Podcast appearances and mentions of neil gross

Neil Gross, a sociologist best known for his work on policing, higher education, politics, and pragmatism, is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Sociology at Colby College in Maine. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Gross holds a bachelor's degree in legal studies from UC Berkeley and received his PhD in sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Before joining the Colby faculty in 2015, Gross taught at the University of Southern California, Harvard, the University of British Columbia, and Princeton.  Highlights from the episode include: a history of Neil's journey from cop to college professor to author; samples from his book that show how former police chiefs worked to improve the culture of policing; why trust is the most important factor in a community and how to begin building or repairing it; comparing the challenges in policing to the challenges facing those in education; difficulties both police chiefs and school principals face as they work to manage their departments while also being ambassadors in the broader community; and a closing lightning round that compares Vancouver to Maine! Check out Neil's Book: https://neilgross.com/walk-the-walk-1Questions? Thoughts? Feedback? Email us at  freerangehumanspod@gmail.com or Tweet us at @jal_mehta and @Rodroad219

In the last episode of UnMind, we concluded our review of the design intent of the Three Treasures of Buddhism. In this segment, we return to the current state of the campaign for political leadership of the country. My intent in these essays regarding the practice of Zen in an election year cycle is not to persuade or convince anyone of anything, other than the efficacy of sitting in zazen to straighten this mess out for yourself. I will try to make the case that it ‑ the political discourse ‑ is not at all disconnected from the Three Treasures. After all, the design of the three branches of government, and even partisan politics, are nothing more than manifestations of the community writ large – however subject to manipulation and distortion by special interest groups and individuals who may not honor the harmony of the larger Sangha, as their highest ideal. To be clear, I am not interested in getting out the vote, or influencing your vote. I regard politics as only one of the multifarious – and perhaps nefarious – arenas of civic action available to us in modern times. But because the unremitting and relentless campaign is currently taking all the oxygen out of the air, and threatens to do so for some time, more than ever should we turn to our own council, and tend to our own knitting, on the cushion. Zen meditation provides a safe haven, a dependable redoubt, for refreshing our resolve to take action in the most compassionate way, but informed by the wisdom of the ancestors. The political pageantry of the moment is subject to the cardinal marks of dukkha – impermanence, imperfection and insubstantiality – perhaps more than any other dimension of existence. We can regret, or rejoice, at its passing. It is also a given that most of those in positions of power and influence do not have the wisdom and compassion of the Dharma forming their guiding principles, nor even that of the founding documents of the republic. Nor can we claim that the clarity of Buddha's wisdom, or buddha-nature, resides at the heart of the American cult of the individual. In spite of the complexity, confusion, and downright contrariness of human nature, in coming to terms with the polity, I think I speak for all the ancestors of Zen in saying that our recommendation remains the same, regarding the spectrum, or spectacle, of governance across the countries of the globe, and the span of centuries since the advent of Buddhism in India. Physical samadhi is first in priority – more centered and balanced, less off-kilter, in the form of sitting upright and still, in zazen as well as kinhin, walking meditation. Then follows emotional samadhi – manifesting as more calmness, less anxiety. Then mental samadhi – fostering more clarity and less confusion, especially as to the deeper meaning and ramifications of the compassionate teachings. And finally, social samadhi – finding more harmony and less friction, in personal and social relationships. Girding our loins, as it were, with the “sword of Manjusri,” cutting through delusion, and reentering the marketplace with bliss-bestowing hands. By starting at the center of things, the personal sphere, eventually we may find our way in the social, natural, and even the universal spheres of influence that surround us, bringing the eyes and ears, and helping hands, of the bodhisattva to bear upon the suffering of the world. A large dollop of humility, and perhaps a healthy sense of humor, may be in order. We have introduced the notion that what we are doing in Zen training is, after all, only developing our penchant for independent thinking, along with its counterpart, a capacity for interdependent action. This is the tightrope we walk, while keeping all the balls in the air, of the many influences surrounding us. The nexus of near-infinite causes and conditions can bring about analysis paralysis if we succumb to the usual approach to defining and solving problems based on self-defense. What is called for is recognition and acceptance of the Japanese proverb cited by Master Dogen: “Fall down seven times; get up eight!” We need to give ourselves permission to fail in the social realm. Partisanship in politics requires that we suspend independent thinking. We are often prevailed upon to subscribe to views and opinions that may not be fully vetted or justified, in order to take advantage of the opportunities of the moment, to win over sufficient numbers of voters to the cause. But when we examine the sources of the ideological divide, it seems that underlying factors, which would fall into the skandha of “mental formations,' or unconscious volition, may play a greater role than we think. Further to the point, a recent article in the New York Times by Neil Gross, a professor of sociology at Colby College, titled “Are You Thinking for Yourself?” approached the problem of ideological division from a demographical perspective: If you're trying to guess whether people are Republicans or Democrats, knowing a few basic facts about them will take you a long way. What's their race and gender? How far did they get in school? What part of the country do they live in and is their community urban, suburban, or rural? He goes on to support the point with examples, which we will not detail here. His basic conclusion is that your demographics often determine what you believe, in regards to your general worldview, as well as political leanings. A seemingly determinative factor is that of the influence of parents and family. A majority of partisans of the new generation reflect the ideology of their parentage, apparently going back for generations. From this we might conclude that the vast majority of voters are going to be biased in favor of their family and social history from childhood – nature and nurture – and not likely to be persuaded by rational or ideological argument to switch allegiances. This suggests that the majority of campaign messages and ads attempting to sway so-called independents and moderates to join one camp or another may be a waste of time and money. It might be more effective to track the generational histories of constituencies, homing in on the genetically captive audience, known colloquially as “the base.” New coalitions may be limited by this unseen dimension, holding steady through generations. Please indulge an exercise involving simple mathematics, something we do not often engage in to make a point about Zen, or the teachings of Buddhism. But we have to admit that a major factor in differentiating our lives and times from those of our Zen ancestors is the burgeoning population and geometrically expanding demographics of the modern age. Pardon me while I “do the math,” with an assist from my onboard calculator, using search results from online sources, both inaccessible to the ancients. The current US population is estimated at about 333 million, of which roughly 240 million, or 72% of the total, are eligible to vote. In 2020, around 66% of those eligible actually registered and voted, a record, but representative of less than 50% of the total population. The Democrat candidate won the election with a little over 51% of the vote, while the Republican candidate lost, with about 47% of the vote. Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion – more than doubling the total cost of the also record-breaking 2016 cycle – according to opensecrets.org. So the last victory came at a cost of about $2000 a vote, if my math is correct. Even though a record 60-plus percent of eligible voters turned out in the 2020 election, the final decision was made by a miniscule fraction – 0.03% -- of the total, assuming the count was accurate, and that my math is close enough for jazz. Throw in the electoral college, with its handful of “swing states,” and the final decision comes down to a cohort less than the population of the metro area of Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas. Yet the winners (and losers) not only endeavor to rewrite history to favor their cause, they also claim to enjoy the mandate of “the American people,” a tiny portion of whom actually put them in office. Or threw them out. The losing side famously claimed the election was stolen through voter fraud, though the electoral college tally came in at 306 to 232, a decisive difference, along with the overage of multiple millions of voters in the popular vote. But, as we hasten to say, that's a story for another day. Who are we to argue the truth of politics? Zen calls upon us to challenge the truth of our very senses! So we have to look at whatever leaders we get as being “the leaders we deserve,” in the context of a system demonstrably incapable of representing the “will of the people,” let alone “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The fact that a large percentage opt out, and others are disenfranchised, belies a foundational tenet of the democratic republic: “one man-one vote.” This remains an ideal, one that may be forever out of reach, even with our vaunted technical connectivity. It may come down to a matter of free will, or the inexorable ignorance of the modern hoi polloi. Nobody is legally required to vote, after all, which may be a good thing. Further into the article, Gross generalizes: Although there are certainly people whose politics defy generalization, the underlying demographic tendencies are powerful predictors of belief – powerful enough that elections have become as much a turnout game as an exercise in persuasion. Do tell. But if it takes $2 grand a pop to get a single person to the polls, one has to question whether it is possible to turn that massive a “push” into a “pull,” to borrow from marketing terminology. Of course, there are those who would question whether it is wise to target people who are disinclined to vote in the first place. How informed would their choices likely be, if they are finally dragged out of their inertia, and into the polls? Gross concludes his essay with a turn to something deeper, the humanity underlying our behavior, including political activism: By all means, let's duke it out in the public sphere and at the ballot box. You'll fight for you interests and I'll fight for mine. That's democracy in a big, diverse, boisterous nation. But if we could bear in mind that we sometimes stumble into our most passionately held beliefs, the tenor of our discourse might be a bit saner and more cordial. The fact that we are all deeply social creatures, in politics and otherwise, underscores our shared humanity – something that we would be wise to never lose sight of. Whether or not you agree with the implicit assumption that making the tenor of our public discourse saner and more cordial would be a good thing – many seem to feel the opposite, that the squeakier the wheel, the more grease it will get – most would probably agree with the appeal to our shared humanity, and recognize the lamentable truism of frequently stumbling into our most passionately held beliefs. Aye, there's the rub – that our actions within the social sphere, including the political arena, are too often based on belief, rather than reality. Here is where Zen comes in. The deeper implicit assumption is that our shared humanity is necessarily a good thing. But I think Buddhism points to something deeper. We do not aspire to human nature in Zen – we aspire to buddha nature. Meaning to wake up to the deeper meaning and implications of our lives – our very existence – beyond the immediate and local causes and conditions impinging upon us, including the political machinations of our fellow travelers. Again, my intent in these essays is to emphasize the necessity of the practice of Zen in an election year cycle, not to persuade you of anything, other than the efficacy of sitting in zazen to straighten this mess out for yourself. That said, or resaid, I do encourage you to vote. You will make the right choice, informed by your meditation, I am sure. In the next episode of UnMind, we will return to considerations of more broadly focused adaptation of design thinking principles of problem definition and potential solutions in everyday life, of which politics is only one, if one of the most noisy and noisome.* * * Elliston Roshi is guiding teacher of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center and abbot of the Silent Thunder Order. He is also a gallery-represented fine artist expressing his Zen through visual poetry, or “music to the eyes.”UnMind is a production of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center in Atlanta, Georgia and the Silent Thunder Order. You can support these teachings by PayPal to donate@STorder.org. Gassho.Producer: Shinjin Larry Little

Darwin BondGraham, Neil Gross, and Ali Winston, moderated by Laura Wenus From the Panthers to the Riders, Oakland is ground zero for legitimately questioning the very fabric of cop culture. In this session, investigative duo Darwin BondGraham and Ali Winston, San Francisco Poet Laureate Tongo Eisen-Martin, and Colby College sociology professor Neil Gross will present perspectives from individuals who have thoroughly reported on, studied, and worked with populations affected by cop culture, and have ideas about how to enact reform. Buy the books here 

TCD Podcast - Season 6 - Episode 117What does it truly mean to be a police officer in today's America? Can police departments adapt, innovate, and transform their culture to better serve their communities? Join us as we explore these questions with Dr. Neil Gross, a sociologist from Colby College and a former short-term law enforcement officer in California. We talk with him about the changing landscape of policing, spotlighting innovative police departments across the United States - from Stockton, California, LaGrange, Georgia, to Longmont, Colorado. In our chat, we discuss police and academia, tracing the evolution of this complex relationship over time. Neil takes us behind the curtain, revealing how social scientists have observed policing since the 50s and 60s, and the pervasive feeling of stigmatization within the police force. We also talk about the parallels and self-selection processes in both academia and law enforcement, and the reasons why professors and scientists may lean more liberal. In our chat with Dr. Gross, he shares some laudable efforts of police chiefs like Lou Deckmar, who transformed the LaGrange, Georgia police department with a steadfast commitment to the rule of law, equity, and professionalism. We also draw insights from Neil's experiences teaching sociology to undergraduates, sparking critical thinking and fostering open discussions about policing. This conversation is a great listen for anyone eager to grasp the complexities and opportunities within police departments today. Tune into The CopDoc Podcast!Contact us: copdoc.podcast@gmail.com Website: www.copdocpodcast.comIf you'd like to arrange for facilitated training, or consulting, or talk about steps you might take to improve your leadership and help in your quest for promotion, contact Steve at stephen.morreale@gmail.com

On this Summer Friday, we've put together some of our favorite recent interviews, including: The number of Americans who are part of any organized religion has been dropping for decades, and over the past ten years, dropped by about 11 points.  Ryan Burge, associate professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University, research director for Faith Counts, and the author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going (Fortress Press, 2021), digs into the patterns around the country and explains how the trend might affect presidential politics in 2024 and beyond. Neil Gross, sociology professor at Colby College in Maine, former police officer, and author of Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture (Metropolitan Books, 2023), argues police culture can become more humane and effective using the examples of three departments whose chiefs made it happen -- in Stockton, California; Longmont, Colorado; and LaGrange, Georgia. Katherine Marsh, journalist and author of books for middle-grade readers, including her latest, The Lost Year: A Survival Story of the Ukrainian Famine (Roaring Brook Press, 2023), argues that an unintended consequence of teaching kids critical reading skills is that they read less for fun. Elizabeth Glazer, founder of the journal Vital City and former director of the New York City Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, talks about indicators Vital City is collecting that show whether New York City is safe, vibrant and thriving. Sandra Fox, visiting assistant professor of American Jewish history at New York University, director of the Archive of the American Jewish Left in the Digital Age, founder and executive producer of the Yiddish-language podcast "Vaybertaytsh: A Feminist Podcast in Yiddish," and the author of The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America (Stanford University Press, 2023), talks about the origins of sleepaway camps for Jewish kids in the U.S. and their influence on American Jewish culture, as callers share their stories from summer camp.   These interviews were polished up and edited for time, the original versions are available here: The Changing Religious Landscape and the 2024 Election (Jun 5, 2023) Case Studies in Humane Policing (Mar 23, 2023) Have We Taken the Fun Out of Kid's Reading? (Apr 10, 2023) Thriving City (Apr 3, 2023) Summer Camps and Jewish Cultural History (May 10, 2023)  

Glenn opens up about his cancer story with Dr. Neil Gross, Head & Neck Surgeon with MD Anderson in Houston Texas

Over the past decade, bad policing has been a constant presence in the headlines, particularly in coverage of police violence against people of color. It makes us wonder if policing can be improved and changes in culture can be achieved. In his new book Walk the Walk, today's guest Neil Gross examines three cities where he argues police chiefs were able to make significant improvements and culture changes in policing. In addition to being an author and former police officer, Neil is a professor of Sociology at Colby College. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/alyssa-milano-sorry-not-sorry/message

Neil Gross worked for a time as a police officer, before going back to school to become a sociologist. He combines past and present occupations in a book, "Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture."

What should we do about the police? We're swimming in proposals for reform, but most do not tackle the aggressive culture of the profession, which prioritizes locking up bad guys at any cost, loyalty to other cops, and not taking flak from anyone on the street. Far from improving public safety, this culture, in fact, poses a danger to citizens and cops alike. Walk the Walk brings readers deep inside three unusual departments—in Stockton, California; Longmont, Colorado; and LaGrange, Georgia—whose chiefs signed on to replace that aggressive culture with something better: with models focused on equity before the law, social responsibility, racial reconciliation, and the preservation of life. Informed by research, unflinching and by turns gripping, tragic, and inspirational, this book follows the chiefs—and their officers and detectives—as they conjured a new spirit of policing. Join us when Neil Gross examines Walk the Walk which opens a window onto what the police could be, if we took seriously the charge of creating a more just America, on this installment of Leonard Lopate at Large.

During the midterms, crime rates and public safety were a hot-button issue, even as discourse around police reform and anti-Black violence continues.  On Today's Show: Neil Gross, sociology professor at Colby College in Maine, former police officer, and author of Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture (Metropolitan Books, 2023), argues police culture can become more humane and effective using the examples of three departments whose chiefs made it happen—in Stockton, California; Longmont, Colorado; and LaGrange, Georgia.

Neil Gross, sociology professor at Colby College in Maine, former police officer, and author of Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture (Metropolitan Books, 2023), argues police culture can become more humane and effective using the examples of three departments whose chiefs made it happen—in Stockton, California; Longmont, Colorado; and LaGrange, Georgia.

Mike interviews Neil Gross, a former cop turned Colby College Sociology professor and now author of Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied The Odds and Changed Cop Culture. We're also joined by Leon Nixon, who voiced the audiobook—a profession he took up after more than 20 years in law enforcement. Plus, a look at the loudest hush money in history. And how Michael Cohen is a colorful character, but he's a questionable character to put on the witness stand. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied The Odds and Changed Cop Culture" by sociologist Neil Gross, brings readers deep inside three unusual departments—in Stockton, California; Longmont, Colorado; and LaGrange, Georgia—whose chiefs signed on to replace that aggressive culture with something better: with models focused on equity before the law, social responsibility, racial reconciliation, and the preservation of life.

EPISODE 1370: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to WALK THE WALK author and Colby College sociologist Neil Gross about three American police chiefs who defied the odds and provided a model for changing cop culture A former patrol officer in the police department in Berkeley, California, Neil Gross is a professor of sociology at Colby College. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, he is the author of two previous books and has also taught at Harvard and Princeton. He lives in Maine. His latest book is “WALK THE WALK: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture” (2023) Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In recent years, our news headlines have spotlighted challenges in the relationships between local police departments and the communities they serve. On this episode, we talk with Neil Gross and Leon Nixon about their new audiobook, Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture. 

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would've addressed racial profiling and use of deadly force, among other things. But the bill, which was crafted in 2020, still hasn't passed and it's unclear if it ever will. Progress has often been stymied by conflicting ideas, on all sides of the political spectrum, about the role of police in maintaining law and order. So, what can be done to fix so many of the problems plaguing the profession? Our guest this week points out that when he became a police officer, he had “idealistic intentions, but right away was confronted with a really different set of norms and values.” Neil Gross is a former cop turned sociology professor and is the author of “Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture.” The book tells story how leaders in three police departments sought to change aggressive police culture and how their efforts could be in instructive for broader reform. Gross joins WITHpod to discuss his experience as a former cop, the us vs. them mentality in some police circles, the need for more officer accountability and more.

John talks about Fox News Host Tucker Carlson releasing misleading Capitol riot footage on his show and then being blasted by Senate Republicans. Then to add frosting to the cake - Dominion Voting Systems released a new batch of private emails and texts which expose Tucker and his co-workers as frauds. Then he interviews professor of sociology at Colby College and former police officer Neil Gross about his new book “Walk The Walk” which chronicles the story of three departments and their struggle to change aggressive police culture. Next John speaks with Ohio resident John Russell about his Substack "The Holler" which is described as class politics for rednecks and hippies. They talk about the Ohio train derailment which is near him. Then finally Tyler in Arkansas calls about abortion prosecution and Bob in West Virginia calls to talk about the Ohio train disaster. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode, Neil Gross joins Mark Bauerlein to discuss his book "Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture."

After the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police, there were ample calls for reckoning in law enforcement. Neil Gross, professor of sociology at Colby College, is a former patrol officer in the police department in Berkeley, California. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss how three police departments have taken on reform efforts, trying to change police culture from the inside to view justice from a new lens. His book is “Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture.”

This has been a long, exhausting week and thank dog it's over. It wasn't all bad, though. I got to see Springsteen! I actually saw more live music last week than in the past three years combined!We saw Joe Biden deliver a widely praised State of the Union address. The poll numbers on the speech were great, even though his performance ratings are still not very strong. But Dark Brandon seems to have found his footing as he prepares to announce he'll run for reelection at the age of 80.Today's guest is Neil Gross. He's a former police officer, currently a sociology professor and author of three books. His third, WALK THE WALK: HOW THREE POLICE CHIEFS DEFIED THE ODDS AND CHANGED COP CULTURE, is set for a March 23 release. He also has an article in the current ATLANTIC magazine covering other police departments who are doing their jobs responsibly...

As the United States grapples with the killing of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old black man who died after being beaten by five police officers in Memphis in January, Katie Stallard speaks to Neil Gross, a former police officer and professor of sociology at Colby College. They discuss what can be done to reform police forces in the US, what he learned from researching his forthcoming book Walk the Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture, and why there might be cause for hope. Read more: Everything we think about police reform is wrongGeorge Floyd's murder one year on: has the US changed?Patrick Hutchinson: “The death of George Floyd is one of the worst things I've ever seen” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former police officer and Colby College professor of sociology Neil Gross joins the show to discuss his experience as a police officer and research into how to change it for the better, as highlighted in his new book “Walk The Walk: How Three Police Chiefs Defied the Odds and Changed Cop Culture."

Whether it's theology, philosophy, politics, or science, it is not uncommon for people to believe their particular worldview has greater authority over others. This authoritarian approach to ideas implies that one person's representation of truth more closely and certainly reflects reality—they have the truth and we must submit to it.   Alternatively, pragmatists believe this abstract certitude leads to religious fundamentalism, philosophical dogmatism, political absoluteness, and rigid scientism.   For thinkers like the late-twentieth century philosopher Richard Rorty, language is an instrument for coordinating our efforts in addressing concrete issues we face in our lived environments.   He doesn't believe theology, politics, philosophy, or even science are about acquiring an accurate representation of reality. In fact, he rejects the notion that the nature of truth is one of language mirroring reality. Instead, he views language as a dynamic tool, not something that reproduces truth.   Often credited with rehabilitating pragmatism, Rorty encourages us to abandon these authoritarian approaches for what he calls a literary culture. While he holds that none of these disciplines have an epistemically privileged position from which they can determine which truth claims more closely represent reality, they each still play important roles in society.   In other words, each provides us with particular vocabularies with different uses. Their vitality resides in the way they empower us to describe and redescribe experiences in continually novel and fruitful ways.   Elin Danielsen Huckerby is a research fellow at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, associated with an EU-funded project on Inclusive Science and European Democracies. She recently graduated with a PhD from the University of Cambridge, where she worked on Rorty's uses of literature in his philosophical work.   She believes Rorty's literary attitude gives us more productive ways to move culture, science, and politics forward.     A few questions to ponder.   What is the role of literature in liberal democracies? What is moral progress for Rorty? How can liberal democracies benefit from embracing a more literary rather than scientistic culture? And, how worried should we be about Rorty's rejection of objective truth?   Show Notes Richard Rorty  The Takeover by Literary Culture: Richard Rorty's Philosophy of Literature by Elin Danielsen Huckerby (2021) "Rortian Liberalism and the Problem of Truth" by Adrian Rutt (2021) S1E20 Can Pragmatism Help Us Live Well? w/ John Stuhr (2021) S1E14 A Tool for a Pluralistic World w/ Justin Marshall (2021) S1E12 Philosophers Need to Care About the Poor w/ Jacob Goodson (2021) S1E07 Charles Peirce and Inquiry as an Act of Love w/ David O'Hara (2021) S1E06 Levinas and James: A Pragmatic Phenomenology w/ Megan Craig (2020) S1E01 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt (2020) “The Power of One Idea” by Jeffrey Howard (2020) “The Pragmatic Truth of Existentialism” by Donovan Irven (2020) Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher by Neil Gross (2008) "Trotsky and the Wild Orchids" by Richard Rorty (1992) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty (1989) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty (1979)

This week we finally return to our review of American Marxism by Mark Levin, a man we can only assume is still angry he was never given a pony to kill. In this second half of chapter three we learn mostly how staggeringly and completely lazy Levin was in writing this book. In all absolute honesty, and with complete disclosure that I do not have the time to sit and count words, Levin appears to have filled this chapter (and probably the book) with more words that come from block quotes written by the people he hates than his own original writing. Sincerely, this book is a snarky quote-tweet of a 2000 word deeply researched and detailed article, in other words, the same thing as Levin's Radio and TV shows. Because as we all know, when you don't have the facts, scream that your enemies are commies. We also saw Levin engage in some of the most blatant bullshitting of the book thus far (while we're sure there is plenty more to come) in deliberately attempting to deceive his audience into believing that somewhat hacky scholarly work about “Millenialists” actually applies to “Millenials.” I can assure you the two terms have almost nothing to do with one another. If you want more of us you can find us and this episode at our website NYGBCpod.com You can also find all of the episodes at nygbc.podbean.com If you want bonus episodes, early releases and more, consider becoming a patron for as little as $1 an episode at patreon.com/nygbc You can listen to every chapter of this review starting with episode 1 of this series. You can also listen to our introduction to Mark Levin, the man, the myth, the shouty little ball of anger. Thanks as always for listening and enjoy the show. Show Notes: Video Clip: Sam Hoadley-Brill Clip of Levin's Response to His Franklin School Error on YouTube Salon Article covering Levin Wrongly calling the Franklin School the Frankfurt School Jacobin Article Criticizing Levin's Bad Writing and Intellectual Laziness Piece of Shit Richard Landes explaining his “Pallywood” conspiracy – The Jerusalem Post Jean Anyon's Academic Article “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work” Journal of Education, Vol 162, no. 1, Fall 1980. Available on the internet archive through this link. Michael Hout Study on Occupational Status and Social Mobility, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available through this link. Opinion Piece on NBC News about social mobility by Evan Horowitz. Economic Policy Institute Report on The Erosion of Private Sector Unions and Causes Study on the political leanings of college professors by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons

While some philosophers view their primary task as one of discovering the nature of reality and then describing it accurately for the rest of us, others have practiced philosophy as an edifying enterprise, asserting that it should be employed to help us better resolve social and political problems—to change the world. Although both of these approaches have been utilized throughout history, the philosopher John McCumber argues that this later movement in philosophy was mostly purged from academia in the United States starting during the Cold War. 1950s McCarthyism and the “Red Scare” made many American politicians and professors wary of becoming blacklisted or punished for expressing viewpoints associated with communism. These views included concerns for the poor and economically-disadvantaged, support for labor unions, and outcries regarding exploitative economic practices. In turn, this meant that many academics were pushed out of their positions at colleges and universities if they engaged in rhetoric or activities that were perceived as being too “red.”  This academic McCarthyism, according to McCumber, further enabled the ascent of analytic philosophy, a method that attempts to describe the world in the most linguistically precise way possible, leaning heavily toward a mathematical-like language to capture an accurate picture of reality. As a result, philosophy departments throughout the United States became less interested in engaging in edifying philosophy. Consequently, academic McCarthyism helped elevate subjects like mathematics, philosophy of science, and logic at the expense of political and social philosophy. In the later part of the twentieth century, Richard Rorty ushered in a new era of philosophy. Turning their own methods against them, Rorty argued that we ought to jettison analytic philosophy, instead focusing on the practical consequences of our ideas as they manifest in politics and society. Rejecting a representationalist approach, Rorty spent much of his career rallying philosophers around a more edifying position, suggesting that we’re better served by focusing on how ideas can advance society and improve social conditions for people—especially the poor and marginalized. In fact, Rorty went so far as to make several political predictions regarding the practical uses of philosophy and literature in the twenty-first century. On numerous occasions, he outlined how they would be applied throughout society to transform politics following what he imagines will be the darkest years in American history—from 2014 to 2044. Jeffrey Howard speaks with Jacob Goodson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas. Goodson believes that, despite some of Rorty’s philosophical shortcomings, we ought to embrace a more edifying orientation toward ideas. In his recent book, The Dark Years?: Philosophy, Politics, and the Problem of Predictions (2020), he considers Rorty’s political predictions and how they might help guide us toward a better future. Goodson examines which predictions have already been realized—including the election of a “strongman” in 2016—which ones might be coming to fruition now, and whether Rorty’s conception of an idealized future will unfold in the way the neopragmatist philosopher hopes it will.  A few questions to ponder. In what ways might analytic philosophy be inadequate for addressing social and political problems? Should philosophers focus on changing society or is their primary role to help us better understand the nature of reality? What does philosophy stand to lose by following Richard Rorty into his neopragmatist vision for the discipline? And where should we place our hope for the future? Show Notes The Dark Years?: Philosophy, Politics, and The Problem of Predictions by Jacob Goodson (2020) Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by Richard Rorty (1997) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty (1989) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty (1979) Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place by Robert Talisse (2019) “Suspending Politics to Save Democracy” by Lawrence Torcello (2020) “We’re Overdoing Democracy. But Why?” by Kevin Vallier (2019) The Philosophy Scare: The Politics of Reason in the Early Cold War by John McCumber (2016) Time in a Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era by John McCumber (2001) Philosophy and Social Hope by Richard Rorty (2000) Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher by Neil Gross (2008) Analytic Philosophy “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841) Ep. 1 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country with Adrian Rutt (2020) The Future of Religion by Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo (2007) Walter Rauschenbusch Jeffrey Stout

What has happened to the political left since the 1960s? What distinguishes the reformist left from the cultural left? What does it mean for a leftist to have "national pride"? Are metaphysicians more prone to violence? In the very first episode of Damn the Absolute!, Jeffrey Howard speaks with Adrian Rutt, a philosophy professor in Cleveland, Ohio. He is president of the Western Reserve Philosophical Society, a local group that engages the larger community in important conversations across philosophy and politics. Adrian is also an editor for Liberal Currents, an online publication defending liberal principles and institutions. We explore the political thought of the iconoclastic philosopher Richard Rorty. And specifically, we look at his 1998 book, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America. Produced by Erraticus.   Show Notes: "Rorty on Religion and Politics" by Jeffrey Stout in The Philosophy of Richard Rorty (2010) "Post-ontological Philosophy of Mind: Rorty versus Davidson" by Bjorn Ramberg in Rorty and His Critics (2000) Defending Rorty: Pragmatism and Liberal Virtue by William Curtis (2015) Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by Richard Rorty (1998) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty (1989) “Lessons for the Left: Achieving Our Country Revisited” by Adrian Rutt (2020) “America Needs a Conservative Labor Movement” by Oren Cass (2020) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty (1979) Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher by Neil Gross (2008)  Pragmatic Liberalism and the Critique of Modernity by Gary Gutting (1999)

Today on Boston Public Radio: Former Mass. Treasurer and state gubernatorial candidate Shannon O’Brien discussed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate. Michael Curry talked about Biden’s pick and how Harris on the ticket might influence voters. Curry is the deputy CEO and general council for the Mass. League of Community Health Centers and a member of the NAACP board of directors, where he also chairs the board’s advocacy and policy committee. We opened our lines to talk with listeners about Harris joining Biden’s presidential ticket. Medical ethicist Art Caplan discussed evolving attitudes around faster, less effective coronavirus testing, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ethically dubious claims about Russia's supposed COVID-19 vaccine. Colby College sociologist and former police officer Neil Gross talked about why he believes progressives looking to effect change in police forces should consider joining them. MIT economist Jon Gruber talked about President Trump’s proposals for coronavirus relief, and offered his take on benefits of the $600 per week unemployment benefits that recently ran out. We returned to listeners to hear more of your thoughts on Harris as Biden's running mate. Richard Pickering and Kate Sheehan from Plimouth Plantation discussed the return of the newly-restored Mayflower II, and the museum's ongoing effort to raise awareness about the impact of the English settlers on the local Wampanoag population.

Jerry Brown, the former California Governor, joins Christiane Amanpour to discuss President Trump’s decision to send federal agents into Portland to quell the unrest. He says this is unprecedented and ‘pure politics’. Joachim Kersten, chair of police science at the German Police University, and Neil Gross, sociology professor at Colby College, talk about what America can learn from German policing. They trace how Germany changed its police training after World War II. Then our Michel Martin speaks to Margaret Sullivan, media columnist at The Washington Post and author of "Ghosting the News", about the impact of coronavirus on local journalism.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Emily, David and guest host James Forman Jr. discuss the pandemic catastrophe, the racial justice movement, and “cancel culture.” Slate Plus members get a bonus segment on the Gabfest each week, and access to special bonus episodes throughout the year. Sign up now to listen and support our show. For this week’s Slate Plus bonus segment James, David, and Emily discuss the program James has started at Yale Law School to help individuals from the New Haven area to get law degrees, who wouldn’t otherwise be able to. Here are some notes and references from this week’s show: Neil Gross for the New York Times: “Want to Abolish the Police? Consider Becoming an Officer Instead” Paul Butler for the New York Times: “The System Must Counteract Prosecutors’ Natural Sympathies for Cops” Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America by Jill Leovy Unpacking the Boston Police Budget, ACLU Massachusetts Harper’s Magazine: “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” Ross Douthat for The New York Times: “10 Theses About Cancel Culture” David Plotz for Business Insider: “Government Data Is Getting Worse.” Here are this week’s cocktail chatters: James: Vertellis card game Emily: Pam Fessler and Elena Moore for NPR’s Morning Edition: “Signed, Sealed, Undelivered: Thousands Of Mail-In Ballots Rejected For Tardiness”  David: Kerry Allen for the BBC: “US-China: Pompeo Dog Photo Has Netizens Asking If US Is Toying With China” Listener chatter from James Edward Dillard @jamesdillard: ChinaTalk podcast: “How Corruption Works in China”  You can tweet suggestions, links, and questions to @SlateGabfest. Tweet us your cocktail chatter using #cocktailchatter. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   The email address for the Political Gabfest is gabfest@slate.com. (Email may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jocelyn Frank. Research and show notes by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily, David and guest host James Forman Jr. discuss the pandemic catastrophe, the racial justice movement, and “cancel culture.” Slate Plus members get a bonus segment on the Gabfest each week, and access to special bonus episodes throughout the year. Sign up now to listen and support our show. For this week’s Slate Plus bonus segment James, David, and Emily discuss the program James has started at Yale Law School to help individuals from the New Haven area to get law degrees, who wouldn’t otherwise be able to. Here are some notes and references from this week’s show: Neil Gross for the New York Times: “Want to Abolish the Police? Consider Becoming an Officer Instead” Paul Butler for the New York Times: “The System Must Counteract Prosecutors’ Natural Sympathies for Cops” Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America by Jill Leovy Unpacking the Boston Police Budget, ACLU Massachusetts Harper’s Magazine: “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” Ross Douthat for The New York Times: “10 Theses About Cancel Culture” David Plotz for Business Insider: “Government Data Is Getting Worse.” Here are this week’s cocktail chatters: James: Vertellis card game Emily: Pam Fessler and Elena Moore for NPR’s Morning Edition: “Signed, Sealed, Undelivered: Thousands Of Mail-In Ballots Rejected For Tardiness”  David: Kerry Allen for the BBC: “US-China: Pompeo Dog Photo Has Netizens Asking If US Is Toying With China” Listener chatter from James Edward Dillard @jamesdillard: ChinaTalk podcast: “How Corruption Works in China”  You can tweet suggestions, links, and questions to @SlateGabfest. Tweet us your cocktail chatter using #cocktailchatter. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   The email address for the Political Gabfest is gabfest@slate.com. (Email may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jocelyn Frank. Research and show notes by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Benjamin Hickey recently starred as ‘Frank Winter’ in the critically acclaimed WGN America series Manhattan which ended its run after its 2nd season. Earlier this year, John was back on stage in Peter Parnell’s Dada Woof Papa Hot at Lincoln Center for director Scott Ellis. John’s film credits include Truth, Big Stone Gap, Get On Up, Pitch Perfect, Flags of Our Fathers, The Anniversary Party, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Taking of the Pelham 123. Next, John can be seen in Tallulah for Sian Heder which premiered at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and subsequently acquired by Netflix. On television, he received an Emmy Award nomination for his work on the Showtime series The Big C, playing Laura Linney's brother, Sean. He has recurred on the hit CBS television series The Good Wife playing Internet billionaire Neil Gross. Other television credits includeModern Family, Hannibal, The New Normal, Sex and the City, and Law & Order. On Broadway, John won the 2011 Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play and a Drama Desk Award for his performance in The Normal Heart. His other credits include Mary Stuart, The Crucible, Cabaret and Love! Valour! Compassion! for which he won an Obie Award. 

Host: Chris Mooney We've all heard the claim: Academia is liberal. And it indoctrinates students. It kills their religious faith and basically—or at least, so the allegation goes—transforms them into unkempt, pot-smoking hippies. As it turns out, this claim is precisely half true. Yes, academia is really liberal. But no, this has virtually nothing at all to do with ideological brainwashing. That's the provocative claim of a new book by Neil Gross of the University of British Columbia. It's entitled Why Are Professors Liberal? And Why Do Conservatives Care? And basically, it's a powerful data analysis to bandy about whenever Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum, start talking about liberal academic indoctrination mills. Neil Gross taught at the University of Southern California and Harvard University before joining the University of British Columbia faculty in 2008. Trained at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Ph.D., 2002), and holding a BA in Legal Studies from the University of California, Berkeley (1992), Gross has special interests in sociological theory, politics, the sociology of ideas and academic life, and the sociology of culture. He is the editor of Sociological Theory, a quarterly journal of the American Sociological Association.

Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It’s surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they will not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don’t generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don’t become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It’s surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they will not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don’t generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don’t become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It’s surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they will not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don’t generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don’t become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It’s surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they will not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don’t generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don’t become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It's surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they will not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don't generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don't become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It’s surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they will not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don’t generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don’t become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices