So my four African American grandchildren born to white father with a Masters from the University of Pennsylvania and his African wife with a Degree from Drexel University living in an upper class suburb of Pennsylvania taking college courses over the summer while in middle school and enjoying the benefits of two parent family with a household income in the top 3% of American families are somehow at a disadvantage to a poor white child growing up in Appalachia in a single parent family because of their skin color?

My son asks my granddaughter how she expected to get accepted to a top university if she doesn't study harder... her response was "Black Privilege". At her age she has already figured out how to use her skin color to advantage.

But she is not unique. In my career that spanned more than 30 years at numerous nationally recognized company, it was a given that all things being equal, the African American would get the job offer in order to help the company achieve its diversity goals.

Now moving from anecdotal evidence to hard core evidence. There does appear to be a wage gap between white males and Asia women. According to Payscale, all things being equal Asian women earn 2% more than white men. White men earn 2% more than African American men. Now if white privilege were a fact, even if the difference is relatively small we would expect white men or at least white people to be the best paid all things being equal... but they are not. This analysis is based on more than 500,000 data points and is the largest study available that I am aware of... 500,000 datapoints goes beyond anecdotal.

Let's look at Medical School... A study done by the University of Michigan found the following...

"For those applicants to US medical schools last year with average GPAs (3.40 to 3.59) and average MCAT scores (27 to 29), black applicants were almost 4 times more likely to be admitted to medical school than Asians in that applicant pool (81.2% vs. 20.6%), and 2.8 times more likely than white applicants (81.2% vs. 29.0%)."

A system which favors whites would not produce these kind of results... Having great interest in this area because five out of seven of grandchildren are bi racial with African blood, I would be the first to cry foul if "skin color" privilege were in fact "a thing".

More interesting when you subdivide people of African blood you find dramatic differences in outcomes. Nigerians tend to do better than whites on average, African Americans and Haitians do poorly, and East Indian Africans do somewhere in between. But this distribution of results points to something other than skin color... since if skin color were the reason one would expect to see similar results across these groups.

As someone who began his career statistically auditing companies, it appears "white privilege arguments" are based on poor correlations rather than casuations...

So for example the frequent argument that African American men are more likely than white men to be killed by police is true if you compare those numbers against the national population of white men and African Americans... but if you age adjust the data the difference narrows dramatically since young me are more likely to commit violent crimes and African American men on average are 20 years younger than white men... if you further adjust for violent crime rates based on race, the whole case goes out the window.

So at the end of the day, if age adjust and violent crime adjust to determine to eliminate those factors from inferring misinformation about skin color, the whole argument collapses.

Suggesting Thomas Sowell is not very bright has several problems. First, even if you argue he got racial preference (undermining the white privilege argument) when he got accepted to Harvard, the fact that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard argues he is in fact quite bright. That he got his Masters from Columbia University and his PhD from the university of Chicago likewise challenge your assertion regarding his intelligence unless again you are arguing he benefited from being African American which again undermines the white supremacy argument.

Finally, while one might disagree with the ideology of the Hoover Institution at Stanford again it is silly to suggest any of its senior fellows are "not that bright".

Concerning who conservatives "worship", I have found the opposite is true. Liberals tend to lift up anyone who espouse ideas they like. So critical race theory proponents largely use a subjective interpretation of history to make their case... and ignore those data points that argue against cases.

For example, it ignores that "white trash" was a social construct to identify a group of people comprised largely of Scotch Irish indentured servants who migrated to the Appalachian mountains because of the lack of available land in eastern Virginia. Later Catholics were likewise discriminated against. The point being a more realistic arguments is that people are tribal and tribes compete for dominance regardless of skin color. Aztecs in Mexico behaved in much the same way as white slaveowners.

Why does this matter? First, because people can't do anything about their skin color so it suggests that African Americans are "victims" and so serves the progressive liberal agenda that promotes equity over equality since CRT says equality is impossible. Yet equity is equally impossible, though it does serve to justify greater government involvement in the economy. In effect, white privilege, CRT, and many other theories while lacking rigorous support are all based on the premise that skin color creates "systemic victims" that only government can protect. The millions of successful African Americans in our society today stand in stark contrast to that argument.