Today, Yascha Mounk and Christopher Rufo debate the origins of DEI and the right way to fight the illiberal orthodoxy that has consumed our schools and institutions. Christopher is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a board member at New College of Florida, and maybe the country’s most influential conservative activist. He thinks that using the power of the law to stop DEI is essential.
I went in expecting to be more convinced by Christopher but ended up, I think, a bit more on Yascha’s side of things, at least in terms of how we should proceed. What rang particularly true to me were Yascha’s closing remarks explaining how DEI got so powerful so quickly by basically exploiting the good will of the center left that instinctually agreed with how this ideology was packaged without really examining it. I think more ppl like me (ie, the center left) are slowly waking up to what DEI actually means. I see it in my own life with my own center left friends. I see in the NYTimes comments on DEI topics, which tend to be highly critical of it. I see the slow and relatively unpublicized downsizing of these departments in corporate America. It’s a slow, perhaps unsatisfying lurch back to the center, but I think it’s undeniably happening.
I appreciate what Christopher is doing. It takes commitment and a lot of competence to accomplish the things he’s done. My fear though in using state power to combat this is that, just like the center left was deceived and ultimately steamrolled by the critical theory ideologues of the far left, I can easily see the well-intentioned middle again being taken advantage of by the far right on this issue in ways that, if implemented into law, could be just as deleterious to a free society as DEI.
That all said, if we can go about this by winning hearts and minds, that’d certainly be my preference. However, like both men pointed out, the absolutely massive DEI bureaucracy isn’t going to give up their 6 figure gigs without a fight. So no chance this doesn’t get ugly.
Guyute, Racial Equity Alliance creates the Equity program in 100 city-Gov since Sep 2028. (1) Each project is top secret. Zero transparency. (2) Zero-tolerance for free speech. Disagreement is strictly forbidden. (3) Zero due process at city, state, fed if you disagree or have evidence to the contrary. (4) Equity program replaces science-based stories in city-gov with non-science propaganda. I worked SF-DPH since 1999. I was fired into retirement in Dec 2021 because I refused to shut up.
agreed that things could go to far the other way. But I honestly don't see how you take back the educational establishment without it.
Bottom line for public schools and colleges that are being paid for with our tax dollars there government should be in control.
Our school system should be teaching how great Western Civilization and America are, how they depend on things like freedom and free markets and how VERY fragile the whole experiment is.
It should be emphasized again and again how truly awful living conditions were for millennia. Life was short, brutal, dirty and hard. It wasn't that long ago that the fatality rate was 40% for kids living to 5 years old.
And if we don't teach our kids what modernity is built on and how fragile it is and the need to fight to protect it we will lose it.
Listening to this reminded of why I chose to study accounting, taking 20 credits each semester so I could get out of college in 3 years. College is an ungodly mess. We need trade schools so there's an exit ramp from all of this bullshit.
This conversation left me with the impression that Chris has done more work in thoroughly examining his belief systems, perhaps due to the political transformation he went through, whereas Yascha still has some impulses that seem to come from insufficiently examined beliefs, even as he articulates many things that are well-examined. I find Chris has a consistency and integrity that Yascha lacks. I appreciate the perspectives of both, but find myself on guard more with Yascha.
I came away with the opposite view. Rufo came across as a self-promoting partisan who bristles at thoughtful criticism, and I say that as someone who admires a lot of his work. His ad hominem attacks on Mounk were juvenile. And he said little to address the concerns about the impact of his legislative programs on free speech made by the courts and by organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Just saying "I wrote good legislation but politicians changed it" is not good enough. The issue is he encouraged the political right to fight censorship with censorship. He let the genie out of the bottle and is now washing his hands of the predictable excesses we are seeing play out in courts and on campuses.
I found it a very interesting discussion, with Mounk clearly outclassing Rufo both in intellectual depth as well as fairness in debating. Mounk tries to encourage re-defending the American universalist ideals, while Rufo wants to use government power to strike back at those he disagrees with. The latter may be a good strategy to win voters, but it's Mounk's vision of America that I want to live in.
I literally have almost the exact opposite views. Ivory tower academics won't lead us to "re-defending the American universalist ideals" -- voters will. Ultimately Rufo's arguments were sharper and he did a better job defending them.
I don't think you (or Rufo) really get the point. So you don't want free speech, but instead want to prohibit speech that goes against the opinions of the elected party But then, should the DEMs win, they can then prevent teachers in schools from teaching that America is great. Would you like that?
First that's already the status quo. The Supreme Court has already ruled that legislatures have a great deal of control over public schools.
2nd, yes I'm ok with that. Public schools should be under control. What's the alternative? And out of control school bureaucracy that can do what they want?
At least with public control you have a way to change things. What's the alternative without that?
It's way better to have an honest debate. Let the Dems push their racist/anti-Semitic anti-Western worldview instead of trying to hide it.
This isn't about being for or against free speech. This is about controlling government employees and how they do their job. We shouldn't have to use our tax dollars to incoordinate kids into how awful America is.
Excellent discussion, a very good example of a discussion between a realist and and ivory tower academic.
If the problem were limited to only universities then Yascha cerebral approach would be appropriate: however, the problem is almost universal and we, the citizens of America, need real actionable solutions. Thank you Christopher.
Mounk is hardly ’ivory tower’. He is out there engaging in public discussions like this all the time. His book is well worth reading. And I recommend his podcast too.
Maybe its my own speciality in Psychology at work but I think both of these men missed something big. The ideology started on campus and spread outward as the faithful wokeists went forth. But why did indoctrination stick in the first place? Believe it or not you can’t brainwash someone against their will.
Try to debate a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest into renouncing their faith. It won’t work. Try torturing them even, they might outwardly say they have changed to survive but even torture can’t make someone change their beliefs by force, it can only make someone keep quiet about them. With any cult the people that join do so willingly and willingly drink the ideological kool-aid. So what was it about college kids that made them susceptible?
I think elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism are to blame. Any time there is a special club that not everyone is allowed into it will attract a disproportionate number of people with these traits. Right? “Because the stupid people don’t get into college and we are the smart ones”
Why do I have so many clients that drop $90,000 on for some type of humanities degree, going to an expensive out of state private liberal arts college. Then Experience massive financial distress for decades after and still sneer at blue collar folks as stupid? Because of elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism. Mind youp not every college student is this way.
But when you come to college with this mind set. Ready to learn the sage wisdom that the plebs aren’t smart enough to know. You’ll drink down DEI with enthusiasm and when a plumber tells you it sounds dumb, you can stick your nose up in the air and ignore them because they’re just too stupid to understand it. No need to consider their point of view.
That I think is how it spread.
Hmmmm.... I think I need to flush this idea out more.
Me: MPH in behavioral science. Successful indoctrination requires that dissent be silenced. At work st SF-Gov all dissenters were scared silent, except me and my loud mouth. So, they threatened my job - but I refused to be silent. These control mechanisms are important.
Jonathan Haidt shows in the excellent book "The Righteous Mind" that really the way most people change their minds is being around other people that think a certain way.
IE it's VERY difficult to argue someone into a different position. But if everyone around them has that position over time their own position will moderate.
Of course that assumes you already have a strong position on the matter. If you don't you are even easier to influence
My first ah hah moment was when they discussed the advances that have been made in the area of race relations since the 1960’s yet everyone can see that some racial communities remain as far (or further) away from the American Dream than ever. So obviously that must mean racism still exists in America. For tender hearted people the lure of a new and better solution like CRT is irresistible. We all can see the disparities and almost everyone wants that to get better.
Jumping on the DEI bandwagon offers so much. At the heart of this movement is forcing others, particularly the advantaged, to admit guilt , to make changes. For the obviously disadvantaged they are absolved of blame and responsibility. It’s not me you racist, it’s the system!
This movement has meshed perfectly with the generations that have enjoyed the most privileged, protected and material lifestyles in history. The deepest trauma endured by most millennials is their parent’s failure to purchase the correct brand of shoe when they were in high school. As a person told their entire life they can do no wrong and are perfect in every way the idea of forcing the powerful to tug their forelock to your virtue is heady stuff. The DEI movement does not require the virtuous to make any effort, to make any change or admit any fault. Its you that needs to change.
Many intellectuals, Thomas Sowell to name just one, have suggested that cultural failures are at the heart of so much of the disadvantage we see. Telling the drug addicted, fatherless teenage father with a grade 3 reading ability that he needs to work on his life a bit is not likely to get you a pat on the back or thanks. It is so much harder to do and seems a little harsh. Harvard sophomores don’t do harsh or hard.
During most of this conversation I found both men to be convincing until the last part of the episode. Chris was very adversarial while Yascha remained measured and calm. I was already questioning Chris when he said America is a republic, not a democracy. I’ve heard that juvenile remark dozens of times from college freshmen taking their first political philosophy course. It’s intellectually lazy. Couple that with his constant interruptions and calling Yascha a liar, I just couldn’t take him seriously anymore.
Rufo did get hot under the collar. This doesn't weaken his arguments, which IMHO were better. Yascha was the "academic" and Rufo was the "activist" yet Rufo's knowledge and intellect were stronger. Rufo's refutation of Yascha's claim he could teach in Florida was masterful. This was just one example.
This absolutely is the way to end illiberalism. Both sides presented their argument and, frankly, one side clearly won. The other was part and parcel of the DEI movement, but kept saying he was not. Mounk reminded me of the many educators who swear that CRT is not being taught in schools while splitting kids by race and holding shame walks. Rufo had a great point when he asked what Mounk has done lately to remove DEI from his campus -- the self-aggrandizing answer was he wrote "an influential book." Sure. Great discussion. Thanks.
Very interesting debate, I’m very glad TFP produces content like this. My takeaway from this discussion is that the path to a positive resolution to this problem will likely require a bit more legislative action than Yascha would like but much less than what Rufo is pushing for.
There is no doubt that Rufo’s methods have been successful in the short term and Yaschas perspective is too idealistic, but government overreach cuts both ways. Yascha is completely right that you cannot save liberalism with illiberalism and despite what Rufo says, the work he’s done often qualifies as illiberalism.
No I don’t think it’s illiberal ‘to have some control over our public schools’, but I also don’t think that statement is representative of Rufo’s work. Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship.
"Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship."
Can you cite a specific example? This sounds untrue to me. Rufo makes clear he isn't involved in the drafting of actual legislative proposals, but rather references model legislation.
Mounk references the Stop WOKE Act specifically and in my view makes a compelling case (he goes into more depth in other podcasts/articles).
If Rufo is going to take credit for the legislation he’s influenced don’t you think it’s kind of disingenuous to then claim no responsibility for any overreach that comes from it?
In theory I am too. But I am afraid that when you enshrine this power into law, eventually unreasonable people will get to be in charge and we will have granted them a power they shouldn’t have. This is always the problem with censorship of any kind.
agreed it's a danger. I just don't think we can wait decades in the hope that we can take our education system back. Meanwhile they indoctrinate millions of kids in this poisonous ideology
It's fascinating that this entire discussion unfolds without any reference to James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories. They plowed this ground quite thoroughly a few years ago.
[Time 1:07:00]; Mounk describes his students as “…seeing genuine injustices in our country…”. I disagree. In the 3rd largest nation with a population of 330 million; I could hypothetically see 10 feet in front of me - 10 gays getting beat up by homophobes in 30 minutes. But, that may be a random event during a hypothetical regional and nationwide homophobia decline. Epidemiologists help us understand phenomena beyond our physical view. But, epidemiologists are DEI’s worst nightmare and must be kept silent. Students (above) likely “see” TV news, text on screen or words on paper about “recent and current injustices”. These are probably propaganda stories.
I'm curious what Yascha would say in response to the map in the NYC public elementary school that was missing Israel, as well as all the many other examples of DEI run amok in K-12. How would he say they should be handled?
This was great and informative debate. I'm with Rufo on this one. Having spent a large chunk of my career in what we here in Canada call post-secondary education, it is abundantly clear the foxes are fully in charge of the henhouses. To expect them to self-critique and self-regulate seems naive, almost delusional. The only way to combat the DEI/Woke ideology is to starve it of money. And since in the public education system a lot of that money comes from taxpayers, it hardly seems undemocratic to me to do just that if that's what people vote for. Sadly, we are usually a decade behind you in social trends so I am not optimistic about the ideological situation up here.
I see that some people were upset that Rufo seemed to go ad hominem. I don't think he had much choice as Mounk was pursuing the dual strategies of misrepresentation and talking non-stop till someone dies of old age.
This was one of the best podcasts I have ever heard. Both make strong points, so much so, I listened to it a number of times. I think the identity trap (that yasha refers to) is the notion that the source of one's problems are some other group, some other person, some other political part, they guy down the hall, anybody but NOT ME. One never gets elected by telling a group they are the source of their own problems. It's important to recognize bias and discrimination. it's important that we work toward equality. But at some point we have to recognize it's not just the cards, it's the way you play them.
I went in expecting to be more convinced by Christopher but ended up, I think, a bit more on Yascha’s side of things, at least in terms of how we should proceed. What rang particularly true to me were Yascha’s closing remarks explaining how DEI got so powerful so quickly by basically exploiting the good will of the center left that instinctually agreed with how this ideology was packaged without really examining it. I think more ppl like me (ie, the center left) are slowly waking up to what DEI actually means. I see it in my own life with my own center left friends. I see in the NYTimes comments on DEI topics, which tend to be highly critical of it. I see the slow and relatively unpublicized downsizing of these departments in corporate America. It’s a slow, perhaps unsatisfying lurch back to the center, but I think it’s undeniably happening.
I appreciate what Christopher is doing. It takes commitment and a lot of competence to accomplish the things he’s done. My fear though in using state power to combat this is that, just like the center left was deceived and ultimately steamrolled by the critical theory ideologues of the far left, I can easily see the well-intentioned middle again being taken advantage of by the far right on this issue in ways that, if implemented into law, could be just as deleterious to a free society as DEI.
That all said, if we can go about this by winning hearts and minds, that’d certainly be my preference. However, like both men pointed out, the absolutely massive DEI bureaucracy isn’t going to give up their 6 figure gigs without a fight. So no chance this doesn’t get ugly.
Guyute, Racial Equity Alliance creates the Equity program in 100 city-Gov since Sep 2028. (1) Each project is top secret. Zero transparency. (2) Zero-tolerance for free speech. Disagreement is strictly forbidden. (3) Zero due process at city, state, fed if you disagree or have evidence to the contrary. (4) Equity program replaces science-based stories in city-gov with non-science propaganda. I worked SF-DPH since 1999. I was fired into retirement in Dec 2021 because I refused to shut up.
agreed that things could go to far the other way. But I honestly don't see how you take back the educational establishment without it.
Bottom line for public schools and colleges that are being paid for with our tax dollars there government should be in control.
Our school system should be teaching how great Western Civilization and America are, how they depend on things like freedom and free markets and how VERY fragile the whole experiment is.
It should be emphasized again and again how truly awful living conditions were for millennia. Life was short, brutal, dirty and hard. It wasn't that long ago that the fatality rate was 40% for kids living to 5 years old.
And if we don't teach our kids what modernity is built on and how fragile it is and the need to fight to protect it we will lose it.
Listening to this reminded of why I chose to study accounting, taking 20 credits each semester so I could get out of college in 3 years. College is an ungodly mess. We need trade schools so there's an exit ramp from all of this bullshit.
This conversation left me with the impression that Chris has done more work in thoroughly examining his belief systems, perhaps due to the political transformation he went through, whereas Yascha still has some impulses that seem to come from insufficiently examined beliefs, even as he articulates many things that are well-examined. I find Chris has a consistency and integrity that Yascha lacks. I appreciate the perspectives of both, but find myself on guard more with Yascha.
I came away with the opposite view. Rufo came across as a self-promoting partisan who bristles at thoughtful criticism, and I say that as someone who admires a lot of his work. His ad hominem attacks on Mounk were juvenile. And he said little to address the concerns about the impact of his legislative programs on free speech made by the courts and by organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Just saying "I wrote good legislation but politicians changed it" is not good enough. The issue is he encouraged the political right to fight censorship with censorship. He let the genie out of the bottle and is now washing his hands of the predictable excesses we are seeing play out in courts and on campuses.
I found it a very interesting discussion, with Mounk clearly outclassing Rufo both in intellectual depth as well as fairness in debating. Mounk tries to encourage re-defending the American universalist ideals, while Rufo wants to use government power to strike back at those he disagrees with. The latter may be a good strategy to win voters, but it's Mounk's vision of America that I want to live in.
I literally have almost the exact opposite views. Ivory tower academics won't lead us to "re-defending the American universalist ideals" -- voters will. Ultimately Rufo's arguments were sharper and he did a better job defending them.
Rufo isn't striking back at anyone. These are public schools paid for with our tax dollars that are teaching a poisonous ideology.
It's ok for the voters through their elected representatives to say enough, our kids don't need to be taught this racist anti-American propaganda
I don't think you (or Rufo) really get the point. So you don't want free speech, but instead want to prohibit speech that goes against the opinions of the elected party But then, should the DEMs win, they can then prevent teachers in schools from teaching that America is great. Would you like that?
First that's already the status quo. The Supreme Court has already ruled that legislatures have a great deal of control over public schools.
2nd, yes I'm ok with that. Public schools should be under control. What's the alternative? And out of control school bureaucracy that can do what they want?
At least with public control you have a way to change things. What's the alternative without that?
It's way better to have an honest debate. Let the Dems push their racist/anti-Semitic anti-Western worldview instead of trying to hide it.
This isn't about being for or against free speech. This is about controlling government employees and how they do their job. We shouldn't have to use our tax dollars to incoordinate kids into how awful America is.
Excellent discussion, a very good example of a discussion between a realist and and ivory tower academic.
If the problem were limited to only universities then Yascha cerebral approach would be appropriate: however, the problem is almost universal and we, the citizens of America, need real actionable solutions. Thank you Christopher.
Mounk is hardly ’ivory tower’. He is out there engaging in public discussions like this all the time. His book is well worth reading. And I recommend his podcast too.
Maybe its my own speciality in Psychology at work but I think both of these men missed something big. The ideology started on campus and spread outward as the faithful wokeists went forth. But why did indoctrination stick in the first place? Believe it or not you can’t brainwash someone against their will.
Try to debate a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest into renouncing their faith. It won’t work. Try torturing them even, they might outwardly say they have changed to survive but even torture can’t make someone change their beliefs by force, it can only make someone keep quiet about them. With any cult the people that join do so willingly and willingly drink the ideological kool-aid. So what was it about college kids that made them susceptible?
I think elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism are to blame. Any time there is a special club that not everyone is allowed into it will attract a disproportionate number of people with these traits. Right? “Because the stupid people don’t get into college and we are the smart ones”
Why do I have so many clients that drop $90,000 on for some type of humanities degree, going to an expensive out of state private liberal arts college. Then Experience massive financial distress for decades after and still sneer at blue collar folks as stupid? Because of elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism. Mind youp not every college student is this way.
But when you come to college with this mind set. Ready to learn the sage wisdom that the plebs aren’t smart enough to know. You’ll drink down DEI with enthusiasm and when a plumber tells you it sounds dumb, you can stick your nose up in the air and ignore them because they’re just too stupid to understand it. No need to consider their point of view.
That I think is how it spread.
Hmmmm.... I think I need to flush this idea out more.
Me: MPH in behavioral science. Successful indoctrination requires that dissent be silenced. At work st SF-Gov all dissenters were scared silent, except me and my loud mouth. So, they threatened my job - but I refused to be silent. These control mechanisms are important.
Jonathan Haidt shows in the excellent book "The Righteous Mind" that really the way most people change their minds is being around other people that think a certain way.
IE it's VERY difficult to argue someone into a different position. But if everyone around them has that position over time their own position will moderate.
Of course that assumes you already have a strong position on the matter. If you don't you are even easier to influence
My first ah hah moment was when they discussed the advances that have been made in the area of race relations since the 1960’s yet everyone can see that some racial communities remain as far (or further) away from the American Dream than ever. So obviously that must mean racism still exists in America. For tender hearted people the lure of a new and better solution like CRT is irresistible. We all can see the disparities and almost everyone wants that to get better.
Jumping on the DEI bandwagon offers so much. At the heart of this movement is forcing others, particularly the advantaged, to admit guilt , to make changes. For the obviously disadvantaged they are absolved of blame and responsibility. It’s not me you racist, it’s the system!
This movement has meshed perfectly with the generations that have enjoyed the most privileged, protected and material lifestyles in history. The deepest trauma endured by most millennials is their parent’s failure to purchase the correct brand of shoe when they were in high school. As a person told their entire life they can do no wrong and are perfect in every way the idea of forcing the powerful to tug their forelock to your virtue is heady stuff. The DEI movement does not require the virtuous to make any effort, to make any change or admit any fault. Its you that needs to change.
Many intellectuals, Thomas Sowell to name just one, have suggested that cultural failures are at the heart of so much of the disadvantage we see. Telling the drug addicted, fatherless teenage father with a grade 3 reading ability that he needs to work on his life a bit is not likely to get you a pat on the back or thanks. It is so much harder to do and seems a little harsh. Harvard sophomores don’t do harsh or hard.
During most of this conversation I found both men to be convincing until the last part of the episode. Chris was very adversarial while Yascha remained measured and calm. I was already questioning Chris when he said America is a republic, not a democracy. I’ve heard that juvenile remark dozens of times from college freshmen taking their first political philosophy course. It’s intellectually lazy. Couple that with his constant interruptions and calling Yascha a liar, I just couldn’t take him seriously anymore.
Rufo did get hot under the collar. This doesn't weaken his arguments, which IMHO were better. Yascha was the "academic" and Rufo was the "activist" yet Rufo's knowledge and intellect were stronger. Rufo's refutation of Yascha's claim he could teach in Florida was masterful. This was just one example.
This absolutely is the way to end illiberalism. Both sides presented their argument and, frankly, one side clearly won. The other was part and parcel of the DEI movement, but kept saying he was not. Mounk reminded me of the many educators who swear that CRT is not being taught in schools while splitting kids by race and holding shame walks. Rufo had a great point when he asked what Mounk has done lately to remove DEI from his campus -- the self-aggrandizing answer was he wrote "an influential book." Sure. Great discussion. Thanks.
Very interesting debate, I’m very glad TFP produces content like this. My takeaway from this discussion is that the path to a positive resolution to this problem will likely require a bit more legislative action than Yascha would like but much less than what Rufo is pushing for.
There is no doubt that Rufo’s methods have been successful in the short term and Yaschas perspective is too idealistic, but government overreach cuts both ways. Yascha is completely right that you cannot save liberalism with illiberalism and despite what Rufo says, the work he’s done often qualifies as illiberalism.
Is it really illiberal to have some control over public schools? Or do we have to wait decades in the hopes that they will fix themselves?
No I don’t think it’s illiberal ‘to have some control over our public schools’, but I also don’t think that statement is representative of Rufo’s work. Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship.
By which I mean that something needs to be done but it needs to be done carefully and Rufo isn’t doing it carefully enough for me.
"Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship."
Can you cite a specific example? This sounds untrue to me. Rufo makes clear he isn't involved in the drafting of actual legislative proposals, but rather references model legislation.
Mounk references the Stop WOKE Act specifically and in my view makes a compelling case (he goes into more depth in other podcasts/articles).
If Rufo is going to take credit for the legislation he’s influenced don’t you think it’s kind of disingenuous to then claim no responsibility for any overreach that comes from it?
Fair enough.
I'm o k with censorship that says you Can't teach white supremacy in public schools
I'm also o k with censorship that says you can't teach Whites are evil in public schools.
In theory I am too. But I am afraid that when you enshrine this power into law, eventually unreasonable people will get to be in charge and we will have granted them a power they shouldn’t have. This is always the problem with censorship of any kind.
agreed it's a danger. I just don't think we can wait decades in the hope that we can take our education system back. Meanwhile they indoctrinate millions of kids in this poisonous ideology
I agree
At end of podcast- I believe Rufo won the debate. He speaks simple short sentences about specific action.
It's fascinating that this entire discussion unfolds without any reference to James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories. They plowed this ground quite thoroughly a few years ago.
[Time 1:07:00]; Mounk describes his students as “…seeing genuine injustices in our country…”. I disagree. In the 3rd largest nation with a population of 330 million; I could hypothetically see 10 feet in front of me - 10 gays getting beat up by homophobes in 30 minutes. But, that may be a random event during a hypothetical regional and nationwide homophobia decline. Epidemiologists help us understand phenomena beyond our physical view. But, epidemiologists are DEI’s worst nightmare and must be kept silent. Students (above) likely “see” TV news, text on screen or words on paper about “recent and current injustices”. These are probably propaganda stories.
I'm curious what Yascha would say in response to the map in the NYC public elementary school that was missing Israel, as well as all the many other examples of DEI run amok in K-12. How would he say they should be handled?
This was great and informative debate. I'm with Rufo on this one. Having spent a large chunk of my career in what we here in Canada call post-secondary education, it is abundantly clear the foxes are fully in charge of the henhouses. To expect them to self-critique and self-regulate seems naive, almost delusional. The only way to combat the DEI/Woke ideology is to starve it of money. And since in the public education system a lot of that money comes from taxpayers, it hardly seems undemocratic to me to do just that if that's what people vote for. Sadly, we are usually a decade behind you in social trends so I am not optimistic about the ideological situation up here.
I see that some people were upset that Rufo seemed to go ad hominem. I don't think he had much choice as Mounk was pursuing the dual strategies of misrepresentation and talking non-stop till someone dies of old age.
This was one of the best podcasts I have ever heard. Both make strong points, so much so, I listened to it a number of times. I think the identity trap (that yasha refers to) is the notion that the source of one's problems are some other group, some other person, some other political part, they guy down the hall, anybody but NOT ME. One never gets elected by telling a group they are the source of their own problems. It's important to recognize bias and discrimination. it's important that we work toward equality. But at some point we have to recognize it's not just the cards, it's the way you play them.