Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
Ready, guys, if anybody can make sure their phones are on silent Jena, we're going to roll just, you know. Am I good from this distance? Yeah, you're fine, you're casual, you're good ready? You're ready. OK, ladies and gentlemen, we are rolling into another episode of the Kandace Owens Show and one that I am very excited to bring to the forefront of the discussion. I always make the comment that there is not enough discussion between black conservatives and black liberals.
For whatever reason, I invite so many black liberals on to my show and despite their willingness to tweet at me, to tweet about me, to write articles about me, they never take me up on that offer. Which always leads me to the question, do they actually believe what they believe? You shall go into any room and defend my positions, because I actually think what I say that I believe is true.
I'm very excited that one person I instantly message on Twitter and he said, yes, let's do it. Come on, I'll come right on the show. Marc Lamont Hill.
Marc Lamont is a professor, a tenured professor at Temple University. He teaches media studies. Marc Lamont Hill, welcome to the Kennedys own show.
Thank you for having me. Very interesting. It is. And I think it's good because people need to realize you can have a discussion with somebody that disagrees with you. And and I actually one person I forgot to mention that disagrees with me, but we have so much love between each other is killer Mike. I think he's one of the greatest leaders in the black community. We are totally on different pages. He was pro Bernie and I am pro Trump.
But he cares and he knows that I care. And we read a lot of the same books and we have slight disagreements, but ones that are, I think, important to talk about publicly. So let's get right into obviously the hot topic of today, which was the killing of George Floyd, the protests that have ensued all across the country because of that and my comments, which seem to have shocked the world about me not believing that he was deserving of this martyr status, meaning for funerals, I think now we're actually at five funerals publicly, a golden casket.
The vice president showing up at his funeral or I think eventually he decided to just do a video of the former vice president, Joe Biden and celebrities there. And I thought that that actually sent not a great message publicly.
So, yeah. Why do you say that? What did you think about my comments?
In fact, I was watching them this morning. Again, I thought they were off base. I think I think you pointed out some things that may be factually true but are beside the point. So to say, for example, that George Floyd had a criminal past. True. Right. I don't know whether there's drugs in the system or not. You know, I want to see a little more evidence. But let's let's let's say for a moment that the autopsy reports that we say are correct, the private one in private and public support, right?
I'm not I don't see an argument for why that should make any difference now, you conceded that with the police officer did was wrong, which I appreciate it, because if we don't start there, then that's not a good faith argument, right? Then it's like, what are we talking about? The problem is those things can be it can be used as a distraction from the point that you did touch on, which is that this was wrong and that state violence is wrong no matter who it's against.
And to me, whether he was on drugs, whether he robbed ten stores is irrelevant to this particular conversation. Hmm.
Yeah, no, I think so. For me, I think it's actually very relevant and not to I wasn't saying that to overshadow the conversation. I actually didn't think that the shadow that the conversation was being overshadowed because it was the actually the first time that there was a full consensus left and right that this police officer was wrong. There was nobody disputing it. I mean, even in the Trayvon Martin situation, you had left and right different opinions, different beliefs of what actually took place.
This one, it was just rock solid across the board. Everybody agreed, including the police station.
I mean, they had the chief of police came out and said that it was completely wrong, you know, who was a black chief of police in Minneapolis, the fastest process ever to investigate it and to get him arrested. So, I mean, in terms of justice being served, it was immediate. So what I didn't understand, you know, was why we had the response of protests when justice was served. Right. You're usually protesting because you've been aggrieved or there's been a wrong and you're looking for something to be corrected.
This was not that circumstance. And then on top of that, there was a glorification happening of him where people were actually saying that this was a he was a hero. We had little kids wearing T-shirts calling him, you know, George Floyd hero in these marches. I was looking at these T-shirts, and that's wrong. I just I can't get behind that. This I mean, if your point is that you're defending black lives, this whole platform are supposed to be about black lives.
George Foy spent his entire life harassing black people and destroying black lives. So how I just don't see how it can be both.
So it's I would disagree with that. I mean, so the first point is just justice wasn't done yet, right? One officer at the time of the protest, one officer was arrested. There were three who stood there with their hands in their pockets, doing nothing, watching him die. They were complicit. And there was there was no they were fired. Right.
But they weren't arrested. So you felt they should have been arrested immediately? They were rookies. So, I mean, I was trying to be a little sensitive to the fact and I still don't know how I feel about that, like they were rookies. It was their third or second day on the job. This guy was a senior, you know, had a senior position. He's been here for years. They were probably, you know, second or third day on the job.
You're looking at this guy. You're going, this must be the right thing to do.
You know, if everyone in America could see that this was the wrong thing to do. Right. Like you said, bipartisan agreement that this is not what we're supposed to do. Again, there is there is a herd mentality. There's a gang mentality that often occurs even with police, sometimes especially with police, where you see something awful happen. And nobody wants to be that person to say, hey, stop. But that's the job, especially a rookie, though I can't let them off the hook.
Even if I was that if I was my first day at Starbucks and I saw a manager stuffing cash into his pocket my first second day, I'm not I'm not going to be the person to raise that issue because you're just going I don't know if this is supposed to be going on, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
And again, that's a bad example because not doing harm. What if you saw on the first day the manager spitting in someone's coffee, you wouldn't say, oh, I don't. I'm a rookie.
Maybe you do think you could imagine as that's happening live that somebody might just be looking around versus if I if I've been there for a few years, I'm going to be like, what the heck did you just do? Because you're not comfortable in a job? And your first couple to everybody's a new person. So I was a much more sympathetic to the ones that were standing by. I'm not defending them, but I'm saying I tried to be a little more understanding their show.
When you look at and you're like this guy has been working on his police force forever. He's the one doing all this stuff. They just looked like uncomfortable idiots. And that's what they I think they were.
But that's why I'm going to the point of people didn't feel like it was like, oh, we got our justice. Bullets tear shit up anyway. Can I say can I say people like, you know, we you know, we just tear it up anyway. People want accountability from these four officers and they didn't get it. And so and whether we think it was fast or slow is not really the point. I'm just saying I would dispute the idea that justice was solved and we kept going anyway.
The other point here that you raised, which is an interesting one, is about, well, actually, let me just say one more thing about the first point.
The other thing here was these protests weren't just about George Floyd. They were about they were about a sea of issues. And this was like the culmination point, which often happens in history. And we can talk about that. The other thing, though, I think about raising him to the level of hero.
First of all, I think whenever someone is eulogized, right, these were national public eulogies. We don't say. Yeah, but right when we eulogized Reagan. Right. You know, as a nation, there were many people who who chided black folk, you know, and people on the left for criticizing policy say there's time for that.
But why are we criticizing them now in a time of mourning? Why are we doing this here? Why are we doing this now? So, yeah, I don't think George Ford's funeral we should be raising is criminal is criminal history.
But again, I don't see how that's relevant to the issue here. No one no one was saying that he was a champion of black. It was entire life. The point was, regardless of who he is, his life mattered, his life was worthy of protection. In some ways I am actually interested to think about what it means for us to fight for someone who wasn't perfect, because very often we only fight for the the middle class is gendered, straight, heterosexual guy who is going to college on Monday like Mike Brown.
And we have to put Trayvon on a horse to say that he didn't need to die. And it's like that's not the point. You shouldn't have to be perfect.
Well, I think it is the point because and this is my problem with our community is that, you know, black Americans are hypocrites. We are hypocrites. Right.
So you say, oh, well, it's not the point where where where were we on the issues of kids getting shot, actual innocent black victims being killed?
You know, every every weekend, every day in the inner cities, nobody cares. You want if you want to give somebody a funeral and you want to have it be five days long, why not do that for Tyshawn Lee, the nine year old kid who was wearing his school uniform and playing basketball when he was lured into an alley by, you know, an older black man who then shot him point blank in the head two times because he didn't like his dad.
And it was like, you know, it was gang violence. Nobody cared, you know? So this whole idea that there's this uprising because you care about black lives, don't you care about black lives, you like the political expediency of caring about a black life, about a black life if and only if and only only when they die at the hands of a police officer, die at the hands, rather, of a white person, because it doesn't even have the police as long as it's a white person.
But we kill ourselves faster.
Nobody cares what we can. You can you name can you name the last 10 black people that died of homicide in this country? Because it wasn't it wasn't George Floyd. Of course not, of course not. But why not? So because there is a let me go to the first point you made, Charlie.
Of course, that's something we should be sad about. And I think black folk are I've never met a black person who didn't care about black on black or the violence. We can talk about the protests that. I just let me finish this other point, though. I think when you get to touch only the point is we mourn him. Right. The issue with my issue with you, with George Floyd, was imagine if we mourn today only we go to a funeral and then you bring up the fact that he was a schoolyard bully, hypothetically.
Right. It'd be like, well, yeah, OK, maybe he was a schoolyard bully. But that's not relevant to this thing we're talking about right now. I'm OK with you talking about violence within the community. The question is, do we want to bring it up here? And what political work does it do to criticize him in that speech?
I think it's especially important to bring it up there. And I'm not talking about being a schoolyard bully because that's totally different. That almost sounds petty. But when you're talking about somebody who ran drugs to the black community, a huge issue that black Americans always talk about. Oh, the reason there's so much addiction, you know, is because of drugs. There is not there's drugs. And people point to the idea that, you know, the CIA ran crack into the black communities.
But then when you want to talk about why we have this issue of drugs, we we we want a martyr, somebody who went to prison five times for selling drugs, armed robbery. You want to talk about violence? I mean, we're talking about a man. This is not a guy who just was bullying people. I mean, you force your way into a woman's home and put a pistol to her stomach and threaten to kill her as you rape her while she's pregnant.
OK, this guy was a terrorist, in my opinion. I think we are literally murdering somebody who terrorized the black community his entire life. I'm not comfortable with it now. If he had done a 180 at the end of his life, I believe in forgiveness. You know, I'm not above, you know, believing that people make mistakes. But this was not the story of George Floyd.
And that and that is proven by the fact that he was on the most addictive drug that is in America today, which is fentanyl. Fentanyl is 100 times stronger the more. How does it make him a bad person? I'm saying the idea I'm attacking the narrative that. But then after his ninth stint in prison, which is, by the way, if you want talk about a record going to prison nine times, it's very difficult to do, you know, before you turn 40 years old.
And he did it OK. And then people wanted to say, then he moved to Minneapolis, changed his life around. I have a problem with the lie. I don't like a lie.
He didn't change his life around. He was still doing drugs. He was still pushing drugs. And he was high on fentanyl and methamphetamine up time for his arrest, which, by the way, fentanyl literally, quite literally, is what doctors give to patients when they want to bring down their breathing.
And my problem is we can never have another discussion.
There are so many black victims in the world, you know, true victims of homicide who have done nothing wrong.
Maybe they were high school bullies, but he was a victim of homicide. No, I'm saying when I say, yeah, he was a true victim of a homicide, you know, who knows at the end of the day? Because right now there's disputes in the medical examiner report. Some are saying that he actually died from fentanyl. You know, his his breathing was complicated by whatever. Then they got a private person. I'm a doctor, so I'm not going to dispute how the manner of his death by I am going to agree that what direction did was an example of police brutality, regardless of whether or not it is exactly what led to his death.
I just don't think it's honest. It's just it's not OK to me to elevate somebody who traumatized their entire lives. He was a bad man, you know. And is it relevant? Yeah. When you're putting him on T-shirts, you have little kids wearing posters and crying. Yeah. That's should not be your person that you're looking up to. I wouldn't tell my kid to find out. George, for a T-shirt.
Don't I don't think the world is looking up to George Bush. I think they're looking to his death as an example of of what's happening to us every single day in society.
And I think that's not happening to us every single day in society. Oh, it absolutely is.
What is excessive force? Police brutality.
Put your police. Police are killing black Americans every day.
No brutality, excessive force, no time of death, brutality. Right. That's the point. Right. George Floyd was beaten up. Excuse me. People are beaten every day. George Foyt was attacked.
Some people are beaten because they are being violent to police officers. So if you look at the data, the data suggests something different. What does that suggest? The data suggest that even when you control for the nature of the offense that the charge for meaning, obviously there's a greater chance that you'll have a physical interaction with a violent offender than, say, someone who passes off a counterfeit bill or someone who steals a loaf of bread and you and you and you control for all the other day all the other factors which would mitigate against the argument I'm making or challenge the argument I'm making.
Blacks and Latinos are 40 to 50 percent face 40, 40 to 50 percent more likely to face excessive force.
Now, when you get to to death, when you get to police shootings the most. Accurate in recent data from the studies that are out don't suggest a racial disparity right back to go on to more likely to be killed by law enforcement every, you know, on a day to day basis. So the numbers are relatively low, but excessive force. Absolutely. The data is indisputable.
The black whose statistics I mean, you get the study because I've looked at statistics and I've never seen this and I'm talking about people that have actually been proven to be using excessive force. There's been no racial disparity. And if there is one, white white males are more likely.
They're more likely. You're looking at that. You're looking at the death, not just killed, you know, excessive brutality. I'm talking about I'm not talking about filing because you might be talking about filings. No, no.
I'm talking about even if you even when you look at I give you example, Roland Fryer has a study in 2013, the Journal of Political Economy that's been reviewed, peer reviewed, etc. there's and he actually pushes back against more stronger arguments on my side, which I'm not invoking, because I would say I think Roland's study is actually more accurate and less in my favor.
But the data that they're submitting, ironically, is from police departments. Right. So so we could intuitively believe that the most racist police department aren't submitting the data. So these are police departments saying, hey, we're doing this right.
We're willing to show you the stuff.
And 40 to 50 percent of that, 40, 44, 40 to 50 percent higher rate among black and brown people of excessive force being thrown to the ground, being also being handcuffed.
Why are they so just to use that data and say they're being thrown to the ground means nothing unless you say what the reasons were for them being thrown to the ground. You get what I'm saying. So that becomes that that becomes the data is very subjective. Well, if you're saying, like, you know, they threw him to the ground because he was running and they had to throw into the ground. And you saw a police report where they've studied and it says this person was on the ground, he was black.
OK, well, the answer could also be the basis of who's more likely to fight back against police officers. And the answer is black people. So data can always be manipulated. Sure.
You want to hear, which is why I think the most concrete that's why when you look at the study, though, because they actually address the point raised and they think that's the most important, you know, concrete data to look at. And I'm glad you've already acknowledged it, is that there is no racial disparities when you look at the numbers of who's actually dying at the hands of police officers. The entire narrative that's out there right now in the world is just patently wrong.
I'm talking about deaths now. You know, white Americans are 25 percent more likely to be killed by police officers. You're talking about deaths. Police officers are eight and a half times more likely to be killed by a black man than the other way around. Why aren't police honestly protest by police officers against black men would make more sense. It wouldn't be easy and a half times. No, it wouldn't.
And this goes to the question you asked about why we're not protesting black on black crime. I there's prisons are filled with black people for killing black people. Prisons are filled with black people. Now, how many of them are not caught? No, I'm not saying everyone who does it is caught.
My point is that black people have a good faith expectation that we'll go to jail for Quilp for doing crime. Right. It's not like there's no narrative the black people don't go to jail for stuff. Right.
The problem is with law enforcement when it's the other way around, when law enforcement does crime against us, so does the daily ritual of excessive force against us. We now don't have a good faith belief that they will be arrested, that they'll be fired and they'll be arrested, that they'll be tried. And if they are tried, we have no belief that they'll be found guilty, even if the evidence is overwhelming. And so what we're protesting against is a system that is supposed to be honest and fair, but isn't and doesn't yield just outcomes.
So part of why when when somebody in my neighborhood gets shot and then the guy gets carried on handcuffs, we're not protesting that because we're not outraged by it. But protesting doesn't actually stop a person from killing Person B, right? The protest is to stop at the level of the neighborhood. But when it comes to police, the idea is that we're processing a system that's supposed to protect us and they have the highest responsibility.
Yeah, but I mean, police are again, looking at the data and again, I'm talking about death because excessive force, as soon as you use the word excessive because it's an adjective, it lets you know that it's subjective. Right. Excessive is like saying tall or short.
No, no, no, no. That's not something they've operationalize it. So it specifically used the use of violence when we're not used to violence beyond what's necessary to detain a suspect or use violence. It's unprompted. Right. So they've operationalizes and again, they're basing it's also on the response of the officers right there. Basically, even though officer reports, I strongly encourage you to read the study.
I mean, I will get I'm flying in the dark here because tell it, you're telling me about a study that I haven't actually read. And I definitely have studied this. And as I said. Perhaps they have operationalized it and there's a way to determine what's considered excessive force. I don't know that. And perhaps you're right, I don't have that study in front of me. But we do know is that people that are protesting out today are not protesting because they believe that police officers are using excessive force.
They are that the whole mainstream narrative when they're having people on and talk on CNN and Black Lives Matter, their entire platform is about black men dying unarmed at the hands, police officers. It was founded upon that concept. So I hate the fact that we're now shifting and pretending it's about something else and widening the net. And we're making it about excessive force studies that nobody is talking about on CNN. Everybody is talking specifically about the idea that a black man that is unarmed is likely to die at the hands of a police officer.
And that's fraudulent to fraudulent is a lie.
So one black man actually wasn't found and that was founded on Trayvon Martin's death, which had nothing to do with law enforcement. George Zimmerman wasn't a law enforcement officer. So from the beginning, we're talking about the kind of sense of unsafety and protectiveness that black people experience, not just from law enforcement, but really around the, you know, in every sector of our lives, like people, not just men, but women and anyone else. That's the first thing.
And I think Black Lives Matter is always talked about the daily violence, among other things. If you look at the Movement for Black Lives policy statement, they talk about all kinds of stuff. It's it's always been a actually most about LGBT movement. Now it's a wide, wide net. But that's the problem.
You create a wide net when you when you're full of bullshit. Right. When you know you're bullshitting, when you're just about we're about trans rights and police. It's like maybe one sentence now that's even about police, anything. They've really kind of dwindled it.
And it's actually more about equality for trans some folks.
But I would think this would be up your alley not to transport. Definitely on. But but. But the idea that. We're not singling out the police, we're saying that we should care about black lives in all sectors. I mean, it's part of part of the argument you're making about black on black violence is one about saying we should care about black life, not just when, when when it's threatened by police, but everywhere. The Movement for Black Lives is saying, we care about poverty.
We care about certainly state violence. We care about food insecurity. We care about all of these things because they connect.
So they're lying. That's the whole point. You can put that statement on your website, but then when you're a solution to that is to go into streets and to riot and to burn down and to loot.
And every time they have a protest, it ends this way. So it's not like there was like this. And suddenly there was at one time where they started. Every time Black Lives Matter Matter narrative starts running in the media. Black people die by people's neighborhoods, get burned down from the start of Trayvon Martin. Moving on to Freddie Gray. And here we are today with George Floyd with about Aubury. This is what happens every single time.
So if there was that, if there was that one time, there may have been other protests that I'm not saying I'm not, you know, condemning all protesters. I believe in pushing back every time. No, no, no. What I'm saying is every time their narrative, like I say, becomes mainstreamed, every time, their narrative, every time you go, we're doing Black Lives Matter again, you can bet your ass all across the nation, black neighborhoods are going to burn out.
People are going to lose their jobs. They're going to lose their lives. Right. So that that's that's the hypocrisy, the idea that they care about all this other stuff when in fact, every time they're protesting, it is specifically about police brutality and black people suffer. So if you're if your solution is worsen the problem, it's not a solution. So how many black people have died in the George Floyd protests? So Black, who have been arrested because of the George George Floyd protests, how many black people have been impoverished because of these George Floyd protests?
That's why it's a good time to sit back and say, is what I'm doing working?
OK, so so let's look at that. So I think, one, I'm it's an interesting way to frame this Black Lives Matter protest happen every day and they've happened since 2014. Your point is that the MediaNet, when when it becomes the national narrative, becomes, you know, this is a BLM moment, shit is on fire. What I'm asking you to consider is it part of what happens is when shit is on fire, they throw BLM on to it.
Right. That they don't that they don't account for all these other I mean, I go to BLM protests all the time. When people are marching, we're not just marching against police violence. Again, that's just the sexy story. Cable news doesn't actually care about black food insecurity or trans.
I mean, one of the most vulnerable populations are black trans women in terms of being subject to death.
Again, that's because the majority of the what's the reason that they have a higher death rate? I mean, there are a few reasons. There's structural factors. We can talk about that, too. But my point is we don't cover it. So so part of it is it's part of it is not that black people don't care about this stuff. It's what's sexy to corporate media, sexy corporate media. It's like people burning shit down. Right.
So so there I would totally give you that. That is usually when it's one for us guys. No, I mean, look, I have said that, you know, 90 percent of our problem is the media. And and but at that point, though, if your movement is being hijacked and that's how it's being portrayed, how do you combat that?
Well, I think you have to one you to decide if you care what the dominant media narrative is. And also what again, what political work does that media narrative do? Because I'm not I don't also want to pretend that the rebellions that we've been seeing around the country aren't significant and aren't valuable. You know, I just don't think they can be the only game in town. Right. If you're if you think the rebellions are good. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
These autonomous cities, the burning and looting of black community and the black black communities, homes and burning down of the neighborhoods, these black people that are crying on screen saying that their neighborhoods are being destroyed.
You see that as a good no. What I'm saying is that I see a movement of uprisings around the country as good. Now we can discuss tactically whether each specific act is wise.
Tell me how it's good. Let's just let's take Minneapolis, the first one when they burned down the city. Tell me how so that and said this is good.
So one thing is that, again, Black Death is so ordinary in this country. Right, because we do it the whole time to ourselves and black that the order in this country, regardless of how we sort of we can we can analyze why in a moment, but getting the nation to stop and pay attention often requires the spectacle, the spectacle of violence. Right. And that's what about killing people, not trying to do harm to people. And I'm not even like tearing up a store.
Right. You look at Martin Luther King. This is one example where Martin Luther King leveraged the spectacle of violence to get America to pay attention. The only difference is Martin King said, we're going to strategize so that we could be right when I go to other people up. But we're getting beat, right?
I mean, the Pettus Bridge was it was the idea of being a bridge was, you know, if we if we protest here that they that that these police will come and harm us and that American strategy because it showed America at the problem was the police.
Do you think the spectacle right now is showing America? The problem is the police?
The problem is no, it's not. When you look at these riots, it is not. This is the exact opposite of Martin Luther King strategy, the exact opposite. Martin Luther King said, we're going to go in and be peaceful and we're going to watch them scent dogs on us.
They're going to set their fire hose on us. And when the whole world sees these clips, they're going to realize that the problem is are white people that are racist and the and the governments that are allowing this terror to go on. OK, when he crushed that, it was a brilliant strategy. Right now, black America strategy is we're going to go in and be violent. We're going to go in in. We're going to go to take the TVs and then America is going to think more Black Lives Matter is a terrorist unit and that's exactly what the concept is.
It is. It is.
But I guess what I'm pushing back first when I'm pushing back against, we don't look good. This is not making black people look good.
The first thing I push back against is this idea that the only time we can engage in the type of resistance is if we're if our bodies are the ransom for justice. I'm just telling you that Martin Luther King. No, no, I'm with you. I'm green. That is not I'm saying it's not exactly it's not the same tactic. The overall strategy is still to use violence and the spectacle to look back to get justice. Right. And you're like, what I'm hearing you say is, that's cool.
If the dogs are biting us in the holes this spring up, I'm saying you're not.
The message you're going to deliver is that black people are violent. So using the idea and you have just already said that you thought Martin Luther King had a good strategy. And I agree with you, what we are doing is exact opposite strategy. So we are showing that black people are violent, that black people loot, that black people rob and kill another. That is that that is what is being shown how you think we're winning with that narrative? I don't know.
I don't I don't know right now.
I was thinking I'm so glad we took those trees at a target and burn down target because now people are seeing more part of what happened.
The other thing is, what was the spectacle that was shown? No, no, I'll tell you. But when we when we talk about King. Right, because there's King in the marching in sixty five. But there's also what's happening in what's in 65, what's happening in Detroit in sixty seven.
You know, there aren't the same rebellions you're talking about are happening around.
And what happened, what was, what was included here. My, my point is that it's never a single strategy. Right. There's always multiple things happening.
Right. There are people calling for defunding right now and there are people on the streets just like King. There are people who there are people who are marching and getting beaten by police, and there are people who are tearing up Detroit. And what I'm saying, we need multiple strategies.
Now, I agree with you. I would love I would love if and I got to say, I have a bookstore in Philadelphia and a whole bunch of stores on my block that got smashed, sneaker store got raided.
What else got another. A hair store got raided.
My bookstore did not. Right. My coffee shop did not. Now why? Well, it's not nearly as random as you might think.
Much of a lot of this stuff is, oh, you turned on your own shit. Most of it isn't ours, right? Most of it are people who are occupying our neighborhoods.
Most of them were taken, most of these homes that we don't own. So it's a target where they hire a majority black people.
So you take in black people's jobs in that situation. I mean, I just I'm trying to see one positive thing in burning down and looting and robbing. And I want to go back because you brought up the you know, the mid 60s protests and the and the riots, rather, because they weren't protests there. The notorious Detroit in Chicago rebellion place. They were rebellions, riots, same thing which are forms of protest.
OK, sure. What was the consequence of that? The Voting Rights Act of 64 of the note that happened before that 64.
The riots happened in 67 and 68. The goes right? Yeah.
OK, so King dies at 68 and we get more civil rights legislation months later. It is in the aftermath of rebellion.
But what was the says? The thing is, people, you're looking for a piece of legislation. But what happened?
Detroit and Chicago were the the economic boom for the black community. The riots happened. The rich people got up and they left and they depressed those cities. Oh, OK. OK, so the thing is, is that this is the problem.
Everybody wants to be in the now. I'm in the later. OK, I'm already hearing the conversations amongst business owners. They're leaving. They're going to leave the cities. So you want to talk about signing up for another 60 years of black poverty, just like we did. We signed up for black poverty and it started in the 1960s. First and foremost, it was the legislation that was supposed to be helpful. Nope. That lets economic depression, too, because incentivize bad behavior.
All of the the Great Society Act and all that stuff that happened in the mid 60s was not good for black America.
Sounded good like everything that Democrats before sounded great. We're going to give you stuff but really incentivize father absence it welfarist the black community and it made us married us to the government. On top of that, we burn in our own communities thinking that we were going to get justice. And what really happened is the business leaders left the jobs left. Black people had no jobs and we were poor. And we had we had now had sixty years complaining about the condition of Chicago and Detroit in these inner cities.
And we're recreating the wheel all over again right now.
I think that's a heck of an analysis. It's the truth. No, I think it's not. It is. That's what happened in the sixties. Again, it's sort of like the king example.
It's not that I disagree with the particular things you're saying happened. I'm saying there's a whole bunch other stuff that happened at the same time, which complicates the story.
This this is not King's black America. I don't know. I'm saying in the same respect. So, for example, when we look at and actually talk about this in my book, nobody would. You all should read.
All right. You've got to do that. Yes, I want to plug it. But it is actually relevant to the topic.
Casualties of America's war on the vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and beyond. Because part of what I talk about in Ferguson is this very thing.
Right? You're right. There migration's is white flight. There's ultimately end up with the suburbanization of poverty in Ferguson because Ferguson is a suburb. Right. Then you look at place like Chicago, like Detroit, multiple things are happening. It's not just that black people rioted and lost the city and doomed themselves to poverty.
If they did, is there ah, you have to look at the shift in the economy itself.
You have to look at the flight of factors which weren't a response to to. To Black Rebellion, it was a response to tax tax tax incentives. It was a response to going with the automobile companies that were making those cities flourish and they all packed up and left because, again, a good example is Ferguson.
And they stated that when they left it, companies say a lot of things. It doesn't mean that that's why they left.
They were burning down their factories. I understand. I understand what you're saying. I'm saying we have to look at, again, a series of economic policies and the failure of the government to invest in those communities in ways that would yield.
We don't need the government to invest, but we needed what was what was happening. That's why those communities are flourishing. We need private companies to come in and to have jobs and to stabilize the community. The last thing black America need is more government. And it is amazing to me, and I write this in my upcoming book, that the community that has suffered the most from black, from from government policies. You want to talk about slavery. That was a government policy.
You want to talk about Jim Crow laws. That was a government policy. You want to talk about the welfare system that was a government policy is now looking to the government to give them more policies.
The government has never done anything good for black America right now. If anything has happened before, black America is happening because of private companies investing a good thing.
The course, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation, but that was getting rid of government policies. In many cases. It really wasn't new policy. If you want to talk about what was wrong with America in the beginning is that America wasn't obeying or honoring its own constitution. All men are created equal. All men have the right. It actually was not honoring its own constitution. They created legislation that went against the Constitution. So America was one big hypocritical mess when all this was going on.
Once America actually got rid of all of the policies that they created that went against this constitution, which happened, you know, obviously with allowing women to vote, allowing first black men to vote, then allowing, you know, black black women and all women to vote and getting rid of all that crap. Then America became what it was supposed to be when they actually enshrined the Constitution. So, so.
So why not then imagine the government as having the capacity to expand on that promise, right.
To expand on that promise of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness of all people being created equal through proper legislation, for example?
I mean, you would say you would agree the Marshall Plan certainly helped, you know, sort of help the white middle class after World War two. I mean, it it created economic incentive. It invested in them to say, well, now for black folk, we don't need that. We need less government. No, we need the rest of the investment. So, you know, governments don't make money, right? I'm not suggesting government make money.
So how is the government you keep saying government, give us money, give us money. What is wrong with that? Governments don't make money. The people make money. Right. Capitalism makes money. New jobs, new businesses, new ideas. Yeah, but that was the one thing that the government can do to help black America is what Trump's doing right now. Deregulate, right. Stop with all putting all of these traps and barriers for people to have good ideas and then are entrepreneurs, you know, to come out and actually say, I want to start this business.
For example, my cousin who lives in the projects want to start a food truck. Right. Great cook. There was about and this was under Obama. Twenty thousand pieces of regulation stopping for him to be able. You got to have this on this on this inspection, the government just messes stuff up. That's the problem. Right? We don't need the government does not make money. So you're saying the government needs to invest in black America doesn't even make any sense.
No, it does, because the argument is that we as a nation flourish when we invest. For example, you give your private citizens, we know we have to create the conditions for. That's what I mean. I don't mean invest in the same way you invest in Sears and Roebuck in nineteen fifty. I'm saying invest in the people in a sense of create equal opportunity and put capital in space and allow for the flourishing of capital employed directly so that I'm agreeing directly with equal equal opportunity zones, which is president's doing now, saying, well we'll give you a tax break that incentivizes a private business to come in and build their businesses in Chicago.
We will give you tax breaks if you build your hub here in Chicago. That's the government's job.
And what if the government says, would you have to have X number of black people because of historic patterns of discrimination? You'd be you'd be OK with that right now.
Why would I be OK with that? I would hope now, because that's that's the regulation I'm talking about.
We we can't we can't ask for racism to combat racism. That's just it. I mean, it's just so foolish. People keep saying this. So we need to have quotas. I don't want quotas. I'm not I'm not OK with feminist action. All of that is racism. It's all racism. OK, well, it's racism because we are smart enough to get into schools. We're smart enough to get in schools. I just met your daughter. She seems pretty smart.
I don't think she needs the government to help her out to get into school. She's smart girl, OK? It is a bigotry. It is a soft bigotry of low expectations, which is a phrase that was coined by George H.W. Bush. When you are saying how much George W. Bush can correct you, when you are saying someone, we have to do this, you can get in school, what you are saying to a black person is you're not smart to get into the school by yourself.
That's not listening at all, is what you're saying. No, what they're saying is, is that there's a pattern of discrimination and and a lack of access.
Just make it their base. Don't even put your color when you when you apply for school. That's that's not discrimination. It means you didn't get in because you did the best. If everything was neutral, I'll be fine with that. Yeah, that's what I'm asking for. So that is the answer. No racism or discrimination. If it were facially neutral, but underneath it contextually neutral, I'd be fine with it if everybody had the same chance. For example, if all of us in this room.
Right, there's a guy over there seven feet tall, she's a very tall step. There's seven feet tall and we try out for her and be together. He has a better shot than I do. Yeah, because he's seven feet tall. Correct. And he might be better basketball. That's quite cool with that. Rice could have been measured by the same thing. Right. The rules are public. The goals are clear. The playing field is level.
The referees are honest, right? I'm cool with that. The problem is when it comes to life, it doesn't work that way. How does not work that way.
So explain to me how affirmative action doesn't work that way with kids being actually just committed in favor of to get you to give you a I can give you a couple a couple of examples. One of the metrics we use to to get people into school, particularly the SAT city, is a terrible predictor of how well you'll do in college. Right. There's some data that shows that it's somewhat of a predictor of maybe how well you do your first year, but it is not a very good indicator of whether your finish is not a good idea.
It's not a good indicator what your final GPA will be, but we use the S.A.T. It's a terrible metric. The metric also shows that it disproportionately favors middle class people. Take race out for a second. It disproportionate, it disproportionately benefits or benefits middle class people. And so a middle class kid who's just as smart, just as talented, work just as hard and may even have the same GPA, won't perform as well on the SAT. I mean, the working class people perform as well as a middle class kid, not because he or she isn't as talented, but because the metric is broken.
And so if I've been away from the school, say, look, I'm just saying people now say to scores, it's a facially neutral metric. I'm saying, look, I just want to say test scores. The problem is it's not actually necessarily measuring how smart you are.
It's measuring how middle class you are. So what I'm saying.
Not particularly. No, I don't see how it measures how middle class you are, because.
Because the test itself, as it is structured, has questions it has of like fill in the blank points of reference that don't necessarily measure your your ability to reason, but that's exactly what it does and measure your ability to reason.
I give an example. If I have in it a vocabulary, for example, trying to give a good one. The classic almost cliche now is the one about the yacht.
Right. Or it'll it'll ask you to complete a logical syllogism.
It'll ask you to to make a leap in logic. Right. To make some kind of interpretation of a text. And if I don't understand a few of the words that are referenced in the text, not because it's it's it's on my grade level and I missed it, not because I'm not smart enough, but because this is a sort of fairly normal middle class thing to know. And this is not a fairly normal working class thing to know, then I'm not actually measuring my ability to answer the question.
Well, the problem is, is that if you can't answer the question, though, and then you're put into a school, you know, not because you knew the answer to the question because of your skin color, you are likely to drop out of that school.
Yeah, but the data doesn't show that. It does show. That typically shows. I guess it does. And I'm going to push back on this because I actually just read this in Thomas's book. It exactly shows that. And this is why it shows that black kids, when they are mismatched in schools because they are accepting affirmative action policies and putting people, putting them into schools where they get that. They are saying, if you're saying people who are mismatched for schools don't don't say I'm not.
Yeah, well, then they actually end up being at the bottom of the class. It's actually bad for black people. Affirmative action has harmed black people because here's the problem and I'm going to tell you exactly what happened. So Tommaseo was an adjunct professor at Cornell University and he was teaching and he learned that something like 25 percent of all of the black kids were on academic probation. So he went to go investigate. Why are all the black as an academic probation?
Well, it turns out all those black kids were then based on affirmative action, meaning and he said, by the way, these were the top tier black kids in America. If they had actually got into a school, maybe they went to UMC instead of going to Cornell, they would have at the top of their class. But because they mismatch and they put them into a class that was slightly higher and they weren't able to compete at the level of everyone in that class, they were at the bottom.
It doesn't it doesn't help those kids to finish at the bottom of Cornell rather than finish at the top of another school. They could have been at the top of another school if they just were marching to the correct university.
Yeah, this hurts black hurts black America. I'm disagreeing with that data, but that interpretation of that. But I'm also. But it's true.
But they're more likely to drop out and the finish at the bottom of their classes. You can't just put a kid into Harvard because they're black. They're at that level.
But one that's that's never been the argument of affirmative action for college admissions. And that's not happening.
There aren't all these things happening now. These aren't telling you that there is no data that supports that. It hurts black Americans because they are not there finishing at the bottom of classes where they would be finishing at the top if they had just went into schools that they were.
There's absolutely no way to predict that. Right. So that's not that's not data that that's a that's a huge leap of interpretation to say. No, it's that what you mean. There's no way to predict it. How can you prove someone who can't predict? You can you can assess it. Right. You can do a retroactively retroactively assess if someone would have been done with the black kids. Right. And you look at their SAT scores and you say if they had actually gotten into this school, which is where they belonged, as opposed to putting them in this school because they were black.
So Harvard saying let's let them in on an affirmative action base. So they're saying that's the basic admission. That's really what I'm saying. What I'm disagreeing with is, is is the presumption that we're taking this fact that people are admitted with who are wholly unqualified for these for these admissions.
They are not what someone below the average SAT score of all the other Chinese kids and white kids that could, you know, get into these schools, know that that's what the way college admissions works is that regard to diversity with regard to affirmative action is that the argument is that race should be a factor in the application now that you should be made it because you're black. Not that we should have this whole sea of unequal. Five people who have like a thousand SATs and, you know, and some in 3.0 GPA, this that's not the argument.
If that were the argument, I would agree with you, because when there are situations where people are mismatched that dramatically, you're right, they don't do well. Let's say I was never disputing that point. What I'm disputing is the idea that that is that is the framework for how affirmative action works or how we've ever wanted it to work within universities. The idea here is that, one, we believe that diversity is an institutional benefit, that we all benefit when schools are more diverse, not just black, not just black people, because we got into Harvard, but white people for having black people there and vice versa right there, because, no, I'm not against this.
It's weird. No, I'm I'm for white people being allowed to come to school in the same way. I think that that's that's absolutely ridiculous.
I have a quota of white people that are allowed in. Do I think that should be a quota of white people to make sure they're getting a good, diverse experience? You just asked if there were.
And then I want to turn to the other points. I think it's key. It's apples and oranges, but, yeah, I've always apples and oranges when you want to talk about equality when it comes to black men. No, because we aren't being systematic is not a racist society to let them in based on the color of their skin. But it is racism if you don't let them know. What I'm saying is, is that if there were a history of white people being denied access to Howard or Morehouse or Spelman, then I'd say, yes, we absolutely need a quota of white because they deserve to be there.
Right. But the fact is, there aren't there aren't a lot of white people trying to go, would you be OK if there was a, you know, just an all white school?
We weren't allowed to enter that very few white people enter. Would you be OK with that? Would I be OK if they were allowed to go? Like you just said, you said they wanted to make sure I heard you. Right. So your argument that you're saying is that the reason that you have these policies is because you think they'd benefit from diversity by having a certain quota? Yeah, we all believe diversity. So then do you think why are you OK with ABC is right?
OK, you're asking me if there were a white school that had very few black people, but the black who were allowed to go. Yeah, yeah, I'm saying they call them Yale, Harvard and Princeton. That's my point. No, but they have they have quotas.
They don't have quotas. What they have is what they do is they consider race as a factor in admission.
And I'm saying similarly, yes, I absolutely think it's it's racist. No, I'm saying it's racist to consider race. Yeah.
So that's that's literally like the definition. No, it's not the definition, considering race is not is not the definition of racism. You are making a decision. Right, based on the color of somebody's skin. That is racism. No, it's not making your position, if I understand you correctly, is that the even the acknowledgement or consideration of race is a factor in anything as racist? Yes, I think it should. Everything should be merit based.
That's true. Equality.
And I'm saying no.
So racism, it becomes racist if I am using race as a factor to discriminate against you, to deny you access to that, to deny you access to that chinita.
That's why they're suing. That's why they keep going to the Supreme Court. They are now actively not allowing Chinese people and Asian kids who work their asses off and just perform better than every other race in America. Sorry. They are at the top of the society for a reason. Asian-Americans are being discriminated against because they want more diversity. And there's too many Asians at MIT or to MIT at Harvard, and they're saying, you can't come in. We need to let some black people in, even though your test scores are way higher and you've done more.
And that that's wrong. That's discrimination. Discriminating against Asians in favor of black people. That's wrong. It's racism.
It's it's not discriminatory because, again, if the only measures for getting into college were GPA and SAT score and there were a list of people. Right. And I said, you know what? You can't get in even though your score is higher. You'd have an argument. We know what happens, though, it's not when you when you apply for college your whole time, would they tell you you got to be part of this club, you got to be part of this thing.
You got this you got there's a whole thing that we want.
We want a well-rounded student. And there are multiple factors in admissions. Right. And the other thing in the admissions counselor will tell you is because I would say, what if they have the exact same numbers and one's black, one's white?
There are never two cases that are exactly the same. They're always complicated. Admissions decisions are always complicated. They're always a whole array of things. And we make decisions based on fit. We make decisions based on the well-rounded choice of a person and also what they contribute to our environment. Right. So so to that extent, the consideration of race or or or geographic origin is not something like I wouldn't want all kids from New York in one school. Right.
So oftentimes if kids are relatively similar and we have no kids from the Midwest and someone from the West Coast, yeah.
You might have to point out that they're not relatively similar. That's what I'm saying. If if if it was a merit based system, all the top schools would have all Asians. And that's why Asians are suing. And they have they should they should win. I hope they win because it's racist. We should not be saying you over performing. There's too many of you because Asians have a better culture and they focus on school.
I mean, listen, I what they do and this is the problem is that we don't want to acknowledge the fact this is the reason why black America has never, in my opinion, going to get better until we're able to have honest discussions. Every culture is different, right. There are many different cultures going on. You know, Latino cultures, different Asians. Culture is different. Who are you talking about? OK, so I should be more specific.
Yeah. So right. There's a bunch of kids I've never seen.
So right now the you know, if you want to talk about in terms of wealth in America, the wealthy, the wealthiest groups are Pakistani, Taiwanese, not Chinese actually. And I think Japanese. Right. And growing up in, you know, an environment, I grew up in a very mixed, you know, public school system.
My one of my best friends who was Japanese after school at her house, her dad was crazy about school work. I mean, it was like it didn't happen in my house. Our cultures were different. You know what? I didn't have to. And my cousin's like, really a lot of us where I'm raising my cousins, I'm watching my cousins, you know, because their moms at work, they're single mother households. The cousins are becoming the babysitters.
Wasn't that way. Her father was so strict about her work. You know, she ended up going, you know, to a top school that made sense based on how she's worked her entire life. Right. To imagine that I didn't end up going to a top school. And for me to say it's because of color of my skin or she shouldn't be.
No, she she worked harder. Asian culture is different. Jewish Americans have a different culture. Right. They also are ones that tend to value school work a lot harder. We need to do better in black America. I value my school work. I wasn't raised in a household that valued school work. And I'm not saying all I'm not here to paint a broad brush, but I'm saying over overwhelmingly, you know, there's a reason why we're dropping out of high school at a higher rate.
Know there are lots of reasons, but nobody we never talk about what we're doing wrong. And it is it is culture and even our art. We value breaking down education, even via our our hip hop, our music, everything. We actually value a lack of education. We see that as black culture. You got to like Ebonics. That's us.
And that and that what I'm saying is that you're what Ebonics is, is you're breaking down the English language. Right. And then we're surprised by the language, OK? It's a dialect of the English language, but it's not proper English. Right. And then we're surprised when seventy five percent of black boys can't pass reading exam. And then we want to blame the government. Right. Sometimes the black boys in California, they want his government government doing something wrong.
What are we doing wrong? What do we do anything wrong?
So you've hit a lot of a lot of spots. Let me let me pick a few first.
What I want to go.
I don't wanna get too far off of this because I still think you're missing the point of the affirmative action thing, which is the not just the the the the literacy stuff, the reading the dropout stuff. Right.
My argument isn't, again, that people should be put in schools where there's a mismatch. I agree. As a professor, I can tell you I encounter students. I've encountered students who are mismatched for the institution for lots of reasons. It's no fun to teach someone who's mismatch for the institution. That's the first thing. One the second thing I would say is it's institutional mismatches happen across the board and there are plenty of people who don't meet the average of the school.
It's not just black people. That's for example, legacies oftentimes don't meet the met. Athletes often don't meet the match.
Who else? I mean, it's legacies. Donors and athletes are three are three key examples. George Bush people thought George Bush was dumb. George W. Bush, George W. Bush wasn't dumb is easy to score, I believe is one standard deviation above the average American's right. But it's two below what the average Yale student did. He was just fine. He turned up just fine. He was smart enough. He got in to Yale. He did just fine.
Black people are no different. Right? I would rather give that kind of. Hook up to use a lack of use. I mean, I use the word hook up, I would rather have that type of relationship for a student in poverty and someone who worked hard than someone who's the benefit of legacy and privilege. I'd rather have none. I got you. Yeah, but I hear what I'm saying is from that point, because no one no one is complaining about the athlete.
No one's complaining about the the legacy. No one's complaining about the person who built the building that we're standing. And, you know, I'm still at the university. We're on top of that. But I don't wanna get into. What about as I'm just saying, though, I think it's an important point that we only talk about this in the context of black people when it's very much when they're very much not the ones who the biggest, often the most egregious examples of institutional mismatch.
The second thing is when we think about black people and again, the goal when we do admissions is to say how can we have a diverse student body? Because diversity itself is an institutional asset. So if if the average SAT scores fourteen hundred and there's a black kid from Compton who has a one thousand and a three point nine, I might say this person, probably not a great fit for the school, can explain that diversity being an asset.
Studies show that that when when groups are are are heterogeneous, we have a more dynamic and creative solutions.
We're able to problem solve better, that we learn from each other and that we're better prepared for the studies.
You sound like one of those fluff fluffs. No. How do you measure that? How do you measure that? How do you like what's the test to see if diversity task oriented problem solving with groups and they they did them with homogenous groups first and groups that are all the same tend to arrive at solutions faster. If we're all the same, because we tend to think the same, we tend to have the same kind of ways of solving problems. But what's interesting is when we're heterogeneous, it takes us longer to get there.
But we offer more diverse and creative solutions, outcomes so that you can ask what you're what you're going to school is.
We could have a debate about, you know, what you think the outcome should be, because I think that, you know, there's no such thing as diversity of speech because you look different than me. Does it mean that we're diverse? We could be from the exact same neighborhood that I mean, I agree. I think what the one thing that students that would benefit the most from and what we don't have on college campuses, intellectual diversity. So this right here would is of much better use for a college university to black would be look like, you know, we're the same color, but you and I are on totally opposite, you know, playing fields.
And this is a positive connotation for people to listen to and to hear. This is great. You'll get this on college campuses. But what's a predictor of that?
So if I have people from different racial backgrounds, different class backgrounds, I mean, we could say the Supreme Court is diverse, but they all went to Harvard and Yale Law School for the for the majority, not all liberals.
My point. Right. So I'm not saying the only diversity is racial diversity. I'm not saying the only diversity should be gender diversity. I'm just saying that these are factors I wouldn't want to if I if I went to a school where all the men had the highest S.A.T. scores, I would think even if women had slightly lower S.A.T. scores or men had slightly lower SAT scores, I'd want gender diversity.
But again, I'm also saying that your idea of merit is based on this conception, concedes that the metric itself is correct. And I'm asking you to consider basing all the data that the SAT in these other metrics aren't actually good predictors of how well you'll do anyway. No, they're not. The the city is not. If the goal the SAT is is to measure your aptitude, your ability just really now is just not supposed to be like, OK, there's one hundred things you have to know.
If you know one hundred of them, you win. Right. It's to say this is a person's proper preparedness for college. It actually doesn't. The data shows that it doesn't predict well how well you'll do in college. Doesn't preclude your GPA is going to be there's no correlation between strong correlation between your GPA, between your graduation graduation rates and such. So that's why I'm saying even that idea of meritocracy has to be based on something. You know, it would be like that seven footer over there if they decide to try out for basketball, the only thing they try this out for was three pointers.
Right. I might make more three pointers. He's seven feet tall. Just give him the ball. Don't get every time. And the metric itself may benefit my skill set versus that skill set. And I'm and I'm saying we have a more robust assessment of skills. And so what I find is not that we are meeting people who are black, people who are far off the mark in terms of admission.
There are people who are already within the zone and we're saying let's let race be a factor, too. So, yes, I may have to just pick an arbitrary number. I may have a thirteen hundred and the white guy may have a thirteen fifty and I may have a three point nine. He may have a three point nine four. And you may say, well his numbers are higher. I would say one again that's the metric. But also there might be value to school to not going to school with all white people or black people again.
Now I know you mentioned so you think but again, that's a that's a different context because they're not being denied access to it.
So are you I would assume then that you strongly disagree with some of the answers that are happening of black people requesting all black dorms as a safe space and as a solution to them feeling tokenized by the presence of white people on campus to ask two different questions.
In general, I believe in the diversity of education classrooms, of dorms.
But if there is a situation where people feel harmed or unsafe and they just they just they feel unsafe.
Well, they they use the word unsafe. But what actually is going on is they feel tokenized, meaning that there's too many white people. So they want their own. I think it's OK for people to carve out their own spaces. I mean, you're actually OK with discrimination, but you refer to as positive discrimination as it ends up being good in your opinion, because it is discrimination. So I don't discriminate positive segregation as long as you're choosing segregation.
I'm OK with separation, not segregation.
There's a difference if if it's an all black dorm, it's segregation, it's a separate dorm.
It's not segregation.
Again, why people are asking again. Dubois College and University of Pennsylvania is a classic example.
How is all black dorm not segregation? Because white people aren't being denied access to it now.
That's what they're creating. All black dorms were open. Broken black people can stay.
But again, as as a practical matter, white people aren't asking to be in these dorms. It's not as if there's a lot of white who and we would love to be in this dorm, but these black people won't let us in, just like there's not a lot of people saying I would there's not a lot of white women saying I want to go to Spelman and they won't let me in. Because the truth is that is what happens.
Because then what happens if a white person says, I'm not OK with this as they get attacked?
Can somebody remind me of the campus that Brett Weinstein got chased off of? Evergreen campus, where they decided it was only black people were going to be allowed in the campus for that day and one professor who was white said, well, I want to stay here and teach my class. And they chased him into a room with a bat. And it shouldn't happen.
We can we can agree. OK, but so that's not the same thing as this culture that first off, an all black dorm is racist. And this is what this is. My problem is that somehow we've arrived suddenly into a place where black Americans are offering the exact same thing that our ancestors fought to end discrimination, segregation. But we may have spent and said, but this is a positive form of discrimination. This is a positive form of segregation because we're choosing it.
It's wrong. It's just wrong.
I mean, I don't see how you can't just plainly say an all black dorm is racist. Should you be all black? All white? It's racist. It should never exist at all. OK, you sleep where you sleep. You don't like sleeping there. You leave the school, you can decide to go somewhere else. But we don't play that game on college campuses. We don't play, you know, X amount of people. Quotas are going to be allowed in the school.
It needs to be merit. I don't care what color you are. Let me see how you perform. Let me see. And yes, maybe looking at the activities without knowing what color you are, I might say, OK, let's use a little lower. But he has taken on he was playing full time basketball and all that, so I think he'd be a good fit again. Race is not need to be present for that termination to be made.
We are the only thing that we can't get. So, for example, we should have considered against LeBron James Brown. James, we're going into college right now with a lower SAT score and a lower GPA. You're the president of university and he wants to go to Princeton. He must be Ivy League basketball. Right. And he's he's a little bit lower than everyone else. Do not let him in because he's a white guy who's above them.
Let him into the school. If if his SATs low, he's not doing well. But he's extraordinary basketball player and he's good enough to be in the school. I'm not saying it's no good. You still don't need his race on a piece of paper. Determined that. No, take his race off. Let's take off race. That's my point. OK, let's pick a white guy. Let's Dirk Nowitzki once the was the plan. My point is, if someone had an extraordinary talent like basketball, we like basketball players all the time with lower GPA.
But I don't make that determination. Regardless if you're going to say we want to make sure we have a healthy mix, you should not be hitting a race. You are. Period. When you apply to school.
And that's what's my point and what I get. I fully comprehend your point.
What I'm saying is, is that we should consider in the same way that we're willing to have a diverse group of people.
I want to have some flute players and I want to have some soccer players. And I want to have some, you know, some people from Iowa. It's OK because I want some black people. But so is it OK to say that I want, you know, Jewish people? Yes. So you're OK with all of it? Yes. We want a long history of excluding Jewish people from university. And so we had to create spaces for Jewish.
So part of why you have a school in New York begins with a B, a Brandeis part where you have a Brandeis is precisely because there has been a denial of Jewish people, both professors and students, into mainstream universities. So we had to create space for them. Right. And so I wouldn't go to Brandeis. Oh, my God. That's that's that's that's a that's a that's a that's a segregated university. I say no good for them.
That's a beautiful choice. And black people can go there. No white gentiles can go there now are Christians and Muslims can go there now, you know, but it's largely a predominantly historically Jewish institution, which is great.
And what I'm saying similarly is I'm OK with black folk having it. I'm OK with carving out spaces for ourselves when we went for people who would never be OK with that.
If white people did that, if I were at Harvard, I mean, excuse me if I were at Howard and there were a group of white people who said, you know what, we're the 50 white kids at Howard and we want to have our own space. Cool, I'm good with that. All right, Dormont Howard, do you think that'll be that'll go down? Well, I don't I think it's such a counterfactual hypothetical because most white people don't want to go to Howard because they don't be around many black people.
And that's OK. You know what I mean? In fact, most people who, you know, are going to Howard athletes oftentimes for undergrad, not great athletes because there are divisions. Want to be Division one basketball player. And I didn't get the Duke or Wake Forest or what. I get recruited, but they go they'll go to Howard. Right. Which is a good school, but not the best. Basketball school is actually very interesting, interestingly, similar to what happens to these black kids when going to Duke go Wake Forest.
And so and I'm OK with that. I don't say, well, why are we letting that white guy and as an athlete call me crazy?
But I think discrimination is discrimination. There's no such thing as positive education. Now, I want to I just want to move quickly because I know we're running out of time. And I want to ask you specifically about can I ask you a question?
Yeah, sure. How did you feel about the Dave Chappelle thing? Like what Dave Chappelle said about pay for sex. Yeah, you know, I have a thing in tweet about it. You tweeted that. So I was I did tweet about it. Oh, I guess when I woke up, I hadn't seen it.
Yeah, I tweeted immediately about it. I said, you know, I'm not going to be offended by this because I'm a big believer that we need comedians. I think right now we've got we've tried very suddenly into a politically correct environment where comedians get cancelled. They are said that now everything they say is to vulgar, to sexist and racist to this and that. And the comedians are there to further the conversation. And they should be offensive to everybody, every side, all the time.
And I've seen Dave Chappelle be offensive to conservatives who seem to be offensive to liberals. And that speech to me thinks they should be sacred. And so I said, you know, I'd love to meet him. I've been a fan of him my whole life, but I will defend comments to the death of me to say what they want. They they need to their their ground is becoming less and less sacred and they're being cancelled too often.
That wasn't what I was. I just didn't. Yeah. Yeah I know. Yeah. Everyone thought I was going to be upset but I'm like, you know, my brand. I'm not politically correct.
You know, more angry might be upset, but yeah. I don't know, I haven't seen or talked to her about it, you know. And I know I know there were some black men who felt like, you know, this is too vulgar. We can't we can't be talking like that. But this this has always been his brand. So if he had switched it up and suddenly became vulgar, then I would be like, this was just hateful.
But he's always I've seen all this stuff. He's always taken risk is always, you know, really gone in and says stuff like that.
So I personally believe comedians are in a sacred space and they shouldn't be attacked, especially like in today when we're we're uncancel culture all the time. We need more comedians to just take risks and say stuff.
But I wanted to ask you, you know, as a last topic about the LGBTQ R, Steve X, Y and Z agenda, the agenda that seems so nefarious.
It is agenda. It is agenda. When you start, you know, trying to get policies placed into school that allows teachers to call your child by different gender. And as a parent, they're not required to tell you they could be calling your little boy Samantha all day at school. And they don't have to tell you that's an agenda, right? When you start trying to systemize it, you know, to make it systemised systemic, it becomes an agenda.
And when you see how vicious that lobby has become, particularly the trans, I've said like you had me at the LGBT, lost me at the T, why the T?
The T because that's when you started telling people they were bigots because they don't want to play the crazy game. So here's my point. I think trans is a mental disorder. I think there's tons know gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. There's tons of mental disorders out there. There are people that walk around down the street and think they are Superman. You don't think they can. They have powers and they can fly in their Batman. And I would never want to see that person attacked.
You know, I grew up in a family where one of my uncles had severe mental disorders and thought he was like Indian from a tribe or something, you know, kind of got it because he was in solitary confinement for too long and he actually went crazy in prison. So I've always been sensitive to people that have, you know, mental disorders. But when you start saying a society that you now have to pretend that Candace's uncle is an Indian and if you don't, you know, acknowledge him as Pocahontas, then you're a bigot.
You're that's that's wrong. Now you're putting the pressure on me to not just be, you know, accepting of this, but now to play the crazy game and to say if you mispronounce and you don't call him Chief Pocahontas, then you're a bigot. I don't play that game. I'm like, I'm going to live in reality. You cannot live in reality. You can say how you feel. You can say what you think you see. You can say that you think that, you know, we're on Mars right now, but I'm not going to pretend that I see Mars because it makes you more comfortable.
So I would obviously disagree. The and what's interesting is there are people you say you're with the L and the G and B, there are people who, you know, 30 years ago would have made the exact same arguments against you for the L, the G and the B, they would say that their scientific data that theirs that these are people who are who are who are who have mental disorders, there's some misalignment between what they desire and what they're supposed to.
That is some kind of gender thing going on that they're confused about.
And and and, you know, I think that. We have to do a few things for me, I think the easy part and is the part I think you and I agree on is that we have to accept and we should accept people as they present themselves in the world. Right. Like if someone says my pronouns are if I told you my pronouns, were she her, you would address me as she and her right now, I wouldn't really know.
Owe you, Mark. OK, but you wouldn't call me he. No, because. No, I mean, I would call you Mark, you know, if that was something that made you comfortable.
But if I saw you and if I said my name was Jane, would you didn't call me Jane if that was your legal name. Yes. But you don't call me by my legal name. Yeah, I call you by name. I have an issue with that.
But I'm not going to pretend. I'm not going to change what, you know, these established pronouns for male and female. Because you say, you know, I mark and here I am.
What do you so I really want to I'm this I'm genuinely curious about this. But first, let me just say, I think that one, this isn't a case of someone thinking there's something that they're not. What people are saying is that there is a misalignment between my sex and my gender disorder. Is this a no no?
The point my mind and my and my body don't match. That's a disorder that doesn't make it a disorder.
It just means that the world may be more diverse than we've previously understood it to be. Whether we see it in plants, whether we see it in animals, there's all kinds of complexity. And we look in history. I mean, even we go back to Africa, we look at Asia. There's all kinds of examples of people who have complicated gender performances and complicated understanding of gender. And how we perform gender can be different. But I guess my question for you would be why?
If someone identifies as particularly, you know, someone who you engage with, say it's a colleague at work or whomever, a family member member, if they say, look, I prefer to because she and her and I do not want to be identified by this name, why not? Why not just honor that? If you changed your name? I will honor it. But why not me?
I'm sure you call people by nicknames, OK? I'm sure you grew up you grew up in a black neighborhood, right? I know you know somebody named Peanut, right? Yeah, you're right.
You don't say that's not your legal name. I'm your mom. My name's Joe.
I'm no, I'm saying a name is one thing, but if you're asking me to change pronouns, I'm not going to do that because these are established pronouns.
You're asking me to now change English language, right?
We know why we call female. She her girl.
Woman, OK, these are these are words. Meaning what? I'm because to have meaning. So this is a book. Right. So could it could you call this this is a book and this is a mug. Could you call this a book and call this a mug. Yes, you could do that if you want to change it. But words have meanings, right? So now if I switch it and you say, well, this mug wants to be called the book, it's a mug, just a mug.
This is this is the word we've established from the word we established for books.
So you're asking me to change the actual meaning of words to accommodate you?
I'm not going to do that now. I'm certain that it is, because not only is it a request, you can now get in trouble, know certain things. That's not before miss gendering.
Someone at the request of the trans community is not that I'm actually a man, but I want you to pretend I'm a woman. The target of the trans community, which I agree with, is no, I am a woman. And so I want you to.
But you're not a woman. So that's that's the problem. And this is what I say is now you're you've asked me to take on your mental disorder, right. So I am OK with the fact the argument from my uncle who thought he was he thinks he's a Native American from a certain tribe, is that this is what he thinks.
He thinks, but he's not OK. So I'm not then to say to me that that argument is valid because he thinks it. No, you just because you think something doesn't make it real.
OK, exactly what gender is is exactly what an experience and a performance and a social it's not a social construct. Stop saying so. I want to say that words don't have meaning and they're socially constructed means nothing. I'll tell you what they are. But you say that. But then you'll let me guess. This was always a book. OK, so because then I know what it is.
Our entire discussion about black America meant nothing. There's no such thing as racial injustice. See what I did there? Because black is a social construct. Yeah, but we live in a social reality. So within that social reality can be both marks.
You either the gender wage gap is b.s. that feminism is wrong in that racial disparities are all B.S. because everything's a social construct. You're going to go full postmodernists and say nothing is real and it's all made up. Or you got to acknowledge that there are some hard concrete truths. If there are Hong Kong car concrete truths, you and I are black. OK, that's not going to change because we wake up and we decide, you know what, today I'm white and it's just how I feel.
And today I'm Chinese. No, no, no. You and I are black, OK? We are acknowledged as black people are sitting down as black people. I am a woman. You are a man. OK, now if I want to wake up on time, man, you want to you're a woman and we want to play the game, we can do that. So then say all of society now to pretend that it was all a social.
It was when you were born male. I was born a female. Yes, we are black. OK, it's a color though. Black is it? It's a word that we use to say a sex female is a word that we use that has a meaning they need. You are you are born with a vagina. You can have children, you have a uterus. When you are a male, you are born with a penis. You can you can get a woman pregnant.
These words have real meanings. We cannot suddenly in society where there are no truths.
So. So to acknowledge a social construct does not mean that we ignore biology. And it doesn't it doesn't mean that we don't have. Can men get pregnant?
Depends. I know, I know, what does it depend on? I know, Transman, that can get pregnant, but that means it's a woman only one sex circular argument. This argument, it's proving my thing. There is a truth, a concrete truth. You have to be born with a uterus to have a baby. Only women can get pregnant.
The fact that we've arrived in a society that's part of this agreement, that's the part. I disagree. There's something I disagree with that these are facts. So you can say that this person who is pregnant identifies as a man. That person was born a woman. I can tell you that every single time, because only women can have sex because there are concrete truths about life. Been I mean, you can have babies. Pardon. And that that is a hard truth about life.
You cannot make that go away because you want to call somebody who has a B and I could do it a woman only if it's pregnant. I can tell you exactly what it is. It's a woman.
So I'll give you let's go back to social contract because it'll answer the thing you just said. I'm not ignoring what you just said. I'm going to tie it together. So the the idea of my point was that a social construct doesn't ignore physical realities. Right. So the social contract is about how we as a society make sense of those physical realities. Right. So, for example, you said we're black. Sure. Right. I'm trying to pick a light skinned black person right there.
Black, right. We'd agree on that.
Now, let's go to the Dominican Republic. Let's go to PR. Let's go Puerto Rico. Let's go to Jordan. Let's go to Iraq. Let's go to Sudan. Let's go to Ghana. Right. And each of the let's go to South Africa. I'm picking this place very specifically because they have different racial logics and racial paradigms and what it means to be black here, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a universal blackness. Right. That in Dominican there might be five different other racial categories.
Right. And there are some light skinned black folk here who, when they go to Ghana, get ready to get basically seen as white. Right. Because of how we socially constructed that mean my biology change doesn't mean my physical reality change, but how society engages this stuff is what makes it a social construct. So similarly, when it comes so I'm not ignoring the realities of race. So with race and racism in America, and then I won't take it back to the gender thing when it comes to race and racism in America, it's yes, biologically we're all the same, right?
Black people, white people.
There's an infinitesimal difference between a black person and a white person in terms of our genetics. Right. This is the superficial stuff. But that doesn't that's a biological reality, right? It's a biological fact. Right. Just like it's biologically true is I me being born with a penis. Right. But the truth is. But the idea that their social meanings attached to that blackness that make people fear me or that make people think that that this that person's life is worth more because they're white or whatever, those are social meanings that are arbitrary and different.
So so to acknowledge social constructs doesn't mean you ignore biological realities.
But you just did that when you said that men could give birth.
So so similarly, what I'm saying is, is that I'm not denying the biological reality of maleness of the genitalia were assigned at birth. And what we can do with those body parts, I'm not denying that that's a biological reality. Again, the social meaning I'm attaching to it is what I'm saying is more complicated, but it's not.
How can men give birth?
Sometimes that's my answer. Yes. And the answer to that is that is crazy. And this is we cannot just it's just crazy. We cannot allow this to happen. You wouldn't say the definition of being a woman is the ability to give birth.
I'm not saying it's only women can give birth is a factually true statement. Only women give birth.
There's only one type of human being with horses and vaginas. Yes. And only women. I care about you. Then I'm going to bring it birth.
And here's what I think. We're talking past each other. What I'm saying is I'm not disputing the fact that certain body parts are certain kinds of possibilities. Right. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that that is the measure of whether or not you are a man or a woman in society.
OK, but it is now come to a point where if you say that only women can get birth, you are called a bigot. That is crazy. That's nuts. If you say, like J.K. Rowling did when she got cancelled by the Harry Potter cast that only women can menstruate.
OK, can men get their period? Can you can you can you tell my audience?
Can men get their period, can OK to transmit some do some transmen again and again? I think it's OK to ask interesting questions. I think it's good to have intellectual debates, but I don't think that we ever want to enter a space where we deny the humanity. And I'm not saying you are, but to deny the humanity or the experiences of other people.
I said I was totally OK with Trans until it became a demand. What you are denying is my ability to be an intelligent human being. Right? You're denying you're denying my ability to talk about science and biology in a meaningful way. You are now making your existence is actually infringing on mine, OK? And because when you make it a requirement now that I have to pretend that men can give birth and then commensurate there needs to be tampons. The ACLU is fighting for and males and male restrooms that if I don't see the reason, the important to that, that I'm a bigot, I'm sort of saying no, no, no, except you if you want to run around and you want to wear a dress and you want to call yourself Tiffany and you want to, but you will help you if you want, I don't need to know your name is meaning to me.
You I'm not going to sit here and say, I don't believe your name is Tiffany. You know, a person comes up to me and they're in a dress and is in a skirt and they say, My name's Tiffany. OK, call Tiffany cool. Right? Right. But when it becomes cancer is a bigot because she won't acknowledge that, you know, Tiffany, Tiffany, the man got her period and can have a baby, I'm not playing that game, am I?
Will not work tomorrow. And I have decided that a year from now, suddenly I have I have reimagined my identity. And I have I have I have recognized and affirm identity as a trans woman. And I no longer want to identify as Mark. I want to identify as use your example as Tiffany.
You wouldn't be like this book says, Mark your mark, you'd call me Tiffany, I call you Tiffany, but I'm not going to call you she and her because that has real meaning and I'm not going to play the game compromised by that is what I understand.
My, my, my reality. You're now saying you've changed from your reality. And now I have to pretend that words have no meanings and they do have meanings. Right. So I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to call you. Hi, Tiff. How you doing, Tiff? You have a good day, Tiff. Great tiff. I'm not going to then say Shishi. I'm not doing that. And if people cannot if people that gender me either what?
I'll just call you Tiffany. And if they say we're Tiffany, go like he just left. You'll say she just left.
I'll probably slip up, you know, once or twice. But that's just like you wouldn't intentionally miss gender. No, I wouldn't intentionally misled you. But I don't want I don't want Tiffany in my bathroom.
I don't want Tiffany in the other bathroom. I don't know. I don't care. I don't care. I think it's stupid. I think it's foolish. I think it's dumb. But if you if that's really where guys want to go, do it. I don't care. It's not my business doesn't go in the bathroom, but I don't like Tiffany in my bathroom.
And you okay. Are you okay with gender neutral bathrooms.
That's how most bathrooms are there. Let's all go on the plane. They're all gender neutral. No, I got to the bathroom. Fine. Say designating a specific one, like in public spaces. Like restaurants.
Yeah, I hate that they say gender neutral because usually they just say bathroom. Like you don't don't need to say to unusual just as bathroom. We all understood that. That just seems to be an extra step of virtue signalling to say gender neutral. You just put bathroom. Everyone knows that means no.
But a lot of times in places like for example, in our university, we have male bathrooms, we have female bathrooms, we have gender neutral bathroom.
You can just put bathroom. Everyone knows what it means. You see, everyone knows what it means. It means anybody can go here. That's always been that way since the beginning of time. And then suddenly the trans wanted to say gender neutral instead of had to put gender neutral.
So fastenings I find it actually to be the right in this case. And I'm not planes. Do they say gender neutral bathroom? I'm with you. I mean, grandmama's house. Yeah, Thanksgiving, right? I mean, no one. I'm with you, but I often find that it's it's the it's the anti trans community that's like, oh my God, gender neutral bathroom. Because it's it's the God made bathrooms. Man Bathroom for woman.
What do you talk about now? They've always been just bathrooms, usually at small places, just bathrooms. It's fine.
But like it's the I can't stand the preamble to the Constitution. Any person can go here.
We don't care whether you think that that's a good thing. That's just annoying. It's the constant virtually shut up, but that it's about affirming people's.
I don't I don't need your identity affirmed in a bathroom sign if you need to. Have you been denied access?
Just says Rutledge. It's just it's a preprocessed gender privilege.
Stop with these made up turn cis gender privilege. It's just a bathroom.
All words are made up. It's just the word. It's like, you know, what I'm saying is if you've been again, if you've been constantly denied access to something affirming that you can come here matters because I mean, there's a long history of trans just right. Bathroom. Right.
And I'm saying just right. Bathroom historically has still excluded people who are who are who are visibly gender nonconforming. They are if you go throughout history, you know, many people are kicked out of restaurants and even allowed to sit in the restaurant, much less use the bathroom because their gender doesn't seem to line up with what society's expectations. And so saying you can come here to is a sign of saying we welcome. It's just like saying just like when you see like an ally, an ally sign or a or a rainbow flag on a restaurant, it's not saying anyone who doesn't have one means gay people can't come in.
But the point is, because places have been so hostile affirming that you can come, nothing annoys me more than that crap.
I mean, I tell you and nothing annoys me more than seeing that crap everywhere all the time.
It's just, you know, the Black Lives Matter flag, the LGBT flag, this sign this and this. Like, dude, since when are people not allowed? Just before. And I don't need you to have a different side. Like I just want to walk into to register.
It's not would you be OK if the American flag you had an American flag. Can you help me one more gay people in America are not allowed to buy furniture. You're going to help me with that.
It's not specific to furniture, but gay people. I'm saying like it's every store now. It's every store. Put a flag.
There is a historical narrative when we're gay people not allowed to go go into McDonald's as long as there have been McDonald's and public.
And this isn't specific to McDonald's. I'm saying that in terms of public accommodations, people who what who identify as gender nonconforming, we can talk about gay, lesbian, bisexual. I'm talking specifically about no trans folk. Yes, they're often denied access to public spaces like restaurants, like furniture stores, like like hospitals, etc.. And part of the reason and again, there's plenty of that on this is that when they're in public space, they're often criminalized.
They're often seen as sex workers, are often seen as doing something illicit, even if they're just walking down the street. So when you see the reason, you see an overrepresentation of trans women, for example, being being stopped and searched and frisked or apprehended, a question even they've done nothing or presumed to be doing sex work just because they're on a corner, like literally could be crossing the street is because there's an expectation of who and what they are a social construct.
And so, yes, to say, look, you can come here, we want you here, we won't be just you. This is a safe haven. Here is entirely reasonable. If I had a university to use your argument earlier, and I want to I think it's OK for university on the website to say, hey, we value diversity of opinion. We want conservatives to right now, you might say, well, why do I need to say that conservatives should be allowed anywhere, but you would say conservatives that universities are hostile spaces to conservatives.
So if I want to signal to conservatives that they were welcome here, too, I would have to go above and beyond to say that because they're not they're typically not. And so I would buy your argument. And so I'm saying similarly, if a place is denying access historically a country to to Queer Folk or to transfer and I'm saying, yeah, we got to do something extra to say that maybe we should come up with the flag for conservative people.
I think it's red, white and blue. There's like 50 stars. Oh, just America.
We'll take it. It's like putting American flag so we know that it's going one. It is the Confederate flag. I mean I mean, whatever.
I will wrap this by saying I think this was a very important discussion as a forum. Yeah. I think it's there needs to be more of this. We don't have to agree, but we cannot be scared to have the conversation. People benefit from seeing different perspectives in the black community. We are not all a monolith. I disagree with Mark on virtually everything he has said here, but I know that.
And my thank you. I will defend his right to say it to the death of me. I think we need more diversity of thought and more diversity of opinion. And I deeply respect you for coming on to the show and saying what you believe, right?
I mean, everybody should buy this book. It's called Nobody Cashes of America's War.
Well, first you're going to get two minutes where you actually can pick whatever you want. So, yeah, we're going to we wrap up every episode by allowing you to look into the camera. Oh, wow. And you can say what we try to say is encouraging. Like, if you wish that your one message could fall upon the ears of every person in America, what would it be? Sort of a thing, right?
Oh, so are you ready?
I'm ready on your mark. Get set, world. I give you Marc Lamont Hill.
Wow. This is I didn't expect this. I'm so nervous.
First of all, we're in a desperate and and trying time. It's more important than this book. And right now we need radical imagination. We need to not be prisoner to the moment we're in. We don't need easy solutions. We don't need simply simple solutions. We need to suspend all of our disbelief and invest in each other, believe in each other, and figure out new, more amazing and ambitious dreams than we've ever had before. It's the only way we can get out of this, this this moment of darkness, of violence, of pain, of inequality, of injustice, of deep harm.
We can't run from history. We can't escape history, but we can wrestle with it and we can ultimately not be prisoner to it. And I'm proud of what's happening on the streets. I'm proud of what's happening around the world. And I'm proud to be engaged in dialogue that gets us there. I don't like to plug stuff, but I do think at this moment this book is actually useful. It's called Nobody Casualties of America's War on the Vulnerable from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond.
I wrote this I wrote this six years ago. It came out four years ago to talk about Flint and Baltimore and Ferguson and all these things. I didn't want to talk about what it meant to be killed by police or what it meant to have lead in your water. I want to talk about the historical processes that got us there. I want to talk about the conditions underneath that keep us there. But I also want to leave with a sense of hope that, again, we don't have to be present at this moment.
We don't have to be what we once were, that the world can be different and better or more fair and more just and more free than we could even imagine. And I believe that all of us together can make that happen.
That was great luck. You were ready for that. Look at that in twenty seconds left. That was awesome. Wow. Yeah, that's right.
Thank you guys for watching the latest episode of the Canice own show. I hope you guys enjoyed the conversation as much as I did. As many of you guys already know. Prager U. Is a five on one C3 nonprofit organization, which means we need your help to keep all of our content free to the public. Please consider making a tax deductible donation today. I would really appreciate your support.