Listen now (68 min) | What happens when racial justice advocates eat their own? John and I have a guest this week that found out the hard way. Vincent Lloyd, professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University, is a serious scholar with a list of publications as long as your arm. He’s also committed to a paradigm of racial justice that John and I frequently critique on this show. But during a 2022 summer seminar he led at the Telluride Association, his students turned against him using the very concepts and ideas that Vincent sought to have them discuss. Because of time constraints, we could not discuss the incident in detail, but Vincent wrote
Finally, African History and African American history are legitimate areas of inquiry. But African African American history is American history and should not be separated from it. However, black studies is grievance studies. And once you give in to the studies idea and one such subject is isolated and elevated you will get demands for all the others: women’s, gay, other ethnicities and even trans. Do we want that?
The problem with Lloyds alternative to prison is that by the time a 13 year old girl carjacks someone all of the community resources he cites have already failed the girl and the community. In addition, do not the thousands of black victims of black criminals deserve justice?
Plus it is the people who make up the “community resources” who are screaming for more police not less.
This is why the MAGAs will win, eventually. At the end of the day they can come together and get shit done, pointing to the other side of their biggest enemy. If you ask the left who their biggest enemies are, they will point to each other. At least the two sides can all agree on who's the real enemy.
I don't agree with either of them, but when a black anti-racist towing much of the woke party line on racism gets damaged and accused of promoting black anti-racism, the movement itself no longer understands what racism really is, who's racist, and who's not.
Does Dr. Lloyd really think that somehow the Black community will be able to rehabilitate violent criminal activity? The men and women were raised in that community. The community failed to keep them from engaging in criminal activity. The community failed to stop the criminal activity. The state steps in because the community failed. We aren’t taking about a kid swiping gum from the Circle K. We are talking about using a gun to knock over the Circle K. Now maybe the community could be valuable in reintroducing and rehabilitating the person after their time in jail is over.
Further to my initial comment last night, I’ve now listened to another section of this and I just think that guy doesn’t seem to have a clue about the real world.
So Glenn says a world without prisons: what do we do when a black guy shoots out his car and kills a 6 year old kid. This guy responds by saying it’s not the responsibility of the state to hold them accountable but we should ‘empower those around them’ to hold them accountable! He clearly doesn’t understand how gangs work and what happens to regular people in those communities when they try to do something.
I’ll finish watching but the guy has lost me at this point; I’ll now just be watching to see how much Glenn wrecks his arguments
I'm out gardening (so many weeds!) today and had no idea the first 45 or so minutes of this episode, which are usually serious, was going to make me laugh out loud as much as I did. I can't help but feel for those paying $60k/ year to take courses from a man who can't see the irony of his supposed Telluride plight while pleading for localized, small scale justice during the preceding 30 minutes. Don't complain when the cannibals come home to feed.
Only 10 minutes in and I’m struggling a little with something fundamental in Vincent’s approach; to say ‘we should trust black women, and we should be thinking of alternatives to prisons’ sounds to me like he is starting with a conclusion and saying we need to dig deeper into those ideas. Perhaps he’s just wording it in a way that’s confusing me or perhaps he will explain better through the course of the discussion, but it seems to me either 1: he’s starting with a conclusion and wants to find ways to justify that conclusion, or 2: he’s saying these are ideas being put out there and we need to debate them to find out if they have merit. If it was 2 I would agree but given that he’s saying these are good ideas being expressed poorly I would have to say he’s going with number 1. It may well be the case that we should ‘trust black women’ for example but there’s so many questions. Which black women? All of them or some? Who makes that determination? If we trust all black women should we also trust all black men? How about then all Chinese men? Soon enough we’ll be saying should we trust all people all of the time? Doesn’t context, situation, or circumstance play any role?
Maybe I should wait and listen to the whole discussion but this seemed to jump out so strongly to me that I had to comment
When Glenn Loury says at 41:24 sending his kids out thinking about their domination (can also be read as focusing on resentment) terrifies him. I agree. I think Black people need to have hearts full of forgiveness not resentment. Family support and turning toward virtue and away from vice, like Epictetus taught. Are more helpful I think.
I'm a medical doctor, that's more like a plumber than an academic. I am responsible for the results of my thoughts and actions. Certainly racism is real. I doubt racism accounts for all black America's problems. It's hard not to think that the many of the problems of American blacks are cultural. Black people come here from Africa and do quite well. As Thomas Sowell has documented many aspects of black life have gotten worse as we move further from slavery/Jim Crow. And people who do violent car-jackings need to be in jail. If you want the armed robbers to go free, that just tells me you don't have to live near them.
I keep replaying from 22:45, as he responds to Glenn's prompt, and I swear I see Dr. Lloyd turn into a pretzel. Confusing response.
As likable and knowledgeable as Dr. Lloyd may be, and as interesting as it is to listen to his reasoning, his (and others') willingness to advocate for 'reimagining' real-world solutions (e.g., prison time) to real-world problems (e.g., murder) from a far-removed seat in the clouds is just frightening.
After re-listening to the mentioned segment, I find it interesting that within the span of a few minutes of responding to Glenn and John, Lloyd ironically seems to commit our future society to what he presently is against: Domination. Lloyd seems to view the state and its traditional solution to criminal behavior as being somehow removed from 'the community' and forced upon it, without realizing that citizens help shape and craft public policy through various democratic means. His imaginative solution seems all too common for the well-intended among us: ignore what the overwhelming majority of citizens and victims of crime want (i.e., more incarceration) in favor of an ill-defined community-based reform (i.e., less incarceration) because he presumably knows best...
I hope Dr. Lloyd never has the misfortune of losing a loved one to gun violence (or any violence, for that matter) and finding out that his own policy prescriptions for a more 'humane' response to criminal behavior turn on him faster than his students did.
"What was necessary for slavery to be possible in the U.S.?"
Nothing; only that human organization carry on as it always had done, did at the time, and continues to do even today in many places. Slavery - chattel slavery, not symbolic slavery - is a profoundly "natural" part of human experience, and our struggles to transcend the impulse to own others is a sign of civilization. The more interesting question is "what was necessary for slavery to be seen as evil, and why did such views appear in the U.S. when they did?"
"It can be possible for there to be legal emancipation without remediation of the symbolic structures which placed the enslaved class in a generally-dishonored position."
I was glad to see Prof. Loury engage with Prof. Lloyd's analysis on this level, but was disappointed that the follow up was "but it's 2023" instead of prying deeper into the implications of that mode of thought. Some example questions which I immediately shouted impotently in my car are:
- Who does the "honoring" in society? Does it always have to be from without, or can one create one's own honor?
- Is it possible for a "generally dishonored" group's cultural output to be honored and adopted while the group itself remains dishonored?
- Is it not paradoxical for social benefits to be distributed on the basis that a group is "generally dishonored"? Must not either the benefits be a sham or the "generally-dishonored" status be an incorrect appraisal?
- Absent the use of state power (e.g. laws) to enforce those social structures dishonoring a subordinate class (or enabling/tacitly-permitting private vigilante actions doing so), what impact do those structures actually have?
But then again, Prof. Loury is an economist, not a political theorist, and Prof. McWhorter, while well-placed to pick apart the language games that this type of analysis plays, prefers to take a different tack.
McWhorter definitely has an axe to grind with black women.
McWhorter definitely has an axe to grind with black women. I can't stand black males like that.
McWhorter definitely has an axe to grind with black women. I can't stand black males like that.
It isn’t the job of the state to hold murderers accountable. Now I’ve heard everything.
Finally, African History and African American history are legitimate areas of inquiry. But African African American history is American history and should not be separated from it. However, black studies is grievance studies. And once you give in to the studies idea and one such subject is isolated and elevated you will get demands for all the others: women’s, gay, other ethnicities and even trans. Do we want that?
There is pushback against DeSatis from the right. Me included. Banning ideas is not helpful.
The problem with Lloyds alternative to prison is that by the time a 13 year old girl carjacks someone all of the community resources he cites have already failed the girl and the community. In addition, do not the thousands of black victims of black criminals deserve justice?
Plus it is the people who make up the “community resources” who are screaming for more police not less.
This is why the MAGAs will win, eventually. At the end of the day they can come together and get shit done, pointing to the other side of their biggest enemy. If you ask the left who their biggest enemies are, they will point to each other. At least the two sides can all agree on who's the real enemy.
I don't agree with either of them, but when a black anti-racist towing much of the woke party line on racism gets damaged and accused of promoting black anti-racism, the movement itself no longer understands what racism really is, who's racist, and who's not.
And that, folks, is How The Left Was Lost.
Does Dr. Lloyd really think that somehow the Black community will be able to rehabilitate violent criminal activity? The men and women were raised in that community. The community failed to keep them from engaging in criminal activity. The community failed to stop the criminal activity. The state steps in because the community failed. We aren’t taking about a kid swiping gum from the Circle K. We are talking about using a gun to knock over the Circle K. Now maybe the community could be valuable in reintroducing and rehabilitating the person after their time in jail is over.
Further to my initial comment last night, I’ve now listened to another section of this and I just think that guy doesn’t seem to have a clue about the real world.
So Glenn says a world without prisons: what do we do when a black guy shoots out his car and kills a 6 year old kid. This guy responds by saying it’s not the responsibility of the state to hold them accountable but we should ‘empower those around them’ to hold them accountable! He clearly doesn’t understand how gangs work and what happens to regular people in those communities when they try to do something.
I’ll finish watching but the guy has lost me at this point; I’ll now just be watching to see how much Glenn wrecks his arguments
I'm out gardening (so many weeds!) today and had no idea the first 45 or so minutes of this episode, which are usually serious, was going to make me laugh out loud as much as I did. I can't help but feel for those paying $60k/ year to take courses from a man who can't see the irony of his supposed Telluride plight while pleading for localized, small scale justice during the preceding 30 minutes. Don't complain when the cannibals come home to feed.
Only 10 minutes in and I’m struggling a little with something fundamental in Vincent’s approach; to say ‘we should trust black women, and we should be thinking of alternatives to prisons’ sounds to me like he is starting with a conclusion and saying we need to dig deeper into those ideas. Perhaps he’s just wording it in a way that’s confusing me or perhaps he will explain better through the course of the discussion, but it seems to me either 1: he’s starting with a conclusion and wants to find ways to justify that conclusion, or 2: he’s saying these are ideas being put out there and we need to debate them to find out if they have merit. If it was 2 I would agree but given that he’s saying these are good ideas being expressed poorly I would have to say he’s going with number 1. It may well be the case that we should ‘trust black women’ for example but there’s so many questions. Which black women? All of them or some? Who makes that determination? If we trust all black women should we also trust all black men? How about then all Chinese men? Soon enough we’ll be saying should we trust all people all of the time? Doesn’t context, situation, or circumstance play any role?
Maybe I should wait and listen to the whole discussion but this seemed to jump out so strongly to me that I had to comment
When Glenn Loury says at 41:24 sending his kids out thinking about their domination (can also be read as focusing on resentment) terrifies him. I agree. I think Black people need to have hearts full of forgiveness not resentment. Family support and turning toward virtue and away from vice, like Epictetus taught. Are more helpful I think.
I'm a medical doctor, that's more like a plumber than an academic. I am responsible for the results of my thoughts and actions. Certainly racism is real. I doubt racism accounts for all black America's problems. It's hard not to think that the many of the problems of American blacks are cultural. Black people come here from Africa and do quite well. As Thomas Sowell has documented many aspects of black life have gotten worse as we move further from slavery/Jim Crow. And people who do violent car-jackings need to be in jail. If you want the armed robbers to go free, that just tells me you don't have to live near them.
I keep replaying from 22:45, as he responds to Glenn's prompt, and I swear I see Dr. Lloyd turn into a pretzel. Confusing response.
As likable and knowledgeable as Dr. Lloyd may be, and as interesting as it is to listen to his reasoning, his (and others') willingness to advocate for 'reimagining' real-world solutions (e.g., prison time) to real-world problems (e.g., murder) from a far-removed seat in the clouds is just frightening.
After re-listening to the mentioned segment, I find it interesting that within the span of a few minutes of responding to Glenn and John, Lloyd ironically seems to commit our future society to what he presently is against: Domination. Lloyd seems to view the state and its traditional solution to criminal behavior as being somehow removed from 'the community' and forced upon it, without realizing that citizens help shape and craft public policy through various democratic means. His imaginative solution seems all too common for the well-intended among us: ignore what the overwhelming majority of citizens and victims of crime want (i.e., more incarceration) in favor of an ill-defined community-based reform (i.e., less incarceration) because he presumably knows best...
I hope Dr. Lloyd never has the misfortune of losing a loved one to gun violence (or any violence, for that matter) and finding out that his own policy prescriptions for a more 'humane' response to criminal behavior turn on him faster than his students did.
"What was necessary for slavery to be possible in the U.S.?"
Nothing; only that human organization carry on as it always had done, did at the time, and continues to do even today in many places. Slavery - chattel slavery, not symbolic slavery - is a profoundly "natural" part of human experience, and our struggles to transcend the impulse to own others is a sign of civilization. The more interesting question is "what was necessary for slavery to be seen as evil, and why did such views appear in the U.S. when they did?"
"It can be possible for there to be legal emancipation without remediation of the symbolic structures which placed the enslaved class in a generally-dishonored position."
I was glad to see Prof. Loury engage with Prof. Lloyd's analysis on this level, but was disappointed that the follow up was "but it's 2023" instead of prying deeper into the implications of that mode of thought. Some example questions which I immediately shouted impotently in my car are:
- Who does the "honoring" in society? Does it always have to be from without, or can one create one's own honor?
- Is it possible for a "generally dishonored" group's cultural output to be honored and adopted while the group itself remains dishonored?
- Is it not paradoxical for social benefits to be distributed on the basis that a group is "generally dishonored"? Must not either the benefits be a sham or the "generally-dishonored" status be an incorrect appraisal?
- Absent the use of state power (e.g. laws) to enforce those social structures dishonoring a subordinate class (or enabling/tacitly-permitting private vigilante actions doing so), what impact do those structures actually have?
But then again, Prof. Loury is an economist, not a political theorist, and Prof. McWhorter, while well-placed to pick apart the language games that this type of analysis plays, prefers to take a different tack.