Here is my latest conversation with John McWhorter. We begin with a review of our respective academic careers and how being black has affected our work. We also assess the recent involvement of Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump in the case of a white Arkansas man who was shot dead in June, under suspicious circumstances, by a police officer during a traffic stop. We close with an extended discussion of
I greatly enjoy listening to your conversations, gentlemen, and often follow up with your references and recommendations. I appreciate your generosity toward the original CRT texts and your skepticism of how the ideas have evolved as they entered mainstream culture and now especially education. (For my part, I am with Mark Milley in that I think CRT should be taught - age-appropriately in schools - just like I believe people should read Marx. How else can you understand their influence? I think you're both in agreement on this point too.) John, you rightly point this out in your debate with Gloria Ladson Billings, when you cast CRT as different from anti-racism training. I think this is a crucial distinction, and there is one feature of it that isn't much discussed anywhere, which I'd love to see you guys pick up on. That's the way current anti-racist work depends heavily, and largely unknowingly as far as I can tell, on certain artifacts of the human potential movement, especially its therapeutic emphasis and the epistemological centrality of emotions. Let me suggest a few guests you could invite to start to bring this feature of the A-R program to light, who have made this historical connection. (1) Elizabeth Lasch-Quinn, who wrote about it in Race Experts; (2) Mark Lilla, who wrote about it in The Once and Future Liberal; (3) Francis Fukuyama, who wrote about it in Identity; and (4) Ross Douthat, who recently referred to "therapeutic anti-racism" in his conversation on Ezra Klein's podcast. The human potential movement has done about as much damage to our culture as anything I can think of, only it hasn't received its due in terms of historical scrutiny. It is this ignorance if its own antecedents that makes current anti-racist work so ineffectual in its focus on whites' self-rumination, as if only their feelings about themselves changed, society would improve. This is classic HPM pablum, and is actually what I see being promoted in schools as anti-racist "work," not CRT as such.
Recently, while reviewing personal notes from 2019, I notice that I complained to a colleague about the faulty logic in an Ibrim X Kendi authored article (or maybe it was photocopies from his book), “How to be an anti-racist”. The response was a predictable silence or no response - and this is from an individual that I have known in-person in a positive or friendly manner for 20 years. The avoidance strategy that high level professionals or administrators employ at locations where due process is prescribed- is astonishing. This severe allergy to discussion must be overcome if society is to function.
I can only imagine if Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter thinking replaced the current "mainstream" noise, how much more significant and fuller the discussion would be in this country on Race and other issues.
There is much I admire about Glenn and John, but I'm always disappointed when I hear John take a smug, seemingly mean-spirited swipe at conservatives. In this episode it was his dismissive comments about Tucker Carlson. One needn't agree with everything Carlson says, but anyone who watches Carlson knows that he is much more complicated than John gives him credit for. Indeed, Carlson seems intellectually curious about many topics that John seems totally incurious about, for example, whether Ukraine played a role in the Dems' Russiagate hoax.
There is much I admire about Glenn and John, but I'm always disappointed when I hear John take a smug, seemingly mean-spirited swipe at conservatives. In this episode it was his dismissive comments about Tucker Carlson. One needn't agree with everything Carlson says, but anyone who watches Carlson knows that he is much more complicated than John gives him credit for. Indeed, Carlson seems intellectually curious about many topics that John seems totally incurious about, for example, whether Ukraine played a role in the Dems' Russiagate hoax.
In your discussions about police shootings where the subject is described as unarmed, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the police use of deadly force (UoDF) is always excessive and unnecessary. While that is often true, it is not automatic. Let me list a few ways such UoDF can be reasonable and justified.
First, unarmed does not automatically mean incapable of posing a legitimate deadly threat. People are often enough beaten to death, strangled to death, or intentionally pushed into danger by otherwise unarmed people. Shooting such a person to prevent them from taking such action could be reasonable and justified.
Second, the media often describes anyone who doesn’t have a gun as unarmed. Guns are not the only form of deadly weapon. I’ve seen screwdrivers used to stab, cue sticks used to club, broken bottles used to slice, and cars used to hit people. All of these things are not weapons unless used as such but can be deadly if used as weapons. A person who is shot by police while in the act of using an improvised weapon is too often described by the media as being unarmed.
Third, there is a phenomenon called Suicide by Cop. Let’s take a hypothetical ex-con who has sworn he’s never going back to prison. He has built a new life, has a job and a woman. But he loses his temper and beats his woman. He knows he’s ruined his new life and is going back to prison. So when the police go to take him into custody, he intentionally makes the police believe he is a deadly threat so they will kill him. (There are many videos out there of cornered suspects begging for the police to “shoot me!”)
Of course, there are times when police UoDF is excessive and unnecessary, but it is by no means automatic. It is necessary to look at all the facts and circumstances of every case before passing judgement.
Glenn you are right about banning CRT. But your point is too narrow. There has been a wholesale change in the textbooks that school districts have been authorizing to be replaced by CRT influenced materials. The bans actually stops that process. So the issue isn't about whether a teacher can discuss CRT with her students. It's about whether a traditional curriculum can be replaced by a socio-emotional learning or cultural responsive teaching. It is a much broader problem than you are making it out to be.
A weekly treat; feels like joining a group of good friends and the joy of listening/ a bit like my chessfriends coming over every thursday here at my place in Amsterdam and discussing world events
Great #GlennShow episode! I also watched the Munk Debate referenced.
Regarding the teachers and advocates of CRT instruction (or 'Praxis'), I agree that these advocates are either intellectually dishonest (LYING). Or, these teachers happen to be true believers, having been steeped in the milieu of critical theory/radical politics. Nevertheless, I disagree this creates a difference in culpability. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions, as the cliche aphorism goes.
These teachers, advocates, and alleged scholars—these pseudo-intellectuals—hold themselves out as serious people. The advocates of CRT assert mastery of a subject (a subject often seemingly unrelated to racial studies, be it law, education, etc.) and take on the responsibility of educating students. Unfortunately, CRT advocates have only mastered the pedagogization of their radical politics, as applied to their field, which somehow manages to espouse racist ideas towards both white and non-white, majority and minority, at the same time. They are not serious people, obviously. Serious people think critically and can see more than their own arguments.
These true believers may disguise their failure and evil deeds in sentiments of empathy, civil rights and 'equity,' but this is not and should not be an acceptable excuse. Being a true believer is no different than being a liar, but it is more insidious. These true believers, teachers have a duty to see and look outside their bubble or the prevailing milieu. If they cannot, they are either willfully blind or too stupid to hold their positions.
By way of example, I'm sure David Duke and many Nazi's were steeped in white supremacy/Arianism for much of their development. But, and regardless, the ideas they espouse are so intrinsically wrong, dangerous, and illogical that no toleration should or was had, once exposed. CRT advocates are no different.
Further to Glenn's point, many of these CRT advocates are intellectually dishonest charlatans—both liars and true believers. Granted, they are not liars in the sense that they are lying to preserve a grand conspiracy but often resort to intellectually dishonest tactics and lies to defend CRT, because their ends justify their very 'altruistic' means (i.e., to hyper-racialize and resegregate the country for equity). They are the most dangerous kind of unreasoning, grossly negligent, simpletons, with far far too much power.
The audio quality on the Glenn Show has improved significantly over the last year. Unfortunately, in this conversation, John's level is too high. His voice is constantly distorting.
Wonderful discussion. I just have to say first that these two guys are just so damn likable and funny and smart and articulate that it gets to be hard to disagree with anything that gets said. Just my opinion.
Here’s a heads up for interested comment readers and G. and J. also. Ibram Kendi and Jason Reynolds have published a new children’s book titled “Stamped-For Kids”. This book is “Antiracist” propaganda disguised as a history of African Americans from 1415 to present. Written for probably junior high level children, it’s goal would seem to be exactly what John and Glenn described so precisely toward the end of the discussion, namely to co-opt our kids into a crusade in furtherance of political objectives which are not shared by anything like a majority of the American population.
I would love to hear John and Glenn do a brief book review, because the gross distortions and breathtaking oversimplifications in this book are beyond my powers of description. I will only say this: If there is a book somewhere that does a better job of leading American children to believe that they now live in one of the most racist, most hateful countries ever to exist, it has yet to be written.
(I have to remind myself that I don’t actually know you and can call you Glenn despite the fact that you and Dr. McWhorter have been a presence in my intellectual life for the past year +)
Both you and Dr McWhorter indicated in this discussion as well in multiple prior discussions that you both believe there is a problem with policing. Whether it’s the Fryer data showing worse non-lethal treatment or the rate of incarceration and disproportionate impact that has had on the black community, you’ve both been quite clear that there’s a problem with policing. You, more than Dr. McWhorter, have also been vehement in pointing out that there’s a problem of lawlessness, undereducation and undersocialization in the urban black communities in the US as well.
So I want to ask you, Dr. Loury, as man of numbers and data, what is the threshold below which you’d say the problem is primarily the latter and the former problem is really negligible as you have with claims of systemic racism?
I’m predicting this question on my understanding of the data. Certainly if The numbers are wrong then my assessment of the policing problem will be as well.
As I understand it, there are about 50,000,000 police-civilian interactions in the US annually. There are consistently about 10,000,000 arrests annually. Approximately 1,100 people are killed by cops annually. 900-1000 are shot. Roughly 100 are unarmed. And from 2015 until 2020 or so, about 40% of the unarmed people shot by cops were black. In 2019 and 2020 this numbers plummeted from around 40 to 17 and 9 IIRC.
Just a little back of the envelope math tells me that the likelihood of being killed by a cop in any interaction is 0.0022% and in an interaction that leads to arrest is 0.11% And if you’re unarmed the numbers are 0.0002% and 0.001% and that’s ALL comers, not just black victims.
So I ask, what’s the threshold for acceptability? Is it 0 killings by cops? I don’t think that’s realistic. Police and perpetrators are human after all so things will go haywire sometimes. So what’s the goal here? I’m all for better training for cops, more de-escalation training, more non-lethal submission training, higher admission standards, lower dismissal standards, the whole thing. We would ALL benefit from that. But is it reasonable to expect markedly better performance than this? Even if you assume undercounting on not only killings but also “hands on” mistreatment of black suspects or anyone else for that matter, how many magnitudes off does the data have to be to achieve a level that totals 1% of arrests? Do you really think all the available data is off by 10 fold? 100fold? And even then you’re talking about cops getting it right 99% of the time.
I was a very good student, but that’s a very high bar. I’m a physician now and I see the same impulse negatively affecting my profession as the bar has become perfection; no complications, no suboptimal outcomes, no accounting for complexity or nuance are acceptable outcomes. So what are we doing here? Or what am I missing?
I hope you can address this aspect at some point either here or maybe with Dr. McWhorter during a Q&A.
I used to say I wished I had better trans education at the age of nine. Now I say I wish my parents had better trans education when I was nine. Giving this shit to children is dangerous, it’s not funny. Dipshits embarrassing themselves to J. K. Rowling show their hand, it’s kind of funny.
I greatly enjoy listening to your conversations, gentlemen, and often follow up with your references and recommendations. I appreciate your generosity toward the original CRT texts and your skepticism of how the ideas have evolved as they entered mainstream culture and now especially education. (For my part, I am with Mark Milley in that I think CRT should be taught - age-appropriately in schools - just like I believe people should read Marx. How else can you understand their influence? I think you're both in agreement on this point too.) John, you rightly point this out in your debate with Gloria Ladson Billings, when you cast CRT as different from anti-racism training. I think this is a crucial distinction, and there is one feature of it that isn't much discussed anywhere, which I'd love to see you guys pick up on. That's the way current anti-racist work depends heavily, and largely unknowingly as far as I can tell, on certain artifacts of the human potential movement, especially its therapeutic emphasis and the epistemological centrality of emotions. Let me suggest a few guests you could invite to start to bring this feature of the A-R program to light, who have made this historical connection. (1) Elizabeth Lasch-Quinn, who wrote about it in Race Experts; (2) Mark Lilla, who wrote about it in The Once and Future Liberal; (3) Francis Fukuyama, who wrote about it in Identity; and (4) Ross Douthat, who recently referred to "therapeutic anti-racism" in his conversation on Ezra Klein's podcast. The human potential movement has done about as much damage to our culture as anything I can think of, only it hasn't received its due in terms of historical scrutiny. It is this ignorance if its own antecedents that makes current anti-racist work so ineffectual in its focus on whites' self-rumination, as if only their feelings about themselves changed, society would improve. This is classic HPM pablum, and is actually what I see being promoted in schools as anti-racist "work," not CRT as such.
Recently, while reviewing personal notes from 2019, I notice that I complained to a colleague about the faulty logic in an Ibrim X Kendi authored article (or maybe it was photocopies from his book), “How to be an anti-racist”. The response was a predictable silence or no response - and this is from an individual that I have known in-person in a positive or friendly manner for 20 years. The avoidance strategy that high level professionals or administrators employ at locations where due process is prescribed- is astonishing. This severe allergy to discussion must be overcome if society is to function.
Re: John’s question if Glenn knew anyone who admitted lied intentionally as a means to some larger end
Would Dr. Fauci qualify?
I can only imagine if Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter thinking replaced the current "mainstream" noise, how much more significant and fuller the discussion would be in this country on Race and other issues.
to john's question: did you ever know a liar? I would submit Kamala "it was a debate" Harris
There is much I admire about Glenn and John, but I'm always disappointed when I hear John take a smug, seemingly mean-spirited swipe at conservatives. In this episode it was his dismissive comments about Tucker Carlson. One needn't agree with everything Carlson says, but anyone who watches Carlson knows that he is much more complicated than John gives him credit for. Indeed, Carlson seems intellectually curious about many topics that John seems totally incurious about, for example, whether Ukraine played a role in the Dems' Russiagate hoax.
There is much I admire about Glenn and John, but I'm always disappointed when I hear John take a smug, seemingly mean-spirited swipe at conservatives. In this episode it was his dismissive comments about Tucker Carlson. One needn't agree with everything Carlson says, but anyone who watches Carlson knows that he is much more complicated than John gives him credit for. Indeed, Carlson seems intellectually curious about many topics that John seems totally incurious about, for example, whether Ukraine played a role in the Dems' Russiagate hoax.
In your discussions about police shootings where the subject is described as unarmed, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the police use of deadly force (UoDF) is always excessive and unnecessary. While that is often true, it is not automatic. Let me list a few ways such UoDF can be reasonable and justified.
First, unarmed does not automatically mean incapable of posing a legitimate deadly threat. People are often enough beaten to death, strangled to death, or intentionally pushed into danger by otherwise unarmed people. Shooting such a person to prevent them from taking such action could be reasonable and justified.
Second, the media often describes anyone who doesn’t have a gun as unarmed. Guns are not the only form of deadly weapon. I’ve seen screwdrivers used to stab, cue sticks used to club, broken bottles used to slice, and cars used to hit people. All of these things are not weapons unless used as such but can be deadly if used as weapons. A person who is shot by police while in the act of using an improvised weapon is too often described by the media as being unarmed.
Third, there is a phenomenon called Suicide by Cop. Let’s take a hypothetical ex-con who has sworn he’s never going back to prison. He has built a new life, has a job and a woman. But he loses his temper and beats his woman. He knows he’s ruined his new life and is going back to prison. So when the police go to take him into custody, he intentionally makes the police believe he is a deadly threat so they will kill him. (There are many videos out there of cornered suspects begging for the police to “shoot me!”)
Of course, there are times when police UoDF is excessive and unnecessary, but it is by no means automatic. It is necessary to look at all the facts and circumstances of every case before passing judgement.
Glenn you are right about banning CRT. But your point is too narrow. There has been a wholesale change in the textbooks that school districts have been authorizing to be replaced by CRT influenced materials. The bans actually stops that process. So the issue isn't about whether a teacher can discuss CRT with her students. It's about whether a traditional curriculum can be replaced by a socio-emotional learning or cultural responsive teaching. It is a much broader problem than you are making it out to be.
A weekly treat; feels like joining a group of good friends and the joy of listening/ a bit like my chessfriends coming over every thursday here at my place in Amsterdam and discussing world events
Great #GlennShow episode! I also watched the Munk Debate referenced.
Regarding the teachers and advocates of CRT instruction (or 'Praxis'), I agree that these advocates are either intellectually dishonest (LYING). Or, these teachers happen to be true believers, having been steeped in the milieu of critical theory/radical politics. Nevertheless, I disagree this creates a difference in culpability. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions, as the cliche aphorism goes.
These teachers, advocates, and alleged scholars—these pseudo-intellectuals—hold themselves out as serious people. The advocates of CRT assert mastery of a subject (a subject often seemingly unrelated to racial studies, be it law, education, etc.) and take on the responsibility of educating students. Unfortunately, CRT advocates have only mastered the pedagogization of their radical politics, as applied to their field, which somehow manages to espouse racist ideas towards both white and non-white, majority and minority, at the same time. They are not serious people, obviously. Serious people think critically and can see more than their own arguments.
These true believers may disguise their failure and evil deeds in sentiments of empathy, civil rights and 'equity,' but this is not and should not be an acceptable excuse. Being a true believer is no different than being a liar, but it is more insidious. These true believers, teachers have a duty to see and look outside their bubble or the prevailing milieu. If they cannot, they are either willfully blind or too stupid to hold their positions.
By way of example, I'm sure David Duke and many Nazi's were steeped in white supremacy/Arianism for much of their development. But, and regardless, the ideas they espouse are so intrinsically wrong, dangerous, and illogical that no toleration should or was had, once exposed. CRT advocates are no different.
Further to Glenn's point, many of these CRT advocates are intellectually dishonest charlatans—both liars and true believers. Granted, they are not liars in the sense that they are lying to preserve a grand conspiracy but often resort to intellectually dishonest tactics and lies to defend CRT, because their ends justify their very 'altruistic' means (i.e., to hyper-racialize and resegregate the country for equity). They are the most dangerous kind of unreasoning, grossly negligent, simpletons, with far far too much power.
The audio quality on the Glenn Show has improved significantly over the last year. Unfortunately, in this conversation, John's level is too high. His voice is constantly distorting.
Wonderful discussion. I just have to say first that these two guys are just so damn likable and funny and smart and articulate that it gets to be hard to disagree with anything that gets said. Just my opinion.
Here’s a heads up for interested comment readers and G. and J. also. Ibram Kendi and Jason Reynolds have published a new children’s book titled “Stamped-For Kids”. This book is “Antiracist” propaganda disguised as a history of African Americans from 1415 to present. Written for probably junior high level children, it’s goal would seem to be exactly what John and Glenn described so precisely toward the end of the discussion, namely to co-opt our kids into a crusade in furtherance of political objectives which are not shared by anything like a majority of the American population.
I would love to hear John and Glenn do a brief book review, because the gross distortions and breathtaking oversimplifications in this book are beyond my powers of description. I will only say this: If there is a book somewhere that does a better job of leading American children to believe that they now live in one of the most racist, most hateful countries ever to exist, it has yet to be written.
Dr. Loury
(I have to remind myself that I don’t actually know you and can call you Glenn despite the fact that you and Dr. McWhorter have been a presence in my intellectual life for the past year +)
Both you and Dr McWhorter indicated in this discussion as well in multiple prior discussions that you both believe there is a problem with policing. Whether it’s the Fryer data showing worse non-lethal treatment or the rate of incarceration and disproportionate impact that has had on the black community, you’ve both been quite clear that there’s a problem with policing. You, more than Dr. McWhorter, have also been vehement in pointing out that there’s a problem of lawlessness, undereducation and undersocialization in the urban black communities in the US as well.
So I want to ask you, Dr. Loury, as man of numbers and data, what is the threshold below which you’d say the problem is primarily the latter and the former problem is really negligible as you have with claims of systemic racism?
I’m predicting this question on my understanding of the data. Certainly if The numbers are wrong then my assessment of the policing problem will be as well.
As I understand it, there are about 50,000,000 police-civilian interactions in the US annually. There are consistently about 10,000,000 arrests annually. Approximately 1,100 people are killed by cops annually. 900-1000 are shot. Roughly 100 are unarmed. And from 2015 until 2020 or so, about 40% of the unarmed people shot by cops were black. In 2019 and 2020 this numbers plummeted from around 40 to 17 and 9 IIRC.
Just a little back of the envelope math tells me that the likelihood of being killed by a cop in any interaction is 0.0022% and in an interaction that leads to arrest is 0.11% And if you’re unarmed the numbers are 0.0002% and 0.001% and that’s ALL comers, not just black victims.
So I ask, what’s the threshold for acceptability? Is it 0 killings by cops? I don’t think that’s realistic. Police and perpetrators are human after all so things will go haywire sometimes. So what’s the goal here? I’m all for better training for cops, more de-escalation training, more non-lethal submission training, higher admission standards, lower dismissal standards, the whole thing. We would ALL benefit from that. But is it reasonable to expect markedly better performance than this? Even if you assume undercounting on not only killings but also “hands on” mistreatment of black suspects or anyone else for that matter, how many magnitudes off does the data have to be to achieve a level that totals 1% of arrests? Do you really think all the available data is off by 10 fold? 100fold? And even then you’re talking about cops getting it right 99% of the time.
I was a very good student, but that’s a very high bar. I’m a physician now and I see the same impulse negatively affecting my profession as the bar has become perfection; no complications, no suboptimal outcomes, no accounting for complexity or nuance are acceptable outcomes. So what are we doing here? Or what am I missing?
I hope you can address this aspect at some point either here or maybe with Dr. McWhorter during a Q&A.
Thanks
Great show.
Here's the link John mentioned. I haven't listened yet but soon will.
https://munkdebates.com/podcast/critical-race-theory
-----------------
What to make of this from Sharpton?
“Hunter did nothing wrong, just like we felt George Floyd did nothing wrong," Sharpton told reporters before the memorial.
Seriously? George Floyd did nothing wrong?
I used to say I wished I had better trans education at the age of nine. Now I say I wish my parents had better trans education when I was nine. Giving this shit to children is dangerous, it’s not funny. Dipshits embarrassing themselves to J. K. Rowling show their hand, it’s kind of funny.