I mean, you obviously can't know this. But I freely admit I can't either. I just don't think this is the key point either way.

If I go to trial, accused of a crime I'm guilty of, and the prosecution lawyer is a member of the KKK and gets me convicted, the central issue here isn't the lawyer's racism, but my guilt.

I have zero interest in defending Rufo or his motives. The little I know about him is convinces me that he's, at least, dishonest and disingenuous. But he's effective because we, on the Left, waste too much time talking about agendas "rooted in white supremacy" instead of offering clear, well thought out alternatives that people care about.

If the average person hears the the president of Harvard has at least fifty instances of plagiarism in her published work, what do you think they think? Do you think they're focused on the agenda of the journalist who points it out? Do you think this dispels any doubts they might already have had about DEI? Do you think they respect the "academic elite" more for covering for her instead of holding her to the same standards she would hold her students?

Every time a black person Is involved in a scandal, racism is a possible motive. Just as sexism is a possible motive when it's a woman and homophobia is a possible motive when it's a gay man or lesbian. It sucks, but yes, there will likely always be people who are motivated by bigotry. That doesn't mean that Gay's downfall was caused by bigotry.