The Glenn Show

Normally I would post one of my bi-weekly conversations with John McWhorter today, but John and I had too many scheduling conflicts to find time to talk this week (he’ll return in two weeks). So in his stead, I’m talking with Greg Thomas, co-founder of the Jazz Leadership Project and senior fellow at the Institute for Cultural Evolution.We begin by discussing Greg’s work with the Jazz Leadership Project, which uses the principles of jazz to train leaders within businesses and organizations. He’s got some big-league clients, so I was interested to know how Greg implements ideas and strategies from an originally African American art form within a corporate environment. Greg was a friend of the great critic, poet, and novelist Stanley Crouch, and I ask him about how they came to know each other. This leads us to discuss the intellectual lineage that runs from Ralph Ellison and Albert Murray through Crouch. These thinkers were deeply rooted in black art, culture, and politics, but they were also, to varying degrees, skeptical of race as a foundational concept. Is there anyone now continuing this tradition? Greg talks about his own efforts in that direction, but he also notes that the modern Enlightenment tradition, which sought a scientific foundation for knowledge and institutions, has been at least partially displaced by postmodern thought, which seeks to critique the Enlightenment. Greg argues that such a critique is fine, so long as we don’t abandon modernity’s gains. He then introduces some ideas from integral theory and from the philosopher Anthony Appiah that he believes can help reconcile the need both to preserve culturally specific traditions and to claim membership in a broader cosmopolitan community. And finally, Greg tells me about some of his daughter’s impressive accomplishments, including building the We Read Too app. I really enjoyed having Greg on as a guest, and I hope to have him back on for an episode with both John and I soon.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 Greg’s work with the Jazz Leadership Project 12:35 How does a “black” art form operate within a corporate environment? 17:27 What’s left of the legacy of Ralph Ellison, Albert Murray, and Stanley Crouch? 25:04 Black culture after the postmodern turn 32:45 Greg’s work with the Institute for Cultural Evolution 36:40 Greg’s critique of Black Lives Matter 40:48 Rooted cosmopolitanism and the “Faustian bargain” of whiteness 50:46 Greg’s very accomplished daughterLinks and ReadingsThe Jazz Leadership ProjectThe Institute for Cultural EvolutionGreg’s Substack post, “Why Race-Based Framings of Social Issues Hurt Us All” Stanley Crouch’s Notes of a Hanging Judge: Essays and Reviews, 1979-1989 Video from Combating Racism and Antisemitism TogetherSteve McIntosh’s Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow Into a Better Version of ItselfCharles Love’s Race Crazy: BLM, 1619, and the Progressive Racism MovementKwame Anthony Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of StrangersDanielle Allen Resmaa Menakem, My Grandmother's Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and BodiesKaya Thomas Wilson’s We Read Too app  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

On this week’s episode of The Glenn Show, I welcome my old friend Stephanie Lepp, the Executive Producer at the Center for Humane Technology. I first met Stephanie through her husband, Nathaniel, who was a student of mine at Brown. Stephanie produced a podcast called Reckonings, which told the stories of how people transform their worldviews. I went on the show in 2015 and told the story of the evolution of my own political worldview (links below). Since then, we've been wanting to do another round. It's time! This time, Stephanie joins me on The Glenn Show, to once again help me wrestle with how my views have changed and with my responsibilities as a public intellectual.Stephanie begins by asking me to step back and consider a big-picture question: What is my goal as a public intellectual? It’s not something I often ask myself in such explicit terms, and Stephanie pushes me to articulate a response. Stephanie engages me on the affirmative action question in order to get me to speak not just about my critique of preferences, but to think about whether critique is enough. It’s one thing to criticize a program or idea, she says, and another to propose a solution. I agree, of course, but the critique does have to be made, and not just in the case of affirmative action. I see it as my job to make clear that the systemic prejudices affirmative action programs were designed to ameliorate are largely in the past. When we see large-scale failure in black communities today, the responsibility for those failures rests, to a great extent, on the shoulders of the members of those communities. Stephanie suggests that, given my position as a public intellectual, when I speak about these problems, I not only describe social reality but actually influence it. If that is true (and I’m not sure to what extent it is), should I reorient my way of engaging with matters of public concern? Stephanie says, “Evolution is beautiful, but it’s not pretty.” This leads me to wonder: Is our present political turmoil an ugly but necessary process that will result in improvement over time, if properly attended to? I'm doubtful. Finally, I offer a critique of Stephanie’s own brand of “promiscuous pragmatic pluralism.”It was such a pleasure to reconnect with an old friend and talk through these issues. I’m looking forward to your thoughts!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 What is Glenn’s goal as a public intellectual?11:12 Glenn has his critique of affirmative action … 21:57 … but is articulating the critique enough?  27:23 Glenn: My raison d’être is to give voice to my contempt for the failures of my people 36:36 Stephanie: At a certain point, you’re not describing reality, you’re influencing it 43:02 The case for integralism  51:39 “Evolution is beautiful, but it’s not pretty” 1:00:06 Glenn’s critique of Stephanie’s “promiscuous pragmatic pluralism”  1:06:47 A preliminary look into the married life of the LourysReckonings, “The Conscience of a Public Intellectual, pt. 1”Reckonings, “The Conscience of a Public Intellectual, pt. 2”Reckonings, “The Enemy Within”Chloé Valdary’s Theory of EnchantmentKen Wilber’s A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality 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, John and I are talking about the ten-year anniversary of the Trayvon Martin shooting, one of the most politically consequential events of the 2010s. A decade later, are we in a better place than where we started? John and I begin by discussing the New York Times’s recent package commemorating the event, which features a written piece by Charles Blow and video interviews with Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, and Al Sharpton. All of them reinforce the mainstream narrative about Martin’s death—that he had been senselessly attacked by Zimmerman for no reason. Yet much evidence supports Zimmerman’s story: that he shot Martin in self-defense after Martin assaulted him. John discusses how his skepticism toward the mainstream Trayvon Martin narrative contributed to the end of his relationship with The Root. My own skepticism continues to pose challenges for me, as many of my students resist when I ask them to consider the facts of the case rather than the “poetic truth” the case has come to represent. John suggests that we can learn from recalling how the O.J. Simpson trial unfolded. The public story about the trial had more to do with race and the cops than it did with the brutal murder of two innocent people, even if most people now acknowledge that Simpson’s not guilty verdict was mistaken. There are people contesting the mainstream narratives around Martin and Michael Brown, including excellent documentaries by Joel Gilbert and Shelby and Eli Steele. These counternarratives are vital correctives, but where are the consequences for those who continue to push bogus information? And we end with a bit of a palate cleanser, with John taking us through the life and work of Scott Joplin. Is there a way, at this late date, to turn the narratives about Martin, Michael Brown, and others around? How can we turn back the tide unleashed by these events and their political afterlife? Let me know your thoughts. 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 NYT commemorates the tenth anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death 7:20 What really happened between Martin and George Zimmerman? 14:35 How John’s relationship with The Root frayed 19:33 Learning from the O.J. Simpson case 32:24 Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown on the big and small screen 40:55 Where are the consequences for those who get it wrong? 46:00 Remembering Scott JoplinLinks and ReadingsThe NYT’s Trayvon Martin anniversary package Joel Gilbert’s book, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud That Divided AmericaJoel Gilbert’s documentary, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud That Divided AmericaEli and Shelby Steele’s documentary, What Killed Michael Brown?Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin StoryJason Riley’s WSJ opinion piece, “Will Amazon Suppress the True Michael Brown Story?”The 2015 DOJ statement announcing the closure of the investigation of the Trayvon Martin shootingJohn’s NYT piece, “Scott Joplin’s Ragtime Is Ambrosia. Here’s Why It Matters.” 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

Over the last couple years, I’ve been in communication with Noam Dworman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar in New York, which is one of the most influential comedy clubs in the country. He suggested that we collaborate and put together a show that would explore the relationship between truth, free speech, and comedy. After a lot of back and forth, we came up with the idea of putting non-comedian intellectuals into conversation with professional stand-up comics. We weren’t quite sure what would happen, but we both sensed the idea had great potential.And so, last month, The Glenn Show held its first live event. Roland Fryer, Coleman Hughes, and I served as the “serious” participants, and Noam invited the comics Andrew Schulz, Judy Gold, Shane Gillis, T.J., and Rick Crom to come up and offer their thoughts. The event also included special appearances from Nikki Jax and the stellar Sam Jay. Noam and I wanted to know, are there certain truths that only comics can get away with telling? Can delivering a potentially unsettling idea in comedic form make people more receptive to it? The place was packed—tickets sold out in just a few days. The atmosphere was electric. After I introduced the event and kicked things off with an opening provocation, the show took on a life of its own. As you’ll see, the comics took the idea and ran with it. There are moments of chaos, moments of profundity, and a lot of laughs. I couldn’t have asked for a better live debut for TGS, and I am excited to be able to share with all of you who made it possible through your support.We’re planning on doing more of these events in the future, so let us know what you think!Many, many thanks to Noam Dworman for his hard work, generosity, and for providing video and audio of the event. The title sequence was created by our own Nikita Petrov. 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 Some unspeakable truths 8:07 Are comics now afraid to speak their minds onstage? 19:38 The difference between telling the truth and getting a laugh 28:42 Can jokes actually do harm? 36:50 Nikki Jax on comedy and trans issues 43:34 Who actually “cancels” comics, audiences or corporations? 50:26 Sam Jay on artistic freedom and mob mentality 55:55 Q&A: I’m worried people won’t understand that my one-woman show is satire. What should I do? 58:42 Q&A: Does comedy have real power or is it ‘just jokes’? 1:06:35 Q&A: Do comics sometimes inadvertently reinforce wrongheaded points of view? 1:10:23 Q&A: Why are Ivy Leaguers so unfunny? 1:13:13 Q&A: Are college campuses inhospitable environments for comedy? 1:16:45 Q&A: What got Roland suspended at Harvard? 1:20:20 Q&A: Does the general public need social media training? 1:22:31 Q&A: Is there a way to stop corporations from folding to social media pressure campaigns? 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 I welcome Sam Harris to TGS. Sam is a neuroscientist and philosopher, the host of the podcast Making Sense, and the proprietor of the meditation app Waking Up. He’s a searching, truly open-minded thinker who follows the evidence where it leads, even if that means admitting that he was wrong about a previously held position. We begin by discussing Sam’s uncertainty about how to navigate some aspects of the discourse on race. He wants a world in which race simply doesn’t matter all that much, but he’s unsure of how to bring that world into being. Sam highlights the stakes of the affirmative action question by asking us to imagine that we have to undergo brain surgery at the hands of a surgeon who got through medical school despite relatively low performance. Would we want this surgeon operating on us or our children? (I raised a similar concern in the past.) We then move on to Charles Murray, who Sam has had as a guest on his podcast. Sam was appalled by Charles’s treatment at Middlebury College, where he was violently deplatformed by a group of student protesters. Sam shares my view that nobody, and especially not a figure as significant as Charles, should be prevented from airing their views in public, no matter how wrongheaded we might find them. (For the record, I don’t find Charles to be “wrongheaded.”) If you disagree with a speaker, argue with them. We know that certain groups perform worse on tests and other quantifiable measures of academic performance than others, but we’re not yet sure why. Sam asks an intriguing question: Are there certain things we’re better off not knowing? If we knew that a given group had an inherent, perhaps ineradicable disadvantage on quantifiable measurements of performance, would we want to know? Could the social ill that such knowledge might produce make us worse off than the social good that would come from it? We then consider whether there are still circumstances in which affirmative action is necessary. From there, we pivot to God. Sam is, famously, a critic of organized religion. But religion is one thing and belief in God another. Sam frames the question of belief as one that can be addressed through mindful introspection. But at the level of community, it seems more difficult to find a secular alternative to the networks of support and spiritual sustenance that many find in temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques. I had a great time thinking along with Sam. There is much more that we could have discussed had time allowed, so hopefully he’ll join me again soon.Note: We encountered some problems with Sam’s audio. As a result, the sound quality on his end is less than optimal. Many apologies. 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 principle that race shouldn’t matter and the fact that it does 6:17 The high stakes of affirmative action 17:00 In defense of Charles Murray 25:35 Are there facts we’re better off not knowing? 36:30 When does affirmative action make sense and when is it counterproductive? 48:01 Is belief in God irrational? 52:32 Suffering and the illusion of self 1:00:27 Finding meaning in secular communityLinks and ReadingsSam’s booksSam’s podcast, Making SenseSam’s app, Waking Up 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 the journalist Matt Taibbi. Many of you are likely familiar with Matt from his many books, his political journalism for Rolling Stone (among other outlets), his Useful Idiots podcast, and now his outstanding Substack newsletter, TK News. Matt lived and worked in Russia and the former USSR for several years, so I thought he’d be an excellent source for some insight into the war in Ukraine. We begin by discussing Matt’s brief career playing in the MBA—that’s the Mongolian Basketball Association. We then move on to more pressing matters. Like many journalists and experts, Matt had been confident that Putin would not invade Ukraine. Unlike many journalists and experts, he issued an apology to his readers for making the wrong call and explained what led him to make it. Even after the invasion, it’s not clear why Putin is pushing as far west as he is—we talk about the difficult of getting inside his head. I ask if the media’s portrayal of Putin as a true autocrat is accurate, and Matt affirms that, while it’s hard to know what’s really going on inside the Russian government, Putin does seem to have more or less total control of domestic and military policy. The best way to deal with Russia is to first understand how it sees the world, so how do we put ourselves in its geopolitical shoes? This exercise leads John to reflect on his own lack of tribalistic feelings, and how tribalism is driving Russian and Ukrainian responses to the war. Shouldn’t all this feel a little familiar to Americans? Can we apply the lessons we learned (or should have learned) in our own disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to Ukraine? Matt was an early and vociferous critic of Russiagate, the discredited idea that Russian interference swung the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. But has the hangover from Russiagate made it difficult to view Russia’s actions clearly? And why have those who were wrong about Russiagate (and many, many other things) continued to exert influence in the media despite never admitting to the kind of errors that would have ended careers not so long ago? Matt argues that journalism is no longer about reporting news but about building narratives, and that media outlets are now rewarded primarily for keeping their viewers angry. We then move on to cultural matters. I’m a great fan of classic Russian literature, and I ask Matt to recommend some modern Russian writers. And finally, the big question: Who’s going to triumph in the NBA Eastern Conference, the Celtics or the Nets? Many thanks to Matt Taibbi for dropping in. Hopefully we’ll be able to get him back on TGS in the not-too-distant future. 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 Matt’s brief career as a professional basketball player in Mongolia 5:45 What drove Putin to invade Ukraine? 14:54 Are there limits to Putin’s power in Russia? 19:33 Putting ourselves in Russia’s geopolitical shoes 27:35 The appeal of Russian nationalism 30:55 Did we learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan? 36:25 Did Russiagate obscure Americans’ ability to see Russia’s actions clearly? 40:08 The value of public apologies 41:28 Matt: Journalists are now in the narrative business 49:45 The foreign policy language barrier 55:00 Matt’s recommends some modern Russian writers 58:18 Matt answers the most pressing question of our time: Celtics or Nets?Links and ReadingsMatt’s newsletter, TK NewsKatie Halper and Matt’s podcast, Useful IdiotsMatt’s mea culpa on the Russian invasion of UkraineWesley Lowery’s NYT piece, “A Reckoning Over Objectivity, Led by Black Journalists” 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

With the war in Ukraine escalating, I thought it would be a good idea to bring on a guest with some expertise in international relations. So I called on Daniel Bessner, an intellectual historian, associate professor at University of Washington’s Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, and a co-host of the American Prestige podcast. Daniel is a man of the left, so we spend a lot of time here arguing, and we have a great time doing it.Note: We recorded on February 22, 2022. Between then and now, the situation in Ukraine has changed quite a bit. In order to avoid confusion, we have edited out a portion of the conversation that is no longer up-to-date.Daniel and I begin by discussing what Putin’s invasion of Ukraine might tell us about the US’s standing in the world. Daniel argues that Putin’s willingness to ignore the US’s warnings reflects the decline of America’s global hegemony. He compares the present situation to America’s geopolitical position in the wake of World War II, arguing that the US imputed unrealistic hegemonic ambitions to the Soviet Union in order to justify the Cold War. He worries that the lesson many nations will draw from Ukraine is that the best way to forestall aggression from a stronger state is to acquire nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this strategy makes a lot of sense to me. We then take a hard turn away from war to talk about Whoopi Goldberg. Daniel and I agree that the outrage over her remarks about the Holocaust is completely overblown. But he sees in this outrage the sign of a frustrated populace with no other way to express its political will. I’m skeptical of the idea we should want a return to mass politics, though. We shouldn’t throw the fate of our institutions to the political winds. We then debate the role of private industry in administering services to the public. We agree that our public schools are in bad shape, but Daniel thinks that market logic is at the root of the problem, whereas I think the market can help offer solutions. The question of meritocracy emerges, and Daniel argues that real meritocracy is impossible within a highly unequal society. No doubt that’s a problem, but I think abandoning meritocratic principles would be a huge mistake. And finally, we get into a debate over the uses (and possible abuses) of game theory.I truly enjoyed this good-natured sparring match with Daniel, and I hope you do, too!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 Daniel: Putin’s actions in Ukraine demonstrate the decline of American global hegemony 7:02 Did the Soviet Union have the same expansionist ambitions as the US? 16:01 How the war in Ukraine could increase nuclear proliferation 23:46 Daniel: It’s absurd that people got so upset about Whoopi Goldberg’s Holocaust comment 27:27 Does the US have “mass politics” anymore? If not, is that a bad thing? 34:35 When does it pay to privatize? 38:55 What’s so bad about utopianism? 44:18 Is true meritocracy possible within a highly unequal society? 58:04 The uses (and possible abuses) of game theoryLinks and ReadingsGlenn’s Intellectual Origins, a series of interviews with DanielDaniel’s podcast, American PrestigeDaniel’s most recent appearance on Chapo Trap HouseStephen Wertheim’s book, Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. World SupremacyPaul Chamberlin’s book, The Cold War’s Killing Fields: Rethinking the Long PeaceDerek Masters and Katharine Way’s book, One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic BombDaniel’s essay, “The End of Mass Politics”Walter Lippmann’s book, Public OpinionWalter Lippmann’s book, The Phantom PublicGlenn’s book, The Anatomy of Racial InequalityDaniel Markovitz’s book, The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the EliteKenneth Arrow’s book, Social Choice and Individual ValuesPaul Erickson’s, The World the Game Theorists MadeS.M. Amadae’s book, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice LiberalismRobert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s book, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery 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

It’s John McWhorter time once again here at The Glenn Show. Let’s get into it. John and I are both busy guys, but people might not realize how much juggling it takes to manage life as both an academic and a public intellectual. I talk about why I may soon wind down my role at Brown University and devote myself more fully to public endeavors. We then move on to discuss psychiatrist Jeffrey Lieberman, who has been fired or suspended from several academic and medical appointments after referring to Sudanese model Nyakim Gatwech as a possible “freak of nature” in a tweet. It was a tacky, poorly worded tweet, no doubt. But clearly Lieberman was attempting to compliment Gatwech in the same way one might might refer to an unusually gifted athlete as a “freak.” John and I ask, does Lieberman really deserve to have his life destroyed over this? We then move on to discuss how the word “Negro” is now getting the n-word treatment in some quarters. To me, there is absolutely no justification for eliminating the word “Negro” from our lexicon, especially since it was once used to confer dignity on black people. Relatedly, John reports that efforts to replace “Latino” and “Latina” with “Latinx” are not faring well outside of academic circles. The question of when to capitalize “black” comes up, and I discuss why we don’t do so here at the Substack and why I’m opposed to doing so in general. We ask why children who come from families with highly varied racial and ethnic backgrounds are still often raised as “black” in the US if even one of their parents or grandparents is black. Why does blackness take precedence? We close on two unrelated topics. The first addresses whether or not academic tenure is necessary. The second addresses the very grim situation in Ukraine and Europe more broadly.It’s always a pleasure to talk with John, and I hope you enjoy the conversation!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 contemplates exiting academia 7:28 Why should Jeffrey Lieberman lose his jobs over a tacky tweet? 15:11 The historical significance of the word “Negro” 24:05 The revolt against “Latinx” 27:49 Why Glenn doesn’t capitalize “black” 34:04 Why does “blackness” take precedence? 40:09 Glenn: Tenure without mandatory retirement can be a problem 49:31 Will the US send troops to Ukraine?Links and ReadingsJohn’s NYT piece, “One Graceless Tweet Doesn’t Warrant Cancellation”William Levi Dawson’s Negro Folk SymphonyThe New York Times book, How Race Is Lived in America: Pulling Together, Pulling ApartJohn’s NYT piece, “I Can’t Brook the Idea of Banning ‘Negro’”John’s NYT piece, “Capitalizing ‘Black’ Isn’t Wrong. But It Isn’t That Helpful, Either.”Thomas Chatterton Williams’s book Self-Portrait in Black and White: Family, Fatherhood, and Rethinking RaceStanley Crouch’s book, Notes of a Hanging Judge: Essays and Reviews, 1979-1989 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, I welcome Matt Rosenberg to TGS. Matt is a journalist who grew up in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood and the author of the recently published book What Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native Son. The book delves into the causes and effects of the city’s recent, alarming rise in crime and also chronicles those who are trying to address the problem. As a native of Chicago’s South Side, I share Matt’s concerns, and I highly, highly recommend that everyone read his book. We begin by talking about Matt’s personal connection to the city, and his memories of the Yippie protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Matt explains what drove him to return to Chicago after leaving the city years ago. He then gets into the deep relationship between street crime and political corruption in the city. He notes that he’s not the only person covering these stories, but there are few journalists making systematic efforts to connect the dots between them. It’s not all bad news from Chicago, though. Matt discusses a few organizations that are making change at the grassroots level, including Corey Brooks’s outstanding Project H.O.O.D. We move on to one the city’s most pressing problems: schools. Matt underscores the necessity of school choice and charter school funding in a city where many public schools are underserving students and parents. One under-discussed but important story Matt covers is Chicago’s sizable and thriving Latino communities. He finds them full of hard-working, family-oriented folks who are making the most out the opportunities afforded them. We then move on to talk about the problem of crime and enforcement. Is a highly punitive crackdown on the crime the best way to combat rising crime? Matt doesn’t think it’s that simple. We know that incarceration is linked to the break-up of traditional family structures, but is it really the primary cause? Matt introduces us to Darryl Smith, a remarkable man who did time in prison but came out and turned his life around while helping out his neighbors in Englewood and staging nonviolent protests that resulted in construction unions opening their ranks to local black laborers. We end the discussion by taking a broad view of the South Side’s decline and talking about what can be done to reverse the damage. This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and one that has broader significance to other troubled communities across the country. 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 Matt’s new book, What Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native Son 8:48 Piecing together the puzzle of race, crime, and corruption 18:53 Some Chicago success stories 23:19 Matt: Charter schools are a necessity in Chicago 34:16 Chicago’s thriving Latino communities 40:35 Is increased enforcement the best way to solve Chicago’s crime problem? 54:08 What is disrupting traditional family structures in Chicago’s black communities? 59:02 Darryl Smith, the (unofficial) Mayor of Englewood 1:03:43 The decline of the South Side and the efforts to revive it 1:14:42 So, what’s next for Chicago?Links and ReadingsMatt’s book, What’s Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native SonCorey Brooks’s Project H.O.O.D.University of Chicago’s Crime LabNorthwestern University sociologist Andrew PapachristosJane Jacobs’s classic book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities 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, just like you knew he would be. This week we’re talking about the future of affirmative action.We begin by discussing Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner’s new film adaptation of the classic musical West Side Story. John argues that people who dismiss the musical as just “something some old white people wrote” are far too simplistic and limited in their view. I haven’t yet gotten a chance to see the new adaptation, but I’m a fan of the music and lyrics, so I’m inclined to agree with him. We then move on to affirmative action. When the Supreme Court takes up the Harvard admissions case next term, there’s a good chance they’ll end up declaring affirmative action unconstitutional. If that happens, John and I agree that we’ll likely see fewer black students admitted to elite universities, though I think administrators unwilling to scale back their focus on diversity will find ways to admit black students who may not be academically on-par with their peers. John and I are deeply concerned that orienting academic standards—from undergrad admissions to the hiring and tenure process—around diversity and identity will have disastrous consequences for the university system, for the long-term health of the nation, and, yes, for black people. As an object lesson, John presents a (rigorously anonymized!) account of a star black academic who, in John’s account, derives their profile more from their ability to represent their race than their scholarly achievements. Is this person respected by their colleagues for the quality of their work? More worrying, will people simply assume that all black students, academics, and professionals—even those who are truly accomplished—achieve their status due to their race? John worries that people will condescend to his young daughters in that way. If I had young children, I’d worry, too. Things get a little heavy this time out, but that’s because the issues themselves are heavy. I want to know your thoughts—tell me about them in the comments. Correction: In the video, I say that Lisa Cook studied under Paul Romer at Berkeley. This is an error. She was David Romer’s student. 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: Don’t dismiss West Side Story just because it was written by “old white people” 14:59 If the Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, will higher education “resegregate”? 24:34 Are meritocracy and racial diversity initiatives inherently opposed to each other? 35:41 What, if anything, are we losing when we give significant weight to racial preference? 47:19 John: Certain black academics are valued for the way they represent their race rather than their scholarly achievements 56:54 The perils of the DEI industry Links and ReadingsJohn’s NYT piece, “Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them.”John’s NYT piece, “The Gilded Age’ Is Depicting Black Success. More TV Should.”Heather Mac Donald’s City Journal piece, “March of the Revisionists” 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