John McWhorter is back, and fresh off an appearance on Bill Maher’s Real Time that provides plenty of fodder for this conversation. It’s always an interesting experience comparing the relatively unrestrained version of John that I record with three times a month and the carefully crafted version of himself he presents on other programs, when he knows he only has a few minutes to make his point. This is something all of us who regularly appear in the media have to grapple with: How do we distill all of the thinking, reading, and writing we do within our areas of expertise into audience-friendly sound bites that will give some sense of our deeper reasoning? John has mastered this art, and I have to say, I think I’ve gotten pretty good at it, too!
I always find it disappointing when Glenn and John discuss intelligence without taking into account the enormous body of research on this topic. Glenn in particular, as a social scientist, should know better. The potential explanations for the group mean differences in intelligence that they consider were ruled out decades ago by experts in the field. Do they not know this? Or are they being willfully blind here?
Bravo to Glenn and John for debating the topic. To me, equality is about God making us all equal in spirit, and equity is about man made distribution of outcomes. And frankly I think all those that believe in equity should immediately give any wealth they have over the average US wealth to those below the average starting with least first. What is that you say? No one above the average wealth number believes in equity when it comes to giving up their own wealth. Inconceivable. In sum, nothing holds a person back from implementing equity personally because you can always find someone poorer to share what little or great wealth you have. What a bunch of hypocrites the Democrats are.
Has it occurred to anybody that black Americans resemble immigrants from elsewhere, in that they comfortably navigate U.S. culture in general, as part of it, yet navigate their own subculture as adroitly? It's the next best thing to being bilingual. I can't remember having seen them credited in a positive way for this ability to straddle two worlds simultaneously.
Another apparent cultural blind-spot that white Americans seem victims of is that U.S. blacks are the prime originators of much of our collective culture, no matter how little credit for it they receive from culture pontificators in general, including degreed sociologists. E,g, America's only contribution to world culture is jazz. Its syncopations and flatted notes form the foundation of our ONLY contribution to world culture, mainly embedded in the jazz idiom. Without it, could there have been a George Gershwin, or many of the other stars of Broadway songwriting?
Only the cognoscenti openly credit US blacks for this gift. It was the only indigenous music that our State Department sent abroad immediately after WWII, including tours by Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and others, as part of cultural exchanges.
DURING WWII, the USIA (United States Information Agency, our propaganda arm that went head-to-head with Soviet propaganda efforts) sponsored such tours as the best way to reach Western nations culturally. The seeds for such cultural exchanges were first sown by all-black US Army bands serving in France under French commands, after white officers, from General Pershing on down, refused to lead black troops, who ended the war having won more French combat medals than all the combined white doughboiy outfits assigned "over there." But none of this appears in standard US History books. Why has credit for such achievements been withheld? The same is true for most American slang expressions, even though blacks comprise only some 14% of the total population, up from 10% during the past 50 years or so.
Come to think of it, presidents Clinton, W. Bush, Obama and Biden have all been seen on TV awarding medals for heroism to black civilian graybeards. Why never to white graybeards? Answer: No medals were withheld from whites; only from blacks. Why? White p;ique and dishonorable skullduggery that tried to prevent such honors from ever being given to blacks. Call it institutionalized racism, whiich most whites try to deny exists, when the proof is all around us in how we interact with one another. Racism is so ingrained that most whites are not aware of it even as they enforce it in small and large ways, both official and unofficial.
While federal legislation has slowly degraded the impact of institiutional racism, yet it abides. Deniers are sleepwalking if they can't sense it. It is understandable that they are embarrassed and ashamed to admit it, but it's the truth, demonstrable in myriad social and official interactions, day in, day out. While people of good will try to do a turnaround, as deep as it is buried inside us, culturally, eliminating it shall take generations, even if abetted by the coming predicted switch in demographics where and when we become a majority minority nation. Two recent examples: The water scandals in Flint, MI & in Jacksoin, MS, both cities being nearly 100% black, while the condition of their water was not under their own control. Name a white-dominant city where this has occurred.
As the nation awaits that day, pray that we all do our best to tamp down the social worst that is in us while elevating comity and community on whatever rung of the social ladder we occupy. Curiously, as of 2021, demographers noted that already one in four romantic pairings was comprised of racially disparate couples; mostly Asian-white. In terms of attitude, the more sophiticated, worldly new is leaving the old marooned in parochialism.
As the late Yogi Berra might say it, "The future lies ahead!" We CAN make it better. WILL we?
Time 15:00; John and Glenn discuss limitations of Equity policy in changing the hearts and minds of Americans because the “cure” and alleged “problem” are mis-matched. John hears from Equity supporters who are sincere. The societal concern that Equity tries to address is actually about behavior (individual and group), which requires analysis from a behavioral science perspective. PhD psychologists are supposed to be typing this comment instead of a lower level MPH. APA needs to expel propaganda infiltration and get to work. First a new director for APA.
I did think John did great on Maher, given the limits of time—but honestly, I wasn’t sure if the distinction between equity and equality was clearly described to a viewer who has not been following the discussions on the Glenn show for years. It seemed to me that John talked about it and around it more than clearly describing it in a way I’d want someone in my life who is completely unfamiliar with the concepts to hear. But on the other hand, there is more and more overlap with Maher’s audience and the Glenn Show than ever, so it was fun to watch and cheer John on. Seeds get sown, sprout and grow and I am so grateful for John’s special role bridging liberals to this analysis. The message is getting through. Also, I thought the other guy made good points and was an interesting and excellent fellow guest. If you have his contact info, I hope that you will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is open to learning more deeply and send him a link to this interview. You both delve into the equity critique so brilliantly here. Thank you!
I heard something recently that surprised me at the time, but made sense thinking back to my teaching career. The U.S. ethnic group that has the most advanced degrees (above a bachelors) per capita in this country is not an Asian group. The group with most advanced degrees per capita are Nigerian Americans. As I thought back to my teaching days some of my strongest Black students were Nigerian. I think the reason they did so well is because, much like Asian immigrant families, their families stress the importance of education.
Having taught at an inner city school, I believe academic success depends more on a student's home life than the quality of the school they attend. I believe the reason that so many public school teachers are opposed to expanding the number of charter schools is because it is the parents who care the most about education that apply to charter schools. If the most involved parents exit regular public schools it will be much harder to teach the children left behind. But public school teachers opposed to charter schools don't hesitate to pull their own kids out of NYC public schools. I think that it is wrong to force kids with less means to stay in failing schools. But as I said, I think much (but not all) of the failure of those schools are beyond the schools' control. But I am at a loss for a way to counteract a home where the importance of an education isn't stressed.
On the subject of opera, I have been to a few, but I am not really a fan. I did once attend an opera at Lehman College that was performed in English. Honestly, I didn't find it much easier to understand than an opera in Italian. I often have a hard time following the lyrics in pop songs, so it might just be about my aural deficiency and not opera itself.
I am looking forward to your conversation with the Stanford Law students. I was actually quite pleased that Dean Jenny Martinez not only refused to retract her apology to the judge, but she issued a detailed defense of the law school's free speech policy and disciplined the DEI Dean that hijacked the judge's talk. It's hard not to contrast her actions with that of the Yale Law School Dean.
"But as I said, I think much (but not all) of the failure of those schools are beyond the schools' control. But I am at a loss for a way to counteract a home where the importance of an education isn't stressed."
Completely agree. I don't have kids, but as far as I can tell, there is no substitute for a child's immediate environment, especially in those earliest years.
But your reference to Nigerians reminded me of something. About nine years ago, Professor / "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua published a book about ethnicities with distinguished records of success. At first glance, she seemed to be treading close to alt-right territory, but she wasn't. Her focus was culture. Her examples included Chinese, Jewish and others--and Nigerians.
As the years go by, we see more and more of what you were just talking about. Ergo, it tickles me how the alt-right crowd smudges over the (very contemporary) Nigerian immigrant story. The reasons why are obvious.
John and Glenn, this has annoyed me, over the years, to varying degrees since I’ve followed you around 2016, and you haven’t addressed it, so I gave up mentioning it. I know, “the scourge of being popular.” And I don’t mean that in a hostile way. Here it is: You have a blind spot in K12 public education because you don’t seem to know anyone who is a teacher, who is not a pundit or university lecturer. Kids and teachers are the puppets, the foot soldiers of the woke industrial complex, and Minneapolis - St. Paul is the Mecca for critical gender and race theories, as they have been deployed on the ground. Please know that thousands of teachers across the country have been investigated for language taboos and or insufficient training commitments, and some like me, have been fired, some notoriously, like me. I’ve seen Glenn at Northfield, MN’s St. Olaf College, and I understand you are returning to Minnesota. Please know that every private college here has a Director of Inclusive Excellence. David Everett of Hamline University, St. Paul, who fired a professor over her display of a 14th c painting of the Prophet’s face, Macalester College, St. Paul, which quickly covered paintings of women in an Iranian American artist’s exhibit with black curtains that resembled niqabs, are all prime Minnesota doings in the never ending jostle for peak wokeness. Edmund Santurri, St. Olaf, was fired after John McWhorter’s and Peter Singer’s appearances there. You should be apprised of this climate. I’m very glad you’re coming here, Glenn. I hope the flight and boring drive across farmland don’t take too much out of you, and I look forward to hearing anything you might have to say about my former profession as a teacher. I am one of your teacher followers. Theo Olson, St. Paul, MN.
This wasn't a woke issue really, but a teacher at the school where I taught was charged with "verbal corporal punishment." Talk about an oxymoron. The teacher was accused of calling a kid an idiot, while the teacher said he told the kid to "stop acting like an idiot." He wasn't suspended or anything, but he got a letter in his file. Contrast that with the time I saw my principle actually strangle a kid while instructing him to behave. No lasting damage and I guess it was OK because she didn't disparage his intelligence. She went on to become the NYC Schools Chancellor. Double standard?
Re the media giant who can't find black people who want to write about anything other than race: I wonder if eventually they'll come under fire for having black writers who ONLY write about race - "Is that the ONLY thing you think black writers can produce?"
Also, it strikes me as supremely conformist and terribly unoriginal to only want to write about this single issue, however multi-varied that content might be (race/racism in politics, culture, government, social life, etc.) It's as though race and racism are the *sole definers* of black people. What, aren't they interested in anything else? Aren't any of these one-trick-pony content producers interested in/capable or writing about anything else? I mean, do they have an opinion on, like Arbour Day? (Hopefully not about how racist it probably is :) ) I write a lot about feminism and avoiding abuse but it's not the *only* thing I write about, and if someone asked me to write about something that was within my wheelhouse that had nothing to do with feminism or abuse I'd take it. My world is defined by far more than my place in it as a woman and co-existence with 'the patriarchy'.
I'm reminded of why I'm not terribly fond of Middle Eastern literature. I don't have a a lot of experience with it, I've always been engaged with anything I've read, but so often it's depressing, especially if it's written by women/for women, about how oppressive it is to live in the Middle East no matter who you are (one was about life under Gaddafi, oh, wasn't THAT a cheerful novel!)
Is it even possible for these people to conceive of a story, or an article, or a video, or something about black people, or not about black people, that isn't filtered through the race/racism lens? How sophisticated can anyone's take on anything be if they're incapable of seeing outside their narrow cultural view?
"What, aren't they interested in anything else? Aren't any of these one-trick-pony content producers interested in/capable or writing about anything else?"
I think about 20 yrs ago the Daily Show called Larry Wilmore their "Official Black Correspondent", which was a joke on multiple levels (both that there could be such a thing and at the same time so many black media voices are treated as this), but as with so much great comedy, it was just a bit too honest and a bit ahead of its time.
I've noticed what you mention and think there may be 2 causes:
1) Most of the black media voices we're exposed to came up under the liberal dispensation—working, living and most esp attending colleges run by white liberals—and white liberals most desire and expect black people to perform their pain and victimization, it is sort of a 21-st century media version of singing the blues.
White liberals desperately need to be seen as white saviors, morally and intellectually superior to their blood enemies, white conservatives, and you can't be a savior without a victim. So if everyone from the NYT to the Pulitzer Prizes to Hollywood etc is providing incentives for you to sing the blues, then either you or someone else is gonna sing the song of your people and their pain (and this doesn't even address the many financial incentives media cos have to racialize their content, racial confiict is a major clickbait generator);
2) and another reason for this I think is that minorites in America (understandably!) seem to have an intense ethnocentric consciousness (sometimes verging on group narcissism). As a NYer, I naturally have gay friends, black friends, and Jewish friends, and when any issue comes up they immediately wonder how it will affect their tribe/team. And they often honestly seem to believe that no matter what issue or context, everyone NOT in their group is always thinking and speaking about their group. It is probably some tribal defense mechanism...
But this is magnified so much when it comes to race: there can be gay conservatives/contrarians and Jewish conservatives/contrarians, but a torrent of hatred awaits any black public figure who goes against left dogma.
Thanks for elaborating. Interesting what you say about going to colleges run by white liberals and performing the way white liberals want/expect them to perform. Er....uh....no....not going down this path ;\
I dunno though, aren't we finally beginning to move past that? Where we all have to sing the pain of our tribe? I don't bitch and moan about 'the patriarchy', whenever I write about it it's usually in 'quotes', and I'm usually speaking sardonically. Sometimes I mean it seriously but more often than not I'm not. Mostly I think of Americans as all being Americans, however disgusting most of them are (and my disgust comes from life/values/ideological choices, not biology).
Maybe we all need to write beyond our tribes and present views that aren't self-referentially black/feminist/gay/trans/etc. If nothing else, those white lib'ruls writing about everything else could use some competition :)
hey i didnt say i agreed or that it was smart or interesting, i just think that's what im seeing from my little corner of the world.
and yes i also thought "we [were] finally beginning to move past that" but for various reasons (from the reaction to 2106 to corporate media deciding that since their profits were dwindling they'd serve us all a steady diet of rage and hatred to boost their stock prices), racialism and tribalism have come roaring back w a vengeance.
Hey, I know you weren't arguing that. It was just me reacting to the tunnel vision of so many tribes.
Let's just all remember, when the left comes back one day and accuses media outlets of 'colonizing' these writers in identity-ascribed 'content internment camps' (or whatever dumbass metaphor they invent) to keep them from writing about 'important' topics, let's remind them of who *didn't* want to write about anything but white supremacy and evil statues back in the day) :)
Good post. I have a passion for the topics of race and culture because of what I was exposed to while growing up. Glenn and John are the voices we need to counter the narratives that are out there. During their 2021 conversation with Jason Riley, they spoke about Riley's biography on Thomas Sowell-"Maverick." I remember Riley admitting that Thomas Sowell was cancelled a long time ago because he challenged the narratives that were in the media regarding race and culture. It's good to have Glenn and John as the spearhead in this war today. The left wing media runs a business and they have to get ratings and followers. But we also know that Glenn and John are more than capable of speaking about other topics related to their fields of economics and language.
It is good to think outside the box. I'm considered a black person because of my skin color and Caribbean background, but I'm into European history. I think it's filled with interesting things that have nothing to do with race. We don't have to go down the list.
Below is the the start of Jason Riley speaking on why Thomas Sowell chose to write about those racial controversies of our past.
John, you may be correct about your fellow traveler on the plane who just stared into space for seven hours, or you may be very very wrong.
He may have been someone who has such a rich inner world as to not need any external input, or had a crazy, insane trip and welcomed the silence of a cross Atlantic flight, or just simply enjoyed the silence.
He may have just lost someone close to him or something similar and was processing life. Just because he was not seeking external input into his brain doesn't mean he is disinterested.
I'd thought this as well. His brain might have been too fried to want to do anything or think of anything. There are times in the evening when I get like that...staring into space, not doing or thinking of anything, just ENJOYING THE PEACE of my brain, on its own, shutting down for a bit and giving me a brief vacation from myself, my neuroses, and my anxieties.
So, I find a lot of disagreement is based on loose use of words and ill defined terms. I just want to point out when you criticize “equity” you really mean “racial equity”.
I started hearing the term “equity” some 12 years ago when my oldest started school. At the time it was primarily used to describe the attempts to address the educational impacts of poverty and learning disabilities. Under that equity, it is important to have all kids have access to a healthy breakfast and lunch. It also ensures that kids who are identified as having learning issues receive addition instruction or modifications (legally required in public schools through the use of IEPs and section 504, https://www.miusa.org/resource/tip-sheets/iep504plans/). Equity is supposed to mean every kid gets what they need, not necessarily the same. It is the same idea as is behind enrichment for gifted kids… so clearly, I would argue, there is a compelling case for equity in K-12 (especially public) education.
I agree with John that lowering standards is dumb. If we stick with K-12 education, there is a lot of brain development that goes on between 5 and 18, development that can (practically) really only happen then because if the way are brains are formed. Early intervention in conditions as diverse as dyslexia and autism can be significantly improved with consistent and early intervention.
I have seen for myself with my son who has dysgraphia (a hand writing disability that up to 20% of kids suffer from, especially boys) and ADHD (similar to dysgraphia in that it is more common than you think and more often in boys) how much scaffolding (that is externalizing executive functions until they are learned, which is required by all students to some extent) has made a huge difference over the 4 years since his diagnoses. I know in our case we were affluent enough to pay the $1000+ for testing and for me to allocate a whole lot of time and energy to helping him get caught up. He is also naturally super smart. It is unreasonable to think that everyone will have the advantages he has, though, every kid could certainly benefit from them. The goal of equity is/should be to get every kid, to extent possible, the resources through the schools, community, etc what they need to realize their potential.
It seems to me the move from that being “equity” to the new “equity” (rigging every metric to force results) is really just an acknowledgment of how much we have failed in K-12. Let’s do the Stephen Covey practice of “beginning with the end in mind” and spend the money on giving kids the foundation they need. Now statistically, this means we will spend significantly more money on the poor generally, probably disproportionately black and Hispanic. I don’t however think that the focus being on race is helpful to any of the individual children who, I very much believe, deserve better.
I used to work with low income families, and I saw first hand that poverty has no color. I think different organizations can do what they can to help every child regardless of race. The key is that human development has to be a priority from everyone involved, especially the parents. Once the parents are not invested, it becomes extremely difficult. And this is why the equity and equality thing become controversial. There are many people out there who don't share the same values for their children, but they want the same results of success that other families posses.
I agree about the parents. I have two thoughts on that: 1) I’d frame it differently, that those parents don’t have the right tools (emotional, educational, time, etc) to teach their kids to be successful rather than necessarily their values are lacking. It’s a bit of a fine line, but like you say, every parent wants their kid to succeed. 2) Children don’t have any control over their parents, so it is up to society to do what we can to fill in the gaps. I could be wrong, but I think most people agree with that sentiment, at least generally. The problem comes in when we can’t imagine how deprived (for lack of a better word) some kids are. A friend is a teaching assistant at a less affluent school and multiple of her students were living long term in motels…! Even with food from a food pantry the family could only cook using a hotel microwave! You can imagine how many things are sliding in a household like that.
Good points. I've seen those family motel stories also. But no matter what anybody says, society still has to maintain high standards of education so that children can aim high. Lowering standards does not help anyone.
There are strange people out there who think that utopia can be created through the hands of humans in the world of economics, academics, and culture. It's already been tried several times and it failed every time. 100 million dead bodies in the twentieth century is the result.
I agree. I really don’t understand the desire to lower standards. I don’t think any one test is all that meaningful, and agree they should work to make sure they are testing the right thing (my pet peeve math standardized tests that are more reading comprehension than they are math, for example. As if making a question “trickier” tests deeper understanding…) I also have noticed that the first quarter is review of last year, and they have testing in May and learn nothing after that. So that is less than 6 months of new content per year, also criticized as curriculum “teaching to the test.” That schedule is different from when I was a kid, where every year or two we had one standardized test, seemingly at a random time. But they actually held back kids who didn’t learn enough back then too.
Do you really associate utopia and low standards? Like an Animal Farm kind of utopia? All animals are equal (except those that aren’t)? I also hear you calling back to Nazi Gemany and/or socialist Russia. I wouldn't think of those times as low standards, just some really immoral values. I don’t see the connection. Am I missing your point?
Half of life is showing up. Recently, I was shocked to learn that in my mid-sized city's predominantly Black elementary schools, 50% of children don't even show up to school most days. In the my kids' public high school - and this is anectdotal - many Black kids show up to school but spend their days roaming and socializing in the hallways and not in the classroom. How do we expect group averages on test scores not to diverge. On that note, however, if as John implies that Blacks might have something to prove, well so do whites! Asians score best across all socio-economic levels! So much for "White Supremacy!"
As a side note, the idea that predominantly Black schools are underfunded is a myth. In our district in Florida, they get 30-40% MORE per student than predominantly "white" schools.
I think much of the argument for why our society is committed to White Supremacy is that the majority of the people in this country are (or at least were) white and thus the mainstream majority culture can be seen as white. So any time a minority is expected to fulfill the expectations of mainstream culture, it can be argued that is a form of White Supremacy. I don't particularly care if white people make up a majority of the population or if we are merely a plurality. But I will note that we are only a minority majority nation if white hispanics don't count as white. Italians were once considered a minority but have long been lumped in with other white ethnicities. My nieces are 1/2 Mexican and 1/2 Irish & German. Should they be considered white or Hispanic? Does it matter that my oldest niece declined a Quinceanera because most of her friends were Asian? I also recall a former student whose skin was as dark as anyone I've ever met. She got very angry one day when another student said she was Black. "I"M NOT BLACK, I'M HISPANIC!!!" Of course you can be more than one thing, but I didn't see any value in arguing the point with her. Honestly, I really think we lost something when the idea that the U.S. was a melting plot was thrown out. I think everyone should be free to honor their cultural traditions and we should also respect the traditions of others. But I really don't like the idea that cultural appropriation is a bad thing. I started working making pizza as a high school student and continued through college and into law school. I don't have a problem with non-Irish people wearing green on St. Patrick's Day or drinking Guiness (I prefer Harp, myself). What is wrong with a white person buying and wearing a kimono if they like how it looks? I am sure the people that make them don't want to limit their market. So long as you aren't mocking the culture or doing something like wearing a Native American headdress when you aren't Native American (which I understand is considered disrespectful), I don't think cultural appropriation should be a thing.
Very thoughtful comments. The way the melting pot worked is that white anglo saxons built the base and then various ethnicities arrived, assimilated and also added to that base to form the amalgam we have today. I agree with ibram Kendi when he says that Blacks who were dragged here against their will have no obligation to assimilate into that amalgam. What he does not address is that without assimilation- which could be summed up by what Brookings named the three essential ingredients for success (finish high school , get married, have children in that order), how in the world should Blacks as a whole expect to succeed in society? That’s the crux of the issue and I do not see a solution.
When I was teaching, I used to tell my students they should wait until they were at least 25 and married before they had kids. That has nothing to do with morality, I told them. It is all about economics. Unfortunately, that didn't stop one of my honor students from dropping out of school junior year when she got pregnant. I probably should have added the part about graduating high school.
The "big three" is BS. (consider carefully the sources). Those are not "ingredients" which, taken together, make successful people—they are characteristic behaviors of people successful for other, more fundamental (and not readily copied) reasons. Causal analysis is required rather than osmosing means from the results of simple statistical correlation.
I disagree. Graduating high school doesn't in and of itself guarantee a high paying job, but you will most likely be able to get a better job than someone who drops out of high school and never earns that degree. Waiting until you are in a committed relationship before having kids means it will be easier to balance work with child care, at least as compared to a single parent. I'm reminded of something Jonah Goldberg wrote recently. He said Jewish mothers don't want their children to become doctors or lawyers because that is a guarantee they will become rich. Instead, it makes it highly unlikely they will be poor. Following Brookings "Big Three" isn't a guarantee of success (depending on the definition) but it does make it highly unlikely you will live in poverty. We should want kids to do more than those things so as to be even more succesfull. But we should want all young people to at least do those three.
Good point, Jim. There is no other option but to assimilate. I have stated before-The reason why people like Kendi complain about these things is because they are embarrassed by what the black subculture has become. They are ashamed of the disparities compared to those who have assimilated, including the Africans from Nigeria. The success of these groups defeats his argument. That's why he avoids debates. It's better to use whites as a scapegoat because there is an audience for it. It also deflects the blame from blacks. People go along with it because they don't take him seriously enough to hold him to real standards. They are also afraid of being called names. He's getting patted on the head and he doesn't realize it. "In claiming to be wise, they became fools."
Not every black person thinks the same. The black card is subjective since there are millions of ways to be black. That's why many of them fight like children over who's black enough. But none of them can give you one standard definition for what that card means. So it becomes a losing hand as they fight amongst each other like gangs in the street or kids in the schoolyard.
Remember that the Kendis of the world have an audience and that's who they cater to.
Below is one of my favorite episodes of the Glenn Show. It is the final episode of 2018-What is Third-Wave Antiracism?-The link begins with Glenn giving a more in depth analysis about that losing hand.
I love your post, Michael. Too many people get caught up in identity politics. But try and remember one thing. There are many people who are not comfortable thinking beyond what they see in the mirror. It's also extra work they don't want to do. Your post would be considered too deep for people. They would easily get offended quickly like that student shouting what she is.
As for me, YES, I LOOK BLACK, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A BURDEN FOR ME!!!
What's a "white Hispanic"? Someone from Spain? Argentina? Anywhere else? How many of these critters can there be in the USA? Surely not more than a percent or two...
Glenn or show producers. If you see this, please invite on Dr. Tyrone Howard, Professor of Education and Director of the Black Male Institute at UCLA. He would be an excellent guest with whom to discuss the Black education gap and related issues. Also I have known him and his family my entire life, and he is a great guy all around!
Is there also a White Male Institute at UCLA? Or an Asian Male Institute at UCLA? Of course not. So why the Black Male Institute? More racism and rewards based on skin color instead of merit. Must be horrible to have so many feel such pity for one’s self.
I want to present a contrarian take on the topic of classical music. Personally, I’m tired of the notion that classical music is the pinnacle of the musical form. John describes it as majestic and I’m sure proponents will argue that classical music is in fact objectively more complex and superior compared to other forms of music.
I’d like to disagree. I don’t claim to be much of an expert on music, but I did play classical piano for 8 years back in the day. I enjoy listening to classical music and have even attended a few live classical concerts. I don’t believe classical music is inherently more highbrow or prestigious compared to contemporary musical forms and in my opinion the misguided notion that music by Beethoven, Mozart or Chopin is somehow superior is what led to our existential handwringing over the supposed lack of Blacks in classical music. It’s the same prestige-whoring which results in society agonizing over a supposed lack of racial diversity among the student body at Stuyvesant.
Music is ultimately meant to be performed and enjoyed. What matters is that a piece resonates with a specific individual at a particular moment in time. When I’m in a certain mood I might put on some Debussy but if I’m in a different frame of mind I might listen to Drake instead. Each state embodies an at-that-moment kind of sublimity.
For what it’s worth, the single most sublime musical composition in my opinion is Lil Wayne’s track Love Me. More so than any work by any classical composer like Mozart or Beethoven, Love Me embodies for me the pinnacle of musical genius. The Nobel committee awarded Bob Dylan the Literature Prize in 2016 for “having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition” and in the spirit of fairness and open-mindedness I sincerely hope that the committee will consider Wayne for the Literature prize as well. I say this with at most 10% tongue in cheek and with at least 90% complete seriousness.
I'm glad that John pushed back against the notion that there are too few Blacks in classical music. It’s not a competition. African Americans’ contributions to jazz are a monument of American culture and there’s no reason to believe that their putative underrepresentation in another domain of music constitutes a societal problem worth agonizing over.
"Lack of diversity at Stuyvesant"? Huh? They got more Asians than you can shake a chopstick at. Problem is they got no blacks or Latinos. It's not the lack of diversity that's the problem—it's the lack of the right KIND of diversity. I wonder why that is.
I am by no means a musical expert and have absolutely no musical talent. But it seems to me that one thing that can be said about classical music by composers like Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms is that they have stood the test of time. How much music from the last 40 years will still be widely played in 200 or 300 years? I suspect Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms will be just as important and popular as they are today. Whereas many of the classical composers created their music to be played in churches, I suspect that many composers of film soundtracks will join them in importance. I will be shocked if the music of John Williams isn't widely played centuries from now. Let me correct that. I would be shocked if I were still around which I won't be. But John Williams may still be conducting. He just became the oldest person to be nominated for an Oscar. I thought about suggesting some artists I suspect won't be remembered, but instead I will be nice.
I'm a big fan of film music. I've been to a live John Williams concert and attended a Joe Hisaishi concert last year as well. The late James Horner and Hans Zimmer are a couple of other film composers whose music I really enjoy. That being said, Lil Wayne holds for me the mantle of the single greatest musical composition of all time.
I'm actually a much bigger fan of evaluating music based on how likely it is to withstand the test of time rather than trying to assert the superiority of a musical form based on its supposed inherent complexity. The latter smacks to me of prestige whoring.
I'm reminded of something my 9th grade art teacher said to my class almost 40 years ago. I don't think I remember anything else he said, but I found this statement so absurd it stuck with me. He said "Good art, is good art, even if no-one likes it." I immediately asked him what makes art good art if no-one likes it? He said something about the technical detail that went into its creation. I think that's ridiculous. Although, I think it depends on how you define "like." Art doesn't have to make you happy or make you feel good. I think good art will induce an emotional reaction, but that reaction can be to make you feel sad or angry. Sticking with film, there are certain films I consider to be great, that I have watched once and never want to watch again. Roberto Benigni's Life is Beautiful is one such film. It was beautiful and it affected me emotionally, but did I like it? Yes, but also no. If the teacher had explained he meant something like that I would have agreed with him. But to say all it takes is attention to detail to make art great, I disagreed 40 years ago and I disagree today. I doubt my opinion will change tomorrow.
I immediately wondered what he would think of Charles Mingus’ Let My Children Hear Music or The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. The former being more typical classical orchestral music and the latter being presented as an opera, but both swinging Bop-era Jazz.
Honestly and respectfully, John needs to get a life on this one. And I say that as someone who has expressed--and regrettably still does on occasion--a similar stubbornness with jazz versus other music genres.
The "problem" here is simple and complicated at the same time. (And it took decades for me to realize this.)
With any established artform, what and/or who deserves what--and what and/or who gets to decide--is one of the most irresolvable dilemmas in the universe.
I was *very* serious about music (jazz) as a teen, and I will never forget this (mentor) trumpet player whose skills were easily on par with Wynton Marsalis et al. This man toured with a couple of legends. His musical credentials were never in question. He played both jazz and classical at the highest levels. But I will never forget the day he expressed a deeper respect for jazz (as opposed to classical), almost solely due to the emphasis jazz placed on improvisation.
That is to say, from his point of view, jazz called on the musician to do more intellectually on the spot.
Now, could John put forth a strong argument against this guy? I don't doubt for a second that he could. But who's gonna declare the winner of that debate? The arts community? The general public?
At the end of the day, nobody.
And by the way, serious jazz musicians/composers, etc. don't randomly start worshipping the new shiny object on the block because it's got a good beat and easy to dance to. That's just insulting lol!
And believe it or not, this same principle applies to the most serious rappers, and the most serious country musicians, and the most serious rock musicians, poets, actors and so forth. What and who they let into the fold, in terms of artistic respect, is anything but random or haphazard.
Now, don't get me wrong. I get the obvious. I don't think KRS-One, from a musically intellectual standpoint, did what Duke Ellington did. I cannot imagine an esteemed music school analyzing the beats behind KRS-One the way they do the harmonies & melodies behind Ellington. But I also recognize that Ellington didn't do what Tchaikovsky did or vice versa, and so forth and so on.
But who/what is/was the more intellectual, musically speaking? The answer is not as easy as you think, especially if you're not a serious artist, and ultimately that's not the issue either.
Established artforms have rules that most people outside of the art will never ever truly understand, no matter how deeply they love the art. (Which frankly, is why McWhorter is so hard-headed about this stuff--it's normal for people like him.)
Art is not calculable in the way that other disciplines are. What is (and isn't) art at the highest levels is often a never-ending conversation and a hopeless debate, particularly if we consider all of the varying genres of art.
One need only look at all the instrumentalists (drummers, pianists, guitarists) who admit that transitioning from playing rock or classical styles to playing jazz is seriously difficult. I also appreciate that so many, from Coltrane and Herbie Hancock to John McLaughlin, found great admiration for Indian classical music. Both musical traditions require lifelong dedication, humility, and a deep respect for the ways of the art form.
Agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, except for the part about Lil Wayne. I don't find him among the top tier of hip hop artists in any way. It could be due to my age, as I cut my hip hop teeth on Eric B and Rakim, EPMD, De La Soul, and Public Enemy. That being said, I am firing up Spotify to check out the track, as I would love to proven wrong!
I always find it disappointing when Glenn and John discuss intelligence without taking into account the enormous body of research on this topic. Glenn in particular, as a social scientist, should know better. The potential explanations for the group mean differences in intelligence that they consider were ruled out decades ago by experts in the field. Do they not know this? Or are they being willfully blind here?
Bravo to Glenn and John for debating the topic. To me, equality is about God making us all equal in spirit, and equity is about man made distribution of outcomes. And frankly I think all those that believe in equity should immediately give any wealth they have over the average US wealth to those below the average starting with least first. What is that you say? No one above the average wealth number believes in equity when it comes to giving up their own wealth. Inconceivable. In sum, nothing holds a person back from implementing equity personally because you can always find someone poorer to share what little or great wealth you have. What a bunch of hypocrites the Democrats are.
Zeno again:
Has it occurred to anybody that black Americans resemble immigrants from elsewhere, in that they comfortably navigate U.S. culture in general, as part of it, yet navigate their own subculture as adroitly? It's the next best thing to being bilingual. I can't remember having seen them credited in a positive way for this ability to straddle two worlds simultaneously.
Another apparent cultural blind-spot that white Americans seem victims of is that U.S. blacks are the prime originators of much of our collective culture, no matter how little credit for it they receive from culture pontificators in general, including degreed sociologists. E,g, America's only contribution to world culture is jazz. Its syncopations and flatted notes form the foundation of our ONLY contribution to world culture, mainly embedded in the jazz idiom. Without it, could there have been a George Gershwin, or many of the other stars of Broadway songwriting?
Only the cognoscenti openly credit US blacks for this gift. It was the only indigenous music that our State Department sent abroad immediately after WWII, including tours by Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and others, as part of cultural exchanges.
DURING WWII, the USIA (United States Information Agency, our propaganda arm that went head-to-head with Soviet propaganda efforts) sponsored such tours as the best way to reach Western nations culturally. The seeds for such cultural exchanges were first sown by all-black US Army bands serving in France under French commands, after white officers, from General Pershing on down, refused to lead black troops, who ended the war having won more French combat medals than all the combined white doughboiy outfits assigned "over there." But none of this appears in standard US History books. Why has credit for such achievements been withheld? The same is true for most American slang expressions, even though blacks comprise only some 14% of the total population, up from 10% during the past 50 years or so.
Come to think of it, presidents Clinton, W. Bush, Obama and Biden have all been seen on TV awarding medals for heroism to black civilian graybeards. Why never to white graybeards? Answer: No medals were withheld from whites; only from blacks. Why? White p;ique and dishonorable skullduggery that tried to prevent such honors from ever being given to blacks. Call it institutionalized racism, whiich most whites try to deny exists, when the proof is all around us in how we interact with one another. Racism is so ingrained that most whites are not aware of it even as they enforce it in small and large ways, both official and unofficial.
While federal legislation has slowly degraded the impact of institiutional racism, yet it abides. Deniers are sleepwalking if they can't sense it. It is understandable that they are embarrassed and ashamed to admit it, but it's the truth, demonstrable in myriad social and official interactions, day in, day out. While people of good will try to do a turnaround, as deep as it is buried inside us, culturally, eliminating it shall take generations, even if abetted by the coming predicted switch in demographics where and when we become a majority minority nation. Two recent examples: The water scandals in Flint, MI & in Jacksoin, MS, both cities being nearly 100% black, while the condition of their water was not under their own control. Name a white-dominant city where this has occurred.
As the nation awaits that day, pray that we all do our best to tamp down the social worst that is in us while elevating comity and community on whatever rung of the social ladder we occupy. Curiously, as of 2021, demographers noted that already one in four romantic pairings was comprised of racially disparate couples; mostly Asian-white. In terms of attitude, the more sophiticated, worldly new is leaving the old marooned in parochialism.
As the late Yogi Berra might say it, "The future lies ahead!" We CAN make it better. WILL we?
Time 10:00; On travel ordeals- I love to see my family, but same problem of lengthy travel. Are there travel experts who can share any tricks?
Time 15:00; John and Glenn discuss limitations of Equity policy in changing the hearts and minds of Americans because the “cure” and alleged “problem” are mis-matched. John hears from Equity supporters who are sincere. The societal concern that Equity tries to address is actually about behavior (individual and group), which requires analysis from a behavioral science perspective. PhD psychologists are supposed to be typing this comment instead of a lower level MPH. APA needs to expel propaganda infiltration and get to work. First a new director for APA.
I did think John did great on Maher, given the limits of time—but honestly, I wasn’t sure if the distinction between equity and equality was clearly described to a viewer who has not been following the discussions on the Glenn show for years. It seemed to me that John talked about it and around it more than clearly describing it in a way I’d want someone in my life who is completely unfamiliar with the concepts to hear. But on the other hand, there is more and more overlap with Maher’s audience and the Glenn Show than ever, so it was fun to watch and cheer John on. Seeds get sown, sprout and grow and I am so grateful for John’s special role bridging liberals to this analysis. The message is getting through. Also, I thought the other guy made good points and was an interesting and excellent fellow guest. If you have his contact info, I hope that you will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is open to learning more deeply and send him a link to this interview. You both delve into the equity critique so brilliantly here. Thank you!
I heard something recently that surprised me at the time, but made sense thinking back to my teaching career. The U.S. ethnic group that has the most advanced degrees (above a bachelors) per capita in this country is not an Asian group. The group with most advanced degrees per capita are Nigerian Americans. As I thought back to my teaching days some of my strongest Black students were Nigerian. I think the reason they did so well is because, much like Asian immigrant families, their families stress the importance of education.
Having taught at an inner city school, I believe academic success depends more on a student's home life than the quality of the school they attend. I believe the reason that so many public school teachers are opposed to expanding the number of charter schools is because it is the parents who care the most about education that apply to charter schools. If the most involved parents exit regular public schools it will be much harder to teach the children left behind. But public school teachers opposed to charter schools don't hesitate to pull their own kids out of NYC public schools. I think that it is wrong to force kids with less means to stay in failing schools. But as I said, I think much (but not all) of the failure of those schools are beyond the schools' control. But I am at a loss for a way to counteract a home where the importance of an education isn't stressed.
On the subject of opera, I have been to a few, but I am not really a fan. I did once attend an opera at Lehman College that was performed in English. Honestly, I didn't find it much easier to understand than an opera in Italian. I often have a hard time following the lyrics in pop songs, so it might just be about my aural deficiency and not opera itself.
I am looking forward to your conversation with the Stanford Law students. I was actually quite pleased that Dean Jenny Martinez not only refused to retract her apology to the judge, but she issued a detailed defense of the law school's free speech policy and disciplined the DEI Dean that hijacked the judge's talk. It's hard not to contrast her actions with that of the Yale Law School Dean.
"But as I said, I think much (but not all) of the failure of those schools are beyond the schools' control. But I am at a loss for a way to counteract a home where the importance of an education isn't stressed."
Completely agree. I don't have kids, but as far as I can tell, there is no substitute for a child's immediate environment, especially in those earliest years.
But your reference to Nigerians reminded me of something. About nine years ago, Professor / "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua published a book about ethnicities with distinguished records of success. At first glance, she seemed to be treading close to alt-right territory, but she wasn't. Her focus was culture. Her examples included Chinese, Jewish and others--and Nigerians.
As the years go by, we see more and more of what you were just talking about. Ergo, it tickles me how the alt-right crowd smudges over the (very contemporary) Nigerian immigrant story. The reasons why are obvious.
John and Glenn, this has annoyed me, over the years, to varying degrees since I’ve followed you around 2016, and you haven’t addressed it, so I gave up mentioning it. I know, “the scourge of being popular.” And I don’t mean that in a hostile way. Here it is: You have a blind spot in K12 public education because you don’t seem to know anyone who is a teacher, who is not a pundit or university lecturer. Kids and teachers are the puppets, the foot soldiers of the woke industrial complex, and Minneapolis - St. Paul is the Mecca for critical gender and race theories, as they have been deployed on the ground. Please know that thousands of teachers across the country have been investigated for language taboos and or insufficient training commitments, and some like me, have been fired, some notoriously, like me. I’ve seen Glenn at Northfield, MN’s St. Olaf College, and I understand you are returning to Minnesota. Please know that every private college here has a Director of Inclusive Excellence. David Everett of Hamline University, St. Paul, who fired a professor over her display of a 14th c painting of the Prophet’s face, Macalester College, St. Paul, which quickly covered paintings of women in an Iranian American artist’s exhibit with black curtains that resembled niqabs, are all prime Minnesota doings in the never ending jostle for peak wokeness. Edmund Santurri, St. Olaf, was fired after John McWhorter’s and Peter Singer’s appearances there. You should be apprised of this climate. I’m very glad you’re coming here, Glenn. I hope the flight and boring drive across farmland don’t take too much out of you, and I look forward to hearing anything you might have to say about my former profession as a teacher. I am one of your teacher followers. Theo Olson, St. Paul, MN.
This wasn't a woke issue really, but a teacher at the school where I taught was charged with "verbal corporal punishment." Talk about an oxymoron. The teacher was accused of calling a kid an idiot, while the teacher said he told the kid to "stop acting like an idiot." He wasn't suspended or anything, but he got a letter in his file. Contrast that with the time I saw my principle actually strangle a kid while instructing him to behave. No lasting damage and I guess it was OK because she didn't disparage his intelligence. She went on to become the NYC Schools Chancellor. Double standard?
Re the media giant who can't find black people who want to write about anything other than race: I wonder if eventually they'll come under fire for having black writers who ONLY write about race - "Is that the ONLY thing you think black writers can produce?"
Also, it strikes me as supremely conformist and terribly unoriginal to only want to write about this single issue, however multi-varied that content might be (race/racism in politics, culture, government, social life, etc.) It's as though race and racism are the *sole definers* of black people. What, aren't they interested in anything else? Aren't any of these one-trick-pony content producers interested in/capable or writing about anything else? I mean, do they have an opinion on, like Arbour Day? (Hopefully not about how racist it probably is :) ) I write a lot about feminism and avoiding abuse but it's not the *only* thing I write about, and if someone asked me to write about something that was within my wheelhouse that had nothing to do with feminism or abuse I'd take it. My world is defined by far more than my place in it as a woman and co-existence with 'the patriarchy'.
I'm reminded of why I'm not terribly fond of Middle Eastern literature. I don't have a a lot of experience with it, I've always been engaged with anything I've read, but so often it's depressing, especially if it's written by women/for women, about how oppressive it is to live in the Middle East no matter who you are (one was about life under Gaddafi, oh, wasn't THAT a cheerful novel!)
Is it even possible for these people to conceive of a story, or an article, or a video, or something about black people, or not about black people, that isn't filtered through the race/racism lens? How sophisticated can anyone's take on anything be if they're incapable of seeing outside their narrow cultural view?
"What, aren't they interested in anything else? Aren't any of these one-trick-pony content producers interested in/capable or writing about anything else?"
I think about 20 yrs ago the Daily Show called Larry Wilmore their "Official Black Correspondent", which was a joke on multiple levels (both that there could be such a thing and at the same time so many black media voices are treated as this), but as with so much great comedy, it was just a bit too honest and a bit ahead of its time.
I've noticed what you mention and think there may be 2 causes:
1) Most of the black media voices we're exposed to came up under the liberal dispensation—working, living and most esp attending colleges run by white liberals—and white liberals most desire and expect black people to perform their pain and victimization, it is sort of a 21-st century media version of singing the blues.
White liberals desperately need to be seen as white saviors, morally and intellectually superior to their blood enemies, white conservatives, and you can't be a savior without a victim. So if everyone from the NYT to the Pulitzer Prizes to Hollywood etc is providing incentives for you to sing the blues, then either you or someone else is gonna sing the song of your people and their pain (and this doesn't even address the many financial incentives media cos have to racialize their content, racial confiict is a major clickbait generator);
2) and another reason for this I think is that minorites in America (understandably!) seem to have an intense ethnocentric consciousness (sometimes verging on group narcissism). As a NYer, I naturally have gay friends, black friends, and Jewish friends, and when any issue comes up they immediately wonder how it will affect their tribe/team. And they often honestly seem to believe that no matter what issue or context, everyone NOT in their group is always thinking and speaking about their group. It is probably some tribal defense mechanism...
But this is magnified so much when it comes to race: there can be gay conservatives/contrarians and Jewish conservatives/contrarians, but a torrent of hatred awaits any black public figure who goes against left dogma.
Thanks for elaborating. Interesting what you say about going to colleges run by white liberals and performing the way white liberals want/expect them to perform. Er....uh....no....not going down this path ;\
I dunno though, aren't we finally beginning to move past that? Where we all have to sing the pain of our tribe? I don't bitch and moan about 'the patriarchy', whenever I write about it it's usually in 'quotes', and I'm usually speaking sardonically. Sometimes I mean it seriously but more often than not I'm not. Mostly I think of Americans as all being Americans, however disgusting most of them are (and my disgust comes from life/values/ideological choices, not biology).
Maybe we all need to write beyond our tribes and present views that aren't self-referentially black/feminist/gay/trans/etc. If nothing else, those white lib'ruls writing about everything else could use some competition :)
hey i didnt say i agreed or that it was smart or interesting, i just think that's what im seeing from my little corner of the world.
and yes i also thought "we [were] finally beginning to move past that" but for various reasons (from the reaction to 2106 to corporate media deciding that since their profits were dwindling they'd serve us all a steady diet of rage and hatred to boost their stock prices), racialism and tribalism have come roaring back w a vengeance.
i def agree w u: it is so very boring.
Hey, I know you weren't arguing that. It was just me reacting to the tunnel vision of so many tribes.
Let's just all remember, when the left comes back one day and accuses media outlets of 'colonizing' these writers in identity-ascribed 'content internment camps' (or whatever dumbass metaphor they invent) to keep them from writing about 'important' topics, let's remind them of who *didn't* want to write about anything but white supremacy and evil statues back in the day) :)
Outside the Black Box
Nicole,
Good post. I have a passion for the topics of race and culture because of what I was exposed to while growing up. Glenn and John are the voices we need to counter the narratives that are out there. During their 2021 conversation with Jason Riley, they spoke about Riley's biography on Thomas Sowell-"Maverick." I remember Riley admitting that Thomas Sowell was cancelled a long time ago because he challenged the narratives that were in the media regarding race and culture. It's good to have Glenn and John as the spearhead in this war today. The left wing media runs a business and they have to get ratings and followers. But we also know that Glenn and John are more than capable of speaking about other topics related to their fields of economics and language.
It is good to think outside the box. I'm considered a black person because of my skin color and Caribbean background, but I'm into European history. I think it's filled with interesting things that have nothing to do with race. We don't have to go down the list.
Below is the the start of Jason Riley speaking on why Thomas Sowell chose to write about those racial controversies of our past.
https://youtu.be/WH1ZJwaenOM?t=737
John, you may be correct about your fellow traveler on the plane who just stared into space for seven hours, or you may be very very wrong.
He may have been someone who has such a rich inner world as to not need any external input, or had a crazy, insane trip and welcomed the silence of a cross Atlantic flight, or just simply enjoyed the silence.
He may have just lost someone close to him or something similar and was processing life. Just because he was not seeking external input into his brain doesn't mean he is disinterested.
I'd thought this as well. His brain might have been too fried to want to do anything or think of anything. There are times in the evening when I get like that...staring into space, not doing or thinking of anything, just ENJOYING THE PEACE of my brain, on its own, shutting down for a bit and giving me a brief vacation from myself, my neuroses, and my anxieties.
Loved John on Maher. Clever, intelligent and funny!
So, I find a lot of disagreement is based on loose use of words and ill defined terms. I just want to point out when you criticize “equity” you really mean “racial equity”.
I started hearing the term “equity” some 12 years ago when my oldest started school. At the time it was primarily used to describe the attempts to address the educational impacts of poverty and learning disabilities. Under that equity, it is important to have all kids have access to a healthy breakfast and lunch. It also ensures that kids who are identified as having learning issues receive addition instruction or modifications (legally required in public schools through the use of IEPs and section 504, https://www.miusa.org/resource/tip-sheets/iep504plans/). Equity is supposed to mean every kid gets what they need, not necessarily the same. It is the same idea as is behind enrichment for gifted kids… so clearly, I would argue, there is a compelling case for equity in K-12 (especially public) education.
I agree with John that lowering standards is dumb. If we stick with K-12 education, there is a lot of brain development that goes on between 5 and 18, development that can (practically) really only happen then because if the way are brains are formed. Early intervention in conditions as diverse as dyslexia and autism can be significantly improved with consistent and early intervention.
I have seen for myself with my son who has dysgraphia (a hand writing disability that up to 20% of kids suffer from, especially boys) and ADHD (similar to dysgraphia in that it is more common than you think and more often in boys) how much scaffolding (that is externalizing executive functions until they are learned, which is required by all students to some extent) has made a huge difference over the 4 years since his diagnoses. I know in our case we were affluent enough to pay the $1000+ for testing and for me to allocate a whole lot of time and energy to helping him get caught up. He is also naturally super smart. It is unreasonable to think that everyone will have the advantages he has, though, every kid could certainly benefit from them. The goal of equity is/should be to get every kid, to extent possible, the resources through the schools, community, etc what they need to realize their potential.
It seems to me the move from that being “equity” to the new “equity” (rigging every metric to force results) is really just an acknowledgment of how much we have failed in K-12. Let’s do the Stephen Covey practice of “beginning with the end in mind” and spend the money on giving kids the foundation they need. Now statistically, this means we will spend significantly more money on the poor generally, probably disproportionately black and Hispanic. I don’t however think that the focus being on race is helpful to any of the individual children who, I very much believe, deserve better.
Amy,
I used to work with low income families, and I saw first hand that poverty has no color. I think different organizations can do what they can to help every child regardless of race. The key is that human development has to be a priority from everyone involved, especially the parents. Once the parents are not invested, it becomes extremely difficult. And this is why the equity and equality thing become controversial. There are many people out there who don't share the same values for their children, but they want the same results of success that other families posses.
'Parents' is plural so you must mean more than one parent. There's a big problem with that formulation, though I'm loath to spell it out.
No balls! Lol
Precisely!
I agree about the parents. I have two thoughts on that: 1) I’d frame it differently, that those parents don’t have the right tools (emotional, educational, time, etc) to teach their kids to be successful rather than necessarily their values are lacking. It’s a bit of a fine line, but like you say, every parent wants their kid to succeed. 2) Children don’t have any control over their parents, so it is up to society to do what we can to fill in the gaps. I could be wrong, but I think most people agree with that sentiment, at least generally. The problem comes in when we can’t imagine how deprived (for lack of a better word) some kids are. A friend is a teaching assistant at a less affluent school and multiple of her students were living long term in motels…! Even with food from a food pantry the family could only cook using a hotel microwave! You can imagine how many things are sliding in a household like that.
Good points. I've seen those family motel stories also. But no matter what anybody says, society still has to maintain high standards of education so that children can aim high. Lowering standards does not help anyone.
There are strange people out there who think that utopia can be created through the hands of humans in the world of economics, academics, and culture. It's already been tried several times and it failed every time. 100 million dead bodies in the twentieth century is the result.
I agree. I really don’t understand the desire to lower standards. I don’t think any one test is all that meaningful, and agree they should work to make sure they are testing the right thing (my pet peeve math standardized tests that are more reading comprehension than they are math, for example. As if making a question “trickier” tests deeper understanding…) I also have noticed that the first quarter is review of last year, and they have testing in May and learn nothing after that. So that is less than 6 months of new content per year, also criticized as curriculum “teaching to the test.” That schedule is different from when I was a kid, where every year or two we had one standardized test, seemingly at a random time. But they actually held back kids who didn’t learn enough back then too.
Do you really associate utopia and low standards? Like an Animal Farm kind of utopia? All animals are equal (except those that aren’t)? I also hear you calling back to Nazi Gemany and/or socialist Russia. I wouldn't think of those times as low standards, just some really immoral values. I don’t see the connection. Am I missing your point?
Striving for a perfect society on all levels was my point. It is impossible.
The people who want to lower standards have a vision for a perfect society. And it cannot be done.
Ah, okay. I guess I’m enough of an optimist to think it’s worth working toward perfect. =)
Half of life is showing up. Recently, I was shocked to learn that in my mid-sized city's predominantly Black elementary schools, 50% of children don't even show up to school most days. In the my kids' public high school - and this is anectdotal - many Black kids show up to school but spend their days roaming and socializing in the hallways and not in the classroom. How do we expect group averages on test scores not to diverge. On that note, however, if as John implies that Blacks might have something to prove, well so do whites! Asians score best across all socio-economic levels! So much for "White Supremacy!"
As a side note, the idea that predominantly Black schools are underfunded is a myth. In our district in Florida, they get 30-40% MORE per student than predominantly "white" schools.
I think much of the argument for why our society is committed to White Supremacy is that the majority of the people in this country are (or at least were) white and thus the mainstream majority culture can be seen as white. So any time a minority is expected to fulfill the expectations of mainstream culture, it can be argued that is a form of White Supremacy. I don't particularly care if white people make up a majority of the population or if we are merely a plurality. But I will note that we are only a minority majority nation if white hispanics don't count as white. Italians were once considered a minority but have long been lumped in with other white ethnicities. My nieces are 1/2 Mexican and 1/2 Irish & German. Should they be considered white or Hispanic? Does it matter that my oldest niece declined a Quinceanera because most of her friends were Asian? I also recall a former student whose skin was as dark as anyone I've ever met. She got very angry one day when another student said she was Black. "I"M NOT BLACK, I'M HISPANIC!!!" Of course you can be more than one thing, but I didn't see any value in arguing the point with her. Honestly, I really think we lost something when the idea that the U.S. was a melting plot was thrown out. I think everyone should be free to honor their cultural traditions and we should also respect the traditions of others. But I really don't like the idea that cultural appropriation is a bad thing. I started working making pizza as a high school student and continued through college and into law school. I don't have a problem with non-Irish people wearing green on St. Patrick's Day or drinking Guiness (I prefer Harp, myself). What is wrong with a white person buying and wearing a kimono if they like how it looks? I am sure the people that make them don't want to limit their market. So long as you aren't mocking the culture or doing something like wearing a Native American headdress when you aren't Native American (which I understand is considered disrespectful), I don't think cultural appropriation should be a thing.
Very thoughtful comments. The way the melting pot worked is that white anglo saxons built the base and then various ethnicities arrived, assimilated and also added to that base to form the amalgam we have today. I agree with ibram Kendi when he says that Blacks who were dragged here against their will have no obligation to assimilate into that amalgam. What he does not address is that without assimilation- which could be summed up by what Brookings named the three essential ingredients for success (finish high school , get married, have children in that order), how in the world should Blacks as a whole expect to succeed in society? That’s the crux of the issue and I do not see a solution.
When I was teaching, I used to tell my students they should wait until they were at least 25 and married before they had kids. That has nothing to do with morality, I told them. It is all about economics. Unfortunately, that didn't stop one of my honor students from dropping out of school junior year when she got pregnant. I probably should have added the part about graduating high school.
I think she could've used a bit more advice than graduating high school. Something her mother should've told her, perhaps...
Great point about not being about morality but rather how to succeed in this society
The "big three" is BS. (consider carefully the sources). Those are not "ingredients" which, taken together, make successful people—they are characteristic behaviors of people successful for other, more fundamental (and not readily copied) reasons. Causal analysis is required rather than osmosing means from the results of simple statistical correlation.
I disagree. Graduating high school doesn't in and of itself guarantee a high paying job, but you will most likely be able to get a better job than someone who drops out of high school and never earns that degree. Waiting until you are in a committed relationship before having kids means it will be easier to balance work with child care, at least as compared to a single parent. I'm reminded of something Jonah Goldberg wrote recently. He said Jewish mothers don't want their children to become doctors or lawyers because that is a guarantee they will become rich. Instead, it makes it highly unlikely they will be poor. Following Brookings "Big Three" isn't a guarantee of success (depending on the definition) but it does make it highly unlikely you will live in poverty. We should want kids to do more than those things so as to be even more succesfull. But we should want all young people to at least do those three.
Keep thinking about it, it'll come to you. Horse THEN cart.
The Losing Hand
Good point, Jim. There is no other option but to assimilate. I have stated before-The reason why people like Kendi complain about these things is because they are embarrassed by what the black subculture has become. They are ashamed of the disparities compared to those who have assimilated, including the Africans from Nigeria. The success of these groups defeats his argument. That's why he avoids debates. It's better to use whites as a scapegoat because there is an audience for it. It also deflects the blame from blacks. People go along with it because they don't take him seriously enough to hold him to real standards. They are also afraid of being called names. He's getting patted on the head and he doesn't realize it. "In claiming to be wise, they became fools."
Not every black person thinks the same. The black card is subjective since there are millions of ways to be black. That's why many of them fight like children over who's black enough. But none of them can give you one standard definition for what that card means. So it becomes a losing hand as they fight amongst each other like gangs in the street or kids in the schoolyard.
Remember that the Kendis of the world have an audience and that's who they cater to.
Below is one of my favorite episodes of the Glenn Show. It is the final episode of 2018-What is Third-Wave Antiracism?-The link begins with Glenn giving a more in depth analysis about that losing hand.
https://youtu.be/dWHQOSzU_Ug?t=770
I love your post, Michael. Too many people get caught up in identity politics. But try and remember one thing. There are many people who are not comfortable thinking beyond what they see in the mirror. It's also extra work they don't want to do. Your post would be considered too deep for people. They would easily get offended quickly like that student shouting what she is.
As for me, YES, I LOOK BLACK, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A BURDEN FOR ME!!!
What's a "white Hispanic"? Someone from Spain? Argentina? Anywhere else? How many of these critters can there be in the USA? Surely not more than a percent or two...
👏👏👏
Haven’t listened yet .. but heard this today.. “Equity is Jim Crow with a different name”
Glenn or show producers. If you see this, please invite on Dr. Tyrone Howard, Professor of Education and Director of the Black Male Institute at UCLA. He would be an excellent guest with whom to discuss the Black education gap and related issues. Also I have known him and his family my entire life, and he is a great guy all around!
Is there also a White Male Institute at UCLA? Or an Asian Male Institute at UCLA? Of course not. So why the Black Male Institute? More racism and rewards based on skin color instead of merit. Must be horrible to have so many feel such pity for one’s self.
I want to present a contrarian take on the topic of classical music. Personally, I’m tired of the notion that classical music is the pinnacle of the musical form. John describes it as majestic and I’m sure proponents will argue that classical music is in fact objectively more complex and superior compared to other forms of music.
I’d like to disagree. I don’t claim to be much of an expert on music, but I did play classical piano for 8 years back in the day. I enjoy listening to classical music and have even attended a few live classical concerts. I don’t believe classical music is inherently more highbrow or prestigious compared to contemporary musical forms and in my opinion the misguided notion that music by Beethoven, Mozart or Chopin is somehow superior is what led to our existential handwringing over the supposed lack of Blacks in classical music. It’s the same prestige-whoring which results in society agonizing over a supposed lack of racial diversity among the student body at Stuyvesant.
Music is ultimately meant to be performed and enjoyed. What matters is that a piece resonates with a specific individual at a particular moment in time. When I’m in a certain mood I might put on some Debussy but if I’m in a different frame of mind I might listen to Drake instead. Each state embodies an at-that-moment kind of sublimity.
For what it’s worth, the single most sublime musical composition in my opinion is Lil Wayne’s track Love Me. More so than any work by any classical composer like Mozart or Beethoven, Love Me embodies for me the pinnacle of musical genius. The Nobel committee awarded Bob Dylan the Literature Prize in 2016 for “having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition” and in the spirit of fairness and open-mindedness I sincerely hope that the committee will consider Wayne for the Literature prize as well. I say this with at most 10% tongue in cheek and with at least 90% complete seriousness.
I'm glad that John pushed back against the notion that there are too few Blacks in classical music. It’s not a competition. African Americans’ contributions to jazz are a monument of American culture and there’s no reason to believe that their putative underrepresentation in another domain of music constitutes a societal problem worth agonizing over.
"Lack of diversity at Stuyvesant"? Huh? They got more Asians than you can shake a chopstick at. Problem is they got no blacks or Latinos. It's not the lack of diversity that's the problem—it's the lack of the right KIND of diversity. I wonder why that is.
Let us know when you find out, man.
I am by no means a musical expert and have absolutely no musical talent. But it seems to me that one thing that can be said about classical music by composers like Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms is that they have stood the test of time. How much music from the last 40 years will still be widely played in 200 or 300 years? I suspect Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms will be just as important and popular as they are today. Whereas many of the classical composers created their music to be played in churches, I suspect that many composers of film soundtracks will join them in importance. I will be shocked if the music of John Williams isn't widely played centuries from now. Let me correct that. I would be shocked if I were still around which I won't be. But John Williams may still be conducting. He just became the oldest person to be nominated for an Oscar. I thought about suggesting some artists I suspect won't be remembered, but instead I will be nice.
I'm a big fan of film music. I've been to a live John Williams concert and attended a Joe Hisaishi concert last year as well. The late James Horner and Hans Zimmer are a couple of other film composers whose music I really enjoy. That being said, Lil Wayne holds for me the mantle of the single greatest musical composition of all time.
I'm actually a much bigger fan of evaluating music based on how likely it is to withstand the test of time rather than trying to assert the superiority of a musical form based on its supposed inherent complexity. The latter smacks to me of prestige whoring.
I'm reminded of something my 9th grade art teacher said to my class almost 40 years ago. I don't think I remember anything else he said, but I found this statement so absurd it stuck with me. He said "Good art, is good art, even if no-one likes it." I immediately asked him what makes art good art if no-one likes it? He said something about the technical detail that went into its creation. I think that's ridiculous. Although, I think it depends on how you define "like." Art doesn't have to make you happy or make you feel good. I think good art will induce an emotional reaction, but that reaction can be to make you feel sad or angry. Sticking with film, there are certain films I consider to be great, that I have watched once and never want to watch again. Roberto Benigni's Life is Beautiful is one such film. It was beautiful and it affected me emotionally, but did I like it? Yes, but also no. If the teacher had explained he meant something like that I would have agreed with him. But to say all it takes is attention to detail to make art great, I disagreed 40 years ago and I disagree today. I doubt my opinion will change tomorrow.
I immediately wondered what he would think of Charles Mingus’ Let My Children Hear Music or The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. The former being more typical classical orchestral music and the latter being presented as an opera, but both swinging Bop-era Jazz.
THANK YOU, YAN lol
What you said here needed to be said BADLY.
Honestly and respectfully, John needs to get a life on this one. And I say that as someone who has expressed--and regrettably still does on occasion--a similar stubbornness with jazz versus other music genres.
The "problem" here is simple and complicated at the same time. (And it took decades for me to realize this.)
With any established artform, what and/or who deserves what--and what and/or who gets to decide--is one of the most irresolvable dilemmas in the universe.
I was *very* serious about music (jazz) as a teen, and I will never forget this (mentor) trumpet player whose skills were easily on par with Wynton Marsalis et al. This man toured with a couple of legends. His musical credentials were never in question. He played both jazz and classical at the highest levels. But I will never forget the day he expressed a deeper respect for jazz (as opposed to classical), almost solely due to the emphasis jazz placed on improvisation.
That is to say, from his point of view, jazz called on the musician to do more intellectually on the spot.
Now, could John put forth a strong argument against this guy? I don't doubt for a second that he could. But who's gonna declare the winner of that debate? The arts community? The general public?
At the end of the day, nobody.
And by the way, serious jazz musicians/composers, etc. don't randomly start worshipping the new shiny object on the block because it's got a good beat and easy to dance to. That's just insulting lol!
And believe it or not, this same principle applies to the most serious rappers, and the most serious country musicians, and the most serious rock musicians, poets, actors and so forth. What and who they let into the fold, in terms of artistic respect, is anything but random or haphazard.
Now, don't get me wrong. I get the obvious. I don't think KRS-One, from a musically intellectual standpoint, did what Duke Ellington did. I cannot imagine an esteemed music school analyzing the beats behind KRS-One the way they do the harmonies & melodies behind Ellington. But I also recognize that Ellington didn't do what Tchaikovsky did or vice versa, and so forth and so on.
But who/what is/was the more intellectual, musically speaking? The answer is not as easy as you think, especially if you're not a serious artist, and ultimately that's not the issue either.
Established artforms have rules that most people outside of the art will never ever truly understand, no matter how deeply they love the art. (Which frankly, is why McWhorter is so hard-headed about this stuff--it's normal for people like him.)
Art is not calculable in the way that other disciplines are. What is (and isn't) art at the highest levels is often a never-ending conversation and a hopeless debate, particularly if we consider all of the varying genres of art.
One need only look at all the instrumentalists (drummers, pianists, guitarists) who admit that transitioning from playing rock or classical styles to playing jazz is seriously difficult. I also appreciate that so many, from Coltrane and Herbie Hancock to John McLaughlin, found great admiration for Indian classical music. Both musical traditions require lifelong dedication, humility, and a deep respect for the ways of the art form.
Agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, except for the part about Lil Wayne. I don't find him among the top tier of hip hop artists in any way. It could be due to my age, as I cut my hip hop teeth on Eric B and Rakim, EPMD, De La Soul, and Public Enemy. That being said, I am firing up Spotify to check out the track, as I would love to proven wrong!