R Magic Brow

DiJonai Carrington may have committed the most educational flagrant foul in the history of basketball.I was discussing the episode with a friend who asked, “Do you remember roller derby?” I confessed I did not. “It was a sport where people enjoyed watching women beat each other up,” he said. I saw the connection immediately.‘White privilege’ did not appear spontaneously in professional sports. It has an intellectual pedigree.It reminded me of undergraduate classes in which feminists argued that women should run the world because they are more level-headed, calm, and compassionate than men. I had also watched some of those same people treat conservative colleagues with remarkable contempt. The theory and the behavior did not always match.The WNBA has lately offered a rather vivid reminder that women, being human, are perfectly capable of aggression, rivalry, resentment, and the occasional refusal to accept responsibility.During Saturday’s game between the Chicago Sky and Indiana Fever, Sophie Cunningham broke toward the basket for a layup. Carrington pursued her from behind and struck Cunningham across the head and neck. Officials reviewed the play, upgraded it to a flagrant 2, and ejected Carrington.This was WNBA drama. Then higher education entered the game.After her ejection, Carrington posted on Threads: “WHITE PRIVILEGE @indianafever.”One has to admire the efficiency. Universities can spend an entire semester teaching students to interpret ordinary human interactions through racial categories. Carrington managed it before the game was over.Predictably, people asked the obvious question: What precisely did Cunningham’s whiteness have to do with Carrington hitting her in the face?Former NFL player Emmanuel Acho was among those who challenged Carrington’s invocation of white privilege. Carrington later said people had misunderstood her: She was not claiming the ejection itself was caused by white privilege, but pointing to what she regarded as a larger pattern of white players receiving different treatment. She defended her understanding of the subject by citing her education, including Stanford.And there, buried beneath the WNBA drama, was the genuinely interesting story.Carrington herself appealed to her education as authority for the framework she was using. That does not prove some Stanford professor taught her how to explain this particular foul. It does show how natural it has become for educated Americans to reach for concepts such as “white privilege” when interpreting conflict and punishment.RELATED: Magical thinking just made the WNBA Draft Melissa Tamez/Icon Sportswire/Getty ImagesAmerica’s universities have spent decades teaching students to interpret institutions and human behavior through racial categories. “White privilege” did not appear spontaneously in professional sports. It has an intellectual pedigree. Students encounter frameworks in which racial identity becomes a morally significant category through which achievements, punishments, disagreements, and disparities are interpreted.Carrington apparently regards her education as establishing her authority on the subject. Fine. Then taxpayers and parents should pay attention to what that education teaches people to see.Stanford is private, of course, but like many American universities, it receives substantial federal funding. Universities receiving federal money are subject to federal antidiscrimination law. That does not mean professors cannot discuss controversial theories of race. They obviously can. The serious question comes when theories move from subjects to be examined into institutional doctrines that classify people morally by race.Imagine reversing the language. Imagine a university program teaching students to interpret the behavior of black classmates through a theory of “black privilege,” complete with generalizations about what black people characteristically possess, how they characteristically think, and what judgments should attach to them because of their racial identity.Would anyone seriously maintain that race had nothing to do with it?The Carrington episode also illustrates something universities rarely advertise about these theories: They can be wonderfully useful for avoiding personal responsibility.In the classical university, education aimed at forming a good soul: one capable of wisdom, ordered toward what is good, and disciplined against vices such as hatred, envy, and bitterness. This did not mean the good person escaped persecution or injustice. It meant that injustice did not excuse becoming unjust in return. A good soul fears God, not men — or women.Today’s university is different. It teaches students to locate wrongdoing in systems, structures, identities, and power. Once in a while those explanations are relevant. But they can also become a vocabulary for explaining away one’s own choices. For the philosophy students reading this, the contrast is Socrates versus Thrasymachus: seek the good, or reduce everything to power.The old-fashioned response to committing a flagrant foul was fairly straightforward: “I went too far.”The new response requires considerably more vocabulary.One can discuss systems, privilege, disparities, power structures, historical patterns, and institutional inequities until the original question — “Why did you hit her in the face?” — disappears beneath a small graduate seminar.That is one of the most corrosive temptations of identity ideology. It can supply an external explanation for almost every unfavorable consequence. If I succeed, I overcame oppression. If you succeed, you benefited from privilege. If I am punished, we investigate the system. If you are punished, justice has finally arrived.Personal responsibility becomes strangely difficult to locate.Carrington has also defended her aggressive play on the grounds that she will do everything she can to prevent an opponent from making a layup. Fair enough — except that this rather misses the point of organized sports.Basketball is not defined as “do everything you can to stop the other person.” It has rules.That’s what distinguishes basketball from rugby or a parking-lot fight.RELATED: ‘She didn’t wait until it was easy’: Victim of brutal injury from male athlete praises Sophie Cunningham Michael Reaves/Getty ImagesYou may contest the shot. You may block the ball. You may position yourself defensively. You may even commit an ordinary foul to force free throws. What you may not do is simply employ whatever technique seems most likely to prevent the basket.Otherwise, why stop with a cross-face? Tackle her. Bite her. Kick her. Put her in a rear-naked choke.Although, given recent WNBA highlights, perhaps I should stop giving anyone ideas.The rules are not an obstacle to the game. The rules constitute the game. And that is precisely the moral lesson obscured by the ideology Carrington invoked.Civil society works the same way. We do not get to suspend ordinary standards of conduct because we believe ourselves to be fighting injustice. We do not get to judge people by their skin color because an elaborate theory tells us doing so is enlightened. Anti-racism becomes corrupting when it licenses hatred, envy, or racial blame in the name of correcting hatred, envy, and racial injustice.Carrington’s foul lasted only a moment.Her explanation deserves more attention because it inadvertently reminded Americans that when racial ideology shows up on the basketball court, it did not necessarily begin there.Someone taught the framework. Quite possibly at a university. And taxpayers help support the institutions where it flourishes.

Why are so many young Americans struggling to find lasting relationships? According to BlazeTV host Nick Freitas, the answer has a lot to do with the way modern dating has not only been influenced by feminism — but has been reshaped by the apps.These apps, Freitas says, have created a “fake environment” where men get far less attention than women do.“On Tinder, men’s average match rate is 5.26%. Women’s is 44.4%. So that’s an eight times difference, roughly. On Hinge, men swipe right on 61% of profiles. Women swipe right on 5% of profiles,” he explains.“This part blew my mind. There’s a huge gender skew, like on Tinder, 67%-76% of the people on there are male. For Hinge it’s 60%-40%; for Bumble it’s 54%-46%,” he continues.“On all these platforms where, again, we’re being told to go find people … it’s even worse, because one of the things that women typically need to truly be attracted to a man is they actually need to be able to be in proximity toward them,” he adds.And an Institute for Family Studies study found that couples who meet in real life are much happier than ones who met online — and there’s good reason for it.“Modern dating is already set up for failure, which is to say that you’re essentially putting on a performance for another human being. But your ability to perform outside of who you really are is far more limited in person than it is online, especially when we have all kinds of enhancements and filters and everything else that are going on,” Freitas explains.However, as men and women begin to point the finger at each other for the growing issue of modern dating, Freitas points out that there’s something they both need to realize.“As we go into this final phase talking about what should you be doing is men, you have every right to be pissed at the system that was set up for you,” he says.“What I want you to understand is that it’s harder sometimes to understand how the women were also lied to because the women were lied to in a very, very different direction. You were put down by the system; they were built up by it,” he explains.“But you were both lied to,” he adds.Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Until now, Google Gemini has been an optional part of Android. Most of its features are locked behind the dedicated Gemini app, or you can choose to rely on Google Assistant as your on-device companion for fielding questions and completing tasks. That is all about to change, though, as Google officially prepares to retire its old assistant for an AI future, and it is coming sooner than you think.Google brought Gemini to Android in early 2024. Since then, the company has progressively injected its AI into every corner of its operating system. The latest iteration, Gemini Intelligence, aims to take its chatbot a step farther by giving it agentic capabilities. At launch, the only way to set Gemini as your default personal assistant instead of Google Assistant was to manually make the switch in your settings. Many newer phones, however, default to Gemini straight out of the box.You aren’t allowed to delete it from your phone. You can, however, take away its functionality.Needless to say, if you have avoided Gemini like the plague thus far, your efforts are commendable, but your luck is about to run out.Starting on September 4, Google will start rolling out Gemini support as the default personal assistant in all applicable Android models — devices with 2 GB of RAM or more that run on Android 9 or later. The process will take several weeks to reach everybody, so you may not lose access to Google Assistant immediately. However, once it is complete, Gemini will take over as the default assistant on your handset, whether you like it or not.It’s not just your phone, either. The switch is coming to all devices in Google’s product ecosystem, including tablets running Android, car infotainment systems with Android Auto, smartwatches running on Wear OS, and TVs with Google TV or Android TV. In other words, you can’t escape it … but you might be able to turn it off, if you know where to look.How to remove Google Gemini as the digital assistant on AndroidTo disable Gemini on a Samsung Galaxy device, open the Settings app, select “Apps” near the bottom of the page, and tap “Choose default apps” at the top. From there, tap “Digital assistant app,” and choose either an alternative to Google or select “None” from the options. Now, when you invoke the digital assistant on your phone, absolutely nothing will happen. Your digital assistant is effectively gone. Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/One UI 9.0 on Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8For Google Pixel phone owners, open up the Settings app and choose “Apps” near the top of the page. Next, select “Default apps,” followed by “Digital assistant app,” and finally, choose “None” or an alternative option to Google, if applicable. Congrats, now your phone no longer has an AI-powered digital assistant! Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Android 17 on Google Pixel 10 Pro XLIf you use an “other” branded Android phone, such as a Motorola, OnePlus, Nothing, etc., the process should be similar to the steps above. The main goal is to find the default apps section in your settings and change the digital assistant to anything other than Google. Once you do that, you’re free from Gemini! Well, sort of. There’s more …How to remove Gemini from your Android appsGoogle has also baked Gemini into many of your favorite apps, including Gmail, Maps, and Drive, but this should only work if you have Personal Intelligence enabled. To check, open the Gemini app on your phone, select “Personal Intelligence,” and then “Connected Apps.” From here, uncheck every app and service that’s enabled. There are a lot of integrations on this page, so make sure you scroll all the way to the bottom and get every single one. Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Android 17 on Google Pixel 10 Pro XLHow to disable the Gemini app on AndroidNow that we’ve fired Gemini from its digital assistant role and banished it from Google apps, there’s one last thing to do, and this one comes with an unavoidable caveat.Some new phones these days, especially from Samsung and Google, come with the Gemini app installed by default, and you aren’t allowed to delete it from your phone. You can, however, take away its functionality.RELATED: Google forced age restrictions onto Android. Are they right for you? yourstockbank/Getty ImagesTo disable Gemini on Android, simply swipe into your app drawer and locate Gemini in the app list. Hold your finger on the app for several seconds to bring up the secondary menu, and choose the “i” icon that indicates “App info.” Next, tap on the “Disable” switch. You’ll get a warning message to try to convince you to change your mind. Ignore that, disable the app anyway, and you’re all set. You will no longer see Gemini in your app drawer, and it will cease to work. Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Android 17 on Google Pixel 10 Pro XLReclaim your privacy from GeminiAs expected, it’s not easy to pry Gemini’s grubby claws out of an Android device. The service is ubiquitous, and as Google triples down on its AI strategy, it will only become more prevalent throughout its operating systems. However, if Gemini is not something you want anywhere near your phone and your data, these steps will help you reclaim some of your privacy and peace of mind.

Since the 1980s, Cliffe Knechtle has been evangelizing on college campuses as part of his “Give Me an Answer” ministry. His son Stuart joined him in 2015, and together the father-son duo continue to conduct their open-air Q&A sessions on campuses around the nation, addressing students’ questions and doubts with the explicit goal of sharing the gospel.In the nearly five decades “Give Me an Answer” has been operating, Cliffe has had a front-row seat to observe college students devolve in many disheartening ways.On this episode of “Relatable” with Allie Beth Stuckey, Cliffe and Stuart explain the three biggest factors that have changed since the dawn of the ministry — and which one has been the most disturbing. The emotional fragility of students is something Cliffe didn’t have to consider back when the ministry began — but today, it is something he is forced to adjust to everywhere he goes. “My dad grew up in Switzerland, and when he was 18, he sat up in the Alps with a gun, watching Hitler's Panzer divisions roll toward Switzerland. My grandpa, my dad's dad, was in the front lines with his gun,” he reflects. “Today, when Donald Trump wins the election, university students go to a crying room to get counseling.”This hypersensitivity has been a challenging factor to adapt to, he admits.“I'm so grateful for Stuart and for my wife, Sharon, because they've helped me understand that and helped me not be quite as harsh and quite as direct as I have often unfortunately been,” Cliffe shares.The second shift he has seen is the growing belief in moral relativism — the idea that right and wrong are subjective.“Moral relativism and sexual immorality has become so commonplace that if you stand against that, you are really, really weird,” says Cliffe.The third shift he has seen is the rising conviction that science is the ultimate truth.“Unfortunately, what has become too firmly entrenched is unless you can prove it scientifically, it's not true,” says Cliffe.“It's fascinating to watch — one group is totally into relativism, and the other group is into unless you can scientifically prove it, it's not true,” he continues, “and so to be able to address both of those camps is a challenge.”It is difficult, he explains, because the gospel, with a few minor exceptions, is largely opposed to moral relativism, and while the gospel of Jesus Christ is “based on evidence,” it is not based on "scientific proof."But of all three shifts, Stuart finds the second — the rising belief in moral relativism — to be the most shocking.He shares a story from one of his college campus visits where a large group of students followed him around, pressing the issue of euthanasia.“When I started 11 years ago with [my dad], I did not see — for the first few years, at least — any type of devaluing of human life — the relativizing of human value like I do today,” he says.“[At one campus], this group follows me — very, very progressive group — to a corner where I was eating a sandwich. And they corner me and they say, ‘Hey, how dare you say that you are going to try and save the life of a suicidal 16-year-old woman? That's devaluing her freedom and autonomy. If anything, you should aid her in her decision to kill herself,”’ Stuart shares.Their certainty, he says, left him “shell-shocked.”“They wouldn't say get a noose or, you know, push her off a cliff. They were more so saying, though, a type of euthanization like the elderly get, you know, whether it's a pill or something along those lines,” he says, “and so they pressed me for a good hour in a very angry way.”“Personal autonomy and freedom is considered really the top idea and thing to pursue, even more so than the value of human life.”To hear more about the Knechtles’ ministry, watch the episode above.Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.