30 Comments

You and John once talked about John’s Munk Debate with Gloria Ladson-Billings where she insisted there was no Critical Race Theory in schools. I came across this talk/lecture of hers where she essentially treats CRT as teaching how racist white people are and what it feels like to be black. https://youtu.be/katwPTn-nhE

Expand full comment

When did the Supreme Court picks ever represent the most qualified person? Is Brett Kavanaugh the most talented jurist? Probably not. He has good connections and the right politics for the pick. That’s all well and good until it’s not a white guy. Now I understand that this is the bind created when standards are lowered to increase diversity, but it smacks of racism and sexism when it is *assumed* that standards are lowered if you aren’t a white man. It also conflates merit with class-based access to the “right” credentials. I think the assessment of “well-qualified” along with whatever political calculations that the President and Senate make should be sufficient to accept a nominee and not question their credentials.

Expand full comment

Strong words, Mr. McWhorter to close out the show. It was a resounding way to end the show!

Expand full comment

Fools rush in. The concept of "race" is equivocal. "Race" can be used in the sense of mid-20th Century physical anthropology to categorize people into groups based on continental ancestry. "Race" can be used in the 19th and early 20th century sense to refer to ethnicity, which includes usually language, culture, religion. For example, in Northern Ireland, you have the Irish Catholics and the Ulstermen, not a lot of genetic distance between the populations, huge cultural distance. The Holocaust was not an action by people belonging to one continental ancestry group exterminating another continental ancestry group, it was between two ethnic groups comprising the same broad continental ancestry group.

It would be helpful in America if people would start distinguishing between race and ethnicity, or "ancestral populations" and ethnicity. As far as genocide, most of your modern genocides are between different ethnicities, not "continental ancestral populations," no doubt in part because most "continental ancestral populations" still live on different continents from one another. I think it is pretty clear what Goldberg was trying to say, notwithstanding the insensitivity of the way she said it.

Expand full comment

There is always criticism of legacy admissions when the topic of affirmative action is raised, but isn't one of the prime benefits of affirmative action for a college's bottom line is that it provides legal cover for legacy admissions and "donor-driven" admissions?

Expand full comment
founding

On the issue of black intellectuals knowing better than the common person, people like Paul Butler have a motive to come up with reasoning that transfers power to the managerial class (themselves), which is why they shun the input of the masses.

Expand full comment

Whoopi apologized then went on a late show that night and doubled down. Then she was suspended. Her apology was dishonest and offensive after she turned right around and said the same damn thing on a last night show. Frankly yes she should be fired .. as ABC set the precedence with others, to crawdad is hypocritical.

Expand full comment

These discussions between Glenn and John serve to consistently illustrate the superiority of Glenn's intellect, the thoroughness of his consideration of current issues involving race and his ability to express his views in a coherent and nuanced way.

Expand full comment
Feb 8, 2022·edited Feb 8, 2022

Whoopi's "suspension" is not going to hurt her. It will probably bring more viewers, especially for The Big Return episode. These type suspensions are like kids being grounded by their parents.

If Whoopi had said "Caucasian" instead of "white," would she have been attacked? Generally, races are divided into three categories: Asian, African, and Caucasian. Here's the formula for outrage these days:

this word thusly + that word thusly + worst interpretation = outrage

It also equals tedious, boring, inane, etc. Even labeling it boring is boring. It's time for recreational outrage to take its place alongside hula hoops and VCR tapes.

Might Whoopi not pose this question upon her return: When bathrooms were marked "Black" and "White," where did Jewish people pee?

FWIW: Wiki points out the term Aryan is "a debunked and obsolete historical race concept."

This was another great episode. It occurred to me while listening that Glenn and John discuss third-rail topics two or three years before Rogan, and five or ten years before the legacy media.

Expand full comment

Glenn and John, thank you.

Expand full comment

Kendi himself got into the cancel Rogan bandwagon by circulating a clip that had been edited to cut out Rogan's response to a guest's preposterous and racist comment about a gene . Here is what Kendi circulated (BTW, he has not deleted this as of now):

https://twitter.com/DrIbram/status/1490377357722542085

And here is the clip with Rogan's response to the guest:

https://twitter.com/andual88/status/1490204264773263361

Expand full comment

Always, fantastic conversations.....thank you so much!

I have been attempting to follow the Joe Rogan event. Here are a couple of threads that clarify what's going on, I believe......and the bottom line is that this is probably not some sort of groundswell, but something of a political hit job.

This is very clarifying:

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1490220423270699009

And here is a thread about one of the people using the clips to make Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) walk back his having supported Rogan: the writer Don Winslow, who apparently has made very liberal use of the "n" word himself in his writing/novels:

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1490152386513408004

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

While agree that in general you shouldn’t be fired for your opinions, let’s ask our selves did he show good judgement in sending a tweet like that given his new employer (University vs libertarian think tank)?

No one is entitled to a job.

Most of us filter our opinions in the work environment, rightly so, to get along. On top of that, he’s a lawyer so he should be able to communicate nuance a bit better than this tweet demonstrated *and* he should understand the way his tweet would sound (sexist/racist). Further more, in general I’d argue employers do have an interest in hiring people who will get along with others and not draw unnecessary negative attention to the employer.

Expand full comment
founding

They should give a course on the school on the value of giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I hear your sarcasm, it’s a lazy way to counter a point. I guess your point is that you should be allowed to express any opinion on Twitter without consequence. Further, if you personally agree with said opinion or find it “normal” and “human” then everything is okey dokey. You can certainly have that opinion. You asked “what’s wrong with him saying it?” I answered. I try to think about a situation from multiple perspectives, and from the perspective of Georgetown University his tweets on the subject might make him no longer a good hire. I didn’t go to law school, but my understanding is that opinions in law school refer to how to apply laws and what laws say, not one’s own personal feelings on whether a specific person or group are “lesser” in their qualifications and what individuals are assigned asterisks. Shapiro also implied the pick was racist and sexist, which I thought we agreed throwing those words around as weapons on Twitter is a bad thing? I guess only when we disagree with the assessment.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Well, since no one has been named, whose qualifications are we comparing?

As near as I can tell, he is saying no black woman would be as qualified as his pick. In my opinion, that is a really strange position to have as there is no way to objectively rank qualifications. It lends itself to sounding like “any black woman would be less qualified and only there through affirmative action.” If I expressed the opinion that “no white man was sufficiently qualified — they just got their jobs because of white privilege and the historic oppression of women and minorities” that would be an equally bizarre and wrong thing to say (though I’m sure some have that opinion).

If you read Shapiro’s apology/correction, he articulately expresses his wish for race and gender neutrality in hiring. If he had tweeted that originally there would be no controversy.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
founding

That's because if you take the position that one person is more qualified than the others, you are perpetuating the meritocracy, so you're not allowed to say it that way.

Expand full comment

Yeah, we've fully transitioned from "your opinion is ludicrous and here's why" to "I disagree so you must be silenced." I also wonder -- because it's often impossible to ferret out what the offense is actually supposed to be in these outrages -- if the Woke aren't afraid they will lose their political grip if people were to realize just how rare truly offensive incidents are.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Professor McWhorter is simply being consistent. He has been clear, repeatedly, that he doesn't feel like any of those cancelations are justified.

Expand full comment

I think you may be missing Jardin’s sarcasm, which I think is making his point.

Expand full comment