I was wondering if you had any updated thoughts on the Zelensky–Trump Oval Office meeting, given the continuance of the Russo-Ukrainian War in its aftermath. Personally, I found your characterization of President Zelensky to miss the mark somewhat. You characterized President Zelensky’s main talking point as essentially a naive, childish complaint of “I’m in the right; this is unfair.” However, I found his view to be a historically grounded warning to President Trump, much more in keeping with a realpolitik view of international relations.
It seems to me that President Zelensky was essentially saying, “How can you trust Putin? He’s broken every agreement in the past; why would this time be different?” Given the fact that Putin continues to wage this war (despite President Trump’s Twitter/X plea of “Vladimir, STOP!”), do you find that you may have misjudged President Trump and President Zelensky in that meeting?
Do you still think the international “tectonic plates” are shifting away from the post-WWII paradigm? And do you still find that there was something “manly” about how President Trump treated President Zelensky?
Thank you, as always, for your individually thought-out opinions and the stimulating conversations that stem from them.
According to CoPilot which referenced usafacts.org, the demographics of Federal government workers shows that black people are significantly overrepresented in the Federal workforce (18% of Fed workforce / 12% of U.S. population), whereas Hispanics are significantly underrepresented; whites are just slightly underrepresented and Asians are just slightly overrepresented. It seems likely that those black employees will lose a significant portion of jobs as a result of the Trump administration re-organization.
- Was the hiring of so many black Americans the result of Affirmative Action?
- How will the loss of jobs affect the black communities?
- Why were black Americans so overrepresented and Hispanic Americans so underrepresented?
- Should concern for the black communities influence the way layoffs are being done?
I wanted to know if you had a view of the success Nayib Bukele / El Salvador in has had in driving down crime? Formerly, one of the most deadly countries in the western hemisphere El Salvador now has a murder rate below Canada’s. The trade off is intense imprisonment of suspected gang members (only a small portion of the population) who created most of the violence and fear, and therefore held down revitalization of the country. Glenn, as someone who has written about mass incarceration, what’s your view? I always think of this as the tyranny of the minority - Only a sliver of a population with overwhelming negative impact to everyone else.
When overlaying on our country’s urban crime issues, which disproportionately affect poor and minorities citizens, shouldn’t refocusing on taking the worst elements - potentially permanently - out of society to uplift our communities be a focal point? (To avoid this going off the rails, this question is not meant to backdoor into Trumps deportation policy of illegal migrants to El Salvador.)
John's NYT Opinion colleague David French recently wrote a critque of the "Anti-Woke" right. To be clear, it is obviously true that many critics of the woke left have not made themselves a part of what French calls the "anti-Woke right." But I think he's describing a real phenomenon in his article. As both of you (and David for that matter) have been outspoken critics of the woke left, I'm curious what each of you think about David's critique.
I enjoyed your recent episode with Cornel West and Robert George about truth, faith and reason.
When we talk about the "purpose' of the university, especially elite ones like Harvard, we now know that one of the real purposes is to train the children of the elite and maintain the status quo. We always knew that that was part of its mission, but the admissions scandal demonstrated to us all just how big that mission was with well over half the class from the top 1%. This fact does not diminish the value of research and commitment to free speech, etc., but it does show how some things really work. Harvard wants to distract us from that fact.
So maybe DEI and wokeness are/were just a cover for the reality that the 1% controls everything. In spite of all the good that Harvard may do, it remains a social club for the elite to transmit wealth from generation to generation. DEI overreach distracts us from this fact. Is the faculty overwhelmingly progressive? Yes, but over fifty percent of the graduating class matriculates to a Wall Street equivalent, perpetuating the upper class. Whatever our complaints are about too much progressivism, the graduates are still conservative and maintain the status quo.
Perhaps the function of progressivism in the universities is to balance the pursuit of wealth with some form of character/moral development. If I were in the top 1%, and I wanted my children to be as well, I wouldn't want them to go to college just to become an amoral capitalist whose only compass is Ayn Rand. The university functions like a Sunday morning church service to remind people that there is more to life than greed. Church reminds us of the common good and to think of others. So too does a liberal education. Elite universities still maintain the class status quo while giving the illusion of making our society more liberal. They may talk a liberal game, but deep down they are very conservative.
This is a compelling point, but I think there needs to be additional evidence for political affiliation over time (pre college, college, post college). A great many of the Harvard graduates you describe, from personal familiarity with such graduates, do more insidiously pursue wealth preservation/‘moral’ development.
Rather than going deliberately the “capital” route (50%+) or deliberately the non-profit route, a hybridization has emerged in the form of ‘conscious capitalism.’ While not a new concept, the habits of mind of those practicing this form of capitalism do not suffer through the difficult research or trial and error that is required to make a “good” company that also delivers alpha on profit margins or sustainable cash flows. This is an extremely difficult outcome to achieve, and even if the number is smaller than the 50% that goes to Wall St, this population maintains enough inherited wealth to do three things: 1) obtain multiple “shots on goal” 2) switch to finance/consulting after they fail at CC endeavor (but not law, because they’ve not achieved those credentials) and 3) often maintain nationally/internationally progressive political affiliations, while continuing locally conservative attitudes. Further, they often degrade the efforts of those working in finance or consulting as any combination of infantile criticisms (it’s “uncool”, it’s not “making a difference).
Question for both Glenn and John: what do you think the best approach is for the US in the face of the upcoming collapse of Cuba? Surely obviously total humanitarian crisis, but other issues loom because of Cuba’s strategic location.
This question is for both of you. I’ve noticed that occasionally y’all (sic) discuss what it means to be black and what it means to be a man. So it would seem there are some questions about identity and what that means in terms of societal expectations and how you perceive your own personal identity. Since every person is extremely unique I’m a bit puzzled by this. When I consider myself I just check the boxes. Yep, I’m pretty much white, and since I’m an adult female, I’m a woman. When I look at y’all (sic) I just check the boxes, adult male = man, phenotypal african ancestors = black. So for me the formula is pretty simple, and I would say both of you are black men. So I wonder what is at the heart of these discussions. I hope my question isn’t too vague…
This is a macroeconomics question for Professor Loury:
Will a debt backed currency inevitably lead to a liquidity crisis? My hypothesis is that the debt must necessarily grow faster than the currency in circulation. The ratio of cash to debt shrinks until there isn't enough money to cover all loan payments.
This idea started with a simple musing: How would Monopoly change if the players borrowed their money from the bank? After all, banks don’t just give money away.
Assume that the bank charges 1% interest per lap and players make interest only payments. Chance, Community Chest, Income Tax, and Luxury Tax are ignored.
A player borrows $1500 to start the game, so he must pay $15 interest the first time he passes Go!. He simultaneously takes out a $200 loan, netting $185. He owes $1700 and the most he has on hand is $1685. He cannot pay the bank back and the situation only worsens as the game continues.
On the second lap, he owes $17 interest, borrows $200, and collects a total of $183. His net "income" decreases by $2 every lap. Eventually his interest payment exceeds $200 and he gives money to the bank every time he passes Go. The late stage of this game consists of destitute players holding mortgaged properties and hoping to land in Jail rather than pass Go.
Increasing the Go loan by a fixed percentage each lap can ensure a steady stream of money enters the game. The debt compounds but this does not matter in this hypothetical because players take out a Go loan at the same time they make interest payments. If the two are asynchronous a player may find herself with an interest payment due and no corresponding income. She may have to mortgage properties and sell improvements, wiping out wealth accumulated over hours of gameplay.
That concludes my thought experiment and brings me back to the original question:
Does a debt backed currency contain the seeds of its own destruction?
A mouse infestation is a serious problem. I’d have good reason to call an exterminator and get the problem addressed. But if that exterminator then BURNED DOWN MY HOUSE I’d be furious. If the exterminator then retorted “what are you, pro-mouse or something?” I’d be livid.
We don’t need to toss out our constitution in order to deal with our immigration issues. The Trump admin is perfectly capable of deporting these individuals in an expedient and legal manner, but they’re intentionally choosing to skirt due process. Why?
The disregard for the constitution is astounding. Pressuring Pence to break the ECA and overturn the election, trying to override birthright citizenship via executive order, skirting due process in these deportations, and directly disobeying a Supreme Court directive… this was once the party that revered the constitution. How did the GOP get to this stage? What needs to be done to remedy this?
What are your thoughts on Trump coin? At best this seems like a rug-pull scam to enrich Trump. At worst this is a bribing mechanism allowing Trump to be influenced by big players (foreign and domestic) without any hope of tracing the contributions. Is there any steel man for Trump creating this? Could ANY good come from this?
Similarly, is there any steel man for the cryptocurrency reserve? It just seems like we're using taxpayer dollars to pump up this asset-less market.
Glenn, I remember after Trump’s election you were practically giddy about Trump getting rid of DEI. Now that *how* Trump plans to get rid of DEI is clear - from eliminating environmental justice reviews, to cutting funding on programs that research medical issues in groups (women, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) historically under-represented in research but with higher incidence of poor outcomes, to defunding the agency that ensures equitable access to libraries and museums in rural/intercity areas (to name a few that I have heard of) - are you feeling differently? I’m curious if you now see that there were some positive elements of DEI, and that super-woke overreach perhaps just metaphorically blotted out the sun? Or is this a necessary correction, even if it may be another overcorrection?
Between the Jan 6 pardons and the forthcoming investigations into Krebs and Taylor, Trump is actively trying to rewrite the narrative around Jan 6. In the fullness of time will it be remembered as an attempt to overturn an election? Or will it be seen as a witch hunt? Which would you prefer it to be remembered as?
I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with the assertion that Trump, in his second term, has attempted to expand presidential power in unprecedented ways. To name a few: he has attempted to seize Congress' power of the purse by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress, he is attempting to dissolve various agencies from the Department of Education to USAID despite the fact that these agencies exist due to Acts of Congress, his administration is asserting that it has the unreviewable power to grab anyone off the streets and exile them - as long as the person siezed can be whisked out of the country quickly enough to prevent them from being able to get a court order. He's also attempting to impose, by executive order, a massive tax increase via his tariff policies.
Glenn, which of these novel powers are you really comfortable with Trump using? Which of them would you be comfortable with Trump's successor using if that person is a Democrat?
President Trump is cutting universities’ research funding to compel these institutions to excise their DEI programs. I have concerns with his administration’s approach (among other reasons, the cuts are mostly targeting scientific research - which has little or no connection to university DEI initiatives). However, at the same time, I am highly skeptical that universities will reform their DEI programs through moral suasion alone. What carrots and sticks would you suggest the government and/or other university stakeholders use to compel colleges to discontinue DEI?
In general, I am opposed to DEI, identity politics, etc. There are so many negatives: discrimination against whites, Jews and Asians, loss of free speech, ideological takeover of the universities and much more. However, there must be some positives. 1. More employment of members of "oppressed" groups in high paying jobs like DEI administration, thus raising their standard of living and, hopefully, leading to a better life for their offspring and descendants and, 2. Greater attention to members of "oppressed" groups. Are there benefits worth considering such that a reformed version of DEI would be worthwhile? Maybe LaJuan could weigh-in on this.
Fred, I agree that there are those who benefit from DEI, and I have known quite a few of these people, some of whom are friends. People forget though that the money and effort used on DEI could be used on other matters. I would like to see AFFIRMATIVE action, meaning pro-active positive action in the area of this: get all the "ghetto" youth who want to make 30 or 40 dollars an hour trained in the trades and construction and web development and so forth. Give them some money to encourage them to take the community college courses necessary and maybe a couple months' rent to move out of the ghetto once they have found a job. In that way, 10 billion dollars could be used to actually change the face of America without shoving Asians out of tech and medical positions in fields for which we need the best qualified people, in order to save lives and expand the economy.
I'm seeking diversity of thought, heterodoxy and devil's advocacy (a la Glenn Loury -- who likes to play the Devil's Advocate) on the subject of DEI. I want somebody to give me some good arguments which I have not heard or read about to date. The argument from the left: "you're a racist if you don't support DEI" doesn't cut it for me.
That is a big problem with the "DEI" issue. How is it defined? It is certainly debatable. I think another question that needs to go along with "How is DEI defined?" is, "How is DEI implemented and administered"? So, for example, "Diversity" sounds good, except the implementation of DEI at elite universities has been producing "selective diversity", shutting down conservative opinions and agendas, thus, effectively reducing diversity of opinions and ideas which should be very important at a university.
You did not answer the question. Conservatives use DEI as the replacement for the N-word. The majority of Black voters thank Conservatives for confirming their impressions. Charlie Kirk says that he is petrified when he sees a Black pilot. Black people, on the other hand, thank Black Jesus. The only time Black pilots crash planes are when terrorists kill them while they are piloting a plane. When Black people on airlines experience turbulence and know a white pilot is at the controls, we pray to Black Jesus.
Conservative policies disgust us. You elect incompetent “Didn’t Earn It”whites to office and still have the unmitigated gall to lecture Black people. The economy is destabilized, national security is compromised, the health care director wants to throw vitamins at disease and Conservatives celebrate.
Lisa Murkowski admits she is afraid of retribution if she disagrees with other Conservatives.
I will ask again, what is your definition of DEI? The current administration gives me my definition of DEI.
I don't have a good definition of DEI. I can get a definition from ChatGPT, however. My concern is about how it is implemented. And, I'm not one of those "damn conservatives". Possibly, I am a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal -- similar to Bill Maher or Bari Weiss (The Free Press) or Greg Lukianoff (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression -- a great organization, currently involved in a number of lawsuits against the Trump administration and also lawsuits against liberal universities). I believe I am correct in saying that those individuals do not care for the way DEI has been administered at many universities.
After all of the brouhaha about DEI and Affirmative Action on the most selective college campuses, I researched the actual graduation rates for Black students for schools such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Bryn Mawr, UNC, et al. It turns out that graduation rate for Black students at these elite schools turns out be in the range of 93% to 98%. So those Black students' success proves to me that they have not displaced some better qualified non-Black students.
HBCUs train an overwhelming portion of the Black professional class. Black patients do better statistically when treated by Black doctors.
We are watching the incompetence of an administration filled with graduates of so-called elite institutions. Meanwhile, applications to HBCUs are increasing
Hello Professor Loury and Professor McWhorter,
This question is primarily for Professor Loury.
I was wondering if you had any updated thoughts on the Zelensky–Trump Oval Office meeting, given the continuance of the Russo-Ukrainian War in its aftermath. Personally, I found your characterization of President Zelensky to miss the mark somewhat. You characterized President Zelensky’s main talking point as essentially a naive, childish complaint of “I’m in the right; this is unfair.” However, I found his view to be a historically grounded warning to President Trump, much more in keeping with a realpolitik view of international relations.
It seems to me that President Zelensky was essentially saying, “How can you trust Putin? He’s broken every agreement in the past; why would this time be different?” Given the fact that Putin continues to wage this war (despite President Trump’s Twitter/X plea of “Vladimir, STOP!”), do you find that you may have misjudged President Trump and President Zelensky in that meeting?
Do you still think the international “tectonic plates” are shifting away from the post-WWII paradigm? And do you still find that there was something “manly” about how President Trump treated President Zelensky?
Thank you, as always, for your individually thought-out opinions and the stimulating conversations that stem from them.
According to CoPilot which referenced usafacts.org, the demographics of Federal government workers shows that black people are significantly overrepresented in the Federal workforce (18% of Fed workforce / 12% of U.S. population), whereas Hispanics are significantly underrepresented; whites are just slightly underrepresented and Asians are just slightly overrepresented. It seems likely that those black employees will lose a significant portion of jobs as a result of the Trump administration re-organization.
- Was the hiring of so many black Americans the result of Affirmative Action?
- How will the loss of jobs affect the black communities?
- Why were black Americans so overrepresented and Hispanic Americans so underrepresented?
- Should concern for the black communities influence the way layoffs are being done?
Glenn and John,
I wanted to know if you had a view of the success Nayib Bukele / El Salvador in has had in driving down crime? Formerly, one of the most deadly countries in the western hemisphere El Salvador now has a murder rate below Canada’s. The trade off is intense imprisonment of suspected gang members (only a small portion of the population) who created most of the violence and fear, and therefore held down revitalization of the country. Glenn, as someone who has written about mass incarceration, what’s your view? I always think of this as the tyranny of the minority - Only a sliver of a population with overwhelming negative impact to everyone else.
When overlaying on our country’s urban crime issues, which disproportionately affect poor and minorities citizens, shouldn’t refocusing on taking the worst elements - potentially permanently - out of society to uplift our communities be a focal point? (To avoid this going off the rails, this question is not meant to backdoor into Trumps deportation policy of illegal migrants to El Salvador.)
Best,
JP
John's NYT Opinion colleague David French recently wrote a critque of the "Anti-Woke" right. To be clear, it is obviously true that many critics of the woke left have not made themselves a part of what French calls the "anti-Woke right." But I think he's describing a real phenomenon in his article. As both of you (and David for that matter) have been outspoken critics of the woke left, I'm curious what each of you think about David's critique.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/opinion/trump-woke-free-speech.html
I enjoyed your recent episode with Cornel West and Robert George about truth, faith and reason.
When we talk about the "purpose' of the university, especially elite ones like Harvard, we now know that one of the real purposes is to train the children of the elite and maintain the status quo. We always knew that that was part of its mission, but the admissions scandal demonstrated to us all just how big that mission was with well over half the class from the top 1%. This fact does not diminish the value of research and commitment to free speech, etc., but it does show how some things really work. Harvard wants to distract us from that fact.
So maybe DEI and wokeness are/were just a cover for the reality that the 1% controls everything. In spite of all the good that Harvard may do, it remains a social club for the elite to transmit wealth from generation to generation. DEI overreach distracts us from this fact. Is the faculty overwhelmingly progressive? Yes, but over fifty percent of the graduating class matriculates to a Wall Street equivalent, perpetuating the upper class. Whatever our complaints are about too much progressivism, the graduates are still conservative and maintain the status quo.
Perhaps the function of progressivism in the universities is to balance the pursuit of wealth with some form of character/moral development. If I were in the top 1%, and I wanted my children to be as well, I wouldn't want them to go to college just to become an amoral capitalist whose only compass is Ayn Rand. The university functions like a Sunday morning church service to remind people that there is more to life than greed. Church reminds us of the common good and to think of others. So too does a liberal education. Elite universities still maintain the class status quo while giving the illusion of making our society more liberal. They may talk a liberal game, but deep down they are very conservative.
This is a compelling point, but I think there needs to be additional evidence for political affiliation over time (pre college, college, post college). A great many of the Harvard graduates you describe, from personal familiarity with such graduates, do more insidiously pursue wealth preservation/‘moral’ development.
Rather than going deliberately the “capital” route (50%+) or deliberately the non-profit route, a hybridization has emerged in the form of ‘conscious capitalism.’ While not a new concept, the habits of mind of those practicing this form of capitalism do not suffer through the difficult research or trial and error that is required to make a “good” company that also delivers alpha on profit margins or sustainable cash flows. This is an extremely difficult outcome to achieve, and even if the number is smaller than the 50% that goes to Wall St, this population maintains enough inherited wealth to do three things: 1) obtain multiple “shots on goal” 2) switch to finance/consulting after they fail at CC endeavor (but not law, because they’ve not achieved those credentials) and 3) often maintain nationally/internationally progressive political affiliations, while continuing locally conservative attitudes. Further, they often degrade the efforts of those working in finance or consulting as any combination of infantile criticisms (it’s “uncool”, it’s not “making a difference).
Question for both Glenn and John: what do you think the best approach is for the US in the face of the upcoming collapse of Cuba? Surely obviously total humanitarian crisis, but other issues loom because of Cuba’s strategic location.
This question is for both of you. I’ve noticed that occasionally y’all (sic) discuss what it means to be black and what it means to be a man. So it would seem there are some questions about identity and what that means in terms of societal expectations and how you perceive your own personal identity. Since every person is extremely unique I’m a bit puzzled by this. When I consider myself I just check the boxes. Yep, I’m pretty much white, and since I’m an adult female, I’m a woman. When I look at y’all (sic) I just check the boxes, adult male = man, phenotypal african ancestors = black. So for me the formula is pretty simple, and I would say both of you are black men. So I wonder what is at the heart of these discussions. I hope my question isn’t too vague…
Thank you very much!
Karen Dawn
This is a macroeconomics question for Professor Loury:
Will a debt backed currency inevitably lead to a liquidity crisis? My hypothesis is that the debt must necessarily grow faster than the currency in circulation. The ratio of cash to debt shrinks until there isn't enough money to cover all loan payments.
This idea started with a simple musing: How would Monopoly change if the players borrowed their money from the bank? After all, banks don’t just give money away.
Assume that the bank charges 1% interest per lap and players make interest only payments. Chance, Community Chest, Income Tax, and Luxury Tax are ignored.
A player borrows $1500 to start the game, so he must pay $15 interest the first time he passes Go!. He simultaneously takes out a $200 loan, netting $185. He owes $1700 and the most he has on hand is $1685. He cannot pay the bank back and the situation only worsens as the game continues.
On the second lap, he owes $17 interest, borrows $200, and collects a total of $183. His net "income" decreases by $2 every lap. Eventually his interest payment exceeds $200 and he gives money to the bank every time he passes Go. The late stage of this game consists of destitute players holding mortgaged properties and hoping to land in Jail rather than pass Go.
Increasing the Go loan by a fixed percentage each lap can ensure a steady stream of money enters the game. The debt compounds but this does not matter in this hypothetical because players take out a Go loan at the same time they make interest payments. If the two are asynchronous a player may find herself with an interest payment due and no corresponding income. She may have to mortgage properties and sell improvements, wiping out wealth accumulated over hours of gameplay.
That concludes my thought experiment and brings me back to the original question:
Does a debt backed currency contain the seeds of its own destruction?
A mouse infestation is a serious problem. I’d have good reason to call an exterminator and get the problem addressed. But if that exterminator then BURNED DOWN MY HOUSE I’d be furious. If the exterminator then retorted “what are you, pro-mouse or something?” I’d be livid.
We don’t need to toss out our constitution in order to deal with our immigration issues. The Trump admin is perfectly capable of deporting these individuals in an expedient and legal manner, but they’re intentionally choosing to skirt due process. Why?
The disregard for the constitution is astounding. Pressuring Pence to break the ECA and overturn the election, trying to override birthright citizenship via executive order, skirting due process in these deportations, and directly disobeying a Supreme Court directive… this was once the party that revered the constitution. How did the GOP get to this stage? What needs to be done to remedy this?
What are your thoughts on Trump coin? At best this seems like a rug-pull scam to enrich Trump. At worst this is a bribing mechanism allowing Trump to be influenced by big players (foreign and domestic) without any hope of tracing the contributions. Is there any steel man for Trump creating this? Could ANY good come from this?
Similarly, is there any steel man for the cryptocurrency reserve? It just seems like we're using taxpayer dollars to pump up this asset-less market.
Glenn, I remember after Trump’s election you were practically giddy about Trump getting rid of DEI. Now that *how* Trump plans to get rid of DEI is clear - from eliminating environmental justice reviews, to cutting funding on programs that research medical issues in groups (women, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) historically under-represented in research but with higher incidence of poor outcomes, to defunding the agency that ensures equitable access to libraries and museums in rural/intercity areas (to name a few that I have heard of) - are you feeling differently? I’m curious if you now see that there were some positive elements of DEI, and that super-woke overreach perhaps just metaphorically blotted out the sun? Or is this a necessary correction, even if it may be another overcorrection?
Between the Jan 6 pardons and the forthcoming investigations into Krebs and Taylor, Trump is actively trying to rewrite the narrative around Jan 6. In the fullness of time will it be remembered as an attempt to overturn an election? Or will it be seen as a witch hunt? Which would you prefer it to be remembered as?
I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with the assertion that Trump, in his second term, has attempted to expand presidential power in unprecedented ways. To name a few: he has attempted to seize Congress' power of the purse by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress, he is attempting to dissolve various agencies from the Department of Education to USAID despite the fact that these agencies exist due to Acts of Congress, his administration is asserting that it has the unreviewable power to grab anyone off the streets and exile them - as long as the person siezed can be whisked out of the country quickly enough to prevent them from being able to get a court order. He's also attempting to impose, by executive order, a massive tax increase via his tariff policies.
Glenn, which of these novel powers are you really comfortable with Trump using? Which of them would you be comfortable with Trump's successor using if that person is a Democrat?
President Trump is cutting universities’ research funding to compel these institutions to excise their DEI programs. I have concerns with his administration’s approach (among other reasons, the cuts are mostly targeting scientific research - which has little or no connection to university DEI initiatives). However, at the same time, I am highly skeptical that universities will reform their DEI programs through moral suasion alone. What carrots and sticks would you suggest the government and/or other university stakeholders use to compel colleges to discontinue DEI?
In general, I am opposed to DEI, identity politics, etc. There are so many negatives: discrimination against whites, Jews and Asians, loss of free speech, ideological takeover of the universities and much more. However, there must be some positives. 1. More employment of members of "oppressed" groups in high paying jobs like DEI administration, thus raising their standard of living and, hopefully, leading to a better life for their offspring and descendants and, 2. Greater attention to members of "oppressed" groups. Are there benefits worth considering such that a reformed version of DEI would be worthwhile? Maybe LaJuan could weigh-in on this.
Fred, I agree that there are those who benefit from DEI, and I have known quite a few of these people, some of whom are friends. People forget though that the money and effort used on DEI could be used on other matters. I would like to see AFFIRMATIVE action, meaning pro-active positive action in the area of this: get all the "ghetto" youth who want to make 30 or 40 dollars an hour trained in the trades and construction and web development and so forth. Give them some money to encourage them to take the community college courses necessary and maybe a couple months' rent to move out of the ghetto once they have found a job. In that way, 10 billion dollars could be used to actually change the face of America without shoving Asians out of tech and medical positions in fields for which we need the best qualified people, in order to save lives and expand the economy.
I'm seeking diversity of thought, heterodoxy and devil's advocacy (a la Glenn Loury -- who likes to play the Devil's Advocate) on the subject of DEI. I want somebody to give me some good arguments which I have not heard or read about to date. The argument from the left: "you're a racist if you don't support DEI" doesn't cut it for me.
What is your definition of DEI?
That is a big problem with the "DEI" issue. How is it defined? It is certainly debatable. I think another question that needs to go along with "How is DEI defined?" is, "How is DEI implemented and administered"? So, for example, "Diversity" sounds good, except the implementation of DEI at elite universities has been producing "selective diversity", shutting down conservative opinions and agendas, thus, effectively reducing diversity of opinions and ideas which should be very important at a university.
You did not answer the question. Conservatives use DEI as the replacement for the N-word. The majority of Black voters thank Conservatives for confirming their impressions. Charlie Kirk says that he is petrified when he sees a Black pilot. Black people, on the other hand, thank Black Jesus. The only time Black pilots crash planes are when terrorists kill them while they are piloting a plane. When Black people on airlines experience turbulence and know a white pilot is at the controls, we pray to Black Jesus.
Conservative policies disgust us. You elect incompetent “Didn’t Earn It”whites to office and still have the unmitigated gall to lecture Black people. The economy is destabilized, national security is compromised, the health care director wants to throw vitamins at disease and Conservatives celebrate.
Lisa Murkowski admits she is afraid of retribution if she disagrees with other Conservatives.
I will ask again, what is your definition of DEI? The current administration gives me my definition of DEI.
I don't have a good definition of DEI. I can get a definition from ChatGPT, however. My concern is about how it is implemented. And, I'm not one of those "damn conservatives". Possibly, I am a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal -- similar to Bill Maher or Bari Weiss (The Free Press) or Greg Lukianoff (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression -- a great organization, currently involved in a number of lawsuits against the Trump administration and also lawsuits against liberal universities). I believe I am correct in saying that those individuals do not care for the way DEI has been administered at many universities.
After all of the brouhaha about DEI and Affirmative Action on the most selective college campuses, I researched the actual graduation rates for Black students for schools such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Bryn Mawr, UNC, et al. It turns out that graduation rate for Black students at these elite schools turns out be in the range of 93% to 98%. So those Black students' success proves to me that they have not displaced some better qualified non-Black students.
HBCUs train an overwhelming portion of the Black professional class. Black patients do better statistically when treated by Black doctors.
We are watching the incompetence of an administration filled with graduates of so-called elite institutions. Meanwhile, applications to HBCUs are increasing
https://jbhe.com/2024/10/many-hbcus-see-a-surge-in-enrollments/#:~:text=And%20many%20HBCUs%20have%20reported,applicants%20for%20places%20at%20HBCUs.
Conservatives have to shout about DEI to divert attention from their policies crashing the economy of the United States.