Coleman Hughes Issues an Open Letter and a Stern Challenge to Ibram Kendi

In his analysis of Ibram Kendo's best-selling book, How to be an Anti-Racist, Coleman Hughes points to: 1) unsubstantiated claims, 2) misstated claims and 3) vague terms and 4) absurd claims from Kendi's earlier writings, such as Kendi's earlier belief that "white people are Aliens."

Here is a excerpt from Hughes' discussion:

Kendi says what they probably believe but are too afraid to say namely: "Racial discrimination is not inherently racist." He continues "the defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it's anti-racist. If discrimination is creating inequity then it is racist. The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to pasT discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

In so far as Kendi's book speaks for modern anti-racism then it should be praised for clarifying what the "anti" really means. Fundamentally, the modern anti-racist movement is not against discrimination. It's against inequity which, in many cases, makes it pro-discrimination. The problem with racial equity defined as numerically equal outcomes between races is that it's unachievable.

Without doubt, we have a long way to go in terms of maximizing opportunity for America's most disadvantaged citizens. Many public schools are subpar and some are atrocious. A sizable minority of black children grow up in neighborhoods replete with crime and abandoned buildings, while the majority grow up in single parent homes. Too many black people are behind bars.

All of this is true, yet none of it implies that equal outcomes are either possible or the proper goal. Kendi discusses inequity between ethnic groups, for example, which he views as identical to inequity between racial groups, as problems created by racist public policy.  This view commits him to some bizarre conclusions. For example, according to the 2017 census bureau data, the average Haitian American earned just 68 cents for every dollar earned by the average Nigerian American.  The average French American earned just 70 cents for every dollar earned by the average Russian American.  Similar examples abound, so ask yourself: "Is it more likely that our society imposes policies that discriminate against American descendants of Haiti and France but not Nigeria or Russia?  Or that disparities between racial and ethnic groups are normal even in the absence of racist policies?

Kendi's view puts him firmly in the first camp.  "To be anti-racist," he writes "is to view the inequities between all racialized ethnic groups," by which he means groups like Haitians and Nigerians, "as problems of policy."  Put bluntly, this assumption is indefensible. What would it take to achieve a world of racial equity top-down enforcement of racial quotas?  A constitutional amendment banning racial disparity? A department of anti-racism to pre-screen every policy for racially disparate impact? These ideas may sound like they were conjured up to caricature anti-racists as Orwellian super villain, but Kendi has actually suggested them as policy recommendations.

As Hughes explains at the end of his video, Kendi has actually proposed a vast bureaucracy, unaccountable to voters, charged with making sure that no national, state or local law is "racist."  This bureaucracy would also be empowered to investigate private businesses and to monitor the speech of public officials to make sure that "racism" (broadly defined by Kendi, to include a complete lack of numerical disparities in hiring) exist.

Hughes ends his video with the following:

How to be an anti-racist is the clearest and most jargon free articulation of modern anti-racism I've read and for that reason alone it's a useful contribution.  But the book is poorly argued, sloppily researched insufficiently fact-checked, and occasionally self-contradictory.  As a result, it fails to live up to its titular promise, ultimately teaching the reader less about how to be anti-racist than about how to be anti-intellectual.

[From Wikipedia]: Coleman Cruz Hughes (born 1996) is an American writer and opinion columnist on issues related to race and racism at the online magazine Quillette, a fellow and contributing editor at City Journal, and host of the podcast Conversations with Coleman. As Coleman Hughes comments: "What could possible go wrong?"

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Issues an Open Letter and a Stern Challenge to Ibram Kendi

Time to Revise the Math Curriculum?

I heard Steve Levitt (from Freakonomics fame) discuss this issue on an episode of his new podcast, "People I Mostly Admire." Here's the proposal for changing the high school math requirement for most of us. This is from an organization to which Levitt belongs, 21CMath.org:

We surveyed 900 “Freakonomics” podcast listeners — a pretty nerdy group, we must admit — and discovered that less than 12% used any algebra, trigonometry or calculus in their daily lives. Only 2% use integrals or derivatives, the foundational building blocks of calculus. In contrast, a whopping 66% work with basic analytical software like Microsoft Excel on a daily basis.

When was the last time you divided a polynomial? If you were asked to do so today, would you remember how? For the most part, students are no longer taught to write cursive, how to use a slide rule, or any number of things that were once useful in everyday life. Let’s put working out polynomial division using pencil and paper on the same ash heap as sock darning and shorthand.

What we propose is as obvious as it is radical: to put data and its analysis at the center of high school mathematics.

Continue ReadingTime to Revise the Math Curriculum?

Deborah Tannen’s Observation that The Argument Culture Has Been Brewing for a Long Time

Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture (1998), well before social media took over:

This is not another book about civility. “Civility”suggests a superficial, pinky-in-the-air veneer of politeness spread thin over human relations like a layer of marmalade over toast. "This book is about a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight. It is a tendency in Western culture in general, and in the United States in particular, that has a long history and a deep, thick, and farranging root system. It has served us well in many ways but in recent years has become so exaggerated that it is getting in the way of solving our problems. Our spirits are corroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention— an argument culture.

The argument culture urges us to approach the world— and the people in it— in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done: The best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as “both sides”;the best way to settle disputes is litigation that pits one party against the other; the best way to begin an essay is to attack someone; and the best way to show you’re really thinking is to criticize.

Our public interactions have become more and more like having an argument with a spouse. Conflict can’t be avoided in our public lives any more than we can avoid conflict with people we love. One of the great strengths of our society is that we can express these conflicts openly. But just as spouses have to learn ways of settling their differences without inflicting real damage on each other, so we, as a society, have to find constructive ways of resolving disputes and differences. Public discourse requires making an argument for a point of view, not having an argument— as in having a fight."

Continue ReadingDeborah Tannen’s Observation that The Argument Culture Has Been Brewing for a Long Time

Andrew Sullivan: Why Woke Works

At The Weekly Dish, Andrew Sullivan has published an excellent analysis of the success of the Woke movement and why, despite it's many deep conceptual flaws, it won't go away any time soon. Here's an excerpt:

The truth is that liberal democracy is hard, counter-intuitive, complicated and requires self-restraint, reason, and toleration at levels most humans are incapable of. That’s why it is such a rare and fleeting exception in the world today and all but non-existent for the vast majority of human history. Critical race theory is much more attuned to human nature. It gives you the simplest template for understanding the world, it assigns you virtue if you assent, it gives you instant power over others purely because of your and their identity, and it requires nothing more than tribal instinct to thrive. That’s why it is here to stay. And why the fight for liberalism is going to be long and hard and require as much courage, steel, and rigor as we can muster.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan: Why Woke Works

The Effects of the FB Filter-Bubble re Attitudes of Trump Voters

On Facebook, I recently posed a Tweet by Chloe Valdary, a kind-hearted even-keel peace-making thinker who is most definitely not pro-Trump.  She is willing to call out problems on the political left as well as the political right. I find her opinions thoughtful and instructive.

Here is how I introduced Chloe's Tweet (above) on FB:

I won't be voting for Trump, but I'm still concerned he might win re-election. I think many people feel similarly -- otherwise, why do so many people keep talking about the election and the polling? I've often wondered why so many people will vote for Trump, despite his many cataclysmic negative personal qualities. I'm glad that Chloe Valdary asked Trump voters to respond to her Twitter account by stating why they support Trump. She has received more than 300 responses that I found interesting to review. These responses don't change my mind about Trump, but I do see many Trump supporters in a different light.

In response, I saw a firestorm of anger from people on the political left. People who were angry with me that I would even consider what Trump voters think.  Many of them seem to be assuming that Trump voters are perfectly aligned with Trump. They vented at Trump voters as close-minded people who are, seemingly, identical to Trump in everything they think.

I see a big tent on on the right as well as on the left. Just as there are people who are going to hold their nose and vote for Biden, there are people on the right who are going to hold their nose and vote for Trump. I think it is a worthy project to ask those Trump supporters why they are voting for a man who I find to be so personally despicable. Yes, there are many Trump supporters who I do find deplorable (and some of those people on the left too), but there are many other people (some I know personally) who I like as human beings, who I disagree with on many issues, but who are going to vote for Trump.

Instead of curiosity in reaction to my FB post, I'm seeing lots of hostility for even asking the question, for inquiring. This unwillingness to be curious about the facts troubles me on many levels. In fact, this is self-defeating behavior suggesting an "analysis" that has been contaminated by roiling emotions. I understand the emotions and I understand the stakes of this election, but it seems that many of us could do much better. Rather than being smart, they are getting drunk on anger. They need to listen to Yoda:

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

“Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will.”

Anger… fear… aggression. The dark side are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

They also need to consider this idea by Sun Tzu, from the Art of War":

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Continue ReadingThe Effects of the FB Filter-Bubble re Attitudes of Trump Voters