You can't debate someone you've already assassinated. And in case you missed that point up front, McWhorter makes it even more clear: you can't hunt what you've already killed, gutted and mounted in your drawing room.
I think you should expose him--in a debate or in any other feasible way. It would be cruel to do so if he were merely dumb, but he's ambitious and cruel. The laid-back pastor look is a facade for that terrible combination of ambition and ignorance--one I've seen over the years in academia more than once. When that kind of person becomes the head of a department--well, I need not tell you.
Even if we were to accept your argument for why people like Kendi won't debate the likes of you or your pal Loury, you be hard pressed to make the argument that Colman has been anything but respectful to Kendi. However, I don't accept your argument. You are being far too magnanimous, a trait you and to your credit have in abundance.
"It would be interesting for them to engage in a written “debate” on a pertinent topic, where each could present evidence to support his position, and each could be read and evaluated, side by side, as it were."
Got me to thinking, as I was reading an interview with Kendi. But, then, I dunno if Mr. McWhorter reads any-a this stuff. Anyhoo, here's a vehicle:
Given, a couple unfortunates. It IS they NYT. And Mr. Klein, I've noticed, prefers to have people on that he agrees with. But if either he or Mr. Loury would care to put on the "boxing gloves" and enough people ASKED for the debate...
Admit, I can be overbold at times to suggest it. But there it is.
I agree if you mean a “debate” staged by a MSM outlet, whose viewers are accustomed to ‘panel discussions’ that resemble bullfights. However I have seen many worthwhile moderated discussions on current topics at CSPAN, & the participants often come from quite disparate viewpoints. The atmosphere is civilized & intellectual. The format does not allow for the sort of depth we get from comparing written exchanges, but it’s sufficient to highlight the participants’ differences, and promote follow-up with their written work. Might be worth a try.
McWhorter's view, as I understand it, is that these people aren't up for such a meeting because they're not interested in submitting to that kind of setting. I suspect he's right.
His POINT, however, is, once more, they don't have to be up for it. He grants them the same prerogatives he claims for himself, namely, to determine as he sees fit when, where, how and with whom he takes up exchanges of views. None of that precludes his "hearing" these people's opinions and responding to them in his own preferred manner and places.
Really, that's his right to decide for himself. And I've seen virtually no good reasoned argument offered here to show why it isn't and shouldn't be. All I've seen, instead, is that John's under some mysterious obligation to meet these people and join in public point-counterpoint exchange with them. This is apparently the "duty" of (one would suppose, any and every) "public person" to meet. Why? Because..."internet". LOL!
Of course John doesn’t “have to” endlessly hound the duplicitous duo into a live debate with questions posed directly and follow-ups and rebuttals and. I can see and appreciate that he is already doing a large number of TV interviews and podcasts, in addition to frequently writing about these issues (all on top of his scholarly focus in linguistics, not to mention teaching classes). The value of doing so in the right forum under fair rules, though, is not only would such a small slice of the public ever see let alone read a written exchange. It’s that most of us are in such polarized, hermetically sealed opinion silos and are so algorithmically manipulated into going ever deeper within them, that most people who think Kendi is convincing would never have reason to hear or see John make his very reasonable and thoughtful critiques. If you saw his appearance on Bill Maher, he came across wonderfully as a sharp, honest, principled, cogent, and charismatic guest. Some people might still mute everything John would say in an in-person debate and cheer at whatever Kendi replied. But the more direct questions and answers and back and forth between them there was the more difficult even that very willfully blinkered approach would be. There are too few venues where Kendi fans ever have to even risk hearing someone like John startling them, first, by being an eminently reasonable and likable person, but, second, by raising hard questions they’d never had to consider. It’s not just that I don’t think Kendi wants to have to face a tough if polite intellectual challenger. First, I suspect he doesn’t want his credulous fans to see a critics like John, Coleman, and Glenn aren’t easily dismissed caricature who don’t understand his arguments. I suspect it’s also that he doesn’t want to give them the standing of appearing on the same stage with him. Not engaging in direct debate or conversation makes it far too easy for Kendi fans to almost completely bypass hearing any serious contrary arguments. And in fairness to Kendi, we’d have to hear his unfiltered best in reply, too.
RE: "Of course John doesn’t “have to” endlessly hound the duplicitous duo into a live debate with questions posed directly and follow-ups and rebuttals and. I can see and appreciate that he is already doing a large number of TV interviews and podcasts ..."
So, we move on from "has to" to the matter of "ought to".
And, there, I don't see anything compelling in these "whys" that explain why he ought to:
1) "most people who think Kendi is convincing would never (otherwise) have reason to hear or see John"
Right. And so what? All these people have AMPLE opportunity to see and hear John's critiques of their darlings' points and positions by looking into J. M.'s easily available presentations. You tell us (rightly) that a probable explanation for their not doing that is due to some combination of a disinclination to listening to counter-views and, as part of that, this "siloed" existence you (again, rightly) describe so many as living in. ALL OF THAT suggests what John suspects: little or no use in expecting THEIR accepting any such hypothetical face-to-face meeting for discussion.
His point: IT'S _THEIR_ prerogative to so choose. He can respect that choice and he thinks it's high time his own fan-club see and accept the same.
(Not that they're not free to absurdly insist otherwise, as these comments threads so abundantly attest.)
2) "There are too few venues where Kendi fans ever have to even risk hearing someone like John startling them"
Right, but AGAIN, there's nothing John can necessarily do about that. If Kendi et al are averse to running these "risks," that's _their_ choice and decision. It isn't and cannot be up to John. Just as he has a right to see such a face-off as pointless and of too little promise to be worth the effort.
3) "It’s not just that I don’t think Kendi wants to have to face a tough if polite intellectual challenger."
No, really, here, for the purposes of this matter, it really _is_ "just" that. John's hunch is that, even if asked, these people wouldn't favor him with any face to face appearance in a forum which could reasonably result in any interesting or useful outcome. That's his judgment and he has a right to it whether you're convinced or not.
AGAIN: McWhorter doesn't assert or insist that these people be held accountable for any choice on their part to appear with him, and, moreover, he regards his own "fan's" calling them out for their (assumed) preferring not to face him in person as misplaced. That's John's point here and you're stubborn about ignoring it.
Why is this complicated or difficult ?!?!?!?!?! (please don't answer; it's a rhetorical question.)
p.s. Robin DiAngelo could really use a few counterpoints from a rigorous thinker like yourself. Last week she ate up a whole hour of CSPAN 2’s “After Words” on the subject of her new book “Nice Racism.” She was interviewed by Eddie Glaude doing a good impersonation of the weavers selling cloth with a wonderful way of becoming invisible to those unfit to be Emperor. DiAngelo was so verbose in her endless dissections of tautological reasonings [best I can do to nutshell her thinking process] there was only time for two called-in questions.
Jeffrey Peoples made a reply below, in response to a comment by one Matt Mullen who made some noise about "systemic racism." Easy to overlook, because they were both long. But thought some might find this one comment on the subject interesting. Jeffrey Peoples:
"No one owes Kendi any gratitude for misinforming possibly millions of people, including middle aged white people like yourself, about the state of racism today which is currently stagnating the progress of many black people and contributing to the embrace of political philosophies that could be overall damaging to the economic liberty of innocent people and create obstacles to opportunity for people of other racial groups—based on the degenerate notion that government based racial discrimination, aka racism, is virtuous when applied for the benefit of some individuals based on their racial identity."
All that to say... I could NOT agree more. Hope You do too.
Sorry John, I love what you do but I have to disagree here. These charlatans are getting rich and causing havoc by spreading an unsophisticated and divisive worldview -- someone needs to reveal their lack of depth and offer a more nuanced path forward. You, Glenn, Coleman (who has challenged Kendi, as you said), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who has challenged DiAngelo), and others in the long-form podcast sphere are our champions of reason. When someone tells me to 'read white fragility and you'll understand', I say that I have read it and that I did not like it. I tell them to read Shelby Steele or listen to you and Glenn talk, to get the other point of view -- but they won't.
You say that you would not voluntarily attend a beat-down, and fair enough. I don't think, though, that any of you would just look to score "OHHH!" points against Kendi or DiAngelo -- I think you would ask them hard but fair questions. What you would produce would be a valuable resource for the genuinely thoughtful people who make up the majority of your audience, and, I'm sure, theirs too.
This was a tongue in cheek piece, right John? You're really pulling a Mohamed Ali - Sonny Liston job here....getting that big bear to come out of hiding to fight you?
I would think that any man or woman who believes they have something important to share with the world would foam at the mouth at the opportunity to do battle with any worthy challenger who mocked and teased them...and if you and Glenn are not worthy no one is. That's what Baldwin did may times over.
But I get Kendi and Di Angelo. They're raking up the big bucks playing to naïve college kids and stupid guilt ridden white people. My guess is that the average black Joe chuckles listening to their nonsense but go along with the clown show because they recognize that with white quilt comes black power. With fans like that why risk getting smacked down by your intellectual superiors.
I don't know why the thought of these two bring the image of Kamala Harris to mind. Every time I see her I can't help but believe that she knows she's in way over her head and suspects that the rest of the world does too. I suspect Kendi and DiAngelo also know they're as firm as an overcooked noodle.
But for the good of our country John, you should hound these pseudo intellectuals down and demand a fair and open debate on their so called scholarship. I don't think you'll be able to change the minds of the already indoctrinated kiddies in our public and private colleges, but there's a pretty good chance you'll wake Karen up and convince that average black Joe I was referring to that the gold Kendi and DiAngelo are selling is a fools gold that is antithetical to the long term best interests of black people.
One scary thing is that what Kendi is promising/demanding, with the cleverly ultra-simplistic but incredibly manipulative, guilt-triggering hook that it’s *the only* way to be anti-racist, is that he really is offering black Americans a massive win, regardless of whether it’s ultimately fools gold or worse for our society’s basic unity and productivity and most of fairness and individual dignity. We are in a world in which all of us but black Americans in particular are and have and the way things are going will ever be more bombarded with this risible idea that literally everything in America is racist, everything is white supremacist, every element of life right now is completely arrayed against them, based entirely on this one superficial factor. In a country so fundamentally evil (Cori Bush, the new congresswoman so wildly celebrated on the progressive side that dominates grassroots Democratic politics, thinks nothing of ridiculously, offensively asserting that black Americans as an entirety, a collective, aren’t even free for for god sales in 2021) what’s required is a complete teardown and remaking and rebuilding on intersectional CRT terms. And these claims and demands very effectively tap into Christian guilt and prophesy (“the last shall be first, and the first shall be last”). So, if CRT is the emerging mainstream and dominant account of why and how any injustice or inequality exists in our country (and it is after all endorsed by Joe Biden and being pushed by true believers in his administration; it is the official view of corporate America with all of its manipulative advertising and coercive employment power) why wouldn’t it make sense to simply assert and demand that, c’mon: if you’re really anti-racist (you know the alternative) gimme!
It’s a great deal. You don’t have to feel uneasy about it as matter of personal character or merit - those are white supremacist excuses and barriers to keep you down. You don’t have to work hard or learn much of substance or be objectively good at anything. What does Kendi say? The desire to learn is what’s important. Who is going to tell a black kid who can’t be bothered to ever to go school that it’s his fault some might think he doesn’t have a desire to learn? White supremacy did this to him. I’m not trying to pile on this figurative kid, but according to CRT it’s virtually impossible for anything to be his or his family’s or community’s responsibility, even partially. Most black families might think that irresponsible, self-sabotaging, even offensive foolishness. But what’s being offered is at the very very minimum an absolutely guaranteed proportional share of every top job, every sweet gig and smooth sinecure in the American economy. Who really thinks that will stop at 14%?
To really be anti-racist, it’ll have to be twice that or so. That’s a massive group advantage materially and in opportunity. It’s a bit like being that much less common but still existing sort of white kid who grows up a legacy by virtue of family and class advantage and in the past of course naked racial advantage. It’s a promise of imposing a regime where huge numbers of people can continually fail up.
So while the “Joe” you reference might cast a cynical eye toward such demands, and some might consider it grossly condescending (we’ll work for what we get, thank you) a lot of people are going to want those admissions slots and those sweet sinecures. Human beings are human beings. Look at the DEI industry! If you can get a $100,000 job by your late twenties based on an identity studies BA and then maybe whichever of the MA programs are falling all over themselves to compete to offer the most perks to enroll you, a lot of people aren’t going to think twice. Especially when they think they’re doing well by doing good - they’re part of the essential mission to remake America.
And re: that “Karen”, the great trick to being a woke comfortably middle to upper middle class white person is their are so many built in advantages to your class that your kid is going to be fine! You can truly convince yourself that Kendi is some holy genius who has discovered how to redeem America and your kid (likely imbibing and regurgitating all of the woke certitudes herself and so still suitable to be hired as a still acceptable white ally) is still going to go to a good school and get a good job and live in a nice house. On the other hand what are the incentives for that “Karen” to oppose Kendi’s project, let alone out loud to even her closer friends or family. The neo-racist CRT indoctrination is really going to have to boil over in its abuse and division of young children from each other and against their parents for enough “Karens” to wake up. Fortunately, that’s beginning to happen. And fortunately we’re also seeing more “Joes” and people of every shade and ethnicity, beginning to stand up and say: “what do you mean I am a helpless, oppressed victim with my multiple degrees and the home I worked and saved to buy and the bright, motivated kids I’ve taught to believe in themselves and achieve?” But a good half the country is being told CRT is a bogey..person wholly invented by Fox News.
"The neo-racist CRT indoctrination is really going to have to boil over in its abuse and division of young children from each other and against their parents for enough “Karens” to wake up."
Yah, I've seen sparks of it starting to happen. But what I've also "heard" is that people simply FEAR to speak out, knowing what the repercussions can be. Dunno.
I would raise another recent instance in which intellectual arrogance and petulance appear to have played a large part in a public figure's choice to avoid debate by seeking refuge among the like-minded. After receiving a groundswell of overwhelming, clamorous faculty support at the University of North Carolina, including extensive outreach to the press and influential donors voicing wounded outrage on her behalf, Nikole Hanna-Jones tossed the product of these efforts—the university's offer of a tenured position—into the wastebin, hightailing it to Howard University, where she could be assured of never hearing a discouraging word.
I doubt if a public conversation or debate between Mr. Kendi and Mr. McWhorter would be worthwhile since the distance between them is so large and each has opinions strongly held, in Kendi’s case to the point of fanaticism. The atmosphere these days is not conducive to a reasoned back and forth. Too bad. So I agree with Mr. McWhorter’s position. It would be interesting for them to engage in a written “debate” on a pertinent topic, where each could present evidence to support his position, and each could be read and evaluated, side by side, as it were. No personal attacks allowed, sticking to the issues. I tend to agree though that Mr. Kendi’s experience and “scholarship” might not prepare him for that kind of thing. I view him as really a “pop” figure (like DeAngelo) who is in over his head, so I doubt he would want to engage in that way. This is a cynical observation, but they both must be making a lot of money on their celebrity. Who knew that a seemingly clueless white woman could make a career out of it and shamelessly play on white guilt and the desire of good hearted but also clueless white people to “think the right way.” Or a guy who used to believe that whites were from another planet would be leading discussions on racism and be taken seriously. Let’s hope Warhol was right about the 15 minutes of fame.
The point of exploring ideas, philosophy and theory is to understand how to progress and learn. Opinions are only as good as the available information out there and are by definition lacking information.
This practice of taking a position to live by and defend at all costs is problematic and egotistical. Ideas are made to be improved upon or discarded - if you ask me taking ownership of an idea is banal and unhelpful in problem solving.
Who cares what anyone thinks? It’s not one’s business to control or to judge others’ thoughts in discourse or life.
Maybe that’s the only real use of engaging with ideas for you and maybe you think you are, thus far, buffered from the consequences of what other people think. But the obviously faulty, manipulative, even hateful and certainly divisive ideas being spread and credulously adopted and zealously acted upon by millions of fellow citizens, including citizens in some of the most influential roles in some of the most powerful institutions in the country, all with far too little serious engagement and pushback, are certainly as the aphorism about politics goes, nonetheless “interested in you”. These ideas pertain to and seek to impact virtually every aspect of your life in increasingly coercive and soon mandatory ways. What sort of ideas masses of other people are indoctrinated in and feel empowered to try and enforce with a chillingly self-righteous self-certainly don’t matter? The difference between liberal Enlightenment values and woke certitudes is the former embraces provisional thinking: revising ideas based on stronger reasoning, and accumulated and changing evidence. And the latter not only denies the possibility of error and the legitimacy of good faith criticism, but the standing of any would-be critic (often based mainly on that person’s identity). Enlightenment liberalism allows for sharply contrary views, so long as they are not imposed by force on others. The antidote to bad ideas is better ideas in open debate. “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right.” (Judge Learned Hand)
Does that sound more like John McWhorter and Glenn Loury - or Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi? The latter don’t believe in a marketplace of ideas. One believes in nasty, manipulative Kafka traps and the other demands an all-powerful unelected body of “experts on anti-racism” (meaning people who think just like him) able to police and punish all other bodies of government and the words and actions of all Americans in public and private life. Those are some ideas which are most interested in you, however little you may be interested in engaging or opposing them.
I don’t know what your comment means. Would you kindly simplify? It’s interesting to read these words from 2 years ago. I have no idea what I meant exactly either, but on its face it’s at least comprehensible. lol
"One believes in nasty, manipulative Kafka traps and the other demands an all-powerful unelected body of “experts on anti-racism” (meaning people who think just like him) able to police and punish all other bodies of government and the words and actions of all Americans in public and private life."
I think it's a mistake to see Kendi as a foolish kindly pastor. Intellectual lightweight, yes, but he's meanspirited. He's a bully too--DiAngelo's bullying is more obvious. Kendi's shows in his actions.
Kendi and Di Angelo are in fact light weights. But how does that saying go....."In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King". They appeal to the guilt ridden, naïve, and already converted. Their also a tool for some smart folks who know how to exploit their message for political and economic gain. Unfortunately, our country has a lot of people of these sorts. And that's why folks like John and Glenn need to expose them.
I pretty much agree with Mr. McWhorter, with a few additional points:
It's unfortunate (usually) that we think in terms of "debate." To me, "debate" implies winners and losers. Sometimes that's necessary, but often it isn't. I've never participated in a formal debate, but I have gotten into blog thread debates and in-person debates/arguments with others. Speaking for myself, I tend to get emotional, frustrated, and defensive.
Ideally, I would prefer something like "discussion." It would be cool if Mr. Kendi, Ms. Diangelo, Mr. McWhorter, and Mr. Loury met to discuss and share ideas. The goal wouldn't be to change each others' minds or anyone else's minds, and it wouldn't be to score points. But it would be nice to watch and share ideas, illuminate points of disagreement and differences in reasoning, and perhaps make occasional concessions.
"Discussion" is usually a pipe dream, and I completely understand why it probably wouldn't work out with Mr. Kendi, et al., just like it probably wouldn't have worked out on that show Mr. McWhorter decided not to go on. Maybe it only works when there's a shared sense of friendship that in those cases either was impossible to achieve or was overrun by circumstances.
A "discussion" of such sort between the parties in question would naturally devolve quite quickly. Because John and Glenn are legitimate scholars they'd ask Kendi and Di Angelo to back up their claims with scholarly evidence. Game over. And that's why the two clowns won't debate them.
I think there's a lot of merit to Kendi's argument that vast disparities between White and Black Americans indicate systemic racism. Because, if you agree that there are no inherent differences between the races, then it seems perfectly logical to conclude that something in the system must be contributing to those disparities.
For example, the destructive attitude among young Black Americans that excelling in school is "acting White". How did that attitude arise? It seems clear to me that growing up in a world where you don't see a lot of Black people in higher education would give Black kids the very clear impression that "that's not for me". And I believe it was our American system that created that toxic idea, through our long history of actively and passively denying Black Americans educational opportunities. The proof, for me, is that recent Black immigrants don't share this poisonous attitude toward educational excellence. They weren't raised in our system. And their parents weren't raised in our system.
I see systemic racism in the way job applicants with Black-sounding names on their resumes are much less likely to get called in for an interview. This is why I support affirmative action. By the way, I doubt many White people even realize what's going on in their mind when they pass over applications with Black-sounding names. And if they are, I doubt they spend much time examining their assumptions.
I see systemic racism in the way that some neighborhoods were formed that (intentionally and unintentionally) have kept Black families from accumulating generational wealth. (The average White family has $170,000 in wealth. The average Black family has $17,000).
I see systemic racism in the way that Black people are far more likely to end up in the criminal punishment system because police make racist assumptions about who is likely to be a criminal and who is not, and because of the over-policing of Black neighborhoods.
Does this mean that Black people bear no responsibility for their fate in America? Of course not. Does this mean White people today want to keep Black people from achieving success? I'd guess there are very few of those kinds of people, though they certainly exist. But I think we owe people like Kendi a bit of gratitude for making people like me (middle-aged White guy) aware of the problems facing Black Americans in 2021. I think this awareness is the first step in creating a more just and equitable society.
I've been listening to some of Kendi's podcasts lately. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he invites John McWhorter on his show for a polite discussion rather than a debate. I'd be eager to hear that discussion. I'm sure Kendi would be eager to explain all of the many ways in which his ideas have been challenged, fair and unfair.
Finally, I think McWhorter's charge that "He is irritated at real questions because he has had no experience with actual academic give and take." is wildly unfair. If he didn't get that in academia (which I doubt) he is certainly familiar with it today. He is one of the most harshly and openly criticized academics in public life today. I doubt there's a criticism of his work that he hasn't heard a hundred times.
You support affirmative action because of studies about some types of names being preferred over others? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just omit the name from the stage where applicants are being considered for interviews? Haven’t you ever had a class where the professor required students to put their SSN or part of it on tests or papers in lieu of their names? Beyond that the name bias issue is not really about race; it’s about class. This has been studied too: it’s not that black applicants are disadvantaged as a whole. Black applicants with more typically middle class names (even a name that might be racially identifying, like Coleman) are not discriminated against. It’s names that many might associate with less education or social polish. How do you think an applicant named “Billy Ray” or “Tammi Lynn” would fare when his or her resume crossed most hiring managers’ desks? Particularly in the midst of the current outright rage and panic among most Americans in the position to hire or admit someone, regarding anyone who might give off the tiniest hint of being even Trump supporter sympathetic or adjacent? I’d also be curious to see a much more of the moment, updated version of those studies. It may be that many hiring managers today would consciously advantage a kid with the most plausibly ethnic inner-city black name. If you think affirmative action is a justified response to ameliorating what look in the studies you cite much more like class-based biases, class or hardship-based affirmative action would be much better targeted to do so. (Why do we need affirmative action to further boost a black kid from Scarsdale named Carlton?)
Thanks, Matt. Your sincere concern about the well-being of all of our fellow citizens is clear and appreciated - and is shared. I also appreciate you engaging so civilly in a forum where many commenters might be expected to disagree with some of your proposed solutions.
I will say, that I've done some DEI training. I work at a major museum. You can imagine how woke we are. I found it uncomfortable at first. I hated the way they used the term "White supremacy". I thought that term should be reserved for people who actually believe that White people are inherently superior to people of other races. I was offended by the language because it seemed to water down the evil of actual White supremacy. And I thought it would turn people off to the whole idea. I thought it was ineffective rhetoric.
But then I realized, after reading people like Heather McGhee, Ibram Kendi, Diangelo, that they were using the term as a way of saying: White (i.e., Grecco/Roman/Enlightenment) culture is dominant.
Then I could sort of see what they were getting at. Because our culture was designed, in many ways, by rich White men, it naturally favored rich White men. As such, our culture has evolved in ways that have systematically disadvantaged people who are not rich White men. And our country has struggled mightily and valiantly and effectively against this prejudice. We ought to be proud. I am proud.
I have a new perspective thanks to DEI training. I see that growing up in a wealthy suburb afforded me countless advantages; from the schools I went to, to the people who my parents knew who could help me with job opportunities, to not getting thrown in jail for the many petty crimes I committed as a rebellious youth.
So I'm dismayed when people deny that the vestiges of those disadvantages aren't still lingering today. (And maybe we only disagree by degree here.) Maybe I do feel a bit guilty about the privileges I enjoy. I don't feel like I did anything to deserve them. Can you blame me?
By the way, as far as what to do about it, through public policy? I would make the solutions race-blind. (I know I said I'm for affirmative action, but I've never been entirely comfortable with it.) I would focus on who needs help, regardless of skin color. I love the Biden $300 a month child tax credit. That helps all poor working people with children, black and white, and every other color. That policy will do wonders for people living on the edge of want and need.
“Because, if you agree that there are no inherent differences between the races, then it seems perfectly logical to conclude that something in the system must be contributing to those disparities.”
No, it’s not logical. Although it is a common line of thought. When ethnic groups come into a “system” they bring with them centuries or millennia of culture and history; and sometimes despite the system that ethnic groups find themselves in, they have achieved; various groups such as the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Jews, have managed to disproportionately succeed despite often deep systemic disadvantages in societies they migrate to. Their success is not simply due to the system; likewise we should, logically, not expect any failure to be simply due to the same systems. There are properties to groups that dramatically affect success and failure that is external to the system they find themselves in. These groups often achieve greater success than the native populations they find themselves; and native populations often achieve less success despite a system designed in their favor. If we took your idea, that something with system, particularly racist somethings, cause racial disparities, then we would be logically obliged to conclude that Indians, for example in America, are privileged, as they have greater achievement than white people, in general. Likewise we would conclude that white people are victims of racism by those various groups that perform better than them, in general, such as those groups I mentioned earlier. That of course, would be absurd, given our knowledge of this country’s history. Therefore, it is actually illogical to assume that because groups have disparities, the cause of disparities are either partially or entirely due to racism.
That doesn’t mean that the disparities we see between black people and white people in general have no connection to racism today or in the past, but it does mean one cannot infer, as you do and Kendi does, that disparities demonstrate discrimination. Rather one must assess carefully whatever disparities that are observed and consider all possible causal explanations, not just “systemic racism.” This has been demonstrated with oceans of data by Thomas Sowell, a scholar with much greater ability than Kendi, a black scholar in fact; but a supreme scholar regardless of his race.
“ For example, the destructive attitude among young Black Americans that excelling in school is "acting White".
First let me correct your sentence: the destructive attitude among *some* young black Americans that excelling in school is “acting white”. I was not one of them. And where does that attitude come from? Possibly from the history of some white Americans trying to deny black Americans educational opportunities. But also possibly from some black American developing a prejudice against all things “white” from resentment for being treated in a particular way and that was passed on to future generations. Or maybe from some black Americans who noticed they didn’t like studying science and would rather do other things and for individual ego reasons began to harass other black people who liked studying science so that their perceived racial tribe rejected studying science. Good luck determining the origin, if there was even only one.
“ The proof, for me, is that…They weren't raised in our system. And their parents weren't raised in our system.”
But the children of some African immigrants *are* raised in our system, yet they still have greater academic and financial success, on average, than many native born American groups, including native born black Americans. Likewise, children of *many* different immigrant groups are raised in our system and have higher achievement, on average than children of groups that have been here for longer.
“I see systemic racism in the way job applicants with Black-sounding names…This is why I support affirmative action.”
I see class and cultural prejudice. I’m still waiting for the studies that test whether Bubba Joe has problems with his applications. And even if I granted racial prejudice explained it entirely — racial prejudice is *not* racism. Unless those people maintain their attitudes after being exposed to more data about the people — say they come in for the interview and give a dazzling performance yet they are still rejected by the interviewer, calling it *racism* is inaccurate, and calling it “systemic” is slander.
Furthermore affirmative action will only ensure that racial prejudices persist, as some people will assume that black peoples’ credentials are not valid due to institutions giving them special treatment; likewise, new black employees may face prejudices about whether they are truly qualified if companies take a policy of hiring black people out of a misguided attempt to appear “inclusive”. Because I am black, some people think that my degree from UCLA, despite graduating magna cum laude is not as impressive as an asian person’s degree from UCLA, despite them having no honors, simply because they think affirmative action policies and philosophy contributed to my achievement. I resent people who think they are doing me a favor by racially discriminating. Black people do not need special treatment to succeed, and assuming they do, despite the history of success that many black people have demonstrated in the face of tremendous oppression, is actually the racist perspective. It harms recognizing the achievement of black people by cultivating prejudice about black potential and harms struggling black people by giving them the demoralizing idea that achievement is “systematically” restricted from them, when today in fact in some domains the system is designed to give them an affirmative advantage.
“ I see systemic racism in the… (…average White family has $170,000 in wealth. The average Black family has $17,000).”
Black people were emancipated in 1863. The Democratic Party then seized reparations of land immediately after Andrew Johnson became president. And then for 100 years black people were systemically oppressed(that is by laws and institutional processes), largely and mostly by the Democratic Party. Since then the “system” has been progressively dramatically different for black people, even in the South, but it has been only 60 years. Thus, even if there was no racially prejudiced thought in a white person’s brain today, we should not expect that black people would have the same average wealth as white people. Ascribing the term “systemic racism” to slavery, the Jim Crow south, and to 2021 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-land is wildly irrational. There is in fact systemic racism today, but the laws and processes in place are often actually are designed to privilege black people(although they often don’t work as intended) and end up harming other racial groups such as asians. The racial prejudices that do still affect black people, and especially harm them, like in various elements in the criminal justice system, are not “systemic” — they are not driven by laws and processes that specifically target black people due to race as they were in the past — they are due to individual actors. Such prejudice and racism I suspect cannot be eliminated by changes to the system; and using the system to try to force those changes may even make things worse for some black people, due to individual resentments.
“ I see systemic racism in the… over-policing of Black neighborhoods.”
More harm is caused in black neighborhoods by *under policing*. Gang violence, for example, which causes much more harm to black people than racist cops, flourishes in neighborhoods where there is less policing. I will say though that egregiously punitive drug laws disproportionately affect black people — but those drug laws were and still are commonly supported by many black people—and thus ascribing “racism” to them is invalid, as they apply to people regardless of their race. People who now designate things "systemic" seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that there was a time when the racism truly was systemic, in the sense that laws and processes were established that not only intended to affect black people differently or had the side effect of disproportinately affecting black people but were specifically written to apply based on race. Conflating them may be good for propaganda and politcal gain, but it is historically and morally erroneous.
“ But I think we owe people like Kendi a bit of gratitude for making people like me (middle-aged White guy) aware of the problems facing Black Americans in 2021. I think this awareness is the first step in creating a more just and equitable society.”
No one owes Kendi any gratitude for misinforming possibly millions of people, including middle aged white people like yourself, about the state of racism today which is currently stagnating the progress of many black people and contributing to the embrace of political philosophies that could be overall damaging to the economic liberty of innocent people and create obstacles to opportunity for people of other racial groups—based on the degenerate notion that government based racial discrimination, aka racism, is virtuous when applied for the benefit of some individuals based on their racial identity.
If you actually want a better awareness of the reality regarding race and economics I suggest you put down Kendi for a moment and pick up Sowell. I suggest you begin with Wealth, Poverty, and Politics. Anyone who has read How to be an Anti Racist but is either too lazy or too politically bigoted to read Wealth, Poverty, and Politics is a waste of space.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jeffrey. I have heard most of those arguments before. And they have some merit. But I don't think they fully explain away the ways that past systemic racism are still playing out today. I will read Thomas Sowell's Wealth Poverty and Politics. Have you read Heather McGhee's The Sum of Us? I think she does a good job of showing how the vestiges of systemic racism are still playing out in 2021.
I’m glad you appreciated my response but I don’t recall writing anything where I said there are no vestiges of systemic racism. Nor do I recall Thomas Sowell suggesting that.
Whatever arguments you heard, they must not have been mine or Sowell’s.
Vestiges of systemic racism is not systemic racism, just as vestiges of pneumonia is not pneumonia. I came down with severe bacterial pneumonia about a decade ago while I was living in South Korea. I was in the hospital for about 2 weeks. After I left the hospital I was very weakened. To restore my strength and vitality, I had to undergo conscious physical therapy. If someone, seeing my weakness, told me that I was still suffering from pneumonia and encouraged me to take antibiotics, I’d be very perplexed. If someone followed such a misdiagnosis, not only would they not recover their vitality, they may be harmed even further by redundant and ineffectual treatment.
The same applies to systemic racism. Black people no longer suffer from systemic racism (people of other races are now the primary victims of systemic racism). That was progressively cured a few decades ago. However, yes some vestiges of systemic racism still linger, but the cure for that is not the cure for systemic racism. Altering the laws of the system, as was done with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, was necessary to end systemic racism. But altering the laws now is no longer as useful and has actually sometimes been actively harmful to black people and people of other races. For example, affirmative action laws and policies have been harmful. When I recovered from pneumonia I needed to exercise; and no one but myself could do that exercise. Affirmative action laws actively incentivize black people to metaphorically exercise less than they need to recover from the vestiges of systemic racism. Rather than encouraging black students, for example, to study more rigorously in math and science to compete with their peers, “social justice” activists encourage reducing expectations or lowering standards for them. That would be like a doctor telling me not to exercise because I was weakened after I no longer had pneumonia. Schools are consciously being structured in a way that create obstacles to achievement of black students — all in the quixotic quest to fight systemic racism. The teachers and professors who were most helpful in my educational advancement were not those who treated me differently because I was black; in fact the ones who were my greatest allies saw my individual potential and encouraged me to reach it *regardless of my race.*
Shelby Steele, in his book “White Guilt”, gives a wonderful example related to this. Black kids are routinely held up to wildly high standards by peers and coaches when it comes to things like basketball. When a black kid comes on the court and they can’t dribble, they are taunted and told to work on their game by their peers and told to practice by their coaches; when a black kid comes into school and they struggle with math, they are told by many peers and academics that systemic racism means they aren’t expected to perform as well as their peers from other races or that math is a White thing and objective, linear thinking, which is required by STEM fields and so many other careers today, is a vestige of White Supremacy. The social worlds black people find themselves in often guide them toward particular activities that it has deemed “Blackness” and encourages their relentless practice in them and discourages black people from activities that it has deemed “Whiteness” and removes responsibility from black people in many domains to pursue the same aspirations of excellence as people who are not black. I personally often lived in those worlds growing up; but I rejected them, and built my own from what my parents shared and the cultures I found in books that resonated with me.
The racialized world of “blackness” and “whiteness” that the Church of the Awoken is trying to implement through schools, government, and corporations is in fact a form of systemic racism—but it isn’t the sort that they think they are battling. They are attacking windmills thinking they are dragons and birthing dragons thinking they are building bridges. The systemic racism of Jim Crow and slavery are in our past, but the Church is doing its best to keep those ghosts alive and present, conflating the vestiges of a disease with the disease, and shackling free people to injustices inflicted upon some of their ancestors.
It may help the careers of some activists and politicians and temporarily save some effort on part of some black people to work on some valuable skills or avoid responsibility for the 10 children with 10 different women they have, but ultimately it is limiting black people in general from eliminating the disparities in outcomes that the so called “anti racists” claim to care so much about.
“Black power” will not come from manipulating the guilt of white people, it will come from more black people individually and communally embracing responsibility for their freedom. Given that black people in the US were enslaved and then deeply oppressed for so long and now are given license socially by so many people to exempt themselves from the responsibility required from freedom to thrive and excel, continued disparities in domains that once violently restricted black people is not surprising. Time, freedom, responsibility, and plenty of cultural appropriation will be needed from more black people. Not more guilt from white people. Today, more good in some areas could come if many of the white people who think they are helping just stopped trying to.
Many of the things that disproportionately affect black people nonetheless hurt people of other races nearly as much — such as draconian drug laws, the militarized “drug war”, and laws designed to shield government employees from liability for their actions(eg qualified immunity) — and viewing them from a racial lens creates redundant obstacles to building coalitions that could tackle the problems from a universal citizens’ rights lens. The systemic injustices that affect citizens of all races should not be weaponized for the advantage of people of a particular race. If it weren’t for that, I can hardly imagine how marijuana, for example, could still be criminalized on the federal level.
Having said what I did below, I can't neglect to say that I also know that there are still quite a few White people who still believe that Black people are inherently inferior. And a disproportionate number of those people tend to work in certain professions, like law enforcement. Construction is another one. And there are still enough of these people that certain politicians give a wink and a nudge to these racists to let them know that they are on their side. This silent racism is part of the reason why areas of concentrated poverty remain neglected. And I think the more we stigmatize these attitudes the better, which is why I support DEI training, if it's done well. And in my case, I would say it has been. It's also why I support the BLM movement. It is shaming people with these attitudes into the closet where they belong. Of course, it's also bringing some of them out in the open. Watch out for the people who are really angry at the BLM movement. They probably harbor unexamined assumptions and biases that ought to be called out and shamed.
Would it surprise you to know that I agree with almost everything you said? And still, I look at the concentrated poverty in N Minneapolis and I wonder how anyone growing up in that neighborhood has a chance. And I look at a wealthy suburb like Minnetonka, MN (where I grew up) and I wonder how anyone could fail to achieve some level of economic success.
And I can't help but be angry and frustrated about the obvious disparities. And I have a hard time saying "Hey, that's THEIR problem."
Though I still believe that these disparities are the result, in large measure, of systemic racism, I believe that our solutions will probably have to be focused on poverty; not on race. Maybe we agree on that. Affirmative action for the disadvantaged? Thank you for your impassioned words of wisdom.
I agree with JasonT, Jeffrey! So I signed up for Your Substack. When I'll get TIME to read it is somewhat questionable, but liked the description of most all the essays.
Looking at above, hard to pick out the BEST parts, because all was good:
"Unless those people maintain their attitudes after being exposed to more data about the people — say they come in for the interview and give a dazzling performance yet they are still rejected by the interviewer, calling it *racism* is inaccurate, and calling it “systemic” is slander."
"It harms recognizing the achievement of black people by cultivating prejudice about black potential and harms struggling black people by giving them the demoralizing idea that achievement is “systematically” restricted from them, when today in fact in some domains the system is designed to give them an affirmative advantage."
"I will say though that egregiously punitive drug laws disproportionately affect black people — but those drug laws were and still are commonly supported by many black people—and thus ascribing “racism” to them is invalid, as they apply to people regardless of their race."
But the best I repost to the top, so that more may get a look at it!
Thank you for your direction to this excellent piece by Loury. As a teacher, I was particularly interested in the section on Obama’s Dept of Ed OCR warning to public schools re: the disproportionate number of black vs white out-of-school suspensions. Loury concludes that section by noting the effects of the bias (as opposed to the development) narrative, which pertain as well to the Kendi/ DeAngelis narratives referenced in this post:
“…it robs a community of the ability to make social judgments. It undermines the capacity to clearly delineate right and wrong ways of living and to urge individuals to live rightly. I am not a philosopher, but I have read Immanuel Kant’s Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals several times, in an attempt to understand what he was talking about. While it is certainly true, he says, that we are all embedded within the flux and the flow of history and under the influence of forces that are beyond our control of environment, psychology, and such, nevertheless, the theorist must assume the capacity of individuals to make free will choices about their moral life, lest there be no possibility for any theory of morals whatsoever.”
I understand your point, but I don't see debate as "fights," though I understand that is what most people want. I don't. Fighting makes me uncomfortable, to be honest (Libra, here). But I think you and Kendi do need to have a conversation in front of people. The problem in our society is people live in a vacuum. And honest, respectful, good-faith debate is an important counter to that. First of all, we can see people respectfully disagree. We have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. And we can see two ideas side by side. Someone who is "irritated at real questions because he has had no experience with actual academic give and take" should not be allowed the platform Kendi is allowed, nor should he be allowed to go unchecked. No one should. Not you, not me, not Kendi. (DiAngelo is another subject. I don't believe in "race traitors," but if you want to see a white supremacist, look at DiAngelo. She's a white woman who makes money speaking for minority populations in order to prove herself better than other white people. Minorities are not "people" in her mind, but a way to enrich herself on many levels.)
"But I think you and Kendi do need to have a conversation in front of people. The problem in our society is people live in a vacuum. And honest, respectful, good-faith debate is an important counter to that. First of all, we can see people respectfully disagree. We have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. And we can see two ideas side by side."
Huh?
We _can_ (and do) see them. McWhorter isn't living in any such vacuum. He's quite aware of these people and their views and how they disagree with his own. No one else is being denied any opportunity to witness these things just as well as and in the same manner as John does.
More to the point: he's not so much asserting his own right not to engage with _them_--in person or otherwise (which he has)-- but, rather, _their_ right not to be obliged by any disgruntled observing public to engage _in person_ in a forum with him.
Or, in short, his point, very simply and plainly put, was,
"My ideological opponents aren't obliged to meet and debate me in person. And, if they choose not to, that's their right."
That's not a radical position---or it oughtn't be one.
Consider: imagine you're an outspoken opponent of the politics and policies of, say, Xi Jinping, Iran's Ayatollah, Syria's Assad, or some other current dictator and you live in the relative safety (for the purposes of this example) of the U.S. Are you obliged to respect and respond to any of these dictators' summons to their presence to "debate" them on the matters in dispute? And are we to suppose that you'd dutifully oblige them in surrendering yourself to them?
You can't debate someone you've already assassinated. And in case you missed that point up front, McWhorter makes it even more clear: you can't hunt what you've already killed, gutted and mounted in your drawing room.
I think you should expose him--in a debate or in any other feasible way. It would be cruel to do so if he were merely dumb, but he's ambitious and cruel. The laid-back pastor look is a facade for that terrible combination of ambition and ignorance--one I've seen over the years in academia more than once. When that kind of person becomes the head of a department--well, I need not tell you.
Even if we were to accept your argument for why people like Kendi won't debate the likes of you or your pal Loury, you be hard pressed to make the argument that Colman has been anything but respectful to Kendi. However, I don't accept your argument. You are being far too magnanimous, a trait you and to your credit have in abundance.
From "Dee" below a few:
"It would be interesting for them to engage in a written “debate” on a pertinent topic, where each could present evidence to support his position, and each could be read and evaluated, side by side, as it were."
Got me to thinking, as I was reading an interview with Kendi. But, then, I dunno if Mr. McWhorter reads any-a this stuff. Anyhoo, here's a vehicle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-ibram-x-kendi.html
Given, a couple unfortunates. It IS they NYT. And Mr. Klein, I've noticed, prefers to have people on that he agrees with. But if either he or Mr. Loury would care to put on the "boxing gloves" and enough people ASKED for the debate...
Admit, I can be overbold at times to suggest it. But there it is.
Pardon ME! I should-a "said" PROFESSOR McWhorter. My mistake.
I agree if you mean a “debate” staged by a MSM outlet, whose viewers are accustomed to ‘panel discussions’ that resemble bullfights. However I have seen many worthwhile moderated discussions on current topics at CSPAN, & the participants often come from quite disparate viewpoints. The atmosphere is civilized & intellectual. The format does not allow for the sort of depth we get from comparing written exchanges, but it’s sufficient to highlight the participants’ differences, and promote follow-up with their written work. Might be worth a try.
"The atmosphere is civilized & intellectual."
McWhorter's view, as I understand it, is that these people aren't up for such a meeting because they're not interested in submitting to that kind of setting. I suspect he's right.
His POINT, however, is, once more, they don't have to be up for it. He grants them the same prerogatives he claims for himself, namely, to determine as he sees fit when, where, how and with whom he takes up exchanges of views. None of that precludes his "hearing" these people's opinions and responding to them in his own preferred manner and places.
Really, that's his right to decide for himself. And I've seen virtually no good reasoned argument offered here to show why it isn't and shouldn't be. All I've seen, instead, is that John's under some mysterious obligation to meet these people and join in public point-counterpoint exchange with them. This is apparently the "duty" of (one would suppose, any and every) "public person" to meet. Why? Because..."internet". LOL!
Of course John doesn’t “have to” endlessly hound the duplicitous duo into a live debate with questions posed directly and follow-ups and rebuttals and. I can see and appreciate that he is already doing a large number of TV interviews and podcasts, in addition to frequently writing about these issues (all on top of his scholarly focus in linguistics, not to mention teaching classes). The value of doing so in the right forum under fair rules, though, is not only would such a small slice of the public ever see let alone read a written exchange. It’s that most of us are in such polarized, hermetically sealed opinion silos and are so algorithmically manipulated into going ever deeper within them, that most people who think Kendi is convincing would never have reason to hear or see John make his very reasonable and thoughtful critiques. If you saw his appearance on Bill Maher, he came across wonderfully as a sharp, honest, principled, cogent, and charismatic guest. Some people might still mute everything John would say in an in-person debate and cheer at whatever Kendi replied. But the more direct questions and answers and back and forth between them there was the more difficult even that very willfully blinkered approach would be. There are too few venues where Kendi fans ever have to even risk hearing someone like John startling them, first, by being an eminently reasonable and likable person, but, second, by raising hard questions they’d never had to consider. It’s not just that I don’t think Kendi wants to have to face a tough if polite intellectual challenger. First, I suspect he doesn’t want his credulous fans to see a critics like John, Coleman, and Glenn aren’t easily dismissed caricature who don’t understand his arguments. I suspect it’s also that he doesn’t want to give them the standing of appearing on the same stage with him. Not engaging in direct debate or conversation makes it far too easy for Kendi fans to almost completely bypass hearing any serious contrary arguments. And in fairness to Kendi, we’d have to hear his unfiltered best in reply, too.
RE: "Of course John doesn’t “have to” endlessly hound the duplicitous duo into a live debate with questions posed directly and follow-ups and rebuttals and. I can see and appreciate that he is already doing a large number of TV interviews and podcasts ..."
So, we move on from "has to" to the matter of "ought to".
And, there, I don't see anything compelling in these "whys" that explain why he ought to:
1) "most people who think Kendi is convincing would never (otherwise) have reason to hear or see John"
Right. And so what? All these people have AMPLE opportunity to see and hear John's critiques of their darlings' points and positions by looking into J. M.'s easily available presentations. You tell us (rightly) that a probable explanation for their not doing that is due to some combination of a disinclination to listening to counter-views and, as part of that, this "siloed" existence you (again, rightly) describe so many as living in. ALL OF THAT suggests what John suspects: little or no use in expecting THEIR accepting any such hypothetical face-to-face meeting for discussion.
His point: IT'S _THEIR_ prerogative to so choose. He can respect that choice and he thinks it's high time his own fan-club see and accept the same.
(Not that they're not free to absurdly insist otherwise, as these comments threads so abundantly attest.)
2) "There are too few venues where Kendi fans ever have to even risk hearing someone like John startling them"
Right, but AGAIN, there's nothing John can necessarily do about that. If Kendi et al are averse to running these "risks," that's _their_ choice and decision. It isn't and cannot be up to John. Just as he has a right to see such a face-off as pointless and of too little promise to be worth the effort.
3) "It’s not just that I don’t think Kendi wants to have to face a tough if polite intellectual challenger."
No, really, here, for the purposes of this matter, it really _is_ "just" that. John's hunch is that, even if asked, these people wouldn't favor him with any face to face appearance in a forum which could reasonably result in any interesting or useful outcome. That's his judgment and he has a right to it whether you're convinced or not.
AGAIN: McWhorter doesn't assert or insist that these people be held accountable for any choice on their part to appear with him, and, moreover, he regards his own "fan's" calling them out for their (assumed) preferring not to face him in person as misplaced. That's John's point here and you're stubborn about ignoring it.
Why is this complicated or difficult ?!?!?!?!?! (please don't answer; it's a rhetorical question.)
sorry for the all the typos (compulsive phone typing)
p.s. Robin DiAngelo could really use a few counterpoints from a rigorous thinker like yourself. Last week she ate up a whole hour of CSPAN 2’s “After Words” on the subject of her new book “Nice Racism.” She was interviewed by Eddie Glaude doing a good impersonation of the weavers selling cloth with a wonderful way of becoming invisible to those unfit to be Emperor. DiAngelo was so verbose in her endless dissections of tautological reasonings [best I can do to nutshell her thinking process] there was only time for two called-in questions.
I never thought of it that way before, but I do now. Thank you.
Jeffrey Peoples made a reply below, in response to a comment by one Matt Mullen who made some noise about "systemic racism." Easy to overlook, because they were both long. But thought some might find this one comment on the subject interesting. Jeffrey Peoples:
"No one owes Kendi any gratitude for misinforming possibly millions of people, including middle aged white people like yourself, about the state of racism today which is currently stagnating the progress of many black people and contributing to the embrace of political philosophies that could be overall damaging to the economic liberty of innocent people and create obstacles to opportunity for people of other racial groups—based on the degenerate notion that government based racial discrimination, aka racism, is virtuous when applied for the benefit of some individuals based on their racial identity."
All that to say... I could NOT agree more. Hope You do too.
Sorry John, I love what you do but I have to disagree here. These charlatans are getting rich and causing havoc by spreading an unsophisticated and divisive worldview -- someone needs to reveal their lack of depth and offer a more nuanced path forward. You, Glenn, Coleman (who has challenged Kendi, as you said), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who has challenged DiAngelo), and others in the long-form podcast sphere are our champions of reason. When someone tells me to 'read white fragility and you'll understand', I say that I have read it and that I did not like it. I tell them to read Shelby Steele or listen to you and Glenn talk, to get the other point of view -- but they won't.
You say that you would not voluntarily attend a beat-down, and fair enough. I don't think, though, that any of you would just look to score "OHHH!" points against Kendi or DiAngelo -- I think you would ask them hard but fair questions. What you would produce would be a valuable resource for the genuinely thoughtful people who make up the majority of your audience, and, I'm sure, theirs too.
This was a tongue in cheek piece, right John? You're really pulling a Mohamed Ali - Sonny Liston job here....getting that big bear to come out of hiding to fight you?
I would think that any man or woman who believes they have something important to share with the world would foam at the mouth at the opportunity to do battle with any worthy challenger who mocked and teased them...and if you and Glenn are not worthy no one is. That's what Baldwin did may times over.
But I get Kendi and Di Angelo. They're raking up the big bucks playing to naïve college kids and stupid guilt ridden white people. My guess is that the average black Joe chuckles listening to their nonsense but go along with the clown show because they recognize that with white quilt comes black power. With fans like that why risk getting smacked down by your intellectual superiors.
I don't know why the thought of these two bring the image of Kamala Harris to mind. Every time I see her I can't help but believe that she knows she's in way over her head and suspects that the rest of the world does too. I suspect Kendi and DiAngelo also know they're as firm as an overcooked noodle.
But for the good of our country John, you should hound these pseudo intellectuals down and demand a fair and open debate on their so called scholarship. I don't think you'll be able to change the minds of the already indoctrinated kiddies in our public and private colleges, but there's a pretty good chance you'll wake Karen up and convince that average black Joe I was referring to that the gold Kendi and DiAngelo are selling is a fools gold that is antithetical to the long term best interests of black people.
One scary thing is that what Kendi is promising/demanding, with the cleverly ultra-simplistic but incredibly manipulative, guilt-triggering hook that it’s *the only* way to be anti-racist, is that he really is offering black Americans a massive win, regardless of whether it’s ultimately fools gold or worse for our society’s basic unity and productivity and most of fairness and individual dignity. We are in a world in which all of us but black Americans in particular are and have and the way things are going will ever be more bombarded with this risible idea that literally everything in America is racist, everything is white supremacist, every element of life right now is completely arrayed against them, based entirely on this one superficial factor. In a country so fundamentally evil (Cori Bush, the new congresswoman so wildly celebrated on the progressive side that dominates grassroots Democratic politics, thinks nothing of ridiculously, offensively asserting that black Americans as an entirety, a collective, aren’t even free for for god sales in 2021) what’s required is a complete teardown and remaking and rebuilding on intersectional CRT terms. And these claims and demands very effectively tap into Christian guilt and prophesy (“the last shall be first, and the first shall be last”). So, if CRT is the emerging mainstream and dominant account of why and how any injustice or inequality exists in our country (and it is after all endorsed by Joe Biden and being pushed by true believers in his administration; it is the official view of corporate America with all of its manipulative advertising and coercive employment power) why wouldn’t it make sense to simply assert and demand that, c’mon: if you’re really anti-racist (you know the alternative) gimme!
It’s a great deal. You don’t have to feel uneasy about it as matter of personal character or merit - those are white supremacist excuses and barriers to keep you down. You don’t have to work hard or learn much of substance or be objectively good at anything. What does Kendi say? The desire to learn is what’s important. Who is going to tell a black kid who can’t be bothered to ever to go school that it’s his fault some might think he doesn’t have a desire to learn? White supremacy did this to him. I’m not trying to pile on this figurative kid, but according to CRT it’s virtually impossible for anything to be his or his family’s or community’s responsibility, even partially. Most black families might think that irresponsible, self-sabotaging, even offensive foolishness. But what’s being offered is at the very very minimum an absolutely guaranteed proportional share of every top job, every sweet gig and smooth sinecure in the American economy. Who really thinks that will stop at 14%?
To really be anti-racist, it’ll have to be twice that or so. That’s a massive group advantage materially and in opportunity. It’s a bit like being that much less common but still existing sort of white kid who grows up a legacy by virtue of family and class advantage and in the past of course naked racial advantage. It’s a promise of imposing a regime where huge numbers of people can continually fail up.
So while the “Joe” you reference might cast a cynical eye toward such demands, and some might consider it grossly condescending (we’ll work for what we get, thank you) a lot of people are going to want those admissions slots and those sweet sinecures. Human beings are human beings. Look at the DEI industry! If you can get a $100,000 job by your late twenties based on an identity studies BA and then maybe whichever of the MA programs are falling all over themselves to compete to offer the most perks to enroll you, a lot of people aren’t going to think twice. Especially when they think they’re doing well by doing good - they’re part of the essential mission to remake America.
And re: that “Karen”, the great trick to being a woke comfortably middle to upper middle class white person is their are so many built in advantages to your class that your kid is going to be fine! You can truly convince yourself that Kendi is some holy genius who has discovered how to redeem America and your kid (likely imbibing and regurgitating all of the woke certitudes herself and so still suitable to be hired as a still acceptable white ally) is still going to go to a good school and get a good job and live in a nice house. On the other hand what are the incentives for that “Karen” to oppose Kendi’s project, let alone out loud to even her closer friends or family. The neo-racist CRT indoctrination is really going to have to boil over in its abuse and division of young children from each other and against their parents for enough “Karens” to wake up. Fortunately, that’s beginning to happen. And fortunately we’re also seeing more “Joes” and people of every shade and ethnicity, beginning to stand up and say: “what do you mean I am a helpless, oppressed victim with my multiple degrees and the home I worked and saved to buy and the bright, motivated kids I’ve taught to believe in themselves and achieve?” But a good half the country is being told CRT is a bogey..person wholly invented by Fox News.
Skimmed this again.
"The neo-racist CRT indoctrination is really going to have to boil over in its abuse and division of young children from each other and against their parents for enough “Karens” to wake up."
Yah, I've seen sparks of it starting to happen. But what I've also "heard" is that people simply FEAR to speak out, knowing what the repercussions can be. Dunno.
I would raise another recent instance in which intellectual arrogance and petulance appear to have played a large part in a public figure's choice to avoid debate by seeking refuge among the like-minded. After receiving a groundswell of overwhelming, clamorous faculty support at the University of North Carolina, including extensive outreach to the press and influential donors voicing wounded outrage on her behalf, Nikole Hanna-Jones tossed the product of these efforts—the university's offer of a tenured position—into the wastebin, hightailing it to Howard University, where she could be assured of never hearing a discouraging word.
I doubt if a public conversation or debate between Mr. Kendi and Mr. McWhorter would be worthwhile since the distance between them is so large and each has opinions strongly held, in Kendi’s case to the point of fanaticism. The atmosphere these days is not conducive to a reasoned back and forth. Too bad. So I agree with Mr. McWhorter’s position. It would be interesting for them to engage in a written “debate” on a pertinent topic, where each could present evidence to support his position, and each could be read and evaluated, side by side, as it were. No personal attacks allowed, sticking to the issues. I tend to agree though that Mr. Kendi’s experience and “scholarship” might not prepare him for that kind of thing. I view him as really a “pop” figure (like DeAngelo) who is in over his head, so I doubt he would want to engage in that way. This is a cynical observation, but they both must be making a lot of money on their celebrity. Who knew that a seemingly clueless white woman could make a career out of it and shamelessly play on white guilt and the desire of good hearted but also clueless white people to “think the right way.” Or a guy who used to believe that whites were from another planet would be leading discussions on racism and be taken seriously. Let’s hope Warhol was right about the 15 minutes of fame.
The point of exploring ideas, philosophy and theory is to understand how to progress and learn. Opinions are only as good as the available information out there and are by definition lacking information.
This practice of taking a position to live by and defend at all costs is problematic and egotistical. Ideas are made to be improved upon or discarded - if you ask me taking ownership of an idea is banal and unhelpful in problem solving.
Who cares what anyone thinks? It’s not one’s business to control or to judge others’ thoughts in discourse or life.
Maybe that’s the only real use of engaging with ideas for you and maybe you think you are, thus far, buffered from the consequences of what other people think. But the obviously faulty, manipulative, even hateful and certainly divisive ideas being spread and credulously adopted and zealously acted upon by millions of fellow citizens, including citizens in some of the most influential roles in some of the most powerful institutions in the country, all with far too little serious engagement and pushback, are certainly as the aphorism about politics goes, nonetheless “interested in you”. These ideas pertain to and seek to impact virtually every aspect of your life in increasingly coercive and soon mandatory ways. What sort of ideas masses of other people are indoctrinated in and feel empowered to try and enforce with a chillingly self-righteous self-certainly don’t matter? The difference between liberal Enlightenment values and woke certitudes is the former embraces provisional thinking: revising ideas based on stronger reasoning, and accumulated and changing evidence. And the latter not only denies the possibility of error and the legitimacy of good faith criticism, but the standing of any would-be critic (often based mainly on that person’s identity). Enlightenment liberalism allows for sharply contrary views, so long as they are not imposed by force on others. The antidote to bad ideas is better ideas in open debate. “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right.” (Judge Learned Hand)
Does that sound more like John McWhorter and Glenn Loury - or Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi? The latter don’t believe in a marketplace of ideas. One believes in nasty, manipulative Kafka traps and the other demands an all-powerful unelected body of “experts on anti-racism” (meaning people who think just like him) able to police and punish all other bodies of government and the words and actions of all Americans in public and private life. Those are some ideas which are most interested in you, however little you may be interested in engaging or opposing them.
I don’t know what your comment means. Would you kindly simplify? It’s interesting to read these words from 2 years ago. I have no idea what I meant exactly either, but on its face it’s at least comprehensible. lol
"One believes in nasty, manipulative Kafka traps and the other demands an all-powerful unelected body of “experts on anti-racism” (meaning people who think just like him) able to police and punish all other bodies of government and the words and actions of all Americans in public and private life."
Yah, sad to see.
Ditto
I think it's a mistake to see Kendi as a foolish kindly pastor. Intellectual lightweight, yes, but he's meanspirited. He's a bully too--DiAngelo's bullying is more obvious. Kendi's shows in his actions.
Kendi and Di Angelo are in fact light weights. But how does that saying go....."In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King". They appeal to the guilt ridden, naïve, and already converted. Their also a tool for some smart folks who know how to exploit their message for political and economic gain. Unfortunately, our country has a lot of people of these sorts. And that's why folks like John and Glenn need to expose them.
I compare him with Macbeth. Sloppy, easily manipulated, very ambitious. He’s not an idiot full of sound an fury, but his life’s story is.
I pretty much agree with Mr. McWhorter, with a few additional points:
It's unfortunate (usually) that we think in terms of "debate." To me, "debate" implies winners and losers. Sometimes that's necessary, but often it isn't. I've never participated in a formal debate, but I have gotten into blog thread debates and in-person debates/arguments with others. Speaking for myself, I tend to get emotional, frustrated, and defensive.
Ideally, I would prefer something like "discussion." It would be cool if Mr. Kendi, Ms. Diangelo, Mr. McWhorter, and Mr. Loury met to discuss and share ideas. The goal wouldn't be to change each others' minds or anyone else's minds, and it wouldn't be to score points. But it would be nice to watch and share ideas, illuminate points of disagreement and differences in reasoning, and perhaps make occasional concessions.
"Discussion" is usually a pipe dream, and I completely understand why it probably wouldn't work out with Mr. Kendi, et al., just like it probably wouldn't have worked out on that show Mr. McWhorter decided not to go on. Maybe it only works when there's a shared sense of friendship that in those cases either was impossible to achieve or was overrun by circumstances.
A "discussion" of such sort between the parties in question would naturally devolve quite quickly. Because John and Glenn are legitimate scholars they'd ask Kendi and Di Angelo to back up their claims with scholarly evidence. Game over. And that's why the two clowns won't debate them.
I think there's a lot of merit to Kendi's argument that vast disparities between White and Black Americans indicate systemic racism. Because, if you agree that there are no inherent differences between the races, then it seems perfectly logical to conclude that something in the system must be contributing to those disparities.
For example, the destructive attitude among young Black Americans that excelling in school is "acting White". How did that attitude arise? It seems clear to me that growing up in a world where you don't see a lot of Black people in higher education would give Black kids the very clear impression that "that's not for me". And I believe it was our American system that created that toxic idea, through our long history of actively and passively denying Black Americans educational opportunities. The proof, for me, is that recent Black immigrants don't share this poisonous attitude toward educational excellence. They weren't raised in our system. And their parents weren't raised in our system.
I see systemic racism in the way job applicants with Black-sounding names on their resumes are much less likely to get called in for an interview. This is why I support affirmative action. By the way, I doubt many White people even realize what's going on in their mind when they pass over applications with Black-sounding names. And if they are, I doubt they spend much time examining their assumptions.
I see systemic racism in the way that some neighborhoods were formed that (intentionally and unintentionally) have kept Black families from accumulating generational wealth. (The average White family has $170,000 in wealth. The average Black family has $17,000).
I see systemic racism in the way that Black people are far more likely to end up in the criminal punishment system because police make racist assumptions about who is likely to be a criminal and who is not, and because of the over-policing of Black neighborhoods.
Does this mean that Black people bear no responsibility for their fate in America? Of course not. Does this mean White people today want to keep Black people from achieving success? I'd guess there are very few of those kinds of people, though they certainly exist. But I think we owe people like Kendi a bit of gratitude for making people like me (middle-aged White guy) aware of the problems facing Black Americans in 2021. I think this awareness is the first step in creating a more just and equitable society.
I've been listening to some of Kendi's podcasts lately. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he invites John McWhorter on his show for a polite discussion rather than a debate. I'd be eager to hear that discussion. I'm sure Kendi would be eager to explain all of the many ways in which his ideas have been challenged, fair and unfair.
Finally, I think McWhorter's charge that "He is irritated at real questions because he has had no experience with actual academic give and take." is wildly unfair. If he didn't get that in academia (which I doubt) he is certainly familiar with it today. He is one of the most harshly and openly criticized academics in public life today. I doubt there's a criticism of his work that he hasn't heard a hundred times.
You support affirmative action because of studies about some types of names being preferred over others? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just omit the name from the stage where applicants are being considered for interviews? Haven’t you ever had a class where the professor required students to put their SSN or part of it on tests or papers in lieu of their names? Beyond that the name bias issue is not really about race; it’s about class. This has been studied too: it’s not that black applicants are disadvantaged as a whole. Black applicants with more typically middle class names (even a name that might be racially identifying, like Coleman) are not discriminated against. It’s names that many might associate with less education or social polish. How do you think an applicant named “Billy Ray” or “Tammi Lynn” would fare when his or her resume crossed most hiring managers’ desks? Particularly in the midst of the current outright rage and panic among most Americans in the position to hire or admit someone, regarding anyone who might give off the tiniest hint of being even Trump supporter sympathetic or adjacent? I’d also be curious to see a much more of the moment, updated version of those studies. It may be that many hiring managers today would consciously advantage a kid with the most plausibly ethnic inner-city black name. If you think affirmative action is a justified response to ameliorating what look in the studies you cite much more like class-based biases, class or hardship-based affirmative action would be much better targeted to do so. (Why do we need affirmative action to further boost a black kid from Scarsdale named Carlton?)
Those are valid concerns and questions.
Thanks, Matt. Your sincere concern about the well-being of all of our fellow citizens is clear and appreciated - and is shared. I also appreciate you engaging so civilly in a forum where many commenters might be expected to disagree with some of your proposed solutions.
Respect E.W.R.
I will say, that I've done some DEI training. I work at a major museum. You can imagine how woke we are. I found it uncomfortable at first. I hated the way they used the term "White supremacy". I thought that term should be reserved for people who actually believe that White people are inherently superior to people of other races. I was offended by the language because it seemed to water down the evil of actual White supremacy. And I thought it would turn people off to the whole idea. I thought it was ineffective rhetoric.
But then I realized, after reading people like Heather McGhee, Ibram Kendi, Diangelo, that they were using the term as a way of saying: White (i.e., Grecco/Roman/Enlightenment) culture is dominant.
Then I could sort of see what they were getting at. Because our culture was designed, in many ways, by rich White men, it naturally favored rich White men. As such, our culture has evolved in ways that have systematically disadvantaged people who are not rich White men. And our country has struggled mightily and valiantly and effectively against this prejudice. We ought to be proud. I am proud.
I have a new perspective thanks to DEI training. I see that growing up in a wealthy suburb afforded me countless advantages; from the schools I went to, to the people who my parents knew who could help me with job opportunities, to not getting thrown in jail for the many petty crimes I committed as a rebellious youth.
So I'm dismayed when people deny that the vestiges of those disadvantages aren't still lingering today. (And maybe we only disagree by degree here.) Maybe I do feel a bit guilty about the privileges I enjoy. I don't feel like I did anything to deserve them. Can you blame me?
By the way, as far as what to do about it, through public policy? I would make the solutions race-blind. (I know I said I'm for affirmative action, but I've never been entirely comfortable with it.) I would focus on who needs help, regardless of skin color. I love the Biden $300 a month child tax credit. That helps all poor working people with children, black and white, and every other color. That policy will do wonders for people living on the edge of want and need.
"The proof, for me, is that recent Black immigrants don't share this poisonous attitude toward educational excellence."
I think you gave away the candy store with this one. Made me chuckle.
“Because, if you agree that there are no inherent differences between the races, then it seems perfectly logical to conclude that something in the system must be contributing to those disparities.”
No, it’s not logical. Although it is a common line of thought. When ethnic groups come into a “system” they bring with them centuries or millennia of culture and history; and sometimes despite the system that ethnic groups find themselves in, they have achieved; various groups such as the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Jews, have managed to disproportionately succeed despite often deep systemic disadvantages in societies they migrate to. Their success is not simply due to the system; likewise we should, logically, not expect any failure to be simply due to the same systems. There are properties to groups that dramatically affect success and failure that is external to the system they find themselves in. These groups often achieve greater success than the native populations they find themselves; and native populations often achieve less success despite a system designed in their favor. If we took your idea, that something with system, particularly racist somethings, cause racial disparities, then we would be logically obliged to conclude that Indians, for example in America, are privileged, as they have greater achievement than white people, in general. Likewise we would conclude that white people are victims of racism by those various groups that perform better than them, in general, such as those groups I mentioned earlier. That of course, would be absurd, given our knowledge of this country’s history. Therefore, it is actually illogical to assume that because groups have disparities, the cause of disparities are either partially or entirely due to racism.
That doesn’t mean that the disparities we see between black people and white people in general have no connection to racism today or in the past, but it does mean one cannot infer, as you do and Kendi does, that disparities demonstrate discrimination. Rather one must assess carefully whatever disparities that are observed and consider all possible causal explanations, not just “systemic racism.” This has been demonstrated with oceans of data by Thomas Sowell, a scholar with much greater ability than Kendi, a black scholar in fact; but a supreme scholar regardless of his race.
“ For example, the destructive attitude among young Black Americans that excelling in school is "acting White".
First let me correct your sentence: the destructive attitude among *some* young black Americans that excelling in school is “acting white”. I was not one of them. And where does that attitude come from? Possibly from the history of some white Americans trying to deny black Americans educational opportunities. But also possibly from some black American developing a prejudice against all things “white” from resentment for being treated in a particular way and that was passed on to future generations. Or maybe from some black Americans who noticed they didn’t like studying science and would rather do other things and for individual ego reasons began to harass other black people who liked studying science so that their perceived racial tribe rejected studying science. Good luck determining the origin, if there was even only one.
“ The proof, for me, is that…They weren't raised in our system. And their parents weren't raised in our system.”
But the children of some African immigrants *are* raised in our system, yet they still have greater academic and financial success, on average, than many native born American groups, including native born black Americans. Likewise, children of *many* different immigrant groups are raised in our system and have higher achievement, on average than children of groups that have been here for longer.
“I see systemic racism in the way job applicants with Black-sounding names…This is why I support affirmative action.”
I see class and cultural prejudice. I’m still waiting for the studies that test whether Bubba Joe has problems with his applications. And even if I granted racial prejudice explained it entirely — racial prejudice is *not* racism. Unless those people maintain their attitudes after being exposed to more data about the people — say they come in for the interview and give a dazzling performance yet they are still rejected by the interviewer, calling it *racism* is inaccurate, and calling it “systemic” is slander.
Furthermore affirmative action will only ensure that racial prejudices persist, as some people will assume that black peoples’ credentials are not valid due to institutions giving them special treatment; likewise, new black employees may face prejudices about whether they are truly qualified if companies take a policy of hiring black people out of a misguided attempt to appear “inclusive”. Because I am black, some people think that my degree from UCLA, despite graduating magna cum laude is not as impressive as an asian person’s degree from UCLA, despite them having no honors, simply because they think affirmative action policies and philosophy contributed to my achievement. I resent people who think they are doing me a favor by racially discriminating. Black people do not need special treatment to succeed, and assuming they do, despite the history of success that many black people have demonstrated in the face of tremendous oppression, is actually the racist perspective. It harms recognizing the achievement of black people by cultivating prejudice about black potential and harms struggling black people by giving them the demoralizing idea that achievement is “systematically” restricted from them, when today in fact in some domains the system is designed to give them an affirmative advantage.
“ I see systemic racism in the… (…average White family has $170,000 in wealth. The average Black family has $17,000).”
Black people were emancipated in 1863. The Democratic Party then seized reparations of land immediately after Andrew Johnson became president. And then for 100 years black people were systemically oppressed(that is by laws and institutional processes), largely and mostly by the Democratic Party. Since then the “system” has been progressively dramatically different for black people, even in the South, but it has been only 60 years. Thus, even if there was no racially prejudiced thought in a white person’s brain today, we should not expect that black people would have the same average wealth as white people. Ascribing the term “systemic racism” to slavery, the Jim Crow south, and to 2021 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-land is wildly irrational. There is in fact systemic racism today, but the laws and processes in place are often actually are designed to privilege black people(although they often don’t work as intended) and end up harming other racial groups such as asians. The racial prejudices that do still affect black people, and especially harm them, like in various elements in the criminal justice system, are not “systemic” — they are not driven by laws and processes that specifically target black people due to race as they were in the past — they are due to individual actors. Such prejudice and racism I suspect cannot be eliminated by changes to the system; and using the system to try to force those changes may even make things worse for some black people, due to individual resentments.
“ I see systemic racism in the… over-policing of Black neighborhoods.”
More harm is caused in black neighborhoods by *under policing*. Gang violence, for example, which causes much more harm to black people than racist cops, flourishes in neighborhoods where there is less policing. I will say though that egregiously punitive drug laws disproportionately affect black people — but those drug laws were and still are commonly supported by many black people—and thus ascribing “racism” to them is invalid, as they apply to people regardless of their race. People who now designate things "systemic" seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that there was a time when the racism truly was systemic, in the sense that laws and processes were established that not only intended to affect black people differently or had the side effect of disproportinately affecting black people but were specifically written to apply based on race. Conflating them may be good for propaganda and politcal gain, but it is historically and morally erroneous.
“ But I think we owe people like Kendi a bit of gratitude for making people like me (middle-aged White guy) aware of the problems facing Black Americans in 2021. I think this awareness is the first step in creating a more just and equitable society.”
No one owes Kendi any gratitude for misinforming possibly millions of people, including middle aged white people like yourself, about the state of racism today which is currently stagnating the progress of many black people and contributing to the embrace of political philosophies that could be overall damaging to the economic liberty of innocent people and create obstacles to opportunity for people of other racial groups—based on the degenerate notion that government based racial discrimination, aka racism, is virtuous when applied for the benefit of some individuals based on their racial identity.
If you actually want a better awareness of the reality regarding race and economics I suggest you put down Kendi for a moment and pick up Sowell. I suggest you begin with Wealth, Poverty, and Politics. Anyone who has read How to be an Anti Racist but is either too lazy or too politically bigoted to read Wealth, Poverty, and Politics is a waste of space.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jeffrey. I have heard most of those arguments before. And they have some merit. But I don't think they fully explain away the ways that past systemic racism are still playing out today. I will read Thomas Sowell's Wealth Poverty and Politics. Have you read Heather McGhee's The Sum of Us? I think she does a good job of showing how the vestiges of systemic racism are still playing out in 2021.
I’m glad you appreciated my response but I don’t recall writing anything where I said there are no vestiges of systemic racism. Nor do I recall Thomas Sowell suggesting that.
Whatever arguments you heard, they must not have been mine or Sowell’s.
Vestiges of systemic racism is not systemic racism, just as vestiges of pneumonia is not pneumonia. I came down with severe bacterial pneumonia about a decade ago while I was living in South Korea. I was in the hospital for about 2 weeks. After I left the hospital I was very weakened. To restore my strength and vitality, I had to undergo conscious physical therapy. If someone, seeing my weakness, told me that I was still suffering from pneumonia and encouraged me to take antibiotics, I’d be very perplexed. If someone followed such a misdiagnosis, not only would they not recover their vitality, they may be harmed even further by redundant and ineffectual treatment.
The same applies to systemic racism. Black people no longer suffer from systemic racism (people of other races are now the primary victims of systemic racism). That was progressively cured a few decades ago. However, yes some vestiges of systemic racism still linger, but the cure for that is not the cure for systemic racism. Altering the laws of the system, as was done with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, was necessary to end systemic racism. But altering the laws now is no longer as useful and has actually sometimes been actively harmful to black people and people of other races. For example, affirmative action laws and policies have been harmful. When I recovered from pneumonia I needed to exercise; and no one but myself could do that exercise. Affirmative action laws actively incentivize black people to metaphorically exercise less than they need to recover from the vestiges of systemic racism. Rather than encouraging black students, for example, to study more rigorously in math and science to compete with their peers, “social justice” activists encourage reducing expectations or lowering standards for them. That would be like a doctor telling me not to exercise because I was weakened after I no longer had pneumonia. Schools are consciously being structured in a way that create obstacles to achievement of black students — all in the quixotic quest to fight systemic racism. The teachers and professors who were most helpful in my educational advancement were not those who treated me differently because I was black; in fact the ones who were my greatest allies saw my individual potential and encouraged me to reach it *regardless of my race.*
Shelby Steele, in his book “White Guilt”, gives a wonderful example related to this. Black kids are routinely held up to wildly high standards by peers and coaches when it comes to things like basketball. When a black kid comes on the court and they can’t dribble, they are taunted and told to work on their game by their peers and told to practice by their coaches; when a black kid comes into school and they struggle with math, they are told by many peers and academics that systemic racism means they aren’t expected to perform as well as their peers from other races or that math is a White thing and objective, linear thinking, which is required by STEM fields and so many other careers today, is a vestige of White Supremacy. The social worlds black people find themselves in often guide them toward particular activities that it has deemed “Blackness” and encourages their relentless practice in them and discourages black people from activities that it has deemed “Whiteness” and removes responsibility from black people in many domains to pursue the same aspirations of excellence as people who are not black. I personally often lived in those worlds growing up; but I rejected them, and built my own from what my parents shared and the cultures I found in books that resonated with me.
The racialized world of “blackness” and “whiteness” that the Church of the Awoken is trying to implement through schools, government, and corporations is in fact a form of systemic racism—but it isn’t the sort that they think they are battling. They are attacking windmills thinking they are dragons and birthing dragons thinking they are building bridges. The systemic racism of Jim Crow and slavery are in our past, but the Church is doing its best to keep those ghosts alive and present, conflating the vestiges of a disease with the disease, and shackling free people to injustices inflicted upon some of their ancestors.
It may help the careers of some activists and politicians and temporarily save some effort on part of some black people to work on some valuable skills or avoid responsibility for the 10 children with 10 different women they have, but ultimately it is limiting black people in general from eliminating the disparities in outcomes that the so called “anti racists” claim to care so much about.
“Black power” will not come from manipulating the guilt of white people, it will come from more black people individually and communally embracing responsibility for their freedom. Given that black people in the US were enslaved and then deeply oppressed for so long and now are given license socially by so many people to exempt themselves from the responsibility required from freedom to thrive and excel, continued disparities in domains that once violently restricted black people is not surprising. Time, freedom, responsibility, and plenty of cultural appropriation will be needed from more black people. Not more guilt from white people. Today, more good in some areas could come if many of the white people who think they are helping just stopped trying to.
Many of the things that disproportionately affect black people nonetheless hurt people of other races nearly as much — such as draconian drug laws, the militarized “drug war”, and laws designed to shield government employees from liability for their actions(eg qualified immunity) — and viewing them from a racial lens creates redundant obstacles to building coalitions that could tackle the problems from a universal citizens’ rights lens. The systemic injustices that affect citizens of all races should not be weaponized for the advantage of people of a particular race. If it weren’t for that, I can hardly imagine how marijuana, for example, could still be criminalized on the federal level.
Having said what I did below, I can't neglect to say that I also know that there are still quite a few White people who still believe that Black people are inherently inferior. And a disproportionate number of those people tend to work in certain professions, like law enforcement. Construction is another one. And there are still enough of these people that certain politicians give a wink and a nudge to these racists to let them know that they are on their side. This silent racism is part of the reason why areas of concentrated poverty remain neglected. And I think the more we stigmatize these attitudes the better, which is why I support DEI training, if it's done well. And in my case, I would say it has been. It's also why I support the BLM movement. It is shaming people with these attitudes into the closet where they belong. Of course, it's also bringing some of them out in the open. Watch out for the people who are really angry at the BLM movement. They probably harbor unexamined assumptions and biases that ought to be called out and shamed.
Would it surprise you to know that I agree with almost everything you said? And still, I look at the concentrated poverty in N Minneapolis and I wonder how anyone growing up in that neighborhood has a chance. And I look at a wealthy suburb like Minnetonka, MN (where I grew up) and I wonder how anyone could fail to achieve some level of economic success.
And I can't help but be angry and frustrated about the obvious disparities. And I have a hard time saying "Hey, that's THEIR problem."
Though I still believe that these disparities are the result, in large measure, of systemic racism, I believe that our solutions will probably have to be focused on poverty; not on race. Maybe we agree on that. Affirmative action for the disadvantaged? Thank you for your impassioned words of wisdom.
Great comment, Jeffrey. I replied above before reading it, and the issues you addressed in your fifth paragraph.
I agree with JasonT, Jeffrey! So I signed up for Your Substack. When I'll get TIME to read it is somewhat questionable, but liked the description of most all the essays.
Looking at above, hard to pick out the BEST parts, because all was good:
"Unless those people maintain their attitudes after being exposed to more data about the people — say they come in for the interview and give a dazzling performance yet they are still rejected by the interviewer, calling it *racism* is inaccurate, and calling it “systemic” is slander."
"It harms recognizing the achievement of black people by cultivating prejudice about black potential and harms struggling black people by giving them the demoralizing idea that achievement is “systematically” restricted from them, when today in fact in some domains the system is designed to give them an affirmative advantage."
"I will say though that egregiously punitive drug laws disproportionately affect black people — but those drug laws were and still are commonly supported by many black people—and thus ascribing “racism” to them is invalid, as they apply to people regardless of their race."
But the best I repost to the top, so that more may get a look at it!
A tour de force. Thank you.
I dunno if You're capable of contemplating a more comprehensive view of things. Here's somebody who isn't GUESSING.
https://quillette.com/2021/06/27/the-bias-narrative-versus-the-development-narrative-thinking-about-persistent-racial-inequality-in-the-united-states/
Thank you for your direction to this excellent piece by Loury. As a teacher, I was particularly interested in the section on Obama’s Dept of Ed OCR warning to public schools re: the disproportionate number of black vs white out-of-school suspensions. Loury concludes that section by noting the effects of the bias (as opposed to the development) narrative, which pertain as well to the Kendi/ DeAngelis narratives referenced in this post:
“…it robs a community of the ability to make social judgments. It undermines the capacity to clearly delineate right and wrong ways of living and to urge individuals to live rightly. I am not a philosopher, but I have read Immanuel Kant’s Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals several times, in an attempt to understand what he was talking about. While it is certainly true, he says, that we are all embedded within the flux and the flow of history and under the influence of forces that are beyond our control of environment, psychology, and such, nevertheless, the theorist must assume the capacity of individuals to make free will choices about their moral life, lest there be no possibility for any theory of morals whatsoever.”
TY (thank You) for Your TY, Viv!
Kendi will never debate McWhorter.
I understand your point, but I don't see debate as "fights," though I understand that is what most people want. I don't. Fighting makes me uncomfortable, to be honest (Libra, here). But I think you and Kendi do need to have a conversation in front of people. The problem in our society is people live in a vacuum. And honest, respectful, good-faith debate is an important counter to that. First of all, we can see people respectfully disagree. We have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. And we can see two ideas side by side. Someone who is "irritated at real questions because he has had no experience with actual academic give and take" should not be allowed the platform Kendi is allowed, nor should he be allowed to go unchecked. No one should. Not you, not me, not Kendi. (DiAngelo is another subject. I don't believe in "race traitors," but if you want to see a white supremacist, look at DiAngelo. She's a white woman who makes money speaking for minority populations in order to prove herself better than other white people. Minorities are not "people" in her mind, but a way to enrich herself on many levels.)
"But I think you and Kendi do need to have a conversation in front of people. The problem in our society is people live in a vacuum. And honest, respectful, good-faith debate is an important counter to that. First of all, we can see people respectfully disagree. We have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. And we can see two ideas side by side."
Huh?
We _can_ (and do) see them. McWhorter isn't living in any such vacuum. He's quite aware of these people and their views and how they disagree with his own. No one else is being denied any opportunity to witness these things just as well as and in the same manner as John does.
More to the point: he's not so much asserting his own right not to engage with _them_--in person or otherwise (which he has)-- but, rather, _their_ right not to be obliged by any disgruntled observing public to engage _in person_ in a forum with him.
Or, in short, his point, very simply and plainly put, was,
"My ideological opponents aren't obliged to meet and debate me in person. And, if they choose not to, that's their right."
That's not a radical position---or it oughtn't be one.
P.S. a debate is very much a fight.
Consider: imagine you're an outspoken opponent of the politics and policies of, say, Xi Jinping, Iran's Ayatollah, Syria's Assad, or some other current dictator and you live in the relative safety (for the purposes of this example) of the U.S. Are you obliged to respect and respond to any of these dictators' summons to their presence to "debate" them on the matters in dispute? And are we to suppose that you'd dutifully oblige them in surrendering yourself to them?
I don't think you would.
Your analogy is absurd.
In keeping with our times.