing children with quality education remains one of the greatest determinants in socioeconomic status. Particularly, offering low-and middle-income students opportunities to access high-quality Catholic and charter schools has not only improved their educational attainment but greatly enhances their social mobility.

Therefore, policymakers who wish to offer a preferential option for the poor should mirror recent legislation passed in Florida and Indiana, two states that have demonstrated the effectiveness of school vouchers.

Recently, the state legislature in Florida has voted to expand its existing school choice vouchers making them available for more families. Already one of the most ambitious voucher programs in the country, last academic year, the state offered more than 36,000 students an average of $7,000. Next year, Florida intends to make eligible even more children by raising the household income cap to 375 percent above poverty. This means a family of four with about $100,000 in income for the year could participate in the voucher program. Further, the Sunshine State would annually increase the caps by approximately 28,000 new students.

Additionally, Florida will create special-needs scholarships for about 20,000 students. These scholarships are similar to education savings accounts that families can use for tutoring and related purposes. But perhaps one of the best elements of this legislation is that it would offer Florida students already enrolled in Catholic or charter schools eligibility for these vouchers.

Indiana, too, has recently expanded its decade-old voucher program. Indiana will now offer vouchers to 48,000 students a year. Families making $145,000 a year would be eligible for vouchers amounting to 90 percent of tuition support levels. Like Florida, the Hoosier State would establish education savings accounts for children with special needs. Further, Indiana’s budget increases per student grants for charter schools.

In a recent interview with Today’s Catholic, former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who signed Indiana’s first school voucher bill into law, reflected on the success of the program. “Providing poor and minority families the same choice of schools that their wealthier neighbors enjoy is the purest example of ‘social justice’ in our society today.”

Unfortunately, there are many policymakers who want to deny this social justice to the poor. Chief among them is New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. For years, he has waged war on the city’s charter schools. His animosity for these learning options for children who would be condemned to failing public schools was so apparent that during his first year in office the state legislature passed a law preventing him from evicting charter schools from city property.

Undeterred by this law and with little regard for actually bringing about social justice, de Blasio’s Department of Education recently failed to provide a new location for Success Academy, a charter school in Queens that primarily services minority students. As the school year comes to a close, these students will need to find a new school for the fall.

But even as his term is set to expire at the end of the year, New York students will have no reprieve. Of all the Democrats running for mayor, only Ray McGuire has said he would support putting no caps on the number of charter schools in the city. The rest basically support the status quo, keeping children prisoners in failing schools.

Unfortunately, even with the proven success of Florida and Indiana, too many policymakers decline to pursue a preferential option for the poor and provide them with the purest form of social justice.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on President Biden’s speech last night:

In his address to the Congress, President Biden spoke to many of his constituents, mostly in the way of promising an expansion of existing government programs or starting new ones. He did not address the concerns of religious Americans.

Over the past year, the faithful have had their religious rights abridged, if not eviscerated, by Covid restrictions. There were several court battles, reaching to the U.S. Supreme Court. Biden said nothing about these First Amendment restrictions. Nor did he mention the words “religion” or “religious liberty” in his speech.

The president did, however, speak to the rights of men who think they are women and women who think they are men. “To all transgender Americans watching at home—especially the young people who are so brave—I want you to know that your president has your back.” He did not explain what is “so brave” about being sexually confused.

Biden said he wants Congress to support the Equality Act “to protect the rights of LGBTQ Americans.” He did not tell the American people that this piece of legislation is the most anti-religious liberty act ever proposed, and that it would cancel the protections afforded by the historic Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a bill supported by then- Senator Joe Biden and signed by President Bill Clinton.

The first of four challenges we face, Biden said, is “access to good education.” African American and Hispanic parents are stuck on a waiting line seeking to enroll their children in the local charter school—the demand outstrips the supply—seeking “access to good education.” They want more charter schools, not fewer.

No matter, Biden is opposed to all school-choice initiatives, including charter schools. He certainly does not support any voucher program that might enable minorities the chance to send their children to a Catholic school. The record shows that minority students do much better in charter schools and Catholic schools than they do in public schools, but that does not matter to our “devout Catholic” president.

The Biden administration, led by the president, is convinced that America is a racist country. He said it again in his speech, arguing that we need to “root out systemic racism.” Given that he has spent his entire adult life in public office, it behooves him to disclose why he has never talked about “systemic racism” until recently. After all, over the past half century he has been a U.S. senator and vice president. We need to know: What has he done to ”root out systemic racism”?

If there is systemic racism, it is rooted in those who want to keep blacks in their place, denying them the same choice to send their children to quality schools that the affluent can afford. Perversely, this means President Joe Biden is part of the problem he says exists.

Contact White House press secretary Jen Psaki: jennifer.r.psaki@who.eop.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on our most serious problem:

The United States is beset with numerous problems, though none as serious as teaching students and workers why they should hate America. It is an intellectually dishonest game, riddled with distortions and out-and-out lies about American history, as well as tortured interpretations of current events.

It is disturbing to note that the left-wing agenda is no longer confined to places like higher education and the media. No, it has been mainstreamed into the corporate world, collegiate and professional sports, and beyond. Some politicians have also embraced the “Hate America” campaign.

There are three identifiable stages to this campaign.

The baby boomers, who were born after World War II, came of age in the Sixties at a time of unprecedented affluence and domestic strife. The civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam, and the sexual revolution wrought chaos and confusion. The Sixties and Seventies were marked by a movement to hate America, though the agenda of the left was inchoate as compared to the stages that followed.

Stage one flowered in academia and in select urban neighborhoods. College students were taught how racist and sexist our heritage is, and how imperialistic our foreign policy is. Amerikkka, as it was called, was the land of oppression. It did not matter that those who promoted this lie were Marxists, the masters of oppression. Parts of many urban areas, particularly on the east and west coasts, were overtaken by drug-addicted hippies who preached love while throwing Molotov cocktails at the police.

Stage two was born in the Eighties. Just as the college campuses gave rise to the first installment of hatred, they were the site of the second wave. Its principal vehicle was multiculturalism. This pedagogical tool was never about teaching students to appreciate diverse cultures; rather, it was used as an ideological weapon to trash Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian heritage.

Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t fooled. Multiculturalism, he observed, has led to “a peculiar Western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological.” The distinguished historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., was more specific. “There is surely no reason for Western civilization to have guilt trips laid on it by champions of cultures based on despotism, superstition, tribalism, and fanaticism.”

Multiculturalism is also about fomenting division, segregating various demographic groups, emphasizing how little we have in common.

We see expressions of it today. The class of 2021 at Columbia University allows for separate “Multicultural Graduation Celebrations.” The menu includes events for Native, Asian, “Latinx” (it is not chic to have masculine and feminine identifiers, as in Latinos and Latinas, respectively), African Americans, Lavender (homosexuals and transgender persons) and FLI (first-generation, low-income students). This obviously presents a dilemma for rich gay first-generation persons of mixed ancestry, but such is life at the Ivies these days.

The third stage of the “Hate America” campaign, which began in the 1990s and is now in full bloom, is grounded in critical race theory, an ideology that was crafted by racists to combat racism. It is a curious blend of Marxism (the capitalists are the oppressive class) and racism (white people are inherently racist). Its popularity is widespread, extending from the halls of government to Wall Street. The Biden administration is currently weighing strategies to implement critical race theory in the schools, making certain that no one will escape participation in the “Hate America” campaign.

Where do you rank on the scale of “power and privilege?” That is what first-grade students in California are being asked. In Missouri, middle-school teachers are being asked to rate themselves on an “oppression” index. Predictably, the bad guys are white, heterosexual, English-speaking, Christian males. They oppress people. Take note of that, Oprah.

The campuses are alive with critical race theory. Michigan State University will hold a conference in May instructing white students to admit their “white privilege,” even if reared in a foster home. At Smith College, all employees were forced to undergo “antibias” training after a black student claimed she was racially profiled. It was later learned that she lied. Georgetown fired a tenured professor for simply noting that her black law students were not doing well in her classes.

There is little pushback in the corporations, or on the college campuses, against the “Hate America” campaign, but there are signs that parents of elementary school students have had enough.

In New York City, Megyn Kelly pulled her two children from a pricey Upper West side school. She was followed by a father who took his daughter out of an expensive Upper East side school; he made his informed letter public, sharing it with the school’s parents. A faculty member at Grace Church School in Greenwich Village recently went public with his complaints against the headmaster: He accused him of “demonizing white people for being born.”

Not until more Americans object to these pernicious “Hate America” campaigns in the workplace, schools, and government will we liberate ourselves from this demonic attack on our heritage and our sensibilities. The barbarians are not at the gate—they’ve captured our culture and our institutions.

To read Catholic League president Bill Donohue’s open letter to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul on his planned investigation of priestly sexual abuse. To read it, click here.

Contact: josh.kaul@doj.state.wi.us

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an address by President Biden on the Armenian genocide:

On April 24, Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, President Biden is expected to make a statement on the massacre of the Armenian people that took place in 1915-1916. This was the first of three genocides in the twentieth century; the other two were Stalin’s mass killing of the Ukrainians and Hitler’s annihilation of the Jews.

We urge President Biden to call the massacre of the Armenians for what it is—genocide. To this day, Turkish leaders take umbrage at any mention of this subject, preferring to live in a state of denial. We should not appease them any longer. Regrettably, too many presidents and senators have failed to speak forthrightly about this issue.

The word “genocide” was coined in 1943 or 1944 (depending on the source) by Polish Jewish writer Raphael Lemkin. Mass killings, he said, amounted to “a crime without a name.” He resolved this problem by splicing the Greek word “genos,” meaning race or people, with the Latin term “caedo,” meaning killing. Hence the word “genocide.”

Biden needs to do more than simply invoke this word. He needs to use this opportunity as a teaching moment, one that informs the world about who did what to whom. That means mentioning those who committed this genocide, namely Muslims, and their victims, namely Christians.

This is not a call to brand all Muslims as supporters of genocide—that is morally indefensible. Indeed it is unconscionable. No, this is a plea to be honest.

Though the number who were killed is not a settled issue, the consensus is that 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, along with 300,000 Assyrians and 750,000 Greeks. All were Christian.

We typically hear that it was the rulers of the Ottoman Empire who carried out the massacre. This is true, but it is incomplete.

William B. Rubinstein is a distinguished historian and author of Genocide, one of the most authoritative books on this subject. He notes that “The rulers of the Ottoman Empire traditionally regarded themselves as the leaders of the Islamic world.” What they did was not a mistake. Most of the evidence, Rubinstein says, suggests “that the Turkish authorities actively masterminded the mass killing of the Armenians as a deliberate policy.”

Why the Armenians? German historian Michael Hesemann does not mince words. “In the end,” he says, “Armenians weren’t killed because they were Armenians, but because they were Christians.” Further proof that the Muslim rulers were motivated by a hatred of Christians is offered by another specialist in this area. “If it [the Armenian Genocide] was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against Christian Assyrians at the same time?”

According to Hudson Institute scholar Lela Glibert, “It is noteworthy that Adolf Hitler found inspiration in the Armenian massacre for his Holocaust of European Jews.” Indeed, Hitler knew exactly what the Muslims were doing. “Turkey is taking advantage of the war [World War I] in order to thoroughly liquidate its international foes, i.e, the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.”

President Biden often speaks glowingly of Pope Francis. He needs to emulate him in more concrete ways. In 2015, the Holy Father called the slaughter of the Armenians “the first genocide of the 20th century.” Biden should then expand on this by acknowledging who did what to whom.

Ask White House secretary Jen Psaki to convey this message to the president. Contact: jennifer.r.psaki@who.eop.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new report on religious persecution:

The 2021 report on Religious Freedom in the World, issued by Aid to the Church in Need, details two genres of religious persecution. The first is the most familiar one: violence against people and property (houses of worship). The second is a more subtle way of persecuting the faithful, typically relying on restrictive measures encoded in public policy and law.

Pope Francis is credited with broaching this second strand: non-violent expressions of religious persecution may not be as immediate or acute, but they can be culturally lethal.

The report found that the most persecuted religion in the world is Christianity. As in years past, Muslim-run nations and Communist states continue to be the worst offenders. The evidence shows that Africa, Asia and the Middle East remain hotbeds of Christian persecution in its most violent form.

The report also notes that “the predominance of Christianity is no guarantee that religious freedom is upheld.” Nations that disrespect religious liberty tend to disrespect human rights in general. For example, in Latin America and the Caribbean, the worst offenders are Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. All three are Marxist-inspired police states.

It is the second type of religious persecution, the more gentle one, that should concern those who live in North America and Europe.

Pope Francis calls it “polite persecution.” He is alarmed by the spike in new “rights,” cultural norms or laws that relegate religion “to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience,” or that narrowly confine them to “the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques.”

The Holy Father has put his finger on a real problem. If Christians in the Middle East need to fear the machete, Christians in the Western world need to fear the media, higher education, activist organizations and government. They are the ones advocating, or imposing, a secular agenda on religious institutions.

The report quotes Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, warning us about “a radically individualistic interpretation of certain rights and the affirmation of ‘new rights.'” The report cites by way of example violations of the conscience rights of those in the medical profession. Forcing doctors to end life (euthanasia), or to stop it from developing (abortion), is a growing threat to people of faith in many nations.

Laws aimed at curtailing the rights of religious schools are also a problem. Graduates of some religious colleges and universities are being discriminated against in employment. Parents who object to classroom instruction that explicitly runs roughshod over their religious beliefs (e.g., sex education) are being summarily ignored by administrators. “Hate crime” legislation is being used to criminalize the beliefs of those who hold to traditional moral values.

Another variant of “polite persecution” are attempts to limit the scope of religious liberty, or that undervalue its role in a free and democratic society.

For religious liberty to thrive, it must be afforded a wide scope and not be suffocated by restrictive norms and laws. It is not only offensive, it is downright insulting, to tell the faithful that they can pray in their house of worship. Faith that cannot be exercised in the public square is faith denied. To be sure, no right is absolute, but efforts to narrowly define religion’s reach are stifling.

There would be no liberty, anywhere in the world, had it not been for the Western vision of individual rights and justice before the law. These ideas did not spring from Africa, the Middle East or Asia. It is the West that gave birth to liberty and equality, and it is our Judeo-Christian ethos that shaped it. That is why the movement to secularize our religious institutions makes no sense historically, logically, or morally.

“Polite persecution” of religion may not put us in imminent danger, but in the long run it can accomplish the same end. Campaigns to subvert it are in everyone’s interest.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Rep. Maxine Waters’ latest call for racial division:

Over the past year, there has been an explosion in anti-police rhetoric and behavior, much of it violent. Indeed, the cops are under siege in many American cities. Now Rep. Maxine Waters has thrown gas on the fire. Her goal is to racially divide America, targeting the police as enemy number one.

Waters, whose district is in California, traveled to Minneapolis on Saturday to insist that Derek Chauvin must be found guilty of murdering George Floyd (the former police officer is not being charged with first degree murder).

She joined a rally Saturday night telling the protesters, some of whom have resorted to violence, “We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.” Everyone knew what she meant.

To understand the serious nature of Waters’ remarks, her comments must be taken in context. The police have been continuously demonized by celebrities, pundits and politicians.

Hollywood star Alyssa Milano recently charged, “Police exist to uphold white supremacy.” Never mind that the mostly non-white police force in our nation’s largest cities might find this risible. Madonna is just as keen. She has called for police officers involved in fatal shootings to be denied due process, saying there should be “no trial.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib went a step further tweeting, “Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist.” She demanded that we end policing and incarceration. She did not say in whose neighborhood we should release the murderers and rapists, nor did she renounce taxpayer-funded security for herself.

These pleas for injustice are not without effect. In Minneapolis, the police are banned from using chokeholds, tear gas and tasers, leaving them with no other choice but to use their guns when they are threatened. In New York City, the NYPD’s budget has been slashed and the plainclothes anti-crime unit—a major success—has been eliminated. This is happening at a time when the qualified immunity that police officers have earned has been nixed.

Policies matter. There are 1,500 state parolees living in New York City shelters. Every morning when I come to work there are dozens of crazed men hanging out inside and outside of Penn Station, and nothing is done about it. The cops are told to stand down.

Now an Asian undercover cop was almost thrown onto the subway tracks in Queens. The offender, who has a long rap sheet, went before a judge and was quickly let go. “My hands are tied because under the new bail rules, I have absolutely no authority or power to set bail on this defendant for this alleged offense,” said the judge.

Last June, city leaders in Portland slashed $16 million from the police budget; they also eliminated the gun-violence unit. Guess what happened? Gun violence surged. Conditions are so bad—the result of intentionally disabling the police—that now the mayor is demanding they refund the police.

Chris Cuomo told his declining CNN audience that police reform will not happen until “White people’s kids start getting killed.” He is not likely to get his wish. As CNSNews writer Michael Chapman notes, “For black victims of violent crime, a Department of Justice report for 2018 shows that 70.3% of their offenders were black and 10.6% of their offenders were white.” Moreover, because whites are involved in relatively few interactions with the police, Cuomo’s dream is not likely to come true.

Attempts to blame the police for the violence committed by Black Lives Matter protesters doesn’t square with the evidence. Last year, researchers at Princeton University studied this issue for a three month period. They counted approximately 570 Black Lives Matter riots in nearly 220 locations throughout the nation. Last month, it was revealed that Black Lives Matter is responsible for at least 25 deaths and thousands of injuries.

It is not the average African American who wants to destabilize the police. Indeed, in a Gallup survey released last August, 61% of them want policing to remain the same. Of those who have had an interaction with the police, 79% of blacks want the cops to spend more or the same amount of time in their neighborhood.

Maxine Waters does not speak for African Americans. In fact, she is not their ally: She is their enemy. It’s time she, and others like her, were exposed for what they are—race baiters and cop bashers.

Contact Twaun Samuel, Waters’ chief of staff: twaun.samuel@mail.house.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) turn to politics:

Collegiate sports and professional sports have traditionally been apolitical. They have also been at least tacitly supportive of traditional moral values. No longer. They have now laid anchor with the politics of the left, and that, in turn, has led them to adopt an aggressively secular worldview, one that is increasingly anti-Christian. Consider the NCAA.

On April 12, the NCAA Board of Governors stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports. This commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition.” It also said that it will not hold championship events in locations that do not agree with its position.

Truth to tell, the NCAA does not believe in inclusion and fair competition: It believes in exclusion and unfair competition.

Its policy of restricting championship events to locales that conform to its transgender politics manifestly excludes parts of the country that maintain a Christian view of sex and sexuality. Moreover, there is nothing fair about allowing males to compete against females in athletics.

There is something else going on here that needs to be addressed. Why is the NCAA promoting sex reassignment therapy when it is well known how dangerous it is to the psychological and physical wellbeing of those who undergo it? To this point, are NCAA officials aware that hormone therapy causes physical changes that are irreversible?

Sweden has a comparatively long history of accommodating transgender persons. It does not have an admirable record. In fact, what we know should give us pause. For example, the suicide rate for those who undergo sex reassignment therapy is astonishingly high, and the range and scale of psychiatric disorders are also disturbing. None of this has anything to do with stigma—Sweden enthusiastically embraces the transgender community.

In this country, the American Heart Association has concluded that those who undergo sex reassignment therapy have higher rates of strokes, heart attacks and blood clots. Another study found that females who transition to males have a greater risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes.

In 2018, the Annals of Internal Medicine published the results of a major study conducted by distinguished universities and research institutes on this subject. Those men who switched to female experienced rates of stroke that were “80 to 90 percent higher” than biological women.

Last month, the Mayo Clinic reported on several risk factors for males who transition to female. They include blood clots, high blood pressure, infertility, Type 2 Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke and breast cancer.

It is a sure bet that the NCAA will distance itself from reports of serious health issues that arise from transgender athletes. They will claim they have nothing to do with them.

In March 2021, the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that male athletes who transition to female maintain their body mass and strength for up to three years, putting natural-born women at a major disadvantage. In other words, once the change takes place, biological women will be hamstrung for years.

Even if there weren’t any serious side effects to sex transitioning, there is still the anti-Christian bias that is evident in the NCAA’s policy.

For instance, states such as Mississippi, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas have banned transgender participation in women’s sports, and all of them are overwhelmingly Christian. Is it by accident that none of them are allowed to host an NCAA championship contest? Or is it a direct consequence of the NCAA adopting the anti-Christian animus that colors the politics of the left?

The NCAA commitment to inclusion stops short when it comes to Christian schools. None of the 25 members of the Board of Governors hail from these states, and the two religious-affiliated board members—from Georgetown University and Hamline University—represent schools that are unabashedly “progressive,” not orthodox.

In general, male athletes are faster and stronger than female athletes. That is why everything from pre-school athletics to the Olympics are sex segregated. Similarly, we have the Special Olympics for the disabled. There should also be a forum for transgender athletes, even if it is limited to regional competition.

The NCAA should stay out of politics, stay away from affirming sex transitioning, and stay clear of imposing punitive measures on Christian states and schools.

Contact Gail Dent, associate director of communications: gdent@ncaa.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a Biden pick to police the U.S. border:

President Joe Biden has nominated Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus to be the head of Customs and Border Protection. The Senate will have to confirm him. He needs to be asked about some disturbing remarks he made two years ago about Covington Catholic High School students.

After a March for Life rally in the nation’s capital, Nick Sandmann, a Covington Catholic student, was taunted by an Indian activist, Nathan Phillips. Although Phillips beat his drum in the student’s face, Sandmann did not retaliate. All he did was smile. Immediately, many pundits and the media attacked Sandmann for disrespecting Phillips. Among those who jumped on the bandwagon was Magnus.

When more complete videos became available, most of Sandmann’s critics regretted their rush to judgment. It was Phillips who baited Sandmann, not the other way around. What made Magnus different from the other critics was his determination to collectivize the guilt—he indicted all the Covington Catholic students.

Surely Magnus knew the students were Catholic—it was all over the media—so why did he indict their status? On January 19, 2019, he tweeted, “What kind of parenting or school experience leads to this?” He called out their behavior, which was completely passive, saying what they did was “cruel & wrong.”

Had these been public school students, it is not likely Magnus would have questioned their upbringing. But these students were raised by Catholic parents and attended a Catholic school.

After Magnus saw more video clips, he stuck to his guns. Two days after his first tweet, he blamed the Catholic students for acting like a “mob”—even though the videos proved they did nothing wrong. He also said this was a “Totally avoidable” event, putting the onus on them.

Magnus is not an ordinary cop. He is a left-wing activist who participated in a Black Lives Matter protest while in uniform when he headed the Richmond, California police department in 2014. This earned him the rebuke of local law enforcement unions and his own police force. While in the same job, he was accused by a records clerk of “cultivating a gay environment.” In 2015, Magnus was accused by a male officer of sexual harassment and for using racial slurs.

Magnus needs to explain himself. Not only was his judgment in the Covington Catholic case seriously flawed, the comments he made about the students’ family and school deserve to be probed. What was he getting at when he asked about the “parenting or school experience” of these Catholic students?

We are contacting all members of the U.S. Senate. Because Magnus is likely to first appear before the Senate Finance Committee, we urge everyone to contact Senator Mike Crapo, the Ranking Member.

Contact his legislative director, Molly Carpenter: molly_carpenter@crapo.senate.gov