The Glenn Show

0:00 What’s on the menu for Glenn’s birthday party 4:49 John’s Twitter spat with Ibram X. Kendi 14:05 What do we lose by changing testing standards? 20:39 Glenn: If groups matter, then culture matters 32:04 How to prove a racist wrong 39:19 The ballad of Glenn and Woody 51:50 Mitchell S. Jackson’s Esquire essay about Clarence ThomasLinks and Readings John and Ibram X. Kendi on Twitter, part oneJohn and Ibram X. Kendi on Twitter, part two John’s NYT piece, “Lower Black and Latino Pass Rates Don’t Make a Test Racist” John’s NYT piece, “Proving Racists Wrong Is Not a Trivial Pursuit”Glenn’s 1992 Commentary essay, “Free at Last?”This American Life segment on Glenn and WoodyMitchell S. Jackson’s Esquire essay, “Looking for Clarence Thomas”Barry Bearak’s 1997 NYT profile of Ward Connerly This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

Normally this week I would post a conversation with John McWhorter. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, we were unable to record. He’ll be back next week. This week, I’m presenting my conversation with Steve McIntosh, President, Co-Founder, and Director of the Institute for Cultural Evolution. I’ve already spoken with two ICE fellows this year—Stephanie Lepp and Greg Thomas—so this TGS episode constitutes a continuation of the series. I ask Steve about his latest book, Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow into a Better Version of Itself, which he delivers as a primer on “cultural evolution.” He traces out a historical narrative that takes us from traditionalism to modernity to our present moment of “progressive postmodernity,” and I ask him whether the more excessive elements of our era should be fought or viewed as a stepping stone to the next phase of cultural development. Steve’s answer: “both.” He discusses his account of the last 300 years mostly in terms of Europe and North America, so I ask him how the rise of East Asia fits into the evolutionary processes he discusses. The recent attack on Salman Rushdie leads me to wonder how a cultural evolutionist framework can help us deal with radically anti-modern movements like violent Islamic fundamentalism, and Steve advocates for the promotion of moderate forms of Islam that are in-step with the rest of the world. Steve includes worrying identitarian movements like Black Lives Matter and Kendiesque anti-racism within the progressive postmodern paradigm, but he also thinks that many good things—like gay rights—have come out of it. We close our conversation by considering what a cultural evolutionist has to say about the increasingly dire political polarization we’re experiencing in the US and development within African American communities. I don’t know that I’m wholly convinced by the grand historical narrative Steve offers, but we need as many new ideas as we can get in the discourse, and cultural evolution does have many virtues (like its praise of economic liberty). I look forward to reading your comments. Featured Content from City JournalStephen Eide discusses homelessness in New York City, the immigration related surge in shelters, and Mayor Adams sparring with Texas Governor Abbot. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.0:00 A scheduling announcement from Glenn 1:28 Steve's latest book, Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow into a Better Version of Itself 7:54 From modernity to progressive postmodernism 15:18 Are we in the midst of cultural evolution or culture war? 19:02 The work of the Institute for Cultural Evolution 30:52 “Modernist consciousness” in East Asia 37:07 Steve: “Force is necessary but not sufficient” to combat violent Islamic fundamentalism 44:01 The positive side of progressive postmodernism 49:15 Can cultural evolution overcome political polarization in the US? 55:38 A cultural evolutionary perspective on the African American development narrative Links and ReadingsInstitute for Cultural EvolutionSteve's latest book, Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow into a Better Version of Itself Steve’s book with John Mackey and Carter Phipps, Conscious Leadership: Elevating Humanity Through BusinessBari Weiss’s recent speech to University of Austin studentsGlenn and John McWhorter’s conversation with Richard WolffSteve’s white paper on political polarization in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week, one of the most controversial TGS guests of all time returns: Penn Law professor Amy Wax. She’s currently in a dire predicament. Her job is on the line. Whatever you think of Amy’s positions, there are issues at play in her case that have implications for people of all political persuasions, and she deserves to be heard out. Amy begins by recounting the events that have led up to her conflict with the administration at Penn Law and taking issue with the charges leveled at her by the school’s dean, Theodore Ruger. Some of those charges are quite serious: racism, sexism, and xenophobia. But Amy contends that they are overblown and implausible. Amy thinks this conflict began when she questioned the efficacy and ethics of affirmative action in public. If the LSATs and other standardized tests predict classroom performance, we shouldn’t be surprised when students admitted with low test scores don’t perform well. That’s a perfectly logical position, yet Amy has been pilloried for taking it. And I agree with her! But I tell her I do feel a little uncomfortable when I’m confronted by students who take my analysis of affirmative action personally. It’s clear that, even though Amy has tenure, her job is at risk Despite the very strong free speech protections guaranteed by tenure, she may be fired for speaking her mind in public. While I don’t agree with her on many issues, I think that would be a disaster. It could open the door to the evisceration of free inquiry within the American university. Amy has said and done many controversial things, including inviting the white nationalist Jared Taylor to speak with to her students. But Amy teaches a course on conservative political and legal thought, and Taylor is an influential figure in some far-right circles. I do press Amy on this, because she has espoused interest in the kind race realism associated with Taylor, and she argues that his ideas at least merit serious consideration.Amy and I are friends, but it wasn’t always so. I recall our first encounter, when she challenged some of my claims about race and mass incarceration. I wasn’t pleased at the time, but I’m now glad she had the freedom to make the comments she made (even though I still think I’m right). As she says, reality is often upsetting and uncomfortable, and if we choose to hide our heads in the sand rather than confronting reality, we can’t say we’re interested in the truth. That I do agree with. And I stand with her in fight to pursue the truth, even if we differ on where it may be found. If you want to support her, she provides some ways you can do that.The comments section is always explosive after Amy appears on TGS, so I’m looking forward to seeing what debates emerge. Let me know what you think!This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.Featured Content from City JournalCharles Fain Lehman & Renu Mukherjee on why support for the Democratic Party among high-skilled Asian-Americans is not immutable, which opens opportunities for Republican lawmakers to grow their voter base.0:00 Amy’s recent conflict with the Penn Law School administration  7:38 Amy responds to her dean’s charges of racism, sexism, and xenophobia  16:38 Should we take students’ feelings into account when discussing race and admissions?  27:34 Glenn: If Amy is fired, it will be an outrage beyond belief 34:53 Why Amy invited Jared Taylor to speak with her students 44:28 Amy’s defense of race realism’s legitimacy  50:25 Glenn and Amy’s first encounter  53:36 Amy: Sometimes reality is upsetting and offensive 58:58 How to help AmyLinks and ReadingsDean Theodor Ruger’s letter to the Penn Faculty Senate asking for a review of Amy’s conductAmy’s past conversations with Glenn Donate to Amy’s legal defense fund This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

John McWhorter is back, reporting from his Catskills bungalow for the latest installment in our ongoing conversation. Let’s get into it. While I’m at home rather than a bungalow, I’m fresh off a wonderful vacation in North Carolina, which I spent surrounded by my wife, children, and grandchildren. Two of my granddaughters are now young women in college and law school, and they had some questions for me about some of the public positions I’ve taken. I recount the discussions I had with them about the Harvard-UNC affirmative action case and the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling. John recounts how calls for proportionate racial representation in the performing arts are leading not only to backstage disruptions but to the elevation of theatrical works that, in John’s view, lack quality but have the “right” political message.John thinks that intellectual insecurity sometimes plays a part in calls for “racial reckoning,” especially on campus. He notes that he never sees his most high-achieving and intellectually confident black students at Columbia involving themselves in campus activism of that kind, and I’ve had the same experience at Brown. All John’s stories about attempts to accommodate racial uprisings within the performing arts makes me wonder when someone is going to say “enough is enough.” Democratic politicians don’t seem willing to do it, but what about CEOs, heads of foundations, and other leaders in the private sector? It’s time for them to opt out of the DEI game.We end by returning again to the arts. John has written an excellent column arguing that, in most cases, we shouldn’t let the flawed personal views of artists stop us from enjoying their art. And we close with the disturbing case of Salman Rushdie, who is still in the hospital following last week’s attempt on his life.As always, I look forward to reading your comments.This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.Featured Content from Manhattan Institute ScholarsOn this episode of the Hoover Institution’s Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson talks with Manhattan Institute fellows Roland Fryer and Rafael Mangual about what is and is not working in policing and law enforcement in the U.S. 0:00 A report on the Loury family reunion 9:22 Identity politics onstage and backstage 19:22 Insecurity-driven campus grievance 27:01 Glenn: When will non-right-wing leaders say “Enough!” to racial grievance? 36:16 John: People with ugly opinions can also produce great art … 52:35 … but are there significant figures whose views disqualify them from public honor? 56:38 Considering fundamentalist Islam and human nature after the Salman Rushdie assaultLinks and Readings We See You, White American Theater’s “Principles for Building Anti-Racist Theatre Systems”New York City Center Encore!’s page for The LifeJames Baldwin’s 1949 essay, “Everybody’s Protest Novel”John’s NYT column, “Let’s Have Fewer Cancellations. Let People Take Their Lumps, Then Move On.”James Baldwin and William F. Buckley’s 1965 debate at Cambridge UniversityJames Baldwin’s 1962 essay, “Letter from a Region in My Mind” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

As I announced last week, we here at the newsletter and The Glenn Show have a new partner: the Manhattan Institute. I realize some of you may not be familiar with the Institute’s work and point of view, so today I’ve got Manhattan Institute President Reihan Salam on the show to talk about what the Institute does and how some of its scholars and fellows are thinking about the problems facing New York and other American cities today. The Manhattan Institute is often regarded as a conservative place, but as you’ll hear, there’s nothing predictable or partisan about how Reihan understands those problems and their potential solutions. Reihan begins by talking a bit about how he first became aware of me and my work. He’s a formidable thinker himself, so I have to say I’m pretty flattered! After discussing how he came to take on his current role at the Manhattan Institute, Reihan talks about some of the changes in crime rates in US cities necessitate a renewed focus on public safety. New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, has shifted more resources to public safety-oriented initiatives. Reihan talks about what that shift might mean for the city. In many ways, Adams’s approach to governing doesn’t line up with Democratic national policy positions, and Reihan talks about how dissenters within political parties and movements (both left and right) can create needed change. Some of that change, Reihan argues, needs to come from more investment in certain government-run agencies, including those that comprise the criminal justice system. For example, he wants to see safer streets for ordinary citizens but also safer prisons for the incarcerated. The conversation moves on to education, and Reihan describes what he sees as the positive developments in New York schools under Michael Bloomberg, which languished under Bill de Blasio’s mayorship. And finally, we turn to race matters. Reihan is deeply skeptical that flattening out racial and ethnic identity under the banner of “BIPOC” actually helps ethnic minority communities, and he’s equally skeptical of the ways that racial identity has become central to how so many people think of themselves today. I agree, but I also wouldn’t want to discard the valuable histories and traditions that go along with our conception of race and identity. Maybe I want it both ways, but shouldn’t I be able to have that? If this conversation is any indication, TGS and MI have got a long, fruitful collaboration ahead of us. I’m looking forward to all the good work to come. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.Featured Content from City JournalRenu Mukherjee on San Franscisco's misguided effort to do away with standardized testing for its most selective public high school—how it undermined merit and hurt many of the kids it intended to help. 0:00 Glenn’s impact on Reihan 5:38 How Reihan became president of the Manhattan Institute 11:15 What is the Manhattan Institute’s relationship to Eric Adams’s administration? 18:40 The value of dissenters 22:07 Reihan: We’ve underinvested in our criminal justice system 29:31 What constitutes a quality high school education? 36:38 Michael Bloomberg’s education initiatives 41:58 Reihan’s concerns about racial reification 50:08 The uses and abuses of racial identityLinks and ReadingsTariq Modood, Steven Teles, and Glenn’s book, Ethnicity, Social Mobility, and Public Policy: Comparing the US and UKRafael Mangual’s book, Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong and Who It Hurts MostIsmail K. White and Chryl N. Laird’s book, Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political BehaviorMatt Feeney’s book, Little Platoons: A Defense of Family in a Competitive Age This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week on The Glenn Show, John McWhorter and I are joined by Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Visiting Professor of International Affairs at the the New School. Richard is Marxian in his orientation and I am not, so we do some debating here. And while we may not agree on much as far as economics goes, we do share some concerns about the direction of the left in this country. Before the conversation, I make an important announcement: Beginning today, I’m partnering with the Manhattan Institute to bring you The Glenn Show and this newsletter. I lay out what this means in my introduction and in conversation with John at the end of the show, but here are two important takeaways. First, I will maintain full editorial independence over all the content on the podcast and at the newsletter. And second, we’re lowering the cost of the newsletter. For monthly subscribers, fees will drop from $7/month to $6/month. The price of an annual subscription will drop even more substantially, from $70/year to $50/year. For those of you who already have an annual subscription, we’ll extend it by three months to make up the difference. I’m having success here at TGS, and I want to share it with you.And with that, let’s get into it. Richard begins by describing his student days and early career, when he was relatively quiet about his Marxism, the post-Occupy Wall Street environment that made him into a public intellectual, and his origins in Youngstown, Ohio, where the flight of capital devastated the formerly thriving industrial city. He argues that capitalism is not only bad for democracy but inherently anti-democratic, since it allows unelected CEOs and boards of directors to determine the economic fate of huge swathes of the populace. I take some issue with this. First, I ask Richard to respond to Friedrich von Hayek’s claim that markets will always allocate information and resources more efficiently than centrally planned economies. Second, I raise the point that business owners are entering into a contract with employees. It’s a standard exchange of goods and services. Why should employees have any right to the business owner’s property beyond an agreed-upon wage or salary? There is also the matter of socialism’s historical track record, which Richard defends. Richard and I do find some common ground in our skepticism toward the contemporary left, which sometimes seems to have abandoned the working class in favor of identity politics. Once Richard departs, John and I discuss my new partnership with the Manhattan Institute. He and I both want to make clear that John himself is not employed by the Manhattan Institute, though he used to be, and he still respects what they do. There’s a lot happening in this episode and in TGS World. As always, I look forward to reading your comments.This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.0:00 A special announcement from Glenn 3:47 Richard’s journey from quiet Marxist to public intellectual 9:08 Why Youngstown, Ohio was left behind  12:04 Richard: Capitalist ownership is inherently anti-democratic 15:41 Richard’s critique of Hayekian libertarianism    21:44 Pecuniary externalities vs. objective externalities  23:49 Socialism’s historical track record  31:07 Employees as stakeholders  34:36 The rise of the right in the wake of the New Deal and WWII 42:00 The Glenn Show’s new partnership with the Manhattan InstituteLinks and ReadingsThe Manhattan InstituteRichard’s book (with Stephen Resnick), Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR Glenn and John on Herschel WalkerClifton Roscoe’s critique of Glenn and John on Herschel WalkerJohn’s NYT column about Walker This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week, we’re getting into cosmic terrain here on The Glenn Show with my guest and Brown University colleague, theoretical physicist Stephon Alexander.Steph takes his inspiration not just from other physicists but from artists and musicians as well. And I can report from personal experience that he is a tremendous jazz saxophonist. For him, there’s nothing superficial about the relationship between science and art. His first book, The Jazz of Physics, explores the connection between music and the elemental forces that hold our universe together. Steph’s project reminds me of one of my favorite books, Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, which explores the role of self-reference in science, art, and music. Apparently I’m on the money, and Steph explains the central role of self-reference in his books. Steph and I both work in quantitative fields that demand measurable excellence of their participants, so I ask Steph what he thinks of racial and ethnic disparities in math-heavy areas of study. He describes his own experience as a teacher and as an undergrad, and how he learned that he would not only have to master the material but overcome lowered expectations that would only have held him back. Steph takes us through his latest book, Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics, which looks at the role of innovative “outsiders” (among whom Steph counts himself). Blacks may be “outsiders” in physics now, but the same was once true of Jews, and Steph talks about the inspiration he takes from the great Jewish physicists. This leads us to discuss some of my own ideas about stigma, and we have a good laugh about the times when stigma has led people to underestimate us. And finally, the question you’ve all been waiting for: What exactly is the Higgs boson, and why is its discovery such a big deal? I’ve learned a ton from talking to Steph, and I hope you will, too. I’m sure this isn’t the last time you’ll see him on TGS. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.0:00 Glenn and Steph’s jam session 2:29 Steph’s adventures in the multiverse 6:40 The parallels between black art and physics 12:34 The centrality of self-reference in Steph’s work 18:26 Is there a racial dimension to how excellence reveals itself in students? 32:34 How Steph learned to level up 41:04 Steph’s new book, Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics 48:50 Steph’s admiration for prior generations of Jewish physicists 56:48 How Glenn and Steph navigate stigma 1:10:43 What is the Higgs boson?Links and ReadingsSteph’s first book, The Jazz of Physics: The Secret Link between Music and the Structure of the UniverseSteph’s latest book, Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of PhysicsUltramagnetic MCs’ “Watch Me Now”Douglas Hofstadter’s book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden BraidGlenn’s book, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

John McWhorter is back again for one of our twice-monthly conversations. This is a hot one, so let’s get into it. In this week’s episode, we discuss three controversial figures: Herschel Walker, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Wax. We begin with John’s outstanding column about Walker, the Republican candidate for Senate in Georgia. John pulls no punches. He sees Walker as an insultingly underqualified contender meant solely to attract Georgia’s sizable black vote. John argues that Walker seems to have no meaningful knowledge of any relevant policy issue, and he’s apparently uninterested in trying to make it seem like he does. I do my best to present the case for Walker, but John does have a point. Robert Woodson and I wrote an open letter decrying recent ugly, racist (let me say again, racist) attacks on Justice Clarence Thomas, and John has signed on. I argue that, no matter what you think of Thomas’s conservatism, he is undeniably a towering figure in American jurisprudence. His influence and ideas will be felt for generations, and his life story as an African American born under Jim Crow who has risen to the pinnacle of the legal system is iconic. The attempt to write him out of black history just because he’s a conservative is disgraceful. It’s hard to find someone who has been the subject of more controversy than Thomas, but my friend Amy Wax has got to be in the running for second place. John is disturbed by reports that Amy allegedly brings some of her edgier ideas about race into the classroom when she teaches. I certainly don’t endorse all of Amy’s positions, and I think that one must be especially thoughtful when speaking in front of a classroom. But I can’t abide the idea that Amy would be punished simply for holding views that some people don’t like. That’s why I’m inviting her back to The Glenn Show.I’m sure everyone’s going to have a lot to say about this one. I can’t wait to read your comments, so fire away!This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.0:00 John: Republicans’ elevation of Herschel Walker is an insult 9:43 If Walker is so inept, why does he have so much support?  15:16 Where’s the outrage over racist attacks on Clarence Thomas? 24:55 Thomas’s historical significance  36:03 The Clarence Thomas (and Al Sharpton) we don’t see 41:31 Are Amy Wax’s views beyond the pale?  53:59 John: “Amy should know better” 1:09:13 Amy Wax’s return to The Glenn Show Links and ReadingsJohn’s NYT column, “When Republicans Backed Herschel Walker, They Embraced a Double Standard”Glenn and Robert Woodson’s open letter on Clarence ThomasThurgood Marshall’s Bicentennial Speech Gerald Early’s Common Reader essay, “Black Conservatives Explain It All! or Princes and Powers 2.0”Glenn’s most recent conversation with Amy WaxAmy Wax’s book, Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st CenturyGlenn’s Daily Pennsylvanian column in support of Amy Wax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

My guest this week is my friend Rajiv Sethi. Rajiv is Professor of Economics at Barnard College, Columbia University and External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and he writes an occasional newsletter at Imperfect Information. He’s published widely on problems of crime and segregation, among many other topics, and as you’ll hear in this conversation, he’s done some deep thinking about an area that is sadly pertinent to our society today: gun violence. I first ask Rajiv to catch me up on how economists are thinking about the state of financial markets today, and in short, things aren’t looking good. You don’t need a PhD in economics to know that. Just look at your stock portfolio. But Rajiv makes an interesting connection between the economist John Kenneth Galbraith’s analysis of the stock market crash of 1929 and the ongoing, much-publicized cryptocurrency crash. Rajiv talks about his blogging and his Substack, including his critique of Sundhil Mullainathan’s analysis of bias and police violence. We move on to the recent Supreme Court gun ruling and attempts by gun control advocates to float policies intended to reduce gun violence. Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours. I’m very much against racial essentialism, but we see it everywhere, including in our school with CRT-influenced policies and practices. While Rajiv acknowledges the excesses, he sees an equal threat coming from the anti-CRT backlash, and points to the case of Cecilia Lewis as an example. Along the same lines, he thinks that many critiques of the 1619 Project miss something important about the true depth and length of American history. And finally, we return to the problem of gun violence and bias in policing. Rajiv’s got an interesting idea to disincentivize illegal gun sales and some theories about why we see such stark racial disparities in the commission of gun crimes. Yesterday, I posted a conversation with John McWhorter that addressed civil and constructive disagreement. Rajiv and I certainly disagree about some things, but his arguments can’t simply be brushed aside. I’m quite interested to know what you all think of this one. Let me know!This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.0:00 The cryptocurrency bezzle  6:52 Rajiv’s critique of the contact hypothesis 12:53 Will popular proposed gun control measures meaningfully reduce homicides?  19:08 Can we talk about culture without becoming essentialists? 30:19 Rajiv: I find self-censorship and anti-CRT mobs equally disturbing 43:28 Debating the 1619 Project 51:00 Rajiv’s idea to reduce illegal firearm sales: gun insurance  1:02:35 Why do we see such racial disparities in gun violence? Rajiv has some theories 1:11:02 What did we learn from the second Justice Department investigation in Ferguson? Links and ReadingsJohn Kenneth Galbraith’s book, The Great Crash 1929Rajiv’s Substack, Imperfect InformationRajiv’s post about The Anatomy of Racial InequalitySendhil Mullainathan’s NYT piece, “Police Killings of Blacks: Here Is What the Data Say” Rajiv’s post about Mullainathan’s claims Rajiv and Brendan O’Flaherty’s book, Shadows of Doubt: Stereotypes, Crime, and the Pursuit of JusticeRajiv’s conversation about guns with Bari Weiss and David French Glenn and Hanming Fang’s paper, “‘Dysfunctional Identities’ Can Be Rational” Glenn’s Cato Unbound essay, “A Nation of Jailers” and responses Nicole Carr’s ProPublica piece, “White Parents Rallied to Chase a Black Educator Out of Town. Then, They Followed Her to the Next One.” Ralph Ellison’s essay, “What America Would Be Like Without Blacks” Albert Murray, The Omni-Americans: Some Alternatives to the Folklore of White SupremacyJill Leovy’s book, Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in AmericaGlenn’s conversation with Robert Woodson and Sylvia Bennett-Stone Voices of Black Mothers United This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

Last month, John McWhorter and I participated in Heterodox Academy’s 2022 conference in Denver, Colorado. We spoke in front of an audience and discussed how to model constructive disagreement. But before that, we had a bit of a warm-up session with Zach Rausch, host of the Heterodox Out Loud podcast. Zach had us in to talk about our long relationship as conversation partners, civil discourse, and the purpose of the university. Newer listeners may be interested to hear about my “origin story” with John. While we’re good friends now, that wasn’t always the case. We’ve had our ups and downs, and we’ve switched sides on some issues. (Here’s our first recorded conversation, from November 2007.) But we keep coming back because we enjoy talking to each other too much to quit, and because we believe if we don’t have the kind of conversations we have, they might not happen at all. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.JOHN MCWHORTER: There's another thing actually, which is, you should distrust if you can look into yourself, a feeling that you're arguing for a point because doing so is what makes you a good person. You should strive to get away from the belly and stick with the head.GLENN LOURY: We come to the university as black or white or Latino or gay or trans. That's not who we are. Our essence is much broader and finer and deeper and richer and human than that. ZACH RAUSCH: Glenn Loury and John McWhorter on Heterodox Out Loud. I'm Zach Rausch. Today, a special conversation with both of them. This was recorded at Heterodox Academy's 2022 Conference in Denver. For those who could not be at the conference, we got your back. We recorded a few exclusive conversations with our featured speakers to give you a taste of the extraordinary conversations that were had. Our guests today are Glenn Loury, professor of the Social Sciences and Economics at Brown University, and John McWhorter, professor of Linguistics at Columbia University. John has authored over 20 books on issues of race and language and writes a widely read biweekly newsletter for the New York Times. Glenn has published numerous influential books on race, inequality, and economics. He's also the well-known host of the podcast The Glenn Show on BloggingheadsTV, where John is a regular guest. In our interview, we discuss the future of higher education and how we can improve our collective discourse. It was recorded on the morning of their talk at the conference. I asked Glenn what they'd be discussing. GLENN LOURY: I haven't got any idea. All I know is that the subject matter is how do you have productive conversations? I take it that John and I, in our podcast practice, model productive conversation. And so we're going to be reviewing the nuts and bolts and the foundation of how it is that we're able to discuss contentious matters with one another productively. In 2007, a guy called Josh Cohen, a philosopher at Stanford, invited me onto Robert Wright's platform Bloggingheads to discuss some lectures that I had given on mass incarceration at Stanford that year. That was my first exposure to any kind of podcasting. I came on. I had a couple of conversations with Josh. They were well received. Bob Wright invited me to be a regular contributor to his platform, hosting a variety of people of my choosing, and John was one of those people. This is 2007, at the height of the Democratic Party primary contest, which Barack Obama ultimately won. So John and I started having conversations prompted by the events of the day around questions of race. And my association with Bloggingheads developed such that I was doing a post once a week or so at Bloggingheads, and John would be a guest once a month or so on the platform that I was developing with Robert Wright at Bloggingheads. And that went on from 2007 continuously until the present day. We've expanded our reach, moved from the Bloggingheads platform to Patreon to Substack, and talk now every other week on a regularly scheduled basis, John and I, the black guys. JOHN MCWHORTER: Glenn and I were not exactly chummy for a lot of the aughts, and, not enemies, but we were not warm and fuzzy. And when we had our first conversation, it was amidst that context, and I think both of us knew it. And in terms of the fact that apparently Glenn and I have conversations that somebody might want to model their own after, which is something that I don't think either one of us ever thought about consciously, but that's what people seem to see, I think part of the way that probably we may have something to offer in that is that for our first session, it's not like it was two friends talking. We were coming from different places, and yet neither one of us were angry. It didn't get ugly. And so, for example, to take an instructive contrast—and this has nothing to do with settling scores—during that same era, I had a Bloggingheads exchange with Ta-Nehisi Coates, and this is before he was as famous as he would become. But Ta-Nehisi Coates and I have very different views on things, and the way it ended was a little bit unpleasant. And I would have to say that I was the person who initiated that, not him. But that was the way that you don't do it. You don't let the feelings get into the discussion. Glenn and I have never had that. There is an equipoise that many people could master where you could learn to converse about things that touch you in your gut. ZACH RAUSCH: And do you consider yourselves friends? JOHN and GLENN: Yeah. ZACH RAUSCH: Where do you think your strongest disagreements are between the both of you? JOHN MCWHORTER: Moralism, the morality of these issues. We seem to really hit a wall on that in that there's a part of you, Glenn, who is appalled at the way certain people behave, both rioters and, say, Nikole Hannah-Jones. Whereas there's a part of me that is annoyed but is always trying to think, are they capable of thinking out of their box? How angry can we be at them? We have an issue there. GLENN LOURY: Yeah. The way John once put it was, Omar makes me mad, but Omar makes him sad. Now, Omar is one of these characters that John has invented. This is part of his modus operandi. He creates these names for people, these types, these stereotypes or prototypes, and we kind of know who he's talking about. And Omar is a ruffian and ghetto bound, miscreant, messes up, commits crimes, doesn't take care of his kids, is standing on top of a car saying, “Burn this town,” and things of this kind. This is Omar. And I'm mad as hell at Omar. He pisses me off, and he makes John sad. And John wants to understand the Omar's of the world. JOHN MCWHORTER: I do, because I think Omar is a very parochial figure. I think Omar, just, it’s the only language he ever knew. I have a recoil in terms of Omar, if I was standing there watching him climbing up on the car. Omar is not my friend, but I look at him and I think, how could he know otherwise? And maybe in that I'm being too forgiving, maybe change doesn't happen when you think that way. Because what I'm doing is basically falling for the whole root causes bit, which has created so much harm. But I honestly think that a little bit of it is a way of avoiding the anger, which I'm afraid could also get in the way of constructive policy. I feel sorry for Omar, somehow. GLENN LOURY: He calls it moralism, and I would call it judgment. Yes, there is a certain right and wrong motivation to the anger that I have toward the bad acting ghetto dweller, but I'm going to argue that we need to set and give voice to standards of judgment about what is a right and wrong way of living. And I'm not afraid to say that this is the right way to live. Call it moralism, if you will. I'm not apologizing for that. JOHN MCWHORTER: You know, another thing, actually, that we ran up against, it's not as relevant now, but I was in love with Obama before he got in. I was really caught up in that romance. You refused to be. You were for Hillary. You thought she seemed like she would be the better president. In that you're probably right. But you weren't caught up in that idea of, “Oh, we're going to have the first black American president in the White House.” That was very logical of you. I could not summon logic to that extent. GLENN LOURY: It's generous of him to admit that I was right and he was wrong about something. I think that he was right and I was wrong about Donald Trump. Not that I was ever a Trump supporter, but I would say, man, lighten up on Trump. The people elected him president. If you don't like him, vote him out of office. The Trump derangement syndrome is unbecoming of you. Trump's an idiot. Trump whatever. I'm saying you're showing contempt for the 40 or 45% of your fellow countrymen who support Trump. Those are the people that you need to be having an argument, et cetera. So ultimately, when Trump tried to seize the presidency after having lost an election, I had to admit I was wrong about Trump. ZACH RAUSCH: Why do we need to have conversations between people who disagree with each other? Even if you don't change each other's minds? JOHN MCWHORTER: The soul of being an educated or enlightened person is to have come to realize that life and the world around us are complex if they don't lend themselves to easy answers. My mother once said, when I asked her when I was about ten, why do people go to college because even at that age I could tell unless they were techies they weren't coming out with any skill or they didn't seem to know the state capitals any better than anybody else. And I was saying, why are they in college? And she said, what you come out with in college is a sense that the answer to interesting things is not “Well, all I know is” and a snap of the fingers. And she's right about that. And what that means is that anything that's interesting is subject to different views about which there will be discussions where you learn about what the different views are. If you can't do that, you're not an enlightened person. And I think there's a tacit sense that you can be an enlightened person, but when it comes to race issues in particular, suddenly everything is very easy and no one else is to be listened to. No, it's the same with race, despite the injustice of black history. And so yeah, to be able to have a civil discussion even about polarizing issues is part of seeing further and having learned what the world is like. Many people who can't do that think that they are the enlightened ones and that they have a higher wisdom. But actually they are the blind man looking at the elephant. Their lens isn't wide enough. That's what I think. GLENN LOURY: Yeah, I think that's right. I think they're epistemic. How do you know something? Well, you know, by honing the precision and depth of your own argument, which is what you do in response to someone who has a different point of view. That's what the back and forth is about. You think this? I think that I think you're wrong. Here's why I think you're wrong. No, no, no, actually this is the reason that you're wrong. And that give and take and back and forth allows one to have a greater, deeper command of one's own position. But the other reason I think it's fundamentally important that we talk across the line is the health of our democratic order. We have to be able to deliberate about matters peacefully. The alternative to civil argument ultimately is violence. I don't think we want to go down that road. ZACH RAUSCH: Okay, let's switch to the academy. In higher ed, what are the conversations that are not happening and that you think need to happen more often? GLENN LOURY: Well, I would say the purpose of the university as an institution to foster research and search for truth and the development of the intellectual depth of the students and not a political platform for this or that enthusiasm where the university has to stand on the right side of history. So what is the university about ultimately? That's the way I would put it. JOHN MCWHORTER: Yeah. Or the tacit sense that the university is the university when it comes to physics or teaching French irregular verbs, but that when it comes to the tenants of early twenty-first century leftist social justice orthodoxy, there's only one thing to be taught and that there's no discussion to be had. The idea that the university is supposed to stand for that is extremely narrow and parochial. It won't look good in the future. And that needs to be questioned, although it's difficult because it's getting to the point where everybody who runs the show is steeped in that tacit sense of what it is to teach. But it isn't. And we need to go back to the original idea. ZACH RAUSCH: So how do we do it? How do we have better conversations? Where do we start on an individual level? GLENN LOURY: I’d offer a couple of things. One is, listen to your interlocutor. Listen. Don't be so much in a hurry to try to get your point across that you don't hear what's being said to you from the other side. That's a skill that one can develop. It requires patience and a certain amount of discipline. Listen. Actually, John taught me a lot about that, because he and I had a minor falling out over the fact that I interrupted him in the midst of it. I had developed this habit of cutting him off. And the reason I was cutting him off is because I was in such a hurry to say what I was thinking that I wasn't listening to what he was saying. So that's one thing. JOHN MCWHORTER: You know, there's another thing, actually, which is you should distrust, if you can look into yourself, a feeling that you're arguing for a point because doing so is what makes you a good person. You should strive to get away from the belly and stick with the head. You should be able to see that just saying, “Are you in favor of racism? Isn't that racism? How does that battle racism?,” that's so very vague, that sort of reasoning. It would also apply with sexism or any number of other isms. That will only make sense to you if what you're trying to do is validate your sense of being a good person as opposed to operating on the level of logic. The whole social justice argument is based on a notion that feelings are key and definitive when it comes to engaging in certain issues. And nobody said that that's true. And frankly, if you think about it, it isn't. There is never a justification for thinking you use logic except with a certain range of topics where suddenly feelings are logic. No, not even when you're talking about racism. And so that's something that people should avoid. Are you arguing in order to show God or the social justice gods that you're a good person? Or are you making a point? And I think most people are capable of understanding that if it's put that way to them. But it's very easy to go down a rabbit hole and forget. GLENN LOURY: Let me add something to that, because I think this is really important. Avoid ad hominem argument. It's about the issue not about the person. So the temptation, “Oh, you're the kind of person who thinks that,” to try to refute based upon a character assassination. You know, “How could you possibly think that?” That's no way to cultivate civil discourse. The other thing I would say is try to put the other guy's argument in your own words. Restate his argument. What did he actually say? JOHN MCWHORTER: Glenn is very good at that. GLENN LOURY: Not to believe it, but just to understand it. JOHN MCWHORTER: Which gives you a sense that a person can be a reasonable human being and have that view exactly. As opposed to demonizing other people, which is so easy to do, but it's primitive. And not to be repetitious, but I think there's a sense that when it comes to social justice issues, that primitive instinct is the proper one. You dehumanize the other side because there is evil in the world. But no, that makes no more sense there than it does when you're five years old and you think of the whole world that way. Life is not a Maurice Sendak book. And that's something that it's very easy to fall into when you're thinking more about what makes you a good person than what makes you a rational person. So, yeah, that demonizing has to go. ZACH RAUSCH: So before we go, I have one more question for you both. Our conference theme this year is, how do we restore trust in particularly higher education? What do you think about that? GLENN LOURY: Well, I understand this session this morning, the brunch session, is university presidents talking about leadership in the academy. And I think that's where the buck stops at the end of the day. I think it stops in the front office. I think that we are dependent on administrative leadership for making a stand. I mean, for embracing the Chicago principles, for example, about free inquiry and open discourse and whatnot. For insisting that the discussion of difficult and sensitive issues be balanced in the context of university, not one-sided. For avoiding the temptation to wave banners, which is often what I find university administrators doing, these letters expressing our values in the wake of whatever the particular crisis might be, if it's a George Floyd crisis or if it's a Ukraine crisis or if it's a COVID crisis. Giving voice to a particular way of looking at a difficult set of questions, which are arguable, but in effect, taking one side of that discussion and then putting the institution's weight behind the one side of that discussion. I think that's a practice that a university administrator should avoid. JOHN MCWHORTER: One of the things that I think people miss, from the outside. A lot of people think that it's not only administrators and professors who think this way, but there's this whiny, helicopter-parented student body, all of whom are right behind all of these excesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. On campuses, it's maybe one in 15 students who have the hyper-woke kind of politics ,if you're talking about undergraduates. Almost all of them can see through it. Some of them cower in fear of it. Some of them are brave enough to mock it, although it's getting harder to be that person these days. But this is not about the student body. And the student body are hungry for professors who can give them views from other places. And not the hyper-right wing, for better or for worse, but people who are standing outside. And if you're asking whether I mean partly myself, yes. I'm in a position to see that acgreat many students, and not ones from conservative white Utah families, are interested in hearing something different. And so it's not that the students are impervious to the truth. They see the problem among the faculty, too. That always gives me hope. I don't worry about the kids, I worry about the grownups. GLENN LOURY: Diversity, equity, and inclusion, okay? That's a plague, and we could have an argument about that. I think it's a disaster. I think the institutionalization of the diversity, equity, and inclusion imperatives threatened the integrity of the enterprise. I'm prepared to defend that position. Title IX. Way out of control in terms of due process and the way in which these kinds of incidents are handled by universities. The Roland Fryer case at Harvard. I give a case. We could give 100 cases. There's stuff that has to be fought over, I want to say. This is where Jon Haidt and I don't think see the world quite the same way. I don't want to just talk about process. Keep things open. Let's have diversity of viewpoints. I want to talk about some of the substantive judgments that I think are wrongheaded and need to be rebutted on their own terms. And I think the DEI stuff is a disaster. I think it lowers standards. I think it reifies identity, which we should be trying to rise above. We come to the university as black or white or Latino or gay or trans. That's not who we are. Our essence is much broader and finer and deeper and richer and human than that. The university sells its students short and betrays its own mission if it gets mired in this identitarian, small-minded, narrow way of looking at their charges, our students.ZACH RAUSCH: John McWhorter and Glenn Loury at Heterodox Academy's 2022 Conference in Denver. Keep your eyes peeled for full conference event footage on our YouTube channel at youtube.com/HeterodoxAcademy. Thanks to Davies Content for producing this podcast and to Kara Boyer on our communications team. I'm Zach Rausch. Until next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe