YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → The Affirmative Action Myth | Glenn Loury, John McWhorter & Jason Riley | The Glenn Show

The Affirmative Action Myth | Glenn Loury, John McWhorter & Jason Riley | The Glenn Show — Transcript

by The Glenn Show · 8,869 words · 1,298 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00The central problem with affirmative
0:01action is this mismatch problem. The
0:03problem is you admitting kids to schools
0:05where they don't match the credentials
0:06of the surrounding students at that
0:07institution. And when there's a gap, a
0:09significant gap between test scores and
0:11so forth of of a student admitted to a
0:13school where other kids are further
0:14ahead, that student tends to struggle
0:17the bottom of the class, higher dropout
0:18rates, more kids switching easier majors
0:20and so forth. That's the central problem
0:22with the affirmative action, the
0:23mismatch problem. The key to that is
0:25going to be how the Democratic Party
0:26elites react to this moment and whether
0:29the narratives that they have used to
0:31attract black support, Jim Crow 2.0 type
0:34narratives survive this era of backlash
0:37against diversity, equity, and
0:38inclusion. I mean, there are voices
0:40amongst the Democrats that say the
0:42reason we're in the electoral hole that
0:44we're in right now is that we were too
0:45woke and we should back away from some
0:47of that. Maybe we are going to see a
0:49shift. We're certainly seeing a
0:50backlash. One question will be whether
0:52it outlasts the current president or if
0:54it's just if these groups that that are
0:56pushing this stuff, woke left is backing
0:59down or just pulling back temporarily.
1:01Hello everybody, this is Glenn Lowry and
1:03you are listening to andor watching the
1:05Glen Show. I teach at Brown University
1:08and uh I am with my conversation partner
1:11John Mcuarter every other week here at
1:13the Glen Show. John's a Columbia
1:14University professor and he writes for
1:16the New York Times. Our guest this week
1:18is Jason Riley. Hello Jason. How you
1:21doing, Glenn? John, hey. Doing well.
1:25Doing well. Jason's an old friend. Jason
1:27is uh on the editorial board and writes
1:29editorials for the Wall Street Journal
1:31and he's also senior fellow at the
1:33Manhattan Institute. And happily, we
1:36we're here to talk about Jason's new
1:38book, The Affirmative Action Myth. Uh
1:42Jason's a prolific author. Uh he's
1:45written books like False Black Power. Uh
1:48please stop Helping Us. uh he's written
1:50a biography of Thomas Soul called
1:52Maverick Thomas Soul, the
1:54African-American conservative economist
1:56of great distinction. Uh and uh other uh
2:00interventions Jason has made in the
2:01public discussion about u policy issues
2:04and u uh the book at hand for today is
2:09the affirmative action myth. Uh it's a
2:12very interesting uh and provocative
2:15critique of a certain way of thinking
2:17about the racial disparity problem and
2:20uh I'm very happy Jason that you've
2:22agreed to talk to us about it. I'm glad
2:24to be here Glenn. So what's the problem
2:27in your view with the standard narrative
2:30uh about racial disparities and uh how
2:32do you think they get it they being the
2:35uh left get it wrong? Well, the the
2:39impetus for the book uh the myth I
2:42wanted to take on um was the 2023
2:46Supreme Court ruling in Students for
2:47Fair Admissions versus Harvard, which uh
2:52banned racial preferences and college
2:53admissions. The outcome was anticipated
2:56that the makeup of the court uh given
2:59what it is, many people thought we'd get
3:02the outcome we were going to get. But I
3:04was listening to the chatter uh among a
3:07lot of elites, particularly black elites
3:09in the media, my my business in um
3:12politics,
3:13academia, and there was this apocalyptic
3:17sky is falling rhetoric coming out of
3:19this crowd that if race preferences go
3:22away, it will devastate black people.
3:25The black middle class was created by
3:28affirmative action. And without these uh
3:31this this racial favoritism
3:34um you know there will be no more black
3:36upward mobility schools will be college
3:38campuses will be whitewashed
3:40particularly elite campuses and so
3:42forth. And I said wait a minute this is
3:44this is not jive with uh history with
3:47with the historical record here. There
3:50was a black middle class, a significant
3:52black middle class prior to the
3:55affirmative action era, which I date to
3:58the late 60s and the early 70s in
4:00particular as the beginning of. Uh, and
4:03it was growing at a much faster clip
4:06than it grew during the affirmative
4:08action era. And so I wanted to write a
4:10book that made the case in terms of what
4:13was going on prior to affirmative
4:16action, in terms of black outcomes, and
4:18comparing that to what we saw in terms
4:20of outcomes over the past 50 years of
4:22affirmative action.
4:25What was going on prior to affirmative
4:27action? A lot of good things, a lot of
4:30trends in the right direction. Whether
4:32you're talking about uh uh educational
4:34advancement, blacks increasing their
4:36years of schooling both in absolute
4:38terms and relative to whites, black
4:41incomes, black home ownership rates, um
4:44black involvement with the criminal
4:46justice system was in decline, which was
4:49particularly noteworthy, Glenn, because
4:51as you sure you know, um you you you you
4:55had blacks during the great migrations
4:58in in in the 30s and 40s and 20s is uh
5:02not only moving from the south to the
5:03north, but moving from rural areas to
5:06urban areas. And urban areas tend to be
5:07more violent than uh rural areas. And
5:10yet uh you saw black declines in violent
5:14crime rates over this period. Uh while
5:17whites were remaining relatively in
5:19terms of white violent crime was
5:20remaining relatively stable. So a lot of
5:23good things were going on during this
5:25period. And what we see happening right
5:28around uh the late 60s and early 70s,
5:31the advent of affirmative action is a
5:32lot of these trends start to slow down,
5:35stall, and in some cases even reverse
5:38course. And so for instance, to use one
5:40example, in educational attainment, you
5:42saw in the 50s and 60s more black
5:45completion of high school and and
5:47attendance in college and completion of
5:50college. Uh you fast forward today, some
5:52data from Robert Putnham that I cite
5:55shows that black college completion
5:58today is where it was in
6:001970. Um so after 50 years of
6:04affirmative action, uh that's what we
6:07have to show for it. So uh you could
6:09make the same arguments in terms of of
6:11of incomes. Uh what affirmative action
6:14has done has tended to do is to help
6:16those blacks were already better off.
6:19Um, and so that's one of the reasons the
6:21people that I cited earlier were so
6:24opposed to these policies going away.
6:26They have been the biggest beneficiaries
6:28of these policies. If you look at
6:29something like earnings, you go back to
6:31the late60s
6:33uh start there and take it up to the
6:36first 25 years say of affirmative action
6:38policy. of the early 1990s. O over that
6:41period, uh the black the top black
6:44earners um top 20% of the distribution
6:48um they saw their share of of income
6:51grow at about the same rate as the white
6:53top earners. But among the bottom 20% of
6:56blacks, their share of income fell
6:59between the late 60s and the early 90s
7:02at more than double the rate of the
7:05poorest whites. So, affirmative action
7:08has served upper income blacks much
7:10better than it served lower- income
7:12blacks. You might say it's even harmed
7:14uh the prospects of lower-income blacks.
7:16Um I I was looking at some data, I think
7:18I cite the book, too, on um labor force
7:21participation. Uh you go back to the
7:23late 60s, um the least educated blacks,
7:2880% of them have
7:29jobs. Uh you know, you you go you get to
7:33the early 90s, it's down to 50% of them.
7:36And again, this policy is sold as a way
7:38to help the black poor, but in terms of
7:40incomes, in terms of uh labor
7:43participation, that is not what has
7:45happened. And so, I wanted to to tell
7:47this story because I think um more
7:49people should know about it and not buy
7:51this line, this narrative that
7:54affirmative action came to the rescue of
7:56black people and any good outcomes we
7:58see today are a result of racial
8:01preferences and these policies. It's
8:02just not true. So Jason, suppose you
8:06encountered the objection that
8:08affirmative action made something happen
8:13faster that otherwise wouldn't have that
8:16we had reached a kind of a glass ceiling
8:18and affirmative action kind of allowed
8:21the the waters to flood which is the way
8:24I think a lot of people think of it. I
8:25think most people know there was a black
8:27middle class before 1965, but they think
8:30that there has been a whole lot more of
8:32a black middle class since and more than
8:34there would have been if there had been
8:36no affirmative action. That's what I'm
8:37imagining would be in many people's
8:39minds. Well, the the data just doesn't
8:42doesn't show that. I mean, I cited the
8:43date on college completion, but if you
8:45look look something poverty, the rate at
8:47which blacks were leaving poverty, the
8:49the narrative is that affirmative action
8:51lifted black people out of
8:52poverty. But the you saw 40 percentage
8:56point drop in black poverty between 1940
8:59and 1960. That's well before affirm it's
9:02not only before affirmative action
9:03policies or DI policies or what have
9:05you. It's before the civil rights act of
9:0764. It's before the voting rights act of
9:0965. because before the blacks had any
9:11significant um uh political power in
9:14terms of running large cities with large
9:17black populations the way they would
9:18later have in the 1970s and '8s. But
9:21what about so so blacks lifted
9:24themselves out of poverty by and large
9:26before these now now the black poverty
9:29rate continued to fall after continued
9:33to fall after 1960. So the first decade
9:36of affirmative action in the 1970s, it
9:38fell more by I think another 12 or 13
9:41points, but it was falling at nowhere
9:43near the rate it was falling previously.
9:46So the idea that you could attribute the
9:48fall in the era of affirmative action to
9:51affirmative action suggests you're
9:53ignoring these pre-existing trends uh
9:56which so would showed a much significant
9:58much more significant drop. But what
10:00about racial preferences having made
10:02there be I'm just giving you the kind of
10:05push back I'm imagining. Yeah, I I see
10:07what you're getting at. Let's let's use
10:08another What about in universities like
10:11that? Yeah, let's use Obamas. Isn't that
10:14right? Let's use a university example.
10:16Um so we know that even before the
10:18Supreme Court ruled, you had um nine or
10:2110 states that had already passed bans
10:24on racial preferences. So we don't have
10:25to guess at what would happen. We have
10:27some natural experiments out there. and
10:29and they were large diverse states.
10:31California, Florida, Texas, Arizona,
10:34Michigan.
10:36Um, California is a great example. Um,
10:40ban passes in the mid '90s. You see a,
10:43uh, reduction in black enrollment at the
10:46most selective schools, Berkeley, uh,
10:49UCLA, but you see an increase in
10:52enrollment throughout the University of
10:54California system. Not only do you see
10:56an increase in black enrollment, you see
10:59an increase in black graduation rates,
11:03you see an increase in black GPA, you
11:06see an increase in graduation rates in
11:07the more difficult disciplines of of of
11:09of math and science and engineering and
11:12so forth. So, a policy that had been put
11:14in place to increase the ranks of the
11:16black middle class in practice has
11:20resulted in fewer black doctors and
11:23lawyers and engineers and architects
11:25than we would have had in the absence of
11:27the policy. And that's what I would
11:29point to. That's the sort of data I
11:32would point to for people who say that
11:34affirmative action has been a net good.
11:36There a lot of evidence that it has not
11:38been a net good for for blacks to hold.
11:41We live in turbulent times. It can be
11:45hard to even keep up with the news, let
11:47alone to figure out the actual reality
11:49behind partisan reporting. It's
11:51important that we all have tools to cut
11:55through the noise, spot bias, and see
11:58the full picture. The tool I use for
12:00this is Ground News. It's the website
12:03and app I rely on daily to stay informed
12:07and get closer to the truth. Visit
12:09ground.news/
12:10news/glenshow to see for yourself how it
12:13works. My favorite feature of ground
12:15news is the blind spot feed. It shows
12:19you stories that are disproportionately
12:21reported by either the left or the
12:22right, about 20 such stories every day.
12:25To show you what I mean, here's a story
12:27that is not being covered by the left.
12:30Trump criticizes past US foreign policy,
12:33outlines vision for Middle East. And
12:36here's a related story that's not being
12:38covered by the right. One in five people
12:40in Gaza face starvation report warns as
12:44Israel's monthsl long blockade
12:47continues. For both of these and for
12:49every story, ground news gives you a
12:51breakdown of the sources covering it,
12:54the bias of the media outlets reporting
12:56across the left, center, and right, how
12:59reliable these sources have been in the
13:01past, and who owns them. This is the
13:03kind of news analysis you won't find
13:05anywhere else. Right now, my viewers can
13:08get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage
13:12plan, which is the same plan I use. Make
13:15sure you subscribe using my link at
13:20ground.news/glenshow. Click the link in
13:21the description or scan the QR code when
13:24signing up. That's
13:28ground.news/glenshow. I got to ask you,
13:30Jason, how you distinguish I mean,
13:32affirmative action in your telling is a
13:33pretty broad category. It's not only
13:36racial preferences and college
13:38admissions.
13:40uh it's it's the whole uh uh mobilized
13:44effort uh at the policy level to redress
13:48the racial disparities and I wonder how
13:50you
13:51distinguish between preferences and
13:53other kind of civil rights initiatives
13:55like the civil rights act of 1964 and so
13:58on. Uh, is your uh, indictment of the
14:02overstated importance of affirmative
14:04action meant to also raise questions
14:07about the relative significance for
14:10black economic prosperity of civil
14:12rights advocacy more broadly? No, it's
14:15not an indictment of that. And I make a
14:16distinction there. I think that
14:18affirmative action, racial preferences
14:20have been a distortion of the Civil
14:22Rights Act of of 1964. uh and and what
14:27we you know we have the legislative
14:28record there. We know what was intended
14:32by the authors of that legislation and
14:34the people who voted for it. We know
14:36that it was about uh making choices,
14:40policy choices uh without regard to
14:43race. And we know that the
14:45administrative state, what we call today
14:46the administrative state, but basically
14:48federal bureaucrats uh and in and
14:51various federal uh commissions at the
14:53time um rewrote that language to say the
14:58complete opposite of what the people who
15:01wrote the legislation intended to say.
15:04Um and then we know that the courts
15:06indulged this uh jiu-jitsu uh in their
15:10rulings uh over the decades. So, no,
15:12this is not an indictment of what was
15:14intended by the um Civil Rights Act of
15:1864. Uh this is an indictment of of how
15:22that that language has been um
15:25manipulated to say in some cases the
15:27complete opposite that race must be
15:29taken into account. Uh they they've
15:32interpreted legislation to say that race
15:34must be taken into account when the leg
15:36the plain language says that it should
15:39uh should not be used. So, so um and I'm
15:42also making a distinction, Glenn,
15:43between uh because you can get get into
15:46these semantic arguments over what what
15:48affirmative action means. Um uh there
15:51there is a we we should make sure people
15:54understand what it used to mean back in
15:56the 1960s, which was simply outreach to
15:59to groups that had been overlooked in
16:01the past and helping those groups uh
16:03rise to existing standards. that was
16:06affirmative action, not lowering
16:08standards for those groups, uh, which is
16:11what it has become, not quotas and set
16:14aides, which is what it has become. And
16:16so when I'm using the term in this book,
16:19I'm talking about what it has become,
16:21not what it was originally intended or
16:23how it was in the the phrase was
16:25originally used. And there are people
16:26who try and play verbal games by saying,
16:29"Oh, I'm not opposed to affirmative
16:30action. It's just outreach to
16:31underrepresented groups." I'm not
16:33opposed to that either. Most Americans
16:34try to post that. It would be right.
16:36Yeah. Right. So, uh we we we you you
16:38know um you you know you get a sense of
16:41this. The data shows that um the polling
16:44data shows that the more accurately
16:46affirmative action is defined in the in
16:49the question of the poor it polls.
16:52Mhm. Jason, you know, one thing that you
16:55get to in the book that I think we
16:56should discuss here is that the typical
17:00good person who's been around the block
17:03a few times and, you know, reads thinks
17:05that The Shape of the River by William
17:08Bowen and Derek Bach basically was the
17:10last word on the affirmative action that
17:13we tend to think of most, which is
17:14racial preferences in universities. The
17:16idea is that the book was long, it was
17:18gray, it was very wellreed. And you
17:21know, the idea is that those two were on
17:23the side of the angels and there's
17:25nothing really more to be said than that
17:28because if you don't like affirmative
17:29action in universities, well, that book
17:32showed that you are basically an evil
17:34person. What was wrong with that book?
17:38Let me let me add to that, John, because
17:40I wrote a forward to the paper on the
17:43shape of the river in which I endorsed
17:45the argument. I think that needs to be
17:47stipulated. Go ahead. I forgot about
17:50that. I was going to include that
17:52actually in my in my answer. Um there
17:56are several there are several problems
17:58with that book. First of all, you're
17:59absolutely right that is still used
18:01today. I was debating a professor at NYU
18:04a couple years ago and he brought it
18:06brought it up in our in our discussion
18:08as if it this had been settled long time
18:10ago. In fact, my wife who who's a a
18:13graduate of Harvard was on some call
18:16with the current president or or or got
18:19notes about a call with with the current
18:21president that he had to a a group of
18:23people at the school and he was citing
18:27um the Bone and Bach book and his
18:30remarks and it was it was a conversation
18:31about dealing with the federal with the
18:33administration right now over the issues
18:35they're going through. But uh so the
18:36book is is is yes it is well well cited
18:40um and and still cited. There are a
18:42couple problems with it. One is um the
18:44sample that they use is very
18:47unrepresentative of the typical schools
18:50that black people attend. I think they
18:51chose 28 schools. I think all but four
18:54were private. um which is not the to the
19:00elite the Ivy's and the schools and the
19:04selected very selective liberal arts
19:06colleges like Amherst College and
19:08Williams and Swarmore and so on their um
19:11their their uh their the typical black
19:14person in their in their study had a or
19:17at these schools uh had a parent who had
19:20been a college graduate which again is
19:23is not at all typical of of uh of black
19:26students at at at that time who were
19:28attending college. So So you had
19:30problems with their sample to begin
19:31with. But the real problem uh the
19:34central problem with the book as I see
19:36it and as other critics have seen it and
19:38and this is something that um uh the uh
19:43Steven Abigail Thstrom wrote about when
19:45the book came out and Thomas Soul's also
19:48written about the problems with this
19:49with this study and here's their
19:51argument which I which I agree with. Um
19:55the central problem with affirmative
19:56action uh as the as critics of it lay
20:00lay out the problem is this mismatch
20:02problem that um the problem is you
20:05admitting uh kids to schools where they
20:07don't match the credentials of the
20:09surrounding students at that
20:10institution. And when there's a gap, a
20:12significant gap between, uh, test scores
20:15and so forth of of a student admitted to
20:16a school uh, where other kids are are
20:19are f further ahead, uh, that that
20:22student tends to to, uh, to struggle.
20:25School at the bottom of the class,
20:26higher dropout rates, more kids
20:28switching easier majors and so forth.
20:30That's the central problem with the
20:31affirmative action, the mismatch
20:33problem. Bowen and Bach did not
20:37um
20:39separate black kids who had been
20:41admitted to these schools under the
20:43regular admissions credentials from
20:46those black kids who had been uh given
20:49special uh uh admission uh under lower
20:53standards. He just put them all together
20:55in a pool. And so he never
20:59addresses the central. What we want to
21:01know is how those kids who were admitted
21:04with lower standards did, not just how
21:07the black kids did. And so if you go to
21:10the study that the Duke professor did uh
21:13some uh a little while ago,
21:17yes, Peter's study, uh Peter parcels
21:20this out. He So he does a study of of
21:24black male freshmen
21:26at Duke University and he looks at he
21:30asks them, "What do you want to major
21:32in?" And he finds out that the
21:34percentage that want to major in
21:36economics or one of the natural
21:38sciences and then he looks at their
21:41attrition rates out of those
21:43disciplines. you know, who gets a
21:45degree, who who wants to get a a degree
21:48in those in those areas and who winds up
21:50with a degree in those areas. And what
21:52he found is something 70s something
21:54percent almost three and four uh uh of
21:57the uh black kids, freshmen who are
21:59asked males wanted to major in either
22:01economics or one of the natural
22:03sciences, only about 35% end up with the
22:06degree. You you have 30ome point
22:08attrition rate among the white males.
22:10It's four points. And then he says,
22:13"What explains this difference?" And
22:15what we find out is that Duke admits
22:17some black kids who who uh with the same
22:20credentials as everyone else at Duke and
22:22some black kids with lower credentials.
22:24Once you account for that, you
22:27erase those black kids who are admitted
22:29with the same credentials as everyone
22:30else at Duke go on and get the degree.
22:33Those black kids who were admitted with
22:35lower standards were the ones who uh who
22:38who experienced uh who who left. that
22:40that explains the attrition rate. That's
22:42what Bach and Bowen did not do and and
22:45that is the problem with uh one of the
22:47central problems with their study. You
22:50know, I came away from that book with a
22:52general impression that they seem to
22:54think it was very significant that the
22:55people they talked to were happy. A lot
22:57of the books seem to be saying that the
22:59reason that we should keep affirmative
23:01action is because these people are
23:02contented with their lives. And I found
23:04that to be a very a very weak argument
23:07in itself also. But yeah, I just wanted
23:09to get that in because there are a lot
23:11of people who think they've done all
23:12their homework to just site and maybe
23:14not even that is certainly not the last
23:16word. I mean, not just that they were
23:17happy, but that they were effective and
23:18successful in their lives. They were the
23:20Michelle Obama's and the Barack Obama's
23:22of their era and so on. And I mean going
23:26about defending they they I mean, you
23:28know, they're choosing elites. They're
23:30Princeton and Harvard. they're they're
23:31defending the gatekeeper role that they
23:34those institutions are playing and
23:35they're saying if we're going to play
23:36this role we have to also ensure that we
23:39bring some blacks along uh as well and I
23:42think they can make the case that the
23:44kids who metriculated under their uh uh
23:48uh programs uh did go forward into
23:50society as productive individuals. I
23:53think they do not address the case that
23:55Jason is making it, which I think is not
23:57just affirmative action at Harvard and
23:59Princeton, but it's affirmative action
24:00as a generic set of policies that this
24:04is as a systemwide
24:06uh phenomenon uh not the healthiest
24:08thing. And they certainly don't address
24:09the case that uh Justice Roberts is
24:11making in his opinion in uh students for
24:14fair admissions uh which is that uh you
24:18know it's
24:19uh indefinite benefits as a general
24:22policy and that it's uh discriminatory
24:24against uh some uh groups and that it's
24:27stereotyping
24:29uh and that it locks us into a regime
24:32with no apparent end to it uh which is
24:34already a constitutional exception. So,
24:38you know, it and with the benefit of 20
24:40years hindsight, I I don't think I'd
24:42write the same forward today that I that
24:44I wrote in 19 99.
24:48One of the one of the things and I think
24:49Bone and Bach go make this argument to
24:52some extent too is that even if they'll
24:54say and people today will say even if
24:56you're admitting some kids to these
24:58schools that um that don't quite make
25:01the cut as the other students
25:03academically
25:05um they'll be these kids at least
25:07they'll be at a better school so they'll
25:08get a better
25:10education and and uh there have been
25:12some studies that poke holes on that
25:15argument as well and one of the ones I
25:17cite in the is a study of law school
25:20graduates from uh Howard University, the
25:24historically black school in uh in DC,
25:28and George Mason University, which is a
25:29more selective school that uses
25:32affirmative action. Howard does not. Um
25:35and the study showed that uh Harvard
25:39Howard Law graduates passed the bar exam
25:42on their first try at significantly
25:44higher rates than uh George Mason
25:48University lost black law school grads.
25:50Uh I think the rate was was almost like
25:53two 57% at Howard and only about a third
25:58at George Mason University. So, which
26:00begs begs the question, did those black
26:03students who were admitted to George
26:04Mason University under lower standards
26:07in fact get a better education than they
26:09would have gotten going to a school uh
26:12where they did not need uh uh to be
26:14admitted under under lower
26:16qualifications. But but that is another
26:18argument that is often made. Just, you
26:20know, shoehorn these kids in it'll all
26:22work out because these are better
26:23schools and they'll get a better
26:24education. Not not necessarily.
26:27I don't want us to only focus on uh the
26:30uh uh admissions preferential issue
26:34because your book is much broader than
26:36that in critiquing uh the narratives
26:40that have evolved about African-American
26:43disadvantage. I mean, for example, you
26:45spend a fair amount of time talking
26:46about culture and behavioral patterns as
26:50being implicated in the disparities that
26:52we see and yet being under reppresented
26:55in the discourse of progressives about
26:59uh the racial uh inequality issue. You
27:02want to talk I mean you want to talk
27:04about respectability and responsibility
27:06and
27:07so on. Well,
27:11um like a lot of other uh uh ethnic
27:15minorities and racial minorities in
27:18America, um uh there was a time when
27:21blacks uh
27:23prioritized how they presented
27:24themselves, um how they carried
27:27themselves. And this was a focus of the
27:30uh the civil rights leadership back in
27:33the 1940s and50s. The NAACP leadership,
27:36people like Thug Marshall and Martin
27:38Luther King um thought it was very
27:40important uh for blacks to mind their
27:44behavior, uh their dress, their
27:46language. um that this was important uh
27:50not just because they wanted to present
27:52a sort of front to to to whites but in
27:56its for its own sake. This was this was
27:59behavior that was conducive to upward
28:01mobility. And um that type of thinking
28:06uh has gone by the wayside among uh a
28:09lot of black elites today. It's derided
28:12as respectability politics. And the the
28:15thinking is that focus should not be on
28:17on black behavior. It should be entirely
28:19on white behavior. And until racism is
28:23vanquished from America, don't talk to
28:25me about black behavior. Pull up your
28:28pants, finish school, take care of your
28:30kids. No, no, no, no, no. We don't want
28:33to hear that. Uh, let's talk I just saw
28:35a Confederate flag someplace. I just
28:37heard someone use the n-word. Let's talk
28:38about that. And so, um, I think that
28:42that has been a
28:44disastrous approach. Um, and and just to
28:47to put some numbers behind it, Glenn,
28:49one of the reasons you saw um that that
28:53tremendous upward mobility taking place
28:56in the first twothirds of the 20th
28:58century, I would argue, is because you
29:01had um so many more intact black
29:04families at the time. Um, and what we
29:07saw was a convergence in earnings. Black
29:09earnings as a percentage of white
29:10earnings. Blacks were gaining on whites.
29:13Income inequality was shrinking during
29:16this period. What you start to see in
29:19the late60s is a peripheration of single
29:22parent
29:22homes, which are going to bring in
29:25smaller amounts of income than dual
29:27parent homes. And so that convergence
29:30that we saw in the in the late60s and
29:33right around 1970 starts to
29:36stall and then uh uh we don't see it
29:40anymore and we certainly don't see it to
29:42the extent that we saw it previously and
29:44and that to me is a function of the
29:46breakdown of the black nuclear family
29:48and it's something that does not receive
29:51nearly the amount of attention. There
29:52was a book out um last year I believe or
29:55maybe the year before called the two
29:57parent privilege by a woman named
29:59Melissa Carney, an economist and
30:02um and I think an MIT trained economist
30:06uh and she talked about how when she was
30:10working on this book she got a lot of
30:12push back from her mostly left of center
30:15social circle who said uh you should not
30:19be talking about this. The thesis of her
30:20book was that kids by virtue of being
30:23raised by two parents have tremendous
30:25advantages growing up that that tend to
30:28stick with them throughout life and that
30:30if we're going to talk about income
30:31inequality, family structure needs to be
30:34part of the discussion. And she said the
30:37people in her circle said, "No, no, no,
30:38no. We don't talk about that. We talk
30:40about what the government should be
30:41doing. We talk about other obstacles
30:42that these people are facing, but we do
30:45not talk about family structure." and
30:47she caught a lot of flack for talking
30:49about family structure in the book. So,
30:52it's still a problem. You know, this is
30:55um been a problem for a long time. Uh
30:58maybe it's not as taboo as it used to
31:00be. Um but it's still uh it's still
31:03something that that uh ruffles a lot of
31:05feathers on the left when you start
31:07talking about black behavior, personal
31:09responsibility, and those sorts of
31:11things. And a lot of people therefore
31:13steer clear of it because they don't
31:14want to be called names or deplatformed
31:16or cancelled. There was um it's that
31:19shift. It's that 1966 shift in the early
31:2350s. There was a silly sitcom on TV
31:26called Amos and Andy. It had been a huge
31:29radio hit, too. And you remember it. I
31:31was there, John. You remember? And it
31:33seemed goofy guys getting into little
31:36little situations. Frankly, it's
31:38extremely entertaining. I'm I'm not
31:40supposed to say that, but at the time,
31:42the NAACP voted it down because they
31:45thought that it didn't show enough black
31:48success. So, that's 1951. Go to 1968,
31:52and there's a sitcom called Julia, and
31:54it stars Diane Carol as a nurse. She's a
31:58middle-class nurse, and she has easy
31:59relations with whites. And that show was
32:02shouted down by a new crop of black
32:04critics for not showing enough black
32:06poverty and making it seem like black
32:08people were doing too well. It's that
32:10shift and we're now still stuck in that
32:13Julia situation where you're supposed to
32:15think about poverty and how racism is
32:18the main reason for it. Forgetting that
32:20when racism was much worse, the whole
32:22tone of the black community was quite
32:24different. And it's getting to the point
32:25where most people don't remember that.
32:28And so we're stuck in there.
32:30Hello everybody. This is Glenn of the
32:33Glenn
32:35Show. I want to bear my soul a little
32:38bit here. If you will bear with
32:41me. I've been doing the Glen Show since
32:442007. And listeners often tell me they
32:47value what I do because they think that
32:50I am telling them what I actually think.
32:54I'm not playing. I'm not acting. I'm
32:58being candid and truthful in addressing
33:00the issues of the
33:02day. Recently, one of my followers wrote
33:05me a message that says simply, "Quinn
33:07Lowry is not
33:09scared." I really like that. That's
33:12that's
33:14gratifying. But, you know, sometimes I
33:18am scared.
33:20I do feel fear and
33:24unease especially when I bring up
33:27controversial topics and then proceed to
33:30speak my mind. I have trepidation. I
33:33have
33:35premonition. Um it's not always easy.
33:40Now, I don't let those kinds of feelings
33:44stop me
33:46because what I think I'm doing is
33:48thinking out loud in public. That's what
33:50I think a public
33:51intellectual is. I think he
33:54she is someone who thinks out loud
33:58critically in public, knowing that
34:00they're being observed and being
34:02prepared to deal with the consequences.
34:04And I'm proud to be walking that path.
34:09But sometimes I have to make a real
34:11effort to do so. Sometimes I think it
34:14would be easier just to say what I think
34:17people want to
34:19hear. I've written about
34:22this. I have a book coming out, guys.
34:25It's called simply self censorship.
34:31In this book, I examine the dynamic of
34:34knowing that you might get whacked for
34:37saying something, but going ahead and
34:38saying it anyway. I examine that dynamic
34:41as an economist. I'm trained as an
34:44economist, PhD from
34:47MIT. And we have certain tools and those
34:50tools especially show the power of
34:53thinking about information and
34:56incentives. And I use those tools to
34:58examine this problem of when and how to
35:02say controversial things in
35:05public knowing that the consequences
35:07might be
35:10deletarious. People tend to be
35:14careful about what they say and what
35:16they don't say and that shapes public
35:19discourse in interesting ways.
35:22There are dimensions of what's going on
35:26here. Some of it has to do with how
35:28individuals make calculations about what
35:31risk to take, but some of it has to do
35:33with how
35:34populations make judgments about what
35:37policies to follow. And in my research
35:42reflected in this book,
35:45selfcensorship, I examine the problem at
35:50multiple
35:53levels. If you are so inclined, you can
35:56pre-order this book from amazon.com or
36:00you can acquire it in the bookstore and
36:02online book seller of your choice.
36:07You can be first in the queue to get a
36:10copy of the book when it comes out later
36:12this
36:13summer. All you have to do is look for
36:16Selfcensorship by Glenn Lowry online or
36:19use the link uh in the description that
36:22we provide here.
36:26And I'll tell you what, man. If you
36:28really appreciate the kind of honest
36:30conversation that I'm attempting to
36:32engage in here at the Glen Show, you
36:34might want to consider becoming a paying
36:36subscriber and supporting my
36:39work. That is vouching my
36:43independence by subscribing at
36:49glenry.substack.com. That's
36:50glenry.substack.com. substat.com.
36:54Well, what about this argument um
36:57devil's advocate here for a minute about
36:58blaming the victim uh about the fact
37:00that the behaviors that you're talking
37:02about are themselves a product of
37:04historical disadvantage of black people.
37:06The single parenthood is a um
37:09manifestation of uh the lack of
37:12opportunity or lack of jobs for black
37:14men or something like that. And if you
37:17wag your finger at people's face and
37:18tell them be good, do better, behave
37:20differently, you're really putting the
37:22onus and responsibility on them when
37:25they're the victims of a of of a
37:27structurally oppressive
37:29system. Well, again, I think that's
37:31getting the order wrong. I don't think
37:33the data supports that. If you go back
37:35to the 1940s and 50s, you had lower
37:38black crime rates, lower black
37:40incarceration rates, and more racism,
37:43much much more. When lynching was
37:45normal. Yeah, lynching was normal. The
37:47in in southern states, you'd have police
37:49forces were half the half the people in
37:51the forest were members of the clan.
37:54I mean, was it
37:56just, you know, so it it just doesn't it
38:00doesn't square with the data that at a
38:02time when you had this this whole idea
38:04that that that that racism or racial
38:07discrimination is an allpurpose
38:09explanation for racial disparities does
38:11not square with the facts. We've had
38:13times in periods in this country there's
38:15much much more racial discrimination
38:18than there is today and you saw a lot
38:20more black upward mobility a lot faster
38:23progress and so the
38:25two you you you have to deal with that
38:28reality and the people citing racism
38:31constantly and everywhere as as a
38:33blanket explanation aren't dealing
38:35dealing with that reality. The other
38:36thing to remember, Glenn, is that that
38:38black people are not the only people
38:40that have faced discrimination and
38:43violence in this country. You know, you
38:45had you had lynchings of of Asians. You
38:48had uh Asian-Americans out in California
38:51forced to attend separate schools, uh
38:54not able to own land in certain parts of
38:56the state, uh lynchings. Um you had
38:59Japanese Americans put in internment
39:00camps. Today, Asians outperform whites
39:05both academically and economically and
39:08have for decades. So, this idea that
39:11that discrimination
39:13um uh can can be pointed to and that and
39:15that ends the conversation. There are
39:18just too many exceptions uh out there
39:20that that too many examples of of
39:22groups. Jews of course are another group
39:25that's faced all kinds of of of uh of
39:28discrimination and and and um and
39:31violence against them and and yet have
39:34been able to to rise economically often
39:36over over the people who who have been
39:38doing the discriminating. uh and you
39:40know people like Soul have pointed out
39:42this is not a unique experience in
39:44America but there are examples all
39:45around the world of this you know
39:48Indians and in Uganda and and Lebanese
39:50in West Africa uh in Nigeria and and and
39:55of course the ethnic Chinese in
39:56Southeast Asia there's example after
39:58example after example of discrimination
40:01uh failing as as as a blanket
40:04explanation for um for
40:07inequality. So Jason, what do you tell
40:10people? What's the solution? I tell them
40:13to watch the Glenn Show and to read
40:17everything John McOrder and Glenn Lowry
40:20writes. Um Um Well said,
40:23Jason. Suppose they don't want to. you
40:26you know someone I think I don't know if
40:28someone used the term peak woke on this
40:30show uh on this on this episode but um I
40:35do think the pendulum has swung pretty
40:38far here. Uh, I mean,
40:42people are saying, you know, calling
40:46math racist, calling punctuality white
40:50supremacy,
40:52uh, saying someone who swam on the boys
40:54team should be able to swim on the girls
40:56team this year.
40:58Uh, there's there's some backlash here.
41:01And now, of course, you've got uh an
41:03administration in Washington that seems
41:07uh hellbent on enforcing the Harvard
41:11ruling, not only at Harvard, but
41:13everywhere, and not only on campus, but
41:15off campus. So, um there there's um
41:20maybe we are going to see a shift. We're
41:23certainly seeing a backlash. One
41:25question will be whether it outlasts the
41:27current president um uh or if it's just
41:31uh you know if these groups that that
41:33are pushing this stuff woke left
41:36so-called um is is is backing down or
41:39just are just pulling back temporarily.
41:42I think the key to that is going to be
41:44how the Democratic Party elites react uh
41:47to this moment and whether the
41:49narratives that they have used to
41:51attract black support, Jim Crow 2.0 type
41:55narratives uh survive this era of
41:58backlash against diversity, equity, and
42:00inclusion and um so on. And uh we're
42:03going to see I mean there are voices
42:05amongst the Democrats that say the
42:07reason we're in the electoral hole that
42:08we're in right now is that we were too
42:10woke and we should back away from some
42:13of that. I mean for example reparations
42:15you have a chapter where you discuss
42:16reparations. I mean why don't I let you
42:19talk about that Jason?
42:22Yeah and that reparation is reparations
42:24is a good a good example of of of maybe
42:27the some of this these approaches on the
42:29left having a sell by date. I the the
42:33further we get away from not only uh
42:37enslavement but Jim Crow uh and and the
42:42way attitudes have changed in society.
42:44The further and further we get the more
42:46and more progress we make away from that
42:48type of thinking I think um the more the
42:50weakness the weaker the left's arguments
42:53become in trying to blame everything on
42:55on on racism and what's left of it in in
42:58in society. Uh the reparations thing
43:01again it sounds so dated. How long have
43:04we been talking about reparations and
43:06and and and the idea that it got a
43:08second wind from from the Tanahi Coats
43:12essay and now the 1619 project is is
43:15quite shocking. I mean just obviously
43:18the old arguments all the slave owners
43:20are dead all the slaves are dead. White
43:22people in America today most of them
43:24trace their ancestry to people came here
43:26after the Civil War. Coats wants white
43:30people who aren't even descendants of
43:33slave owners to pay reparations to black
43:37people who are not slaves. I mean, this
43:40is how many white people are going to go
43:42for this? It's just And what is it going
43:46to do? What is reparations except for
43:48another huge wealth redistribution
43:51scheme? And why would it be any more
43:54successful than previous massive wealth
43:57redistribution schemes that we had under
44:00the Great Society? Yeah. Why would we
44:02expect a different outcome? Yeah. And I
44:04think re really I've always said that if
44:07it happened the day after it happened,
44:09the watch cry would be they better not
44:11think that it's over. You know,
44:12reparations is just the beginning. You
44:14know, you can't treat us like animals
44:16for 400 years and just pay us all. It
44:18wouldn't help in terms of attitudes or
44:20the culture either. But I think Coats,
44:22to be fair, would say that yes, somebody
44:25might be a descendant of a Polish
44:27immigrant, but the nation as a whole has
44:29a responsibility to quote unquote come
44:31to terms with what it did to black
44:33people. And also, he would say, I think
44:35Coat knows that the slavery argument has
44:37just gotten too old, but he's now
44:39talking about redlinining. So that goes
44:41up until, you know, well, we we can we
44:43can talk about redlinining because I in
44:45the book I I I take that on because he
44:48does rest his case, a lot of it on on
44:50redlinining. And there are two two quick
44:52points I'd make on on redlinining. One
44:54is that uh and I think you've you've
44:57made it on this show, John, is is is
44:59most of the people who lived in
45:00redlinined areas were white. If you're
45:03going to base reparations on
45:04redlinining, a lot of white people are
45:06going to are going to qualify for
45:08reparations. But the second argument is
45:11is is more pragmatic, which is that
45:13despite and this gets back to what was
45:14going on despite racism, much more
45:17severe racism in a previous
45:19era. Black home ownership rates during
45:23the red lining era rose at a faster rate
45:27than white home ownership rates in this
45:29country.
45:30So redlinining did not stop the increase
45:34in black home ownership. Uh, I'm not
45:37saying it didn't slow it down, that it
45:39wouldn't have been higher without it,
45:41but the idea that it couldn't happen
45:42because of redlinining,
45:45uh, or that it's not happening today,
45:48you know, because of redlinining in the
45:50past is it it doesn't, uh, pass the
45:53smell test to me. Um, but there's the
45:57problem we have is that there's still a
45:59a um a very lucrative racial grievance
46:02industry in this country. Um, as I've
46:04said before, I think the civil rights
46:06movement has been turned into an
46:07industry of not a racket. And it's a
46:09very very lucrative racket there. I
46:12mean, you you look at you look at at at
46:14at I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I
46:15Abram Kendy who is to me the definition
46:17of an empty suit and and yet he is cited
46:21he is he is uh selling books and giving
46:24speeches and and and and and people take
46:27what he says very very seriously.
46:29um his his his you know how to be an
46:33anti-racist is a very difficult book to
46:37read with a straight face. It is just it
46:40really is and yet you know he he's been
46:43tremendously successful and there are a
46:45lot of little mini kies out there I
46:47think that will that will u take their
46:50cues from how successful and how
46:51lucrative it has been going down that
46:53that road. But do you really you could
46:54say something similar about the 1619
46:56project and Nicole Hannah Jones even
46:59though you know serious historians
47:01uh will laugh at that stuff but you know
47:03what they'll laugh privately to
47:05themselves. They're not going to go very
47:07few are willing to go public with it. Um
47:11you know they're they're she's a woman
47:13she's black. Again they don't want to be
47:14canceled. They don't want to be
47:15platform. So that's what we're up
47:18against. Do you really think it's a
47:19racket? I mean, because to be honest,
47:22Nicole Hannah Jones takes herself very
47:24seriously and just doesn't listen. She
47:26thinks all criticism is racism. And
47:28frankly, with Kendi, as you say, there's
47:30only so much there. And he doesn't know.
47:35He's he's not capable of thinking beyond
47:36a certain point. It's not a racket. He
47:39thinks he's right. But my question is,
47:41why does it work? Uh why is Ky Ky and
47:43why is Jones Jones? what's going on in
47:46the New York Times newsroom that ends up
47:48in the 1619 project and uh what's going
47:52on in the Democratic party that ends up
47:54with uh the narratives that these people
47:57generate being uh the the currency of
47:59the realm. I mean, John, I I with with
48:01with Nicole Hannah Jones, I I mean, I I
48:05think I quote you in the book saying
48:07this person won a Puler prize for
48:09something everyone knows isn't true.
48:11Mhm. Um, who who's giving Kendi all this
48:15money to start
48:16his tens of millions of dollars? People
48:20engaging in performance art. Yeah.
48:23I may maybe racket isn't the word. Maybe
48:26it's a grift. Maybe that's the right the
48:28right term. Are they virtue signaling?
48:30Are they trying to buy a certain kind of
48:33uh exemption from judgment? Uh, yes.
48:36They're buying indulgences. It's I don't
48:38think that Kendy and Nicole Hannah Jones
48:39are grifters. I think it's the whites
48:41who support them who have somebody to
48:42answer for because they're performing.
48:45Yeah, that's my view of it. Jason, who
48:48would you who else would you say is kind
48:50of pedalling stuff where they know that
48:54it's no good, but they can see maybe the
48:56people who today have these lucrative
48:58DEI administrative positions. Maybe
49:00that's a case of somebody who's making a
49:03lot of money off of something that maybe
49:04they know is not exactly, you know, and
49:07I I mean this I I perhaps, but I I I
49:13would I would punch a little higher than
49:15that. I I I think you have a lot of uh
49:18academics out there who know that this
49:21is nonsense. I I think we have a problem
49:24with sort of uh I think there's a lot of
49:26intellectual cowardice in this in in in
49:29this country right now. And I I go back
49:31to the 1619 project and the
49:34unwillingness of of so many people to
49:36call it what it was. Um I it was just
49:39that's that's horrible. Every every
49:43historian in the country should have
49:45been shouting from the rooftops that
49:47this woman who who'd never written a
49:49book about anything, let alone a book
49:52about slavery or the American
49:54Revolution. And and yet people were just
49:57taking what she said so ser school
50:00curriculums, K through 12 school
50:02curriculums have been altered to
50:04accommodate this nonsense. I mean, this
50:07is this is awful. Where is the academy?
50:10Where are the people who know this stuff
50:12inside and out? Why did Why were so few
50:15of them willing to step forward and
50:17denounce it? I think that's because
50:19nobody wants to be called a racist on
50:21Twitter. Yeah. I Yeah. Yeah. President
50:24accepted in that regard. We we certainly
50:26sub subjected that to some criticism
50:28here at the Glen Show. I also want to
50:30mention Robert Woodson uh and the the
50:331619 or 1776 project that he mounted at
50:37the Woodson Center uh as a a
50:40counterpoint to to that. Yeah. Gord
50:42Gordon Wood, James and Fearson. There
50:43there have been some there have been
50:44some, but not it should have been the
50:47head of every history department at
50:49every major university. They should have
50:51been falling over one another to to
50:53shoot this stuff. Okay. With apologies
50:55for having to cut this short because of
50:56the schedule. Jason, give you an
50:58opportunity to have a last word on what
50:59you want people to take away uh about
51:01your book.
51:03Well, again, I I think people should not
51:06swallow whole this narrative that
51:08affirmative action has been a net good
51:11for blacks, that it's been necessary in
51:13order for blacks uh to rise in this
51:15country and to advance economically or
51:18educationally. Uh those things were
51:20happening and the takeaway is that
51:25blacks have done much better in terms of
51:27upward mobility when the focus is on
51:30color blindness than when the focus is
51:32on special treatment. And I think that
51:37uh that should be the direction our
51:39policy makers and our our our
51:41politicians move in when it comes to
51:45trying to address um uh these divisions
51:48that we have um and these gaps that we
51:51have. Uh and and and that's what I hope
51:53people uh take away from the book that
51:55colorblindness is the way to go. Not
51:57racial preferences which are not only
52:00divisive uh not only
52:02unconstitutional but ineffective in
52:05achieving their stated goals. And and so
52:08um we've given these these these these
52:10policies 50 years to work. You know how
52:13much longer do they need to to show us
52:16what they can do? Um, I think I think we
52:19we we've given them enough time and it
52:21and it's time to to try something
52:22different and and and to go back to uh
52:26colorblind thinking about uh how to how
52:29to uh set in place public policy that
52:32that everyone can benefit from. So that
52:33would be my my takeaway.
52:36Well, I might just close by saying amen.
52:39Uh, and saying that you exhibit a
52:42confidence in the capacities of black
52:44people to take care of our business and
52:46to lift ourselves in this great country,
52:49uh, which is admirable. False black
52:51power is one thing, believing that you
52:53need affirmative action. real black
52:55power looks to the history of
52:57African-American progress uh even before
53:00the civil rights era uh and sees a lot
53:02of resilience and uh uh resourcefulness
53:06uh in the African-American population
53:08which I think you still believe is
53:09there. Absolutely. Yeah. It's um your
53:13book very very sweetly cuts through the
53:17tacid idea that it's immoral to submit
53:20black people to serious competition
53:23which is what I think a lot of people
53:24have drunk in of both colors all colors.
53:26You've got to get past that especially
53:28in 2025.
53:31Yes, I agree. Thank you. Our guest has
53:34been Jason Riley of the Manhattan
53:36Institute and the Wall Street Journal.
53:37And the book that he is selling now is
53:40called uh The Affirmative Action Myth.
53:43Uh and um I'm grateful that you gave us
53:45some time to discuss it, Jason. Thank
53:47you. Thank you guys. Take care. Good to
53:48see you.
53:54[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of The Affirmative Action Myth | Glenn Loury, John McWhorter & Jason Riley | The Glenn Show by The Glenn Show, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,869 words across 1,298 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.