While I agree with your commentary about the Times use of "Notable", I also agree with the Times' reviewer about the recent novels of Richard Powers. I read and admired his early novels like Galatea 2.2 and The Gold Bug Variations, but I found his recent work forgettable and could not finish The Overstory. And as for John McWhorter, let's just say I disagree with your dismissal of his thoughtful writing.
I'm also a huge fan of McWhorter's thoughts about wokeness and racism in general, though I lament his focus on the "wokeness as a religion" idea. While I think it's a useful analogy, I ultimately agree with most of the points made by Patrick Casey in the article John (Warner) links to. In the end, I would agree that wokeness isn't a religion.
But what's really frustrating about this debate is whether you ultimately agree that wokeness is a religion or not is completely irrelevant to virtually all the important point that McWhorter makes in Woke Racism. So I lament the fact that this irrelevant side issue gives reviewers like Warner an excuse to dismiss the book without actually grappling with its central arguments.
McWhorter's real argument in the book is that the Kendi/DiAngelo philosophical approach to racism is anti-intellectual, performative, wrong headed, and (most importantly) counter productive. Does Warner believe that these arguments (which are the real heart of McWhorter's book) are "silly" or is it just the religion analogy he is referring to? If it's the former, I would love to hear why. I think McWhorter is making powerful, important points in the book, and if Warner thinks he's wrong, it would be interesting to know why.
In the interest of up front transparency, I will admit that I find McWhorter among the least illuminating writers of those currently writing about issues of race. Much of this is rooted in my personal view that structural racism is a dominant factor in what hinders progress towards equality. I align strongly with Heather McGhee's point of view articulated in The Sum of Us (that I discussed here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-books-biblioracle-0228-20210223-absfuzxupjd53h4w5k3e7hrn5y-story.html) that the racist structures imbedded in our societal structures must be acknowledged and addressed, but in so doing, lots of non-Black people would also see a significant benefit because those structures also harm many folks who are not Black.
To that end, I find the kinds of discussions engendered by McWhorter and others in that camp largely pointless. In my other life I've had a 20-year career as a non-tenured college instructor and the way he describes higher education institutions has no resemblance to anything I've witnessed. I find his work unilluminating in the extreme. I think it obscures more than reveals.
For example, I don't know how to take the notion that I have to set aside McWhorter's own framing (wokeness is a religion) to appreciate his most important point. If that isn't his central argument, why is it the package within he places his argument? He certainly doesn't disclaim it. How do I accept that someone is making powerful important points when I find his fundamental frame frankly ridiculous.
Is this a standard you'd extend to Ibram Kendi or Robin DiAngelo? The first thing I'd say is that anyone who is lumping those two authors together isn't thinking very deeply about the issues. It has become a handy rhetorical trope largely divorced from substantive debate to suggest that they are some sort of pair, but they are not, and the lumping of them together is another red flag for me in terms of what we're going to talk about and if that talking is going to provide anything illuminating to the discussion.
I tend to believe that performative anti-racism (what I call press release anti-racism) is indeed, not productive. I have witnessed much press release anti-racism during my time teaching college. When I am subjected to say, a training program that makes me roll my eyes because I think it's at best pointless, rather than declaring that there is an illiberal totalitarian movement seeking to destroy our institutions, I try to refocus on the genuine structural barriers to making our higher education system accessible and consistent with the values we claim for it.
I could go on and on about this stuff because I've mulled it and written about it for years at Inside Higher Ed (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting), but in the end, I think McWhorter is a net negative on the whole discussion. The tug of war among elites (like him) over the nature of the status quo doesn't mean anything to me in the practical sense.
Sorry for the long delayed response John. Appreciated the thoughtful reply and wanted to reply in kind and then life went a little crazy over the last two weeks. Anyway, a few belated thoughts. Apologies in the advance for the length.
First, to call out where I think we’re in agreement, I’m 100% on board with McGhee’s favored political program of taxing the well off at higher levels to pay for increased infrastructure and social spending that will benefit low income families of all backgrounds (thought it would disproportionately benefit Black Americans given current income levels). Worth noting that McWhorter would agree as well.
I also agree with you that Kendi and DiAngelo are very different writers making very different points. They are paired not because they say the same things but because they are a good shorthand for representing the two strands of “woke” thought that McWhorter is pushing back on: Kendi’s assertion that all differences between the outcomes of racial groups are a function of racism, and DiAngelo’s arguments that the key to racial progress in America is white people recognizing their privilege and stopping microaggressions.
White Fragility, I believe, is a book almost completely without merit. Virtually guaranteed to alienate anyone who doesn’t already agree with her (DiAngelo’s approach personifies the type of DEI training that Frank Dobbins has demonstrated is ineffective at best and often counterproductive: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail) and lacking in any nuance or psychological insight, I think it will ultimately be remembered for two things: DiAngelo’s Salem Witch Trial approach to criticism (anyone pushing back in her workshops is just manifesting white fragility) and the unintentionally hilarious section where she details how she handled a situation where she had offended a Black colleague with a remark about hair. If there is a more awkward and uncomfortable recommendation for how human beings should relate to one another then that section of DiAngelo’s book, I’m unaware of it. But it crystallizes key elements of DiAngelo’s philosophy which infantilizes Black people and treats them as almost an unknowably different species who must be related to as delicate flowers rather than peers. It’s no wonder that McWhorter finds DiAngelo so offensive.
Kendi is a much more interesting writer, and I do think “How to be an Anti-Racist” is worth reading. But Kendi’s core argument that differences in outcomes between racial groups are purely a function of racism is so obviously wrong and easy to poke holes in that it’s not surprising he essentially refuses to debate it with anyone who will push back. But the real problem with Kendi’s philosophy is the way that it distorts public policy, especially in education. The idea, for example, that the gap in SAT scores is taken as evidence of problems with the SAT rather than a call to action to improve the education performance for Black students is the kind of misguided thinking leading to poor public policy that McWhorter is objecting to. The reality is that the performance gap between black students and other students is partly a function of growing up in poverty (the roots of which can indeed be credited to slavery and historical racism) and is exacerbated by the largely local nature of school funding in most places, but it’s also a function of the disproportionate lack of stable, two parent homes in Black America, a lack of commitment to and expectation for academic achievement in low income Black communities, and poor pedagogical approaches (such as the shift away from phonics that McWhorter is passionate about). An approach to education reform that doesn’t take these factors into account and instead focuses on
To be clear, that isn’t to say that racism and bias isn’t still an important factor in American life. It’s impossible to read Jennifer Eberhardt’s wonderful book “Biased”, by far the best book written about racism and bias in the last twenty years, without realizing that bias against African Americans is still endemic in American society. That said, Eberhardt’s book recognizes that bias is a human condition (not one that isolated to a particular race), I think she would argue that internalized bias is a hugely important factor along with the externalied type, and she is much more circumspect about what a focus on bias can do in terms of changing outcomes.
So for people interested in racism and American society, Eberhardt’s book is definitely the first book I would recommend, but I think Woke Racism is an important antidote for anyone “anti-racism” is synonymous with making American society more inclusive.
Two additional ancillary points (the comment above was obviously too long already):
In regard to McWhorter’s argument that anti-racism is a kind of religion. I’m not saying that reviewers need to ignore that claim. It’s an important theme of the book, and I believe it’s a brilliant analogy. For example, I think original sin is a great framework for understanding how people approach white privilege, and I also believe the fervor with which many white people have adopted wokeism is driven in part by folks who are irreligious looking for a spiritual calling. What I’m saying is irrelevant is the question of whether wokeism is LIKE a religion or IS a religion. I agree with the Casey critique you linked to that it’s the former, and I think McWhorter’s arguments to the contrary betray a lack of insight about religion that is grounded in his distaste for it. However, I don’t think the distinction about whether wokeism is a religion or is simply like one matters at all to the core arguments that he is making.
As for McWhorter’s claims about the state of academia which you reject, as someone who hasn’t been part of university life for more than 30 years, it’s difficult for me to assess one way or another. But I would make the following points.
- McWhorter has cited many examples over time, and he is obviously far from the only one making these claims. Following your links I can see that you are critical of Heterodox Academy, but the fact that 5000+ folks in academia felt motivated to join this group suggests that there are a lot of folks in academia who share McWhorter’s concerns.
- As someone who I’m guessing is fairly left wing (I have no idea who you supported in the Democratic primary in 2020, but I’d guess it was Sanders, Warren, or Booker; or perhaps none of the Democrats were sufficiently progressive to get your support :)), I’m also not sure I trust your judgement as to how more conservative students and faculty perceive the environment on campuses (just as I suspect you might not trust the claims of conservative, white professors who reject the idea that there is any meaningful racism on college campuses today).
- For some reason (don’t remember the thread that triggered it), a comment on Twitter recently pointed to videos of Yale students back in 2015 haranguing sociology professor Nicholas Christakis over the email his wife sent about Halloween costumes (https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/15/watch-a-mob-of-yale-students-bully-a-professor-who-hurt-their-feelings/). While I had remembered the story at the time, I had never seen the full 25 minutes of video of the incident. Even setting aside the tempest in a teapot nature of the original email, I found the mob mentality and lack of respect from the students toward the professor shocking. It really was reminiscent of Maoist China in the 60s, and the worst part was how the students seemed to feel their behavior was perfectly appropriate. And that was six years ago! Do you think Yale and these students were just outliers and this kind of incident would never happen elsewhere? Because I can certainly see how someone would keep quiet about their beliefs rather than risk a situation like this.
- McWhorter doesn't analogize wokeism to religion. He says it is a religion. You can't call something a brilliant analogy that is not intended as an analogy. Retrofitting McWhorter's ideas to make them more like you wish they were is to cleanse them of their fill import. Here's why this is so damaging: Just this week, Justice Alito in questioning during a case which decide whether or not public money can be uses as school vouchers for religious schools, asked if teaching CRT in a school would make it ineligible for the Maine state voucher program on religious grounds. This is the idea that wokeism is a religion being used as a rationale that will destroy the separation of church and state and our entire public school system in the process. Maybe this outcome please your politics (or maybe not), but I hope you can see the problem behind the principle.
- McWhorter has been part of elite university life for his entire career. I, on the other land, have labored in the humble trenches of our public college and university system. What happens at Yale couldn't be further removed from the places I've worked than if it happened on Mars. The idea that Yale is representative of any broader trend in higher ed is, no offense, nonsense.
- As to what happened to Christakis, I don't know why would even use a gauge of "appropriate" to judge the actions. Actually I do. Appropriate is a term for people invested in a preservation of the status quo. I think the status quo in higher ed is no great, so I'm not invested in it. I sincerely hope Yale manages to change its ways. For additional perspective, I'll point you to a piece I wrote at the time on how I think student protests should be viewed and responded to: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/our-republic-will-withstand-college-students-protesting
Also, I'll point you to this recent podcast conversation between Greg Lukianoff of FIRE and Mark Coplevitch, a professor at the University of Wisconsin. Coplevitch testifies to what has been my experience, that students are far too busy trying to manage their lives and the challenges of paying for school to think about become soldiers in an American-style Maoist revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/opinion/the-argument-free-speech-on-college-campuses.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion
- For Heterodox Academy, I would put those numbers in perspective. There are somewhere around 1.5 million college faculty in the U.S. McWhorter gets people writing to him because he's held himself out as the central repository for grievances. It is a terrible recipe for confirmation bias. My far too long (and hopefully final) word on why I think Heterodox Academy is helping to undermine the principles they claim to be protecting is here: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/true-threats-telos-university
As I say, I don't think it's anything you'd find convincing, but it's the best faith effort I got.
I appreciate you writing at length because it gives me a deeper understanding of where you're coming from, and I wish I had time to respond at equal length, but I don't really have the time and in a lot of cases, these are subjects I've written about exhaustively elsewhere and I grow weary of repeating myself when there is clearly not a gap that can be bridged here because we just fundamentally view these things differently.
I won't take the time to defend DiAngelo, other than you draw an overbroad characterization of her work, but more importantly, I wonder why people like you, or McWhorter, upon encounter these things don't do what most of us do when we're subjected to say, cringeworthy attempts at diversity training (as I have been), and just roll your eyes and move on.
Why is it important to take up the charge against this enemy as opposed to the reactionary forces that are, at this moment, seeking to restrict access to books dealing with race and sexuality and other "objectionable" themes. Spending so much time being anti-anti-racist doesn't advance the cause of anti-racism in the way you think. As seen with the bad faith anti-CRT in schools attacks that has always been a transparently reactionary attack on any material that deals with race forthrightly.
Hate on anti-racism figures like Kendi and DiAngelo all you like, but please recognize, focusing so much time and attention on them as opposed to, you know, racists, is doing the work of the racists.
Personally, I don't worry much about bias in society because I don't think bias is the chief problem. The chief problem is structural racism and if we attack those things bias becomes irrelevant.
Digressing sharply from the opening salvos in the "woke" McWhorter wars (though I'm with you, John) - your list of lists makes this a newsletter to hang onto for future reference, if and when I can get through the 15 books teetering on my nightstand. Thank you! But the link to WaPo's audiobook column leads me to wonder whether you have considered in your column the pluses and minuses of audiobooks, and how they get reviewed. The WaPo column makes no mention of the performance aspect of the audiobooks recommended. I know for writers that may be superfluous, but for readers/auditors that can be an important consideration - to Kindle or to Audible (or better yet, libro.fm) Several authors reading their own works have greatly enhanced my appreciation of the book (Trevor Noah's Born a Crime a stark example, an older one is House of Sand and Fog) and some authors should not be allowed near microphone! Something to think about for a slow week...and a chance to boost libro.fm.
I must confess that I very rarely listen to audiobooks, so I'm very much dependent on others when it comes to the quality of an audiobook as audio experience. Though, I agree with you on the importance of a narrator. I had a link to a libro.fm piece last week (or the week before) on the most popular audio books of the year, and some significant percentage of them had been read by the same actress. It seemed clear she either greatly enhances the experience or has good taste in what she choose (or is chosen for) or both.
Some authors reading their own work is indispensable, no doubt. Others should stay away. It's good when authors know which category they fall into.
And I have to correct my note - WaPo DID touch on the performance aspects, including that Biespiel did a good job of reading his own memoir. My bad (which McWhorter would probably excoriate me for saying!)
While I agree with your commentary about the Times use of "Notable", I also agree with the Times' reviewer about the recent novels of Richard Powers. I read and admired his early novels like Galatea 2.2 and The Gold Bug Variations, but I found his recent work forgettable and could not finish The Overstory. And as for John McWhorter, let's just say I disagree with your dismissal of his thoughtful writing.
I'm also a huge fan of McWhorter's thoughts about wokeness and racism in general, though I lament his focus on the "wokeness as a religion" idea. While I think it's a useful analogy, I ultimately agree with most of the points made by Patrick Casey in the article John (Warner) links to. In the end, I would agree that wokeness isn't a religion.
But what's really frustrating about this debate is whether you ultimately agree that wokeness is a religion or not is completely irrelevant to virtually all the important point that McWhorter makes in Woke Racism. So I lament the fact that this irrelevant side issue gives reviewers like Warner an excuse to dismiss the book without actually grappling with its central arguments.
McWhorter's real argument in the book is that the Kendi/DiAngelo philosophical approach to racism is anti-intellectual, performative, wrong headed, and (most importantly) counter productive. Does Warner believe that these arguments (which are the real heart of McWhorter's book) are "silly" or is it just the religion analogy he is referring to? If it's the former, I would love to hear why. I think McWhorter is making powerful, important points in the book, and if Warner thinks he's wrong, it would be interesting to know why.
In the interest of up front transparency, I will admit that I find McWhorter among the least illuminating writers of those currently writing about issues of race. Much of this is rooted in my personal view that structural racism is a dominant factor in what hinders progress towards equality. I align strongly with Heather McGhee's point of view articulated in The Sum of Us (that I discussed here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-books-biblioracle-0228-20210223-absfuzxupjd53h4w5k3e7hrn5y-story.html) that the racist structures imbedded in our societal structures must be acknowledged and addressed, but in so doing, lots of non-Black people would also see a significant benefit because those structures also harm many folks who are not Black.
To that end, I find the kinds of discussions engendered by McWhorter and others in that camp largely pointless. In my other life I've had a 20-year career as a non-tenured college instructor and the way he describes higher education institutions has no resemblance to anything I've witnessed. I find his work unilluminating in the extreme. I think it obscures more than reveals.
For example, I don't know how to take the notion that I have to set aside McWhorter's own framing (wokeness is a religion) to appreciate his most important point. If that isn't his central argument, why is it the package within he places his argument? He certainly doesn't disclaim it. How do I accept that someone is making powerful important points when I find his fundamental frame frankly ridiculous.
Is this a standard you'd extend to Ibram Kendi or Robin DiAngelo? The first thing I'd say is that anyone who is lumping those two authors together isn't thinking very deeply about the issues. It has become a handy rhetorical trope largely divorced from substantive debate to suggest that they are some sort of pair, but they are not, and the lumping of them together is another red flag for me in terms of what we're going to talk about and if that talking is going to provide anything illuminating to the discussion.
I tend to believe that performative anti-racism (what I call press release anti-racism) is indeed, not productive. I have witnessed much press release anti-racism during my time teaching college. When I am subjected to say, a training program that makes me roll my eyes because I think it's at best pointless, rather than declaring that there is an illiberal totalitarian movement seeking to destroy our institutions, I try to refocus on the genuine structural barriers to making our higher education system accessible and consistent with the values we claim for it.
I could go on and on about this stuff because I've mulled it and written about it for years at Inside Higher Ed (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting), but in the end, I think McWhorter is a net negative on the whole discussion. The tug of war among elites (like him) over the nature of the status quo doesn't mean anything to me in the practical sense.
Sorry for the long delayed response John. Appreciated the thoughtful reply and wanted to reply in kind and then life went a little crazy over the last two weeks. Anyway, a few belated thoughts. Apologies in the advance for the length.
First, to call out where I think we’re in agreement, I’m 100% on board with McGhee’s favored political program of taxing the well off at higher levels to pay for increased infrastructure and social spending that will benefit low income families of all backgrounds (thought it would disproportionately benefit Black Americans given current income levels). Worth noting that McWhorter would agree as well.
I also agree with you that Kendi and DiAngelo are very different writers making very different points. They are paired not because they say the same things but because they are a good shorthand for representing the two strands of “woke” thought that McWhorter is pushing back on: Kendi’s assertion that all differences between the outcomes of racial groups are a function of racism, and DiAngelo’s arguments that the key to racial progress in America is white people recognizing their privilege and stopping microaggressions.
White Fragility, I believe, is a book almost completely without merit. Virtually guaranteed to alienate anyone who doesn’t already agree with her (DiAngelo’s approach personifies the type of DEI training that Frank Dobbins has demonstrated is ineffective at best and often counterproductive: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail) and lacking in any nuance or psychological insight, I think it will ultimately be remembered for two things: DiAngelo’s Salem Witch Trial approach to criticism (anyone pushing back in her workshops is just manifesting white fragility) and the unintentionally hilarious section where she details how she handled a situation where she had offended a Black colleague with a remark about hair. If there is a more awkward and uncomfortable recommendation for how human beings should relate to one another then that section of DiAngelo’s book, I’m unaware of it. But it crystallizes key elements of DiAngelo’s philosophy which infantilizes Black people and treats them as almost an unknowably different species who must be related to as delicate flowers rather than peers. It’s no wonder that McWhorter finds DiAngelo so offensive.
Kendi is a much more interesting writer, and I do think “How to be an Anti-Racist” is worth reading. But Kendi’s core argument that differences in outcomes between racial groups are purely a function of racism is so obviously wrong and easy to poke holes in that it’s not surprising he essentially refuses to debate it with anyone who will push back. But the real problem with Kendi’s philosophy is the way that it distorts public policy, especially in education. The idea, for example, that the gap in SAT scores is taken as evidence of problems with the SAT rather than a call to action to improve the education performance for Black students is the kind of misguided thinking leading to poor public policy that McWhorter is objecting to. The reality is that the performance gap between black students and other students is partly a function of growing up in poverty (the roots of which can indeed be credited to slavery and historical racism) and is exacerbated by the largely local nature of school funding in most places, but it’s also a function of the disproportionate lack of stable, two parent homes in Black America, a lack of commitment to and expectation for academic achievement in low income Black communities, and poor pedagogical approaches (such as the shift away from phonics that McWhorter is passionate about). An approach to education reform that doesn’t take these factors into account and instead focuses on
To be clear, that isn’t to say that racism and bias isn’t still an important factor in American life. It’s impossible to read Jennifer Eberhardt’s wonderful book “Biased”, by far the best book written about racism and bias in the last twenty years, without realizing that bias against African Americans is still endemic in American society. That said, Eberhardt’s book recognizes that bias is a human condition (not one that isolated to a particular race), I think she would argue that internalized bias is a hugely important factor along with the externalied type, and she is much more circumspect about what a focus on bias can do in terms of changing outcomes.
So for people interested in racism and American society, Eberhardt’s book is definitely the first book I would recommend, but I think Woke Racism is an important antidote for anyone “anti-racism” is synonymous with making American society more inclusive.
Two additional ancillary points (the comment above was obviously too long already):
In regard to McWhorter’s argument that anti-racism is a kind of religion. I’m not saying that reviewers need to ignore that claim. It’s an important theme of the book, and I believe it’s a brilliant analogy. For example, I think original sin is a great framework for understanding how people approach white privilege, and I also believe the fervor with which many white people have adopted wokeism is driven in part by folks who are irreligious looking for a spiritual calling. What I’m saying is irrelevant is the question of whether wokeism is LIKE a religion or IS a religion. I agree with the Casey critique you linked to that it’s the former, and I think McWhorter’s arguments to the contrary betray a lack of insight about religion that is grounded in his distaste for it. However, I don’t think the distinction about whether wokeism is a religion or is simply like one matters at all to the core arguments that he is making.
As for McWhorter’s claims about the state of academia which you reject, as someone who hasn’t been part of university life for more than 30 years, it’s difficult for me to assess one way or another. But I would make the following points.
- McWhorter has cited many examples over time, and he is obviously far from the only one making these claims. Following your links I can see that you are critical of Heterodox Academy, but the fact that 5000+ folks in academia felt motivated to join this group suggests that there are a lot of folks in academia who share McWhorter’s concerns.
- As someone who I’m guessing is fairly left wing (I have no idea who you supported in the Democratic primary in 2020, but I’d guess it was Sanders, Warren, or Booker; or perhaps none of the Democrats were sufficiently progressive to get your support :)), I’m also not sure I trust your judgement as to how more conservative students and faculty perceive the environment on campuses (just as I suspect you might not trust the claims of conservative, white professors who reject the idea that there is any meaningful racism on college campuses today).
- For some reason (don’t remember the thread that triggered it), a comment on Twitter recently pointed to videos of Yale students back in 2015 haranguing sociology professor Nicholas Christakis over the email his wife sent about Halloween costumes (https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/15/watch-a-mob-of-yale-students-bully-a-professor-who-hurt-their-feelings/). While I had remembered the story at the time, I had never seen the full 25 minutes of video of the incident. Even setting aside the tempest in a teapot nature of the original email, I found the mob mentality and lack of respect from the students toward the professor shocking. It really was reminiscent of Maoist China in the 60s, and the worst part was how the students seemed to feel their behavior was perfectly appropriate. And that was six years ago! Do you think Yale and these students were just outliers and this kind of incident would never happen elsewhere? Because I can certainly see how someone would keep quiet about their beliefs rather than risk a situation like this.
Brief thoughts on this:
- McWhorter doesn't analogize wokeism to religion. He says it is a religion. You can't call something a brilliant analogy that is not intended as an analogy. Retrofitting McWhorter's ideas to make them more like you wish they were is to cleanse them of their fill import. Here's why this is so damaging: Just this week, Justice Alito in questioning during a case which decide whether or not public money can be uses as school vouchers for religious schools, asked if teaching CRT in a school would make it ineligible for the Maine state voucher program on religious grounds. This is the idea that wokeism is a religion being used as a rationale that will destroy the separation of church and state and our entire public school system in the process. Maybe this outcome please your politics (or maybe not), but I hope you can see the problem behind the principle.
- McWhorter has been part of elite university life for his entire career. I, on the other land, have labored in the humble trenches of our public college and university system. What happens at Yale couldn't be further removed from the places I've worked than if it happened on Mars. The idea that Yale is representative of any broader trend in higher ed is, no offense, nonsense.
- As to what happened to Christakis, I don't know why would even use a gauge of "appropriate" to judge the actions. Actually I do. Appropriate is a term for people invested in a preservation of the status quo. I think the status quo in higher ed is no great, so I'm not invested in it. I sincerely hope Yale manages to change its ways. For additional perspective, I'll point you to a piece I wrote at the time on how I think student protests should be viewed and responded to: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/our-republic-will-withstand-college-students-protesting
And also this piece from a Yale alumnus who offers some local context that often seems missing from these stories: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/person-up-yale-students
Also, I'll point you to this recent podcast conversation between Greg Lukianoff of FIRE and Mark Coplevitch, a professor at the University of Wisconsin. Coplevitch testifies to what has been my experience, that students are far too busy trying to manage their lives and the challenges of paying for school to think about become soldiers in an American-style Maoist revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/opinion/the-argument-free-speech-on-college-campuses.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion
- For Heterodox Academy, I would put those numbers in perspective. There are somewhere around 1.5 million college faculty in the U.S. McWhorter gets people writing to him because he's held himself out as the central repository for grievances. It is a terrible recipe for confirmation bias. My far too long (and hopefully final) word on why I think Heterodox Academy is helping to undermine the principles they claim to be protecting is here: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/true-threats-telos-university
As I say, I don't think it's anything you'd find convincing, but it's the best faith effort I got.
I appreciate you writing at length because it gives me a deeper understanding of where you're coming from, and I wish I had time to respond at equal length, but I don't really have the time and in a lot of cases, these are subjects I've written about exhaustively elsewhere and I grow weary of repeating myself when there is clearly not a gap that can be bridged here because we just fundamentally view these things differently.
I won't take the time to defend DiAngelo, other than you draw an overbroad characterization of her work, but more importantly, I wonder why people like you, or McWhorter, upon encounter these things don't do what most of us do when we're subjected to say, cringeworthy attempts at diversity training (as I have been), and just roll your eyes and move on.
Why is it important to take up the charge against this enemy as opposed to the reactionary forces that are, at this moment, seeking to restrict access to books dealing with race and sexuality and other "objectionable" themes. Spending so much time being anti-anti-racist doesn't advance the cause of anti-racism in the way you think. As seen with the bad faith anti-CRT in schools attacks that has always been a transparently reactionary attack on any material that deals with race forthrightly.
Hate on anti-racism figures like Kendi and DiAngelo all you like, but please recognize, focusing so much time and attention on them as opposed to, you know, racists, is doing the work of the racists.
Personally, I don't worry much about bias in society because I don't think bias is the chief problem. The chief problem is structural racism and if we attack those things bias becomes irrelevant.
Digressing sharply from the opening salvos in the "woke" McWhorter wars (though I'm with you, John) - your list of lists makes this a newsletter to hang onto for future reference, if and when I can get through the 15 books teetering on my nightstand. Thank you! But the link to WaPo's audiobook column leads me to wonder whether you have considered in your column the pluses and minuses of audiobooks, and how they get reviewed. The WaPo column makes no mention of the performance aspect of the audiobooks recommended. I know for writers that may be superfluous, but for readers/auditors that can be an important consideration - to Kindle or to Audible (or better yet, libro.fm) Several authors reading their own works have greatly enhanced my appreciation of the book (Trevor Noah's Born a Crime a stark example, an older one is House of Sand and Fog) and some authors should not be allowed near microphone! Something to think about for a slow week...and a chance to boost libro.fm.
I must confess that I very rarely listen to audiobooks, so I'm very much dependent on others when it comes to the quality of an audiobook as audio experience. Though, I agree with you on the importance of a narrator. I had a link to a libro.fm piece last week (or the week before) on the most popular audio books of the year, and some significant percentage of them had been read by the same actress. It seemed clear she either greatly enhances the experience or has good taste in what she choose (or is chosen for) or both.
Some authors reading their own work is indispensable, no doubt. Others should stay away. It's good when authors know which category they fall into.
And I have to correct my note - WaPo DID touch on the performance aspects, including that Biespiel did a good job of reading his own memoir. My bad (which McWhorter would probably excoriate me for saying!)