Podcasts about amna khalid

In introducing this podcast, I first want to acknowledge how darn pleased I am to have advisors in our organization who think differently than me and who aren't afraid to say as much. This podcast originated when one of our advisors, Pam Hayes-Bohanan, pushed back after an ILV panel discussion on Ethnic Studies. We have had many previous podcasts, labs and panels that question the trends in Ethnic Studies, so when I received this critique, I wanted to know more. Unsurprisingly, although we found many areas where we our perspectives differed, namely around Paulo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, through the conversation we also found unexpected convergence. In exploring our different viewpoints, we came to agree that one of the biggest problems is the flattening of education. We discuss the myriad of ways this is being done, including devaluing subject matter experts, a closing of ranks within some colleges of education, the rise of “pre-packaged” curricula, a growing number of administrators who micromanage education, often stripping it of its richness including critical thinking, the mechanical teaching for a test versus to instill the love of learning, and the downgrading of curiosity. While each of these problems may require distinct solutions, one thing we can all agree on is the need to, as Pam says, “not be afraid of ideas” and “just read more books”. More specifically, read books you tend to criticize (e.g. Freire in my case) to develop your own critical thinking skills and thereby learn HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Podcast Resources Precious Knowledge documentary Going Varsity in Mariachi  On Settler Colonialism: Ideology, Violence and Justice, by Adam Kirsch A Third Way on the Place of Critical Race Theory in the Classroom, Real Clear Education, by Amna Khalid, David Bernstein and Jennifer Richmond The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire The House on Mango Street, Sandra Cisneros ILV Ethnic Studies Recordings: Depoliticizing the Classroom: The Role of the Teacher September Liberal Values Lab: Ethnic Studies in Your School Ethnic Studies: From Radical Roots to Government Mandate

We were thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to PEN America's Jeremy Young about what a second Trump administration holds in store for higher education. It was an informative—and sobering—conversation. Over the next four years, we should be prepared for a tsunami of ideologically-driven threats to academic freedom, campus free expression and the basic integrity of higher education. If you would rather read than listen, there is a transcript attached below. Show NotesPEN America's *Educational Censorship* page is a terrific resourceOn Christopher Rufo, see Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory,” New Yorker, June 18, 2021 and Michael Kruse, “DeSantis' Culture Warrior: ‘We Are Now Over the Walls,'” Politico, March 24, 2023. For Rufo's take on critical race theory, in his own words, see this YouTube video. Here is the full text of Executive Order 13950, which became the template for most of the anti-CRT (or “divisive concepts”) laws passed in red states. On the Stop WOKE Act, the marquee anti-CRT law signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, check out these two Banished episodes:The Sunshine State Descends into Darkness (Again)Will Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" Hold Up in Court?Jeffrey Sachs and Jeremy Young predict the future: “For Federal Censorship of Higher Ed, Here's What Could Happen in 2025” (PEN America, January 2, 2025)For more on the phenomenon of “jawboning,” see this page from FIRE and this page from the Knight First Amendment Institute On “anticipatory obedience,” see this excerpt from Timothy Snyder's 2017 book, On Tyranny On legislative challenges to campus DEI, see the Chronicle of Higher Education DEI Legislation Tracker. (We are quite skeptical of many conventional DEI efforts but state bans are a cure that is far worse than the disease )For a deeper dive on accreditation, see Eric Kelderman, “Trump's Vision for College Accreditation Could Shake Up the Sector” (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 2024)On Title VI investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, see Zach Montague, “Campus Protest Investigations Hang Over Schools as New Academic Year Begins” (New York Times, October 5, 2024)Here is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Kenneth Stern, one of the definition's main authors, explains why he is concerned it is being used to promote campus censorshipOn the prospect of a much heftier endowment tax for the country's wealthiest institutions, see Phillip Levine, “How Trump Could Devastate Our Top Colleges' Finances” (Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2025). Levine addresses the normative question—should college endowments be taxed?—here. TranscriptJeff: So, we're looking forward to a second Trump administration.Jeremy: Are we looking forward to a second Trump administration?Amna: No…towards.Jeff: We are anticipating…I personally am dreading a second Trump administration.Amna: This is Banished and I'm Amna Khalid, along with my colleague Jeff Snyder. Jeff and I were delighted to have the chance to catch up with PEN America's Jeremy Young at the recent American Historical Association conference in New York City. He's one of the most informed and astute analysts of government driven censorship in higher education today. We started by asking him to tell us a little about PEN America.Jeremy: PEN America is a 102 year old organization that exists at the intersection of literature and human rights. It is one of 140 PEN centers around the world which are in a loose network of PEN Centers governed by PEN International. PEN America's mission is to celebrate literature and defend the freedoms that make it possible, of which two of the foremost are academic freedom and freedom of expression.Amna: And what's your specific role?Jeremy: I am the Director of State and Higher Education Policy at PEN America, which means that I oversee our Freedom to Learn program, which leads actions and responses to educational censorship legislation, largely from the state governments, but also from the federal government. Things like DEI bans, critical race theory restrictions, and various other types of restrictions on faculty governance and university autonomy.Amna: We're eager to hear your predictions on what the higher ed sector should be bracing for with the second Trump administration. But first, Jeremy, could you please remind us of the nature of the attacks against higher education during Trump 1.0?Jeremy: In the summer and fall of 2020, this really happened late in the first Trump administration, there was a national panic around critical race theory, and this was created by Chris Rufo and some others really as a response, a backlash, if you will, against the George Floyd protests, the Black Lives Matter movement, the popularity of the 1619 Project, and so on, this sort of moment of racial reckoning. And so Rufo and others (Rufo is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute) decided to use this term critical race theory, which of course is an academic term with a particular set of meanings but to, as he put it, decodify and recodify it, essentially weaponize it to mean things that weren't all that connected to the actual theory of critical race theory and were really just a sort of catchall for criticisms of DEI and other race-based pedagogies and ideas. And so Rufo was able to convince president Trump to issue an executive order 13950 called Race and Sex Stereotyping that laid out a list of nine divisive concepts which bore some passing resemblance to critical race theory, but really were vague, and general, and banned all sorts of practices related to race, gender, and identity, and ideas related to race, gender, and identity that were unclear and difficult to interpret. Originally, this was a restriction aimed solely at trainings in government agencies…the executive order never went into effect. It was stayed by a court and repealed on the first day of the Biden administration. But that language of the divisive concepts then began to appear in state legislatures aimed now squarely at education. At first, at K-12 institutions primarily, and over time, higher education became more and more of the target.In 2023, we started to see a shift toward sort of broad spectrum attacks on higher education, moving away from some of the direct speech restrictions of the critical race theory bans, in part because of court cases that had gone adversely for those restrictions, and instead restricting broad swaths of university governance, including DEI offices, the ability of a university to manage diversity work on its own as a sort of shared governance function, tenure restrictions on faculty governance, restrictions on curriculum, which I think are going to be very prominent in 2025.Amna: You mentioned backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning as a key factor driving the anti-CRT movement. Can you say something more about where this opposition to CRT and now DEI is coming from?Jeremy: I think that there are several causes that are inseparable from one another. I think there are people who actually do want to restrict those particular ideas on campus, who want to advance a sort of triumphalist Western canon narrative of America as the victor, and they're just very opposed to any discussions that paint the United States in any way that is not hyper-patriotic and perfect. There's absolutely some racism, some sexism, some, some discrimination, discriminatory bias that's involved.I also think that there is a real desire to simply crush university power that I think comes out of the educational realignment that we have seen over the last 10 years. Kamala Harris won college educated Americans by 14 points, and four years ago, Joe Biden won them by four, and prior to the 2016 election, there was essentially no difference between the parties, really, at any time in American history on the axis of college education. There is now a sense I think among some conservative forces that instead of the long-time conservative project of reforming universities, having more viewpoint diversity, think of the Koch Centers in various institutions. Instead they're a place where liberals go to get educated, so we should just crush them, right? So I think that's part of it. It's just the goal of taking away universities' autonomy on everything is a key component.And the third component is political gain. And that is the one that has fluctuated the most over this period. Glenn Youngkin won a come from behind victory running on criticizing critical race theory in K-12 schools. And Steve Bannon said in 2021, I think about critical race theory and I see 50 new House seats in the midterm elections. Now, when that didn't happen, I think it began to become clear that these attacks are not as salient as they were thought to be. I think in 2023 and 2024, there was a real move away from that, especially with, also with the collapse of the DeSantis presidential campaign, which was built entirely around this idea of him being, fighting the war on woke. There was a sense that, maybe you still want to do these things, but now it's going to be quiet, it's going to be stealth mode, because there's no political gain to be gotten from having a big press release around this, around the Stop WOKE Act. But the other two motivations, the motivation of restricting certain ideas about race; and the motivation of smashing the power of higher education, those have remained constant.Jeff: Very succinct and helpful. Thank you. You and your colleague Jeffrey Sachs recently wrote an informative and sobering piece about Trump's plans for higher ed in 2025 and beyond. Maybe you could tell us a little about your key predictions. The first one you mention is jawboning. What is jawboning and why should we be worried about it?Jeremy: Jawboning, put simply, is when government officials, instead of passing a law requiring someone who isn't a government official to do something, they simply browbeat or bully or threaten them into doing it. In some ways you can look at the congressional hearings as a form of jawbonings or making threats against presidents at Columbia and Harvard and so on. But the classic example is actually what we're seeing at the state level where lawmakers are simply going to university presidents and say, saying, okay, we're not going to pass a DEI ban or a curriculum restriction. We're going to simply request that you make one on your own or we'll cut your funding. Or we'll pass one next year that's worse than anything you could imagine. It's a very intimate form of censorship, right? It takes restrictions out of the legislative process where they can be challenged at a hearing; out of the judicial process where they can be challenged on constitutional grounds; and every single one of these bills has at least some constitutional infirmities. And instead makes it just a threat, right? We're gonna cut your budget. What are you gonna do about that? It's a very difficult position for presidents to be in because they don't have a lot of leverage.Jeff: I think it was Yale historian Timothy Snyder who coined the term anticipatory obedience.  He said it was a dynamic that's often seen under conditions of rising authoritarianism. So you've got individuals and groups that start to make concessions they think will appease the powers that be. Is there a connection here to jawboning?Jeremy: Yes, so we talk about over compliance and pre-compliance. We're not going to comply with the letter of the law, we're going to comply with the spirit of the law. There is a law in Alabama that passed in 2024 that restricts some elements of DEI, but does not actually ban outright the DEI offices. And every university in Alabama has treated it as though it is an outright ban. And that's significant, in particular, because of the nature of these laws. You know, you go look at a set of statutes in a state legislature or the federal government, what you'll notice is that most laws are very precise. Think about traffic laws. What are you allowed to do on the road? It's very specific. You can drive this many miles an hour this particular way. There's no room for interpretation. There's no room for judgment because the goal is to make you comply with the law. These laws are intentionally vague. They ban broad swaths of ideas which are never defined in the laws.What does it mean to say, for instance, one of the divisive concepts, to say that you're not allowed to say that the United States is fundamentally racist. What does that mean? It doesn't say in the law what that means. It's left up to your interpretation, which means whoever is going to enforce that law gets to decide whether you violate it. That is actually a constitutional violation. It's against the 14th Amendment. And while the courts have found all sorts of infirmities with these laws, that's the one they've found the most consistency. Not freedom of speech, not racial discrimination but vagueness. So over-complying with a vague law is, it's difficult to avoid because these laws lend themselves to over-compliance because they're so vague. But it's also vitally important to avoid doing that.The other thing that we see is pre-compliance, which is just imagining that the legislature is going to pass a law but then whether or not they do it. We intervened with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of the seven accrediting bodies because they were basically enacting what a restriction in Project 2025 that would have forbidden them to have a DEI standard for universities they accredit. And just doing it preemptively.It's not clear whether the education department is able to pass that restriction without legislation. And it's not clear whether legislation or the regulation would survive a court challenge. And they're just saying we'll just take it out. That's pre-compliance. You don't want to do that. And what we argued successfully, is that, again, even if you don't think an accreditor should have a DEI standard, we don't take a position on that. The worst time to get rid of your DEI standard is one month before a new administration that's promised to ban it tells you to. That's the moment when you put up your back and say, no, we're not going to comply with this.Jeff: Jeremy, tell us a little bit more about the new Trump administration's plans to disrupt the conventional work of accreditors.Jeremy: So higher education institutions are accredited by one of seven accrediting bodies, six of which have historically served certain regions, but now under new federal regulations the university can work with any of the seven accreditors. But they still tend to be concentrated in regions.Accreditation is really the only thing that separates a real substantive university from a diploma mill; and the way that accreditation is enforced, is that the Department of Education will only provide federal student financial aid, which 55 percent of all students receive, to schools that it recognizes as legitimate accreditors, which currently is those seven institutional accreditors. They are private or nonprofit organizations. They're run by academics. They have their pluses and minuses, but they are pretty much the guarantor of institutional quality in higher education. And if you look at Project 2025, everything that they say they want to do to higher education is focused on accreditation. They have identified these accreditors as the soft underbelly of higher education. And the simplest thing that they want to do and that they probably will at least try to do is to ban accreditors from having DEI standards, of which six of the seven currently do.But they really want to go further. What they really want to do is to undermine the system of accreditation itself by allowing any jurisdiction, any state, to either charter its own accreditor or serve as its own accreditor. So Ron DeSantis could become the accreditor for all universities in Florida. And now instead of those universities having DEI offices, he can say you cannot be accredited in the state of Florida unless you've banned DEI and basically instituted a classical curriculum, a Hillsdale style classical curriculum. It's a little more complicated than project 2025 makes it sound. Our analysis is that while they may attempt to do it through regulatory action, the process of negotiated rulemaking in the Department of Education is sufficiently complex that it would probably stop them from doing it and so that probably means that they need legislation to change the Higher Education Act, which would be subject to a filibuster.So this is something that we will be watching to see if they try to do it administratively. It may not be possible. And we'll also be watching if they try to slip it into one of those reconciliation bills that are being proposed that would be able to go through without a filibuster.Jeff: So that's how the accreditation system might be weaponized. You and Sacks also identify Title VI enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights as a key area of concern. Maybe we can break this down into its component parts. What is the Office of Civil Rights and what's Title VI?Jeremy: Sure. So the Office of Civil Rights is an office within the Department of Education that ensures that educational institutions meet the requirements of the various civil rights laws. It covers Title VI funding, which is funding that is tied to financial aid for universities, and it makes sure that institutions that are receiving federal financial aid are following these civil rights protections. It is an office does good work and we have a good relationship with the office.We have some concerns about the way that the Biden administration has been investigating and enforcing agreements with universities around antisemitism. We expect things to get far worse in the new administration. We expect that any university that has any sort of protest or any faculty member who expresses pro-Palestinian views is going to be investigated and sanctioned by the Office of Civil Rights. We expect they're going to launch lawsuits. They're going to really go after universities. So it is an office that is going to be used in some really aggressive ways to restrict speech on campus.Jeff: In terms of restricting speech, you and Sachs are especially worried about the trend on the part of colleges and universities, not to mention states and the federal government, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Why is this so concerning to you both?Jeremy: So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is a very interesting document. It starts with a description that is quite thoughtful and then it gives a list of examples of things that could be forms of antisemitism or could accompany antisemitism, and that list includes things like singling out the state of Israel for special criticism that other states are not singled out for that do engage in the same actions or just you know criticizing Zionism, things like that. Which in the context of what that definition was designed for yes, sometimes when you see those statements, it's worth perking your ears up and asking, is this accompanying antisemitism or not?What the laws are doing, and this comes from a model bill that the Goldwater Institute wrote in 2016, and it's now being suffused into all these federal and state policies, is to take those examples of possible antisemitism and change it from possible to definite antisemitism. So anytime you criticize the state of Israel, it's antisemitism. And then writing that into law, saying that universities have to treat this as any instance of this broad definition of antisemitism as hate speech or as a form of harassment. The author of that definition, Kenneth Stern has repeatedly said that it is not designed to be used in that way. In fact, he said it's unconstitutional to use it in that way. And yet that's what we're seeing. So that's the concern. It's not that you shouldn't have a definition of anti Semitism, although I will say our statutes tend not to define particular types of hate speech because it's too subjective, right? This is the reason that we have definitions like severe, pervasive, and targeted for harassment. You're looking at a pattern of behavior because each individual case is protected by free expression.Jeff: I understand that the Office of Civil Rights is currently conducting dozens of Title VI investigations stemming from campus protests over the war in Gaza. There are widespread allegations of antisemitism, many of which are accompanied by competing charges of Islamophobia. How do you think we should make sense of this?Jeremy: These are complex situations. Lots of universities are getting them wrong. Some universities are being overly censorious, some not enforcing harassment protections. And it's right and proper for OCR to investigate these things. The problem is that they are not always coming up with the right findings. That they're not always protecting free expression, balancing free expression adequately with the need to protect students from harassment. We're seeing universities implement draconian time, place and manner restrictions on speech. So just the fact that OCR and the Congress are making all these threatening noises about restricting speech leads a lot of universities to do the censor's work for them.Amna: Jeremy mentioned one other thing the new Trump administration has made ramblings about, which is ramping up the endowment tax on the country's wealthiest institutions. Please see an informative Chronicle of Higher Education article by Philip Levine, linked in the show notes.What all these attacks or interventions, depending on your point of view, have in common, is that they seek to undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities. Here's Jeremy.Jeremy: University autonomy is not a principle that is very widely understood in the United States. It's much more common in Europe where there's an autonomy index and all sorts of things as a way of protecting academic freedom. But it's a vital component of academic freedom. We think about academic freedom in the U.S. primarily as being the freedom of an individual faculty member to speak their mind or to engage in their research or teaching. But, in reality, that freedom can only be protected so long as the people overseeing it, the university administration, are free from the ideological control of the government. The key here is ideological control. We aren't saying that the government doesn't have a budgetary responsibility to oversee the university, or that there isn't a role for the government in community relations, or student success, or access and completion, or any of these things. But when it comes to ideas, what ideas can be present on a campus, whether it's in the classroom, whether it's in a DEI office, anywhere on campus, that is not the government's business, and it cannot be the government's business, or ultimately everyone on campus is simply going to be currying favor with whatever political party is in charge.Amna: Jeremy, this has been wonderful and you've been so kind to give us so much time. Thank you.Jeff: Thank you. It's an absolute pleasure.Amna: That was our conversation with Jeremy Young of PEN America on what Trump 2.0 portends for higher education. As of yesterday, Trump's second term has officially begun. Keep your eyes peeled and ears tuned for what's to come next. If you liked what you heard today, be sure to help us spread the word about Banished, and don't forget to comment and rate this show.Once again, this is Banished, and I'm Amna Khalid, along with Jeff Snyder. Until next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is the real purpose of a university—truth-seeking or molding active citizens? Are university campuses becoming echo chambers, leading to self-censorship among not just conservatives but liberals too?Today's guest is Amna Khalid, an esteemed Associate Professor of History at Carleton College and a prominent voice within the Heterodox Academy (HxA) community. Together, John Tomasi and Amna explore this multifaceted question. They discuss the evolving role of universities, the interplay of critical inquiry and citizenship, and the impact of neoliberal trends on campus culture.Amna brings a wealth of experience and academic insight. She shares her perspectives on the necessity of preserving higher education's autonomy while addressing present-day challenges, such as campus speech restrictions and the contentious implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In This Episode:The dual mission of universities: critical inquiry and citizenshipCampus speech restrictions and the self-censorship challengeThe impact of neoliberalism on diversity initiatives in higher educationStudent entitlement and the consumerist mindset in academiaThe essential role of academic expertise in shaping educational experiencesLegislative interference and academic freedomThe need for balanced, viewpoint-neutral reforms in higher educationCase examples highlighting challenges faced by faculty and institutions Follow Amna on X here: https://x.com/AmnaUncensored About Amna:Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Amna is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. Born in Pakistan, Amna completed her Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences. She went on to earn an M.Phil. in Development Studies and a D.Phil. in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships, Amna has a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks frequently on academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities as well as at professional conferences. Her essays and commentaries on these same issues have appeared in outlets such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Conversation, Inside Higher Ed and the New Republic. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called "Banished," which explores censorship in the past and present. Amna was a Fellow at the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement during the 2022-2023 academic-year, along with her Carleton colleague Jeff Snyder​. They focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews Khalid and Snyder conducted with Florida faculty members, they submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College. In this episode, Amna discusses: 1. How DEI is hurting us 2. Donald Trump 3. New Legislation which would prevent discussion around The Holocaust YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@jakenewfield Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4k9DDGJz02ibpUpervM5EY Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for-the-sake-of-argument/id1567749546 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JakeNewfield --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jake-newfield/support

Diversity equity and inclusion: Sounds like a good thing in an incredibly diverse country such as ours, especially when teaching young people at American colleges and universities.But the DEI industry - or DEI Inc. — has arguably gone off the rails. There's a big difference between the intentions behind a lot of diversity training and the results. We learn about the crucial difference between training and education, and hear the case against the Stop WOKE Act in Florida.History professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder share their deep concerns about a growing industry. There is no reliable evidence that diversity, equity and inclusion training sessions at colleges, non-profits, and large corporations actually work. In many places, DEI could be making things worse, imposing an ideological litmus test and encouraging cynicism and dishonesty at places of learning.Amna specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, she has a strong interest in issues relating to free speech.Jeff is also a Professor at Carleton: A historian of education, who studies questions of race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. He's the author of Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow.  Jeff and Amna released this YouTube video about DEI. They speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities. They also write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and TheWashington Post. Amna hosts a podcast and blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Additional InformationThe Democracy Group listener surveyHow Do We Fix It? PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group

Kat and Phoebe discuss a very horny theater critic, an uncommonly hot historian, and Uri Berliner's critique of NPR from inside the house.LINKS:Lea Ypi: "Advice for scholars: next time you lecture on Kant and revolutions at “Downing” Cambridge, make sure your hair is neatly tied and that you're not blonde. Or else your research impact will be on the @spectator libido section."I've Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust. | The Free PressThe Real Story Behind NPR's Current ProblemsEmily Yoffe's reporting on l'affaire Sonmez: 'I'm Radioactive'Washington Post reporter pleads with Felicia Sonmez to cease Twitter rants: 'Please stop'Felicia Sonmez: Washington Post reporter fired after a week of feuding with colleagues | CNN BusinessKat and guest Amna Khalid discuss the Sonmez-Weigel conflict: https://femchaospod.substack.com/p/thats-not-funnyJeet Heer pulls a “nobody is talking about this” and gets community noted:https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1780225893257945196 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit femchaospod.substack.com/subscribe

Diversity equity and inclusion: Sounds like a good thing in an incredibly diverse country such as ours, especially when teaching young people at American colleges and universities.But the DEI industry - or DEI Inc. — has arguably gone off the rails. There's a big difference between the intentions behind a lot of diversity training and the results. We learn about the crucial difference between training and education, and hear the case against the Stop WOKE Act in Florida.History professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder share their deep concerns about a growing industry. There is no reliable evidence that diversity, equity and inclusion training sessions at colleges, non-profits, and large corporations actually work. In many places, DEI could be making things worse, imposing an ideological litmus test and encouraging cynicism and dishonesty at places of learning.Amna specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, she has a strong interest in issues relating to free speech.Jeff is also a Professor at Carleton: A historian of education, who studies questions of race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. He's the author of Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. Jeff and Amna released this YouTube video about DEI. They speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities. They also write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. Amna hosts a podcast and blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Recommendation: Richard has been watching "Nada" on Hulu, a gentle and funny TV series from Argentina about a food critic in Buenos Aires and his observations on life and eating. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Lean Out is back from our annual summer hiatus, and we are recharged and ready to get back to tackling the big issues of the day. One of the things that Tara did while she was away was attend Plebity's inaugural virtual conference, Free Speech and the Left, a timely and important gathering that brought together many prominent writers and thinkers on the left.  Tara was honoured to moderate a panel for that conference — which she enjoyed so much that we're bringing it to you today in podcast form, featuring two former Lean Out guests. Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder are history professors at Carleton College. The title of our recent Plebity panel discussion is “Personal Experiences and Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture and Free Speech.” You can find the entire conference archived online at plebity.org.You can find Tara Henley on Twitter at @TaraRHenley, and on Substack at tarahenley.substack.com

Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder are writers and professors of history at Carleton College. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk, Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder discuss the predominance of certain progressive orthodoxies on college campuses; why opponents of left wing censoriousness should also resist illiberalism in education from the right; and how we can stand up for philosophically liberal, humanistic values without becoming bitter, reactionary, or uncivil. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community  Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, KJK Student Defense attorneys Susan Stone and Kristina Supler talk with Professor Amna Khalid, an associate professor of history at Carleton College in Minnesota. Topics they discuss include the impact of trigger warnings on education, why teaching history needs to be done in context, and some strategies on handling difficult material in the college environment. Links: Professor Amna Khalid: https://www.carleton.edu/directory/amkhalid/ Banished Blog: https://banished.substack.com/ Show Notes: (02:36) What is the real definition of a Trigger Warning? 
(03:45) Do Trigger Warnings really work?
 (04:35) How Trigger Warnings compromise learning 
(06:26) Why universities need to teach tough topics
 (08:09) What professors can do to teach tough topics 
(09:49) Do universities have a responsibility for students with mental health issues? 
(11:39) What Professor Khalid teaches in her classes 
(15:18) Why the “customer approach” to higher education compromises learning
 (18:07) How Professor Khalid handles difficult material in her classes
 (19:41) Why learning about history is important 
(22:09) Cancel Culture: Is there a connection with Trigger Warnings? 
(24:21) What are the two biggest threats to higher education?
 Transcript: Susan Stone: Okay, listeners out there, I am gonna give you a trigger warning that we're gonna talk about trigger warnings. So I expect some of you might, send in some comments. We want your comments. But frankly, we're diving in on this sensitive topic, cuz I'll tell you what, recently Cornell University rejected a resolution requiring faculty members to provide trigger warnings about classroom contact that students might find traumatic. And I'm done with that. I agree. What about you, Kristina?  Kristina Supler: I agree as well. as Susan, we have this conversation a lot. outside of higher ed, like in the real world, life doesn't come with a trigger warning, does it?  Susan Stone: I gotta, I wish it did. I wish it did. We're seeing it and come into play in our practice when we're trying to help students who've been accused of some form of misconduct or have hired us to help i. pursue their claim of misconduct. And we wanna talk to them and work through difficult subjects. Difficult subjects. They're like, you're triggering me. I'm like, dude, I'm your lawyer. I'm not your mommy. We gotta work through the materials.  Where's the grittiness?  Kristina Supler: on that note, let's jump in today we're really pleased to be joined by our guest, Amna Khalid. Who is an associate professor of history at Carleton College in Minnesota. Having grown up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Amna has a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks regularly on academic freedom, free speech, and campus politics, as well as at professional conferences across the country. Her essays and commentaries on these issues have appeared in various outlets, the Chronicle of Higher Education inside Higher Ed, and she hosts a podcast herself, an accompanying blog called Banished, which explores censorship in the past and present.  Welcome.  Professor Amna Khalid: Thank you for having me.  Susan Stone: Could you start with the definitions of what is a trigger warning? I think it's self-explanatory, but just let's set the terms.  Kristina Supler: For people maybe who don't know and what's all this talk? Yeah. So give us  Professor Amna Khalid: the basics.  Yeah. It's a good question actually, because even for people who know, I think they get a little bit confused between what is the trigger warning and what is providing context. So a trigger warning is really just basically a label, if you will, saying whatever you're going to see or read next is going to include certain things that might be disturbing. And then it'll enumerate the things. It'll say sexual harassment, sexual violence, racism, et cetera.  And it's the idea behind it in academic circles at least, or on university campuses has been that it prepares students who might be suffering from trauma to, to get ready for the difficult stuff and dive into it. And it's supposed to aid their learning. So that's the kind of, supposed benefit of trigger warnings.  And that differs very much I would say from something like providing context. I teach difficult material. I always give my students a head up, heads up and I'll say, we're going to be dealing with difficult things. And I explain to them why they may be difficult. But it's not this kind of standard trigger warning, suicide, trigger warning, racism, that kind of thing.  Susan Stone: Does the trigger warning work?  Professor Amna Khalid: Well, according to all the research, which there's plenty of now, when they first came onto university campuses, there, there wasn't much research. But according to the research that has been done, what's been found is that A, they don't work. Two in certain cases, actually, they can be, they've been found to be exacerbating the situation so they make things worse.  And from an academic point of view, I think what I would say is what bothers me the most is that it reduces what could be a complex text or material that you put in front of students to just being problematic. And then all you are doing is dealing with or anticipating the problem that's going to emerge. So it really reduces the learning experience and flattens it out.  Kristina Supler: So really what I'm hearing you say is that trigger warnings, the irony here is it's compromising scholarship. Would you agree?  Professor Amna Khalid: It's certainly compromising learning. Yes. And I think it's not very helpful for students. I think we live in a, in an age of entitlement where people feel, especially young people, and it's not really their fault. So I don't want this to sound like kids these days. That's not the idea. But we live in an atmosphere where they've been taught that they're entitled to not be offended. And this really does come into conflict with what we are trying to do at college.  College is a very different environment. We're preparing young adults for full adulthood and as citizens of the country. And this kind of Molly coddling unfortunately, gets in the way of what a proper education should be equipping them with.  Susan Stone: Amna, I grew up with, my parents are both first gen Americans, my grandparents, all four were immigrants escaping oppression. My grandmother suffered a mental breakdown after she learned that all of her family was killed in the Holocaust. Nobody survived. So I grew up with my parents talking about the Holocaust at a very early age. I saw videos of the concentration camps. I think I was six years old when I saw my first Holocaust video, and of course, grew up thinking about Anne Frank, wondering what her life was like in the attic, knowing about me. How do you and you yourself, grew up in Pakistan and that could not have been easy. How do we teach important history lessons so history doesn't repeat itself? without getting into the nitty gritty. How do you talk about the Holocaust without talking about concentration camps?  Professor Amna Khalid: You've said it. How can you possibly teach it, and how can it possibly have the kind of effect that it's supposed to have learning about the Holocaust? My colleague and I, we often say if you read about the Holocaust and you're not disturbed, there's something wrong with you. You're a sociopath. It's meant to disturb you. So the point is that I think all of this is in, particularly when it comes to the study of history and literature, somehow you really can't have the growth that you are looking for without contending with these kinds of difficult things. There's no short circuit to it. And having said that, the other thing I want to say is that I really don't like the way we now have this line. It's, it's the battle lines are being drawn between faculty and students. As if we're there to harm them. This language of harm is very, very destructive to the college experience, I'd argue. We much like the Hippocratic Oath, we don't, we don't come into our classrooms aiming to harm our students. We are there for an education and, to give them an education. And the point is that much of the kind of growth that we want to contend with, much of the kind of history that is absolutely essential to know, like you said, there's no way of doing it without actually confronting the difficult things head on. Susan Stone: How do we talk about abortion? How do we talk about our own history of the Civil War? How do we talk about apartheid? Utah and South Africa. I don't know how you talk about apartheid without getting into some difficult conversations.  Professor Amna Khalid: One of the things I think that needs to be said is that I think like in all professions, I think there are bad professors. So let's just establish that. I think that there will be professors who don't necessarily do things with the adequate amount of care. However, that is a minority, I would argue, and that doesn't entitle us to change the way we do education entirely. And so for that reason, I'd say yes, you can't talk about apartheid, you can't talk about the partition of India without discussing the gruesome violence and the sexual violence that entailed. You can't teach about the Holocaust without actually talking about what gas chambers were and what the implications of, that you know, of the Holocaust has been for the rest of history. I. I really, I'm struggling a little bit because truly we can't get away from it. I think we can teach with care and compassion. I think we can teach and equip our students to, to confront these very difficult things, but we can't take away the fundamental kind of distress that some of this material might cause. And in fact, that distress is what you need. It is our jobs. I tell my students, you should be leaving my class feeling immensely uncomfortable and uncertain. It's to cultivate that intellectual humility and to cultivate the capacity to deal with difficult things and understand them. that is the aim in a college classroom.  Kristina Supler: Certainly through the Covid Pandemic, there has been a tremendous rise in mental health issues and I don't think there's any dispute that our country and the world is experiencing a mental health crisis. What can universities and professors do to support students mental health and their wellbeing without compromising academic rigor?  Susan Stone: Or organic discussion?  Professor Amna Khalid: Well, one thing I'd say is I think universities do have a responsibility towards taking care of students who are suffering from mental health issues. And that happens not so much in the classroom as it happens through counseling services and other kinds of auxiliary services that we provide on campus. Professors are not there to, we're not trained. We're just not trained to be therapists. It's not that we want to be mean or anything. It's just that we do not have the requisite skills. Having said that, I think professors do have a responsibility. We talk about academic freedom. Academic freedom comes with academic responsibility. And one of our responsibilities is to introduce students to material in a fashion thatthat is in line with our disciplinary, professional ethics. And those professional ethics require us to, to be mindful that we are dealing with young adults. You wouldn't just spring things on them. How do we help? Having said all of that, I will also say that yes, we are in a time when I think we are facing a mental health crisis and sometimes I see certain students and I just think you are not ready for college yet. Susan Stone: oh, preach. We talk about that, but on the other hand, tell us about the courses that you teach that can be particularly challenging from an emotional perspective. What is, what classes do you teach?  Kristina Supler: What subject matters are you delving into?  Professor Amna Khalid: Sure. So my expertise is in South Asian history, Indian history, 19th century mainly. But I teach Indian history and South Asian history across, different periods. I also teach history of medicine, and most recently, in part because I feel students are not fully aware of what free speech means. I've started teaching a course, which is a global history of free expression. I can talk about that more.  But first about the two areas I highlighted earlier. South Asian history, I teach about colonialism in India. Some of those topics that come up, with regard to colonialism, how, issues of gender, were entailed, in, were part of the ways in which colonial rule worked. When we look at labor issues, those are all very difficult things to think about when we talk about racism in that context, when we talk about violence in that context. One of the places that it gets really tricky for me, is when I teach the partition of India in 1947 into two separate nation states, India and Pakistan.  And that was one of the most bloody moments in world history. There were about 15 million people that were displaced. And I believe it is one of the largest migrations in world his, in the history of the world and very little is known about it in the American context. School context. And one of the things that the partition, one of the kind of key features of it was the very gross and very brutal degree of sexual violence that was enacted. And most of it was on the bodies of women. Not exclusively, but most of it was on the bodies of women. And there's a whole kind of, rationale behind why that happened.  But as I teach that, we read some very distressing first person accounts of what happened. We read some very, s like secondhand accounts of what happened. And these are not easy to read. These are difficult readings. Sometimes we, when I teach about South Asia, I te teach about the pogroms that have happened in India since partition.  And there's been a lot of communal strife. We watch documentaries, which again have some first person narratives of some of the survivors of this kind of violence. And when I'm sitting there in my classroom watching these, what's interesting is there are times when, and I've seen them several times, you know that they're so disturbing that I too am distressed. And I have tears in my eyes.  But the point is I can't shy away from it and I have to confront it. It is through confronting things that we begin to think about how we can have solutions to them. Or how we can think about history not repeating itself. Similarly when I teach my history of medicine course, we talk about the kind of decimation of native populations in the new world. For instance, when Europeans first came through small pox. And we read some of the accounts of missionaries who were writing about what was going on, and then some of the kind of accounts that talk about manifest destiny and how these people felt that they were entitled to be in this land.  Those are not easy things to read and they shouldn't be easy to read. So that's like giving you a sense of some of the material that I'm delving into in my classrooms, eh, history courses tend not to be places where we talk about very happy things. Occasionally, but the bulk of the material that we're contending with is stuff that we find difficult. Things that we want to not happen again. And we want to dive into the full range of human experience for those,  Susan Stone: But maybe this would be a mid-level approach that I actually could get behind. When you draft your course description and your syllabus I think it should be in the course description that this course is gonna contain highly sensitive material. And that you have to somehow give the consumer, because let's remember, you do teach at a private college. They have the right to take your class or not take your class. And if they choose to take your class, you have the right to deliver your message within academic freedom. Would you agree with that on any level?  Professor Amna Khalid: I. At most levels, but I want to just take a little bit of issue with, I think part of the problem, even though I do teach at a private liberal arts college, I think part of the problem in private colleges and public institutions is the neo liberalization of higher education and the corporatization of higher education, which has resulted in this customer approach and this consumer approach. So when students begin to take that kind of customer approach, then it comes with the idea of the customer is always right. And this is where we see administrators bending backwards to try and accommodate their needs and what some people say, pandering to students. I don't wanna say pandering to students. But I do want to say like jumping at every kind of little complaint that comes. So when it comes to the syllabus and putting things in your syllabus, if you are taking a course that is called Plagues of Empire, and on the first day we go through the syllabus, which is what we do, and we talk about the topics that are going to be there, it really shouldn't at college level be any mystery what we're going to be diving into, right? If we're talking about colonial expansion in the new world, clearly we're talking about disease, we're talking about the decimation of people. This should not come as a surprise. And like I said, it's not I believe strongly. N that we should contextualize what we teach. And a good history teacher does that. A good literature teacher does that. We go through what exactly is coming up and how, and why I think the rationale of why we've included it is one that helps students figure out why they must contend with something.  Susan Stone: But by the way, can I just challenge you on something though? Sure. I love a challenge. This is Real Talk. And I'm not great at math. Did you know that Kristina?  Kristina Supler: yes. Yes. I did  Susan Stone: Not My thing. Okay. So when I was in college, if there was a class that required heavy math, I didn't take it. And that I just wanna say I was a consumer. This isn't high school. I had the right to pick my own major and pick my coursework.   Likewise in law school, I knew that there were certain areas of law that I was never gonna practice beyond the foundational year of one l. It was about me crafting an education that would fit the future that I want. Not everybody's interested in history. But they might have a history requirement and maybe they're not interested in Southeast Asia. Maybe they're interested in the history of chocolate. Now,I just think you do have some rights as a consumer when you're paying that level of money. Challenge.  Professor Amna Khalid: So let me just, break this down. It's, I'm not anti-choice, right? There are, of course, as a college level student, you take whatever course you want to take, including the things that are required. So to be very clear, my argument is not that you have to take every course and you must be okay, contending with difficult material, right? But when you, but there are certain things which are require requirements. Now, I'll come to the requirements in a minute. On the first day of class, most of my classes, which are electives, I, I say to my students, this is the material and it's not just the material. I also tell them about my pedagogy. I say, this is how I teach. And that may not be conducive to your learning style. And I appreciate that. And my recommendation to you is, since this is an elective, don't take this course if this doesn't work for you. So it's not that I'm saying everyone must be subjected to my way of teaching in the material that I pick come what may. I think you do have a degree of choice as a student that you have to contend with. As a professor, you have to contend with the fact that students may or may not take your courses. And that's fine. But once you enroll in a course, you also have to deal with the fact that the care, the syllabus is very carefully put together by professors for a pedagogical reason, for a particular learning outcome. And just because you are upset by it doesn't mean that you should be A entitled to opt out or too entitled to have an alternative assignment. There's no alternative to teaching the Holocaust. You have to contend with what that is. And I had a student the other day saying, could we just have a reading that made this point without actually going through all of this? And I was like, no, we just can't. It doesn't exist. And we know we, we don't do that.  Susan Stone: But I'm sure the people who went through the Holocaust wish they had an alternative reality. Right? Well, they just like,  Professor Amna Khalid: Exactly, and that's what I tell my students. I'm saying, if our ancestors, whichever context you're thinking about, or people before us had to live through these things, had to live through colonial oppression, had to live through the Holocaust, had to live through civil war. The very least we can do is read about it. Because in many ways that act of reading is about bearing witness to history. And we must not forget and we must make their suffering and their experiences relevant for our times today. Because it's so easy to forget. And the biggest trouble, I think we're facing in our times, is that there's great historical illiteracy. This kind of entitlement is actually, I would argue, born out of historical illiteracy. When people somehow feel that they're entitled to not be upset, it's like you clearly don't know what the world is about, the bigger world beyond you.  And it reminds me of James Baldwin, who has this quote, which is You have your own suffering and you think this is the worst it can be. I'm paraphrasing, I can't, his words are far more eloquent. And then you read. And then you read and you learn that the world has so much more suffering. It's about getting that perspective.  And that's what I think my business as an educator is to give my students that perspective, not just by looking at history. like I said, I worry that we've become historically illiterate. But also by placing our experiences in the wider global context. The US has a kind of exceptionalist narrative that has turned into an isolationist narrative. And I think at our own peril, we suffer.  Kristina Supler: Amna, you used the word perspective and that makes me think, in our own law practice, Susan and I, in recent years, we're doing a lot of work across the country with restorative justice and we've seen such a rise in cancel culture. oh my gosh, you took up  Susan Stone: amazing. Bless Karen. it's  Kristina Supler: really, disturbing what we're seeing in my opinion in terms of a rush to just judgment so often My question. For you Amna, is whether you think there's any correlation, in the rise of the use of trigger warnings on college campuses and the dramatic increase in cancel culture as  Susan Stone: well. Oh my gosh, Kristina, I was thinking that very same question and that it is, it's like the three monkeys hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Professor Amna Khalid: So I'll tell you, is there a connection? I think there is a connection. I'll also say I wrote a an article, a kind of longish article with my colleague Jeff Snyder on Cancel Culture, which is on my blog Banished, which is precisely looking atdebunking the myth that there is no cancel culture. People who challenge that, and I would ag argue it's very real and it's very alive.  Susan Stone: Oh, we know it's real.  Professor Amna Khalid: And I think there is a connection. I think we, this kind of lack of, we've become so unforgiving. And we've become so, like there's no room for mistakes. So I agree. There is this way in which we want to, it's not about justice now. It feels like it's about revenge. It's aboutwanting blood. People are out for blood. Nothing kind of satisfies them.  So I will say that I think there is a gross connection between these things. I think it's of a peace, this particular way of sensitivity and then this entitlement to not be offended to the point that you will not even consider the intent of what you're supposedly offended by and can demonst straight away. So I have a huge problem with this kind of idea of inte impact and intent being divorced, such that you are so concerned only with the impact that it has on you to the point that you don't even care how someone intended something. And again, I would say that kind of breeds this kind of naval gazing and this self involvement and that divorces you from the rest of the world. That divorces you from other people. So it makes it very difficult to build connections if you're so self-involved all the time.  Susan Stone: I just wanna give a plug. Because we could talk to you all day that you put some YouTube videos up with your buddy Jeff Snyder, one on trigger warnings and the difference, and another one on the difference between training and education. And they're amazing. I really enjoyed them. Thank you. And this  Kristina Supler: is, I enjoyed watching them as we got our thoughts in order and prepared for our dialogue with you today. And so I encourage all of our listeners to I love them. Check it out and check out your webpage to see your other materials there. There's lots of really interesting articles and videos and it was a real pleasure speaking with you today.  Professor Amna Khalid: Thank you so much. And just before I go, can I say one more thing? Of course. Yes. Yes. As someone who is in the space of higher education, and education more generally, I think the biggest threat, I will recognize that there are threats to academic freedom and learning that are coming from within the academy. So things like trigger warnings that try and curtail what you can and can't say. But I think the biggest threat is coming right now from state legislatures. That are trying to Yes. Ban what you can and can't study. If you ever want to have a conversation about that, I would be happy to come on again and talk about it. Because I think people need to understand why what is happening at the level of, state legislature is so wrong. Susan Stone: that's a whole other tune. Stay tuned. Stay tuned. Yeah. Cause we do wanna talk about, don't say period.  Professor Amna Khalid: Perfect. Yeah, we're on it. Period. period. Okay.  Kristina Supler: Don't say gay. Don't say gay. Gay. again, thank you so much and to our listeners, we hope you enjoyed today and come back for more. We're gonna do another episode with Amna delve into these other big, interesting issues. 

In this Roots of Reality Experiences episode, historian Ben Baumann talks with Dr. Amna Khalid about free speech on college campuses, the role identity plays in free speech debates, and how we can teach people to value free speech. Website- https://www.amnakhalid.com/ Twitter- https://twitter.com/AmnaUncensored?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Podcast- https://www.amnakhalid.com/podcast If you like the podcast, leave a review at: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/root…ty/id1466338710 Follow Roots of Reality on Social Media: Facebook- facebook.com/RootsofReality Twitter- twitter.com/_RootsofReality Instagram- instagram.com/rootsofreality/?hl=en YouTube- youtube.com/channel/UCvmG6sKFW9…isable_polymer=true (Views and memories stated by guests in interviews do not represent Roots of Reality)

In October 2022, ACTA's ATHENA Roundtable Conference in Washington, DC was highlighted by two panels featuring extraordinary higher education thought leaders. Today we present the first of those panels – headlined as DIVERSITY DONE RIGHT, and hosted by our good friend Jonathan Rauch – Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Joining Jonathan are panelists Glenn Loury, Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences at Brown University; John Chisholm, former member of the MIT Corporation; Dorian Abbot, Associate Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago; and Amna Khalid, Associate Professor of History, Carleton College. Together, they drill into the impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies on higher education, discussing how this trend has had an outsized influence on the courses that universities teach, the professors they hire, and the shared understanding of our nation's history.

Today's episode features a conversation between ACTA's Vice President of Policy, Bradley Jackson, and Amna Khalid, Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College in Minnesota. Professor Khalid specializes in modern South Asian history and the history of medicine, and is also one of the nation's foremost advocates of academic freedom and campus free speech. Having grown up in Pakistan under a series of military dictatorships, she has long harbored a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks frequently on academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges, universities, and professional conferences. She has published some very significant and widely read pieces on bias reporting systems, trigger warnings, and the trouble with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) training in college settings. Professor Khalid also hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called Banished, which explores censorship in the past and present. 

A faculty member at Hamline University lost her job. Twelve staffers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were murdered. And Salman Rushdie was repeatedly stabbed. All of them offended certain people's religious sensitivities. On today's show, we are joined by Amna Khalid and Michael Moynihan to discuss the risks and costs of teaching, talking, writing, and creating art about religion, particularly Islam. We also discuss the recent #TwitterFiles reporting. Amna Khalid is an associate professor of history at Carleton College and host of the podcast “Banished.” Michael Moynihan is a writer, reporter, and co-host of “The Fifth Column” podcast. Show notes: New York Times: “A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.” by Vimal Patel The offending image “Most of All, I Am Offended as a Muslim” by Amna Khalid “Hamline Student Newspaper (the Oracle) Removed Published Defense of Lecturer Who Showed Painting of Muhammad” by Eugene Volokh “We must stand up to Iran's threats to free speech” by FIRE's Sarah McLaughlin (reflecting on the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks) “Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary” by Matt Taibbi www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

When Dave Chappelle's recent show at First Avenue in Minneapolis was cancelled amid protests, it reignited the debate around cancel culture, with all of the old arguments resurfacing once again.So the timing could not have been better for Tara's guests on today's podcast, who published a comprehensive essay that same week on Substack, titled “Cancel Culture: It's real and on the rise, on the left and the right.” The piece examines the dominant myths about this phenomenon — and debunks them.Jeff Snyder is professor of educational studies at Carleton College, and Amna Khalid is a history professor there, as well as the host of the Banished podcast on Substack.

Kat is joined by Amna Khalid for a discussion of the Sonmez-Weigel media meltdown and what it means for free speech.Links:Amna's Substack: Banished by Booksmart StudiosThe Washington Post Fires Felicia Sonmez Amid Week of Infighting'I'm Radioactive'Court tosses out reporter's discrimination suit against Washington Post - POLITICO This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit femchaospod.substack.com/subscribe

Tucker Carlson claimed that tacos are American. Rick Bayless was attacked for appropriating Mexican cuisine. Jamie Oliver hired a team of cultural appropriation specialists to advise him when writing recipes, to make sure he didn’t run afoul of the new culinary orthodoxy.What’s going on in the restaurant world and at our dinner tables? Who exactly owns a cuisine, and why do we get so proprietary when it comes to food? On this week’s Banished, Amna Khalid talks with Constanza Ocampo-Raeder, professor of anthropology at Carleton College, about food, national cuisines and the politics of cultural appropriation.Note from Amna: Banished is taking an indefinite hiatus, but you can always continue to follow my thoughts on Twitter @AmnaUncensored, and my work at amnakhalid.com. Thank you for listening! This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Some months ago, Tara discovered a podcast that gripped her from its very first episode. That podcast is Banished, from Substack's Booksmart Studios, and it is a deeply thoughtful and nuanced look at the rising tide of censorship and intolerance. Its host is a remarkable academic who is fiercely committed to open inquiry. Amna Khalid is an historian and a professor at Carleton College. She is a prolific writer of essays, often with her colleague Jeff Snyder, on the big issues of our time — including academic freedom, free speech, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and the controversy over Critical Race Theory in the classroom. Amna Khalid joins Tara to talk about how her early years in Pakistan fuelled her hunger for free expression, why she speaks out about intellectual conformity on campus, and where she gets her hope from.

Amna Khalid talks with Laura Bates, Professor of English at Indiana State University and founder of Shakespeare in Shackles — a prison program for those in solitary confinement — about the Bard’s decline in the modern curriculum. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

My Humanities students and I discuss Roosevelt Montas' book latest book RESCUING SOCRATES and his interview with Amna Khalid. It is my hope that the insight shared by these students will inspire others to take a second look at classics and the canon.

One of the most popular musicals of all time, Grease seems to have fallen from grace. Most recently, two schools in Australia were planning to stage a joint production of the musical this year, but shelved it when students complained that the content of the musical was “offensive.”Why has the musical come under fire? Is it time to retire it? On this week’s Banished, Amna Khalid speaks with Scott Miller, founder and artistic director of New Line Theater, an alternative musical theater company in St. Louis. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

What does it mean to be woke? Has the word problematic become problematic? Today in the Valley, John McWhorter talks with Banished host Amna Khalid about the fraught vocabulary of modern censorship. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lexiconvalley.substack.com/subscribe

Twitter is going to become 8chan. At least, that's what a recent episode of the popular radio program “On the Media” suggests will happen if Elon Musk successfully buys Twitter.Musk promised to bring greater free speech protections to the social media platform. But where Musk sees an opportunity for more freedom, some see the potential for too much freedom. On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, Matt Taibbi, Nadine Strossen, and Amna Khalid discuss what “On the Media” got wrong and what they got really wrong in their episode “Ghost in the Machine.” (No, “On the Media,” Twitter will not become a platform for child pornography.) This is the second time we have addressed bad free speech arguments from “On the Media.” The first time was last September, when this same group responded to the episode, “Constitutionally Speaking.” Matt Taibbi is the author of four New York Times bestselling books. He writes a popular Substack newsletter, TK News. Nadine Strossen is a professor of law, emerita at New York Law School and served for 17 years as the president of the ACLU. Amna Khalid is an associate professor of history at Carleton College and the host of a new podcast called “Banished.” www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Earlier this year, St. Olaf College’s Institute for Freedom and Community invited controversial bioethicist Peter Singer for a virtual conversation titled “The Point of View of the Universe.” This was an invitation in keeping with the mission of the institute, which is to explore “diverse ideas about politics, markets, and society” and “challenge presuppositions, question easy answers, and foster constructive dialogue.” Shortly after the event was announced, St. Olaf’s disability office sent out a campus-wide email, stating that it: “unequivocally reject[s] Peter Singer’s views on people with disabilities, which are harmful to our values, mission and ongoing efforts to provide an inclusive environment for our students, faculty and staff.”This week came news that the IFC’s director, Professor Edmund Santurri, would no longer helm the institute. His directorship had been rescinded. In today’s special episode, Amna Khalid speaks with Santurri about what exactly led to his termination. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In fall 2021, the philosophy department at Rhodes College invited the bioethicist Peter Singer to speak to the school. A controversial and important figure, the New Yorker has called Singer the “world’s most influential living philosopher,” and in 2005, Time Magazine named him one of most influential people alive.But as one of the world’s foremost utilitarian philosophers, some of Singer’s positions have earned him detractors. In the build-up to his talk on “Pandemic Ethics,” several Rhodes students and faculty waged a campaign to have him disinvited on the grounds that “his reprehensible beliefs … deny the very humanity of people with disabilities.”At a time when other schools like MIT were cancelling speakers deemed problematic, the philosophy department at Rhodes stood firm. In today’s episode, host Amna Khalid speaks with department chair Rebecca Tuvel and professor Daniel Cullen about how and why they refused to disinvite Singer. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In February 2020, The Lancet, a leading British medical journal, published a statement by more than two dozen scientists condemning the hypothesis that COVID-19 had leaked from a Chinese lab — effectively halting scientific inquiry along those lines. But a handful of researchers refused to rule out the so-called “lab-leak” theory and soon found themselves shunned and ostracized by their colleagues.Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and then-postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, was one such researcher. This week on Banished, host Amna Khalid talks with Chan about the politicization of science.More from Booksmart Studios: This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and host of the podcast The Michael Shermer Show, was a regular writer for Scientific American for 18 years. With more than 200 monthy columns under his belt, he was hoping to match Stephen Jay Gould’s record run of 300 at Natural History and was due to hit his target within a few years. In December, 2018, however, he was abruptly let go.In this episode of Banished, Amna Khalid talks to Shermer about the souring of his relationship with SciAm, the importance of skepticism and the rise of censoriousness in recent years. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Badiucao is a Chinese political dissident and artist who self-exiled to Australia in 2009. In the buildup to the Beijing Olympics, he was catapulted into the limelight for a series of protest posters that at first glance seem like advertisements for the Games. On closer inspection, however, the images are a scathing visual commentary on the Chinese government’s human rights violations and the role of the Olympic Games in legitimizing the regime. In this episode of Banished, Amna Khalid speaks with Badiucao about his work, his activism and his life as a dissident. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Over the past five years or so, free speech — like so many other topics — has been weaponized for use in the culture wars. Far right media sources have embraced the free speech mantle, arguing that liberals and progressives who dominate higher education are silencing conservative voices. For many Republicans, “free speech” means having the right to express an opinion, regardless of how unfounded and unsubstantiated it may be. As a consequence, many on the left now incorrectly view free speech as a right-wing ideal.In this episode of Banished, Amna Khalid discusses the history and legacy of free speech with Jacob Mchangama, a Danish lawyer, human-rights advocate and author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, newly published by Basic Books. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Phillips has taught history at Collin College in Texas for the past 14 years, but after speaking out about the school’s anti-masking policy his contract was not renewed. Which makes him the fourth faculty member to lose his job there since Neil Matkin assumed the role of College President in 2015.Amna Khalid spoke with Phillips about what led to his firing, and about academic freedom more generally in American higher education. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

During her visit back to Pakistan in December, Banished host Amna Khalid spoke with Salima Hashimi — artist, curator, activist and former principal of the National College of Arts, the premier Art school of Pakistan. They discussed the state of free expression in Pakistan under the 11-year military regime of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who was a key ally of the United States in the Cold War; how things are now under a democratically elected government; and how she sees cancellation attempts to constrain free speech in the U.S. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In the age of “cancel culture,” it comes as no surprise that the publishing industry is cowering before demands to remove “problematic” books. Dr. Seuss’s estate recently announced that it will no longer allow the publication and licensing of six of his books because of the racist and stereotypical imagery used for minority groups.Should these books no longer be published? Does a single stereotypical representation justify the pulling of a book? And who gets to decide? On this episode of Banished, Amna Khalid discusses Dr. Seuss’s life and legacy with Brian Jay Jones, author of Becoming Dr. Seuss: Theodor Geisel and the Making of an American Imagination. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Broadway-bound songsmith Frank Loesser wrote “Baby It’s Cold Outside” as a call-and-response duet for he and his wife to perform at parties. Several years later, the tune made its way into a movie and soon took the Christmas canon by storm. But is it a “rapey” relic of a bygone era that should be buried permanently in the winter snow? Amna Khalid investigates.Happy New Year! In the warm and generous spirit of the holidays, we’re offering 30% off a subscription to Booksmart Studios until the end of the year. You’ll get extra written content and access to bonus segments and written transcripts like this one. More importantly, you’ll be championing all the work we do here. Become a member of Booksmart Studios today. Thank you for your support.* TRANSCRIPT *MAN: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Do we have any more requests?WOMAN: Baby, It's Cold Outside!MAN: I think we can make that happen. Who wants to take the duet?AMNA KHALID: In the new Netflix rom-com Love Hard, Josh volunteers to sing a duet with his girlfriend — his pretend girlfriend, actually — Natalie:JOSH: Natalie and I got this one, Dad.KHALID: The two are out caroling with his family in snowy Lake Placid.NATALIE: Over my cold, dead, lifeless body. I am not singing that — that is like the sexual assault theme song.KHALID: Natalie refuses at first to sing that Christmas song, because, you know, it's that song — the one in which a man is possibly pressuring a woman into spending the night. But Josh has an idea.JOSH: Look, this is what we’re gonna do, okay? You just do your part. I will change my lyrics so the song doesn't sound so, uh, rapey. NATALIE: Fine, let's just get this over with.JOSH: Dad, hit it. 🎶NATALIE: I really can’t stayJOSH: No problem, there’s the doorNATALIE: I’ve got to go awayJOSH: I hear you, say no moreNATALIE: This evening has beenJOSH: Totally consensualNATALIE: So very niceJOSH: I hope you get home safe tonightKHALID: It's become fashionable in recent years to alter the lyrics of Baby, It's Cold Outside to make them less “rapey,” as the character Josh put it. Others have pushed back, however. The song, they claim, is about a desirous woman battling not the unwanted advances of her date but the unsolicited judgment of society.🎶LYNN GARLAND: I really can't stayFRANK LOESSER: But Baby, it's cold outsideGARLAND: I've got to go awayLOESSER: But Baby, it's cold outsideGARLAND: This evening has been —LOESSER: Been hoping that you'd drop inGARLAND: So very niceLOESSER: I'll hold your hands, they're just like iceKHALID: I'm Amna Khalid. On this episode of Banished, The Bother with Baby.CHRIS WILLMAN: The song was written in 1944 as a song that Frank Loesser and his wife originally sang at a housewarming party.KHALID: Chris Willman is a longtime music journalist, currently at Variety.WILLMAN: Kind of like, the night’s about to end, we’re about to kick you out, and here’s a song about whether to stay or whether to go.KHALID: Wow, I would have loved to be at that party.WILLMAN: Oh, yeah. And apparently they performed it over a period of years to the point that, when it was licensed for a film in 1949, Frank Loesser’s wife resented it. She may have been joking, but she was resentful that it was no longer their private thing because they were such a hit on the party circuit with it.KHALID: The song existed in private for five years, sung only by Loesser and his wife Lynn Garland. The two made one of the very first recordings of the song, which we’re listening to now. 🎶LOESSER: Baby, make my conscious your guideGARLAND: I really can't stay LOESSER: Oh, Baby, don't hold outGARLAND AND LOESSER: Ah but it's cold outsideLOESSER/GARLAND in the clearKHALID: Baby was evocative of the holidays, it was redolent of cigarettes and booze and, yes, it was sexually suggestive.GARLAND: And it was our song.KHALID: That’s Lynn Garland from the documentary Heart and Soul: The Life and Music of Frank Loesser:GARLAND: And we became the most desired guests at parties from coast to coast. And we never failed to slam.KHALID: Garland recalled once that, "Parties were built around our being the closing act.”🎶LOESSER: I thrill when you touch my handGARLAND: But don't you see? LOESSER: How can you do this thing to me?KHALID: It was merely the opening act, however, for the song itself. Baby was such a sensation at private gatherings that Loesser worked it into his score for the 1949 movie Neptune's Daughter. This would be the first time anyone heard the song outside of someone’s living room.WILLMAN: And when it went public in 1949 it kind of exploded. Immediately, people started covering it. My favorite version of the song, by Johnny Mercer and Margaret Whiting. I think that was the biggest hit anyone had with it that year.🎶WHITING: I really can't stayMERCER:  But Baby, it's cold outsideWHITING: I've got to go awayMERCER: But Baby, it's cold outsideWHITING: This evening has beenMERCER: Been hoping that you'd drop inWHITING: So very niceMERCER: I'll hold your hands, they're just like iceKHALID: No fewer than 10 separate recordings were made in 1949 alone. Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Doris Day, Dinah Shore. They all put their stamp on the song, but the version you’re probably most familiar with is the one that Chris Willman prefers. The one you hear on adult contemporary radio stations every December, when they switch over to an all holiday format. The classic recording by Johnny Mercer and Margaret Whiting.🎶WHITING: To break the spell MERCER: I'll take your hat, your hairs looks swellWHITING: I ought to say no, no, no sir MERCER: Mind if I move in closer?WILLMAN: I like it partly because it sounds like 1949. It really puts you in that era where these people are really playing out these roles. I think when people do modern versions it sounds kind of ridiculous because you don’t really buy it, that they have to go through this dance. It’s coming through the same radio where we hear all these incredibly sexually — not just suggestive but explicit songs — and so it’s hard to hear modern singers and still have that sense of reserve and that there are these restrictions on what they have to go through. And for some reason the sexual heat seems more intensified to me when it sounds like it’s happening in that era. Johnny Mercer sounds horny when he’s doing it.KHALID: Yeah!WILLMAN: And Margaret Whiting too. And then, you know, when you hear Willie Nelson and Norah Jones doing it, it’s just not the same.KHALID: And that’s precisely the question for many modern listeners of the song. It may be apparent that Mercer feels the “sexual heat” — but what about Margaret Whiting? Is she feeling it too? That all depends on how you choose to interpret the lyrics, or, in the case of Neptune’s Daughter, what you choose to see on the screen.🎶ESTHER WILLIAMS: I really can't stayRICARDO MONTALBAN: Baby, it's cold outsideWILLIAMS: I've got to go awayMONTALBAN: But Baby, it's cold outsideKHALID: In the 1949 movie, Ricardo Montalban repeatedly tugs at the arm of Esther Williams. He pulls her gently back onto the couch and even removes her hat and stole when she puts them on to leave. To 21st century sensibilities, this pas de deux can seem more predatory than playful. But that's not likely the way that audiences viewed it 70 plus years ago, when Baby won best original song at the 22nd Academy Awards.COLE PORTER: The winner is Frank Loser for “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” (Applause)KHALID: That was Cole Porter presenting Loesser with his one and only Oscar, for a song that stumbled from parlor to parlor on the party circuit, into the motion pictures and onto your Spotify holiday playlist. Or maybe you’ve deleted it from the playlist. Because it’s that song. Chris Willman.WILLMAN: And I never imagined it being controversial, in my naïvete. And then I remember going to an Aimee Mann Christmas show, sometime in the early 2000s I think. And she was having a dialogue onstage with a comedian, and they started talking about quote/unquote rapey the song was and why doesn’t anybody notice that — comically taking off on some of the more sort of, possibly predatorial aspects that people might pick up on in the song. And then all of a sudden in the late 2000s, this becomes a serious topic of debate. And that kind of shocked me, how seriously people were taking the idea that the song was quote-unquote “rapey.”REPORTER: A Bay-area radio station has now yanked the song from its airwaves.REPORTER: Well you won’t be hearing it on WDOK in Cleveland. The radio station’s decided to pull the song from their playlist.WOMAN: You know, it’s a sweet, flirty, fun holiday song.REPORTER: Is it a song about Christmas or creepy behavior? That’s the debate that has led radio station KOIT to ban a popular holiday tune from the airwaves.REPORTER: And you know what? It’s giving people yet another thing to disagree about.WILLMAN: Really in the late 2000s was when it reached peak controversy with radio stations suddenly banning it. The CBC said they were taking it off the air in Canada. There were stations in San Francisco and Denver and somewhere else that said we’re getting rid of the song. But certainly there were lots of serious essays being written too, from a feminist perspective, about how times have changed, people need to recognize that the song celebrates sexual coersion. And then there was the backlash to the backlash from people like me, saying: No, this song is not what you think it is or what you’ve come to believe it is. It’s actually very feminist, very sex-positive to use kind of a corny term.KHALID: According to Chris Willman and other fans of the song, it’s a mistake to interpret the song as if it were written today. Not only is that ahistorical, it’s simply incorrect. Simply put, the song doesn’t mean what many think it means.WILLMAN: People who read it as a date rape song would seize on things like What’s in this drink? As if the guy had placed a drug in her drink. Which is a very contemporary reading because nobody was talking about date rape drugs in 1949, and the, you know, real interpretation of the lyric is that it’s just a strong drink. But reading further into it, she’s trying to pass off the excuse for her own sexual desire onto these things like, “It must be the alcohol affecting me.” But she is the one saying maybe just a cigarette more or maybe half a drink more. It’s really about her putting up every excuse she can think of for why people might not think it was right that she spent the night. You know, one of the key lines to me is I ought to say no, no, no. She’s not saying I want to say no, no, no. It’s I ought to. Just in that word choice alone I think you understand where the song is coming from circa 1949, those expectations of society.🎶ELLA FITZGERALD: I really can't stayLOUIS JORDAN: But Baby, it's cold outsideFITZGERALD: I got to go awayJORDAN: But Baby, it's cold outsideKHALID: In the mid-1940s, the idea that a woman would desire casual sex was taboo. For her to say as much explicity would be deemed “prurient” by network censors, and so Loesser had no choice but to employ subtext. 🎶FITZGERALD: And father will be pacing the floorJORDAN: Listen to the fireplace roarKHALID: In the version you’re listening to now, also recorded in 1949, you hear Ella Fitzgerald chafing at the double standard, when her reputation as a Lady would be ruined if word got out that she stayed the night. Meanwhile, Louis Jordan is free to plead his case for a one-night stand.🎶BETTY CARTER: I really can't stay RAY CHARLES: Betty, it's cold outsideKHALID: Loesser uses musical counterpoint to underscore that Baby is more conversation than conquest. It’s a technique you may recall from his opening number to Guys and Dolls — but his mastery of it is evident in the brilliant 1961 recording of Baby by Ray Charles and Betty Carter. Here Carter emerges from the stifling hypocrisy of the 1950s onto the cusp of a more liberated decade. Both Charles and Carter are softly stepping onto each others’ toes as they negotiate their roles and desires.🎶CHARLES: Beautiful, please don’t hurry.CARTER: Well, maybe just a half a drink moreCHARLES: Why don’t you put some records on while I pour CARTER: The neighbors might thinkCHARLES: Betty, it’s bad out there CARTER: Say, what’s in this drink? CHARLES: No cabs to be had out thereKHALID: Carter is perhaps weary of having to pretend and — without her friends and family fretting and finger-wagging — might make known her own sexual appetite. That’s what Lady Gaga did when she and Joseph Gordon-Levitt gender swapped the parts back in 2013 on the Muppets Holiday Spectacular:🎶GORDON-LEVITT: I really can't stay GAGA:  But Baby, it's cold outsideGORDON-LEVITT: I've got to go away GAGA: But Baby, it's cold outsideGORDON-LEVITT: This evening has been GAGA: Been hoping that you'd drop inGORDON-LEVITT: So very nice GAGA: I'll hold your hands, they're just like iceKHALID: But Gaga wasn’t the first woman to bare her libido in the song.WILLMAN: The woman who helped popularize the song, Zooey Deschanel in Elf, she’s part of a duo called She & Him. They introduced it into their repertoire when they made a Christmas album (and they’re doing a tour this year) where they did a role reversal on the song. I think that’s alright. I mean, there’s a tradition of doing a role reversal with the song that goes back to the original movie, Neptune’s Daughter, where first you see Ricardo Montalban and Esther Williams doing it the way you know it. And then there’s a more comedic reprise where Red Skelton and I believe Betty Garrett do it and she’s virtually attacking him to the point that it almost seems really predatorial in that regard.🎶SKELTON: I really can't stay GARRETT:  But Baby it's cold outsideSKELTON: I've got to go away GARRETT: But Baby it's cold outsideSKELTON: This evening has been GARRETT: Been hoping that you'd drop inSKELTON: So very nice GARRETT: I'll hold your hands, they're just like iceWILLMAN: But then to hear Zooey Deschanel say that the only way they could do the song on their Christmas tour was to do the role reversal … made me kind of sad.KHALID: For those who find Baby creepy, a role reversal, it turns out, is not the only way to perform the song. I said at the beginning that it’s become fashionable in recent years to simply rewrite the song. In 2016, Lydia Liza and Josiah Lemanski performed their updated lyrics on the Minnesota radio station The Current.🎶LIZA: I really can't stayLEMANSKI: Baby I'm fine with thatLIZA: I've got to go away LEMANSKI: Baby I'm cool with thatLIZA: This evening has been LEMANSKI: Been hoping that you get home safeLIZA: So very nice LEMANSKI: I'm glad you had a real good timeLIZA: My mother will start to worry LEMANSKI: Call her so she knows you are comingLIZA: Father will be pacing the floor LEMANSKI: Better get your car a-hummingLIZA: So really I'd better scurry LEMANSKI: Take your time.LIZA: Should I use the front or back door?LEMANSKI: Which one are you pulling towards more?KHALID: The video of this performance has been viewed well over a million times on YouTube alone. And that romantic comedy Love Hard — the one in which Josh changes the lyrics to make them less “rapey” — that’s been showing up on lists of the year’s best Christmas movies.🎶NATALIE: Or maybe just a half a drink more.JOSH: Slow down, that’s quite a pour. NATALIE: The neighbors might think JOSH: Just my old friend Troy NATALIE: Say what's in this drink? JOSH: It’s just Lemon La CroixNATALIE: I wish I knew how JOSH: To take a hint? NATALIE: To break the spell JOSH: Do you know how to spell farewell? NATALIE: I ought to say no, no, no. JOSH: I’ll call you an Uber, they’re close. NATALIE: At least I can say I tried. JOSH: I feel like you’re not trying at all. NATALIE: I really can’t stay.JOSH: Well, maybe just go out. NATALIE: But Baby, it’s cold outside. JOSH: But Baby, just go outside. KHALID: Some of these rewritten versions are admittedly clever and funny, but I confessed to Chris Willman that the controversy took me quite by surprise.KHALID: And in part, I should say, it’s because of where I come from. You know, I come from Pakistan and I’ve grown up with Bollywood films — Bollywood films of the 70s and 80s — and, in that time period, any kind of explicit reference to sex or a sexual encounter or desire was, of course, not considered socially acceptable. Hence all these songs in Bollywood films. That’s their purpose, it’s to be suggestive. And this trope of one of them saying stay — usually the guy — and the girl saying No I must go because look at what the world will say if I stay is so commonplace in Bollywood. Have we gone to the other extreme where we’ve lost the sense of what constitutes romance and by overemphasizing the need for explicit consent and reading everything through that lens?WILLMAN: Well it’s funny, that comes up when people have done rewritten lyrics, where they’re emphasizing consent. And I think initially that was done  satirically, like at every turn the guy is saying, Well, yeah, maybe you should go … Get outta here, I’ll … sure, I’ll call Uber. And I thought that was a funny take on it, but then you see people seriously rewriting it. And first off the song is hilarious. Let’s just say that. It’s a comedic song. And when you’re gonna take the comedy out of it, along with the dance of seduction or agreement or whatever is happening and say, Would you sign this contract please? There’s not much of a song at that point. You know, it’s such a masterpiece, really, of songwriting — the way the rhyme scheme happens between the two different parts simultaneously back and forth, you know it’s very sophisticated as a duet. To take all that away and say that nothing is important about the rhymes, or the themes or the general tone of the song is really to lose the point.🎶“Baby, It’s Cold Outside” (1949) in DanishWILLMAN: You know, it holds such a unique place in the Christmas canon, even though it’s not a Christmas song, because it is flirty and racy and you just hear so much Christmas music that is not really about romance. Or if it is, it's extremely schmaltzy. To hear two people come on who are suddenly expressing real feelings in these very funny and literate lyrics, there’s nothing else on the radio like it. There’s nothing that funny or that sexy in the Christmas music canon, and so even the people that think they should be offended by it can’t bring themselves to get rid of it.KHALID: And that’s perhaps the song’s single greatest contradiction. Why hold onto it at all if we have to censor it? And yet there it is, year after year. More than 450 covers of the song and counting. Role reversals and rewrites and translations, including this Danish language recording that is among the very oldest, from 1949.If you liked what you heard today, help us spread the word and support our work at Booksmart Studios. Become a paying subscriber and you will get access to full interviews, bonus segments, written columns and more.Don’t forget to rate what you've heard here today on whichever platform you listen on and leave a comment so we know what you think. Our success here at Booksmart depends as much on you as on us.Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And I, as always, am Amna Khalid.CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this piece, the singer of the duet with Ray Charles was misidentified as Betty Page. The actual singer was Betty Carter. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Last week, Harvard announced it will extend its test-optional admissions policy for at least another four years. The stated reason is that the pandemic has reduced access to test sites — but this decision has added grist to the test-elimination mill. The movement to do away with standardized testing is predicated on the idea that tests are culturally and racially biased, and that they don’t reflect the true abilities of students. Some even refer to them as proxies for privilege.On this episode of Banished, Amna Khalid discusses testing and meritocracy with Jeff Snyder, associate professor of educational studies at Carleton College. Snyder argues that scrapping admissions tests won’t make a dent in two of the biggest advantages held by more affluent students: legacy status and athletic skills. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Author and professor Ashley Hope Pérez gained prominence for her novel Out of Darkness, which explores themes of segregation, love and family against the backdrop of the 1937 New London School explosion. The book won rave reviews from critics and the Américas Award from the Library of Congress, but has recently become embroiled in controversy after calls to ban it from school libraries. Today on Banished, host Amna Khalid speaks with Pérez about the firestorm surrounding her book, and the rise in concerted efforts from a certain part of the political spectrum to censor literature that might highlight the troubling history of gender and race relations in the United States. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Scapegoating particular communities during an epidemic — be it tuberculosis, HIV or COVID-19 — is nothing new. Outbreaks of disease are often accompanied by the demonizing of some portion of humanity that is supposedly the source of the contagion. They are to blame.Must it be this way? Why do we feel the need to point the finger at each other when threatened like this — even when the threat is ultimately not from people but from viruses or bacteria? And what does this sort of blanket indictment during a health crisis have in common with cancel culture? Host Amna Khalid discusses these pressing issues with Nicholas Christakis, the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Internal Medicine & Biomedical Engineering at Yale University, and the author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live, now out in paperback.TRANSCRIPTDONALD TRUMP: Covid-19 — that name gets further and further away from China, as opposed to calling it the “Chinese virus.” [Cheers]...it’s got all different names: Wuhan…...Chinese virus......Kung flu, yes. [Cheers] Kung flu...AMNA KHALID: That was former president Donald Trump taking every opportunity to suggest that the coronavirus was spread by China — rather than by American apathy and incompetence. Of course, scapegoating particular communities during an epidemic — be it tuberculosis, HIV or Covid — is nothing new. Outbreaks of disease are often accompanied by the demonizing of some portion of humanity that is supposedly the source of the contagion. They are to blame.Must it be this way? Why do we feel the need to point the finger at each other when threatened like this — even when the threat is ultimately not from people but from viruses or bacteria? And what does this sort of blanket indictment during a health crisis have in common with cancel culture?Joining me to talk about the connection is Nicholas Christakis, the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Internal Medicine & Biomedical Engineering education at Yale University. A sociologist and a physician, Christakis directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale and is the author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live. He is also a keen critic of cancel culture, especially as it's playing out on college campuses.Nicholas, thanks for being here.NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS: Thank you so much for having me.KHALID: We’re in the middle of a pandemic. Some people think we're towards the end of it, but I believe you describe it as towards the end of the beginning of the pandemic, which I, as an historian of medicine, would very much agree with having studied how epidemics play out. But shortly after we were hit by COVID, you wrote a most phenomenal book called Apollo's Arrow, and I was struck by how quickly you were able to put together what you were seeing, both of how the virus was progressing and the kinds of ways in which it was impacting our society. So can you tell me a little bit about what led you to write that book?CHRISTAKIS: What happened was I had a long standing collaboration with some Chinese scientists. We had been studying phone data that tracks people's social interactions and their movements, doing a bunch of research on different topics. And it dawned on us in January of 2020 we could use that data to study the spread of the virus. And we scrambled, beginning January 15th, to write a paper that was eventually published in April in the journal Nature about how the flow of people through Wuhan perfectly predicted the timing, intensity, and location of the epidemic throughout China through the end of February. So as a result of this, I was paying attention to this virus very early on. And as a result of that, became aware of the fact that on January 24th the Chinese promulgated regulations that required 930 million people to stay at home. In other words, the Chinese saw in the virus an enemy of sufficient magnitude that they basically detonated a social nuclear weapon to stop it. And this really got my attention. Of course, I knew the history of epidemic disease having studied that. And I was following what Chinese, and soon after, Italian scientists were putting online. It was very clear to me this was going to be a serious epidemic. And meanwhile, our public discourse was very minimalizing. The president of the United States was saying it'll go away, which is ridiculous. Any expert knew that was false. So I began to send out Twitter threads with sort of basic EPI 101 information about here's what happens with respiratory pandemics. Here's what's going to unfold and so on. And to my amazement, several of those went viral. I think there was a hunger in the United States for sort of basic scientific information about respiratory pandemics. By the middle of March, I began to redirect all the efforts of my lab towards the pandemic — or most of the efforts, not all — March the 15th, I started writing the book and it was due July the 15th, four months later. That was Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live. And the reason I was able to write the book so swiftly, I think, is that so much is known about respiratory pandemics. I mean, the thing to understand is that this experience so many of us are having and this way we've come to live right now, which feels so alien and unnatural, is not. Plagues are not new to our species. They're just new to us. We think this is crazy — what's happening — but that's ridiculous. Humans have been interacting with pandemic disease for centuries. I mean, they're in the Bible. They're in the Iliad. The canonical work of Western fiction begins with a plague. They’re in Shakespeare. They’re in Cervantes. This is a part of the human experience. And there is therefore expertise — both human experience and in our religious traditions, in our literary traditions and also scientific expertise, as you mentioned, in medical historians, in epidemiologists. People know. We know about these things. Therefore, pretty much everything that has happened, almost without exception, has been foreseeable.KHALID: So, as I was reading the book, Nicholas — and for our listeners, I should mention that the paperback version of the book has just come out with a new preface. And if you're listening to this episode, you should go out and get a version because there are substantive differences, I think, between the hardback and the paperback. But I want to go back to the book itself. And when I was reading it, what I was struck by was how you explain these really complicated, scientific things in a very accessible fashion. But to my heart, what speaks to me is how you bring precisely what you mentioned — the history of how humans have coped with pandemics — into the frame. Because in our own lifetimes, we've been fortunate in that we have not seen anything of this scale. We've seen, you know, the SARS-1. We've seen a few other — Ebola. But, particularly in the U.S., we've been pretty insulated, I'd say, compared to other historical times. And I just found it fascinating how you were able to weave that into a discussion of what's happening right now. One of the things that I do when I'm teaching my history of medicine course is I tell my students that historians are interested in epidemics precisely because they reveal the fault lines of society. It's like that pressure point where everything that is papering over differences kind of evaporates and you can see what's going on. And we saw that happen this time too. Particular communities get scapegoated. Can you say a little bit about that? I mean, we've heard our prior president talk about the virus as a “China virus,” as “kung flu.” There is demonization of certain peoples.CHRISTAKIS: One of the things that's so interesting about plagues is that they have a biological and epidemiological existence, but, as you're pointing out, they also have a sociological existence. They bring with them certain psychological, economic, and sociological impacts, which are pretty much invariant. For example, plagues are a time of denial and lies. We see denial and lies for thousands of years. People have said that we have accounts from bubonic plague outbreaks from, you know, 1500 years ago where observers say it's crazy. There's all this superstition around what's happening, you know. Or the emergence of quacks, you know, who sell nostrums to cure the plague that even people in real time observe doesn't work, for example. So the emergence of lies and denial is typical. Fear is typical. Grief — the grief making power of plagues, sort of depression. Marcus Aurelius writes about a plague in Rome, about how worse even than the deaths was the kind of sense of depression that had settled over the city. All of these things that we're experiencing on a psychosocial plane are things that have been observed with plagues in the past. And as you're highlighting, one further such thing is this notion of blame, because during times of plague, it is stereotypic to blame others. During, for example, the bubonic plague, the Jews were blamed, right? There was an ascendant antisemitism. Countless Jews in many cities were burned at the stake or buried alive, blamed wrongly — of course — for the plague. During HIV, for example, gays were blamed or Haitians were blamed or IV drug users were blamed. And during this epidemic, we've seen that Asians are blamed or migrants are blamed. Part of the reason, I think, psychodynamically we are so eager and willing to blame others is that the alternatives are more frightening. So another alternative is that the plague is the workings of an implacable God, right? That God is bringing annihilation to us, right? That's scary. Or another alternative is that the plague is the inexorable workings of the natural world. Well that's frightening too. Whereas if you imagine that human agency is responsible, that some other humans are causing the plague, then you might imagine, in a soothing sort of way, that human agency might cause the plague to remit, that there's something we can do to stop it. But even within the category of blame — this issue of who gets blamed and why do we blame certain other groups of humans? On the one hand, there have been voices that have said kill the other. The other is responsible. There have also always been voices that have said no, that's not the case. For example, even during the first outbreak of bubonic plague in the 1340s, Pope Clement VI, during this wave of anti-Semitism, in an astonishing set of statements for a sitting pope — by the way, he comported himself remarkably humanely during this whole episode, taking great personal risk, having real sorrow and sympathy for the plight of human beings — he observed, just very logically, he goes, it couldn't possibly be the Jews that are responsible because they're also dying. You know, just very basic reasoning, you know, like the plague is killing everyone. Why would the Jews be doing this to themselves? Or Saint Cyprian — and I'll just read this — people have often said, well, why wouldn't the emergence of a common threat — like a plague is like a shared enemy — why wouldn't it bind human beings together? So here is an observation by Saint Cyprian. During the third century of the common era, there was another plague in Rome. Rome was about a million people in those days, which is astonishing. 5,000 people a day were dying, and Saint Cyprian said, “It disturbs some that this mortality is common to us with others; and yet what is there in this world which is not common to us with others...So long as we are here in the world, we are associated with the human race in fleshly equality.” This idea that we're all together in this, facing this common threat, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be divided by these superficial differences, this tension between no, there shouldn't be a bright line between us and them, or yes, there should be a bright line between us and them is also an ancient feature of plagues.KHALID: I'm loving the fact that you're drawing out this tension because I think this tension is at the heart of how we deal with pandemics. You've got these two forces contending with each other. At one level, you've got people — even during the Black Death — who believed that this is a curse from God for not caring for the poor. But coming back to the implications of scapegoating and essentially, you know, for banishing people — people have been banished during times of pandemics and for chronic illnesses as well. There is the idea of “leper” colonies and people who were sent away who were suffering from leprosy. And it was not just a physical death that they were sent towards, but there is very distinctly a social death that takes place. Can you comment and reflect on that a little bit in light of what's happening today as well?CHRISTAKIS: If you think about it, short of killing someone or maiming them, ostracizing them is a very powerful sanction. Ostracism comes from the Greek word ostrakon, which means little shards of pottery that they would write someone's name in to ostracize. Or there are many traditional societies where a witchdoctor, a traditional healer, might sort of identify who is the person who is responsible for the woes in our group, and that person would be cast out. Or sailors' accounts, you know, of why a ship has suffered a calamity, and it must be because this person on our ship is bad, that person would be flung overboard, for example. So there are many, many ways in which this idea of purging a group of an individual might somehow represent a kind of catharsis. And be, by the way, a very serious sanction to the person that was sent out, whether guilty or innocent. Many of the examples I just gave are innocent people being sacrificed for the benefits of the group. Sometimes they are guilty parties and we don't want to execute them, but let's say we'll banish them, which was a bad, bad sanction in old days. Now, the reason it's such a bad sanction is that we are actually social animals. It is very vulnerable to be on your own. To be cast out of a group and to have to survive on your own elicits a lot of very serious anxieties in human beings because, in our ancestral past, to be on your own was risky. So banishment, whether as a punishment for a bona fide crime or as a kind of immoral, I would say, act of purification — I mean, you see this in, for example, in the Cultural Revolution, you know where people were picked from a group and everyone else got to feel good because they cast out this person. This is a perverse reflection of a very fundamental human fear and even a human tendency.KHALID: Yeah, there is a kind of in-group and outgroup, right? This kind of tribalism that suddenly can get very starkly reinforced.CHRISTAKIS: We see that also, by the way, in the suboptimal way our country has responded to the pandemic. So, for example, in my view, we have needlessly politicized things like mask wearing and vaccination. I think it's wonderful that we live in a plural democracy. We have a range of political beliefs about all kinds of topics. And we resolve our differences how? Not by force of arms, we vote. That's what we do in our society. We vote to resolve our differences. And I would rather live in the kind of heterogeneous political pluralism than in a political monoculture. So I like the fact that we have a civilized way — to the extent possible — of resolving our differences, which is terrific. But this idea that you're going to signal your political affiliation by whether you choose to get vaccinated or not is really dumb. The vaccine should be seen as a kind of technocratic, apolitical tool. If people wanted to politicize whether you got Moderna or Pfizer, I think that would still be stupid. But if they want to politicize whether you get a vaccine at all, I mean, I think that's just not only illogical but self-injurious.KHALID: We've talked about this tension and this tribalism that is present, but I would argue that the coronavirus or a disease is a historical agent in its own right in that it acts and causes change in a way that exacerbates existing tendencies and sometimes even sows the seeds — it's not just exacerbation — but sometimes even sows the seeds of new kinds of rifts within society. How would you respond to that?CHRISTAKIS: Anything that puts stress on a society, whether a war or a famine or a natural disaster like a major earthquake or a plague highlights divisions or stresses in a society. It can also elicit wonderful qualities. There's a whole literature on the communities that form in the wake of disaster, for example. So, when people are flung out of a city and they're living in a camp and how they help each other out, you know. There are, of course, criminals and thieves and others who take advantage of the situation, but people tend to bond together in these types of things. I think that the virus struck us at a particularly vulnerable moment from the point of view of the intellectual fabric of our society. So there were a number of macro trends that were happening. First of all, we were at century level highs of economic inequality. We had historically very high levels of political polarization, which political scientists have documented. Those were in the background. In addition, we had a kind of anti-elitism — partly reflecting that inequality — and swept up in that anti-elitism was a kind of anti-scientism. Scientists were seen as just another kind of elite that was feeding at the public trough, which is kind of, in my view, a wrong way to see scientists. It's like seeing judges as an elite. You know, like the judges are feeding at the public trough because they're paid by our taxes. Well no, we don't see judges as a constituency, right? We don't see judges as an interest group. Some people have come to see scientists that way. And we also, as a nation, seem to have lost the capacity for nuance, right? Like we had these conversations in which everything is black or white or you’re with me or you're against me, again reflecting the kind of politicization of so many of our disagreements, as you just said. So all of these things were happening in our society when the virus struck. And I think it really exploited that. I think many more thousands of Americans died because we were unable as a nation to come together, and, by the way, in my view, with the previous administration, were poorly led at the level of the White House. We were not well led. You could have come and you could have said, you know, the American people are being attacked by this external virus. We need to come together to rebuff this. We need to work together as a nation. There's a kind of appeal — almost a jingoistic appeal — that could have been made that I think would have been appealing to the right and the left politically that could have worked. I do fault the White House, but there were Democratic governors who also did a lousy job — and mayors. But the White House is the White House, right? I think the inability of the White House to organize an effective national response is sort of the flip side of the unwillingness of much of the citizenry to face up to the unpleasant reality. The plague struck and exploited or exacerbated a variety of ongoing problems in our society.KHALID: When you wrote your book and the hardcover came out, at that point, the lab leak theory was really pooh-poohed and wasn't really something that was being considered as a possibility. And between that and your next edition, people are thinking differently about it or new evidence has come to light. Could you reflect on where you stand right now on that?CHRISTAKIS: People early on were saying that there was no evidence that this was an engineered bioweapon. I think those people advancing that theory were seen as a little bit of like conspiracy theorists. When you make extraordinary claims, you need to have some evidence for the claim. Many people acknowledge that it was possible that this was a leak from a lab, but they thought — and I was one of them — that it was more likely that this was a zoonotic leap rather than a lab leak. So one theory is that this was a virus that was brought back from the wild into the laboratory for study and then inadvertently leaked. And that is, by the way, still possible. We don't have good evidence one way or the other. And certainly, Chinese secrecy about this raises suspicions. The other idea is that there was some unobserved natural leap from a bat to a human probably in sort of the second half of 2019. And that theory, I think, is still more likely, partly because we know there are many such zoonotic leaps. You mentioned some. Ebola is a zoonotic leap. SARS-1 in 2003 was a zoonotic leap. Influenza is a zoonotic leap. Zika virus, hantavirus, HIV. All of these things we've all lived through, these are all zoonotic leaps, well documented zoonotic leaps. It happens and it's happening increasingly. In fact, there's some evidence that the zoonotic leaps are happening increasingly partly because of climate change, if you can believe it. So there's a deep connection between climate change and pandemic disease. And so, I still think that is probably what happened in this case, but I can't be sure. There's no reason to politicize this. We'll go wherever the evidence leads us. I mean, I don't have a political dog in this fight.KHALID: But this is the part that's interesting, right? Like you said, we can wait for the evidence, but there is this tendency, again, to go down that blame route, to try and see it as maliciously intentioned and something that has a conspiracy behind it. With HIV, in your book, you were reflecting on how the gay population got scapegoated and you said it just so happens that the virus settles in a particular community and that is the one that gets stigmatized. It's not necessarily inherently anything about that community. Another kind of parallel movement in our society, particularly American society, where cancelations are on the rise, where somehow there is this fear of contagion of ideas, and therefore we can't even bear to listen to anyone who holds a viewpoint that is contrary to us, and we must banish them. You know, we must cancel them. It's happening all around us, but it's happening in institutions of higher education which should be the places where we slow down, take a step back, and like you said, wait for the evidence and think things through. But that's not what's going on. Do you see similar dynamics in our social ways of dealing with difference?CHRISTAKIS: You know, the contagion of ideas can be modeled in ways similar to the contagion of germs. And my laboratory has done a lot of work on spreading processes and social networks. We've developed a lot of data sets and mathematical models and ideas that are highly relevant to understanding such phenomena. On the issue of silencing one's opponents, the desire to silence one’s opponents is a very primitive and ancient desire as well. But I think it's a weak desire. You know, if you're so confident in the integrity and validity of your ideas, win the battle of ideas. Argue. Bring evidence and data and rhetoric and logic to the field of battle and win. It's only people who lack confidence, in my view, who actually secretly suspect that maybe their ideas are not valid, that seek to silence their opponents, to prevent their opponents from speaking.And we see this on the right and on the left. For example, on the right they don't want to fund gun research, gun epidemiology research. Why would you not want to fund basic research on how guns kill people? Well, maybe you're afraid that if we find such evidence, it might lead to new policies that you disagree with. And rather than winning the battle of ideas and arguing about the policies, you're like, well, let's just suppress the evidence. Same with climate change. On the left, things having to do with gender, the biological reality of sex, for example. People would rather suppress such evidence or contort such evidence rather than engage with the evidence in a very, you know, mature way and recognize the subtleties and the nuance in any of these topics. Or in behavior, genetics is another topic that the left doesn't want to explore — you know, the role of genetics in human behavior. This is weak minded, in my view. I would rather have a full airing of people's ideas. And I would rather try to create institutions in our societies like universities, which are special places for such airing. And incidentally, as James Mill famously said, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of it.”Your ideas get stronger when you test them against opponents. Why — when you fight in martial arts, why do you bow to your opponent? You're grateful to your opponent for giving you an opportunity to perfect your own skills. You couldn't do that without an opponent, right? It's the same in intellectual battle — you need to test your ideas. Whether it's scientific claims about the world or philosophical stances about the world, I think they get better in the crucible of contention. And so, this is why I am gravely concerned that there are many topics which have become taboo on university campuses, on the left and on the right. It's below a great nation like ours, and it's below our best universities to fall prey to such desires, to create a culture of censorship. What happens typically is that someone is cast out. Like someone is identified for like a minor delict and is cast out, and that has a real silencing effect on everyone else. People are oh, better not discuss that topic. The costs are too high of discussing that topic, and it's dropped.KHALID: Yeah, this is an excellent point, and I've actually had a few people push back and say well, you know, there’re not that many professors who've been canceled recently, if you count the numbers compared to the proportion. It's not about the actual numbers of people who are being canceled, but those who are subsequently silenced and who are self-censoring for fear of being canceled. There is this parallel of the fear that we're facing with the pandemic and this fear that is now being cultivated through these kinds of cancelations and scapegoating of people.CHRISTAKIS: I may bungle this example, and there may be listeners of yours who know more about it. But my understanding of training to become a SEAL — you know, an elite warrior — is that there is an exercise early on in that training where they throw all the men and women into the water and there's a little raft and everyone has been issued like a little tripod and you start treading water. And they tell them all, you will all tread water until one of you climbs up onto this raft and sets up their little tripod and rings the bell and gives up. Then we'll let the rest of you out of the water. And these soldiers tread water for 24 hours until finally one person gives up. So the SEAL — the trainers are willing to sacrifice one guy early on for the benefits of solidarity that accrue to everyone else, where everyone else feels we made it. We're good material. It's us. You know, we are now us because we have symbolically cast out a member of our erstwhile community. People get this kind of free zone, this kind of sense of solidarity by sacrificing someone. And many of these cases of cancelation that we have seen have this element. There's a case at the Yale Law School right now where a Native American student who's politically on the right sent out, innocently — we now have on record that he was unaware that his lighthearted party invitation could be seen by some other people as having racist connotations. He referred to having a party at his “trap house.” This is a slang I was previously unfamiliar with, but if you look it up, it's been used by many people with nonracial connotations for quite a long time now. Its primary definition does not have racial connotations. He mentioned the foodstuffs that would be available, which included apple pie and fried chicken at this event. Turns out he didn't even pick the fried chicken. It was a convenient fast food store near their house. One of his roommates had made that selection. He sends out an announcement, and nine people at Yale Law School — primarily African Americans — were so offended by this that they reported him to some deans who then called the student in and tried to engineer an apology from him. And then the student was denounced by this body within the university that his email was racist and pejorative, even though on record — we now have audiotapes of the conversation. It was clear he had no idea. And they told him they believed him that he had no idea. Nevertheless, they denounced him. And then everyone is circling the wagons now, reading his actions in the most uncharitable way. To me, this seems like a situation in which they're trying to cast out an innocent person in order to make themselves feel better and build group solidarity and police the margins of acceptable discourse. All of which is wrong, in my view.KHALID: You know, the irony is that this is happening at a law school, which is all about teaching students how to pass out evidence, how to think through who is responsible, and how you hold them responsible. And also, one of the key elements of legal schooling is to learn there is the action but then there is the intention. And you cannot discount the intention. The intention is what makes the difference between the verdict for manslaughter versus murder. CHRISTAKIS: Yes.KHALID: Somehow that has been completely erased from our conversation right now.CHRISTAKIS: There was no due process. There was no right to confront your accusers. It was so unlawyerly from start to finish, as far as I can tell, ignoring some of these philosophical elements that are so important in our jurisprudence. It's embarrassing. And furthermore, some of the students claim that this party invitation from this guy was physically harmful to them, they claimed, in a kind of histrionic language that I think needs to be called for what it is. They use the term “never again,” which is a phrase we usually use when talking about genocide. We say genocide should never happen again. These are very extreme statements, really unwarranted in this type of a situation. The uncharitable reading, the witch hunt mentality, the over involvement of administrators in business they really shouldn't be involving themselves in, the attempts at forced apology — you know, they drafted an apology note for him to sign and then threatened him with reporting him to the bar if he didn't sign it. There's so many elements of this case that are just shameful.KHALID: The parallels are really striking between how communities and pandemics are scapegoated and how people, right now, for their speech are being ostracized and being blamed. And the implications — what we were talking about earlier about a social death — are very real because these kinds of cancelations and attacks and censorship have implications for people's lives in very real ways.CHRISTAKIS: Just imagine being widely reviled. I mean, it's one thing if you are a murderer and you're widely reviled. Imagine if you're not. There was a case at Dartmouth a few years ago of a chair of a department of psychology who was wrongly accused of being complicit — falsely and wrongly accused of being complicit in sexual harassment done by other professors. And he was rejected by the local community. People would see him in the grocery store and take it upon themselves to denounce him. And this man eventually took his own life. I mean, this is appalling. It is extremely painful to be cast out of a community. And it is not a light sanction to impose, especially unjustly. This is not a civilized way to act, in my view. I think there are better ways to handle the stumbles that people sometimes make around many hot button issues in our society. And I would especially like to see us do better at our best universities.KHALID: Thank you, Nicholas. I feel like that's a good way to converge the two conversations. Thank you so much for joining us today.CHRISTAKIS: Amna, thank you so much for having me. KHALID: Nicholas Christakis is a physician, a professor at Yale, and author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live — which is now out in paperback. It’s a book I highlighly recommend to all Banished listeners. My conversation with Christakis, as you heard, called to mind the protocol for casting out those suffering from leprosy in Medieval England. Here is an excerpt from a set  of instructions used by the diocese at Salisbury for banishing a “leper” —  in the parlance of the time:The priest casts earth on each of his feet saying “Be thou dead to the world, but alive again unto God.” Then the priest must lead him from the church to his house as a dead man, chanting libre me Domine, in such ways that the sick man is covered with a black cloth. Then when he comes into the open fields … he ends by imposing prohibitions on him in the following manner:I forbid you to ever enter churches or go into a market or a mill or in any assemblies of people.I forbid you henceforth to go out without your leper’s dress, that you may be recognised by others; and you must not go outside your house unshod.I forbid you henceforth to eat or drink in any company except that of lepers.I would encourage you to heed the advice of Nicholas Christakis and imagine being reviled by many thousands of people for some perceived transgression. Really sit with that for a while and then ask yourself: Are the judgements of Medieval clergy so different from those of Twitter mobs or university administrators today? Is one social death really less painful than another? Less barbaric? Less, oh, I don’t know, medieval? Please support the work we do at Booksmart Studios by becoming a paying subscriber, and get access to full interviews, bonus segments, and more.Don’t forget to rate and share what you've heard here today on whichever platform you listen on and leave a comment so we know what you think. Our success here at Booksmart depends as much on you as on us.Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And I, as always, am Amna Khalid. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Natalia, Neil, and Niki discuss the history of diversity workshops and sensitivity training. Support Past Present on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pastpresentpodcast Here are some links and references mentioned during this week's show:  As conservative attacks on a supposed takeover of American institutions by proponents of critical race theory escalate, many on the political left have begun to articulate distinctions between “trainings” and education that deal with race. Natalia recommended this Inside Higher Education piece by historians Jeffrey A. Snyder and Amna Khalid and this blog post about the history of executive coaching.   In our regular closing feature, What's Making History: Natalia discussed Amelia Nierenberg's New York Times article, “Should California De-Track Math?” Neil shared his Twitter thread about Dennis Prager's comments about the history of gay men and HIV-AIDS. Niki recommended L.D. Burnett's Medium post, “The ‘University of Austin' Grift Isn't New,” and Daniel Drezner's Washington Post article, “What Is The University of Austin's Purpose?”  

If you’ve been listening to Banished, you’ll recall that in just a few short months we’ve talked about attempts to abolish artwork, to repudiate literature and even to eliminate entire curricula throughout the United States. But you may wonder, as I sometimes still do, why me? Why am I, Amna Khalid, pulled toward these topics, compelled by what we casually call “cancel culture”?And so, dear listeners, it feels like the right time to step back — to give you a sense of who I am and why I am deeply disturbed by the censorship and intolerance now thriving in the West. For this week’s episode, I will read aloud from a letter that I wrote earlier this year, to a loved one with whom I grew up in Pakistan. I hope that I leave you with a better understanding of why this show, why Banished and why me.Mani,My darling, darling Mani. What a ways the two of us have come. From the long, lazy days of Ammi’s home-cooked meals and family chatter, with all of us huddled together on her bed in Islamabad, to where we are now: you in the endless grey that runs through your years in Britain, now visible in the hairs on your face; and I enduring my tenth Minnesota winter.We’ve taken to our new homes — quite seamlessly and effortlessly for the most part. You’ve internalized the sorry-reflex of the Brits and I, as you point out every chance you get, have inadvertently started mimicking the rhotic accent of the Midwest that grates on you so much. And though we never dare to speak of the oceans of losses that we have buried deep within us, you and I both know there is much that we have left behind. The dewy mornings of fall, the warmth of the winter sun, the oppressive dry heat of the summer months and the intensity of the monsoon rains punctuated by days of stifling humidity that would only let up with the next downpour — and the cycle would begin once again.But that was not the suffocation that you and I ran away from. Our escape, if you will, was from a different kind of claustrophobia. You being gay and unable to live freely in your fullness and write in ways that challenged reigning orthodoxies; and me — then a young woman with too many ideas, hungry for intellectual stimulation, challenging all norms and limitations. Flamboyant and outspoken, we flirted with the idea of crossing the line of what was acceptable, but only in our small social circles of other misfits like you and me.For me, the closing in of the walls came into focus for the first time that fateful evening in February 1989. I remember we could hear the mob outside the American Cultural Center which was miles away from our house. You turned on the tv and we watched it happen — the riots protesting Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. The streets were teaming with thousands of zealots after Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa against Rushdie — the atmosphere was chilling. I was only 10 then but the gravity of the situation wasn’t lost on me. In the following months we sat night after night watching riots ripple across the globe, for Rushdie had committed blasphemy — (certain) Muslims were offended and their offense was translating into terror and violence.It was only in the wake of the Rushdie affair that I fully came to appreciate the expansiveness of the notion of blasphemy and the legal infrastructure within Pakistan that gave it teeth. I started reading the newspaper and, of course, it was all too apparent for anyone to see, even to a ten year old, how these blasphemy laws — perverted in their very criminalization of speech to begin with — became a tool for repressing and dispossessing non-muslims. How these developments gave license to the outright targeting of minority groups hit home for me a year later when my friend Asha’s neighbor, an Ahmadi, was shot in his own driveway by a group of vigilantes. As I cast my mind back I can see my dumbstruck eleven-year-old self, holding Asha’s hand in school the next day -- both of us terror-stricken as she recounted how she and her father heard the shots, ran out and then helped load her neighbor’s bleeding body in their car only to have him declared dead when they got to the hospital.It was around then that I consciously started paying attention to the politics of the times: the misogyny entrenched in the Zina Ordinance that resulted in rape victims becoming criminally liable for offenses against them; the systematic purging of progressive teachers and professors; the ideological tyranny that shaped the curriculum in public schools and universities; media censorship and the erosion of democratic institutions across the board.Remember when all women newscasters were told they had to cover their heads? And when dance performances were categorized as “obscenity”? Oh and that time when we were walking to Jinnah Market for ice-cream and this man came up to me and told me that I should wear a dupatta? We were both so stunned and frightened that we said “yes” and walked on, neither one of us daring to even comment to each other on the absurdity of what had happened. And how can I forget! The time when some low-ranking mullah declared a fatwa against you for walking into your classroom with a cup of tea in the middle of Ramadan when you were teaching English to 7th graders. You always were absent-minded. That was close — a lucky escape for you that no major media outlet picked it up.It’s not that I hadn’t felt the suffocation before that. The fateful marriage of religious dogma and political ideology under Zia’s dictatorship birthed the ‘blasphemous mindset’ that permeated all aspects of our lives. I remember in school each time I voiced my inquisitiveness, disapproval awaited me. There was the Pakistan Studies class when I asked about the role of Muslims in the killings of Hindus and Sikhs during the Partition of India; I was shut down and told, “It was they who started the killing, not us.” Once, I dared to wonder out loud if we would have been better off in a joint India and Miss Nosheen gave me a look that sends shivers down my spine even today as I recall it in my mind’s eye. At the next parent teacher meeting my “report card” said: “Amna is intelligent but she asks disruptive questions in class.” And then there was the Islamiat class. Now that’s a boundary that even I knew not to cross — I learned early on, head down and no questions. Genuine, probing questions about Islamic history were actively discouraged. Banish the thought of even a mild challenge to the indoctrination the curriculum engendered.It wasn’t much better in college for me either. You left in 1993 for the greener pastures of Britain to pursue your MA, but I was still in the thick of finding my way out. I was hoping, naively, that going to a private college would give me the freedom I so desperately craved. In some ways it did, but only because I got savvier at navigating the obstacles. It didn’t take me long to see the shallowness of the seemingly liberal atmosphere of the school. Yes of course, I had inspirational teachers like Khurram, Hasan and Ali, who opened a whole new world for me intellectually — but there was a darker side to it all. While a handful of us were looking to these professors to widen our horizons, a number of other professors were recruiting students into the Tablighi Jamaat. Remember Zain, who was dating my friend Maryam? One day, out of the blue some students invited him for Tablighi sessions at Raiwind. And then one fine morning, Maryam came crying to my dorm room: “He broke up with me — he says dating is anti-Islamic.” And sure enough, two days later he’d changed his entire persona. Just like that, Zain went from being the cool guy who sported stonewash jeans and U2 t-shirts, to growing a beard, wearing shalwar kameez and refusing to make eye contact with women, let alone shaking their hands. And you know what Mani, he wasn’t the only one. It happened to many — much like dominoes falling. From one day to the next another one fell.I don’t think I ever told you what happened to Asim. Yes, the same Asim whose painting you bought a few years ago. Once in a gender studies class he said something about the unfairness of Islamic law and he was hauled before the college’s disciplinary committee to “educate” him. They almost suspended him for a term but he somehow managed to stay on. And Tahseen, the Pakistani-American professor teaching the course — she was the idealistic sort who returned from the US in the hopes of “giving back” — well, she ended up being forced out by the administration. Teaching Judith Butler in Pakistan — that was her “crime.” At the end of that semester when she told us she’d decided to move back to the US, I offered to help her pack her office. She and I, we both sat on her office floor taping boxes heavy with books, much like our hearts with sadness.But Mani, as always, I digress. Where was I? Ah yes, the Rushdie affair and what that meant to us. Back then the way the West came to Rushdie’s rescue and scoffed at offense as a rationale for limiting expression was an unexpected comfort. Britain provided police protection for Rushdie and even broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Imagine that! To live in a place where no one stops you from dressing the way you wanted; no vigilantes telling you what you can or cannot say; where asking questions in class is rewarded not punished; a place where there is no thought police; where the state protects your right to express yourself even if it sours foreign relations — heaven! Just imagining it was delicious and yes, oh so blasphemous!Now that I cast my mind back it was around then that you and I started dreaming of possibilities elsewhere. We looked to the West and we were tempted — tempted by the promise of freedom. It wasn’t really the freedom to dress how we wanted or to drink openly. It was the freedom to think and speak freely, the freedom to explore ideas and know that we could dare to go wherever they led us. You took off for England and made a new home there; and I true to being the youngest who pushed the limits just a little bit more, followed a few years later but was still restless. Sure enough, after 8 years at Oxford I needed to move on. My adventure of teaching in South Africa lasted two years and I got itchy feet again. And here I am today, in the belly of the beast so to speak — the country that prides itself on free speech as a constitutional right. You couldn’t go wrong — teaching at a small liberal arts college in the US. A place where at last I could be fully free. And what better place than the academy to revel in the freedom to think! I was in heaven; the heaven that I had dreamed of.But as of late I find myself wondering, am I really? With more than half the states introducing bills that ban  what they construe  as critical race theory in schools, the specter of state censorship is beginning to make an appearance here too. The threat to academic freedom from right wing political forces has proliferated At two universities governing boards interfered with the selection of university presidents in order to install political allies; there was donor meddling in UNC’s denial of tenure to Nicole Hannah Jones, of the 1619 project fame; and just last week the University of Florida, a public school mind you, banned three professors from serving as expert witnesses in a lawsuit challenging a state law that limits how residents can vote. Who would’ve thought this could happen in America. When did I first see cracks in my romance with the freedom of the academy in the West? I'd say probably five years into my time in the US. Our college was considering instituting a “bias response team” and out of sheer curiosity I decided to go to the town hall. What are these teams you ask — they are committees of administrators, students and possibly faculty to assess “bias” complaints, which could be filed if anyone or any group of people on campus were offended by anything said or done by others. The case is investigated and the offending party potentially sanctioned. As I sat there listening to this proposal which seemed to me a softer version of speech control, I could feel the hairs on the back on my neck standing. I had a creeping sense that unwritten rules for regulating thinking and speech were rearing their heads in the US too. Couched in terms of being sensitive to others, they reeked of the kind of ideological authoritarianism and the “blasphemy mindset” that you and I thought we’d left behind. Did we move halfway across the world only to find ourselves trapped in another cage?Surely, no educational institution in the West would entertain a move that would chill speech on campus and was deeply anti-intellectual! But lo and behold — as I started looking into it Mani, these teams were mushrooming on campuses across the country. And sure enough, these teams are stifling speech.It’s not just college campuses Mani; the authority of “offense” now reigns supreme. It’s everywhere — even art is not protected. In the spring of 2019 I read a news report about how activists clamoring to have the most stunning murals by Arnatoff erased because of his depiction of colonial occupation, the death of Native Americans and slavery. Some even vowed that they will not rest until these murals were permanently destroyed — all because they supposedly offend and “traumatize” indigenous and African American peoples. It chills me to the bone to think of the dogma that is taking root here. I know you’re going to say, it’s just one incident. But — last summer I heard that students at the University of Kentucky are protesting the Rice O’Hanlon murals on their campus. And students at the Vermont Law School are clamoring to cover The Underground Railroad, Vermont and the Fugitive Slave -- murals made expressly to recognize Black Americans and Vermont abolitionists involved in helping enslaved people who escaped from the South. Why? Because they believe that such painful reminders of slavery should not be in a public setting. No matter the artist was intending to subvert the dominant tropes of manifest destiny by placing Native Americans, African Americans and even working class revolutionaries at the center of these paintings. The contagion of intolerance spreads fast I suppose. What have things come to? As if there is a predetermined way of interpreting art! As if Native Americans or African Americans have a singular sensibility! Reminds me of how people here like to box Muslims — as if all 2 billion of “us” are the same! Oh how I tire here of the likes of Sam Harris who portray every Muslim woman who comes to the West as an Ayan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim who has successfully escaped the shackles of Islamic regimes. How people simplify things, seduced by the narrative of the West saving Muslim women from the “cruelties” of Islam. The other day someone said to me, “How fortunate you must feel that you are no longer in Pakistan! I take it you don’t see yourself as Muslim?” My response: “I’m only an ex-Muslim in Pakistan; in the US I am always a Muslim — and by choice.” I left him standing there, baffled. Fortunate. Yes, that’s what we thought we were when we first came to our new homes. Few can see the warp and woof of loss and grief that’s woven into the very fabric of our fortunes. Even I did not fully realize the granularity and texture of the heartbreak that our freedom entailed. The sadness of leaving family behind, though always present, only struck me in its fullness when I decided to make my own. I remember telling daddy on the phone that I was pregnant — his boundless joy traversed the thousands of miles between us and spilled out on this end of the telephone. As I clumsily navigated both the flutters of excitement and backbreaking pains of my growing belly, I ached for the mother-daughter intimacy that so many of our cousins back home took for granted when they had their first borns. I wished Ammi could be there to hold my hand and guide me into motherhood. But it was daddy’s unexpected death just a couple of months after Ravi’s birth — the rush of unbridled grief of losing a parent colliding with the limitless and exhilarating joy of becoming one — that’s what drove home to me the immeasurability of the cost of leaving home. How much we have surrendered just to speak and think freely!Here I go digressing again. Back to the tyranny of “social justice” as they call it — what a perversion of the term. Of course I know all about  the horrors of racism and sexism — how could I not. As a postcolonial subject growing up with the vile legacy of colonialism that infects so much in Pakistan, and later  a woman navigating a society suffused with violent patriarchy I do understand! But the “social justice” of the West strikes me now as anti-social and no longer just. This will truly pain you, Mani, but there’s even a movement to read literature through a “social justice” lens. Turns out the literary canon is “for white people, by white people and about white people.” Shakespeare’s stature in the canon is reduced to “white supremacy and colonization.” Why then did I find myself both despising and feeling for Shylock when he asks for a pound of flesh and loses his case? Why then did Hamlet’s soliloquy speak to me in moments of existential crises back in Pakistan? What’s more, universities are closing Classics departments; professors from within the field themselves are asking for its demolition because white supremacy is believed to “reside in the very marrow of the classics.” I tell you Mani, even words have lost their meaning — “white supremacy,” “racism” —they no longer mean what they used to.I worry for Ravi and Sahil too. I know, I know they are only 9 and 6. But Mani, there are primers for teachers out there — mind you they are well regarded by many — on how to “dismantle racism” in math instruction. They preach that a focus on the right answer and asking students to “show their work” are manifestations of “white supremacy culture.” Just a couple of months ago Dr. Seuss’s estate announced that six of his books will no longer be published because of their “hurtful and wrong” racial representations. And sure enough a whole slew of local libraries are now busy pulling them off their shelves. But David Pilkey is the epitome — yes, Pilkey of Captain Underpants fame, he canceled one of his own books in anticipation of possible offense-- a preemptive strike of sorts (Americans seem to be good at those). In his note of retraction, he regrets the “passive stereotypes and racism” that were “harmful to everyone.” It’s surreal — happenings from a dystopian novel.Ah what a long way you and I have come from a country where writers were canceled by diktat of blasphemy. And yet, have we really? Here I am in a country that I call home where authors no longer have to be sanctioned by others; they cancel themselves. And you are in a country where school teachers are fired for offending Muslim sensibilities for showing cartoons of Mohammad in a class on religion and free expression. Oh the irony that this should be happening in Britain, the very country that provided refuge to Rushdie in the wake of the Satanic Verses affair. The West, once that shining beacon of freedom for us, seems a lot less lustrous from where we sit now. Censorship predicated on offense, once seen as the hallmark of “backward” cultures of the third world, appears to be a virtue of progressive thinking today.Sometimes I wonder Mani, maybe we were the real blasphemous ones for daring to hope and imagine that heaven could in fact be a place on earth. And now, perhaps this is our atonement — for what can be heavier than the weight of disillusionment?Your sad and despondent Amna This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Dorian Abbot, associate professor of geophysical sciences at University of Chicago, was invited to give the prestigious Carlson Lecture at MIT this month. He was going to speak about the insights gained from studying Earth’s climate and how those insights have been used to predict which planets outside the solar system might be habitable. But, following an outcry about his political views about diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses — a topic that had nothing to do with what he was going to talk about — MIT cancelled the lecture. Amna Khalid talks to Professor Abbot about what happened and what this says about academic freedom in American higher education today. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

From local school board elections to state legislatures, an impassioned nationwide debate has erupted over allegations that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is being taught in public schools.Anti-CRT bills have been passed in more than two dozen Republican-led states. What do we mean by Critical Race Theory? What are these laws aiming to accomplish? How will they affect schools in the US? We share a lively discussion from "Banished", a new podcast series, hosted by Amna Khalid, a history professor at Carleton College.In this episode we listen to interviews with Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy, Acadia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, and former ACLU President, Nadine Strossen of New York Law School. All three support free speech and disagree with banning the teaching or discussion of controversial, even dangerous ideas and theories.This is a special episode of How Do We Fix It? We're taking a break during mid-October and continue a recent tradition of sharing stimulating, thoughtful interviews from other podcasts."Banished" is produced by Booksmart Studios. The series is about our reassessment of the many people, ideas, objects and even works of art that conflict with modern sensibilities. What can we learn about our present obsession with cancel culture by examining history, and what might it mean for freedom of expression? And how do we reconcile opposing points of view without turning on each other? Learn more about this recommended podcast at https://www.booksmartstudios.org. Thanks for Booksmart Studios for giving us permission to share this podcast. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is the second in our occasional series on Rethinking the Canon. Is there value in reading the classics at a time when they are increasingly viewed as unrepresentative texts that don’t speak to the diverse experiences of modern students? This week Amna talks with Roosevelt Montás, senior lecturer in American Studies and English at Columbia University. FULL TRANSCRIPTAMNA KHALID: A liberal education is one that takes the complicated condition of human freedom seriously, and addresses itself to its dilemmas and to the urgency of its lived experience. To think and reason through these kinds of questions is to learn to live with them in an honest and ongoing way.That was an excerpt from Roosevelt Montás’s book, “Rescuing Socrates: How the Great Books Changed My Life and Why They Matter for a New Generation.” Roosevelt Montás, who emigrated from the Dominican Republic as a teenager, is now a senior lecturer in American Studies and English at Columbia University. He specializes in antebellum American literature and intellectual history. He’s also spent 10 years as the director of the Center for the Core Curriculum at Columbia, teaching and running what is often called the “Great Books” program.I started our conversation by asking him if he could give our listeners a sense of what motivated him to write so passionately about Great Books.ROOSEVELT MONTÁS: The book is a meditation on my experience of liberal education and an argument about why liberal education based on the study of Great Books matters today. I draw on my own biographical, personal experience of encountering the Great Books as an undergraduate, but also on my experience teaching them and encountering the kind of struggles and challenges of organizing undergraduate, general education around the study of books that are often old and often don't speak directly to the issues that are most salient in people's daily, lived experience. So, the book tries to take in my personal, intellectual, institutional experience and put it all together into an argument about why reading these books seriously with undergraduates matters today.KHALID: Let's peel back what this term “Western canon” means. One of the things that I have found a little disturbing of late is how quickly people will jump to calling something “white supremacy” or just “white” for that matter. And if we look at the Greco-Roman tradition, how in the Mediterranean region these ideas were coming from different places. Once you start looking to the historical roots of these ideas, my understanding as a historian is that it complicates the notion of even what is considered white. Can you speak a little bit about what is loosely referred to as the Western tradition and Western canon and where the roots of some of the key traditions lie?MONTÁS: So, you know, “Western” — I remember when I first began to encounter that term, “Western,” when I went to college — I would always say, you know, west of what? KHALID: (Laughs)MONTÁS: When you name a direction, it only makes sense from a particular point of view. So, west of what? But often people use “Western” synonymously with “European.” When you think about the Western canon, you're not thinking about a European canon. Obviously, some very, very important roots of what came to be the texts that we associate with the Western canon lie in the ancient Mediterranean, in the — what we now call the Middle East, biblical texts in North Africa. One of the central figures I deal with in my book and one of the thinkers that has been most influential in modern development is St. Augustine. You might hear the name St. Augustine and not realize that we're talking about a North African, Berber man, who turns out to be the towering intellect in the Christian tradition and in Western philosophy, a major major figure. And of course, you have the biblical texts that originate in a matrix of oral traditions that are not by any stretch European, although they do end up having a very powerful influence in Europe. So when we think about the West, we should not be thinking narrowly, geographically. I like to think about it as including the lands and peoples and cultures and traditions around the Mediterranean Sea. That loose tradition ends up, first of all, leaving a textual record, leaving a genealogy of text and debates that we can trace today. And we're very fortunate and lucky that we can have access to those texts. Then there's a second term about “canon.” Again, you can understand why people resist the idea of canon, why people resist the idea that there is a set of text that is handed down to you from on high by some intellectual or traditional cultural authority that says these are the essential texts, this is what matters. But if I can quote an old friend of mine, who said about the Literature Humanities syllabus at Columbia's first year requirement — this is this kind of a Great Books course that all first years take, and it's been around for over 80 years now, this course. Every year you read about 25 books in it, but over the course of the history of the course, there have been like 150 or so books that have, at one time or another, been in the list. So he says that if Literature Humanities teachers teach us a canon, it's a loose canon. KHALID: (Laughs)MONTÁS: So, I think we should think of the canon as a loose canon. That is, it's not a fixed, unalterable list, but rather a pretty large and permeable collection of text and conversations. And sometimes we discover new text. Sometimes we reinterpret text. Sometimes texts that we have ignored for a while regain a new prominence and a new relevance. So it's always something that's under revision. It's always under construction. You know, even if what you want to do is understand the roots of male domination, or if you want to understand the roots of elite exploitation of the proletariat, if you want to understand the root of racial subjugation, that's the place to look, both for the traditions that have sustained those morally objectionable practices, but also for the discourses that have challenged those — you know, human rights and justice and liberation. All of those also find their roots in that tradition of contestation, that tradition of debate. You know, the reason why we read Aristotle is not because he was the student of Plato and he celebrates Plato. The reason we read Aristotle is because he disagreed and refuted Plato so profoundly. It is a tradition of debate and dispute, contestation, it is not a tradition of parroting an orthodoxy.KHALID: It makes me reflect on my own experience growing up in Pakistan and much of what I read was what is seen as the Western canon. And like you said, it is a lightning rod when you're first introduced to it and the idea of how central that was in the process of colonization. It can elicit a response, which is almost a rejection. But upon further exploration, what stood out to me was that, embodied within the canon, is this tension, right? This tension of what constitutes an orthodoxy and what then overturns it and how this relationship is dynamic, that it's constantly moving. You know, I like to think of the canon as like an organism. It's alive. MONTÁS: Yeah.KHALID: It's constantly dynamic and it's developing. It's got several limbs which jut out, and some get chopped off and then get reattached. And it's kind of an octopus of sorts. And you talk about that in your book, you talk about how you worked in the Great Books course to include Gandhi and how you worked with students on Gandhi. Can you reflect a little bit on that process of including what would count as non-Western writers within the canon?MONTÁS: Yeah, Gandhi is a great example, and I've argued that Gandhi belonged in a course that's ostensibly a Western course, and that Gandhi holds a special place in that because Gandhi is kind of a bridge figure. Gandhi is someone who is rooted in an ancient, venerable, profound, philosophical, ethical, spiritual tradition that is quite alien to the premises that organized the Western philosophical, ethical approach. Yet, Gandhi is deeply versed, deeply influenced, and a masterful deployer of lots of things that you find in the Western tradition. And you know, he was the first to acknowledge the influence of people like Ruskin and Thoreau and Tolstoy and Jesus. Gandhi is this great, voracious intellect and ethical thinker. So, I began to read Gandhi on my own kind of after graduate school as part of my own curiosity and my own sense of what is there in other ancient traditions? What light on the contemporary world can those ancient texts throw? So, Gandhi was really special in this way because he was a kind of hinge between something I knew and understood quite well and this other thing. Then I began teaching it. I said, I wonder how this would work in the classroom, how we would work with students who have now spent two years reading the so-called “Western classics.” How would it work for us to think about Gandhi, both in the context of that tradition we have seen, but also for the ways in which he is coming at questions we have been dealing with for a long time from an entirely different perspective? And it worked really, really well in the classroom. Students often felt like I did when I read them on my own, that Gandhi enriched their understanding of their own tradition in a powerful way, and that it opened up this other way of thinking, this other ethical universe. Enough people had good experiences with it that we made a proposal — let's make this a mandatory part of the curriculum. So Gandhi's been there maybe 10 years now. And it's an example of this thing where we don't read the Western canon because it's Western. You know, we don't read these texts because they're somehow ours and therefore better than others. No, we read these texts because they matter. We read these texts because they're genuinely useful in our understanding of the contemporary world. It's a trite thing to say, but often overlooked that the present emerges from the past. That's just the way it works. The present comes from, is organically linked with, the past. The past is therefore very much worth our attention.KHALID: So Roosevelt, let me ask you this question, which is, what makes a classic text? When does a text become something that is worthy of being called a classic?MONTÁS: That is such a good question, and one that has inspired a lot of thought and writing, and I know several books that are dedicated to answering this question, and I've been part of many faculty conversations on this question. And I even know of one instance in which a school that wanted to put together a course on classics came up with a set of criteria  in which every book got a score. Criteria 1 from 1 to 5  and then criteria 2  from 1 to 5. And then when you tally them up and you get a raw score of the class — and this is how they decided and — KHALID: —  the height of neoliberalism.MONTÁS: Exactly. Fine, if that's what you're going to do, fine. But one thing you can say about a classic book is that it's a book that has the capacity to speak to many different kinds of people in many different kinds of historical circumstances. Generation after generation have found them to be illuminating, have found  them to be relevant, have found them to be meaningful. That speaks to a quality in the book, or could be a statue, could be a painting, could be any kind of human expression, but it speaks to some quality that transcends the historical conditions of its creation. Plato is meaningful to me, not because he was like an Athenian aristocrat in a turbulent period in Greece. I don't care about that, doesn't mean anything to me. There's something else that Plato gets at that does mean something to me as a Dominican immigrant in New York in the 21st century, a kind of gesture towards universality, connecting and illuminating something that is fundamental to the human experience that I have and the human experience that Plato had. That empirically proven capacity to speak to many people across different time periods, across differing historical circumstances is one of the characteristics of a classic. It does mean that it's much easier to tell if an old book meets this criterion than a new book, right? And I don't think we are good at figuring out what will be the texts from today that are going to continue to be relevant and speak to people in that unimaginable future. There is also their complexity. They’re multivocal. They have this ideological and human complexity to them that makes them resistant to ideological takeover. You can't just deploy them as tools of indoctrination. They also tend to be demanding and to reward effort. That is, they are rich in a way that you can chew them, you can discuss them, you can think about them and they keep giving. Having said all that, you could not come up with a list of, these are it, these are the classics. I think that category is one that one is always reassessing, one is always rethinking. And that's OK. I don't think we need to have an investment in a particular set of texts as being the ones.KHALID: So, there are a couple of things that are coming to my mind, actually, as you're speaking about this, which is, the conversation about what makes a classic, the ability to speak to several generations and across identity markers in a particular time. Somehow, as you're talking about it (and I don't know why I haven't thought about this before), but it's kind of a no-brainer that these are texts that are produced out of moments of cultural contact, cultural clashes, cultural exchange, right? You talk about Gandhi. Even Gandhi — people like to think about him as this Hindu, ascetic figure, but his intellectual development is deeply informed, like you said, by the Western tradition and a deep reading of key Western thinkers, while also incorporating Eastern philosophy. What stands out in terms of classics is that they're often born out of this need to contend with different cultural influences. Can you speak more to that?MONTÁS: The way that the human mind works is by pollination and cross-pollination, and great moments of cultural transformation are always the product of incorporating the new, incorporating what is alien, incorporating what challenges preconceived paradigms. You know, you might add that as another characteristic of classics, right? That they're often texts that are produced in the crux of large conflicts. The writer couldn't sleep well, and you may not be able to sleep well after you read them. They're somehow contending with and incorporating newness into a new way of seeing the world. You can’t have great literature without conflict, and you can't have great philosophy without argument. One thinks of Hegel's notion that history and thought proceeds through this agonistic context between one proposition and its opposite and then finding a synthesis, finding a way — a larger understanding that incorporates without negating, incorporates both, incorporates the opposition. There may be an instructive lesson there in the so-called “Canon Wars,” and I wouldn't be the first one to point out that one way to approach it is to teach the war, is to teach the conflict. You know, people are fighting over what should we teach? That itself becoming an object of instruction. Let's look at why we fight over these texts. What is it in them? And that, of course, means that we have to read the texts, but it also means that sometimes we read the texts in order to refute them. We certainly cannot refute Plato if we don't read Plato. Though I have read many an undergraduate paper that tries to do that.KHALID: Well, you know the crunch of time and the deadline can produce great genius. So we're right now getting to the heart of what troubles me these days. I find so much of the push for diversity — which I'm in favor of. I think contending with difference, engaging with difference is a useful exercise and one that we should push our students to do. But then we're in this moment where I find that the push for diversity is simultaneously pushing out these texts that are produced out of precisely that kind of deep conflict and deep contention with difference. And so it's doing a disservice to these students to not read them. But how do we talk to people when they fundamentally disagree with the very basis of what we consider knowledge?MONTÁS: This worries me a lot too: this, I think, facile rejection of the tradition because it's not representative because, you know, it doesn't have my voices in it, it doesn't have any Dominicans in it. The facile rejection of the tradition simply on identitarian grounds. And along with that comes this intellectually condescending attitude that says that, say, young people today who come from a diversity of backgrounds can only relate to texts in which they find these particular aspects of their identity that in our cultural moment are marginalized. Only through those can they connect authentically with a text. It is such an epistemologically reductive, almost violent, assumption to make. Sure, those aspects will speak very powerfully to them. But those aspects are not the only ones in their identity that matter and that matter to them. And in fact, those aspects only gain significance in the context of a broader humanity, in the context of a broader commonality. There is a kind of pernicious logic that says in order to acknowledge and honor and recognize our diversity, we have to reject the canon, we have to not read that and instead read this other thing. In fact, what we need to do is to read both. What we need to understand is that the canon now incorporates diversity. The canon now reflects a different set of voices, a different set of concerns, a different historical consciousness. And that has to be part of what we study. And we then study the canon because it is the antecedent. It is the ground from which this new thing emerges. It is the ground from which our concern and valuing of diversity emerges. It is the ground from which our tools with which we fight for social justice and equality emerge. The idea that we all deserve a voice in the conversation, that idea itself emerges from this tradition. When people are arguing for a diversification of the canon, they're often actually arguing for a presentist view of the canon. That is, they're actually arguing for us to merely read or study a material that has been produced in the last 60 or 70 years, and it's just not sufficient for a full education.KHALID: Well, I mean, I couldn't agree more. As an historian, I feel like, in part, we are at this moment where we have an inability to appreciate these texts precisely because we've stopped valuing history and engaging with history. And then you also lose the ability to appreciate what you can gain from it, from studying it. MONTÁS: Yeah. Yeah.KHALID: And so, you do get into a very present-focused way of interpreting the world, which also becomes more and more literal-minded because you lose the appreciation of context for understanding something. All you know is the present context, and you evaluate everything by it. Roosevelt, what are some of the books that have spoken to you, perhaps even early on in your experience of coming to the U.S.? What were the texts that spoke to you and why?MONTÁS: When I came to the United States, it was into the seventh grade and I didn't speak English. So I went into the New York City public school system and did two years in bilingual education with a heavy focus on English as a second language, but taking my subjects in Spanish.  History and science and math were in Spanish. By the time I was a sophomore, my English was barely good enough to read a grown up book in English. And I found, outside of my house in Queens, next door neighbors were throwing away a bunch of books. Among them, I picked up a collection called The Last Days of Socrates. It had Socratic dialogues: “The Apology,” the “Phaedo,” the “Crito.” Dialogues that deal with the last days of Socrates’ life, including his defense before an Athenian jury. That book was really profoundly transformative for me. And one of the things that it opened for me was a way of understanding myself in this broader context. See, I was aware of the kind of cultural deprivation — that I was poor. We didn't speak English. We didn't have education. They don't understand the world, the grown-ups around me. So I was conscious of this kind of poverty that extended beyond material poverty, which I absolutely was experiencing as well. Reading Socrates and Plato just gave me this window into a kind of wealth, a kind of dignity, a kind of identity that was not dependent on my material resources, a kind of value. Another text that I discuss at some length is St. Augustine, and in particular, the text that I read as a first year at Columbia, The Confessions, which is a spiritual autobiography where Augustine tells the story of how he became a Christian — of how he, through philosophy, came to a kind of higher conception of life and of the ultimate good that for him led him to Christianity. And I encountered that book at a time where I was myself grappling with questions of faith, with meaning, with: Is there a God? Is there evil? Why is there evil? What am I? Am I a Christian, am I what? And St. Augustine was the first believer I had met who was also a serious intellectual. And those two things in my mind could not coexist before. You were either a rational materialist or you were a blind-faith believer. So, he was the first time where I saw an intellectual inquiry with integrity into questions of faith. Interestingly, you know, I didn't walk away from Augustine converted to Christianity like he did, but I walked away from Augustine converted to the life of the mind. These are texts that were utterly meaningful to me, that in some ways set the course of my life. And they were not texts that dealt with the particularity of my experience. On the contrary, they were texts that dealt with the universality of my experience. The texts that really made the difference were these texts that allowed me to connect to something bigger, deeper, longer, older than my own experience and that in some way cut my experience down to size rather than enlarge it.KHALID: I love the way you spoke about how it kind of cut you down to size. So much of the discourse today is about navel gazing and making us bigger than who we are. But so much of our meaning making is, I think, generative when we see ourselves as part of a tradition or part of a bigger whole, as opposed to seeing ourself as the whole. I can imagine a sophomore in high school who is not very comfortable with English finding this text of Socrates’ last days. That could not have been an easy or a comfortable read. I assume it would be difficult. It took you a while to engage and contend with, and it probably also produced lots of moments of discomfort. And one of the things you said earlier about what qualifies as a classic is that the text is rewarding. MONTÁS: Yeah.KHALID: Perhaps, if I'm not mistaken, you're referring to persisting through the discomfort it makes you feel at various levels and then finding it to be worthwhile.MONTÁS: One of the revelations was that as hard as it was — as hard as it was to read it in English — it was not beyond me. There were ideas there that made sense to me. And even as a sophomore in high school, I felt the miracle of that. I felt the extraordinariness of that: that this thing that is high culture and complex philosophy and stands as some kind of pinnacle of cultural prestige, this is no big deal. I can read this. This is not beyond me. So this is a text that I teach every summer. I teach high school students who come from low income families and hope to be the first one in their families to attend college. Every summer, I teach a course for students in that demographic, and this is one of the texts I teach them. And it's something I see happening to them every single year where they are awakened to the fact that these ancient texts actually speak to them. These ancient texts are actually accessible to them. They actually have things to tell them, and they have things to respond. They are not beyond them. Another thing that it did for me was open a set of inquiries, made me ask questions, made me look things up. The things that were impenetrable to me turned out to actually be doors and windows through which I would travel. I've experienced it and I see it happening every year when I teach these high school students this text and texts like it.KHALID: Thank you so much. It was wonderful to have this conversation with you. Thank you for joining us.MONTÁS: Thank you, Amna. KHALID: If you like what you heard today and want more thought provoking content, please become a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios. Subscribers get transcripts, full interviews, and bonus segments. And before I sign off, I have a request: Please comment, rate, and share what you've heard here today. Our success here at Booksmart depends as much on you as on us. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And I am Amna Khalid. Bye now. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

A consensus has emerged from a growing pile of scholarly research: Trigger warnings don't work. On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by Carleton College associate professors Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Snyder to explore what the latest research says about the efficacy of trigger warnings. We also discuss one of the more contentious debates surrounding academic freedom: the rising prevalence of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion statements for college faculty job applications and evaluations. Show notes: “How to Fix Diversity and Equity” by Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Snyder “The Data Is In — Trigger Warnings Don't Work” by Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Snyder Why We Don't Use Trigger Warnings — An Animated Guide www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

In this unholy amalgamation of interview and free-form kibbitz between two cranky former employees of WNYC, Bob Garfield and Alec Baldwin discuss life, acting, and the great Stockton Briggle. Plus, find out more about Bob's split with “On the Media.”TRANSCRIPT:TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in. BOB GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt. I'm Bob Garfield with Episode 12: Alec Baldwin Is Everywhere (Including Here, Right Now).ALEC BALDWIN: I'm a game show host. I'm a podcast host. I'm a father of seven children. I'm out of my mind....GARFIELD: ..and see what I mean? That's him, star of stage, screen, Page 6, iHeart Radio, and, in this case, Instagram Live, where he appears once a week for his 2.1 million followers in conversation with actors, musicians, and at least one dashing, elderly podcaster. Why? Because he graciously wanted to call attention to this show. It was something of an interview, something of a promo appearance, and something of a free-form kibbitz between two cranky former employees of WNYC radio in New York City. I warn you, like other friendly conversations you've overheard, it comes with a lot of random digressions.BALDWIN: I'm here with the one and the only Bob Garfield to talk about his new show, Bully Pulpit, to talk about his career in journalism (his long and wonderful career as a journalist), to talk about the fate of journalism. We might talk about that for like 60 seconds, because what's the point? But first of all, Bob, tell me, you left public radio--you were on public radio for quite a while. On the Media, wonderful show. Of course, I'm obviously a fan of yours, a huge fan of yours. But when you left there, talk about the genesis of Bully Pulpit, how did that come together? GARFIELD: Well, first of all, I left there the way an artillery shell leaves a cannon. I was fired. And you know, we can get into that a little bit. The lawyers prevent me from being, you know, too candid. But yeah, we can talk about that. Can we just observe one thing, since this conversation is taking place the day after the Facebook shut down and the Instagram shut down and two days after this blockbuster interview on 60 Minutes with the whistleblower? We are on Instagram, which we now well understand triggers self-loathing in kids, right? Because, you know, Mark Zuckerberg, if we're talking like evil, he makes Vladimir Putin look like Mr. Rogers. So I guess what I'm saying is, kids, please love yourself and we love you too. That's where I want to start. I apologize for talking to you, Alec, on this particular platform because evil. BALDWIN: [coughing] I'm choking. GARFIELD:  I know, it was poignant. I understand.BALDWIN: It's very moving. [coughing]GARFIELD: You know, if that were in a movie (that little episode), in 12 minutes, you would die of consumption.BALDWIN: Well, someone wrote “Trump 2024,” so I immediately started convulsing. GARFIELD: [laughs]BALDWIN: Well, listen, I am someone who Instagram is my primary, if not sole social media source. I have a Twitter account which I keep open just as a placeholder for my name. Facebook--I have a Facebook page for myself, for my foundation. My wife and I have a charitable foundation. We have a Facebook page for that. But Instagram is it for me. And I guess Instagram is owned by Facebook, correct?GARFIELD: It is. And you know, obviously it's a fantastic utility, but it is both utopian and dystopian, and the dystopian side is really dystopian. I mean that because Mark Zuckerberg and company know exactly what the deleterious effects are of the social dynamic on these platforms, and they will not do anything to remediate them because it screws up their business model. So they are constantly apologizing and explaining and being on the defensive, but they never actually fix what's broke. So, nonetheless, like I said, really good utility, and I'm delighted, de-freaking-lighted, to be talking to you on this or anywhere because I'm always delighted talking to you. BALDWIN: Well, thank you. Now a guy who shall remain nameless contacted me quite a while ago, probably last year in the heart of the first waves of the COVID (probably more than a year ago), to talk about a more user friendly platform. Like this with more integrity. Everybody'd have to register. You'd have to give all your real information. You'd have to give a photograph. You'd have to be completely transparent. It's you as you, being you, doing you, posting as you. The question, of course, is how many people really, really want that? Or do most people really kind of like the way it is, where you can hide and you can conceal yourself and say just hateful things?GARFIELD: Well, it's a playground for the id, right? And it, you know, it empowers you to have power, even if it's only the power to intimidate or to terrorize or to bad mouth. And, you know, it taps into something that unfortunately is all too human.BALDWIN: Yeah.GARFIELD: Can I say one other thing, Alec? This is so weird. I'm sitting here looking at your face because Instagram, right? So, last night I was watching the Jerry Lewis documentary, which popped up on Amazon Prime, and there you were. A couple of weeks ago, I was watching the John DeLorean docu-drama--FRAMING JOHN DELOREAN CLIP: I'm gonna try to be DeLorean.GARFIELD: --and there you were, not only as DeLorean, but as yourself commenting on the DeLorean saga. I just watched you in the mini-series, (I think on Peacock), Dr. Death--DR. DEATH CLIP: Duntsch is never going to stop on his own.GARFIELD: --which is a really, really, really perverse story. And I watch you every week on the Match Game.MATCH GAME CLIP: We're looking for….penis. GARFIELD: Well, OK, that's actually not true, I don't watch the Match Game. But Alec, I'm afraid to open the f*****g fridge because I think you're going to be in there like drinking my orange juice from the carton. BALDWIN: There I am on the missing — I'm missing on the carton.GARFIELD: I don't understand. You've got between like 6 and 47 kids. How do you have the time to be everywhere all at once? I don't understand this.BALDWIN: I wish that were true. But Peacock--we started Dr. Death in March of last year. They shut down. They came back and were rebooted and ready to go with all of their protocols by mid-October. We shot from mid-October to the end of like, I think middle or end of February, you know, because we have the holidays. It was like a almost five month shoot to do eight episodes because of all the shutdowns and protocols. But it was a group of people--what you see very often in the business now is how hard people are working to keep everything going. They don't want to be the one that shuts down the production. They don't want to be the one that brings the COVID on the set. They're working really, really hard--like my kids' school. When you go to my kids' school and we drop them off at school, everyone's working really hard, masking, gloves, spraying things down, and distancing. And everybody on the staff is vaccinated. Everybody on the faculty is vaccinated. And I would imagine most of the parents are vaccinated as well, and we're assiduous about all of this because the kids can't be vaccinated yet. So we're always trying to protect unvaccinated children. So the job I did with Peacock (and my part was rather small. I mean, the real star of it was Joshua Jackson--played the eponymous character, if you will.)GARFIELD: Very well. He does a sociopath very, very well, that guy. BALDWIN: Wonderful performance. And so, everybody worked really hard to protect everything COVID-wise. I'm leaving to go to New Mexico in a little while to go shoot a film very quickly, and that's the same thing. Everyone just busting their back to keep everything safe for everybody. GARFIELD: A Western, by the way. BALDWIN: Yes, I'm going to do a Western. GARFIELD: Is this your first Western? BALDWIN: I actually did--the producer was a dear friend of mine. I love this guy. And his name was Stockton Briggle. And we did a--for CBS TV back in the 80s, we did a remake of The Alamo with James Arness and Brian Keith.THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY CLIP: News is that Santa Anna has crossed the Rio Grand. [crowd noise]What about Fannin and the boys from Goliad? Same with Houston, what about him?Both Fannin and Houston are on the march to come to our aidWhen do they get here, Jim?As of this moment..How about it Jim?As of this moment, we are on a battle alert. BALDWIN: ...and the Alamo Historical Society picketed the sets because they said that the two other men were old enough to play the fathers of their character. They were both long in the tooth for their role. So, I did a Western once. I did The Alamo for CBS, and it was memorable, but not for the right reasons.GARFIELD: I'm sorry. What was the name of the producer?BALDWIN: Stockton Briggle.GARFIELD: Right, of course, the Stockton Briggle. I once did a piece, that involved the director of the McLean Symphony Orchestra, whose name, as you know, is Dingwall Fleary, and that was a career highlight. BALDWIN: Well I'm always looking for names to stay in hotels under. And my favorite, one of my favorites was the great Mozart biographer who wrote the great books on Mozart. His name was Cuthbert Girdlestone.GARFIELD: Yeah, you know what, his name was actually Shecky Cuddlestein. And you know, he changed it at Ellis Island.BALDWIN: Real name was Phil Cohen.GARFIELD: Yeah. [laughs]BALDWIN: But I want to ask you--Bully Pulpit, how did that come about?GARFIELD: Well, it came about because I got fired...BROOKE GLADSTONE: Bob Garfield is out this week, and as many of you know by now, every week. GARFIELD: ...under the allegation that I had violated the WNYC'S anti-bullying policies. Not that I was a bully, per se, not that that nicety ever came through. As far as the world is concerned, I'm a bully, and, you know, to some degree canceled, but I'm certainly fired. And it was catastrophic in many, many ways: financially, reputationally. I am fighting it, and I probably will prevail, although there's no such thing as a slam dunk in this kind of law. But in the meantime, I still want to journalize. So a friend of mine, who was my co-host on a podcast that Slate did called Lexicon Valley...LEXICON VALLEY: From Washington, DC, this is Lexicon Valley, a podcast about language. I'm Bob Garfield with Mike Vuolo.GARFIELD: It was a wonderful podcast...LEXICON VALLEY: Today, Episode 64, titled “Yada Yada Yada: Europeans Don't Get Seinfeld,” wherein we discuss why the classic American sitcom doesn't translate. Hey, Mikey. Hey, Bobby. How you doing, buddy?Splendid, thank you. And your own self?I am great...GARFIELD: ...which we both--we left. He went and did one thing about Supreme Court decisions. I went to do another thing about MacArthur Genius laureates. And then it was handed over to a Columbia professor, a linguistics professor, named John McWhorter. Anyway, Mike Vuolo his name is, came to me and said, Look, I'm starting this company with my friend, Matt Schwartz, from NPR, and it's called Booksmart Studios, and we would like you to consider doing your thing for us. And I said, Yes! Yes! This is the best part about getting my ass fired and being humiliated and everything else that comes with my fate, now I can do exactly what I want--the same kind of social and political media criticism that I wanted to do, (I don't want to mischaracterize this), but without having to deal with, let's say, the internal politics of an organization, without having any kind of sort of received ideology that has to be at the bottom of it. I'm free to be me, you know, asking the kind of questions and making the kind of observations that I want to make. And that has been very liberating. You know, I wish I hadn't been fired, but I could not be more delighted to be doing this particular show because it's just been a fantastic experience and very well received among the 11 people who listen to it. BALDWIN: I had a show for quite a while. I was several years at NYC.HERE'S THE THING WITH ALEC BALDWIN: My first clip is from an interview with the legendary Barbra Streisand who talks here about how she wanted control of her films in a way that...BALDWIN: When the show ended, when I left NYC to go to iHeart and go from public radio to commercial radio, it was difficult because I was sad to leave behind, figuratively, the public radio audience. I like the public radio audience. And I was always getting--people would tell me how much they liked my podcast in New York more than anything else I was working on. It was kind of funny. But NYC was a place where--I'm a fan of public radio, but not all public radio stations are created equally. And NYC, which has a huge nut, they are, in the COVID era, I would imagine, obsessed with raising money. But NYC, of course, got into the kind of firing jag: Lopate had to go, Jonathan Schwartz had to go, and Hockenberry.I was given a mandatory set of questions that I had to ask Woody Allen. And I said to them, I said, now Woody Allen told me in my conversation with him--we had one conversation, and I said, you know, they're coming after me to ask unanswered questions. And I just find asking those questions--again, not that there's anything wrong with them, but it doesn't mean a good show. He's already been over this a thousand times. And they said, well, if you don't ask these questions, we're not going to air the show. I mean, I found the chuck. This is public radio. They said, if you don't ask the questions--the guy, whatever his name was. What was that guy who was in charge of content there?GARFIELD: I just, I see no need to bandy about names, Alec. Let's just leave them anonymous. BALDWIN: I'd love to put his name right up on the screen, but he was the one that said, yeah, if you don't ask these questions, we're not going to air the show. So in my mind, that was it, I was going to quit. I was out of there. And so, I said to Woody, they're demanding that I ask these questions. I apologize. This isn't at all what I had in mind. He said, listen, he said, don't worry about it. So we do the show. He was great. I mean, he was great, great, great.WOODY ALLEN: I was coming from a position--people were thinking, my god, this older person has seduced this young girl, and he's taking advantage of her. You know, it looked awful. I understood that. I mean, I can understand that. BALDWIN: And then we finished and I called my lawyer and I said, I'm out of here. They didn't care. So I just kind of took a deep breath and I said, you know something, I mean, just about anywhere has got to be better than here. Do I like being on commercial radio? There's benefits to it. Now, you're on commercial radio now as well. GARFIELD: I wish there were more commerce. it's an interesting model. We are on Substack, which is a platform for independent creators of content who are not in the employ of media companies to fend for themselves. You know, put their content out there and be paid by subscriptions by their followers. And Bully Pulpit is, in effect, a Substack talent. And at the moment, we are three shows. There's Bully Pulpit. There is Lexicon Valley, which Mike and I started, and McWhorter now does for us.MCWHORTER: Having a pronoun to mark nonbinary identity could be seen as pretty basic. It could be seen as something that a critical mass of people could agree is a moral advance if you think about history, if you think about what seems to be the case in all cultures.GARFIELD: Then there's Banished by an academic, a professor named Amna Khalid, which looks at what loosely is called “cancel culture” and looks at its implications for the society and so forth.KHALID: To what extent is this just kind of generating frankly b******t work and legislation to make a political point and just to kind of grind down the machinery and keep the conversation going around these issues? And to what extent do they genuinely think that they are going to be able to control the space that is higher education?GARFIELD: She really asks smart questions, and, you know, listens carefully to the answers. And it's something. I mean, when you listen to an episode, when you're done, your jaw aches because of the tension of this moment in our society. And yes, of course, in answer to your question, yes, you can subscribe to all of them for free at Booksmart Studios. BooksmartStudios.org. And if you ask me later, I'll also plug the shows.BALDWIN: [laughs] What are the benefits of the show you're doing now as compared to where you were before? GARFIELD: Well, I get to be me. I don't have to worry about other people's ideology, about their their red zones, you know, I don't have to worry about their aesthetic. I mean, collaboration is great, and I worked with extremely, extremely, extremely talented producers. But they weren't me, and there were times when I was stymied in my wishes for a particular piece of subject matter (often subject matter) or an approach, a line on a piece or something like that. And now I am free to either soar or f**k up all by myself. I'm free to be me, if you call that freedom.BALDWIN: Now, you had on one of the episodes your friend who you've known for many years, who did the 911 Museum documentary. Correct?GARFIELD: Yeah. Steve Rosenbaum.BALDWIN: Rosenbaum--the director or the producer or both?GARFIELD: Both. BALDWIN: And Michael Shulman, I remember that clearly he was the kind of protagonist of the piece.ROSENBAUM: I mean, he's quite brilliant in the way that lots of thoughtful New Yorkers are about images and sound and picture. He's just not a museum person in that he doesn't play by the rules...BALDWIN: I liked the film a lot and I just couldn't get enough of Shulman. I wanted to see more of Shulman.GARFIELD: Shulan. Shulan. BALDWIN: Oh, Shulan? Yeah, Michael Shulan. Sorry. So, you know Rosenbaum from where?GARFIELD: I've known him for, you know, six or seven hundred years. I was a--believe it or not, this is going to sound ridiculous, but before I got into the media criticism racket, I was an advertising critic. I was a, believe it or not, world famous advertising critic because I worked for Advertising Age, which was the global publication for media and marketing industry. And I passed judgment on new commercials and campaigns and print ads and so forth. And as such was--[laughs] it's crazy. “BOB GARFIELD: EXCELLENT RADIO MAN”: Good, old Bob Garfield is the best man in the whole wide world. Good, old Bob Garfield is very intelligent. Good, old Bob Garfield is the nicest man who ever lived. GARFIELD: You know, you know what it's like to walk down the street in Cannes during the movie festival in May and people turning their heads and going, [whispering]. Well, that's what would happen to me when I walked down the Croisette in Cannes in June for the advertising festival.BALDWIN: I thought you were going to say that that was what it was like when you walked down Madison Avenue in the 70s and 80s. That was your Croisette.GARFIELD: As you well know, Alec, as a native New Yorker, nobody makes eye contact with you on Madison, so.CHARLI XCX: Why you looking at me? Why you looking at me? All these  b*****s looking at me.GARFIELD: You know, it's easy to be anonymous walking down at North to South Street. Anyway, so he called me once to book me for a speaking gig, and we became friends. BALDWIN: You were a person who was immersed in the world of advertising. I used to do voiceovers in the early days with the Young & Rubicam and of course, my favorite piece of  Madison Avenue trivia, my favorite anecdote, was when someone said that BBDO (Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn) was the sound made by what? What was the joke?GARFIELD: A trunk falling down the stairs. And it was Fred Allen, said it on his radio show back in 1644.BALDWIN: Batten, Barton...GARFIELD: Durstine and Osborn, yeah. [laughs]BALDWIN: What's your media diet? I mean, I talked to a couple of people, all of them say the same thing, and I don't fault them for that. Their go to in the morning is The New York Times online. They're all reading The Times first and foremost. What's your media diet every day? What are you committed to listening to, reading every day? GARFIELD: Well, as we've discussed, the major thing that I consume it turns out, is Alec Baldwin movies, which is is getting to be a problem.GLENGARRY GLENN ROSS SPEECH: You see this watch? You see this watch?Yeah.That watch costs more than your car. I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. GARFIELD: You know, I read The New York Times. That's my first go. And then, because I'm always looking for story ideas, the other thing I read is everything. Now, one of the things I really miss, one of the things I really miss about On the Media is the producers in the aggregate had far more scope in their media diets than I did, and they would bring stuff that I otherwise would not have found. And, you know, sometimes it was from Atlantic or The New Republic or The Nation or some even less brand name publications, but far greater than I personally consumed. And now, because I have constantly to be on the lookout for ideas, for pieces and commentaries and essays, I just obsessively scroll everything. So the answer to your question changes hour by hour, but I'm just going to go with everything.BALDWIN: So again, the podcast is called Bully Pulpit. It can be found at Booksmart Studios? GARFIELD: BooksmartStudios.org. You can subscribe for free. You can pay $7 a month and get bonus content from Amna and John and from me. I write a weekly text column, which might be even funner for me than the audio pieces. You know, in my life, I've written 3 or 4,000 columns. That's really how I got started in this business. What we do, or at least what I do, is observe. I observe my ass off, try to look at what is happening in our society, and ask questions that for whatever reasons some are uncomfortable about asking. And I may sometimes seem polemical. But the key is I make an argument. I don't just say things as if they were received truth. I make an argument and the arguments are pretty strong and it's often kind of funny. Have you heard any of the pieces?BALDWIN: Yes. I listened to the one about the tortillas. I listened to one about the documentary. Yeah.GARFIELD: So, I mean, in two words and one of them being “transcendent,” how would you characterize Bully Pulpit from BooksmartStudios.org.BALDWIN: Almost transcendent. GARFIELD: [laughs]   BALDWIN: To get back to your media diet, no TV for you? You're not watching any TV news at all. That's hopeless to you. GARFIELD: Well, cable news is not news. It's just highly conflicted people arguing about the news, right? Fox News obviously is not news because it's just political propaganda and opposition research. And it's, you know, it's a cancer on the society. And the local news is, you know, people standing in front of police tape talking live from something that happened yesterday. So that's utterly useless. And unfortunately, local news reporting, it's all but disappeared. We are awash in national political reporting. But the collapse of the media industry has devastated, decimated, the journalism business everywhere in this country. In some places, there are vast deserts where there is no local news available. And you know who's behind that too? You know who is at the heart of that collapse? Well, the digital revolution in the first instance, because it bollixed up the advertising model and it created an endless glut of content and not enough advertising to support it. But then Facebook and Google snapped up everything. They own the advertising economy, and everybody else has to fight for scraps. So, on top of all of the other evils of Mark Zuckerberg that we began with, they have, more than any other institution including the Trump administration, eviscerated the news business here and around the world, and from this, I believe we shall never recover.BALDWIN:  You don't see any hope?GARFIELD: No, I mean, I'm in the despair industry, but there's not a lot I see. Let's just say the planet does not burn into a cinder, about which I'm also increasingly skeptical. I don't see the problems, the intractable problems, in the news business doing anything but getting worse and worse and worse. BALDWIN: The show is called Bully Pulpit. The site is BooksmartStudios.org. I'm especially interested in both the other podcasts--Banished, and what's the other one, Lexicon Valley?GARFIELD: Lexicon Valley. They both are transcendent. And also Alec, I should say I'll be at the Valley Forge Music Fair June 7th, 8th and 9th, and I'll be doing some summer stock in Meridian, Mississippi. I'm doing Music Man. It's long been a dream of mine. I will be playing the Shirley Jones character. BALDWIN: I'm so sorry to miss that. Let's record that. Anyway, my very best to you. I look forward to Bully Pulpit, Lexicon Valley, and Banished on BooksmartStudios.org.GARFIELD: Thanks, man. It's always a pleasure. BALDWIN: My pleasure. We'll talk to you down the road.GARFIELD: All right, we're done here. You now know what my conversations with Alec Baldwin tend to sound like and you also know more about the origins of this show. In due course, you will learn more about my WNYC ordeal. It is as frustrating, I promise you, to be muzzled as it was to be smeared in the first place, but I promise you in time the truth will emerge.Meantime, we encourage you to become a paid subscriber to Booksmart Studios, so you can get extra content from Bully Pulpit, Lexicon Valley and Banished. The big Bully Pulpit bonus is my weekly text column, which some have described as “like Bully Pulpit but you don't need earbuds.”Also, I can't emphasize this enough, if you like what you hear from our shows, please share with your peeps and go to iTunes to rate us. Those ratings to date are phenomenal across the board but scale matters a lot. So, please please weigh in. And I, of course, thank you very much.Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

“Critical Race Theory,” also known as CRT, is a phrase that has become shorthand for just about any classroom instruction on racism, past or present. But what is this fight really about? What are these anti-CRT bills aiming to accomplish, and how will they affect schooling in the US? Amna Khalid discusses the rise of anti-CRT bills with Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy; Acadia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs; and former president of the ACLU, Professor Emerita Nadine Strossen of New York Law School.SPEAKER 1: Critical race theory is teaching that white people are bad.SPEAKER 2: We’re demonizing white people for being born.SPEAKER 1: This theory was never meant to be brought into grade schools, high schools at all. It’s actually taught in the collegiate atmosphere.SPEAKER 2: These are systemic things. Ignoring it perpetuates the problem. By acknowledging it, we can find solutions and we can address the problems and the inequality that exists in our country. SPEAKER 3: You gonna deliberately teach kids: “This white kid right here got it better than you because he’s white”? You gonna purposely tell a white kid, “Oh, well, black people were all down and suppressed”? How do I have two medical degrees and I’m sitting here oppressed? [cheers] How did I get that? [cheers]AMNA KHALID: Most parents of young schoolchildren are familiar with the stories--third graders in California are given an assignment: rank yourselves by power and privilege based on your racial identity. Parents in North Carolina say middle schoolers are forced to apologize in class to their peers for their privilege. In an elementary school in Manhattan, children are sorted by race for mandatory training. In some Buffalo schools, students are taught that all white people are guilty of implicit racial bias. Sometime towards the end of last year, parents and politicians freaked out, mostly conservatives, who see all this as a kind of liberal indoctrination of our youth. In at least 26 states around the country, Republican legislators have introduced what are now called anti-CRT bills. CRT stands for critical race theory, a phrase that has become shorthand for just about any classroom instruction on racism, past or present. But what is this fight really about? What are these bills aiming to accomplish and how will they affect schooling in the US? I spoke to three experts about the rise of anti-CRT bills. First is Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy, who says that although CRT was coined decades ago as a purely legal, academic term, it has now all but lost its original meaning. RANDALL KENNEDY: Now, if I'm in a seminar at my law school and we're talking about critical race theory, I'm thinking about a community of people, a community of thought that has its origins in the 1980s, that believes that liberal legalism was inadequate to get us to a state of racial justice. They’re people who believe that mere anti-discrimination would not suffice to redress the terrible injuries of racial oppression. Something much more activist, something much more deep-seated, had to be done to get us to where we needed to go. On the other hand, if we're just talking about on the street, if we're talking about television, if we're talking about radio today, for many people, especially for its most vocal critics, critical race theory is anything that they don't like that has to do with race. It's an open category and it's more of a slogan than anything else. KHALID: Let's move a little bit away from its origins and from the academic context and think about what it's come to mean today, particularly when we're referring to these anti-CRT bills. We've seen a rise in bills that have been drafted across the country, primarily in Republican-dominated states, where there is an attempt to banish, if you will, what they call teaching of critical race theory, particularly at the K-12 level. Now, as someone who is a scholar, a legal scholar, can powers that be do that? Is it legally sanctioned to stipulate what K-12 curriculum should be or is it in contravention of the First Amendment? KENNEDY: It can be done. It's a well-known tenet of American practice that public primary and secondary schooling is largely under the control of local political forces. It's deemed to be perfectly proper for primary and secondary schools, for instance, to inculcate patriotism. You know, that's viewed as uncontroversial. Of course you're going to inculcate patriotism. Of course you're going to inculcate various attitudes that the ascendant political forces in your jurisdiction want to be taught in schools and nourished and lauded. We want our youngsters to know about the Founding Fathers and the greatness of American democracy, et cetera, et cetera. Well, if you can do all of that, I mean, that's inculcation. This is another type of inculcation, or it's saying what we don't want taught. Well, you can do that. You can, for instance, have a school system in which you say, “We're going to banish the teaching of racist ideas.” And in fact, that's what some of these people, you know, are saying right now. They're terming critical race theory itself as a type of racism. And they're saying, “We don't want that taught.” Can that be done? Yeah, that can largely be done at the K-12 level. Yes. KHALID: There's nothing that prevents that kind of move from being undertaken.KENNEDY: That's right. It’s a political question. Basically from kindergarten to 12th grade, what you're taught in school is largely under the control of the local school board, the city school board, the county school board. It's a matter of local democratic politics. And so, it's a political struggle. KHALID:  OK, so, Randy, now I'm going to ask you to take off your legal scholar hat and put on your hat of an educator who is concerned with how we train our students to think. So with that hat on, I'd like you to tell us, are you in support of anti-CRT legislation? KENNEDY: I'm appalled by it. In my view, what's going on is the latest iteration of a phenomenon that we have seen over and over and over again. In my view, this is analogous to what happened in the 1950s: the panic over communism, the panic over socialism. You'll note that those two words often find themselves in close proximity to critical race theory. People say, you know, “Critical race theory is Marxism. Critical race theory is socialism.” There's a long history of stigmatizing ideas that are dissident, especially ideas that are critical of the status quo. There's a long history of stigmatizing such ideas as communistic or socialistic or Marxist. And that's what's going on today. The courts, I don't think, are going to be our salvation. I think our salvation is going to be public opinion. And you asked me, “Well, you know, what should people be thinking?” People should be thinking, “How do I want my children to be trained?” I would think that people would want children to be critical thinkers, would want children to be introduced to all sorts of ideas, including ideas that they don't like, trained in such a way that children can have a critical, skeptical stance toward a wide range of ideas. That, it seems to me, is what we should want in our public schools. And we cannot have that if certain ideas are banished. Let the teachers introduce things that are called critical race theory and let's talk about it: “What do you think of this? How should this be assessed?” The art of assessment is what we should be inculcating in our history and in our social studies and in our civics classes. And we can't do that if we are in a panic and banish ideas that we think we don't like. KHALID: According to Randall Kennedy, critical race theory in 2021 means something very different from what its original proponents intended. Nowadays, the term is loaded. It is political. It means everything and says almost nothing about what is actually being taught in schools. But it's the term that we're stuck with for the time being. The more immediate question then becomes, what are these anti-CRT bills trying to achieve? Jeffrey Sachs teaches Middle Eastern politics at Acadia University in Canada and has been closely following the various legislation.JEFFREY SACHS: These efforts focus their attention on preventing K-12, and in some cases, public universities and colleges from engaging in certain kinds of speech in the classroom, assigning certain kinds of materials, and also, in some instances, preventing the kinds of trainings that schools can require teachers or staff to undergo as part of their jobs. And really, the long and short of it is that this is an attempt to prevent teachers from being trained in or discussing certain ideas that conservatives really hate. KHALID: And what are those ideas? SACHS: The list fluctuates. They tend to focus on things like the idea that one race or sex is inherently superior or inferior to another race or sex, or the idea that somebody, by virtue of their race or sex, is guilty or should feel shame on that basis. I don't think there are many people out there--I certainly, I hope not--who think that a person should feel shame or guilt on account of their race or sex. So, the ideas that are being targeted for censorship by these laws, many of them, when they're presented, they sound like a reasonable law. But when you kind of really drill down into how these laws are being written, you discover very quickly that they're far more sweeping and in some cases, far more sloppily drafted than probably they should be. And they would inevitably sweep up and censor all kinds of speech or classroom content that we want to have included, that we want to have protected. This is really a case where the politics of the issue, I think, are so powerful and the momentum is so great that legislators aren't really thinking clearly or if they are thinking clearly, they have malign intent because the result is laws that really are going to do a lot of damage to both K-12 and higher ed. KHALID: It may be constitutional in the K-12 context, yet that doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean that it doesn't come with a set of both anticipated and unanticipated consequences. There's nothing wrong in saying that teaching divisive concepts, which say things like, “If you're from a particular race you’re inherently superior or inferior,” is wrong, and we don't want that happening in our schools. Yet, the issue becomes very nebulous when we begin to think about definitions, what constitutes a divisive concept becomes contentious. SACHS: So, a good example is the law recently passed in Tennessee, which reads that a public school authority or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction, and also that they may not use any supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts. And then it lists an array of concepts similar to the ones I described earlier. Now, the problem here is that there are all kinds of sound pedagogical reasons why a teacher might wish to include a concept in a course, even a very controversial concept. So an example might be that the teacher wishes to include a primary source written by an author who lived 100, 200, 300 years ago, at a time when certain kinds of divisive concepts were common currency. It might be useful, for instance, for the purposes of discussing historic discrimination or present-day discrimination for a teacher to cite a document that contains a divisive concept. If you pass a law, as Tennessee has, saying that teachers may not include such material in the course, then you are robbing students of their ability to confront and think intelligently about these ideas--ideas that they're bound to encounter at some point in their everyday lives. It should be the jobs of teachers to introduce concepts, no matter how divisive, so long as they do so in a responsible, neutral, and objective way. These laws, in many cases, do not draw that distinction. Instead, they ban any inclusion of these ideas. Tennessee’s is a good example. It bans the mere inclusion of these ideas, even if included objectively and discussed neutrally. That kind of sloppy drafting, if indeed it is sloppy and not intentional, is, I think, a real ticking time bomb. KHALID: The irony is that those who are pushing these laws are the ones who, until very recently, supported a president who was making precisely the kinds of speeches where certain groups were being seen as inferior and which would be very much part of your civics education if you were trying to engage in an educational discussion about democracy in America. SACHS: Absolutely. I mean, under this law, there's many Trump speeches that I'm sure would be ineligible for inclusion in a Tennessee classroom. Setting aside my own opinions about Donald Trump, I think that there is very valid pedagogical reasons for why a civics teacher might want to include a speech by the president of the United States. It's just a no brainer to me. Whether they mean to or not--and I always try to give legislators the benefit of the doubt, but whether they mean to or not, this law, which is currently on the books in Tennessee, would forbid the inclusion of a speech by the president. That seems to me to be insane.KHALID: But hang on, Jeff. People in favor of these bills often point out that teaching at the K-12 level is already highly regulated. Take creationism. You can't make that part of the science curriculum. And for the most part, people are okay with that. So what's wrong with banning CRT then, if that's something we want to keep out of the classroom? SACHS: There's a good reason why this is not a good analogy, because the fact of the matter is we do not ban creationism from public schools, right? We ban the promotion of creationism. We ban, under the Establishment Clause--jurisprudence--Teachers may not promote the idea that the earth or the cosmos was created by a deity. However, teachers are free to discuss that idea. And in fact, they have to if they're going to discuss things like Greek and Roman mythology or Dante's Divine Comedy. So there has to be room in our law and in our jurisprudence to allow people to discuss the idea of creationism so long as they do so in a neutral and objective way. We should extend that same basic courtesy and framework to critical race theory and its attendant ideas. So, people should be allowed in the classroom to discuss the idea that black people are inherently superior or inferior to white people, if only for the reason that that idea pops up in important documents and important conversations throughout history and in the present day. A teacher would be failing in his or her duty if they did not prepare students for the eventuality that they will encounter that idea outside the classroom. People should also be able to discuss the concepts of critical race theory without saying critical race theory is the truth. KHALID: Jeffrey, I'm going to actually move the conversation to discuss a different context, which might help elucidate some of the issues that we would face in the US. And it's one that I feel you're well-equipped to comment on. So, I come from Pakistan. And Pakistan is a very different society, one that has been looked upon in the US as a society that is backwards. And one of the key issues is we have blasphemy laws, which prevent the discussion of anything that insults Muhammad. Now, what constitutes a blasphemy is the issue over here. And in colleges and universities, I remember growing up not being able to ask genuinely inquisitive questions because they were being shut down because they were seen as blasphemous. So, for instance, Mohammad does X, Y, and Z and a single question like, “Well, why was this the best option?” or “Why did he choose to do this?” would be met with such irate censure from the teacher, who clearly did not want to go there for reasons that this could have implications should this be reported outside of class. And I feel like the US discussion about bills about CRT would benefit immensely--we could elucidate the ill effects of these if we just look a little beyond our shores to see what's going on in other countries. You study the Middle East. SACHS: That's such a fascinating comparison. And I think it really does kind of cast a bit of relief, what you're talking about. There's a famous case from the early 1990s in Egypt where something similar to what you're describing happened, where a university professor--of course, academic freedom is severely circumscribed in Egypt then and now. And in the early 1990s, this university professor described the Koran as a historical creation, that it reflected the events of its time and is not necessarily a universal and eternal document the way kind of orthodox Islamic theology presents it to be. For this, for engaging and considering this kind of critical view of the Koran, he was fired. He was prosecuted. He was declared by the courts to be an apostate, and his marriage to his wife, who, at least according to the courts, was still a Muslim in good standing, was annulled, and the two of them had to actually flee the country. Now, that's a very famous and thankfully, at least, a very extreme example, even in the context of Egypt, where these issues can be so sensitive. But it definitely highlights the idea that the moment you fail to draw a distinction between the discussion of an idea and its promotion, then you are robbing teachers and students of the opportunity to confront and critically consider certain ideas. So, while I don't think we in the United States or Canada or wherever face a similar kind of punishment if we run afoul of these anti-CRT laws, the threat is there and the self-censorship will be too. So, there we will definitely see in America teachers (and frankly, in many cases professors as well, because academic freedom is only as powerful under the law as the people who enforce it), at all levels, we will see a kind of self-censorship and a kind of terror in many cases of running afoul of these texts. KHALID: As Jeffrey Sachs suggests, many of these bills do not make a distinction between explaining an idea and endorsing it. But that's just one problem with how these bills are drafted. Nadine Strossen is professor emerita at New York Law School and former president of the ACLU. She takes issue with the way these bills invoke the concept of divisiveness. NADINE STROSSEN: The concept of divisiveness is being bandied about as if it is inherently negative. And that is very dangerous because divisiveness applies to ideas that people disagree with, right? Any time somebody says something controversial or provocative or unpopular, one of the stigmatizing accusations is, “Oh, you're engaging in divisiveness.” Or if you say something critical of government policy or, heaven forbid, of school policy--“Oh, don't be so divisive.” Well, what's the opposite of divisiveness? It's uniformity. It's homogeneity. It's conformity. And that's the opposite of the critical thinking toward which I think we should be striving if we are to educate our young citizens. And interestingly enough, in the Supreme Court's most recent student free speech case from the summer of 2021, the Mahanoy case, the Supreme Court actually said that the school itself has an interest in making sure that students have the right to engage in unpopular expression. That could be, in other words, divisive expression. And not only that the students have that right, but the school even has a duty to teach students the importance of exercising and defending unpopular speech in particular. And that would certainly apply to divisive speech. Now, I also want to go back to the 1969 Tinker case where Mary Beth Tinker and a number of other students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in the early 1960s, at a time when the war was still very popular, when critics of the war were very unpopular, were assumed to be traitors to the United States and unpatriotic. And it was very upsetting expression because many parents and siblings of these school kids and teachers were off fighting and dying in Vietnam. A recent alum of the school had recently been killed in Vietnam. So this was very divisive emotionally as well as politically. And the school cited those concerns in saying, “Well, that's disruption and we can't have that in the public schools.” And the Supreme Court said, “No, no, no, no, no. Freedom for ideas, especially about matters of public affairs”--That's true for CRT, deals with matters of public affairs--“is critically important. If we were to say that the mere fact that speech can be divisive or upsetting, either personally or politically, that that's not a basis for allowing it to be protected, then we are teaching the wrong lessons about citizenship to these future voters and future leaders of our country.”KHALID: I'm actually really glad that you brought that up, because I think one of the hallmarks of democracy is precisely to not just allow for or tolerate, but to actually foster dissent, to create spaces where dissent is possible. As an educator, what I see happening with these bills is that they reek of an authoritarianism which is trying to produce the kind of conformity that fundamentally hollows out democratic institutions. And it's terrifying. When the public school system is destroyed is when you begin to see the downfall of a society. And it troubles me deeply. STROSSEN: You know, without free thinking and critically thinking and debating and discussing citizens, our democracy is going to crumble because it depends on we, the people, to wield our sovereign power. We can't do that in an informed, meaningful way unless we have nurtured and respected dissent.KHALID: I want to end with Professor Randall Kennedy, who believes that there is a direct line between laws that stifle open inquiry and the very health of our civic society. KENNEDY: The quality of our education is intimately tied up with the quality of our democracy. All of the leading theorists of democracy have talked about the importance of public education. They are bound up with one another. K-12 is the foundation of our educational system. What happens in K-12, tremendously important. In a democracy, if the people rule, it's very important for the people to make decisions about our health, about the use of military force, about all of the things that are significant. Well, if you have a lot of ignorance out there, if you have, out there, people who have not been trained to make wise assessments, if you have, out there, masses of people who really don't have the ability to separate disinformation from good, useful information, the fanciful from the realistic, well, a society that's governed by a badly educated populace is a society on its way down, which is why, you know, the struggle over the schools is so important. KHALID: As a mother of two young boys, I, too, am deeply invested in how racism is addressed in our schools. I definitely don't want my kids coming home and saying things like, “Mama, we were told today that white people are oppressing us.” That's not what I would consider an education. But if legislation is not the answer, and I firmly believe that it's not, then what can parents do to protest indoctrination in schools? We'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue. You can leave a written comment on BooksmartStudios.org or email a voice memo to banished@booksmartstudios.org.If you like what you heard today and want more exclusive content, including access to my extended conversation with Nadine Strossen and an exclusive discussion with Greg Lukianoff, the president and CEO of FIRE and coauthor of Coddling of the American Mind, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios. Subscribers get transcripts, extended interviews, and bonus segments. Also, check out my sister podcasts by Booksmart Studios: John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Bob Garfield's Bully Pulpit. Please comment and help us spread the word. The success of Booksmart and the impact of our work depends as much on you as on us. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And as always, I am Amna Khalid. Cheerio. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Turns out that some languages are less intelligible through a mask than others, and, believe it or not, it all depends on how often you use certain consonants. It’s called the McGurk effect and it’s the closest that linguistics comes to actual magic.* FULL TRANSCRIPT *From Booksmart Studios, this is Lexicon Valley, a podcast about language. I'm John McWhorter and you know, in line with the fact that the Booksmart version of Lexicon Valley is going to be somewhat more topical than the Grand Old version, I want to discuss something that I've tried not to get too much into because of my motto that life is always happy in the valley and that is the pandemic, especially since it could be argued that we're coming out of it. And I feel a little better about referring to it at length. And I want to discuss language and the pandemic and beyond the level that some people started asking back about a year and a half ago. What about all of these new terms? And, you know, the answer is, well, you know, what about them? So social distancing, you can't do a show about that. Yes, we learned a bunch of new words and expressions. But still, the question is — especially, you know, a year and a half out — what kind of effect has there been on language from all of this stuff that we've had to go through? And, you know, one of the first things that you might think about is these God-damned masks. What kind of effect does it have? For example, someone very near and dear to me was talking about how when she goes to a store and she has to tell them whether or not she's going to use credit or debit, well, when you're in there and everybody's masked, the cashiers have told her that it's hard to understand whether people are saying credit or debit because those two words differ only in their initial consonant, as we call it. So is it cr- or d-? There is no problem with that at all in normal life. But when you've got a piece of cloth in front of your mouth, it can be somewhat muffled and you can't make up for that by looking at people's mouths and doing a little bit of passive lip reading as we all do, whether we're conscious of it or not. So credit, debit, what did you say? And so, my sweetheart tells me that she walks into the store and she has to actually enunciate or shout credit or debit. What's going on with that?THE McGURK EFFECTDo these masks actually muffle speech in that way? Do they create a kind of a confusion? And, you know, we would expect that they would. They certainly are. And one way that we know it is that linguists are aware of something called the McGurk effect. And the McGurk effect is one of these things where you can have fun in a class showing people that linguistics can be magic. And what it is, is that if you show a video clip of somebody saying gah, but then what you play them saying is not gah, but bah — you have those two things going on — the person is with their mouth saying gah, but you play them saying bah, what an Anglophone does when they see that is they could swear to God that the person is saying dah. You watch somebody mouthing gah, you play them saying bah. Well then what you hear is not bah and you don't hear gah, what you hear is dah. And what's especially fascinating is that those consonants, the b, d and the g, have a certain relationship in terms of how pronunciation actually works. So forget the order that those things come in in the alphabet. It's not about b first and then d and then g. It's actually more interesting than that. And the alphabetical order is actually only accidentally consonant, haha so to speak, with how this works. B is with your lips, d is when you put your tongue on that alveolar ridge, that thing that you burn if you drink your hot cocoa too fast, then g is the soft palate. So front, middle, back, b front, d middle, g back. So what happens is if you see somebody speaking the back, gah, and then what's played is them doing the front, bah, you end up correcting it to what's actually in between, dah, which the person didn't say and you didn't hear. That is called the McGurk effect. Absolutely fascinating thing. It's funny with McGurk, I always find myself having the most random thought when I hear that. Does anybody remember that sitcom Dear John? This is way back about 30 years ago. Judd Hirsch is off of Taxi and Dear John was supposedly based on a British show, but really Dear John was a shameless attempt to put Judd Hirsch in Taxi again. And they had characters that almost all corresponded to the Taxi characters. And as you can imagine, the show was pretty good. It wasn't quite a keeper, but because it was more Taxi and because the actors were good, I must admit that back then when there was less to do because there wasn't really any internet yet, I watched it. And I remember Jere Burns had this character Kirk, and Kirk is this sort of Guys and Dolls-ish vernacular person. And the running joke was that he'd introduce himself as “Gurk.” My name's Gurk. And so I always think of “Gurk” when I hear about the McGurk effect. You know, why am I imitating this obscure character? Listen, everything's on YouTube. Here is Jere Burns. The first time, this is the first episode where he introduces this “Gurk” character.KIRK MORRIS: The name's Kirk.JOHN LACEY: Oh, hi. John. Nice to meet you.KIRK MORRIS: All right, stick with me. You're gonna make out like a bandit.The McGurk effect. And guess what has actually been shown in research that's now coming out in the wake of the height of the pandemic. It turns out that when people have these masks on their faces, young people are good at compensating. They stop relying so much on that passive lipreading and they get better at just distinguishing consonants based on hearing them. However, people who are older don't do that nearly as well. The ability atrophies. And so the masks have been less of a problem with the young than with older people. This was demonstrated by a very interesting paper in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, and it was by Czech researchers. And to tell you the truth, I don't know much about Czech and I can't pronounce their names. But it was in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. It was recently. And if you want to check it out, you should check this out. You'd predict it. You wouldn't necessarily predict that there would be an age issue. But yeah, these masks make it harder to understand what people are saying, sometimes in really graphic ways. But just in general, we don't get to do that lipreading. The way we learn to deal with human language is that you don't have to see the person's face. We know that from, you know, the radio, et cetera. But it certainly does help. And if we've got people in front of us watching their face is part of how we accomplish comprehension. With the masks that's muffled, and so you have to adjust and we can. But adjusting, as with just about everything else, is harder as you get older.IS THE McGURK EFFECT MORE PRONOUNCED IN ROTOKAS?And it's interesting, you think about other languages. The McGurk effect happens in lots of languages, more in some than in others. Although within a given language, the results are almost bizarrely consistent. But you can imagine there are places where these masks must have been more of a problem. And so, for example, I'm not aware of any article about how people are dealing with masks in the language Rotokas, which is spoken on an island off of New Guinea. But Rotokas is famous for one of the languages with the fewest sounds, period, of all. So there are languages that have like 148 different sounds. One of the click languages has that many because there are many, many, many clicks and then many, many other consonants and vowels. But then there are languages that have the fewest sounds and Rotokas is one of the ones with the very fewest. And so, for example, with consonants all Rotokas has — if we're going to be technical, it's the central Rotokas dialect — but all central Rotokas has is p, t, k, b, d and g. Now you can hear that as a pattern. So it's the b, d, g — front, middle, back — and then p, t, k have the exact same relationship. Really p and b are the same thing but different; t and d are the same thing but different; and k and g are the same thing but different. Feel it? So, p, b, and you're thinking well one is a B and that's close to the beginning of the alphabet and then P is somewhere in the late middle. No, that's completely irrelevant. P and b — b is just p with kind of some belly in it. So all Rotokas has is b, d, g and the related p, t, k. Nothing else. No nasal sounds. The way Rotokas speakers make fun of speakers of other languages is they start going mmmnnn, because that's how speakers of other languages seem to them. Now that doesn't mean that they have any problem with making themselves understood in normal conditions. But imagine if all you've got is p, t, k, b, d, g and now you've got these masks on, and there is this effect that you have where you are likely to hear a different consonant if you don't get to see the person's face. The McGurk effect must be a real pain in the ass on Rotokas in particular, in any language with that few consonants.IS THE McGURK EFFECT LESS PRONOUNCED IN CAMBODIAN?But then there are places where you would assume that it would be less of a problem. And that's because this issue is with consonants, not with vowels. The vowels come through the cloth pretty darn well. So that's not an issue. And that would mean that if you are a language with lots and lots of vowels, then this sort of thing isn't going to be as much of a problem in terms of comprehension. And I think, for example, of Cambodian. I'll just bet — and if any of you are Cambodian you can please let me know, I would genuinely like to know — I'll just bet that the masks aren’t as much of a problem in Cambodian. And that's because, this is a factoid that doesn't get around as much as that certain click languages have lots and lots of sounds, but just like there are languages that have lots and lots and lots of consonants, there are languages that have lots and lots of vowels, too. So, for example, depending on how you count it in English, you've got about 13 vowels. Cambodians got 30. It's really rather amazing. If you take the single vowels and then also the diphthongs — not dipthong as you want to call it if you see it on the page and you look by too quickly, but diphthongs — diphthongs like not aw but oi, not ah but ai. Diphthong. Those are still thought of as single sounds. Take the vowels that are single and then the diphthongs, Cambodians got 30 — you might say 29, you might say 31. And it depends on the dialect but they've got 30. It's funny how that happens. The only languages in the world that regularly have that many vowels are in Southeast Asia and they're ones that are related to Cambodian. And what that is, is the result of language change on tone languages. So I've talked about how there are languages where tone, the pitch that you utter a syllable on, is as important to indicating the meaning as what the vowel is itself. And so, for example, in Mandarin you can say, dah, okay but you've got to do the tone because dah is big, whereas dah is answer and dah is hit, and so on. Well, I'm always telling you that language always changes. Well, what about tones always changing? They can change into other tones, definitely. But another thing that can happen in a tonal language is that the tones wear away and just become different vowels. So where there once were four levels of tones and then a bunch of vowels, well, what ends up happening is you have just a big giant bunch of vowels. And so that's how Cambodian ends up having 30 vowels. Roll the tape back and it had some tones, just like a lot of the languages surrounding it — like Vietnamese, like, depending on what you call surround, Chinese. But now it's got 30. And that means that it's got so many vowels that speaking through a mask is probably less of a problem because the vowels come through loud and clear and they can help to distinguish what the consonants are that are being confused because you've got so many vowels to work with, and, well with context, you must be fine. So if you're a Rotokas speaker, and I'm sure I have many Rotokas speakers among my listeners, let me know how much of a pain in the ass the masks have been. And if you're Cambodian, let me know if you've noticed that with Cambodian, actually it's just not that much of a problem. It is, you know since we're talking about Cambodian, it's time for a song clip. And, you know, let's try this. It's Cambodia. It's hot there. In the summer of 1987, it was hot because it was summer, at least in Philadelphia. And I had this mind numbing but socially wonderful job working in the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia. And I remember this song was one of the pop hits, and I've always loved it. And I don't know anybody else who does. But one of the people who worked there, a woman in her 50s, I remember she said, you know, I like this one. I've been hearing this one on the radio. I like it. So well, Cathy liked it. So I'm not alone. I salute Cathy and Barbara and Antoinette, my summer coworkers, back at the Federal Reserve Bank in 1987. You know, actually, folks, for those of you who may have read Nine Nasty Words, this is the summer job where there was another coworker who used to yell motherfucker all the time. This is that job. In any case, the song is by ABC. Yeah, I know. But there was something about them and it's “When Smokey Sings.” It is one of my top ten favorite shitty pop hits of all time.When Smokey SingsCOVID MASKS AND SIGN LANGUAGESYou know who else has a problem with the masks and you kind of wouldn't expect it, people who use sign languages. Now, you kind of think that because they're talking with their hands that the mask would be less of a problem, but no. The truth is that facial expression is very important to getting across not only the things that we convey with facial expressions in spoken languages, but also grammar. There are grammatical things — and not just little nuances, but, you know, basic grammar — where you really have to have the face. And of course, the mouth and the nose are, for most people, part of the face. And so having the mask on when you're doing sign language is a problem. And in some ways it's more of a problem than it sometimes is in spoken languages, especially with Cambodian. And so, for example, you're trying to express yourself in American Sign Language, ASL and you do kind of a, a pout with your lips, a little bit of a pout, and you're kind of miming mmm. So that's what you're doing. That is one way of saying “regularly.” So whatever you're signing, whatever the verb is, when you do that little pout — as if to go mmm — that means that you do it on a regular basis. Now, if you think about it, that's not just making some facial expression. If I make my lips into a little pout and go mmm, nobody around me is going to say: oh, you do it that often? Doesn't look like that at all. In other words, it's arbitrary, like so much of language. There's no reason you call that thing a cat. That's not the sound it makes. It doesn't go cat. It's just arbitrary. Well, that kind of mmm, I'm sure there's some story as to how that came to mean regularly, but now it's just language. Well if you can't see your mouth then you can't convey that. Or you do the same pout but then you stick your tongue between your teeth a little bit, like thth. A little bit of th-ness. That means “carelessly.” Once again you can't convey it if you've got that damn thing on your face. Oh, by the way, I keep calling it that. I have masked along with everybody else, but goodness have I hated it. I don't like having that thing on. And it's partly because I'm weird. And I mean, I know none of us like it, but for example, I own not a single hat. I have never had a hat since I wasn't being made to wear one. I don't like something on my head and I have never felt, goodness my head is cold. And so only on the very, very, very coldest days will I put up a hood. I have various pairs of sunglasses. Never wear them unless I'm on the beach on my back with the sun right in my eyes. I get, most people put on shades. I don't want to. I don't want that in front of my eyes. I want to see the world as it is. Same thing with the masks, don't like them. That's why I keep on saying Goddamn, I have never gotten used to them, but I do read them. But if you are signing, then it's a problem to the point that there are these masks with windows in the front so that you can see and people who are signers like them quite a bit. Also, there's lipreading involved with sign language. It's to an extent. And once again, if the lips are covered up, you can't read them. And so the masks have not been fun for people who are using signed as opposed to spoken language, despite the fact that you might think that sign languages are all about the hands. That's what I thought at first. I thought, well, if there's one good thing about this, it's that people who are signing don't have to feel like they're being muffled by the masks for what I thought of as the obvious reason. But no, I wasn't thinking hard enough. They do.COVID (CORONA?) AND BILINGUALISMSomething else about the pandemic and language. You know, if you are somebody who, you know, for part of your living writes for the media, now and then you make predictions and it's very easy to never check up to see whether your predictions come true. You write it, and I don't know if all people are aware that if you write for the media regularly, you forget what you write the second you write it because you're on to the next thing. And a lot of people forget what you write the second you write because they're on to reading the next thing. And so pundits, as it’s sometimes called, don't get checked up upon enough. And so I decided to check up on myself. I said two things about language and the virus. I was wrong about one and I was right about another one. The one I was wrong about is that sometime back there, and I'm pretty sure it was on this show, I said that people were not going to take up the term Covid, they were going to call it Corona. Because there was a time — I'll bet we're almost already forgetting —  where you could talk about Corona. I remember that's what my kids were calling it for the first two or three months. And I was calling it that because Corona is a prettier word than Covid. You could call that arbitrary, but rrr, nnn, they don't stop — as opposed to covvv, which kind of has the kind of tire on the pavement then d. So it's like covvvv … d, it's like an accident. And so I kind of thought esthetically Covid is going to catch on because it sounds like the disease that it is, whereas Corona puts a kind of a corona of gentleness around it. I was wrong. Covid is what has caught on and to have people calling it Corona — they're going to have people doing that probably in movies about this in 20 years. And it's going to be a little, a little inaccurate, like showing people with water bottles in 1991 when it hadn't happened yet. But then I actually was right about something else. And this is something the same sweetheart is the one who came up with, it wasn't really me, but I jumped onto it and I wrote about it in the Atlantic. There was an idea that people who use a heritage language, as we call it, at home — s o people who say in the United States use English outside of the home, but then another language from another country in the home. The idea was that kids were going to get better at speaking those home languages during the lockdown because they weren't out being distracted by English as much. That was a prediction. It was something you could imagine and you couldn't be sure, but it looked like that was going to happen. And if you check up on it a year and a half later, it looks like that has definitely been true. Now, whether the effects will stick is a question. I would bet they won't. We should check up on that in the future. But nevertheless, a year and a half later, it's been shown that kids who have been under lockdown have been better at their heritage language because they aren't so distracted by English from the outside and English having that coolness effect, even if it does it through the media. Still your home with grandma, your home with your parents, you're using it more. There's a study by Li Sheng at U. Delaware. Li Sheng, and they were working with various other people. And it shows that if you are in a household these days, you're four to eight years old and English is the outside language, Mandarin is used at home. After the lockdown, these kids have been better at Mandarin than they were before. So their comprehension of English and Mandarin is the same, but they produce Mandarin. Their spoken Mandarin is a little better than their spoken English because it's been polished at home with native speakers of Mandarin such as their parents and their grandparents, and they haven't interacted live as much with English speaking peers. So that's a neat study. And similar things have been shown in Britain and Ireland and in Norway. And I also found a study in Uganda. Same thing. So we're not saying Corona, we're using that ugly word Covid, but it has given a little bump to kids retaining the language of their parents as opposed to big giant, nasty, dirty English. So language at home, language and love, love American style. There's your transition because I want the other song cue In this episode to be one of my favorite theme songs. Love American Style was a show that really does not travel outside of its time zone at all. It was this anthology show with these, you know, by today's standards, tacky little stories about love and hinting at sex about as much as Procter and Gamble could let you get by with at the time. But one of the best things about it was the theme song, which I remember. I found the show when I was seven and eight, about as incomprehensible as The Tales of Gilgamesh. But I did like the theme song and this is it. It's The Cowsills. If anybody remembers this, I know you liked it too, even if you didn't want to bother with the show.Love American Style theme songFor the musicologists among you, what's good about it is the pedal point in the bridge, the way the note in the bottom is the same all the way through. It makes the bridge sound kind of nostalgic and, frankly, more sophisticated than it is. I love pedal point.WILL VAX BECOME VASK? IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN.What about new words during Covid? Well, as I’ve told you, to be honest, I have not found anything terribly interesting about them except that the words are just new. As you know, I'm often kind of a grammar person, but there is something that's interesting. More about me and the predictions. And this one seems to be coming true. When I say that language is always changing and you should take it as kind of a spectator sport, this was one of those things. And so, for example, the word mash, as in The Monster Mash. I say that because, remember Count Chocula and Frankenbrry. Well, they release those at Halloween again, and I love Frankenberry. It is a marvelous cereal. Usually you only get it at Halloween. For some reason, I found it in up-ish-state New York for sale at a Target. And so now I have a box of Frankenberry the size of a child in my home, and on the back there's something about Monster Mash. So the word mash, originally it was maks. Okay, now that in itself is just an isolated factoid. But fish, the original word was fisk and then in some dialects it became fiks. So you see how something ks. But then that might become sk, and then that might become sh. There's this ks, sk, sh interchange in English just like ask, for example. Well, just as many dialects of English have said aks as ask, and that is why, yes, Black people in colloquial speech say aks, not to mention many white people. It's not because people don't know what order to put their consonants in. It's because way back in old English, there was an alternation between askian and aksian. And now we have that as ask and aks, and that's not special pleading because also mash and maks, fish, fisk, fix. Well, if that's true, then I've been listening to people talking about vaxing and people being antivax and I've been thinking we need about five minutes before you start hearing people say antivask because when you say ks, there's a part of we English speakers that wants to kind of switch it around. There's always that little alternation. And so you can aks, you can ask, it's a maks that becomes mashing, etc. I was thinking antivax, some people are going to say antivask because it feels kind of good and because we're used to words like mask and ask and wouldn't you know, it's true. There apparently is an expression that's making its way. It starts small and then maybe it'll spread, but it's making its way. You can be antivask, antimask. That's what people are saying. I've only seen it with antimask alongside. But still, I'll bet it's the beginning of a colloquial pronunciation of vax as vask because it feels right, because there's so many words that end in sk as well as ks. So there is a, a Tweet that I found.Humans are generally like this. Hear/read something 1000X--e.g. anti-vask & anti-mask lies from Right Wing TV, radio, newspapers or social mediaOr there's somebody who wrote, frankly sadly: I know anti-vask, anti-mask nurses. Well, the world is complicated, but that means that yes, vax … antivask. Say that enough, and there are going to be people who say antivask. I'm assuming that before long, if it hasn't happened already, there are going to be people talking about the antivask people and just, you know, letting it go by because that's how language goes. There's some words during Covid. That's the one I've been listening for. And so far, it's behaving the way I think it should. And of course, that's what it's all about.If you'd like to leave a comment or check out our other great podcasts, Banished with Amna Khalid and Bully Pulpit with Bob Garfield, or if you want to subscribe, please visit BooksmartStudios.org. Our producers are Matthew Schwartz and, as always, Mike Vuolo. And our theme music was created by Harvest Creative Services. You know what, if I may, unless your body really can't take it, you should get the vaccine. And in any case, your host has been John McWhorter. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.booksmartstudios.org/subscribe

Last month, On the Media, a popular radio program from New York City's WNYC, aired an episode that questioned free speech values and challenged so-called “free speech absolutism.” On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by Matt Taibbi, Nadine Strossen, and Amna Khalid, who provide direct responses to many of the free speech critiques made in On the Media's program. Show notes: On the Media's free speech episode: “Constitutionally Speaking” “NPR trashes free speech. A brief response” by Matt Taibbi Famous Christopher Hitchens lecture defending free speech Tra lalalala song from Soviet Union Documentary: Mighty Ira www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Host Toby Davis sits down with Amna Khalid, Host of Banished , a new podcast about "about our reassessment of the many people, ideas, objects and even works of art that conflict with modern sensibilities." We discuss Amna's efforts to combat cancel culture that is escalating at an alarming rate. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships, Amna has a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks frequently on academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities as well as at professional conferences for organizations such as the American Association of University Professors, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and Heterodox Academy. Her essays and commentaries on these same issues have appeared in outlets such as the Conversation, Inside Higher Ed and the New Republic.Banished is published by Booksmart Studios here: https://www.booksmartstudios.org/Follow Amna here: https://twitter.com/AmnaUncensoredTo learn more about the Podcast, visit:https://www.unitynowpodcast.comJoin our Discord Community Here:https://discord.gg/Urt2t53KMake sure to like and subscribe to UnityNow! to get weekly content about the Unity movement!Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UnityNowPodcastTwitter: https://twitter.com/UnityNowPodcast?s=20Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/unitynowpodcast#UnityNow

Amna Khalid of Carleton College discusses growing up in a country where freedom of speech was restricted, how she saw similar efforts to shut down certain types of thought upon arriving in America, and how our biggest mistake is teaching our children what to think, rather than how to think.

Bob speaks with author and scholar Lawrence Weschler, who shares astonishment that The Machine Stops could — from very few data points — extrapolate our present, so paradoxically connected and detached.* FULL TRANSCRIPT *TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in.GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt, I'm Bob Garfield. This is Episode 7: Back to the Future.It's a special episode, featuring not an essay or an interview exactly but a conversation — a literary conversation no less — with author Lawrence Weschler. The subject is a 12,000-word novella called The Machine Stops, and the occasion, for reasons that soon will be apparent, is the Venice Architecture Biennale. This is an abridged version of our back-and-forth for that audience.Now you may know Ren Weschler from his decades as a staff writer for the New Yorker, or for his dozen-some books on subjects as varied as Chilean torture, Polish liberation politics and his Boswell-ish engagements with such pioneering artists as David Hockney, Robert Irwin and the maker of hand-inked paper-money facsimiles, JSG Boggs. And so much more, because he is a journalist of astonishing scope and erudition, as you are about to ear-witness.At some points I may interrupt the Venice conversation for a clarifying point. Meantime, for reasons that will also soon be obvious, we will begin not with a description of The Machine Stops, but of Ren reading the first page or two.WESCHLER:Imagine, if you can, a small room, hexagonal in shape, like the cell of a bee. It is lighted neither by window nor by lamp, yet it is filled with a soft radiance. There are no apertures for ventilation, yet the air is fresh. There are no musical instruments, and yet, at the moment that my meditation opens, this room is throbbing with melodious sounds. An armchair is in the centre, by its side a reading-desk — that is all the furniture. And in the armchair there sits swaddled a lump of flesh — a woman, about five feet high, with a face as white as fungus. It is to her that the little room belongs.An electric bell rang.The woman touched a switch and the music went silent.“I suppose I must see who it is”, she thought, and set her chair in motion. The chair, like the music, was worked by machinery and it rolled her to the other side of the room where the bell still rang importuningy.“Who is it?” she called. Her voice was irritable, for she had been interrupted often since the music began. She knew several thousand people, in certain directions human intercourse had advanced considerably.But when she listened into the receiver, her white face wrinkled into smiles, and she said: Very well. Let's talk, I will isolate myself. I do not expect anything important will happen for the next five minutes — for I can give you fully five minutes, Kuno. Then I must deliver my lecture.She touched the isolation knob, so that no one else could speak to her. Then she touched the lighting apparatus, and the little room was plunged into darkness.“Be quick!” She called, her irritation returning. “Be quick, Kuno; here I am in the dark wasting my time.”But it was fully fifteen seconds before the round plate that she held in her hands began to glow. A faint blue light shot across it, darkening to purple, and presently she could see the image of her son, who lived on the other side of the world, and he could see her.“Kuno, how slow you are.”He smiled gravely.“I readily believe you enjoy dawdling.”“I have called you before, mother, but you were always busy or isolated. And I have something particular to say.”“What is it, dearest boy? Be quick. Why could you not send it by pneumatic post?”“Because I prefer saying such a thing. I want  —”“Well?”“I want you to come and see me.”Vashti watched his face in the blue plate.“But I can see you!” she exclaimed. “What more do you want?”“I want to see you not through the Machine,” said Kuno. “I want to speak to you not through the wearisome Machine.”“Oh, hush!” said the mother, vaguely shocked. “You mustn't say anything against the Machine.”“Why not?”“One just mustn't.”“You talk as if a god had made the Machine,” he cried. “I believe that you pray to it when you are unhappy. Man made it, do not forget that. Great men, but men. The Machine is much, but it is not everything. I see something like you in the plate, but I do not see you. I hear something like you through this telephone, but I do not hear you. That is why I want you to come. Pay me a visit, so that we can meet face to face, and talk about the hopes that are in my mind.”And it goes on from there.GARFIELD: Well, thank you, Ren. As you in our audience have by now divined, The Machine Stops is a work of science fiction depicting a techno totalitarian state in which citizens from their hexagonal hive quarters conduct their lives almost entirely mediated by an internet called The Machine. And as we'll discuss, it really kind of nails some of the biggest issues we face as Earthlings in 2021, Ren so far so good. Fair description?WESCHLER: I think that's good. Keep going.GARFIELD: All right. The Machine Stops portrays a dystopian future society, denuded as will learn of trees and of real human contact, where physicality is not really déclassé, but bred out of the species all together. The inhabitants of this world are flaccid and lumpen and pale and depend on the Machine to the limit to deliver them, not just images on the screen, but through that network of tubes the food and oxygen they need to sustain them.WESCHLER: They're all living underground.GARFIELD: Oh, and they're living underground. Stop me if I'm getting any of this wrong, if there's any other additions.WESCHLER: Something appears to have happened on Earth, on the surface, and everybody's been moved underground and is living in a hive of hexagonal rooms.GARFIELD: Exactly. So here's the thing. To read The Machine Stops is to immediately think of other fictional techno dystopias from which such a scenario would seem to derive. George Orwell's 1984, written in 1949. and Aldous Huxley's Brave New Worldfrom the year 1932, each depicting authoritarian societies which controlled the population through centralized media and creature comforts to make individuals docile and compliant. But Ren, you stubbornly refuse to call this story derivative of either Orwell or Huxley. Why is that?WESCHLER: Because it was written in 1909, by E.M. Forster. And it's amazing because we don't think of E.M. Forster, who we associate with those of us who either read it in college or went to the movies, we associate it with A Room with a View, which is a book that came out just before he wrote this, or , which is a book that came out just after. He wrote it in 1909. And as we'll discuss as we go on, it is unbelievable how he nails the current moment. He nailed the current moment even three or four years ago, but after Covid, it completely nails the current moment. It's, it is absolutely amazing that he would have had this vision in 1909. A few thoughts on that and then we'll go back to the story itself. I've been doing some reading of his biography, in various biographies, and all of them quote this very seminal diary entry he had in January, 1908. So this is a year before he wrote the story. And he's all upset because that morning comes news. Well:Last Monday, a man named Farman flew a three quarter mile circuit in one and a half minutes.He's talking about planes, airplanes, the early airplanes.It's coming quickly. And if I live to be old, I shall see the sky as pestilential as the roads. It really is a new civilization coming. I have been born at the end of the age of peace and can't expect to feel anything but despair. Science, instead of freeing man — the Greeks nearly freed him by right feeling — is enslaving him to machines. Nationality will go, but the brotherhood of man will not come. No doubt the men of the past were mistaken in thinking dulce decorum est pro patria mori — it's beautiful to die for one's country — but the war of the future [this is 1909]  will make no pretense of beauty or of being the conflict of ideas. God, what a prospect. The little houses that I'm used to will be swept away. The fields will stink of petrol and the airships will shatter the stars. Man may get a new and perhaps a greater soul for the new conditions, but such a soul as mine will be crushed out.GARFIELD: He was a hell of an extrapolator.WESCHLER: Yeah, you can see it going from there. By the way, it reminds me of an amazing passage from Henry James writing to a friend in 1914. In August, 1914:Black and hideous to me is the tragedy that is gathering and I'm sick beyond cure to have lived on to see it. You and I, the ornaments of our generation should have been spared this wreck of our belief that through the long years we had seen civilization grow and the worst become impossible. The tide that bore us along was then all the while moving to this, it's Grand Niagara. Yet what a blessing we didn't know it.GARFIELD: OK, as threatened, popping in here after the fact to point out what Ren and I failed to remind the audience — which is that Henry James was responding to the outbreak of World War I and the shattering realization that evolved societies can devolve in the worst way — which he simply did not see coming.WESCHLER: Interesting thing there is that in many ways Forster did. And for that matter, it was this fantasy that both Foster and James had that, this was a time of civility and so forth, completely occludes what was, for example, taking place in Africa and in imperialism all over the world and that wasn't going to lead directly to World War I. By the way, one other thing to say about 1909 before we go on is, 1909 is not just an average year. 1909 is the year that Cubism is invented. And in some ways, I would argue and we can go into this later on, that the Cubists, too, are having this sense of the limitations of things and how one needs to think differently, to think in new ways and how to evade the totalitarianism of one point perspective and so forth.GARFIELD: You could say that cubism is extrapolation itself, so they share that in common. You mentioned the air travel. I mean, this is just a couple of years after the Wright Flyer got a few feet off the ground at Kitty Hawk. And he's imagining transcontinental travel, which is just one element of just the jaw dropping list of prescient observations. You referred to the Covid lockdown. Everybody is in absolute isolation. They see other people only through that screen, that blue lighted screen in their hands, which is like a smartphone or an iPad.WESCHLER: They've all gone flaccid and flabby. There's an amazing passage, by the way. He does a flip on several things. He does a flip on eugenics, that in this society, any babies that are born that seem to be strong and athletic are immediately eliminated. This is just the opposite of the fantasy of eugenics at that time. And they're eliminated because, you know, what's the point? It would just make them uncomfortable and it would be embarrassing for everybody else. So they are killed at their very births.GARFIELD: Yeah, and that will become a plot point because they've culled physicality from the species. But the son who we're introduced to in the first passage will actually cultivate his muscles for what will be his escape to the surface.WESCHLER: Right.GARFIELD: Just a couple more things Ren. There's the environmental devastation that I don't know that others anticipated in 1909, but the air is despoiled, the trees are gone. We are forced as a species underground because it is uninhabitable above.WESCHLER: One point where he says that, for our comforts, we despoiled the entire planet and made it unlivable, some phrase, just because we wanted to be more comfortable. Amazing phrase in 1909.GARFIELD: There is also, and again, this was, this was long before globalism and the interconnectivity of the whole world. Distant places were distant and discrete. But what he somehow envisioned was this vast cultural homogeneity as a result of globalism. Every hexagonal hive around the world was the same and all of the media content was the same, and we all lived the same experience.WESCHLER: He has this great line. What's the point of going to Beijing, or Peking as it's called, when when you get there, it's going to look exactly like your own town. He has malls, he has FedEx. He has this great line where he says, we've solved the problem of people having to go places to get things. Things come to people. That solves that. No need to go outside. No need to leave your room. He has this very funny thing about why one of the reasons that the world was despoiled was because all the trees were cut down for pulp, for books.GARFIELD: And newspapers.WESCHLER: And he has a thing that's basically Kindle. And there are no books anymore. There's basically this plate. You can read any book you want on that plate. There is one book, which is the manual for the Machine basically, that's achieved kind of the role of the Bible almost.GARFIELD: Yeah. And there's this recurring theme in the book about the deification of the technology and the ongoing debate between the mother Vashti and the son Kuno about whether they have actually defaulted to the religion that they're nominally not permitted to have in this society. There's one thing about that  iPad or smartphone, the image that is at the very beginning of the story — it comes just about where you left off.WESCHLER: Right. Right.GARFIELD: And I wanted to read this because it's describing the low resolution of the screen.WESCHLER: And we are not unaware of how meta this whole conversation … GARFIELD: Yeah, especially if your Zoom feed is pixelating right now. But it said:She could not be sure, for the machine did not transmit nuances of expression. It gave only a general idea of people, an idea that was good enough for all practical purposes, Vashti thought. The imponderable bloom declared by a discredited philosophy to be the actual essence of intercourse was rightly ignored by the machine, just as the imponderable bloom of the grape was ignored by the manufacturers of artificial fruit. Something good enough had long since been accepted by our race.It's an astonishing observation. And you don't know whether he's talking about the Uncanny Valley, by which animated figures and robots can be seen not to be human because there's a certain light missing from their eyes. Or whether it's a society wide kind of Aspergers where you're blind to nuance of expression. Is it just technological, is it just that there aren't enough pixels on the screen. Or, and this is what I think, is the loss of resolution, the just good enough, a metaphor for the loss of rich experience and rich inquiry and the sense of mystery which the society has forsaken? What the hell is the imponderable bloom, Ren?WESCHLER: Well, I'm reminded of when you go to museums and you see those — using the example he himself uses — the paintings of still lifes, the Dutch still lifes. And they do have that incredible, that little powdery dust on the plum, for example.GARFIELD: Mm hmm.WESCHLER: That is the essence of a plum. And yet you don't — when you go to the store, the supermarket, all the plums have been polished — and so you don't see that at all. For that matter, I'm reminded of, in that context, John McPhee's book, Oranges, in which he asks the question one morning at his breakfast table, why does the orange juice, his packaged orange juice from Florida, taste the same every single time? And that became a whole book of the entire industry, the superstructure of creating oranges and everything that has to happen to make sure that they stay exactly the same. God forbid you should have a separate kind of taste one morning from the other morning. You would, of course, take it back to the supermarket and complain, you know, you would become like one of the satirical characters in this story. I mean, that's how you would respond to it.GARFIELD: I'm no longer surprised, now that you mention the orange thing, which I had been unaware of, that John McPhee also wrote 60,000 words on rice.WESCHLER: Yeah, yeah. Well, that was the good old days at The New Yorker.GARFIELD: Those were the days. And you were in the thick of The New Yorker.WESCHLER: I was in the thick of the rice.GARFIELD: Them days. I just wanna, if I had E.M. Forster here, I would say to him: I got news for you, dude — I grew up in the 50s and 60s and we had artificial grapes that were made of glass and they had some sort of, I don't know, latex around them. And they looked really, really foggy. You know, they had that misty look to them. So we solved that problem motherfucker. You know …WESCHLER: I'm sure the two of you would have gotten along great.GARFIELD: Oh, I have no doubt. So, Ren, obviously it's jaw dropping that he was so prescient in so many ways.WESCHLER: There's a few other ones that I wanted to point out. One of the things that's absolutely amazing is that Vashti's job is essentially she's an influencer. And when she's not influencing, she's a TED lecturer. She basically gives these lectures that everybody all over the world, because she has thousands of friends, that's basically what she has, tune in to her lectures and they are 10 minutes long. They are never more than 10 minutes long. And we were talking a bit about the standardization of the world. All beds are exactly the same size and are the same everywhere. It's basically the IKEA of the world. You realize that for him, this is dystopian and for you this is your life.GARFIELD: There's one big difference between like TED culture and The Machine Stops culture, and that is that these lectures, they mustn't, they mustn't contain new ideas.WESCHLER: Exactly.GARFIELD: It's a beehive. It's also a cow stomach, where you're allowed to digest in ...WESCHLER: Ruminate, as it were.GARFIELD: … different chambers, but you're not allowed to do anything new.WESCHLER: Right.GARFIELD: And again, early in the book, there's something I find astonishing. Can I read one more passage?WESCHLER: Yeah, yeah. Do, do.GARFIELD: In the very first pages, the son is talking to his mother, whose job is to lecture about stuff that people already know. And he talked about his experience when he was on one of these airships of seeing stars take a familiar shape. He says:Do you not know four big stars that form an oblong and three stars close together in the middle of the oblong and hanging from these stars, three other stars?No, I do not, she says, I dislike the stars.But did they give you an idea?How interesting. Tell me.I had an idea they were like a man.I do not understand.The four big stars are the main shoulders and his knees. The three stars in the middle are like the belts that men wore once, and the three stars hanging are like a sword.A sword?Men carried swords about with them to kill animals and other men.He had reinvented the wheel called constellations.WESCHLER: Orion, in particular.GARFIELD: It had vanished from humankind, the notion of looking at the stars and marveling and imagining what images they conjured. This was, this was a revelation. This is how far the society had devolved, that they lost track of the very stars.WESCHLER: And there is the wonderful phrase at one point where Forster says that above them, night was turning to day, day was turning to night. They were completely unaware of the cycle, even that cycle. At one point she does, Vashti does decide to go and they have these airships they are called. They're like kind of like planes, kind of like balloons — it's not quite clear what they are. But they're traveling, and this description of what it is like being on the airship:It was night. For a moment she saw the coast of Sumatra, edged by phosphorescence of waves and crowned by lighthouses still sending forth their disregarded beams. These also vanish, and only the stars distracted her. They were not motionless, but swayed to and fro above her head, thronging out of one skylight into another, as if the universe, and not the airship, were careering. And as often happens on clear nights, they seemed now to be in perspective now on a plane now plied tear beyond tear into the infinite heavens, now concealing an infinity of roof limiting forever the visions of men. In either case, they seemed intolerable. Are we to travel in the dark?, called the passengers angrily. [In other words, in night? And what the hell is this? What are we doing?] And the attendant who had been careless generated the light and pulled down the blinds, a pliable metal. When the airships had been built, the desire to look direct at things still lingered in the world. Hence the extraordinary number of skylights and windows and the proportionate discomfort of those who are civilized and refined. Even in Vashti's cabin, one star peeped through a flaw in the blind, and after a few hours of uneasy slumber, she was disturbed by an unfamiliar glow, which was the dawn.She's furious that there's a rip in the curtain that is allowing this stuff through. Close it, close it. All ideas have to be, at very most, original secondhand and preferably third or fourth hand. And that's all the discourse that's going on.GARFIELD: Hold on. Now, on the subject of intolerable, dude, keep reading because something happens between her and the flight attendant.WESCHLER: Yeah, that's fantastic, too, yeah:People are almost exactly alike all over the world. But the attendant of the airship, perhaps owing to her exceptional duties, had grown a little out of the common. She had often to address passengers with direct speech, and this had given her a certain roughness and originality of manner [originality being a very bad word]. When Vashti swerved away from the sunbeams with a cry, she behaved barbarically. She put her hand out to study her. “How dare you?,” exclaimed the passenger. “Vashti, you forget yourself.” The woman was confused and apologized for not having let her fall. People never touched one another. The custom had become obsolete, owing to the Machine.Welcome to Covidland.GARFIELD: Yeah, the 12:44 is coming in right on schedule.WESCHLER: Right, there it is, outside.GARFIELD: A society denuded not only of trees, but of touch, of human contact. So we've established clearly that Forster was prescient beyond beyond belief, right? But the other thing that's beyond belief is that the person who's writing this is E.M. Forster.WESCHLER: Right.GARFIELD: Because E.M. Forster, A Room with a View, Passage to India, where at least at first glance, the issues that he's concerning himself with are very, very different, in class division and so on. So my question for you is, are they really that different?WESCHLER: Well, there's that.GARFIELD: Is there a line between A Passage to India and The Machine, you know, styles?WESCHLER: Well, a couple of things. First of all, in terms of the immediate background, according to some of the biographies I've been reading, he wrote it, he said at the time, as a counter to some of H.G. Wells's most recent work at the time, which was utopian — where H.G. Wells was imagining actually a happy outcome, where the world, where all these machines were taking care of all these things and so forth, and he was not at all sure about that. So, he also, somebody said, he was writing an encounter to an Oscar Wilde line that he had quoted at one point, who in 1890 — so that would have been 20 years before this — had written this is Oscar Wilde, the Oscar Wilde of Art for Art's Sake, as:… we become more highly organized, the elect spirits of each age, the critical and the cultured spirits, will grow less and less interested in actual life, and will seek to gain their impressions almost entirely from what Art has touched.In other words, that is a different kind of utopianism, where you no longer have to deal directly with life and so forth.GARFIELD: Well, you just described Wilde's actual life because, you know, I think probably into the 20th century, well into the 20th century, art was the stuff of aristocrats.WESCHLER: Yeah, yeah. And so that in turn, of course, aristocrats and bohemians — that great line of Kurt Vonnegut's, that that art is a conspiracy between artists and rich people to make poor people feel stupidGARFIELD: (laughing)WESCHLER: But indeed, I think Forster is very, elsewhere, is very focused on partly the comforts of a certain layer of bourgeois life. But also the underpinnings and the way that there is beginning to be this growing polarization of wealth, you might say — we are in the Gilded Age after all — and the terrible way in which servants and so forth are being treated. He's quite sensitive to that. And oddly enough, one of the things that's interesting here is that the dystopian society has had a solution which is making everybody live in beehives, you know, and so that that class culture has disappeared, but in a kind of dystopian way. I think, though, that some of those passages, the passage of the dawn in Sumatra and the lighthouse, that's pure E.M. Forster, A Passage to India. I mean, this extraordinary sensitivity to the tactile quality of experience. Especially as opposed to the everydayness of most people's lives, his heroes have these moments, these epiphanies.GARFIELD: To the textures, to the smells, to the colors, right, of different cultures — the antithesis of the homogeneity.WESCHLER: You go to Beijing because Peking is different. You go to Delhi because Delhi is different. You go to that cave because, good Lord, is it different than something you would have experienced at home?GARFIELD: That's something else he nailed too, because, you know, increasingly Shanghai is Los Angeles or whatever.WESCHLER: Yeah. And by the way, Los Angeles is Shanghai.GARFIELD: Yes, that's right.WESCHLER: It's just this remarkable thing to come upon and to come upon it now. So part one is basically this, brings out this world. In part two, there's three parts, part two — in what in one sense is the climax of the story — is how Kuno not only is sacrilegious in that he doesn't honor, he says things that, Be quiet, don't say those things. The machine is listening. You know, the machine is our benefactor.GARFIELD: Popping in again, because I also failed to notice this when Ren raised it, but the idea of the Machine is listening. If this were Orwell, or Huxley, or Ray Bradbury, the machine would have been listening like an electronic Stasi, like an omniscient security state — which is not quite the case in Forster or even in our own surveillance society. It's not eavesdropping per se. Yes, in 2021, the Machine does know, because we surrender data willy nilly, and our every click and keystroke are recorded and we spill our guts on social media for eternity. Forster somehow knew that the machine would somehow know. And so Kuno tried to explain to his mom.WESCHLER: And he's saying, no, I want to get out. And she says, well, there's no way to get out. The only way to get out, you take the train to the air thing and then you can take airships but you can't go on land, you just can't go on the land. And he says no but I figured something out. And he has this amazing description of, he — well, as you say, he began exercising, which was like completely crazy. He turned off all the stuff and just would do pushups and so forth to get stronger and stronger because, and then he has this extraordinary line, by the way, let me see if I can find this, this amazing line about what we've lost: We have lost the sense of space. We say space is annihilated. That's from the phrase that the telegraph had annihilated space and time, that it used, when the telegraph and the telephone and eventually email come online, the feeling was that space and time — where it took a long time for a message to get from one place to another, you know, and so forth — had been annihilated by by this incredible thing. Initially, the telegraph or along with the telegraph, exactly along with the telegraph, is the train system because the trains need telegraphs to set up all the signals and so forth. And they were exulting at the annihilation of space and time. Which reminds me, by the way, some other time we should have a conversation, if you will, if you enjoy these conversations, about an amazing book by Wolfgang Schivelbusch called The Railway Journey, in which he goes back and looks at what people's experience of railway's was when it first happened. And he describes people are suddenly going six miles an hour, seven miles an hour. And universally, the letters that everybody's writing each other is about the G forces on their bodies. They're being hurled back into the seat. You know, this is, everybody has this same experience. GARFIELD: Not the soot in their teeth, but but that thrill ride of seven mph.WESCHLER: Right. Anyway, so he goes on:We say space is annihilated, but we have annihilated not space, but the sense thereof. We have lost a part of ourselves. I determined to recover it. And I began by walking up and down the platform of the railway outside my room, up and down until I was tired and so did I recapture the meaning of near and far. Near is a place to which I get quickly on my feet, not a place to which the train or the airship will take me quickly.He's walking, he walks farther and suddenly one day, he comes upon this little pile of rubble on the thing and he looks above and he realizes this must have been when they were building the hives. There must have been a tunnel that went through here up to the, up to a vertical tunnel. And this is left over from the building. And he kind of scratches away and he suddenly finds himself in a tunnel. And he's saying to his mother, there was a ladder. He opens it up and there's this little thing and it goes way straight up, and he says:There was a ladder made of some primeval metal. The light from the railway fell upon its lowest rungs. And I saw that it led straight upwards out of the rubble at the bottom of the shaft. Perhaps our ancestors ran up and down it a dozen times daily in their building. As I climbed the rough edges, cut through my gloves so that my hands bled, the light helped me for a little, and then came darkness and worse still silenced, which pierced my ears like a sword. The machine hums. Did you know it? Oh, that its hum penetrates our blood and may even guide our thoughts. Who knows. I was getting beyond its power then I thought the silence means that I am doing wrong. But I heard voices in the silence and again, that strengthened me. He laughed. I had need of them. The next moment I cracked my head up against something.And he's bumped up against the top and eventually gets out. And there's this amazing moment when he is hurled out of, the air pressure hurls him out into this bowl of grass and the sunshine and so forth. George Lucas and Walter Mirch in 1971 made a film called THX 1138 about an incredibly disposed dystopian world in which everybody is living underground.THX 1138 soundtrackThere has been some kind of calamity on the surface. Everybody is told they can't go on the surface. There is a machine that is in control of everything. And there is Donald Pleasence and Robert Duvall and so forth. And Robert Duvall suddenly decides that he wants to escape. And the climax of the film is his escape. And I just want to show this to you, because the climax of the story I'm going to tell you is that neither of them were aware of The Machine Stops when they wrote and they made this film.THX 1138 clipIt's absolutely staggering. Talk about a weird echoes, and in fact it was Walter Mirch who eventually first showed me The Machine Stops. He says, look at this thing. We didn't know about this. It occurs to me that it also has echoes of the great Chris Marker film from the French New Wave La Jetée, where society is underground. There it's not a tunnel that you go through, but there's some time travel stuff and they keep on sending the character back in time, and he is walking around Paris. And the wonderfulness of the life beforehand — again this is a theme that keeps coming up. But as far as I know, it first shows up in The Machine Stops, in its kind of purest form.GARFIELD: So in this film, the reward for escaping to the surface is kind of splendor. And going back to the extraordinary prescience of The Machine Stops, I think the reward is slightly different. We've all experienced, through Covid, isolation — I believe, a kind of loss of proprioception of time. We don't feel like we have purchase on our lives anymore. We can't quite get a grip on the past and we certainly have trouble envisioning what six months will be like or, you know, in some cases six days. And it's a distracting sensation of just not knowing where you are, which I think is more or less the definition of proprioception, having a sense of where your body parts are. But in this society, that Forster's talking about we, you know, we are completely atrophied. There is no human touch. Light and sound is all controlled by the machine. And we can't fix ourself based on the stars. All of humankind has lost its sense of place and time and self. And that was, I believe, the son's reward for getting to the surface. Maybe we should withhold the consequences of his decision.WESCHLER: Let's withhold that. But just note that there's a whole part three. And without going into too much detail, but it's absolutely fascinating. The machine begins to break down. And it is the most, it breaks down in absolutely the ways it breaks down for us, you know, but we can imagine it continuing to breakdown more and more. Suddenly the air begins to get staler, you know, and the food isn't so good. And there are moments where the iPhone's not working and and so forth, that it kind of climaxes.GARFIELD: I'd like to ask a question, and I'm doing this for a couple of reasons, one, out of genuine curiosity and another for having a natural ending to the podcast version of this. And that is Ren, what have we learned?WESCHLER: I guess this isn't so much a learning as an awakening. You know, I hope that this story wakes us up to the way we've been sleepwalking. I mean, in some sense, if the fantasy of Kuno climbing those stairs allows us — in the short term about Covid, to imagine what it might be to climb out of Covidland — but more importantly, to understand that Covid is just a metaphor in some sense, notwithstanding all the actual damage it's done of what's coming and what's coming more and more and more. And for God's sake, wake up. And engage or, in Forster's words, only connect. Break down the hive walls. And for an architecture biennial, break down the goddamn hive walls.GARFIELD: All right, we're done here. What you have just heard was an abridged version of my conversation with author Lawrence Weschler, as part of his Mr. Weschler's Cabinet of Wonders series for the 17th Venice Architecture Biennale. If you like what you've heard here, do please venture beyond our Great Paywall of Booksmart to be a paid subscriber to our offerings, including the works of professors John McWhorter and Amna Khalid in their respective podcasts Lexicon Valley and Banished. You'll get longer form interviews, access to our hosts and, in my case, my weekly text column — which is, let's just say, “uncompromising,” because that sounds better than “indelicate” or “brutal.” Now then, Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. We had technical help in Europe for this episode from Adrianos Efthymiadis. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

Is there value in reading the classics at a time when they are increasingly viewed as tools of oppression and white supremacy? Do they speak to non-white students? Dr. Anika Prather, founder and principal of the Living Water School in Maryland and lecturer at Howard University in DC talks to Amna Khalid about the deep history of the significance of classics for Black Americans.Click here for the full-length, subscriber-only interview. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

There’s a lot of passionate argument about whether “Critical Race Theory” should be taught in schools. But the meaning of CRT differs greatly depending on who you talk to. What did CRT originally mean, and what does it mean now? What are our children actually being taught? And why do some terms tend to become so thorny over time? Click play to find out.*FULL TRANSCRIPT*JOHN McWHORTER: From Booksmart Studios, this is Lexicon Valley, a podcast about language. I'm John McWhorter and we need to talk about something.WORD MEANINGS CHANGE OVER TIMEAs I often do, I'm going to start from way outside and then I'm going to zero in. As you'll see, that is a general process that I consider very central to the passage of people and things and words through time. We need to talk about something. So let's start with something like audition. We all know what an audition is. You're picturing somebody nervous on stage. Think about what that word, quote unquote, should mean. The aud is about hearing. The reason that we say audition is because the original idea was that you would listen to someone recite something. Now, it was a natural drifting that you would go from someone reciting something on a stage or in a performance to someone playing an instrument or even someone doing a dance, something that doesn't involve sound at all. It could be a mime these days who auditions, but it started out being about hearing someone say something and then it changed. Words’ meanings change. No one today would say: How dare you use the word audition for dance? What's happening to language? Nobody says that because we all know that words don't always mean what they mean, that the form is often different from the content and that's just the way it is.Lewd. Lewd used to mean that you were unlearned. It meant that you didn't know things. Now, no one who knows that says, how dare you imply that those people aren't intelligent, when what you're really talking about is issues of morality and sex or whatever lewd is about. You know, you can learn that it used to mean unlearned, but you don't wish that it still did. There isn't a sense that it's wrong that unlearned drifted into meaning that you can't keep your pants up or something like that.One more, to get a little closer to what we need to talk about. Democratic, and no, I don't mean Greece. I mean the party here in the United States. Democratic once stood for very different things than it does now. Most of us know that Democrats were the party of segregation, for example. There's actually, there's a silly book, and I'm not going to name who wrote it or what the book's title is, because many of us write silly books now and then. I have once or twice, but a silly book that was basically saying that Black people need to stop voting Democratic so much because Democrats have often been quite racist in the past. And this meant things like the fact that Woodrow Wilson, you know, who was a straight up racist, that he was a Democrat, that Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court and he had been an ex Ku Klux Klan member. All those things are true. But, you know, we think to ourselves, whatever racism we might find in the Democratic Party today, when we're talking about Wilson or what FDR’s priorities were, we're talking about a very long time ago. As history moves along, as conditions change, the parties change. What a Democrat is today is very different from what a Democrat was in 1920. Just like certainly being a Republican now is quite different from what it was in, say, 1865. So words’ meanings change over time. The sequence of sounds comes to refer to different aspects of this vale of tears called life than it once did, right? OK, we all know that. We've got that.WORD MEANINGS TEND TO NARROW WHEN THEY CHANGEWords’ meanings don't only change, they often get more specific. They narrow. But it's not always about value, just they get more specific. It starts out general and then it gets down to cases. My favorite example of this is reduce. Reduce is from re, as in going back to, and then duce, leading. It used to be that reduce just meant going back to the way it was. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. That could be an increase or a decrease. It used to be that you could reduce something to its former glory. Get that? That it meant take it back to its former glory. Not that glory was somehow down in the dirt, but reduce just meant to take something back. Now, it could also mean to take something down into the mud, and that is what the word ended up meaning. And so we think of reducing as going down. But that is not what somebody would have thought of 500 years ago. The word changed. It got more specific. It happened to drift into a choice.Getting a little closer to what we need to talk about today, how about diversity? We know what diversity means or don't we? Diversity, just difference, just willy-nilly. But we know that when we talk about diversity today, it tends to be much more specific than just talking about difference. You can talk about a diversity of mushrooms, but notice that you're already imagining that the word ends in ie rather than y, and it's probably in some ancient book that's falling apart. When we think about diversity, we are generally thinking about affirmative action policies, about even racial preference policies. And so, within the controversies over that, there is often someone who will say, well, you know, if we're looking for diversity, then what about Mormons and people from Idaho and somebody who has only one leg? What about that diversity? But no, we, we all know that what diversity means, in code, is Black Americans, Latinos and also Native Americans. That's what diversity policies are usually aimed at. And to be an American person is to know that that is the meaning that diversity has specified into. It’s narrowed.And you know what's diverse in the real sense, as in the original sense, Beauty and the Beast, the Disney movie musical. And you know it's diverse when it's in Dutch. Yes. I spent about 15 minutes in Holland way back in 1992. And of course, when I was there, I wanted to at least be able to fake speaking Dutch. I could have a really, really bad conversation for about three minutes of the time I was there. And the way I learned it mostly was by listening to the Dutch soundtrack of the then new musical film, Beauty and the Beast over and over. This is the bon jour. And since this is so popular, most of you probably know basically what the words are. But yes, in the Netherlands, they dub these things — things like this, where kids, you know, they don't know English yet and so you have to do it in Dutch — and I enjoyed listening to it in Dutch. So here it goes.MUSIC: Belle from Beauty and the Beast (in Dutch)Daar gaat de bakker — there goes the baker — see how Dutch and English are related?CRITICAL RACE THEORY’S ORIGINS AS LEGAL THEORYLet's get back to what we were talking about. So words’ meanings are always changing. Words’ meanings are getting more specific. Now, there's a term that we're using lately as if those two, frankly rather obvious, things weren't true. And that term is, get ready for it: critical race theory. We really need just some simple perspectives from linguistics to cut through a lot of one of the weirdest, messiest controversies I've seen in a long time, because nobody quite understands what the other person is talking about. And so critical race theory begins with obscure legal theory articles a good 35, 40 years ago. And they had a particular subject matter. They were about reconceiving our sense of how society works on the basis of power relations, which are so entrenched that we might reconsider the very philosophical foundations of the republic. That is one of the arguments in this body of work. And this body of work was, as legal scholarship, also about how we might reconceive our very notion of what justice is. So this is law school stuff. This is legal scholarship and it was titled Critical Race Theory. Now, today we're hearing that critical race theory is being used in schools and it's something quite different from what these legal papers were about because critical race theory has come to refer to different things than it happened to in, for example, 1985. This is what happens. So Democratic doesn't mean today what it meant in 1920. Diversity today doesn't mean what it meant as recently as, say, 1975. Critical race theory — what we mean by that has extended from what it originally meant into something that is different, related, but different.IS CRT BEING TAUGHT TO SCHOOLCHILDREN?So to take an extreme, and this is an extreme, there are schools where people are teaching a way of looking at things that's rooted in critical race theory, but certainly is not about exposing nine or 12 or even 15 year olds to articles written for legal scholars decades ago. But for example, there's the Dalton School in New York City and there is an anonymous letter from parents where they describe the sort of thing that has been going on at that particular school. It's something different from preaching from legal articles. So, quote:Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, racist cop reenactments in science, decentering whiteness in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class. In place of a joyful progressive education, students are exposed to an excessive focus on skin color and sexuality before they even understand what sex is. Children are bewildered or bored after hours of discussing these topics in the new long format classes.Now, that's not happening everywhere, but it is a useful peek at what is alarming many parents. What we have to understand is that when that is called critical race theory, we're talking about what that term has come to apply to in the wake of the original articles, but it doesn't refer anymore to the articles in question. So there's a pushback against that happening in the schools. And you should understand that my point here is only to be a linguist, not to editorialize about those things. As most of you know, I do that elsewhere. But my issue here is to say that if there's going to be a coherent debate about these things, we have to understand that the pushback against the kind of thing I just described is not against exploring the operations of power. It's not against students supposedly being introduced to a whole reconception of what justice should be. Almost nobody is teaching that to schoolchildren. The idea is the modern manifestation of CRT, as it's called, and that's less about legal theory than about, for example, separating students by race to teach them that race and power relations are deeply embedded in our fabric. It is having anti-racism be the core of pretty much all teaching in the schools. The people who came up with critical race theory weren't thinking about school pedagogy at all. This is the morphing of the term and what it applies to over time.Or there's a general theme that you might teach that the whole American experiment has essentially been a kind of a, a crime spree. Now that, although the CRT people don't put it that way, it is a reflection of what those legal scholars thought. But the fact is, the package that is being taught in many schools today, and it really is, is not critical race theory as a legal scholar would have recognized it 30 years ago. Critical race theory as we discuss it today, is more specific than what these legal scholars were talking about. It's not about legal scholarship and the entire foundations of the nation. It's a particular pedagogical teaching program and a particular set of practices. So it's more specific.CRT, LIKE RACE ITSELF, HAS SPECIFIED AND BECOME CONFUSINGYou can do this with the word race. We all know what a race is. And it used to be that if it was a record, this is way back when there were records. This is back in the 20s and 30s. If there was a record of Black popular music, it was called a race record. Well, you know, there's the white race, the Black race and all the other ones. Why is it a race record when it's Black people? Well, that was because Black people were the nonwhite race who were most discussed. That's messy, but that was normal. And all this sort of thing means is that on the left to say that opposition to critical race theory is inherently racist is oversimplifying because the opposition might be to a specific way of addressing racism in these classrooms. So if there's a parent who's alarmed that the white kids are being put on one side of the room for activities and the Black kids are being put on the other side of the room within those activities, that doesn't necessarily mean that these parents are against students learning anything about race or even racism at all.Then if you're on the right, you have to be clearer about your opposition to critical race theory, even if you're just in the center, because let's face it, many people in the center are against the sorts of things that are going on today. But if you say, well, we don't want any critical race theory taught in the schools, you have to realize that people are extremely unclear these days on just what critical race theory we're referring to. And there are great many people who are supposing that you're objecting to this legal theory being taught. And it's reasonable to suppose, if you don't want that being taught, you don't want people to learn about race and power and injustice at all. You have to make it clear — people on the right and even people in the center — that you're against specific things often going on at schools like Dalton today. That would make for a more constructive discussion, wherever the leaves fall, whatever happens, whoever turns out to hold the cards, whoever turns out to quote unquote be correct. The discussion could be more coherent if we allow that when you say CRT, you don't necessarily mean legal papers, especially if you're not a legal scholar or some other kind of graduate student. And what it means is that if somebody from the left says critical race theory isn't being taught in the schools, it's a little disingenuous because when a person objects to what they're seeing and calls it CRT, they're talking about a term whose meaning has morphed considerably over time.Now, no doubt there are some people, especially on the right, I don't know any from the center, but especially on the right, who do want kids to not learn anything about race or racial difference or racism at all in the schools. There are occasional such people, and I should make it clear — here I am going to editorialize a little bit — I think that anybody who doesn't want racism or power relations or the dangers within them talk to students at all, I think that that's, narrow would be polite, frankly I think it's just wrong. So, for example, recently there was a case where Jacqueline Woodson, she is a Black woman author, she has this beautiful children's book called Brown Girl Dreaming. And there were parents who had a problem with that being taught out of the idea that that's critical race theory. No, no. There's nothing wrong with students being given a book that describes the experiences of that Black girl. Nevertheless, the left in saying if you don't like CRT, you're a racist, too simple. With the right, saying you're teaching CRT in these schools and being surprised when some people seem to think that you're talking about the legal theory of Kimberle Crenshaw, you have to understand the nature of this debate and realize that many people, and frankly they have reason to, suppose that people from the right don't want race taught at all. Most of you on the right don't mean that. Please make it clearer so that this debate can make more sense.By the way, as you know, we like to stick mostly to linguistics and etymology and such here in the Valley. But if you’re interested in deeper dives on issues like Critical Race Theory, or what people mean these days when they talk about getting “cancelled,” here at Booksmart, we also have Amna Khalid at Banished and Bob Garfield at Bully Pulpit, both of whom deep dive on those topics every week. So subscribe to me too but collect all three. We are a family.WORDS NOT ONLY SPECIFY OVER TIME, THEY TEND TO PEJORATELet's get to what real people may really be thinking, not just getting more specific, but you might be thinking the new meaning is negative. So it's not just that it's more specific, but we have this business of thinking of critical race theory as a bad thing, all this stuff going on. Isn't that just the grand old story? The new meaning isn't only more specific, it's negative. It's a slur. Isn't that evidence of racism, of some kind of just general problem with Black people? It's that people are slamming it. But, you know, that is linguistically normal too. Words have a way of putrefying; pejoration is what it's sometimes called. So, for example, hierarchy. That word originally referred to the nine orders of the angels. It was an order of angels and angels are good and goodly. And I always imagined an angel smelling like honey, and if you licked an angel, they would have honey all over them, although they wouldn't mind. Nine orders of angels. Now think about how hierarchy feels to you now, just I say the word. Notice it's a little irritating. It goes a little down to your liver. Hierarchy. If anything, hierarchy tends to be bad. If you mention a hierarchy, there's at least an implication that there shouldn't be one or that the people who are on top of it have some explaining to do. Hierarchy’s kind of an “uh-huh” term. That's not the way it started. It used to be about angels.Think about attitude. Attitude used to just mean your position, like you're standing in a certain pose. And then you could extend that to your position about any number of things in the emotional or the cognitive sense. But an attitude was how you held yourself. It was a position. Yet now notice, I say attitude, the first thing you think is bad attitude. If somebody has an attitude that means they have a bad attitude. You don't say somebody has an attitude and then picture that person smiling, or if they're smiling, it's a maleficent smile. Or you can say somebody has a positive attitude, but that presumes a contrast with a negative one and negative attitude feels redundant. Positive attitude is the attitude that you don't expect because having an attitude is negative. That is just normal. There's nothing that hierarchy and attitude have in common culturally that would make them both take that pathway. It's just that words have a tendency to putrefy. It's actually been shown that words develop negative meanings more readily than they develop positive meanings in the history of English at least.Yeah, yeah. We need a song. And, you know, a lot of you liked Traffic when I did some Traffic in a recent episode. So how about more of that genre? So that kind of gritty, absolutely perfect music, kind of jazzy, fusiony, rocky stuff that a lot of people were doing in the late ’60s. That would have to be, for example, Blood, Sweat & Tears and my favorite from them. I don't know them that well, but my favorite from them is Spinning Wheel. It was on the radio long into my young childhood. Or maybe my father had it because it’s ’68 and I'm not remembering it from then. But Spinning Wheel, ride that painted pony. So how about a little of that, some of this music that's just God's music? It's like Duke Ellington. It's like Mozart. It's just good.MUSIC: Spinning WheelWORDS FROM CONTROVERSIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO PEJORATEMcWHORTER: That negative business, that's especially likely with controversial topics, and so, for example, think about woke. Woke, like 10 minutes ago, was a compliment. It was this happy word, it basically replaced PC because PC had gone bad and it was this jolly thing. But I want you to listen to something. I don't want things to be all about me, but I want you to hear a certain person speaking on Colbertback in 2018 about the word woke. Listen to what I said back then when I was young and carefree.McWHORTER: The one that's happening now is, you know, because I'm, I'm a stodgy person who tends to like old things and doesn't want things to change. And so I always learn about slang terms about 20 minutes too late. But, for example, woke. I'm not going to tell you when I learned that term, but when I learned it, it was still just the coolest thing. You are woke to the complexities of society and how injustice really happens. It was, it was cool. It smelled like roughly marijuana and lavender. It was that kind of word. And about two seconds later, a certain kind of person started sneering, oh, is that person woke? And it's at the point where woke is as in quotation marks in many circles as the word perky. You can't really say that anybody is perky. It's a word. It hasn't been a real word since roughly Bye Bye Birdie. Woke is the same thing. Now, woke is something that people from a certain side of the political spectrum are throwing at other people, the idea being that you're a smug person who thinks that your views are the ones that come from on high. That has happened during the time, roughly, that a certain person has become president and about six months before that. I've found it fascinating. Wokewill be all but unusable in 10 years.Notice I said all but unusable in 10 years. What? It was all but unusable like 10 minutes after that taping. Here we are with woke being unusable outside of quotation marks at this point. That is what happens to words.Oh, by the way, since it's all about me, just for a second. You know, folks, I would be a fool not to tell you here. I am doing a newsletter now in The New York Times, of all places, twice a week. So if you feel like it, you can also subscribe to me there. And it's not just columns. I don't feel like writing columns. It's like 700 words. I don't think in 700 words. I think in essays for some reason. They're letting me do an essay every three days. So, you know, 1200, 1500, I get to stretch out, but not too much so that I'm not taking up too much of your time as I might be here. But I did my first piece there on exactly this story of the word woke.In any case, enough about me. Let's talk about neoliberals. Although come to think of it, I've been called one, but that's another one where it used to be that neoliberal was, quote unquote, good. So Walter Lippmann, you know one of those people very famous as a pundit at the time. Damned if you know anything he said then. It's such a fragile career, pundit. But Walter Lippmann, you know, he was the king, the Krugman, Brooks person, and he had this idea of neoliberal back in the day being a matter of “challenging the ruthless with an intuition of the human destiny, which is invincible because it is self-evident.” The way you could write for the popular press back then, it's the ringing 10 dollar words. I love it. That was Lippmann. And so that meant that in the late 70s, for example, if you were a neoliberal, you didn't like the free market or you were distrustful of it. You didn't like the National Review. But nowadays, when you hear neoliberal, it's often with a sneer. So there are people who have called it all about cutting expenditures for social services and it's about deregulation and eliminating the concept of the public good. Those are the sorts of things you hear about neoliberalism. In other words, as commitments have changed, as impressions have changed, as coalitions have changed, that term, neoliberal has turned upside down over the past nearly 100 years. That's normal. It would be peculiar if we meant today by neoliberal what people meant when there was no penicillin yet.What is all this about? Controversy is inevitable about, for example, current developments in education. But to hear that some people don't like CRT being taught in the schools and to say nobody's teaching the work of Kimberle Crenshaw, or even to say, so you're saying you don't want these kids to learn anything about racism at all? You don't want us to stir that stuff up? That's crude, if I may. And I don't mean crude in the sense of vulgar, but I just mean that it's looking at these things too brusquely. It's not thinking about the fact that we mean different things by critical race theory. But all of us, no matter where we are on the spectrum, need to understand that there's a difference between what people meant by critical race theory in 1990, for example, and what people mean when they're worried about certain things going on in the schools here in 2021. Because the terms meaning has changed, we do have to accept that if somebody is angry about CRT in the classroom today, they don't necessarily mean that they think that nine year olds are being taught legal justice theory. They don't necessarily mean that they don't think that kids should learn about race and racism. They mean something more specific. And that's because critical race theory’s meaning has become more specific. And that's not a peculiar thing. This is what happens to terminology in this world that we live in.In any case, if you’d like to leave a comment, check out our other great podcasts, Banished and Bully Pulpit, or subscribe, just visit BooksmartStudios.org. Our producers are Matthew Schwartz and, as always, Mike Vuolo. Our theme music was created by Harvest Creative Services. And I am John McWhorter. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.booksmartstudios.org/subscribe

What does it mean to be woke? Has the word problematic become problematic? Lexicon Valley’s John McWhorter talks to Amna Khalid about the fraught vocabulary of modern censorship. * FULL TRANSCRIPT *AMNA KHALID: From Booksmart Studios, this is Banished. And I’m Amna Khalid.NEWSCASTER: Republicans are always denouncing so-called “cancel culture.”BBC GUEST 1: I think that nobody should lose their job because of what they believe in. I think that’s the issue—BBC GUEST 2: —but that’s what “cancel culture” is!POLITICIAN: “Cancel culture” is eroding the very foundation of who we are as an American people.NEWSCASTER 1: He’s woke.NEWSCASTER 2: I’m woke.NEWSCASTER 3: Now you’re woke but you’re like me woke!NEWSCASTER 2: I’m woke to the woke.FOX NEWS GUEST: So we’re woke, and we have to say woke.NEWSCASTER: Wait, so we’re both woke? You and I are both woke?FOX NEWS GUEST: Yeah, I think we’re woke!NEWSCASTER: Who’s the woker of the two, would you say?AK: “Woke” and “cancel culture” are now two terms that are now so much a part of our consciousness, that it feels like they’ve been around forever. But the reality is that they exploded only a few years ago. Like many of our most fraught cultural terms, they evolved over time, jumping from one community to another, shifting slightly in meaning or nuance. Along the way, they get weaponized, fall in and out of favor and even get canceled themselves — in other words, they are linguistically fascinating.Who better to dig into the lexicon of Banished, than John McWhorter, the host of Lexicon Valley here on Booksmart Studios, and an esteemed professor of linguistics at Columbia University. If you’ve never heard his show, it’s an endlessly entertaining deep-dive into everything that makes language so enthralling. I started our conversation by asking him about the word woke, which I first heard in hip-hop lyrics. JOHN McWHORTER: Well, woke actually goes back further than many people would think. It's actually first documented in the early 60s and it was a Black slang. What it meant was politically aware of certain realities that operate largely below the surface, but have a determinative effect on, for example, the Black American condition. And so you might think, if you were you or me, that woke is about 10 years old. But actually people were saying it on the Black street long before that. It did not leave the Black street. Then, in roughly the 2000-teens, it jumped the rails and started being used by a certain kind of politically aware white person on the left. And what it meant at first in the general culture was somebody who understands certain basic leftist analysises of the world. What it really was, was a substitute for a term that had worn out. It replaced politically correct, which, if you're just old enough now, you can remember was used without irony back in the late 70s and early 80s. And what it meant was that you have a basic understanding of liberal/leftist realities. Then it became PC. PCstarted being used as a slur to ridicule the kind of person who used that kind of ideology as a bludgeon in a smug kind of way. And so you couldn't say politically correct without making somebody laugh by, say, 2010. Really, you couldn't do it by about 1990. And so woke replaced that. As recently as 2018, I was on a TV show—STEPHEN COLBERT (crowd cheering): My next guest tonight is a professor at Columbia University, who hosts one of my favorite podcasts.JM: —talking about how woke was taking on a certain pejorative flavor.JM ON COLBERT: When I learned it, it was still just the coolest thing: You are woke to the complexities of society and how injustice really happens. It was cool — it smelled like, roughly, marijuana and lavender. It was that kind of word. And about two seconds later, a certain kind of person started sneering: Oh, is that person woke?People from a certain side of the political spectrum are throwing at other people the idea being that you’re a smug person who thinks that your views are the ones that come from on high. That has happened during the time, roughly, that a certain person has become president, and about six months before that. I’ve found it fascinating. Woke will be all but unusable in ten years.JM: Now, I would say that it has it. It's 2021, woke is now a word that is very much in quotation marks. Nobody would use woke in common parlance to mean that you understand the politics of Ta-Nahisi Coates. Now woke is used to make fun of people of a certain kind of leftist political persuasion who are beyond reasonable address. And so what's happened is that it has become a pejorative word, which happens to words all over the language, all over languages all the time. And so random example, reduce. Reduce used to mean to lead back to, and it could lead back to something good, something bad, something large, something small. You could reduce something to its former glory 500 years ago. That meant just take it back. Now, you could also reduce something to its former misery. It's the misery meaning that ended up taking over, that pejorative meaning. That happens a lot in language, more than what's called amelioration for reasons that we need not get into. But words tend to putrefy, essentially, and that is what happened with woke very quickly in this decade and the last one, partly because the internet makes these things come around and go around faster.AK: If I'm hearing this right, you're saying woke was part of the Black vernacular and it had a particular political valence which has been taken over and turned around, and now it's become a derogatory term almost to call someone woke.JM: Exactly.AK: Nobody would say I am woke as a matter of pride. Do you see a movement to reclaim it as a positive?JM: I can imagine doing kind of linguistic science fiction and writing about the reclaiming of the word, because that does happen with slurs. There's an example that I could give that I don't even need to. We all know. So pretend I talked about that for five minutes — but the term woke, I don't see that happening. For example, you didn't see people saying, yes, I'm a PC and I'm proud of it. People ran away from it and created something new. In 2021, it's too early to say what the new term is going to be, but I can guarantee you that by 2030 there'll be something else which starts meaning something very specific. It may emerge from Black culture and it will be generalized to mean that you've got the proper The Nation politics. I don't think it's going to happen with woke, partly because it's so imprinted now as a way of making fun of somebody. It's just at the point where if somebody said Yes, I am woke, it sounds trivial, it sounds like you don't have your own ideas and you're just looking for something to put on a T-shirt. So I think what we need to do is start listening for what the new term is going to be. These things emerge spontaneously. Nobody's going to create it on Madison Avenue, but it will certainly happen.AK: Is there a particular moment you can point to when you think woke started taking on a pejorative valence? Was it a very purposeful appropriation by the right to discredit a particular kind of social justice awareness or social consciousness, or did it emerge out of an organic movement?JM: Of course, the right started making fun of wokeness, and to me that's 2017, 2018. Where woke became a joke, and that was an unintentional rhyme, was last summer when even people on the left started ridiculing a particular kind of person. Wokebecame a joke in roughly June 2020. It was in the wake of the protests about George Floyd, during the quarantine at its worst, when a lot of people had very little to do and were very angry about it. It tended to focus these sorts of things. So yeah, I think we've seen that transition just over about the past year and change that woke is now unusable outside of quotation marks, just like a word like perky. You can't really say perky, you can only say perky in quotes.AK: There are words that are used by the Black community, if I can use that for a moment and make it a monolith, to communicate in ways that remains separate from and distinct from the use of language by white people. Of course, there's a history to this. There's the history of enslaved people using particular language to communicate, words to communicate, so that their masters, quote unquote, could not understand what was being said. To what extent do you think the fact that woke will not be reclaimed is actually a continuation of that trend where words that come from the Black vernacular, become mainstream, like cool, then subsequently get dropped by the Black community that almost prides itself on coming up with a new term that is exclusive.JM: We're not always aware of how subconscious the use of language generally is, especially when you're talking about at the level of a community. It's one thing to say that Black English represents the creativity of Black people and that when a term gets worn out, Black people make up a new term. That doesn't actually refer to a process that's been observed among human beings. The truth is that these terms tend to emerge spontaneously based on probabilistic processes. It isn't that, say, the teens are making up new slang to confuse their parents. I'm going to give you a term: diglossia. Most people in the world have two levels that they speak on, the high and the low. In America, it can be hard to quite imagine that unless you think about Black people. We’re a very boring country linguistically in many ways. But Black people have the high, the standard, the low, quote unquote, although there's nothing low about it, which is Black English. If something jumps from the low to the high, it's not that Black people think, well, now we must create something new. It's that the word no longer feels L, low, and all language is eternally creative in its own right. You need terms for things. And so next thing you know, a new term will be spontaneously invented because the old one wore out or it stopped being part of the L. It stopped feeling like us. And it's usually below the radar. Nobody could know that these things were going to happen. And then you wake up and you have some white guy playing hacky sack and using the term woke, who knew? But that means that it's no longer the guy in Chicago living in a Black neighborhood who uses that. He's going to have some other word he's using after a while.AK: So talk to me about cancel. Where does the term cancel come from and how has the meaning of that changed over time?JM: Well, cancel culture is a really messy term because it starts with the idea that a celebrity who produces some sort of product, writings or performance, recorded performance, is in bad odor and therefore they're going to be canceled like a TV show. And so that person's work is no longer going to be seen. They're no longer going to get hired. I think that the paradigm example would be Bill Cosby. He was cancellable. You can't hire him. You're no longer going to show the sitcom. It's no longer going to stream. I was at a store around when he was cancelled where they were literally giving away DVDs of the TV show for free. And I thought, wow, yeah, he's been canceled. And so that takes care of that. But terms are always generalizing in some way. They're ameliorating. They are pejorating. Something's going to happen to almost any term that's worth its salt. So now cancel culture is not so much about eliminating somebody from the public presence as just deciding that they are no longer fit for polite society, that we don't like them anymore. And so it's not that these people are going to go away. Our technology makes it so that it's pretty hard to cancel anybody completely anyway, but it just means that that person is a persona non grata, they are ostracized. So I think these days we're at this intermediate stage where somebody is determined as non grata, and spontaneously people say we're not trying to cancel you. And the question is, if they're not trying to cancel you, what are they doing? Because the cancelling no longer means that you don't exist. I'm not going to get specific, but about a year ago, it happened to me. I was canceled by a certain august body for, you know, reasons that people can guess. And I was told by the very nice person, we're not cancelling you. Well, of course not. You know, I've got all these writings out there, and it's not like I'm not going to be able to go to conferences and things like that. What I was subjected to was being told that I am unsavory in a very public way. That's the cancellation. So it no longer means what it means. But that's true of so much of language. Nobody’s being cancelled, but it just means that you are having a scarlet letter put upon you.AK: How is it different from censorship or censoring someone?JM: It's not. It's the same thing. Cancel culture is just a more vivid term. Censorship, you think more of the printed page. It doesn't sound as societal. So we say cancel culture because that sounds one, newer; two, meaner; three, less specific than censorship. I would call them different terms for the exact same thing.AK: So I’d push back over here a little bit and to my ear and from the way it's being used, I think about censorship as something that is associated — and I'm getting into the politics of these words now — it's associated with something that the right does.JM: Mm-hmm.AK: Whereas cancel culture is seen as something that is a product of this wokeperformative way of saying I adhere to certain social justice values. Am I correct in kind of thinking about it in this way? People ask me what Banished is about. They immediately assume it's about cancel culture and it is. But to my mind, I always jump in, then say and censorship, because it's not just about the kinds of eliminations that are coming from this left side of the spectrum. I'm interested in things that are being cut out left, right and center.JM: You're quite right. I hadn't thought about that. The person on the left who's accused of censorship is insulted. They feel like they're being accused of something that they're used to hurling at the other side. They often don't realize they're doing the same thing or they think that it's OK if the left does it because the left is right, correct basically. Yes, cancel culture is censorship from the left. Talk about subconscious. I never thought about this, and yet I've been using it in that way for a year.AK: Another term that I grew up in graduate school using quite regularly and without thinking of it as a “problem” is the term problematic. In fact, one of the ways in which you recognized someone was a graduate student over lunch was when they said I'd like to problematize that. So this is another term that has kind of migrated from a different area or different field into mainstream conversation and has come to mean something again politically. When did you first encounter the word, let's start there? And then when did you start noticing that it's beginning to take on a different meaning?JM: Problematic to me is exactly what you said. It's a graduate student in 1993 drinking their latte and talking about something that probably wouldn't interest most people who are not academics. It's the aughts where problematic becomes something someone's doing that the educated person is supposed to morally disapprove of. It seems to me that there's a certain euphemism in the word problematic, because what it usually is is a prelude to something being racist or sexist or fat shaming or something like that. But you start out calling it problematic with the implication that it's difficult, it's tricky, that you have to break something down — avoiding coming right out and being what used to be called a knee jerk liberal. Instead of just yelling it's racist, it’s sexist, I don't like it, you say, well, actually, it's kind of problematic because. I don't know who that person is, but I do, actually. And then, you know, the racism and the sexism is coming. Problematic now means blasphemous. Problematic means that you have sinned, that you're a heretic, that you should not have any Chardonnay and brie. But nobody wants to come right out and say that. We're too sophisticated to call people heretics. And so now often the way you call somebody a heretic is to say isn't he problematic? — that means that he's a witch.AK: OK, so now we're getting into really interesting territory where I'm beginning to think of the word blasphemy. I come from a country where blasphemy means what it literally means and has always meant and has consequences. Over here, blasphemy has taken on a different meaning. It's a way of ostracizing someone from any community and what the rules are specific to that community. What does that word mean today?JM: Well, to the extent that you have a certain kind of hyper woke person who has a religion, it's no longer an Abrahamic religion. It's not Christianity, it's not Judaism, it's not Islam. It's Electism. They have a sense that certain people are not to be tolerated for the same reason that a Christian or someone else would ban the heretic. That is what they call problematic, but really it's blasphemy. Today's blasphemy is not about God. Nobody thinks of it is taking the Lord's name in vain to say, oh, my God, anymore. That was old school blasphemy. But now I find the Middle Ages much easier to understand than I used to just, you know, going online and watching what happens to nice people all the time. That is today's blasphemy. I would almost teach a child blasphemy based on the sort of things that happened to Donald McNeil, Alison Roman, etc., as opposed to Galileo.AK: You've coined the term “the Elect” and we just referred to it. Who are you referring to as the Elect and how exactly are you, are you using that phrase?JM: The Elect is a term that I used to refer to a certain kind of person who has hard leftist views about the way things are supposed to go and feels that being mean to people is justifiable in the name of making the world safe for those views. And so it's not the woke, it's not the hyper woke, it's woke people who are mean, who are The Elect. It's the evangelical, prosecutorial woke. And so by The Elect, I mean the kinds of people who seek to get people fired, who support policies for Black people that hurt Black people but qualify as goodly because they are quote unquote anti-racist. For example, it is Elect to say if Black kids aren't good at standardized tests, then let's eliminate the test because it's racist rather than helping Black kids get better at tests, and that particular kind of thinking. The term is not original to me, but I find it very useful and I hope it settles in. The Elect.AK: I come from a society where freedom of expression is, doesn't exist. There are very strict parameters to what you can and cannot say.JM: You mean academia?AK (laughs): That is the society I inhabit now. That was good. I mean Pakistan. In fact, that's part of my disillusionment with academia. I didn't expect it, especially not in the West and not in the US where freedom of expression is supposedly enshrined in the Constitution. Censorship from the right is something that I'm familiar with. I can even understand those tendencies within the U.S. coming from a more authoritarian mindset, from the political right. To some degree I can get that. What I find troubling, deeply troubling, is that I'm finding that kind of censorship coming from the left. So, talk about cancel culture. And I've been playing around a lot with the notion of why this is the case. And I'm going to present to you a hypothesis and ask you to tell me what you think. After much contemplation, I thought, well, maybe it's a society that has had a lot of freedom, precisely because freedom of expression is enshrined as a constitutional right. When there is so much freedom, it must necessarily produce its own unfreedom to rail against. A concept cannot exist, similarly a practice cannot exist, if it doesn't have its antithesis or antichrist. I'm beginning to wrap my head around what I'm seeing happening, particularly in academia, as this is just freedom coming full circle.JM: Hm. I like that. I am inclined to think that there's something else involved and it's social media. I think if — it's impossible to imagine a world without it now — but if we really did go back to that time when there was just email and the whole world could not talk to itself, I think we wouldn't have this happening on the left because what it is, is a reign of terror. A lot of what goes on on the left in terms of these cancellations is based not on consensus, but on fear. People are really afraid of being called a dirty name. And so you don't speak against the minority of people who are coming over the hill with pitchforks. I think that has a lot to do with it. And what people are so afraid of really is being called a dirty thing on Twitter. It is mostly Twitter. It is mostly being called a racist. Nobody wants to be called a racist on Twitter, or Facebook or Instagram, but mostly Twitter. Fifteen years ago, if somebody didn't like something that I wrote or something that I said, they would write a letter and they would send it to my mailbox, or they would write an email to me. That's what people did, and you got used to it. Now that almost never happens. Almost nobody emails me and it's very easy to find my Columbia email. It barely ever happens because those same people, they feel the same way, they put it on Twitter where everybody can see it. That change happened in about 2012 and there's no going back from that. You can see that the impulse of a certain kind of person used to be: I wish I could tell the world that I hate this person, but instead I'm just going to send it to their email because that's the best I can do. That person now can write it in the sky and we're never going to be rid of that kind of person. So, yeah, you have a new era that started in the early 2000-teens.AK: OK, I'm going to turn the camera upon us as academics for a moment and say one of the problems that I have right now is the erosion of academic freedom on college campuses. And I think the people who are responsible for it at the end of the day are us. It's tenured professors. And I know you don't have tenure, but you're a person with enough authority.JM: Close enough.AK: Close enough, so forgive me for lumping you with us, but it's tenured professors who are not speaking up, both in terms of the excesses of the administration, which is increasingly bureaucratized and corporatized, and also in terms of the kind of wider trends of the adjunctification of the faculty itself, which is a deep threat to academic freedom. So I hold tenured academics responsible for that. And it's easy to bash social media for giving fillip to nasty trends. There are nasty people out there. There is a nastiness in all of us and perhaps we feel more comfortable airing it when we're not talking to someone face to face and we can put it out.JM: Exactly.AK: But there is also a niceness to all of us, or at least I desperately want to believe that, right? I really do, because if we don't, I feel like I begin to lose the will to live. What's the point, right? So why do we not use social media in a way that fights against the kind of natural tendencies that it brings out? To what degree can we repurpose that and fight cancel culture and fight this tendency to shut people up by actually reclaiming that space? Maybe we can't, but I'm interested in hearing what your thoughts are.JM: We have a moral duty as thinking people in this culture now. Fifty years ago, that duty was to understand that racism is not just calling dirty names, that sexism is not just calling dirty names, that you have to look inside of yourself. And I think practically everybody in this country learned how to do that through the 1970s to a degree that was stunning. And many people today would say that it wasn't important, but I think they either lack historical imagination or they're just not old enough to remember what things were like before. If you walked around in 1950 and talked to educated Americans about how they felt about women and how they felt about Black people, I think many people would be utterly stunned at the difference. Something happened between 1970 and 1980. Now, we have a similar thing that we need to do, which is to learn to not be so damned afraid of being called names on social media. A lot of people are clearly frightened to their socks of somebody saying something nasty to them and then being retweeted. And the truth is, it happens, it flares for a while and it goes away. And Twitter is not the world. Now, of course, some people feel that they don't want to risk their jobs, but I think for most people, it's just that they don't want to be called a dirty name and a dirty name today is you racist. And so they just hold back. And that means that the nasty guys in the schoolyard end up taking over. Even if you try to be nice on Twitter, there are some people — and they're not crazy, they're not trolls, they're not under a bridge; unfortunately, they're ordinary people who are probably very nice in real life — but people will be mean to you for being nice. You know, how dare you praise this? How dare you excuse that? That kind of person cannot be allowed to determine what Twitter is like, though. You just have to let them, you have to let them yell. And I really hope that part of the pendulum shift is that a critical mass of people will learn that you can be called a dirty name on social media, and you know the planet will keep spinning, your friends will keep liking you. It's hard to be yelled at. You get used to it. But I think we need to start learning how to get used to it more.AK: Where do you think the fear comes from? I understand the fear when it's coming from a threat to your livelihood.JM: Mm-hmm.AK: What is it? I'm trying to dig to the deep roots of what are we so bloody afraid of? I've been called many things in my life, sometimes been proud of the fact that I’ve been called many things in my life, which are not necessarily nice things. Being a — aterm that I absolutely detest, but I'll use at the moment — you know, a person of color, I say things that people don't expect a person of color to say. And so then I get labeled as someone who has false onsciousness or someone who's drunk the Kool-Aid and all kinds of things. What is it what is it that we're so scared of?JM: In a different world, you didn't want it to be said that you were godless. In this world, you don't want it to be said that you are a racist or that you are a sexist because that questions your very legitimacy as a human being. And I think you or me as people of color, we can say things about race and get called certain things. But there isn't as much of a sting, especially because, frankly, the charges are often so absurd. You know, like somebody telling me that I don't like myself. Frankly, yes, I do and everybody knows. You can tell. And I'm sure that you feel the same way. Whatever you're being called, it has nothing to do with you. But I will openly admit, I could not bear — and watch it happen now that I say this — I could not bear it getting around that I was a sexist. That's too much. If it got around that I had some sort of woman problem, that I didn't think women were men's equals, it would make me want to curl up in a corner and die. That would be more than I could risk, and I'm quite sure that I don't have that issue. But if somebody decided to start a campaign on Twitter and call me all sorts of things and distort things that I wrote, I would not be up for that. And so I can put myself in other people's place. They feel that way about race. They feel I just couldn't tolerate that. But, you know, if there were an epidemic of people being called sexist for no good reason, I would have to buck up, you know, if I had some skin in that game. And I think that's what has to happen with the racist charge within reason. You don't want to take advantage, but you can't let the people who spend their lives saying mean things on Twitter determine that entire forum because it could be used for such good. You're right. But everybody needs to get some, you see I want to say balls, but that's no good.THEME MUSIC UPAK: Well, I think this entire segment has to be edited out because otherwise you're going to be branded as sexist and we are going to have a campaign. And then you use the term balls, so you just gave …JM: Yeah, I’m, I’m gone.AK: You’re gone. (laughing)JM: Yeah.AK: Thank you John McWhorter for being with us today. This was a delightful conversation. It's always a pleasure to talk to you.JM: Thank you for having me Amna.AK: If you liked what you heard today, and want more exclusive content, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios. Subscribers get access to transcripts, extended interviews, and bonus segments.Before I sign off, I must remind you — I must implore you — to comment, rate, share what you've heard here today. And not just Banished, but the other Booksmart Studios shows like John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Bob Garfield’s Bully Pulpit. Both programs are stimulating and incisive in their analysis.So please share! The success of Booksmart, the impact of our work, depends as much on you as on us. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. I am Amna Khalid. So long. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Threats to open inquiry and viewpoint diversity do not know ideological bounds. Today's episode addresses the times when viewpoint diversity gets hijacked for political gain. Today's blog, Constructing Campus Craziness, was written by professor Donald Moynihan in February of 2019, in response to a close friend (and co-author) being targeted and falsely accused for being, well, you know the script: a conservaitve-loathing, ideologically motivated, radical left-wing professor. Listen in for the full story of Professor Ken Mayer and an exclusive interview with Donald Moynihan. The piece was narrated by Jonathan Todd Ross. Are Colleges and Universities Too Liberal? What the Research Says About the Political Composition of Campuses and Campus Climate by Amna Khalid and Sam Abrams Political Firings of Left-Leaning Faculty: Academic Freedom is Not a Partisan Issue by Ian Storey Condemning the Harassment Shouldn't Mean Dismissing the Concerns by Ilana Redstone For comments and questions email communications@heterodoxacademy.org. This episode was hosted by Zach Rausch. The artwork was inspired by Moynihan's piece and was created by Lexi Polokoff. You can follow her on Instagram @lexipolokoffart

We are approaching the 40th anniversary of The Color Purple, a novel that garnered critical acclaim, won Alice Walker the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, and brought her sudden literary scrutiny. Both the book and its subsequent feature film adaptation elicited a flurry of criticism, frequently from within the Black community.Accused of reinforcing stereotypes of Black men as inherently violent, Walker was viewed by some as a race traitor. And for reasons that include depictions of rape, incest, homosexuality, violence and explicit language, The Color Purple has consistently remained on the American Library Association’s list of frequently challenged and banned books over the years.Host Amna Khalid speaks with Ms. Walker about what it’s been like to experience a kind of “cancellation” repeatedly throughout her career.* FULL TRANSCRIPT *AMNA KHALID: We’re approaching the 40th anniversary of The Color Purple, the novel that earned Alice Walker the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, making her the first Black woman to receive the award. Shortly after, it was adapted into a feature film by Steven Spielberg, which was nominated for 11 Academy Awards and 4 Golden Globes. The success of the book and then the film arguably made Alice Walker a household name.And yet it also opened her up to some of the harshest criticism of her career. For her use of a Black dialect, her portrayal of Black men and her depiction of same-sex love between women, Walker was excoriated from within the Black community. Many said she was trading in racist stereotypes of Black men as violent rapists. Ishmael Reed, an African American and another giant in the literary world, was incensed, almost personally offended, by Walker’s rendering of Black men in the novel: REED: You look at The Color Purple, you would think that the incest and all the people committing incest and committing rape are Black men. This is not true. Alice Walker said Black men are evil. She said they’re more evil than White men because White men are aware of their evil.AK: When the film was released in 1985, the Coalition Against Black Exploitation protested outside the premier in Los Angeles. Vernon Jarrett, an African American columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, was one of many who were critical of the movie’s portrayal of Black men:JARRETT: If it had been a story of Israel, would the Jews have permitted a movie to be made where every single male character was either a rapist, an incest perpetrator, a beast, or even dumb?AK: The fact that Walker had allowed Spielberg — a White, Jewish man — to adapt the novel for the big screen led many to view her as a race traitor. Here, speaking at the time, is Louis Farrakhan, Leader of the Nation of Islam:FARRAKHAN: He uses her, Whoopi Goldberg. She plays her part so well — I’m telling you — she may win an Oscar for that role. But not just because of her acting ability; but she wins an Oscar in the eyes of White folk because she aids in proving the point that the Black man is a dog. And as long as the Black man remains a dog, you cannot rise, therefore he cannot fall: The Color Purple. AK: Joining us now to discuss censorship, cancelation and the relationship between society and the artist is the author of The Color Purple, Alice Walker. Ms. Walker, thank you so much for your time. ALICE WALKER: Absolutely. AK: The Color Purple and the response that you received to both the book and then the movie and the musical in many ways presaged for us the current moment that we're in and the kind of politics around cultural representation, around art and the role of art, and also around who gets to speak and who gets to tell the story, who does it belong to. And I cannot think of a better person to reflect on our moment today, when everyone is being canceled left, right and center, because there is this objection to how they're presenting things, I can't think of a better person than you to reflect on our moment in light of the experience that you had when The Color Purple came out. AW: Well, you know, it’s not a pleasant feeling to be attacked for expressing the truth of your life, basically. This is how I, at the time, wanted to share what I understood of reality. And it was actually surprising and in some ways shocking that people were so afraid of it, and I understood that that was part of it, that they were really afraid. They were afraid of their own feelings where women loving women are concerned. They were really afraid when I said the God of the Bible was not the one that was interesting to me. So, I just basically bore it and lived my life outside of a lot of the controversy which went on for years.AK: Can I ask you a little bit about some of the responses that you've received to your work and what were you not anticipating and that you were shocked to see?AW: I was surprised that people didn't understand the compassion I feel for Black men. It was so interesting, but then I realized that they didn't read the books and that helped. I said, “Oh, they didn't read them.” And I think that's true and that's unfortunate. AK: There seems to be the capacity in your characters to hold complexity, to simultaneously have done things which people might find morally reprehensible, but then also to be so much more than that.AW: I see them as very human, and I don't see them as different from any of the other men on the planet. I mean, the men who do bad things in my novels are the same men who do bad things in China. That's why when my book was published, I went to China, and it was a bestseller already. It was an underground bestseller. And I said to the people who invited me, “Well, why? How did this happen?” – Of course, they hadn’t told me they were selling it – And they said, “Well, it’s a very Chinese story.” And that has been true on every continent. It's been true everywhere we've sold this book, and that's why it's so long lasting. It's just people and how they behave given the structures that they've had to live under. AK: Ms. Walker, I'm originally from Pakistan and I first encountered your book while I was still there. And indeed, it has this way of speaking across boundaries, across barriers of race, because it's telling a story that is around us all and we see it. But there is a way in which I find that today's atmosphere, especially around judging who gets to speak and who gets to represent, is very focused, especially in the U.S., on race, almost exclusively on race to the detriment of class, gender and other ways in which oppression may be—through which they may be refracted. AW: I think that's deliberate. We have always been used as a scapegoat. We've always been used as the focus so that you don't notice all the other horrible things that are happening to you. You can always just say, “Oh, those poor Black people,” or, “Oh, those terrible Black people,” something about the Black people, and very often about the Black men, which is why the criticism that I was somehow hostile to Black men was just absurd. It's useful to the people who want to divide us, very useful. It was a way to actually divide Black men and Black women and it was a way to distract all the rest of the people on the planet from their disasters. So, they could all look at the Black people and say, “Oh my God, they're fighting again,” or, “She's saying this and they're saying that.” It’s a tactic. And I think most of us are used to it by now. AK: But what's interesting is that a lot of this response actually came from within the Black community. AW: Yeah. But what I'm saying is that that is what gets focused on by the mainstream. So, they would focus on that rather than on the fact that The Color Purpleis a theological work. It’s about God. I mean, it's about God, it's about do we believe this, that we've been force fed, or do we not? And if we don't, what is our sense of what God is? But if you spend all your time worrying about Black men and Black women fighting over whatever, you will never get to that subject, which is central. AK: It's also interesting to me that I see this huge contrast between how you tell your stories — right? – and what we're seeing today, which, like I said, not only focuses on race, but is extremely unforgiving. There is no room for people to be human. The expectation is that somehow we should all be superhuman, 100 percent pure.AW: It’s ridiculous. That makes me think of how they came down hard on Flannery O'Connor. Now, Flannery O'Connor was a racist most of her life, but she evolved. And if you take the position that people who are locked into racism or whatever and that they never evolve, then you just get rid of them and whatever they created, which means that you stunt yourself. You never grow yourself. That's the real issue here: that if you in your indignation, in your inability to allow other people to grow and to evolve, you will never grow and evolve yourself, there you’re stuck. So, you know, I recognize Flannery O'Connor was a racist. We lived across the highway from each other when I was a child. But I also grew up to read her work and to watch her evolve in her work. And that's all anybody can do. If you are brought up in a racist society or sexist society, all you can do basically is try to free yourself by any means necessary, by reading, by traveling, by listening, by thinking. That's what you do. And I think people who insist on—they took her name off of the building at some Catholic university in their rage that she wasn't perfect. But nobody is. And people are evolving. People can evolve. And if you don't give them that opportunity, all you're setting yourself up for is that nobody will give you the opportunity in the future. And I dread thinking about what will happen to these same people further along the line. AK: Where do you think it comes from: this unwillingness to allow change and evolution?AW: Fear. Many people on the planet now think of these as the last days. And most of the people who have been taught from the Bible that—that's what the Bible says: that there will be an end of times. And so many people see this time now as that end of time, and they are trying to, in a way, purify themselves by getting rid of what they see as the impure. Too bad, because the impure, quote, are often the people you need to teach you how to get through some of the roughest periods. And this is a rough one. AK: Earlier this year, Ms. Walker was invited to deliver a commencement address to the graduating class of Hudson Valley Community College in New York, but just days before the event the college suddenly withdrew the invitation. I asked her what happened.AW: Well, I was invited to this college in upstate New York, and I was ready to go. And I made a tape, like we’re doing. And then they decided that they didn't want me speaking to their graduating class. I mean, just a really frivolous charge: some book that I had on my nightstand was written by someone who was an anti-Semite, says, I guess, some anonymous person. And they canceled my talk to the students, which is terrible for the students. I mean, it hardly impacted me. I was, you know, sorry they missed my talk. But think of what that does to the students not to be able to hear from someone that they had wanted to hear from. I'm sure those students were the ones who decided they wanted to invite me to come and talk to them at their graduation. AK: Did they expressly say that it was this anonymous person who objected to a book?AW: Yeah, objected to a book that I had mentioned in The New York Times over a year ago. I mean, there was a flap then, too, because I was accused of being anti-Semitic myself, which is such an old trope. I mean, it's just ridiculous. I don't really spend a whole lot of time agonizing over any of this because people do have a right to their perceptions, but they twist things so that the world that we would like to have where people are feeling free and equal, that's not likely to happen with all of the canceling, all the cancelations. I just posted on my blog this morning, one of the most cancelled people on earth: Norman Finkelstein. And, you know, he's been called everything—as we say down South—but the child of God. And I think he's brilliant. What can we do about all of these things? We can continue to forward the thought and the action and the outrageousness and wonderfulness that we see. Like you're doing. I mean, this is what you do, this is how you move forward in the world what it is you would like to see. You know, more honesty, clarity, vision, not so much fragility and fear and backwardness, which is how I see a lot of this. It’s just backward. You can't really expect people or want people or hope for people not to know a reality that shaped them. AK: And where do you see things going if we keep going down this route?AW: Life has its own meaning, its own reason and its own reality. And so, this will play for a while, but it will not stand. I mean, even if it takes us all the way to, like, I don't know, Nazi Germany or some of the other horrible places that come to mind, we may well go through them, but there's something in the human spirit that just wants to know what happened. That's human. And we will always have that unless we're drugged into oblivion, which we might be, but, you know, until then, we will want to know. And that's one of the great things about being human beings: our curiosity. AK: What can we do at this moment to nurture that curiosity in the face of this onslaught of cancelation? I love what you're saying about curiosity and how that is so deeply hardwired into us. AW: Yeah, I mean, it's my guiding light. I mean, I'm curious. I want to know. And if my effort to know offends you, then just go somewhere else. Because, you know, I do have this right, it's innate. It's a human right to be curious. And I exercise that right as much as I can. And I love it and I don't intend to forsake it. AK: But I also sense hope in how you've presented it. You're convinced that this cannot last that long, that there is a way in which human curiosity will override these attempts to silence and to shut people down. AW: Human intelligence and curiosity. People really want to know. My books have been banned, they have been critiqued, a few of them have been burned, but I just trust that because I'm a human being that other human beings are more or less like me and they want to know. It’s just a natural thing that we have. And so, I never see this kind of activity as conclusive. Look at Germany, for instance. When you go to Germany now, people are still pretty much the way people are. They're reading, they're writing, they're going to school, they're riding bikes, they're living. In my opinion, it's possible that we need to go through this period to study it. I love study. And I think it would be really wonderful if more of us would just look at this as something to, if we have to, endure, something we will probably have to struggle to survive, but it's a lesson and we can get somewhere from there. AK: I love this angle that you're presenting, which is if we see this as a moment that is passing, much like those that have happened before, we can study it, and this is not that special. We as humans like to think we are in the most exceptional moment in history, which is so not the case. AW: I thought about this a long time, about what it actually means to be cancelled. What is the ultimate goal of cancelation? It’s interesting and it’ll help you understand economics in this world and in this country much better. You know, why people are poor and why people cancel people. A lot of it has to do with money, which is an angle that people often don't think about. They just think about something you said that people didn't like, something you wrote that they didn't want their children to see, blah blah blah, but actually it has a financial meaning. And that is something to be studied. AK: Could you say a little more about the financial meaning?AW: Well, cancellation, one of the underlying, or maybe the overlying — I mean, it’s very prominent actually — is that they hope to impoverish you. If they impoverish you, you are automatically canceled in your own agency, because what can you do? You have no money in a country where everything is money. And the example I give is of Billie Holiday, this recent movie where you can see what I'm talking about just really, really clearly. Why do they hound this woman to death, chain her to her hospital bed as she was dying? Why were they intent on not letting her have a cabaret card so she could make a living singing? She was a singer. OK? They wanted her to stop singing a particular song about lynching. She refused. And so, their response was basically to just kill her by making her poor or trying to make her poor, sick and all of that so that she couldn't function in society. And that is a real goal, and we should acknowledge it: that people who deal in cancelations of other people are deliberately trying to make them so poor, so impoverished, so weak that they have no agency in the culture. AK: It's ironic because it's all being done in the name of trying to give people agency, but what you're saying is that it's completely being undermined.AW: Give what people agency? They're not trying to give the cancelled people agency. They're trying to destroy their agency. I like very much when people remember that in this culture especially, but more and more in the world, it really is about who has the means to speak. I mean, if you're making four thousand dollars a semester or whatever as a subcontracted biology teacher or something, it's unlikely that you actually have the agency to speak, especially if you have children. So, the financial angle is really crucial for us to understand. And that is why some people, artists, especially in artists, for women and of color, but men who are of color and some poor White men artists, how you have to both do your work and also always consider how you're going to live. These are the parts of the structure of living in a racist, sexist, monetary society that you have to really analyze because otherwise it's always up here, it’s as if there's no foot, there's no foundation to the problem that you're discussing. AK: No, and indeed, the thrust of all these cancelations is precisely that: people are losing their jobs, people are losing their livelihoods, which then prevents them from—AW: —from speaking. It’s very cruel. And it says a lot about the culture that it would support this cruelty without acknowledging this part. You notice they will never really acknowledge that this is what they're doing.AK: Alice Walker, thank you so much. I appreciate how much time you have given. And before I go, may I just ask you one final thing, which is what do you see as the role of art in society? AW: A mirror. I read somewhere that art is the only mirror in which we can see our collective face. That's why we need it.AK: I’d like to conclude today’s episode by invoking the words of another great American writer, James Baldwin, on the role of the artist: “An artist is a sort of emotional or spiritual historian. His role is to make you realize the doom and glory of knowing who you are and what you are. He has to tell, because nobody else in the world can tell, what it is like to be alive. All I’ve ever wanted to do is tell that, I’m not trying to solve anybody’s problems, not even my own. I’m just trying to outline what the problems are. I want to be stretched, shook up, to overreach myself, and to make you feel that way too.”Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. N'Dinga Gaba and Chris Mandra mixed the audio. A special thanks to Anika Jones for her help with this episode.This is Banished. I’m Amna Khalid.Further reading: Gifts of Spirit — Thoughts on Being Canceled by Alice Walker This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In Episode One of Banished, we covered the controversy around Victor Arnautoff's murals, “Life of Washington” — a series of 13 paintings that cover the entrance and the hallway of George Washington High School in San Francisco. One of the voices in the episode was Professor Dewey Crumpler, an artist who was commissioned to paint so-called “response” murals to Arnautoff’s in the late 1960s when “Life of Washington” first became controversial. In this extended interview, Crumpler waxes lyrical not just about the mural controversy, but also about the place of art in society.“The most important place for young people to confront difficulty is in high school just before you get into the world,” Crumpler told us. “If it’s in the world, it’s for me. If it’s in the world, I have a right to know it. I have a right to experience it. And it’s my youth that helps prepare me for it, even though it will be problematic. That’s how we learn to overcome the difficulties.”Normally, extended guest interviews will only be available to paying subscribers, but we’re sharing this one with all of you to give you a taste of the kind of content you can expect if you subscribe to Booksmart Studios. * FULL TRANSCRIPT *KHALID: This is Banished, and I'm Amna Khalid. Welcome to a special subscriber-only episode of Banished. We're sharing this one with all of you to give you a taste of the kind of content we have in store for paying subscribers to Booksmart Studios. In Episode One, we covered the controversy around Victor Arnautoff's murals, Life of Washington, which is a series of 13 paintings that cover the entrance and the hallway of George Washington High School in San Francisco. These paintings, which were commissioned in the 1930s as part of the New Deal Art Initiative, have recently come under fire. Some people in the community see the imagery as offensive, even traumatizing. For example, one of the murals depicts a dead Native American lying face down on the ground as Washington's troops walk past in their pursuit of westward expansion. Another portrays enslaved African Americans picking cotton and working at Mount Vernon. Just recently, the school board voted to cover the murals with panels at a cost of three quarters of a million dollars. But the alumni association has fought back and filed a lawsuit to prevent this from happening. As part of my research for the story, I interviewed Professor Dewey Crumpler, an artist who was commissioned to paint so-called “response murals” to Arnautoff’s in the late 1960s when Life of Washington first became controversial. Professor Crumpler was only 19 when he painted his set of three murals titled Multiethnic Heritage, which depict the historic contributions and struggles of African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and other minority groups. Today, Professor Crumpler, who is based at the San Francisco Art Institute, integrates digital imagery, video, and traditional painting techniques to explore themes of globalization and the reduction of culture from a way of life to a mere commodity. Over the next 20 minutes, Professor Crumpler will discuss some of his other work, how he came to paint the response murals, and the importance of context in interpreting art. I had heard that Professor Crumpler saw those horrific photos of Emmett Till's brutalized body at a very young age. I began our conversation by asking him to reflect on that moment.CRUMPLER: Seeing that image of Emmett Till as a six-year-old was traumatizing. And some of the students at George Washington High School were traumatized by seeing that image of a Native American on the ground dead. I empathize completely with those students and felt their pain. And I use that example in relationship to how one comes to grips with difficulty and how important it is for young people to know that they have support, but that the world is complicated, and they will learn to cope. Now, it became more apparent to me that art, that creativity, could do something very important. And so, I understood at a very early age that this was what I wanted to do.KHALID: Could you tell us a little bit about how you identify as an artist? How would you describe who you are?CRUMPLER: Well, culturally I identify as a African American. I don't shy away from that hyphenated reality. I identify myself not as an artist, but as a maker. I think the term “artist” is a flying signifier that moves in any direction that the culture deems necessary at a given moment. But a maker, which is what I believe myself to be, is capable of moving in any direction that interests them spiritually and physically and cognitively to express themselves in the world. And since I was a small child, I believed firmly in that power, because the power of creativity is an extraordinary power. And it really is personal in the sense that it is a projection of my ideas and feelings into the world. I see the creative process as a real privilege and as a real calling. I take it deeply seriously. That's sort of how I see myself as a maker.KHALID: Let me pull you a little bit towards your container series. You've done a whole series of drawings and paintings and imagery that is depicting containers on ships. And as I was seeing some of those works, there was a lot about our current political moment, about movement of things and human beings that was speaking to me. May I ask you to elaborate on that?CRUMPLER: I'd come back from Europe for the first time, and I'd become engaged with tulips because I went to Amsterdam, and I went to the Keukenhof Gardens. And I didn't see them as flowers. I saw them as history, the history of how a flower could become a commodity and how that commodity could become as important as human beings. In fact, they were treated like human beings. They were cultivated for their qualities, and they were experimented on. And their biology changed to create French tulips and German tulips and all these different kinds of tulips. When I got a bit older, I was attracted to the piers in Oakland, California. And I spent years going around those piers, and I wondered one day: why was I paying so much attention to these piers, to this place? It was the water, and it was those ships. And those ships had containers on them. And those containers were full of different colors like those tulips. And those ships really signaled to me time. Because the containers had ridges and those ridges created shadows. And shadows automatically signified time. And because they were about a rhythmic relationship to time, I saw them as similar to what has happened through American history. You could take containers and drop them off anywhere in the world, and they would operate the same everywhere in the world. And I was thinking that this is very much a system that is organized to reinforce capitalism, just like the transportation of bodies after Prince Henry developed a relationship to the caravel, which made the caravel the most efficient vehicle on the seas and permitted those so-called “explorers” to move across the planet, putting down stakes of ownership so that they could reinforce capitalism. And that's why in all those paintings that I made about containers, they're not really about containers. The containers are really markers of Cortez landing on the shores of South America. And those containers and their shadows are about the past, not about the present. They look like the present, but they are about the same system that has existed all the way back to the Phoenicians.KHALID: Our conversation eventually turned to the subject of Arnautoff's murals and Professor Crumpler's own response murals that hang in George Washington High School in San Francisco. I asked him how he understood the sensibilities of the students back in the 1960s who first objected to these murals.CRUMPLER: Well, first of all, I was one of those students. I was not much older than them. They were seniors in high school, and I was moving into my second year at Arts and Crafts in Oakland. I had been making artwork that followed the civil rights movement. And remember also that the 1960s was the hot point of the Black Power movement. And the Black Power movement was about identity and about the acquisition of power, and power meant the knowledge of yourself as a Black person in a country that stripped you of your knowledge of self. When they made a statement that they wanted those murals changed and taken down, the district said they were not going to do this, the students protested, and that's when I became involved, because the students, several of which had seen my work, wanted me to make another mural. The board said no, because I had no proven skills, I was a kid. A week or two later, some ink was thrown on the mural and that made the board decide, “OK, we're going to let him do it.” I told the students that I would make the mural, and I would make a great mural equal to the mural in that other room. You know, the hubris of a young kid. And that I would only make the mural if they left that mural in place, because Arnautoff was trying to expose a history that should be told and understood, even though he knew that the imagery was not easy imagery.KHALID: If I'm remembering your quotation correctly, you said your murals make no sense if Arnautoff's murals are taken away. CRUMPLER: He wanted to tell a truth about the contradiction of a founding father who signed a document that said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” He and those other signers of the great document, and it is a great document, while standing on the neck — while standing on the neck of African peoples who are under his boot, laying on the ground that belongs to the millions of Native Americans who also have died — shed blood fighting for their right to their space. So, I wanted to engage that idea of the founding, that idea of Native Americans, that idea of African Americans, that idea of Asians. I went to Mexico to learn mural painting. I had no doubt that I could paint that mural because my passion was in it. And I tried to create a worthy dialogue. But of course, once I had made that mural, the school board relaxed, and they didn't do what I said at the dedication they should do. You have to use those murals as teaching tools, and you have to put plaques next to them that explain them. Every generation is different. They confront new issues. And therefore, you have to give them information, otherwise they will misunderstand all the implications and symbolisms that are all over those murals. Whether it's Arnautoff or my mural in the future, unless something is done to explain them, to make them clear, this will crop up again. And censorship and cancel culture is all around us. That's why art has to be free to do its work, even though it can make individuals very upset and angry. It's a worthy subject, that an inanimate object can actually do something to a human being, can make a human being think, can make a human being angry. But the point is, you have to work your way through it. Working your way through it is the point of life itself.KHALID: So, Professor Crumpler, this is fascinating because what you're saying is that the school board reneged on its responsibility and promise, if I can say that, to contextualize these murals and to put up plaques explaining where they're coming from, which you had requested.CRUMPLER: Yes. Let me just say that the most important place for young people to confront difficulty is in high school, just before you get into the world. So, a young person seeing difficult imagery — that’s a perfect opportunity for teaching. OK, you're not going to read Huckleberry Finn because of some words. They're offensive. I was offended by them. But if it's in the world, it’s for me. If it's in the world, I have a right to it. I have a right to know it. I have a right to experience it. And it's my youth that helps prepare me for it, even though it will be problematic. That's how we learn to overcome the difficulties. But those murals have to be contextualized. When you are young, everything looks larger than it is. When I saw those murals in 1966, I was incensed by them, and they looked huge. When I came back to engage them, they were much smaller, and I had come to understand much profoundly why he used those images. In fact, one of the people who had been most vociferous about taking those walls down, once he, like me, had graduated from college, he apologized to me: “Mr. Crumpler, I really appreciate what you painted. I appreciate those murals greatly. But if I understood what Arnautoff was doing, I would have never done what we did.” He couldn't have come to that realization if I joined them and said, “Yes, let's tear this s**t down, and when we tear it down, I'll paint over every bit of it.”KHALID: Professor Crumpler, one final question, what would you say to those on the school board today who have voted to cover up Arnautoff’s murals?CRUMPLER: All great art tells difficult truths. And they are always confronted with people who speak against them. And then they become central to the expression of human liberty. Arnautoff was a frail person, he was not some kind of heroic giant. He was just a maker trying to demonstrate a contradiction. He used imagery that functioned in its time. But it's imagery based on a truth: that Native American lying on that ground, representing all of us who have struggled.KHALID: Since I spoke with Professor Crumpler, a court has ruled on the petition by the alumni association to keep the murals up. Just this week, a state judge found that the school board hadn't fully considered all the alternatives to covering the mural. So, for now, the murals stay up. Of course, the school board may still appeal the decision, which means that we may not have heard the last of this case. But the broader questions remain. What is the place of controversial art in society? How do we reckon with difficult historical truths? Can we find a way to acknowledge the pain that some may experience without completely whitewashing the past?If you enjoyed this conversation and would like to have access to more exclusive content, please consider becoming a paying subscriber. You can learn more about this show and our other offerings by going to BooksmartStudios.org. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. N'Dinga Gaba and Chris Mandra mixed the audio.This is Banished. I’m Amna Khalid. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In the mid-1930s, Russian-born muralist Victor Arnautoff was commissioned by the New Deal’s Public Works of Art Project to paint a series of frescoes at sites around the San Francisco Bay Area. One of his more ambitious undertakings covered 1,600 square feet of wall space inside the lobby and stairwells of George Washington High School, depicting scenes from Washington’s life as a military leader and statesman. Parts of the work portray a slaughtered Native American and enslaved African-Americans, which Arnautoff — a Communist whose art was an outgrowth of his activism — deliberately foregrounded.Whatever his intentions at the time, Arnautoff is now at the center of a heated controversy among students, parents and community members, some of whom find the images traumatizing and want them “painted over” or removed. Host Amna Khalid spoke with those on both sides of the issue, equally passionate and resolute. She brings us the story.* FULL TRANSCRIPT* ALLISON COLLINS: A Native American that is dead on a wall and having people walk over him? That has cultural significance.DR. JOELY PROUDFIT: Enough is enough. Stop with the racism, stop with the dehumanization, stop with the genocidal artwork. Not in our public schools.COLLINS: That painful history is not something that needs to be consistently in children’s faces.JOHN LEARNED: Hey, as hard as those things are to look at, that's what really happened. There’s Indians that want to tell their history, they want people to know what happened.AMNA KHALID: This is a story of a painting — “Life of Washington,” by Russian artist Victor Arnautoff. It hangs on the walls of a high school in San Francisco. And I say walls because it’s actually 13 separate paintings covering 1600 square feet. It’s a series of vivid and sometimes violent vignettes from George Washington's life. The first panel is of Washington in his 20s. Later on, a scene from the French and Indian War. The Boston Tea Party. Winter at Valley Forge. Surrender at Yorktown.There are members of the community who find some of these images disturbing. Even traumatizing. One painting shows colonists walking past a Native American, dead on the ground. Another is of enslaved African-Americans on Washington’s plantation at Mount Vernon. Many students want the murals ... gone.Of course, it’s not that simple. First, there’s a logistical problem: these are frescoes, which means they were applied directly onto the wet plaster of the walls. But the bigger problem is philosophical: Should we remove the art? Because there are just as many who want these frescoes to stay exactly where they are — where they’ve been since 1936 — forcing us to confront the atrocities of America’s founding for nearly a century. But do they really belong… in a high school?I’m Amna Khalid, and this is Banished.How do we reckon with painful reminders of past sins? What responsibility do we have to shield our children — or adults for that matter — from material that they find offensive? What do we do about paintings and ideas, even people, that we now find unacceptable? Do we just cancel them? What does that even mean? In the case of one high school in San Francisco, it might mean destroying art.TRACY BROWN: The mural depicts violence and triggers emotional trauma, creating an unsafe environment which may get in the way of student learning.  This mural has had no teaching significance ...AMY ANDERSON: The depiction of indigenous warriors attacking white soldiers, who stand with the arms raised in surrender, erases the reality that George Washingtion ordered all-out war without diplomacy against indigenous peoples.TRONG: This mural is not teaching students about the history of slavery and indigenous genocide under George Washington or other settlers. Instead it is teaching students to normalize violence and death of our Black and indigenous communities. Paint it down.AK: Those are the voices of parents and students pleading with the San Francisco school board to paint over the mural. On social media, the movement is called “hashtag paint it down.” One of the women you heard was Amy Anderson. She’s an indigenous mother whose son was in 10th grade at the time. Here she is, again before the school board, on the image of the dead warrior face down on the ground.ANDERSON: The size and placement of the deceased American Indian warrior creates in me a deep sadness for the millions of indigenous people who were killed by forced assimilation or all-out war. With the signers of the U.S. Constitution, George Washington stands beside the fallen warrior, but not a single eye is diverted in his direction. There is no remorse for his death. And students and staff who are rushing to beat the bell breeze past this every day.AK: In June, 2019, the school board voted to paint over the murals. The total cost, including a lengthy environmental impact review, would run to about three quarters of a million dollars.PROUDFIT: My name is Dr. Joely Proudfit. I am Luiseño Payómkawichum. I am the director of the California Indian Culture and Sovereignty Center at Cal State San Marcos and the chair of the American Indian Studies Department at Cal State San Marcos.AK: Dr. Proudfit applauded the Board’s decision. She says the murals are from the perspective of European invaders, they are simply inaccurate and that they are dangerous.PROUDFIT: These false and harmful images do a number on our self-esteem and especially the self-esteem and the aspirations of our young people, especially our children. It reinforces negative stereotypes about non-native people. It keeps us in the past as a people that has been defeated or conquered in some capacity. It internalizes biases, stereotypes, misunderstandings, ignorance, furthers this notion of manifest destiny and colonization.AK: Interpreting art is obviously subjective. We could argue for years, and we have, over what these paintings are communicating. But perhaps a good place to start is with the artist himself. Do we have any idea of what Victor Arnautoff intended when he painted these murals?CHERNY: Arnautoff was living at a time when people on the left were very conscious of the oppression of people of color and wanted to dramatize that.AK: Robert Cherny is the author of Victor Arnautoff and the Politics of Art.CHERNY: And you see that in the four largest murals, he is centering people who were often being either ignored or actively erased. You know, the French and Indian wars mural puts a Native American in the center, the Revolutionary War puts working people in the center, Mount Vernon plantation puts enslaved Black people in the center and the settlement of the West puts a dead Native American in the center.AK: In centering the dead Native American, Arnautoff is critiquing fellow artists of the time, who portrayed colonization as worthy, even laudable.CHERNY: The white settlers are always painted in a fashion that makes it clear that they are being celebrated by the artist, that the artist is celebrating the settlement of the West by white men and women who are taking over empty territory. Arnautoff is breaking with that pattern to show that the white settlers were moving into territory that they had acquired by war, that they had acquired by killing the original inhabitants.AK: If those were Arnautoff’s intentions when he painted these murals, they haven’t always been interpreted that way. They first became controversial back in the 1960s, when Black students at the school started demanding more positive representations of African-Americans on the walls.Now what’s interesting is that the solution at that time was not to cover the murals, but to add even more art. The school commissioned a young Black artist named Dewey Crumpler to paint response murals. He would depict the historic struggles of African Americans, Native Americans and other minorities. Crumpler still lives in the Bay Area, and remembers that when he took the job he had one condition.CRUMPLER: I would only make the mural if they left that mural in place because Arnautoff was trying to expose a history that should be told and understood, even though he knew that the imagery was not easy imagery. He wanted to tell a truth about the contradiction of a Founding Father who signed a document that said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.”He and those other signers of the Great Document, and it is a great document, while standing on the neck, while standing on the neck of African peoples who are under his boot, laying on the ground that belongs to the millions of Native Americans who also have died, shed blood, fighting for their right to their space.AK: There are certainly many Native Americans who agree with Dewey Crumpler that the murals are painful, but they are truthful and should remain. Robert Tamaka Bailey is a Choctaw elder who told me that these paintings are imbued with deep layers of symbolism and meaning. You just have to know where to look.BAILEY: And that’s the first thing that I saw in this one particular mural that had the dead native in it. If you looked in the bottom right hand corner, there's a chief that's sitting there handing a peace pipe over to a settler with his tomahawk behind the back of the settler. That’s the ways of the white man. What they did is they got us to lay our weapons down, came to us, try to make treaties, and then they took. They broke the treaty. What was pointed out to me later that I didn't notice was there's a tree right behind the chief, and if you looked at it, the branch is broken. Arnautoff was conveying there the broken treaties. And when I saw the images of the settlers stepping over the dead bodies of the native in gray — it's the only pictures of all of ’em that was not colored, it was in gray — I immediately thought, here's the gray area of what we're being taught about George Washington.AK: John Learned, of the Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, is another Native elder who wants these murals to stay. He sees them as a unique opportunity to remember and to address history.LEARNED: Unfortunately, it was a dark time for American Indians and that, that mural really has an opportunity to tell the story. And I think it'd be great if they, if they added that to their curriculum there in, in California to talk about what the United States and the state of California and the eradication efforts that they took to wipe out American Indians. When you get rid of something, it's gone. It’s finished. You're not talking about it and this mural in California has an opportunity to talk about the history.AK: I asked Dr. Proudfit, the professor at Cal State, what she would say to those Native Americans who are in favor of keeping the murals.PROUDFIT: It's like saying, well, we talked to some African-American folks and you know what, they're OK with the N-word so we're gonna go ahead and use it. No, no, no. And let me tell you how disingenuous the people who want to keep up these murals have been. They have gone so far as to go out of state, find some Native Americans, or self-defined Native Americans that agree with keeping these murals up. But you know what they don't do? They don't listen to the very people whose lands they are on who are opposed to it. And while, yes, not all of us think exactly alike. The majority, and we have ample evidence, when our own national associations like the APA, like the ASA, like Illuminative, have done national surveys to find that these types of images are harmful to us, take our majority word for it. It is inappropriate and we would not allow for this type of racist antics and imagery for any other population.AK: I looked at the surveys that Dr. Proudfit cited. The images that Native Americans were asked about, and that many actually found harmful, were of sports Mascots and other caricatures. They had nothing at all to do with the kind of artistic renditions in the murals.The evidence that I did find of what some Native Americans think about Arnautoff’s murals was from February, 2021. A group of Native American leaders from across the country wrote to the school board protesting the decision to cover the murals. The paintings, they concluded, should be used as educational tools.Of course, there is also the argument that this kind of art simply does not belong on the walls of a high school. Again, Dr. Proudfit.PROUDFIT: This is a public school that should provide safe working and learning environments for all students, not simply just native students, but all students. And so these harmful effects, these stereotypical harmful toxic narratives hurt not only native students, but non-native students who are still learning or have yet to learn about the original nations and people of this land. We would not tolerate this for any other population. What if George Washington High School had images painted by someone who's trying to depict dead Jewish people at the hands of Nazis. Do you think that would be okay to have those images up in a public school?AK: But hang on. Isn’t that part of being a student — contending with deplorable, even distressing, truths? That’s how Dewey Crumpler sees it.CRUMPLER: Let me just say that the most important place for young people to confront difficulty is in high school, just before you get into the world. So a young person seeing difficult imagery, that's a perfect opportunity for teaching. Okay, you're not going to read Huckleberry Finn because of some words. They're offensive. I was offended by them. But, if it's in the world, it's for me. If it's in the world, I have a right to it. I have a right to know it. I have a right to experience it, and it's my youth that helps prepare me for it, even though it will be problematic. That's how we learn to overcome the difficulties.CHERNY: I think we can probably assume that Arnatouff wanted them to be a bit disturbed.AK: Robert Cherny, the author of the book about Arnautoff, says that Arnautoff was deliberate in placing the murals. He wanted them to be precisely where they are, in the lobby and stairwells of a public high school.CHERNY: He wanted them to confront the reality that the settlement of the West had come at an enormous cost to the original inhabitants of the West. He said that it was expansion by war and peace, that he wanted the students to confront the fact that they were living in a place that had been taken from the first people by force. I think that Arnautoff wanted them to be troubled by the image that he was presenting there. He wanted them to be disturbed, I don't think he was trying to traumatize them or offend them, he was trying to get them to think.AK: But what about the fact that now we're in different times, maybe if he was alive today, he'd be part of, you know, people on the left who are campaigning for the rights of people of color, and that's perhaps what he was doing then. But now we know the history. How would you respond to people who say: Well, this may have been all well and good and revolutionary and wonderful when he painted them, but we have moved on and we no longer need these murals.CHERNY: Well, do we ever need art at all? I mean, there's a really big question here. If we disagree with something in the past, do we just erase it and pretend it never happened? You know, that's what Arnautoff was in fact objecting to in the way he presented his art. He was objecting to the erasure of people of color. He was objecting to the erasure of slavery and genocide. And if we say that, okay, maybe his intent was okay, but his intent is irrelevant, and therefore we have to just erase him and his art. I find that really very troubling because we, we’re not learning from it in that case. To me, the purpose of art, any art, is to make you think. And if it is purely decorative, it's not art, it's decoration. And I think that if we are going to ban art that makes you think because someone might be offended by thinking about those topics, then, you know, our culture is going to be a very sad one, I'm afraid. I hope I never see that.AK: In 1935, the San Francisco Chronicle published an interview with Victor Arnautoff. He told the paper: “As I see it, the artist is a critic of society.” What Arnautoff could not have foreseen was that decades later, society would become a critic of the artist.The longer I think about this issue, the more I find myself wondering, why must the solution be reduced to only two options: cover the murals OR let them stay up? Can’t we come up with a more creative solution? How about keeping the murals up and contextualizing them? Well it turns out, Dewey Crumpler suggested exactly this decades ago when he painted his response murals. He asked the school board to put up explanatory plaques alongside Arnautoff’s artwork, much the way museums do.CRUMPLER: Every generation is different. They confront new issues, and therefore you have to give them information, otherwise they will misunderstand all the implications and symbolisms that are all over those murals. Whether it's Arnautoff or my mural in the future, unless something is done to explain them, to make them clear, this will crop up again.AK: As it stands, these murals are devoid of any signposts that tell us where we are and what they might mean.CRUMPLER: Those murals have to be contextualized. And when you are young, everything looks larger than it is. When I saw those murals in 1966, I was incensed by them and they looked huge. When I came back to engage them, they were much smaller. And I’d come to understand profoundly why he used those images. In fact, one of the people who had been most vociferous about taking those walls down, once he, like me, had graduated from college, he apologized to me: “Mr. Crumpler, I really appreciate what you painted. I appreciate those murals greatly, but if I understood what Arnautoff was doing, I would’ve never done what we did.”He couldn't have come to that realization if I had joined them and said, “Yes, let's tear this s**t down. And when we tear it down, I'll paint over every bit of it.” Because they would have been prepared to do that, but the foresight of the board, because they were not going to permit this painting to be destroyed. And it was very important to all those board members and people who had been trained in the notion and understanding of art. But this new cohort of people, they're not trained in the arts, they don't really have that same sense of the importance of an artistic work.I tried to create a worthy dialogue but of course, once I had made that mural, the school board relaxed and they didn't do what I said at the dedication they should do. You have to use those murals as teaching tools and you have to put plaques next to them that explain them.AK: To my mind, that is the smartest solution. High school, where children are becoming adults, isprecisely the place where they need to confront troubling ideas. I asked Dr. Proudfit whether contextualizing Arnautoff’s murals by putting up written explanations might be a way forward.PROUDFIT: A public high school is not the place for that conversation, we are not at that point and we are far from that point. And the analysis or the example you just gave of the promise that was made 50 years ago, 60 years ago, and that that promise has went unmet, American Indians know about broken promises. We're very familiar with broken promises. This is a safety issue. This is a health and wellness issue. Okay, so if that means you take those walls out and you put them in storage until, I don't know, 10, 20, 30, 40, whenever people want to get around to telling the truth, and telling the truth from all sides, then maybe they can be brought out and have that discussion. But I would make a point to say that public high schools are not that place because we don't have the capacity, the information, the people, the structure to have those conversations. And so while that's a noble and nice idea, we are so far from that. And no, we don't believe that that will happen given the 50 years of lies.AK: Mark Sanchez is a member of the San Francisco school board. He says that, sadly, Dr. Proudfit is right, that the school will likely never put up these plaques.SANCHEZ: I don't have a lot of faith that that will happen, even if that's what the board decided to do.AK: Why? You have faith that something that hasn't been removed for so long, has stayed on the walls, now there is faith that we can remove it. Why not have faith that we can actually use it and teach it, which is what an educational institution is about?SANCHEZ: Given the history of that school and the trajectory of what's happening at that school, I don't believe that they would be able to do that.AK: So, tell me, the school will actually be able to paint over these huge murals, but they won't be able to put up plaques contextualizing it.SANCHEZ: I don't believe that they would, no.AK: And why is that?SANCHEZ: Well, they've had how many decades to do that?AK: But is that a reason to destroy something then?SANCHEZ: I don't believe that the school has the wherewithal or the gumption to move in that direction, to use that piece of art as an educational tool.AK: It boggles the mind why the school board refuses to explain these murals, an initiative that would cost mere pennies compared to the three quarters of a million dollars needed to paint over the artwork. Why can’t these public school officials find a creative solution that simultaneously preserves the art, acknowledges hurt feelings and uses these murals as educational tools? I find myself wondering, is this controversy a symptom of something larger that plagues our society? Are our core values so fundamentally divergent that our differences can no longer be bridged?It’s easy to remove works of art when people are offended by them. At times, it can even feel like the humane thing to do. But we must ask ourselves: How does erasing depictions of our history truly help us?CRUMPLER: To me, to destroy Arnautoff's mural would be to destroy truth.AK: We still don’t know how this particular controversy will ultimately play out. The alumni association has a lawsuit pending to preserve these murals. What we do know is that there are countless other works of art, many in public places, awaiting their own public outcry. Once more, Dewey Crumpler.CRUMPLER: Censorship and cancel culture is all around us. That's why art has to be free to do its work, even though it can make individuals very upset and angry. It's a worthy subject that an inanimate object can actually do something to a human being, can make a human being think, can make a human being angry. But the point is you have to work your way through it. Working your way through it is the point of life itself.AK: Who gets a voice in the telling of a story and who gets left out? Why do certain words, ideas and even people get canceled? What does the use of such strategies to silence tell us about our times and our society? These are the issues we’ll be exploring throughout this year on Banished.If you’d like to see photographs of the “Life of Washington” murals and Dewey Crumpler’s response murals, visit our website BooksmartStudios.org. And if you’d like to hear more of our conversation with Dewey Crumpler and other exclusive content, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios.I’d like to thank Lope Yap and Peta Cooper for all their help with today’s episode. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. N’Dinga Gaba and Chris Mandra mixed the audio. If you have any thoughts about today’s episode, please leave us a comment at BooksmartStudios.org.This is Banished. I’m Amna Khalid. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

A discussion about modern liberal approaches to free speech on campuses. The conversation is hosted by Amna Khalid, Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College, and features AFA members Randall Kennedy and Jonathan Zimmerman. Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School and the author of several books, most recently For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law. Zimmerman is Professor of History of Education and the Judy and Howard Berkowitz Professor in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, and is the author of several books, including his most recent, Free Speech: And Why You Should Give a Damn.

Banished is about our reassessment of the many people, ideas, objects and even works of art that conflict with modern sensibilities. What can we learn about our present obsession with cancel culture by examining history, and what might it mean for freedom of expression?Amna Khalid is professor of history at Carleton College. Born in Pakistan, Amna earned an M.Phil. in Development Studies and a D.Phil. in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships, Amna has a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks frequently on academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities. Her essays and commentaries on these same issues have appeared in outlets such as the Conversation, Inside Higher Ed and the New Republic.Banished is coming this July!If you haven’t yet, please consider a paid subscription to Booksmart Studios! It’s only $7/month or $70/year and will get you extra podcast episodes, extended guest interviews and an opportunity to engage directly with our hosts. Plus, you’ll be supporting all of the work we do here at Booksmart.Banished is just one of at least three shows that we’ll launch this summer. Others include:Bully Pulpit: A wry and pointed take on politics, media and society from longtime public radio personality Bob Garfield. His astute cultural criticism, infused with wit and humor, has been called “absolutely necessary” and “very brave.”Lexicon Valley: A close examination of language — its power to inform and misinform, to elucidate and obfuscate — from renowned Columbia University linguistics professor John McWhorter. A true polymath, McWhorter will analyze the words and phrases that dominate our discourse and make the headlines.And finally: As we craft the first season of Banished, we want to hear from you. What topics do you want us to tackle? Which voices do you want to hear from? Simply comment below, or tweet to us at @BooksmartSocial. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

What's working and what's not working in efforts to teach antiracism on college campuses today? Amna Khalid, the author of a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, "How Students Are Furthering Academe's Corporatization," joins Tom and Sarah to discuss pitfalls and dangers in some recent approaches to antiracism on college campuses. Are corporate training models displacing university classes? Can liberal education offer a path forward for colleges and universities who want to get their students to talk about race without falling into a training model? Can colleges and universities flourish without getting faculty more involved than they have been? Amna Khalid's essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education. (https://36b8b3ba-abf4-4068-ac11-2eb97f0833f0.filesusr.com/ugd/5c295d_149f2676fe294afca0b1f3273844076c.pdf) Amna's website (https://www.amnakhalid.com), with other essays of interest. Amna's book recommendation: Walter Benn Michael's The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned To Love Identity and Ignore Inequality. (https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Diversity-Learned-Identity-Inequality/dp/1250099331/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1968I0RXXYLX5&dchild=1&keywords=walter+benn+michaels&qid=1621978665&sprefix=Walter+benn%2Caps%2C143&sr=8-1)

In the months after George Floyd’s murder, colleges, universities, non-profits, and large corporations across the country embraced anti-racism and diversity training as a way to promote inclusion and racial justice.But do these programs actually work to change minds and achieve their goals? Our guest, associate professor of History at Carleton College, Amna Khalid, argues that while training can improve customer service and knowledge of CPR and Excel spreadsheets, it’s woefully inadequate when confronting complex social problems such as poverty, inequality, discrimination, and racism. Amna grew up under several military dictatorships in Pakistan and came to the U.S. with a passionate commitment to free speech and belief in the power of education to promote curiosity, understanding, and imagination."Through all my journeys what I've come to realize is that people are individuals more than any category that you can put them into," Amna tells us. "If we really begin to engage with people as individuals then we will do a far better job of diversity and inclusion."While critical race theory (CRT) can be one useful tool in our conversations about race, this episode includes criticism of efforts to promote one all-encompassing view of diversity. Recommendation: Richard enjoyed watching "Soul", which won the Oscar this year for best animated feature movie. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this week's podcast I team up with co-host David Bernstein to create a joint podcast with Counterweight; the first of many to come. David and I sit down with Amna Khalid, a Professor at Carleton College and the former John Stuart Mill Faculty Fellow at the Heterodox Academy to discuss how we can promote diversity without division. Amna suggests imagination, curiosity and education as the cornerstones for building a new diversity paradigm. All discussed with a chaser of civility, of course, and a rum punch. To read a recap of the conversation and additional thoughts, and to see what we are each reading, visit our post In Support of Imagination and Viewpoint Diversity on the Hold my Drink website. You can also watch the conversation on the Hold my Drink YouTube page.

In our first episode of Heterodox Out Loud, our host, Amna Khalid takes us on a journey back to the earliest days of the Heterodox Academy blog to listen to NYU Social Psychologist, Author, and HxA co-founder Jonathan Haidt read his seminal blog post, “Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice,” a summary of his talks at Wellesley, SUNY New Paltz, and Duke University in 2016. Haidt's seminal piece has inspired numerous responses including “The Truth is Not Enough” by Oliver Traldi, “Truth and Social Justice: How Universities Can Embrace Both of These Values” by Patrick Casey, and “On Truth and Ideology in Academia” by Christian Alejandro Gonzalez. You can follow Jonathan Haidt on Twitter @JonHaidt.  For comments and questions email communications@heterodoxacademy.org. This episode's artwork was inspired by Haidt's essay and was created by Lexi Polokoff. You can follow her on Instagram @lexipolokoffart