Richard Spencer & Paul Kersey

In 2007, then-Stanford University head football coach Jim Harbaugh (now of the San Francisco 49ers) made statements about his alma mater, the University of Michigan, that cast aspersions on the school’s practice of admitting substandard students in order to compete in the Big Ten Conference. Said Harbaugh,

Michigan is a good school and I got a good education there… but the athletic department has ways to get borderline guys in and, when they’re in, they steer them to courses in sports communications. They’re adulated when they’re playing, but when they get out, the people who adulated them won’t hire them.

Most in the PC world of sportswriting claimed to be appalled by Harbaugh’s pointing out of the obvious. One exception was ESPN’s Pat Forde:

The hard numbers seem to be on Joltin' Jim's side.

All it takes to see that is a scan of the 2007 Michigan media guide. Only 30 players have listed majors, and 19 of them are pursuing degrees in something called "general studies." That's 20 percent of the team, and 63 percent of the players who have declared a major. 

But even Forde wasn’t willing to touch on the REAL truth behind what Harbaugh had said.

College football (and basketball) offer Black Americans opportunities to attend schools like Michigan that their academic records and performance on SAT/ACT tests would never grant them, even with affirmative action. Blacks make up only six percent of National Champion Auburn University’s 23,000 undergraduate body, for instance; they comprise around 80 percent of the football team’s starting lineup. Black people, who would seem to have little in common with many of the institutions for which they play, become heroes to students, alumni, and fans alike. Universities, in turn, rely on athletes like Auburn’s Cam Newton—and, by all indications, pay them handsomely—in order to bring in hundreds of millions in revenue each year.

At one point in Western history, the "Robin Hood" of Anglo-Saxon legend became a socialist. When Hollywood got a hold him, he also became a charmer and prankster (as portrayed by Errol Flynn and animated by Disney), and later a mellow loner from Southern California in Kevin Costner's godawful 1991 production. But mostly, Robin was a socialist, and a man defined by the imperative of  "stealing from the rich to give to the poor." He became one of history's few universally beloved Leftists, his name emblazoned on various pieces of uplifting legislation. Ayn Rand declared him the epitome of evil. 

Something must be rotten in Sherwood forest. For in Russell Crow and Ridley Scott's Robin Hood (2010) only briefly does Robin actually don a hood and rob passers-by in the woods. (His victims in this case are leaders of the Roman church who had refused the starving population of Nottingham recourse to their grain.) Otherwise, the prince of theives is scandalously upright and law abiding. The New York Times's dissatisfaction with the film indicates that more than a century's worth of wealth-redistribution metaphors have been put at risk. (Or as Steve Sailer puts it, "American audiences ... have been puzzled (not without reason) over why Robin Hood doesn't have much to do with, well, Robin Hood.")