I hate affirmative action.

I don't just disagree with it.

I don't just think it's against the 14th Amendment.

I hate it.

The hatred comes from an understanding

that it is a mandate, that it is a substitute

for the actual development of our capacities,

of our people to compete.

They want to tell African Americans

to pat us on the head.

We're going to have a separate program for you.

We're going to give you a side door

that you can come into.

That doesn't make us any smarter.

It doesn't make us any more creative,

and it doesn't make us any more fit

for the actual competition that's unfolding before us.

The following is a conversation with Glenn Lowry,

professor of economics and social sciences

at Brown University.

He is one of the great minds and communicators of our time,

writing and speaking about race and inequality.

I highly encourage you to listen to his show on YouTube

and Substack, simply called The Glenn Show.

This is the Lex Friedman podcast.

To support it, please check out our sponsors

in the description.

And now, dear friends, here's Glenn Lowry.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech,

I think is the greatest speech in American history.

If I may, I'd like to read a few words of it.

Sure.

And ask you a question about this dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up

and live out the true meaning of its creed.

We hold these truths to be self evident

that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia,

the sons of former slaves

and the sons of former slave owners

will be able to sit down together

at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi,

a state sweltering with the heat of injustice,

sweltering with the heat of oppression

will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children

will one day live in a nation

where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,

but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

First of all, damn.

I mentioned to you offline, I immigrated to America

and this is why I love this country.

This is one of the great speeches

that represents what this country is about.

So what is this ideal of equality

that we should strive for as a nation?

That all men are created equal.

What does that mean to you, this equality?

Well, if we put this in historical context,

King is speaking in 1963 when he gives that speech.

It's exactly 100 years after Abraham Lincoln

signs the Emancipation Proclamation

declaring the enslaved people to be free.

They're not yet citizens in 1863,

but the end of slavery has become

the position of the federal government

when Lincoln issues that Emancipation Proclamation.

So putting it in context,

enslaved people, four million or so,

African descended enslaved people.

How do they become citizens?

How do they become in this status of subjugation

and domination and stigma and exclusion?

How do they become citizens?

It seems to me that that's the heart of it.

The equality that King is talking about

is an equality of status as members of the nation

as free and equal citizens within the republic.

Now, I think it's really important to understand

that slavery was not merely a legal order,

but it was also a social system

that had the symbolism attached to it.

They had a big journey to make

from their subjugated status as serfs,

as landless people, as uneducated,

unfit for citizenship really in the minds of many.

So I think that's what in 1963, 100 years later,

that King is appealing to this idea

that when Thomas Jefferson

in the Declaration of Independence writes these words,

all men are created equal and endowed by their creator

with certain inalienable rights.

He didn't, Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner didn't have in mind

when he wrote those words, the people who were slaves.

But by the time you get to 1963,

King is invoking this idea, all men,

and of course he means all persons,

he doesn't only mean men,

he means men and women are created equal.

He wants this idea to be embraced by the country

in reference to the descendants of the African slaves.

That's his dream, that's his idea.

The legacy of slavery would be erased

that the position of African Americans

would be equalized within the political community,

which is the United States of America.

That's my sense of it in any way.

So on a very basic level, the worth of a human being

is equal, it's just literally the worth of a human being.

So I mentioned to you offline

that I came from the Soviet Union,

my grandfather fought in World War II,

and for Hitler, the worth of a Slavic person

as they were captured, there's different ways

as they were captured, there's different numbers,

but it's in the hundreds to one German,

in terms of the value of the person to the great Germany.

So he wanted Germany to expand

and conquer a large part of the world,

and within that future world, that Third Reich,

the worth of a Russian or a Slavic person

is 100 or 1000s of a German person,

a pure German person.

So that has to do with not some kind of public policy

or politics or all that kind of stuff,

it has to do with the basic worth of a human being.

And that's what Dr. King is speaking to,

that all people on some kind of deep level

are worth the same.

If you're somehow weighing the value of a person,

we're equal in that basic fundamental worth.

Yeah, I think that's correct.

I think that's very well said.

I don't know that he had in mind the position

of Slavic people in Central Europe

in the middle of the 20th century

or the first part of the 20th century, King.

I don't know that he had that in mind.

He might well have done,

but certainly that's the idea.

So you don't think he was really thinking about

this particular civil rights struggle

in the particular struggle

against the backdrop of the history of slavery in America

and thinking about African Americans.

He wasn't thinking about the basic,

he wasn't speaking to the basic worth of all human beings.

No, I don't mean to say that.

The speech in Washington.

The dream.

In 1963 at that march

was within the context of the United States

and it was within the context of the civil rights movement.

There was a movement that was going on.

He was an actor in a political drama that was American

that had to do with the fight over equal rights

for voting, for housing, for employment,

for citizenship of blacks in America.

But King was informed, I think,

by a much broader Christian ethic

of the equality of all persons.

I mean, he gets killed in 1968.

The five years after that speech in Washington,

he spends developing his worldview

and the things that he had to say,

for example, about the war in Southeast Asia

that was going on at that time,

made appeals to universal principles of equality.

He was a pacifist to some degree.

He was against war.

He was a socialist to some degree.

He might not have worn that label publicly,

but he believed in a decent society

where the poor would not go untended,

where healthcare would be available

to people who needed it and this kind of thing.

A humanitarian who saw that the value of a life

was not dependent upon the color of the skin,

upon the native mother tongue that might be spoken,

upon whether male or female.

All persons are created equal.

This is very much the ethic of Martin Luther King

on my understanding.

Broadly speaking,

what do you learn about human nature

by looking at the history of slavery in America?

So what does that tell you about people?

Well, I think of two things right off the top of my head.

One is about the capacity of people

for looking the other way in the face of unethical

and morally profoundly problematic practice.

So I mean, slavery was controversial.

It was controversial going all the way back

to the founding of the United States of America.

The country was founded on a compromise

where half of the country

thought that slavery was abhorrent

and would not have had a countenance in the Constitution.

The other half of the country were steeped

in the dependence on the labor of these African captives

and their descendants.

The economy depended upon it.

They owned them as property.

That was their wealth.

Their wealth was invested to some degree

in the value of these human beings.

And in order for the United States to come together

as a confederation of the several colonies,

there had to be a compromise made.

And it was made where slavery was allowed to persist.

And the people who were against it

or who thought it morally problematic

were able to countenance the practice

in the southern states where slavery flourished.

And that went on for 75 years after the founding of the country

until the crisis of the late 1850s

that led to the Civil War

and ultimately to the Emancipation.

So one thing I think about human nature

from the fact of slavery is that the ability of people

to live with terrible, morally questionable practices

and have that as a part of their institutions,

it took a movement, a massive movement

of abolitionists struggling against slavery

for the better part of a century

before that practice could be eradicated.

But the other thing about human nature that I see

is the ability of people to sustain their humanity

under the most awful, oppressive conditions.

The enslaved persons, the slaves and their children,

I mean, they were chattel.

They were button sold like horses or cattle.

And yet their humanity was not destroyed by that.

And they were able to sustain their dignity to some degree

in such a manner that once emancipation finally did arrive,

the freedmen and women, the persons who had been enslaved

and who were set free, were able to,

over the following decades,

build a foundation for the development of African Americans

within the context of American society

that eventually culminated in the civil rights movement

of the middle of the 20th century.

And has led us into the present day.

So, you know, human nature can countenance awful evil,

but human nature can also survive in the face of terrible evil.

That's what I take from slavery.

That survival, that flame can burn

even when the world around it tries to put it out.

There's still a little flame of human consciousness,

of spirit, of culture, of whatever the hell that is

that makes humans flourish and makes humans beautiful,

that lives on.

That's what everyone said.

Yeah, I think you put it very well.

There's got to be some poetic way of expressing that.

Leave it to the poets.

What about the people that look the other way?

How many people do you think just regular people

knew that something is, this is wrong?

Or do people through generations convince themselves,

most people, most regular people,

convince themselves that there's nothing wrong?

Yeah, I asked this question because I wonder

what we're looking the other way on today also.

Because you have to kind of,

you have to ask yourself these difficult questions

of assuming we're the same people we were.

Back then, we can be flawed in that same kind of way.

We can look the other way just as others have in history.

Yeah, you spoke of the European context

and of the Nazis and certainly a lot of people

had to be looking the other way

when the massive crimes that were committed

by that regime were being undertaken.

Railroad cars full of human beings

being taken off to be slaughtered

or to be worked to death and labor camps

or to be gassed, et cetera.

A lot of people had to know about what was going on

and look the other way

or enthusiastically supported the persecution of the Jews

and the Gypsies and so on.

And I don't know, I wasn't around in 1840.

My sense of the matter is that

like many practices that are unjust,

most people thought that's just the way it is.

I mean, that's the world that they inherited.

They were not moralists.

They were not revolutionaries.

They just wanted to go along.

Some people might have been troubled by it

but thought there's nothing that can be done.

Some people might have thought,

well, they're these black Africans,

they're not really like us

and they are lucky to be here.

If they were in Africa, they'd be worse off still.

Some people might have thought that.

Some people might have been disturbed

but not been able to see what it is

that they could do about it.

They might have thought, oh, this is disgusting.

This is not something I wouldn't want to have anything

to do with but not knowing

whether there's any practical way of opposing it.

That's why you need a movement.

You need for the people who are troubled by the practice

to know that there are others like themselves

equally troubled and as they gather together,

collectively they can exert their influence.

I mean, it debates about the wrongness of slavery

as I say, go all the way back to the founding of the country.

There were abolitionists

and there were people who opposed the compromise

that led to the framing documents

and institutions that created the United States of America,

opposed the countenancing of slavery in that situation.

But it took a while before that could come to a head

and produce the crisis

which ultimately led to the eradication of slavery.

I would note that slavery is not unique to the United States.

It's not unique to the Western Hemisphere

that enslavement of people, the trafficking in human chattel

is something that one sees on a global basis.

One sees it going all the way back to antiquity

so we might ask how is it that people finally came

to turn their backs and eradicate the practice?

That might be the thing worth really trying to understand

because the practice itself is, you know,

there's a wonderful book by the sociologist Orlando Patterson

called Slavery and Social Death

that was published in 1982

which is a comprehensive history and social analysis

of the institution of slavery over 2,500 years

going back to the classical Greek and Roman civilizations,

finding slavery in Africa amongst Africans,

finding slavery in the Middle East,

finding slavery in the Far East,

finding slavery in South Asia,

the enslavement of people,

the practice of taking someone as a captive in war

and then instead of killing them what you could do,

making them into your property

was a very, very widespread in human culture.

So, I mean, I like to make this point sometimes

when people are talking about how wrong slavery was

and I agree without any question

that the practice was profoundly morally problematic

but I like to make the point that,

given how wrong it was,

think about how impressive was the accomplishment

of the eradication of slavery.

That was something, I mean, there were 600,000 dead

in the war between the states, 1861 to 1865

in a country of 30 million people.

That's a lot of dead people who gave their lives

not to eradicate slavery in every instance.

Probably most of them were just fighting for,

they enlisted or were conscripted into the forces

and they fought and they died

but the net effect of their having fought and died

was to push along a process

that led to the eradication of slavery.

That's an amazing achievement.

The slaves themselves were largely uneducated

and, you know, backward in there.

Of course, what else could they have been?

They were kept in captivity.

They were prevented from developing their human potential

and yet, after the end of slavery,

that population, that 4 million plus African descended people

became the foundation for what a century later

leads to Martin Luther King standing in the Washington Mall

and giving that great speech.

And now here we are 150 years down the road

and Barack Obama is president of the United States.

Now, he did not descend from slaves.

I think we must not lose track of that.

But he identified as an African American

and was a part of the population that consisted largely

of people who descended from slaves.

And we are, we African Americans are,

for all practical purposes, fully equal citizens

of this great republic.

That has happened within a century and a half

and I don't know that you can find any parallel

to that kind of transformation in the status of people

from human chattel to full citizens of the republic.

Anywhere in human history, it's certainly worth celebrating

the achievement of the eradication of slavery, I would say.

And it probably started with a few people

that inside their mind dared to rebel.

You know, it's interesting to think about how it all started.

How in the state of injustice,

the revolution percolates, like where it starts.

You said people that see something is wrong find each other.

It's, you know, it's in the ideas of charismatic individuals

that not only know that something is wrong,

but are able to tell others about it and be convincing.

And then together gather and rise up.

It's interesting to make this kind of incredible progress

from slavery to where we are today to live out the ideal

of this all men created equal.

Yeah, the power of individual,

because I don't know what you think about it,

but I tend to think that a few small individuals

probably originated this.

It's the power of the individual.

Because sometimes we think there's injustice in the world,

what can I possibly do?

I tend to think one person can be the seed

of starting to fix the injustice.

Sure, one person here, one person there.

Yeah, one thinks, of course, of Frederick Douglass,

the massively significant figure who was born in slavery,

who stole his freedom.

And because he was property and he decided

he was not going to be property anymore,

and he took it unto himself to emancipate himself personally

and who became an educated, powerfully articulate,

massively influential person in the United States

and in England going around presenting himself

as an embodiment of human dignity

and commitment to ideals of equality.

I mean, he's just one person, but there were others.

Just one person.

All it takes is just one person.

So here we are on this topic of equality in the 21st century.

What does equality mean today?

If you start to think about this idea of equality of outcome

or the injustice of inequality,

at which point does equality of outcome is just?

At which point is it unjust?

Sort of looking at our world today and looking at inequality.

How do we know that some inequality is a sign of injustice

and some is the way of life?

So what does equality mean when we look at the world today?

Different from Dr. King's speech of the basic humanity.

I don't think King's speech,

I have a dream that one day my four little children will be judged

not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,

that requires equality of outcome.

He says his children will be judged by the content of their character.

That's a conditional statement.

That is, the judgment will depend upon the content of their character,

not the color of their skin,

but it doesn't follow from that that the outcomes,

whatever outcomes we consider wealth and economic power,

position within the society, representation in the various professions,

the various measures of social achievement,

doesn't follow from judging by the content of character

and that color of skin,

that when we look at the end of the day at the social outcomes,

that they will be equal across the different groups.

In fact, I think there's a contradiction in the idea

that groups will be equal in all the various social outcomes,

that they will be equally successful in business,

that they will be proportionately represented in the various professions,

that they will have the same educational achievement,

that the occupational profiles will look the same.

If they are, in fact, distinct groups with their own cultural traditions and practices,

with their own ideals and norms, various immigrant populations,

people coming to the United States of America from all corners of the world,

the descendants of the African slaves, the black Americans here today,

who are ourselves various with different origins and so on,

the different religious practices and commitments that Jewish or Mormon or Christian or whatever,

however we parcel up the total population into the various groups,

these groups are themselves different from one another.

They have different norms within their own cultural practice.

How would we expect, if in fact we recognize that the groups are different from one another,

that in a world that is fair, they would all come out equally represented in every undertaking.

They're not equally represented and that fact, I'm arguing, is in and of itself insufficient

to justify the conclusion that they're not somehow being fairly treated.

Fair treatment doesn't imply equal outcomes in a world in which the populations in question

are themselves different with respect to their culture, their practices, their norms, their traditions,

their beliefs, their ideals and so on.

The fact of those different norms, traditions, beliefs, cultural orientations and ideals

will have consequences in terms of their different social outcomes.

So I just think it's a mistake that people are making when they think fairness of treatment

implies equality of outcomes, it does not.

Is the process by which we're speaking now in the midst of the National Basketball Association's playoffs?

I confess to being a Boston Celtics fan.

I mean, I'm just, it's a very good team and I'm excited about my Celtics.

We defeated the Brooklyn Nets.

I mean, we defeated Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving and Company in a playoff series.

We whipped them and we're on our way to the Eastern Conference finals and we're on our way to the NBA finals

and if I were a betting man, I'd put down a few bucks that the Boston Celtics, underrated as we are,

have a very good chance of winning the NBA finals.

Okay, so that's the NBA, that's the National Basketball Association.

I'm a sports fan, I like basketball.

Slightly biased prediction, but yes.

Yeah, it is somewhat biased.

All I'm saying is if you take a look at who the star players are in the National Basketball Association,

you're going to find that there's some Eastern Europeans.

You know, there's some really good basketball players coming out of Eastern Europe and more power to them.

And there are a lot of African Americans.

We're overrepresented.

They're not that many Jews, as far as I know.

No offense intended there, Lex.

But I mean, the NBA is not equally representative of all of the different populations in the United States.

Now, we could go into the reasons why, but I'm just saying the process by which you get to be playing in the NBA is fair.

If you can play, you can get on the court.

All they're looking for is people who can play.

I think something like that is true in many different venues.

I expect if you're a really good technical engineer, companies are going to employ you.

And if you can make money, they're going to advance you and you will be able to rise to the top of that profession.

And I expect that the people who are engaged in financial transactions, who are actually making bets on the market by and large,

are the people who are good at that activity.

And if you're good at that activity in this world, in this modern world, you're going to rise to the top.

I'm not saying that there are no barriers of discrimination.

Of course, there are of many different sorts.

But I'm saying that to expect that there would be, okay, I mean, let's look at who's actually writing code.

Let's look at who's actually trading bonds.

Let's look at who's actually starting businesses and so on.

To say that in a fair world, I would expect that if blacks are 10% of the population, they'd be 10% of every one of those things,

is to ignore the reality that the differences in the culture and practices and norms of the various population groups

will lead to differences in their representation amongst people who are outstanding performers in one or another activity.

How do you know if the difference in culture accounts for the difference in outcomes or it's the existence of barriers, especially barriers early on in life of discrimination that are racially based.

So if you think about affirmative action, in which ways is affirmative action empowering, in which ways is it limiting for these early development of the different groups.

But let's just speak to African Americans.

We should say that you went to some no name Northwestern University at first, but then you ended up with a great university of MIT.

So that's your not early but middle development.

So speaking of the development, the opportunities, the equality of opportunity.

How do we know we got that equality right?

Yeah, I'm glad you put it like that.

We were talking about results.

Now we're talking about opportunity.

I was taking a position that when King says, I have a dream and he envisions a world where his children will not be barred from the good things in life because of the color of their skin.

We're talking about opportunity, not about results, but opportunity is not just something that depends upon what the law is and what public policies are.

Opportunity also depends upon the social conditions in which people are raised, the social and economic conditions.

So the child of a poor family that has no resources, it doesn't have the same opportunity as a child of a wealthy family to realize their full human potential.

You asked me how can we tell whether or not a difference in outcomes is a reflection of unequal opportunity or it's a reflection of differences in culture and interest and practice.

And I don't know that there's a single answer to that question, but I think one wants to look at the data.

One wants to try to measure, as a social scientist, I would say what you want to do is you want to estimate the significance of various factors for determining the outcome.

If the outcome is how much money does a person make when they work in the labor market so you look at their wages and you think, well, that depends upon a number of things.

It depends upon how educated they are, what kind of skills they have, what kind of work experience they have, and so on.

And those things are all legitimate factors that might determine how much they end up making in the labor market.

But you also want to perhaps controlling for those things, see whether or not the fact that they are black or they are Latino or whatever, fact that they are male or that they are female, the fact that they do or do not speak English as their native language,

this kind of thing, whether those factors also are implicated in determining how successful they are in the labor market.

And if you find that after you have controlled for the things that are legitimately determining success and failure in the labor market, like skills and education and experience, having controlled for those things,

the fact that a person is black or is a woman or is an immigrant or is of Latino background also affects their earnings, then you might conclude that to that extent, they are not getting equal opportunity in the labor market, that kind of idea.

But I want to focus a little bit more here on what we mean by opportunity because it's not just whether employers treat the worker on a fair and even basis, irregardless of the workers racial or ethnic background.

That's one opportunity issue, but that's at the end of the development process. They are now presenting themselves to the market, trying to find work and being employed at this or that wage.

That's the end of the line. What about the developmental opportunity, the opportunity to acquire skills in the first place.

That goes all the way back. That goes all the way back to birth. It even goes back to before birth. The mother carrying the infant in the womb.

She has certain nutritional practices and she might be smoking or drinking alcohol or something like that. I'm not saying she is. I'm not saying she isn't. I'm just saying whether she is and it will affect the development of the fetus, the newborn.

Now there's a question of environment. There's a question of the development of their neurological potential. Do they learn how to read? Are they stimulated verbally? How many words have they heard spoken?

Are they being nurtured in a home environment so as to maximize the possibility of them achieving their human potential?

What about the peer group influences? What about the values and norms of the surrounding human communities in which they're embedded?

Do they encourage the young person to apply themselves in a systematic way to their studies and to their focus on their acquisition of language command

and of their educational potential? Development is not only something that is controlled by the society's practices.

It's also something that is influenced by the cultural background of the individual. Those things are not equal.

Those things vary across groups in a very significant way and that too will be a factor determining disparities of outcome.

So when I see outcomes that are different, I see wealth holding that's different. I see educational achievement that's different.

I see representation in the professional schools and law school and medical school that's different between groups.

One question is, are the institutions treating people fairly?

But another question is, do the background in social and cultural influences equip people in the same way?

And we know that the answer to that, not in every instance, do they equip people in the same way?

And so it makes the judgment, the moral judgment that we make when we see inequality of outcome complicated.

Inequality of outcome is a systemic factor to some degree, but it is also a cultural factor to some degree, I want to say.

And that's controversial. I know a lot of people, they think of themselves as being progressive.

They want to point a finger at society whenever they see a disparity.

But I think that that's a mistake. I think it misunderstands the difficulty of the problem.

You think that if you get the right law, if you have the right public policy, if the right politicians are elected to office,

suddenly those disparities will go away. And I'm here to tell you that that's a false hope.

And moreover, it is probably the wrong goal.

But I mean, we could go into that. You were talking about affirmative action, which is something else altogether.

And you were talking about me and my education, which is also something that's a little bit different.

And I'm happy to talk about those things. Northwestern University, by the way, was a great university.

I'm just joking. It's one of the great universities of the world, yes.

And I studied mathematics at Northwestern University, which is how I ended up at MIT in the first place.

And I got a very good technical training in mathematics when I was at Northwestern.

You love both mathematics and human nature, which is why you ended up going into economics at one of the great economics programs in the world at MIT

and getting your PhD there. So one of the many hats you wear is that of an economist,

which allows you to think systematically and rigorously about the way the world and the way humans work at scale,

trying to remove the full mushy mess of humans, like a psychology perspective economics allows you to do.

Well, economics is one of the social sciences. I think there's value in psychology and in sociology.

There's a lot to know that doesn't come up within the study of economics.

We study markets and dynamics of economic development and trade and so on.

But yeah, speaking personally, as I was coming along, I was fascinated by mathematics.

I was good at it and ended up at Northwestern and took a lot of courses there and functional analysis and logic and mathematics

and dynamical systems and stuff that I ended up employing in my graduate studies in economics.

But you're right, I was not satisfied simply to be proving theorems.

I wanted to be addressing issues of social significance and economics.

I discovered, to my delight, was a field of study that allowed me both to develop rigorous analytical frameworks,

modeling and precision of logical deduction and inference.

On the one hand, satisfying my mathematical interests,

but on the other hand, could address questions of social significance like why does racial inequality persist?

Why are some countries prospering and growing and others less so?

Why do the prices of raw materials fluctuate in the way that they do over time and so on and so forth?

And I ended up falling in love with the application of mathematical analysis to the study of social issues.

What do you use beautiful about?

Mathematics, about mathematical puzzles, about logic, all those kinds of things.

It's still there, the love for math is still there for you.

So is there something you could speak to?

What is the kernel, the flame of that love?

It's like magic.

Being able to prove something, I think of offhand, there's no largest prime number.

How would somebody know that?

Okay, what's a prime number?

So a prime number is a whole number that has no divisor other than one.

There are no divisors of the number that makes it a prime number, like 13 or 19 or 37, whatever.

So they're prime numbers.

There's no largest prime number.

They're infinite number of prime numbers.

There's no largest prime number.

Okay, that's an idea.

You can get your mind around it in an instant.

It doesn't take a whole lot of depth to see the question.

There's no largest prime number.

I wonder if prime numbers show up in economics.

Oh, they don't show up in economics, except cryptography.

I understand that's important for coding stuff.

And that shows up in economics.

In terms of models, probably not.

So prime numbers are little abstract algebra.

They show up in all these places.

They're just beautiful mathematical puzzles that don't immediately have an application,

but somehow maybe challenge you and as a result, push mathematics forward.

That's the last theorem, as far as I know, no obvious real world application,

but it has challenged mathematicians throughout the centuries.

Indeed.

And somehow indirectly progressed the field.

The rational numbers are countable.

They can be put in one to one relationship with the integers.

But that the real numbers are not countable.

There's a lot more, quote unquote, more real numbers.

These are orders of infinity.

This is Cantor, Georg Cantor, and all that kind of stuff.

Or Gertl's theorem.

I studied this as an undergraduate, the incompleteness theorem.

There are propositions within any logical system that's rich enough to accommodate arithmetic.

There are going to be propositions that you can formulate that are true,

but that you cannot prove to be true.

So the idea that you could systematically develop a logical framework for mathematical inquiry

that could demonstrate the truth or falsity of any proposition is not a feasible goal.

This was Hilbert's project, as I understand it, and Gertl showed that there was no hope ever

of being able to demonstrate the closure of logical systems that were rich enough to accommodate the real numbers.

They gave an existential crisis to all mathematicians and scientists alike, and humans,

because maybe you can't prove everything.

I remember when I was a junior college, a community college student before I transferred to Northwestern,

and I took a calculus course, and it was a lot of fun.

It was differentiating algebraic expressions and integrating and using trigonometric substitutions.

It was a lot of simple problem solving.

I get to Northwestern, I take a course in differential equations.

Again, it was a lot of formulaic applying.

If you get a differential equation of this structure, like if it's linear, you got exponentials, etc., you can solve it.

Then I took a course that showed where the question was not how to solve any particular functional expression,

but it was proving the existence of a solution to a differential equation where it was like x dot equals f of x and t,

and f is just some arbitrary function.

What do I have to assume about the function f in order to know that there exists a solution to the differential equation,

dx dt equals f of x and t?

They called it a Lipschitz condition.

It's a condition about the bounding of the slope of the function f as a function of x

that you can uniformly bound the slope on that function,

and then you can use an iterative process to show that the sequence of partial solutions to the thing converges to something that's a solution to the real thing.

Again, I'm not going to bore you or pretend that I'm a mathematician.

I'm not.

But what I'm saying is the difference between a specific algebraic formula that you can manipulate and solve on the one hand,

and the abstract question of whether there exists a solution in the general case was like a huge step for me in my study of mathematics,

and the techniques that you have to employ to address these larger questions and so on.

When I was an undergraduate, I took the first year PhD sequence in math analysis at Northwestern from a brilliant mathematician named Avner Friedman

and learned about measure theory and learned about some early functional analysis ideas.

And when I saw that those ideas were being applied by advanced study in economics, I was delighted.

I found an intellectual home.

So one of the fascinating challenges in mathematics is to think which echoes the challenge of economics.

What are the properties of an equation that allow you to say something profound and say it simply?

And so the question of economics is how do you construct a model where you can generalize nicely and say something profound and say it simply?

So one of the challenges of economics is macro versus microeconomics is the world is made up of individuals.

So there's a connection to our discussion of race and discrimination and outcomes and all those kinds of things.

The world is made up of individuals, but in order to say something general, we have to construct groups in order to analyze the data.

We have to aggregate that data somehow.

We have to make an average over some set of people.

So what are the pros and cons of looking at things like equality of opportunity and equality of outcome based on groups versus based on individuals?

And what are the groups if there's any pros to looking at groups that we should be looking at?

Okay, those are big questions.

I mean, in economics, you're right, I mean, micro, you have an account of how individuals make decisions about spending their money on this consumption side

and about how enterprises make decisions about what to produce, how much of it, what inputs to use, what techniques of production and so on.

Individual firms, individual consumers, and then you want to aggregate, so there's a theory of so called theory of general equilibrium where, you know, you think supply and demand and a bunch of markets,

you think prices that move to equilibrate, but you recognize that the price in one market affects people's behavior in another, the markets interacting with each other.

You realize that the behavior one individual affects the supplies and available resources and for other individuals, so they're knitted together in some kind of systematic way.

And you want to try to demonstrate the fact that notwithstanding all these interdependencies, there exists a solution to the system of equations that equates demand and supply across all the different markets.

This is the existence of general equilibrium.

Then you want to try to say something about the properties of an equilibrium if it exists.

Is it efficient? Well, what do you mean by efficiency?

Well, the idea of so called Pareto efficient outcomes, these are outcomes that cannot be uniformly improved upon.

Everybody can't be made better off by an alternative outcome.

You want to demonstrate the efficiency of competitive equilibrium.

What do you mean by competition?

You mean that people take their actions to do the best for themselves that they can.

Profits of firms, well being of consumers, they try to do the best for themselves that they can.

But they do so in reference to a set of prices that they believe they cannot control.

That's the criterion of competitive market circumstance.

So does a competitive equilibrium exist?

Do there exist a set of prices which if everybody recognizes them as given and responds to those prices on behalf of their own interests,

the outcome will be supply, equaling demand in all the markets where people are interacting with one another.

That requires the use of some concepts in topology, fixed point theorems and whatnot that are familiar to mathematics.

Not very deep mathematical results, but important to economics.

That's all about general equilibrium and whatnot.

But you ask about groups.

By the way, amazing world win summary of all of economics, but yes, go ahead.

That was great.

Markets of competition, of Pareto efficiency, anyway, but yes, groups.

And prices.

And by the way, there are some very beautiful formalizations of everything that I'm saying here.

You end up in vector spaces.

You end up with sets of bundles of consumption and production.

You end up with convexity.

You end up with hyperplanes, which are in this finite dimensional vector space, which are all of the bundles that have the same value at a certain price.

You end up with inner products.

And it's just very pretty.

Yeah, but you almost forget that it's just a bunch of humans transacting with each other, that markets are made up of individuals.

Markets are made up of individuals.

And in order to carry out this formalization, you have to make assumptions about the individuals.

And the end result is true in a formal sense, but may not be true as a representation of the reality, because it depends upon assumptions that themselves may not hold.

But at least you know what it is that has to be true in order for your formal framework to be relevant, which is already a step in the right direction, I think.

I mean, the formalization is better than the intuition, the armchair intuition, where we sit back and we don't really know exactly what we're talking about because we haven't pinned it down in a precise way.

I'm in favor of the formalization.

People, they think, what is mathematics and the social sciences?

After all, we're dealing with people.

People are not automata.

I agree with that.

But the analysis of the interaction of people, I think, to be rigorous, requires us to be specific about what we're talking about, about markets, about consumers, about firms, about profits, about technology, about preferences.

And that's the language of economics.

But people's behavior depends upon what they seek in life, depends upon their goals and their objectives.

Those things are at play.

They can be pushed this way or that.

So I mean, nationalism, fighting and dying for your country, religion, sacrificing on behalf of some abstract ideal of the good or of what is the human situation and what is the meaning of life.

Economists have to assume that these things are some particular thing before they can turn the crank on their machine to analyze the outcomes of human interaction.

And yet these things, belief in my identity, but the things that I'm willing to sacrifice and die for, purposes of life that I affirm and pass on to my children, are important preconditions for actually carrying out any economic analysis.

And they are subject to manipulation and to change over time.

And that's not something that economics has a whole lot to say about.

Well, is there some general things that are really powerful in terms of you said nation, religion?

Those are groups.

Can you group people nicely in helping you understand human nature?

So group them into nations based on their citizenry.

That's geography, right?

The geographic location of your birth or your long term residence or maybe religious belief, what religion you believe over time.

Is there groups like that and then race?

Is that useful?

What are the pros and cons of looking at outcomes based on these kinds of groups?

Race in particular.

I think they're pros and I think they're cons.

I mean, I am myself. Glenn Lowry sits before you right now.

A black American, an African American, I quote, unquote, I identify as, you know, that's the way they talk about it nowadays.

I identify as a black American.

My skin is brown.

My hair is coarse.

My nose is broad relative to the way other people's noses look.

My lips are thicker.

That's a consequence of my ancestral descent from the human population resident in the African continent in millennia past.

My race.

Here in the United States, we have various quote unquote races defined crudely in the way that I just tried to define myself.

You could say, and I think there is a very powerful argument that these are superficial differences.

I mean, really?

Why should it matter that your eye color or your hair color or the shape of the bones in your face or the color, the tone of your skin,

the amount of melanin, how it is that you react to ultraviolet radiation in terms of your skin?

What is that to be the basis of anything?

I mean, that's arbitrary.

That's not meaningful.

Could there really be meaning in these superficial differences among human beings?

Isn't that a archaic or barbaric way of thinking about ourselves to look at each other's skin color or hair texture and then to decide,

that's a black or that's a white or that's a Latin or that's an Asian or that's a whatever, that's something that we should outgrow.

A person might say, that's a relic of a kind of tribal society, of a kind of pre modern society where we built real structure on the basis of such superficial difference.

I could say that.

On the other hand, I am a black American.

I mean, that's part of my identity.

That's part of my heritage.

It's part of the stories that I tell myself about who my people are.

Why do I need a people?

Why do I need a narrative of descent in which I affiliate with a racially defined people?

Do I really need that?

I mean, I think that's an important question.

In fact, this is a confession.

Think of myself as black.

I could think of myself as simply human.

I could not identify specifically as black.

I could say, my eyes are brown too.

So what?

I'm a brown eye.

I'm going to invent a group based on my eye color.

I weigh 290 pounds.

I'm going to have a body size group.

I'm a plus 200, and that's quote, who I am, close quote.

I don't do that.

I came from Chicago.

Yes, I do have a certain sense of affinity with my hometown.

I'm a Chicago born person, but frankly, I haven't lived in Chicago since 1979.

That's a long time.

I wear my Chicago origins very, very lightly.

I would not go to war with someone from Cleveland or St. Louis and fight to the death with that St. Louis person or that Cleveland person.

Based upon the fact that we come from different cities.

And you have even abandoned in your heart the Chicago Bulls?

There's some Chicago that's still in me, I suppose, but it's not very deep.

It's not quote, who I am anymore.

And I'm wondering, I hear I'm trying to pose a question.

Why is it that being a descendant of African slaves should be who I am?

So there's some answers.

One answer is people will look at me and deal with me differently based upon what they see.

I don't have control over that.

I'm going to be perceived as a member of a group, whether or not I elect to affiliate myself with that group or not.

Therefore, I need to be mindful of the fact that regardless of what my internal orientation is, the world will perceive me in a particular way and will perceive me differently based upon the color of my skin.

So a police officer who stops me at two o clock in the morning because my tail light is out and ask me for my automobile registration and I reach quickly to the glove compartment to get my registration.

And the police officer says, show me your hands.

I don't quite hear what he says or I ignore what he says as I'm getting my document out of my glove compartment, but the police officer thinks because I have not responded to his demand to show my hands that I might be reaching for a weapon.

And the police officer sees that I'm black and fears that the likelihood that I might have a weapon is higher because in that town at that time, a lot of the people who get stopped with weapons in their car happen to be black and male and so on.

And he pulls his weapon and he discharges it and I'm bleeding out there and I'm dead now.

And all of that is a possibility that's very real and is based upon the color of my skin and therefore when he stops me, I keep my hands on the steering wheel and I don't go to the glove compartment and I'm fearful of the fact that he might mistake me for a criminal, etc.

Or I walk into a high end store clothing store. I see you nicely dressed there legs. I'm not, but that's okay.

I do have some good clothes at home. I just didn't wear them here today.

But you know what I mean and the clothing, the salesman in the clothing store either treats me like, you know, an old friend and is warm and welcoming and what can I do for you, sir?

And let me show you this and that and what are you looking for and what because he thinks I'm going to spend $1,000 there that day and he's going to get a 5% commission or whatever it is.

And, you know, he either does that or he ignores me and looks at me with suspicion and thinks I might be trying to shoplift something or thinks I'm only going to spend $50 and not $500 and therefore I'm not worth his time.

And I'm aware of the fact that when I go into the clothing store, especially the high end places where I can buy some buy a good suit or, you know, buy some really good dress shirts or slacks that fit me well and so on.

I'm aware of the fact that I may not be taken seriously by the salesman based upon the fact that he's looking at me and he sees a black person and therefore I dress up before I go to go out to buy clothes to get, you know,

because I want to present myself as not someone who just walked in off the street but as one of those black people who is really prepared to spend some money in the store so that I can be treated with respect and I have to carry the burden, such as it is,

of knowing that I need to earn the being taken seriously by overcoming the suppositions that people may have about me based upon the color of my skin, something like that.

Or I ask myself, what am I going to teach my children about who they are and where they come from what stories am I going to tell them about their ancestors who are their ancestors.

Every African American has European ancestors, every black person in the United States of America.

I think that I can say that almost without exception.

We could go to 23 and me and look at the DNA.

They have European ancestors, they're not purely African.

That's a fact and that's a consequence of the experience of African descended people because it's a mixed population.

My name is Lowry, spelled L O U R Y but pronounced as if it were L O W E R Y and I gather if you trace the history of that name that it's Scottish.

So somewhere she could identify as a Scott.

Well, I could claim some Scottish descent, but I don't.

I don't know who those ancestors are and frankly, I don't know who my enslaved ancestors are.

I can't trace my family history back very far into the 19th century.

But so what what stories do I tell my children about who we are about who their ancestors are.

I mean, I want to tell my children some story and that story is going to be colored quote unquote by my race.

So even though it is superficial and in an ideal world, you might think, why would human beings, I mean, I read science fiction.

So there's this Chinese writer Chicks and Lou is his name.

I might not pronounce it exactly right.

C I X I N L I U Chicks and Lou.

He has a trilogy of the three body problem.

The Dark Forest and Death's End. Those are the three books of Chicks and Lou's trilogy about how tri solaris, which is another star system within a few light light years of the solar system and Earth get into a conflict.

And when the tri solaris come down to dominate Earth, suddenly all of these differences between the Chinese and the North Americans and the Europeans and the Africans and the South Asians become kind of insignificant because after all the tri solaris

with their advanced civilization, whose star system is dying, have their eyes on the solar system, which has a planet the third rock from the sun that is pretty habitable and, you know, the difference between us become pretty insignificant.

So we shouldn't need for an invasion by extraterrestrial beings to have to happen before we would recognize the common humanity that we all share that is profound and is deep.

We all descend in effect from the same ancestral population of homo sapiens who walked out of East Africa eons ago and have survived amongst all of the different possible, you know, variations of species and whatnot of humanoid population homo sapiens have

died out of the same solaris, the others have died out. And here we are. And, you know, we can just look at the genetic endowment said characterize our biological essence and we can see that we are quote unquote the same beneath the skin and yet we end up

freighting so much weight onto these superficial differences so I can I can see both sides of the issue is what I'm saying, I can see the argument races and the relevancy, because at the end of the day, deep down, it is, but I can also see the argument that I hold on to racial identity

because a my racial presentation colors how other people deal with me, but B, because everybody needs a story.

You know, everybody needs an account you tell me you're Jewish I mean I don't know how deep that is I don't know how genetically profound that is I do know that it's a culturally profound identity for a lot of people.

Based upon maybe some of the same kind of forces that I'm talking about a they won't let you not be Jewish. You could say you're not Jewish but when Hitler is rounding people up.

What you say doesn't have a whole lot of do with what the Gestapo was about. And B, you need to tell your children a story.

Yeah, that's the fascinating thing about this tribalism that you spoke about that we form tribes as humans throughout human history form tribes and have directed hate toward other tribes and sometimes violence and destruction.

And yet, tribalism allows you to tell a story to your children allows you to grow a culture. There's something about defining yourself within particular tribe that allows you to have a tradition.

Yeah, you have an article that you wrote called the case for black patriotism.

Oh, yeah. So I should also say it's so interesting because for me personally, I feel identify as believe I am an American.

And yet within the American umbrella, it feels that there's a longing for other tribes. You mentioned Jewish, but what I honestly feel is I mean a lot of it is humor and culture and so on is Russian and Ukrainian because that's that's where I come from.

That's where my family is from. You know, there's like stereotypical things that are funny humorous type of thing about Russians showing no emotion, good at chess and math, into wrestling, drinking vodka.

I mean, there's literally every single stereotype I'm in the embodiment of that. So there's a you celebrate that in certain kinds of ways. There's a tradition there.

And within the American umbrella and some of it is humor. Some of it is little quirks of culture, but now with the war in Russian Ukraine, interestingly enough, even that little thing becomes also a source of negative tribalism.

But anyway, that context aside, what is black patriotism? And why do you feel?

I mean, I'm speaking in an article called the case for black patriotism in a particular context.

And what I'm saying basically is very simple. I'm saying we are African Americans.

And the emphasis should be on the American. I actually don't even much care for the framing African American, but I'm not going to fight with people about it.

It's, you know, I don't think it's worth fighting about. That's not how I would just say we're Americans. Or if you want, we're black Americans.

We're certainly not African. That is, the African American population is a population of people who come into existence here in North America through the cauldron of slavery.

There are also immigrants, immigrants from East Africa, immigrants from West Africa, immigrants from Southern Africa, immigrants from the Caribbean, who descend from an ancestral population, which is African.

We, you know, the history of the world since 1500 is a history in which people of African descent are scattered because of slavery throughout the Western hemisphere.

And so here we are. But the institution of slavery ended in 1863 in the United States.

The struggle that we started out talking about, which gave rise to Martin Luther King giving that speech that you say is the greatest speech in American history, and I'm not going to argue with you about that.

It happened right here in the United States. We are, what is the United States? The United States is a nation of immigrants.

The population of the North American continent was sparsely populated by an indigenous population, which was destroyed in conquest by a European population that settled here in North America and appropriated the land,

and have built a civilization here, which has been people by large influx of individuals from Europe, and Irish, and Italian, and Greek, and Slavic, and Jewish, Russian Jews coming in large numbers and so on and wave after wave after wave of immigration.

Asian, Latin American population of people have come to reside here in the United States, and we black Americans who descend from slaves.

We African Americans who descend from slaves. So here we are. This is a great nation. I mean, this is a monumentally significant political force, which is the United States of America founded in 1776, 1787.

It fought a war of independence from the British established a republic, which is a confederation of these independent colonies, which has grown into now the 50 States of the United States of America continental nation.

The richest and most powerful nation on the planet with massive influence throughout the world at for good and for ill. That's who we are. I want to say to black people, there is no other home for us.

This fantasy of we being a people apart. Back in the day when I was coming along in the 1960s, there was something called the Republic of New Africa movement, and they wanted some states in the south, given over to black people and we were going to have our own country.

And that's a, that's a joke. It's a fantasy. It's, it's, it's, it's a mythic, unbalanced, unrealistic, fanciful politics. It's not a serious politics. We're Americans. We're not going anywhere here.

The idea that, and I want to say this in a number of different registers, I want to say, first of all, we need to make peace with the fact that that's who we are and that's where we are.

So, nobody is coming. The world court is not going to litigate our disputes. The United Nations is not going to set up a desk for people of African descent who reside in North America.

We have to work out whatever our concerns are with our fellow Americans right here within the context of American politics. That means compromise.

That means looking for frame, a framework for political expression, which is broader than our racial identity, etc. So I want to say that.

But I also want to say there's no reason to apologize for this. There's something positive to affirm. I take on this question about slavery in, in brief, in brief.

Because in fact, slavery was awful and it was wrong and it was on the backs of the enslaved Africans and it had consequences that endured, that have endured long after the termination of the thing.

But I also want to say, look at what has happened in the last 150 years for African Americans. And I want to say, look at the vitality of the institutions here in the United States of America, of the Democratic Republic of the United States of America.

Again, not perfect, which are, which are malleable enough, these institutions to allow for the transformation of the status of African Americans such as has occurred since the end of slavery.

And I want to say there's a lot to celebrate in that. So this is our country.

We are full members of the polity. We have burdens and responsibilities, as well as privileges that are associated with our membership in this Republic.

That does not mean that we should not fight for what we believe to be right, although we are not one voice here, we black Americans.

It does not mean that we should not protest things that we think are deserving of protest. But I want to say, it does mean that we should not reject the framework that we're operating in because we basically don't have any alternative.

And because when viewed in full context, a noble and profoundly significant achievement, the United States of America, and a beacon to the rest of the world, I don't want to, you know, go off in some starry eyed kind of jingoistic celebration of America as the greatest civilization, etc, etc.

But this great nation is our nation. And I think we do best by beginning, we black Americans do best by beginning, this is my argument in the piece, by beginning from a framework which accepts that fact and then builds on it.

So black patriotism is not exactly the same. Rhymes echoes American patriotism. So a black American is first and foremost an American.

Yeah. A black American is first and foremost an American. And it's a good thing, too.

Let me return to the question of Dr. King and another powerful impact from individual Malcolm X to ask you the question.

Well, first, people often perhaps inaccurately portray them as representing two different ideals approaches to the fight for civil rights.

So Martin Luther King for the nonviolent approach, the peacemaker and Malcolm X is the by any means necessary.

What do you think about this distinction and broadly speaking in black patriotism in the future of black Americans in the 21st century, what is the role of anger?

What is the role of protests? Even violence encompasses a lot of things, but just aggression and the, you know, fuck the man, we're going to have to make change, force change.

Okay, I think you put your finger on something really important in the context of we were just discussing my black patriotism essay.

It's not the only, it's not the only story. There is another story and Malcolm X is someone you identify and his memory lives on and is powerfully influential.

And I think you see it in Black Lives Matter and I think you see it in the protest and rioting and so forth that has broken out periodically going all the way back to the 1960s and before but especially since the 1960s.

You saw it in Los Angeles in 1992, the Rodney King civil disturbances that broke out there. And the bald up fist, the radical, afro centric rejection of the American story that Martin Luther King he believed in he believed in a magnificent

promissory note. And a lot of people are rolling their eyes, you know, and saying, you know, as you say, fuck the man magnificent promissory note.

I mean, just get your knee off my neck. You can that's what you can do for me. Don't ask me to believe in your BS about some magnificent promissory note some founding fathers who were all slave owners anyway, I mean just get your knee off my neck.

Now, I can relate to that. As I mentioned, I grew up in Chicago in the 1950s and the 1960s. I remember Malcolm X. I mean, literally in real time.

I remember when he was murdered in 1965 in the Audubon ballroom in Harlem in Manhattan in New York City.

I remember my uncle, I was raised in a house where my aunt and uncle were the master of the house and my mother and my sister and I lived in a small apartment upstairs in the back of this of this big house that my successful aunt and uncle owned.

And my uncle was a small businessman, a barber and a tradesman. He was he was a hustler. I mean, legally, I mean, he did what he had to do to make money. He was very enterprising, not especially well educated, but a very intelligent and disciplined and resourceful provider for his family,

which included myself, my sister and my mother in their household. And we called him Uncle Mooney because he had moon shaped eyes that protruded and were round Uncle Mooney.

James Ellis was his name Uncle Mooney. James Ellis Lee was my uncle Mooney. But I'm saying all that to say this. He admired the nation of Islam.

I mean, King and Malcolm X, Martin King and Malcolm X differed along a number of different dimensions. Malcolm X was a Muslim.

And Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian minister.

My uncle Mooney didn't have any time for these Christian ministers. He thought that was the white man's religion. He, you know, and back in that day, you go into a black church and you'd see a portrait of Jesus. And he'd be a blonde hair blue wide.

He didn't even look like a Mediterranean. I mean, he didn't look like somebody who came from Palestine. I mean, he looked like somebody who came from Northern Europe or something like that. The picture of Jesus.

And my uncle Mooney rejected that whole thing. He would be damned if he was going to bend his knee to some white Jesus. But he was not a Muslim either.

But he respected the Muslims. He brought home their newspaper. It was called Mohammed Speaks. This is the nation of Islam, which is the black Muslim movement founded in American cities in Detroit and then Chicago, going back to the early middle 20th century,

and growing into a very significant movement that had a lot of influence. Louis Farrakhan, a controversial figure, descends from this movement. It has fractured now and has the major part of the legacy of the black Muslims.

It has assimilated itself into Islam proper. Malcolm X made a famous pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina and came back with a very different vision about what it meant to be a Muslim and understood himself to be a part of the large tradition and religious

culture of Islam that has a global reach. And he had a different vision when he came back from that. Some people say that's why he was killed and so on. I don't know. I certainly find that to be plausible that he became the constitutive threat to the sect, which was the

the black Muslims and had to be dealt with. I don't know if we'll ever know the full story on that. But anyway, what I'm trying to say is the black Muslims were there. Malcolm X was there. And in my experience, they constituted a counterpoint to the position of

the king, which depended on a kind of respect for the best of the tradition of American democracy, appealing to the better nature of our oppressors, live up to the full meaning of our creed.

These are words that he would use. A magnificent promissory note is what he would think of as the Declaration of Independence and the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, an unfulfilled ideal. And the black Muslims were like, fuck that.

We're going to take care of our own. We're going to build our own schools. We're going to build our own businesses. We're not waiting for the white man to do anything. Get your knee off my neck and get out of my way and let me take care of my own.

And my uncle respected that. He respected the straight back, the stand up straight with your shoulders back. That's a Jordan Peterson. But I mean, that was the way before Jordan Peterson, but that was his philosophy. Stand up straight with your, raise your children. Don't be depending upon welfare.

You're taking welfare from the white man. You need to get busy. You need to educate yourself. You need to clean up your act. Put down the fried chicken because it's going to kill you. My uncle Mooney loved this book that Elijah Muhammad.

They called him the honorable Elijah Muhammad. He was the founder and the leader of the nation of Islam. He had a book and all the books said was be smart, eat green vegetables, don't eat fried food, don't eat pork.

They're Muslims. Don't eat pork and take responsibility for your diet and be healthy. And, you know, don't be putting a whole lot of pills into your body.

You don't need to do that if you just get control of your diet and you eat properly. And my uncle loved this idea of responsibility for self and determination to build, you know, he respected that in the Muslims, even if he didn't buy the religious part of it.

And so, and by the way, when my uncle died in 1983, he left me a bequest. It wasn't money, unfortunately. It was his complete collection of the recorded speeches of Malcolm X.

And I have, I have these albums. These are 33 and a third LPs. There's six of them. And I have a complete collection as best as my uncle could assemble the recorded speeches of Malcolm X. Now, why did he do that?

He did that because he did not want me to forget. Don't be dependent upon the white man. Build your own stand up straight with your shoulders back. Proud black man, take care of your business.

Take care of your children. Pick up the trash in front of your house. Get busy. This was this philosophy.

So violence now. That's another story. I mean, Malcolm X would say, you know, we're going to defend ourselves. Are you going to mess with us? You know, you racist, Ku Klux Klan or whatever. We're going to arm ourselves. And we're going to fight you back. You racist police who are oppressing and persecuting and abusing our people.

Well, you better be ready because we're going to fight you back. And that too was the spirit that my uncle, that was a kind of attitude, a kind of posture. My uncle was not a radical. He was, he was a businessman, but he respected this idea.

You take your life in your own hands when you mess with us because we're prepared to defend ourselves.

So that blood runs in you too. That threat is when you write about black patriotism, that threat is there too. It's like you embody both the ideal that we're all American, but also that there is this oppressive history.

There is the powerful that are manipulating you, that are oppressing you, and you can't just wait around for things to fix themselves. You have to take action. You have to take things into your own hands. And sometimes that means being angry. Sometimes that means being violent. That's there too.

Yeah, it's there, but here in the bud is I don't meet today Glenn Lowry in 2022 think that that is the answer. I don't think that violent rebellion gets us anywhere at the end of the day.

I think we're past that there aren't Knight Rider Ku Klux Klan people breaking down your door and dragging you away. There are not nooses thrown over a tree limb where you hang somebody from the tree because they whistled at a white woman or they got too much property in your community and you became, you know, they were

uppity Negroes and whatnot like that that is a thing of the past in America that the situation is no longer the one that requires that kind of violent reaction and that there there is if we look at the net effect of the so called rebellions

in American cities, they're negative. The George Floyd protests which became violent and arsonists in the aftermath of civil disturbance and whatnot in the summer of 2020, I think set back the program for African Americans.

I think it advanced it. I think there are things to be concerned about schools that are not working police that are not not respecting citizens and so forth but I think that those are things that affect white Americans as well and that the way to ultimately correct

those things is to make alliance and associate oneself with Americans who are concerned to change these things and I don't think it's properly framed as a racial as a racial problem and I certainly don't think that, you know, violent rebellion gets us anywhere.

You know, I get the historical salience of that posture, and it made a lot of sense in the early in the mid 20th century. I don't think it makes very much sense at all in the early 21st century.

Well, thank you for allowing me for a brief moment to try to channel your uncle Mooney and maybe Malcolm X in this conversation as we as we look forward to the 21st century. You mentioned that in part you're troubled by the term African American.

So words are funny things until they're not. So let me ask you about what I think is one of the most powerful and controversial words in the English language, the N word.

So this is a word that I can't say that only certain people have the right to say. I have a friend Joe Rogan, who has, what would you say, there was mass pushback or highlighting of the fact that he didn't just say N word but said the full word many times throughout his conversations

when referring to in a meta way about the power of words, especially when related to certain comedians using those words.

Yeah, what do you think about this word? Is it empowering? Is it destructive?

What is it? What does it mean for race in America? What does it mean that people like Joe Rogan were essentially there's an attack to cancel him for using the word just as a scholar of human nature? What do you think about this whole thing?

This is a phenomenon that interests me. The N word, nigger, I can say it because I'm black. But I mean I can also say it because I like hip hop.

And when I listen to hip hop, I hear the word all the time, these niggaz ain't dead. You ain't watch out for these, etc.

I heard the word constantly as I was growing up as a boy and a young man in Chicago. Niggaz ain't shit. That was it.

And that could be a reflection of some kind of pathology within the African American community of self hatred and so forth.

It could be or it could just be a colloquial linguistic way. I mean, I assume other groups also have their various, I don't know how the Irish talk about their Irish brothers and whatever.

And I don't know how the Jews talk about the Jewish brothers and whatever. But black people when talking about other black people use the N word all the time.

My nigger, NIGGA, you know, my nigger, that is a term of endearment.

My friend Randall Kennedy, the law professor at Harvard University has a book called Nigger and he uses the word in the title of the book.

The history of a strange history of a provocative word is something like there's a subtitle, but the title of the book is NIGGR colon.

And then he has a subtitle.

I think, of course, the use of the word as a slur and an insult, which is a part of the history of black people in the United States, the use of the word by the southern racist segregationist.

We don't want no niggaz up in here. Niggaz have no place in my restaurant in my store, etc.

That's meant to be an insult. It's an insult to people that's a fighting word. It's a way that you say that to somebody.

It's an invitation for conflict.

That said, what is it that about this particular word and also the asymmetry of it that do you think it's empowering to the black community to own a word?

My honest answer to you is I don't know. I don't fully understand it. It has become symbolic in a way and the policing of the use of the word.

I can say it, but white people can't say it. I can say it. I'm not a racist. I'm not a self hating black.

I'm just speaking the language of colloquial English that has emerged amongst African Americans in which that word plays a big role.

But the prohibition on its use by others. And of course, in the Joe Rogan case, it wasn't as if he was calling anybody an inward.

He was simply pointing out that people had said stuff in which the inward was a part of what they said.

Now, he did make this statement about how did he put it, the planet of the apes that one of the offensive things that he said had, you know, he walked into a room.

There's a bunch of black guys standing around. He says, like, planet of the apes.

He said it's like Africa planet of the apes.

He should have been a little bit more careful.

That was an insult. That was, you know, something that, you know, if you say that and people are offended, they have a right to be offended.

And if you didn't mean to offend them, you can apologize. And he did apologize. I accept his apology. Joe's okay with me as far as that goes.

In fact, McWhorter and I, John McWhorter and I at the podcast that I do, the Glenn show, I had a conversation, part of which touched on the Joe Rogan phenomenon.

And we concluded he didn't really do anything wrong. I mean, I mean, you can like RML, you can hate him or whatever, but the idea that he's a racist is kind of ridiculous.

Frankly, I mean, Joe, you know, if that's your test of what constitutes a racist, the utterance of the word, then, you know, it's kind of a,

it's kind of silly as far as I'm concerned.

What do you think about the rigorous testing of people to the degree they're racist or not?

The accusation of racism being a way to attack, to bully, to divide.

So what are the pros and cons of that once again? Because it does reveal the assholes and the racists, but it can hurt people who are not.

Well, I think we have a history here in the United States of blatant racism that goes back a long way and that has present day echoes.

So there are racists. I mean, there are people who will look and see all those black people, they're patronizing this business.

I don't want to patronize this business anymore.

Who, if the daughter of their son is dating somebody that is black, they will say, I really wish you wouldn't do that.

I mean, why are you hanging out with those people? Don't you know who they are?

There are people, there are racists. Okay.

There are black racists.

That is black people who see somebody who's white and who then invoke a whole lot of stereotypes or whatever or have a, you know, visceral dislike based upon nothing other than the color of the person's skin.

Such people exist. Racism is a real thing, etc.

On the other hand, I think this throwing around, you know, the accusation of racism, a college professor is teaching a course.

He says, in the context of teaching the course, that the under representation of blacks in physics program at this university is because they scroll lower on the test than other groups, and they're not qualified.

So say the professor gives a lecture, and he says, we don't have more blacks in the physics department at this university because they're not enough qualified blacks.

Somebody in the classroom who hears that a black student objects, he's a racist. Okay.

That's a power move.

It's a move to try to control the conversation.

It's not an argument. It's an epithet.

I said that a person who has a particular idea that you don't like, maybe that idea is I'm against affirmative action. I think it's unfair. I was just with Dorian Abbott.

Dorian Abbott is a scientist at the University of Chicago, who published a piece in Newsweek magazine, in which he said that he thought affirmative action and racial balancing was unethical.

He invited to give a lecture at MIT, a very distinguished lecture in his field based on planetary science. I don't know exactly what it is. I'm not a scientist.

But in any case, because he had said that he didn't like affirmative action and he thought affirmative action was racist, that's basically what he said.

Why are we looking at people based upon their race and decide we should just do it on the merit? That was his position.

Now, people protesting at the university where he was invited, MIT, saying that he's a racist because he had that opinion. He gets disinvited.

Charles Murray is a popular social science writer who is famous for his book about IQ, The Bell Curve, one chapter of which chronicles the racial differences between black and white in performance on mental ability tests

and speculates about the extent to which such differences may be connected with the genetic inheritance of these racially distinct populations.

Now, he could be wrong about everything that he's saying.

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him a white supremacist because he observes that there are racial differences in measured intellectual ability amongst Americans of different racial descent.

He could be wrong. Let me stipulate that he is wrong. I mean, I don't want to argue about whether he's right or about whether he's wrong.

He's addressing himself to a factual issue and now the issue becomes, instead of grappling with the factual questions at hand and demonstrating his rightness or wrongness about those questions, the issue becomes his character.

He's a racist. That's in my mind a lot like calling him a witch.

The use of that word now, I think, has parallels to accusing people of witchcraft because they have views about substantive questions that bear on racial inequality or racial difference

that a person finds unacceptable or that a person disagrees with and you think you can shut somebody up.

Crime in the cities of Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC is out of control, some person might say.

Murder rate is high. Who's committing those crimes?

They're mostly black young men who are doing the carjackings and who are doing the shootings. They're killing each other. They're making our city unlivable.

Now, that's a hypothetical statement that I offer. It might be correct. It might be incorrect. It might be appropriate. It might be inappropriate.

It may be true, but something that we would be better off if people didn't focus on. I don't know.

I'm responding to someone making that statement. Have you seen what has happened to my city?

It used to be that you could go to North Michigan Avenue and you could find one after another after another high end shop. This is in Chicago, my hometown.

And tourists would come and they'd go to the theater and there were restaurants and they'd go out. They don't do it anymore.

You know what? Half of those stores are boarded up now. You know why?

When George Floyd was killed, black people mobbed in the city and they burnt and they rioted and they looted and it hasn't been the same ever since.

And I'm moving to the suburbs. I'll be damned if I'm going to send my children to those schools. A person could say that.

They might be right. They might be wrong to say it. Calling them a racist isn't exactly not a rebuttal of what they said.

It's a move. It's a move to try to take control of the conversation by accusing someone of having bad character because they said something that made you uncomfortable, which you can't deal with.

So you think you can shut them up by calling them a racist. You might as well be calling them a witch.

You might as well be calling for their head on a platter because they believe that Satan is Lord because that's the kind of quote argument.

Close quote, which is precisely not an argument that people who invoke that term are using. And here's what I have to say about that.

It's a fool's errand to try to refute somebody by calling them a witch.

Likewise, it's a fool's errand to try to rebut the contrary forces in American politics that are a reaction often to real things that are going on on the ground in black communities in the cities across this country

by calling people a racist. You may shut them up, but you won't change their minds.

And you know what? At the end of the day, they're going to go to the ballot box and they're going to vote.

They're going to pick up their store and they're going to move it to the other side of town or to another town altogether.

They're going to keep their children away from places where they think the influences are harmful to those children.

They may not even talk about it in public. You can believe that in private that they're talking about it with each other.

You had better find a more effective way of dealing with the conflicts in this country that fall along racial fault lines than calling people witches.

Which is what this, you know, anti racist, you're a racist because you think that the out of wed like birth rate amongst black Americans is seven babies out of 10 are born to a woman without a husband.

Their families are falling apart. Now, no one says that in public because they'd be called a racist if they said it in public.

But as a matter of fact, the families are falling apart. You didn't change that in the least by telling people to shut up about it.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan is called a racist in the 1960s. The late Senator, the New York Senator, who was a federal employee and an intellectual writing reports.

And he writes a report about the Negro family. He called it in those years.

If I use the word Negro, now they're going to call me a racist if I'm a white person. I can't even use the word Negro,

which is a historically legitimate reference to the descendants of the slaves in slave people, which we were as black Americans proud to use until yesterday.

So all of this linguistic policing is a sign of weakness.

It's false black power.

People will seed you the ground. Okay, you don't want me to use that word. I won't use that word anymore. Okay, you don't want me to talk about that in public.

All right, I won't talk about it in public anymore. I don't want to be called a racist. Okay, so I won't express my opinion.

You haven't changed anybody's mind.

You know, so.

And you've also mentioned that for that, you haven't changed anybody's mind, but also for things like in universities and institutions, there's diversity, inclusion, and equity kind of meetings and education and so on.

And I believe I read somewhere I've been, like I mentioned to you offline, big fan of your Glenn show, people should listen to it.

It's amazing.

There's also just interviews of you that I've listened to.

I believe you mentioned somewhere that even those kinds of meetings, people might sit through and not along.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that's making progress that they may not.

They may actually be bottling up a frustration. That's the fear is that that's going to result in a pendulum pendulum sort of push back towards this idea of forced appreciation, like forced anti racism kind of thing.

I talk about this often in my pockets. That's the Glenn show, you know, and you can find the Glenn show, my YouTube channel and also at sub stack.

Yeah, you have a great sub stack. You're in your friend to Q&A's and all that kind of stuff on Patreon.

Yeah.

So yeah, so people should definitely follow you.

Check us out.

But yeah, I mean, one concern is that the policing of the superficial policing, this is a part of political correctness, you know, the insistence that you only use certain words that you only talk in a certain way is a phony kind of power because it doesn't

actually persuade people about the issues that are at hand. Instead, it forces them underground in their talk about these issues.

And that's problematic, much better that we have overt and explicit and honest disagreement to the extent that there are disagreement about things that are going on.

And then that we have a superficial kind of, you know, conversation that is perished of any real biting, you know, discomforting confrontation with with the realities of the situation at hand and for black Americans,

one big part of the reality of the situation at hand is violent crime, violent crime, you know, a police officer is afraid when he stops the car because it's an 18 year old driver in the vehicle.

He's got dreadlocks. He's a black person. The car doesn't have the right license plate.

He's afraid to deal with that person. And one of the reasons he's afraid to deal with them is because a few who look like him are behaving violently.

Their violence is usually perpetrated against others who look like themselves, but not always.

And that reality doesn't get changed by, you know, telling a newspaper writer who writes about it that they are racist or enforcing within a newsroom.

You can't cover that story in that way because to do so would be racist. I think it's a monumental mistake to enforce a closure on public discussion based upon a calculation that if we allow people with Twitter allows this kind of post.

If the Washington Post runs this kind of story, et cetera, you end up with a superficial politeness, but a subterranean seething resentment that only makes matters worse.

If I can get your comment, maybe you have ideas because it does seem that this kind of attack works.

Of being called a racist, being called maybe not sexist, but somebody, you know, like they were going through a Johnny Depp trial now, right?

It's a defamation trial and the reason it's a defamation trial is because all it took is a single accusation of Johnny Depp being somebody who sexually and physically abused Amber Heard.

And all it took is just a single article. No proof was given except the accusation itself and the world believed it.

So it's effective. So how do you fight back if it's so damn effective that you can just call anybody racist and it works?

It's hard to wash off.

You know, you're not proven in the court of law or anything like that, but we get those articles, get that label, and then the world moves on and just assumes that person is racist.

So how do you, do you have any ideas how to fight back?

No, I don't frankly.

Just highlight Roseanne Barr, who made this statement about Valerie Jarrett, she made some kind of ape like reference to the whatever and her show got canceled and she's a racist.

So first of all, pointing it out, I suppose is one of the most powerful things that this, the, the hypocrisy of it.

You say it works. I guess you're right. It used to be the calling someone a communist.

Yeah, work. I mean, going back to the late forties, early fifties, red scare, McCarthyism and whatnot.

And the person might have belonged to a club that was pro Soviet Union in the 1930s when they were in college.

They might have voted for the socialist candidate Henry Wallace in the presidential election of 1948.

They might belong to the Communist Party.

They might think Karl Marx was right about a whole lot of stuff about capitalism and whatnot.

And they got called a communist or a Marxist and it could have ruined their career, could have ruined their lives.

You know, and a lot of people shut up about it and it took and it went on for a long time.

And in a way, in a way, it kind of still is going on. I mean, you call somebody a Marxist. If you can make that stick, they're certainly not going to get elected president of the United States.

But I don't know about this. I think, you know, I once read this book by a German political scientist called Elizabeth Neula Neumann.

That was the writer's name, Elizabeth Neula Neumann. The book was called The Spiral of Silence.

And the argument was there can be some views, some issues in society that get defined in such a way that it's inappropriate to hold those views.

And as a result, people who don't want to be shamed, who don't want to be ostracized, don't express those views.

And when they don't express them, anybody holding the view because they don't hear it said by others, think that they're the only one or one of the few who hold the view.

And so they don't want to be the only one out there saying something. So they keep it to themselves.

So now this view, this attitude in society could be held by a large number of people. But because of the fear that if they were to express it, they'd be ostracized.

No one says it. And since no one is saying it, the others who hold the view don't know that they're not alone, that they are not the only ones who hold the view.

And hence they keep silent. That could be an equilibrium. It could be a relatively stable situation in which the emperor has no clothes.

Everybody can see that this dude is naked.

Okay, but everybody thinks that, you know, I don't want to be the only one to say it. And so we all kind of collaborate in this charade of keeping the view to ourselves.

Then along comes an event that somebody decides to defy the consensus and the speak out.

It could be a little kid who in the story about the emperor has no clothes doesn't realize that he's not supposed to say that the emperor is naked.

The thing about the kid in the story who says that the emperor is naked is not that he's saying it.

It's not even that other people hear him saying it. It's that everybody knows that everybody else heard him say it.

Okay, the kid who speaks out and says the emperor has no clothes creates a circumstance in which it's common knowledge that the emperor has no clothes.

Now common knowledge does not just mean knowledge. It does not even mean widespread knowledge. It means comprehensive knowledge of other person's knowledge of the thing.

Okay, so the spiral of silence is an equilibrium that is susceptible to being undermined by a process of a kind of cumulative process, a snowballing process of revelation that you're not the only one who thinks this way.

Okay, it's fascinating to think that there's an ocean of common knowledge that we're waiting for the little kid to wake us up to different little parts of it.

That's correct. And the little kid, by the way, could be somebody like Donald Trump, only more effective than Donald Trump.

Somebody who is smarter than Donald Trump. Somebody who is shrewder than Donald Trump.

Somebody who figures out that when Colin Kaepernick takes a knee at a football game and says,

I'm not going to stand for this presidential allegiance that a vast number of people are very unhappy about that.

Somebody who understands that when a Black Lives Matter activist stands up with his ball fists and says burn this bitch down about a city in the United States of America.

A lot of people are upset about that. A lot of them. A person, a shrewd politician, a shrewd manager of a public image could build on and create a circumstance in which more and more people will feel safe to express that view.

And the more who express it, the safer those who have yet to express it, but who hold it will feel in expressing it.

To the extent that the view is very widespread, but is kept under wraps and explosion could happen.

And you can look up at tomorrow and have a very different country than you had today because the conspiracy of silence, the spiral of silence ends up getting unraveled by somebody who steps out away from the consensus,

and dares to take the slings and arrows of exposing themselves as a naysayer, but taps into a sentiment that's very widespread.

And I fear that with respect to many racial issues, this is the situation that we actually confront, that it could unravel in a very ugly way.

But it could also unravel in a beautiful way, so it's depending. There is a spiral of silence you're saying, and it could be, because speaking of children, charismatic children, there's a guy named Elon Musk who might be a candidate for such an unraveling.

Right, you mentioned the person that speaks out could be Donald Trump, but in this current situation that we live in like as this week, Elon has purchased Twitter.

That's what I hear.

And is pushing for, in all kinds of ways, the increase of free speech on Twitter, and speaking about some of the issues that we've been speaking about here with you, but maybe in broader strokes about just the fact that you have to,

it's okay to point out that the emperor wears an old clothes and to do so from all sides in a way that everybody's a little bit pissed off, but not too much.

What do you think about this whole effort of free speech in these public platforms?

Elon in particular, Twitter, your avid Twitter user, but just public platforms for discourse for us as a civilization to figure stuff out.

Yeah, well, the people on the left are very upset about the possibility that Elon Musk and Twitter will be open to more open to provocative public speech that has here to fore been banned or suppressed.

And I think they might be right to be concerned that that could happen.

I don't know enough about the technology and about the market to really social media and whatnot.

It seems like it's a complicated system of interactions between people and who the users are and so forth and so on.

I do know that that New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop was real news and could have affected the outcome of the election and it was suppressed and that Twitter had a role in suppressing it.

I do know that the question of where the COVID 19 virus originated in the role that a lab leak account could have played in the public processing of that event was real news and that it was suppressed by people who were trying to control misinformation,

disinformation, Russian disinformation campaigns and whatnot.

So Twitter has users I'm one of them and it has a lot of users it's not as big as Facebook I gather it's not, but it's important the ability to construct counter platforms, people moving around and whatnot.

It's a kind of network dynamic that maybe I should understand it better than I do being a social scientist but

I don't think anyone understands it even people include inside Twitter, which is fascinating. It's a monster because of just the bandwidth messaging and you don't know who is a bot and who is a human.

That's a fascinating dynamic and the viral nature of negativity that all of those dynamics of course you are probably the right person to understand it from a social scientist perspective from an economics perspective, but nobody really understands.

And it's fascinating within that domain. How do you allow for free speech not allow for free speech encourage free speech defend free speech.

And at the same time, manage millions of ongoing conversations from just becoming in insanely chaotic.

Sort of from a from Twitter perspective they want people to be happy to grow to actually have difficult critical conversations.

And they, you know, the problem with humans is they think they know what that is, and they think they can label things as misinformation as as counterproductive for healthy conversations in quotes.

And the problem is, as we are learning humans are not able to do that effectively. First of all, power corrupts.

There's something delicious about having the power to label something as misinformation. You do that once for something that might be obviously misinformation.

And then you start getting greedy. You start getting excited. It feels good. It feels good to label something as misinformation and disinformation that you just don't like.

And over time, especially if there's a culture inside of a company that leans a certain political direction or leans in all the groups that we talked about leans a certain way.

They'll start to labels misinformation, things they just don't like. And there's that power is delicious and it corrupts.

You have to construct mechanisms like the founding fathers did for somehow preventing you from allowing that power to get too delicious.

At least that's my perspective on what's going on.

Well, I'll just tell you personally, I'm excited about the prospect. I'm glad to see Musk making the move that he's making and we'll see what happens at Twitter and so forth.

You're looking forward for the, what did he say? Let's make Twitter more fun. I'm looking forward to the fun. You've talked about you are at a prestigious university.

Brown University.

And you've mentioned that universities might be in trouble. I think it's with Jordan, but everywhere else that barbarians are at the gate or the barbarians at the gate of the university.

So first of all, what is to you beautiful about the ideal of the university in America of academia? And what is at threat?

Well, you know, a university is dedicated to the pursuit of truth and to the education and nurturing of young people as they enter into the pursuit of truth to doing research and to teaching in a environment of free inquiry and civil discourse.

So free inquiry means you go wherever the evidence and your imagination may lead you and civil discourse means that you exchange arguments with people when you don't agree with them on behalf of trying to get to the bottom of things.

I think the university is a magnificent institution. It is a relatively modern institution. I mean, last 500 years or so. I mean, there are universities that are older than that, but the great research universities of the world, and not only here in the United States,

are places where human ingenuity is nurtured, where new lot knowledge is created, and where young people are equipped to answer questions that are open questions about our existence in the world that we live in.

You can trace to the university much if not most of the advances in technology and resourcefulness and our understanding of the origins of the species of the nature of the universe, cosmology, et cetera, science of the pursuit of humanistic understanding, the nurturing of traditions of inquisive.

So that's the university. Barbarians at the gates. The people who are trying to shut down open inquiry at the university on behalf of their particular view about things are a threat to what the university stands for, and they should be resisted.

So if I'm inquiring about the nature of human intelligence, and I want to study differences between human populations and their acquisition of or their expression of cognitive ability, that's fair game.

It's an open question. If I want to know something about the nature of gender affiliation identity and gender dysphoria and whatnot, that's fair game to study in the university. You can't shut that down.

You shouldn't be able to by saying, I have a particular position here. I'm a member of a particular identity group. Suppose I want to study the history of colonialism.

And there's a narrative on the progressive side, which is colonialism is about Europeans dominating and stealing or whatever, whatever.

And I happen to think, well, there's another aspect to the story about colonialism to which is that it's a mechanism for the diffusion of the best in human civilization to populations that were significantly lagging behind with respect to that.

And they brought literacy to the southern hemispheric populations that were dominated in the process of the colonizing thing. It's complicated. I'm not taking that position, by the way.

I'm just saying somebody at a university should be able to take it up and pursue it and engage in argument with people about it. I'm talking about race and ethnicity, but this extends to a wide range of things.

I'm talking about climate. And one person says the earth is endangered because carbon in global warming, etc., etc. And another person says, no, wait, no, wait.

Look at where we stand in the 21st century. We're vastly richer than our ancestors just 250 years ago. We have much more knowledge about that and so forth and so on.

For 250 years from now, human ingenuity will have devised in ways that we cannot even begin to anticipate all manner of technological means for managing the problem.

There's no reason that we should shut down industrial civilization today because we fear the consequences of it when, in fact, we are vastly richer than our ancestors and those who come out two centuries after us will be vastly more effective at dealing with problems than we are now.

I'm not actually making that argument. I'm just saying the tendency to try to say, oh, no, that person is a climate denier. They can't pursue that area of inquiry is against the spirit of the university.

I think the barbarians at the gates has to do with the people who think they know what the right side of history is and try to make the university stand on the right side of history.

My position is you don't know what the right side of history is. And the purpose of a university is to equip you to be able to think about what is the right side of history.

What is the solution to the dilemmas that confront us as human beings living on this planet with the billions that we are in the condition that we are.

So the identitarians, the ones who want to make the university kowtow to their particular understandings about their own identity.

We now have at Brown University and various other places. We don't do Columbus Day anymore. We do Indigenous People's Day.

When that day comes up in October, we don't talk about Columbus. They're taking down statues of Columbus all across the country and so forth and so on.

I'm not arguing anything here other than that the latter day position,

BIPOCS, Black, Indigenous and other people of cover, the latter day position that the university has to reflect a particular sensibility about these identity questions.

I think it's a threat to the integrity of the enterprise.

I don't think you're overstating it. I tend to be just for my limited knowledge of MIT, but perhaps it applies broadly.

I think the beauty of the university, broadly speaking, is the faculty and the students,

and the problem arises from the overreach of an overgrowing administration

that gives, again, things that it knows enough to make rules and conclusions based on a set of beliefs,

and then based on that empowers a certain small selection of students to be the sort of voices of activism, of a particular idea.

And not, I think, activism is beautiful, but not just activism, but anybody that disagrees is shut down.

And that, I think, the blame lies with the administration.

So I think the solution is in lessening, just like the solution with too big of a government, too big of a bureaucracy,

is there needs to be a redistribution of power to what makes universities beautiful,

which is the old students and the young students, old students being professors.

So the scholars, the curious minds, the people that are in this whole thing to explore the world, to be curious about it,

on a salary that's probably way too low for the thing they're doing, that's the whole point.

And then the administration just gets in the way and is the source of this kind of...

I would say in your beautiful phrasing, I would say the administration is the barbarians at the gate.

So the solution is smaller bureaucracy, smaller administrations.

I have to, on this point, you had this conversation, you put on your self stack with Jordan Peterson about cognitive inequality.

I think it's titled, Wrestling with Cognitive Inequality.

This particular topic of just IQ differences between groups, why is this so dangerous to talk about?

Why this particular topic?

Well, it's like you're calling black people inferior. It's like you're saying they're genetically inferior.

That's what people are saying. It's like you're rationalizing the disparity of outcomes by reference to the intrinsic inferiority of black people.

If you say cognitive ability matters for social outcomes, if you say cognitive ability exists,

people really are different in terms of their intellectual functioning.

And if you say cognitive ability differences are substantial between racially defined populations,

the sum of that, there is cognitive ability, it matters, and the difference by race,

is the conclusion that outcome differences by race are in part due to natural differences between the populations.

People find that to be completely offensive and unacceptable.

So that's what I think is going on.

Can you still man that case that we should be careful doing that kind of research?

So this has to do with research. It's like the Nazis used Nietzsche in their propaganda.

White supremacists could use conclusions, cherry pick conclusions of studies to push their agenda.

Can you still man the case that we should be careful?

I can do it at three levels. One is what do we mean by cognitive ability?

So there's many different kinds of intelligence a person might say.

How good are IQ tests at measuring other kinds of human capacities that are pertinent to success in life,

like temperament, like emotional intelligence, and so on.

So intelligence is not a one dimensional thing measured by G.

The cognitive psychologists talk about G, the general intelligence factor, which is a statistical construction.

It's a factor analytic resolution of the correlation across individuals in their performance on a battery,

a different kind of test, and they use that to define a general factor of intelligence.

A person could say that is a very narrow view of what human mental capacities actually are,

and that it's much better to think about multi dimensional measures of human mental functioning

rather than a single cognitive ability measure, a so called IQ, which is a narrow construction

that doesn't capture all of the subtle nuance of human difference in functioning.

Functioning is not just the ability to recite backwards a sequence of numbers.

I say eight, seven, nine, five, three, two, you say two, three, five, seven, eight, nine.

It's not just that intelligence is a complex management of many different dimensions

of human performance, including things like being able to stick with a task

and not give up things like being able to discipline and control your impulses

so as to remain focused and so forth.

That could be one dimension.

I could start by questioning the very foundation of the argument for racial differences

in cognitive ability by saying that your measure of cognitive ability is flawed.

I could go to a higher level.

I could say what we're really interested in is social outcomes and the question of

what factors influence social outcomes extends well beyond mental ability to many other things.

Here's an example, visual acuity.

How well do you see?

You're not wearing glasses.

I am.

Visual acuity varies between human beings.

Some people see better than other people do.

Visual acuity can be measured.

I can put you at the chart and you can identify and read that bottom line in small print or not.

So we can measure visual acuity and it varies between human beings.

Visual acuity is partly genetic.

I think that's undoubtedly true.

We inherit genes that influence whether or not we are near sighted or far sighted or astigmatic or whatever.

So visual acuity differs between people and can be measured and is under genetic control.

On the other hand, corrective lenses allow for us to level the playing field between people

who are differently endowed in terms of visual acuity.

Likewise, social outcomes are what we're really interested in, employment, earnings, whether or not they're law abiding.

How do they conduct themselves and their families and so forth amongst individuals?

Yes, social outcomes are influenced by so called cognitive ability,

but they're influenced by many other things as well.

If there are interventions that can be undertaken in society that level the playing field

between people who have different natural endowments of cognitive ability,

the fact that people or groups differ in cognitive ability becomes less significant.

Just like it's less significant that people differ with respect to how well they see

when corrective lenses allow for the leveling of that playing field.

There are in fact interventions, educational interventions, early childhood interventions

that have been shown to level the playing field to create better life outcomes for people

even if they happen to be in doubt with low intelligence.

A second level of arguing against this whole program of research on human differences in intelligence

is to observe that yes, human beings and perhaps racially defined groups may differ on the average

in intellectual endowment, but there well may be social interventions that level the playing field,

whether it's in education or in other kinds of programmatic interventions, especially for the poor.

A final level of argument is the one that you alluded to which is that if you talk like this,

you're going to encourage a kind of politics which is very ugly and it's best to frame the discussion

in ways that don't put emphasis on racially defined natural differences between populations.

That's an argument that I am myself personally conflicted about.

On the one hand, I think those people are just stupid. It is racist.

On the other hand, I think the calculation, we shouldn't do this kind of research.

Suppose I'm at the National Science Foundation. Research team submits a proposal.

The proposal proposes to undertake a study.

The study would explore the extent to which people and racial groups differ with respect to their intellectual performance

and how that's influenced by their genetic and environmental interaction.

I decide not to fund the study based on a political calculation that the subject is too sensitive.

If you explore that subject, you might get the wrong answer.

If you get the wrong answer, the white supremacist will be encouraged.

That is presuming before the research is done that I know the outcome of the research

and that I can calculate what the political consequence of the research outcome is going to be.

That's assuming the thing before you even know what the thing actually is.

It's a kind of omniscience. It presumes that you as the master of the universe

can tell people what it is that people are being treated like children.

What it is that they're capable of knowing and what it is that they're not capable of knowing.

It would be like someone saying to Einstein, I don't know about that special relativity theory.

It could well lead to the development of technologies that would allow nuclear weapons.

There's someone saying that Oppenheimer, who is a physicist overseeing the Manhattan Project

where the US developed the nuclear weapons capacity, don't carry out that project

because the results of acquiring that knowledge may be more than we can deal with.

There's someone saying to someone doing biomedical research who's interested in exploring the nature of the human genome.

Don't carry out that experiment, that cloning undertaking, whatever, because the consequences could be deleterious.

Well, the consequences could be deleterious. The consequences could also be the cure of cancer.

The consequences could also be being able to generate electric power without producing carbon effluent.

So, who are you to tell me who you being the person in the political position to control the research?

What the consequence of doing the research is?

I think I don't want to cede that kind of power to politicians over the course of human inquiry.

So, yes, I would want there to be regulations governing the use of biologically sensitive and potentially dangerous pathogens in a lab in Wuhan or any place else.

I would not want to simply leave that to laissez faire.

On the other hand, I think that the tendency to try to shut down inquiry on behalf of supposed adverse political consequences is the role to ignorance and impoverishment at the end of the day for humankind,

denying ourselves the potential benefits of that kind of inquiry.

I think we need to take our chances with inquiry rather than to try to control it.

And I feel that way about the exploration of human intelligence as much as anything else.

So, you've asked me to steel man the case against research on IQ of the sort that Charles Murray is famous for popularizing.

And I've said, A, your measure of intelligence is single dimensional and it ought to be multi dimensional.

I've said B, the consequences of people's differing in intelligence depends not only on the natural endowments of the people,

but also on the environment and the potential for intervening in that environment, environment through one or another kind of instrument,

as the metaphorical example of the use of corrective lenses to level the playing field between people with different visual acuity indicates.

But finally, I've said, yes, research on racial differences in IQ can foster political beliefs that we would regard to be noxious.

On the other hand, to presume that what we don't know yet and might find out from the research is going to be harmful is to assume a kind of presumption

or of knowing what the outcome of unknown processes might be, which we ought to be very slow to embrace.

Because if we had done so in the past, we wouldn't have nuclear power.

There's a lot of things that we wouldn't know.

I mean, what were people saying about Darwin and exploration of the evolution and origin of the species?

They were afraid that it was going to, in effect, disprove the religious based accounts of, you know, what were they saying about Copernicus and etc.

So, you know...

That was a masterful layering of, quote, wrestling with the cognitive inequality.

You dragged in nuclear research, Copernicus, Darwin, biomedical research with genetics, even COVID and the lab leak.

I mean, that was just fun to listen to.

Okay. Let me ask you about your politics.

So, you recently said that you're a conservative leaning.

Maybe that's a day to day thing.

Maybe you can push back.

So, you have somebody like your friend, John McWhorter, who we could say is on your left to the left of you.

And then you have somebody like Thomas Sowell, who maybe is on to the right of you.

Yeah, probably.

And yet there's a lot of overlap between the three of you.

Right.

So, to what degree does politics affect your view on race in America and maybe to what degree does your view on race affect your politics?

Okay.

And that, for people who don't know, has shifted over time.

You've been on quite a roller coaster as anybody who thinks about the world should be.

Well, let's begin with the fact that I was trained as an economist in a tradition of what many people would call neoliberalism.

I was trained at MIT, which was not a right wing place by any means.

But it was a place where you learned about markets and about the benefits of capitalism as a way of organizing society.

The virtues of free enterprise.

The fact that the pursuit of profit was not necessarily a bad thing, but it well might be the road to prosperity and to economic growth.

The idea that private property and individuals seeking to acquire and succeeding in acquiring wealth did create inequality, but it also created opportunity.

And it also expanded our knowledge and our control over the physical environment in which we're embedded in, et cetera.

So we were not Marxist at MIT, although we did read Marx.

I mean, those of us who were intellectually curious, you read Marx.

It was an important figure in the history of the West.

And I think Marx should be read in capital three volumes, et cetera.

Alienation of labor and whatnot.

The implications of modernization of the advent of industrial capitalism, et cetera.

That kind of dynamic deserves to be studied and to come at it in a critical way.

Informed by the intellectual inheritance of Marx and Marxism.

I think that's a part of a full education in social philosophy and economic analysis that open minded person ought to acquaint themselves with.

But at the end of the day, I think that the free marketeers have the better of it.

I think the story of the 20th century, as far as economic development is concerned, reflects that.

I think that the experiments where centralized control over economic decisions was the order of the day failed.

I think that the fact of the 21st century rise of China as a force has a lot to do with the spread of, in effect,

socialist oriented modes of economic exchange, freeing up prices, markets, property, and so forth.

Although, obviously, it's a complicated political economic system.

I'm talking about China.

But I think that the story of the 20th century and the hope for the 21st century is that prosperity is enhanced through the free exchange of goods

and the pursuit and acquisition of property by people in a more or less capitalist oriented system.

That's the view that I hold.

I guess that makes me a conservative. I don't know.

I want to say that's not to the exclusion of a social safety net.

I'm not saying that old people in an ideal social system would be left to their own devices, regardless of whether or not they had saved for their retirement.

I'm not saying that the ideal of extending decent access to health care to all people, regardless of whether or not they can afford it,

decent access to education to people, regardless of whether or not they can afford it, is standing in the way of prosperity.

I don't believe that.

I think the mixed economies that we see in Northern Europe and in North America are a balancing of the virtues of free enterprise property and the pursuit of wealth on the one hand,

against the needs to have a decent society in which people who fall between the cracks nevertheless are bolstered through a sense of social solidarity

that is accommodated by our common membership within a single nation state, which is why I think nationalism is important.

It's why I think borders are important because without a coherent polity who can see themselves as in a common situation and agree through their politics to support each other to some extent,

you can't sustain a safety net, you cannot have a social safety net for a global population.

You can only have a social safety net for a bounded population who have a sense of common membership in an ongoing political enterprise,

which they pay their dues through their taxes in order to sustain it.

There's a balancing that has to go on.

So that's the first thing that I would say about my politics.

I'm a neoliberal economist, I believe in markets, I believe in prices, I believe in profit.

Corporations are not an incarnation of evil.

Corporations are a legal nexus through which production gets organized in which you solicit the cooperation of workers,

of people who provide capital, of people who provide raw materials and input of customers and so on.

That functionality allows for the production of goods and their distribution and their earning of income and its distribution,

which at the end of the day is the foundation of our prosperity.

Corporations are people too.

Mitt Romney got in trouble for saying that in 2012.

But corporations are nothing but a legal fiction.

The corporation is not a person as such, but the nexus of contracts and relationships amongst the stakeholders who intersect in the context of the corporation

is the way in which we organize the massively complex set of activities that are necessary in order to produce economic benefits

in order to feed people, in order to have everybody with a cell phone in their pocket,

in order to be able to travel from one side of a continent to another on a device that is with almost absolute certainty

going to safely take off inland in order to be able to build cities and etc.

But do the markets, the ideal of the market collide with the ideal of all men are created equal?

The identity, the struggle that we've been talking about of what it means to sort of empower humans that make up this great country.

Do they collide or where do they collide?

Well, markets are going to produce inequality.

And all men being equal is a statement about the intrinsic worth of people,

not about the situation that will come about when people interact with each other through markets,

because people are actually different.

And because there are factors that are beyond anybody's control called luck and chance that, you know, you and I both invest.

It looked our priority like your investment and my investment were equally likely to succeed.

But as a matter of fact, ex post facto, your investment succeeds, my investment doesn't succeed.

I don't have wealth and you have wealth.

That is an inevitable consequence of an environment in which both of us are free to make our investment choices

and where the consequences of investment depend in part upon random circumstances of which no one has control.

But you asked me about my politics and I was just trying to lay down a foundation by saying,

I begin as an economist in the tradition of liberalism, Adam Smith and so forth.

John Maynard Keynes for that matter and so forth, that Milton Friedman and so forth,

that Paul Samuels and Bob Solo, James Tobin and so forth, Thomas Sowell, yes, that appreciates property,

the virtues of free enterprise, the set of institutions that allow for security of contract,

a rule of law, things of this kind.

So that's one thing to say about my politics.

Another thing to say about my politics and you're right, I've moved around.

Is that, you know, I began outside of Chicago, black kid, I was a liberal Democrat.

I encountered the economics curriculum at the MIT and I became trained in economics in the tradition that I've just described.

And I encountered also the Reagan Revolution.

This is the late 70s and early 80s.

These are big debates about economic policy and so on.

And I found a lot to admire in the supply ciders.

The people were saying, you know, let's get the government out of the way.

The people who are worried about national debt, which is a lot more now than it was then.

The people who were worried that the welfare state could be too big,

that the incentives of transfer programs could be counterproductive,

that you had a war on poverty and we did have a war on poverty and poverty won.

And there's a lot of evidence that the war on poverty was lost by the people who were trying to quote unquote eradicate poverty in our time.

That incentives really do matter and that the state, which is driven by politics,

is often unresponsive to the dictates of incentives,

that the markets eliminate people who are inefficient and who are not cognizant of the consequences of incentives

because they can't cover their bottom line and they won't persist for very long if they can't cover their bottom line.

They're forced to respond to the realities of differences and costs and benefits and so forth

in a way that governments can cover because they have their hand in our pocket.

They can cover their losses and they can make accounts balanced,

notwithstanding their mistakes because they can take my property by fiat by the power of the state.

The tax collector comes if I don't pay, he seizes my holdings and they can carry on in that way.

They need the corrective influence of markets in order to be responsive to the realities of life.

I mean, I may not like it that prices are telling me that something that I want to do is infeasible.

I may not like it, but what the prices are telling me is that the costs of doing it

exceed the benefits to be derived from doing it and if I persist in doing it,

notwithstanding that I'm going to run losses and those losses will accumulate

and the net effect of that over an entire society is stagnation

and ultimate attenuation of the economic benefits that might be available to people.

Again, I think if you look at the developing world in the postcolonial period, the second half of the 20th century,

that's exactly what you see. Planning doesn't work.

Centralized control over resource allocation doesn't work.

I became more conservative in that respect, but I also, and this has to do with race,

lost faith in the posture that what became of the civil rights movement.

I mean, the civil rights movement, you quote King 1963, the civil rights movement starts out as

we want equal membership in the polity, but it becomes a systematized cover.

I'm going to argue for deficiencies that are discernible within black American society,

which only we could correct. That's a very controversial statement.

I make it with trepidation. I don't take any pleasure in saying it, but here's what I'm talking about.

So I'm talking about the family. So the family is a matter internal to the community about how men and women

relate to each other and engage in social reproduction, childbearing, the standing up of households,

the context within which children are mature and so forth and so on.

So the African American family is in trouble. I think I can demonstrate that by reference to high rates of

marital dissolution by high rates of birth to out of wedlock and so forth.

You can't even say that the African American family is in trouble.

Violence, homicide is the order of magnitude more prevalent amongst African Americans that it is in the society as a whole.

This is behavior. It's behavior of our people. I speak of black people.

Of course, we're not the only people in society for whom violence is an issue.

It's an order of magnitude more prevalent in our communities.

I'm talking about schooling and school failure.

So we have affirmative action as a cover.

It's a bandaid on differences in the development of intellectual performance,

which is only partly a consequence of the natural intelligence of people and largely a consequence of how people spend their time,

what they value, how they discipline themselves, what they do with their opportunities,

how parents raise their children, what peer groups value, and things of this kind.

The Asian students who are scoring off the charts on these exams are doing it not because they're intrinsically more intelligent

than other people, but because they work harder, because their parents are more insistent on focusing on their intellectual performance,

because they're disciplined, because of the way that they devote their time and their resources to equipping their children to function in the 21st century.

This is what I believe. I think it's demonstrably the case.

And it is a factor in racial disparity.

The way that the civil rights movement has evolved under the wing of the Democratic Party into an organized apologia

for the failures of African Americans to seize the opportunities that exist for us now in the 21st century,

but did not exist in the first half of the 20th century.

The way in which the civil rights movement has become an avoidance mechanism for us not taking we African Americans responsible.

This is Glenn Lowry. Not everybody's going to agree with it.

It's part of what makes me a conservative.

I am tired of the belly aching. I'm tired of the excuse me. Why supremacy?

It is in my mind a joke.

I limit the fact that that kind of rhetoric is so seductively attractive to African Americans and so widely adopted by others.

And as I am fond of saying, at the end of the day, nobody is coming to save us.

I mean, higher education, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, where the future is happening.

That is about mastery over the achievements of human civilization, such as they manifest themselves in the 21st century.

There's no substitute for actually acquiring mastery over the material.

There's no substitute for that to be patronized, to have the standards lowered.

They want to get rid of the test.

They want to tell African Americans the pat us on the head.

We're going to have a separate program for you.

We're going to give you a side door that you can come into that doesn't make us any smarter.

It doesn't make us any more creative.

And it doesn't make us any more fit for the actual competition that's unfolding before us.

Now, you want to be 10% of the population that's carried along for the next 100 years.

You want to be a ward of the state in the late 21st century.

You go ahead because the Chinese are coming.

You're not going to hold them back.

The world is being remade every decade by new ways of seeing and new ways of doing.

If you don't get on board with the dynamic advancement of the civilization in which we are embedded,

you're going to end up being dependent on other people to look kindly upon you.

In this story that you've got, this belly ache, this excuse, my ancestors were slaves,

is only going to work for so long.

So that makes me, I suppose, a kind of conservative.

I hate affirmative action.

I don't just disagree with it.

I don't just think it's against the 14th Amendment.

I hate it.

The hatred comes from an understanding that it is a mandate,

that it is a substitute for the actual development of our capacities of our people to compete.

I'd much rather be in the position of having them try to keep me out because I'm so damn good like they're doing with the Asians.

Then having them have to beg the Supreme Court to allow for a special dispensation on my behalf

because they need diversity and inclusion and belonging.

It's not just diversity.

It's not just diversity and inclusion.

There's diversity and inclusion and belonging.

I'm whining because I feel like I don't belong.

That's a position of weakness.

It's pathetic.

And it's the only political correctness that keeps people who can see this,

and believe me, a lot of people can see it from saying so out loud.

So you want the black American community to represent strength?

Correct.

And I want us to deal with what it is that we have to deal with

in order to be able to project strength in an increasingly competitive world.

Let me ask you.

I know you said you're angry or dislike affirmative action.

Let me ask you about something that even to my ear cut wrong.

Now I'm relatively apolitical.

So President Biden, when he was running for president,

gave a campaign promise that he will nominate a black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court saying,

the person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications,

character, experience, and integrity, first sentence, second sentence.

And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.

Do you wish he only said the first sentence and not the second?

Yes, I wish that he had only said the first sentence,

even if his intention was to do what he said he was going to do in the second sentence.

In other words, I wish that he had simply said,

if I have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court,

it's going to be a superbly qualified person to carry out that position.

And he might have kept to himself his intention to name an African American woman to that position

and then going ahead and named an African American woman to that position.

And I'm sure that Katanji Brown Jackson.

I don't doubt that she's exceptionally qualified.

She has a distinguished career.

She serves as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

She's a graduate at Harvard Law School.

She has a background.

You do not have to be a world class constitutional legal scholar

to get onto the United States Supreme Court.

A lot of members of the United States Supreme Court have had different kinds of legal careers

before they were elevated to that position.

Earl Warren of the famed Warren Court of the 1950s and 60s was a politician,

as well as a leading jurist and whatnot.

I mean, many kinds of people in the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have no doubt that Judge Katanji Brown Jackson is a qualified member to be on the Supreme Court.

I wish that Biden had not done what he did.

He could have just appointed a black woman by saying that he was limiting his considerations to black women.

And what are black women as a percentage of all potential appointees to the Supreme Court?

Three percent?

Four percent?

I don't know.

We could look the number up.

By saying that he puts an asterisk on the appointment, but it's worse than that.

Because she will live down the asterisk if a person is inclined to do that.

She will have the opportunity to show through her performance exactly what kind of jurist she is.

Just as Justice Clarence Thomas has shown through his performance

that he was qualified and more than qualified to be on the United States Supreme Court,

what I dislike was the pandering.

He was seeking votes from black people by pandering to us.

And he's treating us like children.

Why should I care what color the person is who's on the United States Supreme Court?

What I should care about is what kind of opinions they're going to write when they're on the United States.

Do I suppose that being a black woman means that you're going to write different kind of opinions from others?

Well, perhaps, perhaps that kind of identity politics at the highest level of American legal establishment

is something that rubs me very much the wrong way.

What I should care about is the nature and the future of the law.

I'm actually struck by this because the court is conservative.

It has six conservative members on it and it has three liberal members on it.

And if I were, and I'm not a liberal Democrat, the highest concern that I would have about an appointment to the Supreme Court is,

is this a person who is going to be effective in advocating my liberal views within the highest counsel of American law?

Now, the fact that that person is a woman or is a black person is way down the list of the things that I would think are important to the kinds of opinions that they're going to write.

So, I mean, I think Joe Biden, this is just a piece of a larger political strategy to cobble together a coalition that will be successful at the polls in sustaining Democrats.

Jim Crow 2.0, this whole characterization of the conflict in the States about election security and voting rights is another part of that strategy.

He is pandering to black voters.

He is trying to frighten us thinking that if the Republicans win, our rights will be taken away.

And I think it is a infantilization of African American politics.

I think black people are not to be as concerned about the color of the skin of a person who is serving in government as they are about the content of their character and the focus of their political and ideological orientation,

which for me would be center or even center right, but that's me.

And it should not have a significant impact.

Nevertheless, he said she can overcome the asterisks, but to me, it was deeply disrespectful that anyone would give an extra asterisk stuff to overcome.

He didn't have to say it. All he had to do was do it. If he wanted to put a black woman on the court, he could go ahead and done it.

The reason he said it is because he wanted black people to vote for him by saying it.

And I'm saying that treats us like we're children.

It's not a political statement. I just thought as a leader that was kind of disgusting.

Let me ask you about Thomas Sowell. You mentioned him. He's a colleague and somebody who was an influence in the space of ideas.

So what broadly, what impact has he had on your ideas and how do you think he shaped the landscape of ideas in our culture in general?

I think Thomas Sowell is in his nineties now. He's been around for a long time.

He's still got it. He's still going at it.

He's still going at it. Books continue to come out. I think he's a great man.