"I think we need commitment from the top." Good luck with that because until "the top" starts acting like it runs the place instead of cowering to students, nothing is going to change. Worse, the poison that is being brewed on campus has already seeped into the post-college world with predictably bad effects.
It's not that some faculty are being challenged or questioned; it's that they are being openly attacked, reported on, with pushes for their firing in more cases than anyone wants to admit to. In a different context, that would be called a hostile work environment. It's 2023 and there are people who act like it's 1923, and that sort of thinking is tolerated instead of being mocked, as it deserves to be.
Ms. Stimpson's argument is so convoluted that it essentially ties her into knots. She points to there being more women on campus than before and right after that, wonders about schools correcting "historic injustices," which enrollment figures say has happened organically. She then wonders about a school's duty to have "all people of talent" represented but comes from a place where at least one group of talented people is intentionally marginalized. She can't have it both ways.
It's interesting to see a 'slippery' or nebulous quality in one side of this discussion. I think this is actually what gives Wokeness its power. Glenn tries to pin questions down so that they can be discussed. His interlocutor seems to avoid getting down to specifics. This gives Wokeness its armour. As I wrote in a piece which argues that you cannot push back against a wraith.
I've been reading Days of Rage (about the "revolutionary" movements of the 70s) and was struck by how the language the radical left used has not changed a bit since the days of the Weatherman and Black Panthers. And if anything, it's been canonized by humanities departments across the country, especially sociology. Racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist, colonialist, oppressor... it's like the radical lexicon hasn't been updated in 60 years. I guess those words cut deep in a liberal society that takes its commitment to individual rights seriously, and can be used to short circuit otherwise functional brains and make them agree with the craziest ideas available.
Very interesting debate in 1991 and great follow up interview! Political correctness has become wokeness. Just as it was opposed then it must be opposed now. The difference is that today there are more people willing to stick their necks out and expose themselves to a firing line of adversaries. Nevertheless this is a war that must be fought and won.
Bravo young Glenn! This Cuban-American arrived at Cornell University in 1981 to find the PC battles raging. In hindsight the era represented the drawing of battles lines. The PC arguments struck me as absurd at the time and we had some good laughs. Little did I think these skirmishes would give birth to the pitch battles we are living through today. In 1981 a negotiated peace might have still been possible, today the trenches are deeper and weapons such as social media have made the battles far deadlier and more consequential. The civilized back and forth of your Firing Line video is difficult to watch. Not because of any shortcomings of the participants or embarrassing gaffes. No.. it's the very idea of people carrying on a debate that presupposes some basic cultural norms such as, intellectual honesty, civility, joy in making cogent arguments appealing to intelligence. You know... the things we thought as the birthright of those of us born in the light of Western Civilization. I feel like I am watching a debate in ancient Athens. I don't think a debate like that would be possible on today's college campuses without violence breaking out. The very premise of the back and forth seems quaint. My difficulty is rooted in anxiety and the knowledge that what I am watching belongs to an era which I may never see again in my lifetime.
Whoever put the video together did a great job. I was interested only in Dr. Loury's clips and that's precisely what we got. That was fun. (I will watch the Margaret Hoover appearance in full later.)
Random thoughts: Stimpson lacked modern tactical weapons. She did not once call you a Nazi, transphobe, Russian, or insurrectionist.
The idea of courageously standing up to students seems quaint. If you stand up to students these days you get fired. Who am I kidding? You can be fired for random, innocuous remarks for which you apologize and grovel.
The question positing that students might be right 25 percent of the time brought a smile. Modern science has taught us they are right 100 percent of the time once we account for lived experience.
I made many notes as I listened. Too many to discuss here. Now I'm off to watch the full Hoover interview.
Do you really that people change their minds because they watched a 30 minute talk show? Or that people watch these shows with an open mind?
It is just branding. The Black Conservatives made their brand, and nobody wants it Herman Cain is dead. Stanley Crouch died poor and alone, abandoned by his white sponsors. Armstrong Williams is a fraud. And that is off the top of my head.
The sad fact is that Black "Conservatism" is dead and Black" Conservative" killed it. This new lot (Coleman, Chatterton) have neither the brains or charisma to bring it back.
How they came to this situation is something Glenn and friends would better off examining.
Whatever one thinks of Black Conservatism, its adherents support the freedom of speech, are against reducing people to their "race" and are courageous enough to express views which expose them to personal attacks. This is priceless in our times where so many people don't think on their own and see the stifling of public debate as normal.
It is interesting that you have mentioned only three Black Conservatives. As to Stanley Crouch dying poor, alone and abandoned by his white sponsors, this does not prove in any way that Black Conservatism is an intellectual failure.
Of course. That is why they emphasizeus the BLACK in black "con"servative.
>and are courageous enough to express views which expose them to personal attacks.
It is simply a tradeoff. They have decided that selling out is worth price of ostracism.
>its adherents support the freedom of speech,
It is hardly courageous to support something that us constitutionally enshrined. Much of what are called "attacks on free speech" are really just law enforcement and classroom discipline issues.
Well, calling oneself or being labelled as a Black Conservative is not the same as reducing people to their "race". What I mean by reducing people to their "race" is seeing "race" as their most important characteristic and the main explanation for their behaviour, as well as jumping to negative assumptions about people on the basis of their "race".
You say that for Black Conservatives "selling out" is worth the price of ostracism. Do you think that all Black Conservatives - at least all the successful ones - are sell-outs? I think that it is unfair to paint them all with the same brush. In any case, even a sell-out can be right on some issues or at least offer a fresh perspective.
You say that it is hardly courageous to support the freedom of speech which is constitutionally enshrined, but you are talking about the legal situation, not about people's real-life behaviour. Many don't protest when dissent is being suppressed in some group or organization. Some people now seem to believe that if a non-Black person disagrees with something a Black person is saying, the non-Black person is being arrogant and committing a microaggression. Maybe you have never personally witnessed such situations, but unfortunately they do happen...
Those are all separate claims and we disagree on most of them.
But even if I granted you that they were all true, it would still be better to judge Glenns arguments than to attack his associations. For the sake of your own credibility.
Hoover shows the problem and solution to Loury's issue at the very start [1:00].
He needs to grow some balls, put on his big boy briefs, and enforce classroom discipline. Why are you giving lectures if you cannot control your lecture?
Simple as.
But let us go through these "points", yeah?
[1:25] - Loury: I'm very courageous! Haven't you read my New Republic articles? The one about when my own black people racismed me! And now I feel lonely....
[3:41] - Loury: Instead of fixing our classroom issues ourselves, let's run to Big Brother and he'll solve our problems! So Conservative. Of course, if Havana other professors were to withhold their labour (until the asked for changes are appplied..... Oh. Sorry. Conservatives don't believe because all labour is fungible. The Ivy League college would just replace Loury with a Mexican so there is nothing he can do.
[5:45] - More bitching. Tell students to follow protocol. Even informal occasions have protocols.
[6:45]-[7:16] - Speaking of impunity and constraints, anybody here talks to Coleman Hughes on the "morality of homosexual practices"? Or how about the HIV-positive, bugpartier Andrew Sullivan? That should make for a good progress vs. Natural Law discussion
[8:10] - Hoover shows Loury for the type of man he is in three ways. First is for being a coward who is unwilling to put his job, reputation or physical safety on the line to discipline some rowdy proto-pinkhairs. Second, him not applying the market mechanism and just going to another institution. Where there is demand, someone will supply.
But the third, unspoken issue, are the reasons for the above. If Loury is being abused, he may leave that Ivy League institution and go to some other institution. But the Ivy League/Top School is the end, not the means. He and his friends could call out the provost/admin by name, go on strike, or just ask campus security to be be with him during class.
He and his ilk won't do that because they serve a the same class that they claim to vilify - the same class that has affirmative actioned him into his position. Loury and friends understand this basic fact, and so they don't do anything to leave that Gilded Cage. I mean, if he really hated the current situation, why is he appealing to the audience that agrees with him the most? Something, something disposable income, I think.
I believe we are just too far apart on our judgement of Loury's character to have a reasonable debate on this topic. We would spend our time going back and forth about intent and motives, which is guaranteed to go nowhere.
I do have one issue with the theme of your points that is more general. The part you call “running to big brother”, sounds to me like a simple call for support from management. You are telling them to exercise authority in the classroom, but if the administration sides with the students then what authority do they really have? Why does a “Karen” demand to speak to the manager? Because if she can get the manager to side with her, the workers opinion doesn’t matter. Their authority has been superseded. It seems obvious to me that there is a trend of college administrators caving under pressure from students.
That particular history hasn't yet been fully written, although I think I can guess what's in your manuscript of "A Better People's History of the United States"...
The most similar historical moment is 1966, when the cultural revolution destroyed China, one of the world's oldest civilizations. We must counter the cultural revolution, or else our civilization will also fall: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/counter-the-cultural-revolution
It's wild reading about 60s/70s radicals and the way they idolized Mao, Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh. There's a cadre of maniacs out there that still think the murderous regimes in Russia and Asia were the shining lights of the future.
Glenn and helpers– please, please also post on Rumble. There are those of us who boycott YouTube because of their heinous invasions of privacy and their suppression of dissenting narratives. I am one.
Frankly, I'm surprised, given the value you all place on freedom of speech (and thought), that you would even use YouTube!
Technophobes. Always take the easiest way to get their message out. Fer chrissakes, they only recently got the damned audio halfway acceptable, and that's after 20 YEARS of trying! To this day, both Glenn and John McWhorter are apt to place a sunlit window right behind them in frame and totally screw up the video exposure. Geniuses without a clue, whatcha gonna do?
True Heroes only come around once a century or more, and Dr. Glenn Loury is a Bona Fide Hero.
"I think we need commitment from the top." Good luck with that because until "the top" starts acting like it runs the place instead of cowering to students, nothing is going to change. Worse, the poison that is being brewed on campus has already seeped into the post-college world with predictably bad effects.
It's not that some faculty are being challenged or questioned; it's that they are being openly attacked, reported on, with pushes for their firing in more cases than anyone wants to admit to. In a different context, that would be called a hostile work environment. It's 2023 and there are people who act like it's 1923, and that sort of thinking is tolerated instead of being mocked, as it deserves to be.
Ms. Stimpson's argument is so convoluted that it essentially ties her into knots. She points to there being more women on campus than before and right after that, wonders about schools correcting "historic injustices," which enrollment figures say has happened organically. She then wonders about a school's duty to have "all people of talent" represented but comes from a place where at least one group of talented people is intentionally marginalized. She can't have it both ways.
It's interesting to see a 'slippery' or nebulous quality in one side of this discussion. I think this is actually what gives Wokeness its power. Glenn tries to pin questions down so that they can be discussed. His interlocutor seems to avoid getting down to specifics. This gives Wokeness its armour. As I wrote in a piece which argues that you cannot push back against a wraith.
I've been reading Days of Rage (about the "revolutionary" movements of the 70s) and was struck by how the language the radical left used has not changed a bit since the days of the Weatherman and Black Panthers. And if anything, it's been canonized by humanities departments across the country, especially sociology. Racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist, colonialist, oppressor... it's like the radical lexicon hasn't been updated in 60 years. I guess those words cut deep in a liberal society that takes its commitment to individual rights seriously, and can be used to short circuit otherwise functional brains and make them agree with the craziest ideas available.
21:21
Mic drop.
Very interesting debate in 1991 and great follow up interview! Political correctness has become wokeness. Just as it was opposed then it must be opposed now. The difference is that today there are more people willing to stick their necks out and expose themselves to a firing line of adversaries. Nevertheless this is a war that must be fought and won.
Bravo young Glenn! This Cuban-American arrived at Cornell University in 1981 to find the PC battles raging. In hindsight the era represented the drawing of battles lines. The PC arguments struck me as absurd at the time and we had some good laughs. Little did I think these skirmishes would give birth to the pitch battles we are living through today. In 1981 a negotiated peace might have still been possible, today the trenches are deeper and weapons such as social media have made the battles far deadlier and more consequential. The civilized back and forth of your Firing Line video is difficult to watch. Not because of any shortcomings of the participants or embarrassing gaffes. No.. it's the very idea of people carrying on a debate that presupposes some basic cultural norms such as, intellectual honesty, civility, joy in making cogent arguments appealing to intelligence. You know... the things we thought as the birthright of those of us born in the light of Western Civilization. I feel like I am watching a debate in ancient Athens. I don't think a debate like that would be possible on today's college campuses without violence breaking out. The very premise of the back and forth seems quaint. My difficulty is rooted in anxiety and the knowledge that what I am watching belongs to an era which I may never see again in my lifetime.
What a brilliant and appropriate debate, for then and for now! Thank you for resurrecting this gem.
Whoever put the video together did a great job. I was interested only in Dr. Loury's clips and that's precisely what we got. That was fun. (I will watch the Margaret Hoover appearance in full later.)
Random thoughts: Stimpson lacked modern tactical weapons. She did not once call you a Nazi, transphobe, Russian, or insurrectionist.
The idea of courageously standing up to students seems quaint. If you stand up to students these days you get fired. Who am I kidding? You can be fired for random, innocuous remarks for which you apologize and grovel.
The question positing that students might be right 25 percent of the time brought a smile. Modern science has taught us they are right 100 percent of the time once we account for lived experience.
I made many notes as I listened. Too many to discuss here. Now I'm off to watch the full Hoover interview.
Woke liberals like Hoover will never understand, similarly in 1991, nor do they want to. Bow before the new Gods, peasants!
Stop funding these sewer holes if ignorance, arrogance and intolerance and maybe the left will get the message.
Me? I don't fund them. People with guns do that in my name and without my permission.
You know you screwed up when you're on the same side of the debate as Bill Buckley and Dinesh D'Looser. History has not been kind, to say the least.
Or we could just judge the arguments themselves
Seriously.
Don't be silly. The arguments are irrelevant.
Do you really that people change their minds because they watched a 30 minute talk show? Or that people watch these shows with an open mind?
It is just branding. The Black Conservatives made their brand, and nobody wants it Herman Cain is dead. Stanley Crouch died poor and alone, abandoned by his white sponsors. Armstrong Williams is a fraud. And that is off the top of my head.
The sad fact is that Black "Conservatism" is dead and Black" Conservative" killed it. This new lot (Coleman, Chatterton) have neither the brains or charisma to bring it back.
How they came to this situation is something Glenn and friends would better off examining.
Whatever one thinks of Black Conservatism, its adherents support the freedom of speech, are against reducing people to their "race" and are courageous enough to express views which expose them to personal attacks. This is priceless in our times where so many people don't think on their own and see the stifling of public debate as normal.
It is interesting that you have mentioned only three Black Conservatives. As to Stanley Crouch dying poor, alone and abandoned by his white sponsors, this does not prove in any way that Black Conservatism is an intellectual failure.
>are against reducing people to their "race
Of course. That is why they emphasizeus the BLACK in black "con"servative.
>and are courageous enough to express views which expose them to personal attacks.
It is simply a tradeoff. They have decided that selling out is worth price of ostracism.
>its adherents support the freedom of speech,
It is hardly courageous to support something that us constitutionally enshrined. Much of what are called "attacks on free speech" are really just law enforcement and classroom discipline issues.
Well, calling oneself or being labelled as a Black Conservative is not the same as reducing people to their "race". What I mean by reducing people to their "race" is seeing "race" as their most important characteristic and the main explanation for their behaviour, as well as jumping to negative assumptions about people on the basis of their "race".
You say that for Black Conservatives "selling out" is worth the price of ostracism. Do you think that all Black Conservatives - at least all the successful ones - are sell-outs? I think that it is unfair to paint them all with the same brush. In any case, even a sell-out can be right on some issues or at least offer a fresh perspective.
You say that it is hardly courageous to support the freedom of speech which is constitutionally enshrined, but you are talking about the legal situation, not about people's real-life behaviour. Many don't protest when dissent is being suppressed in some group or organization. Some people now seem to believe that if a non-Black person disagrees with something a Black person is saying, the non-Black person is being arrogant and committing a microaggression. Maybe you have never personally witnessed such situations, but unfortunately they do happen...
Those are all separate claims and we disagree on most of them.
But even if I granted you that they were all true, it would still be better to judge Glenns arguments than to attack his associations. For the sake of your own credibility.
Hoover shows the problem and solution to Loury's issue at the very start [1:00].
He needs to grow some balls, put on his big boy briefs, and enforce classroom discipline. Why are you giving lectures if you cannot control your lecture?
Simple as.
But let us go through these "points", yeah?
[1:25] - Loury: I'm very courageous! Haven't you read my New Republic articles? The one about when my own black people racismed me! And now I feel lonely....
[3:41] - Loury: Instead of fixing our classroom issues ourselves, let's run to Big Brother and he'll solve our problems! So Conservative. Of course, if Havana other professors were to withhold their labour (until the asked for changes are appplied..... Oh. Sorry. Conservatives don't believe because all labour is fungible. The Ivy League college would just replace Loury with a Mexican so there is nothing he can do.
[5:45] - More bitching. Tell students to follow protocol. Even informal occasions have protocols.
[6:45]-[7:16] - Speaking of impunity and constraints, anybody here talks to Coleman Hughes on the "morality of homosexual practices"? Or how about the HIV-positive, bugpartier Andrew Sullivan? That should make for a good progress vs. Natural Law discussion
[8:10] - Hoover shows Loury for the type of man he is in three ways. First is for being a coward who is unwilling to put his job, reputation or physical safety on the line to discipline some rowdy proto-pinkhairs. Second, him not applying the market mechanism and just going to another institution. Where there is demand, someone will supply.
But the third, unspoken issue, are the reasons for the above. If Loury is being abused, he may leave that Ivy League institution and go to some other institution. But the Ivy League/Top School is the end, not the means. He and his friends could call out the provost/admin by name, go on strike, or just ask campus security to be be with him during class.
He and his ilk won't do that because they serve a the same class that they claim to vilify - the same class that has affirmative actioned him into his position. Loury and friends understand this basic fact, and so they don't do anything to leave that Gilded Cage. I mean, if he really hated the current situation, why is he appealing to the audience that agrees with him the most? Something, something disposable income, I think.
I believe we are just too far apart on our judgement of Loury's character to have a reasonable debate on this topic. We would spend our time going back and forth about intent and motives, which is guaranteed to go nowhere.
I do have one issue with the theme of your points that is more general. The part you call “running to big brother”, sounds to me like a simple call for support from management. You are telling them to exercise authority in the classroom, but if the administration sides with the students then what authority do they really have? Why does a “Karen” demand to speak to the manager? Because if she can get the manager to side with her, the workers opinion doesn’t matter. Their authority has been superseded. It seems obvious to me that there is a trend of college administrators caving under pressure from students.
I thought "cooties" were over by middle school—apparently not.
That particular history hasn't yet been fully written, although I think I can guess what's in your manuscript of "A Better People's History of the United States"...
The grey suit with the high pitched voice wanted nothing to do with that question.
Watch Simpson flaring of her teeth.
The most similar historical moment is 1966, when the cultural revolution destroyed China, one of the world's oldest civilizations. We must counter the cultural revolution, or else our civilization will also fall: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/counter-the-cultural-revolution
This is a great post about trans athletes in women’s sports—apparently a non female has already won an Olympic gold medal in women’s soccer.
https://genefrenkle.substack.com/p/non-binary-individuals-save-girls
It's wild reading about 60s/70s radicals and the way they idolized Mao, Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh. There's a cadre of maniacs out there that still think the murderous regimes in Russia and Asia were the shining lights of the future.
They were SO close, but then the rivers of blood began to flow. Oh well, there's always next time...
At the end she said "I wish we had more time". The way that was going for her its better there wasn't.
Glenn and helpers– please, please also post on Rumble. There are those of us who boycott YouTube because of their heinous invasions of privacy and their suppression of dissenting narratives. I am one.
Frankly, I'm surprised, given the value you all place on freedom of speech (and thought), that you would even use YouTube!
Technophobes. Always take the easiest way to get their message out. Fer chrissakes, they only recently got the damned audio halfway acceptable, and that's after 20 YEARS of trying! To this day, both Glenn and John McWhorter are apt to place a sunlit window right behind them in frame and totally screw up the video exposure. Geniuses without a clue, whatcha gonna do?
Not going to happen. Alt-tech would be bad for his brand. Remember, he's doing the respectable conservative look, not the Ben Shapiro firebrand look.