Glenn talks with a long-time liberal friend, Stephanie Lepp:
”Consider a big-picture question: What is my goal as a public intellectual? It’s not something I often ask myself in such explicit terms, and Stephanie pushes me to articulate a response. Stephanie engages me on the affirmative action question in order to get me to speak not just about my critique of preferences, but to think about whether critique is enough. It’s one thing to criticize a program or idea, she says, and another to propose a solution.”
Please Glenn, keep doing your "primary responsibility, which is to tell the truth as I see it."
But Stephanie's GREAT question remains: "What is [your] goal as a public intellectual?" (I'm just a public intellectual wannabe, but it's a question for all commenters, too.)
Everybody chooses what truths to focus on; your focus on the "Truth about Affirmative Action", as compared to a bunch of BS lies, a very dishonest MSM consensus, is pretty important in America today.
The reality of Black cognitive ability difference in comparison to White, Asian, & Hispanics, and what laws and policies should that difference lead to, is the single most important issue in America.
Stephanie wants to help you become a better leader in discussing the truth (your goal), or maybe changing reality (with magic thinking?) (her goal?).
My suggestion is that you follow the example of Jesus and create some parables to help you illustrate your truth.
<Example (you're free to copy, change, improve!)>
Is the NBA racist? Are there as many Hispanics as Blacks in the NBA? No, obviously not as many, maybe none, even tho there are more US Hispanics than Blacks.
Why not?
Is it genetics? Parents? SES (socio-economic status)? Individual will power (Hispanics too lazy to play enough hoops?). Doesn't this prove racism?
Anybody who thinks the NBA is not racist, despite almost no Hispanics, needs to consider why they reject racism as an explanation for disparate NBA impacts between Blacks & Hispanics. Those reasons should also apply to US society.
</Example>
Another strong suggestion - look for alternatives to AA for helping people who can use help. Ask John, and Stephanie & other guests, what other policies they think might work better than what we've been doing since '64 (ok, AA really started more from Nixon around '70), for 50+ years.
[Socialist Freddie DeBoer wrote The Cult of Smart - maybe talk with him https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/]
<my Example>
Pay poor girls who do NOT get pregnant until married some cash from ages 14-24; for those who get married, same (or more?) money when they do have kids.
70% of Black kids; 30% of White kids are being raised, sub-optimally, by non-married parents (90+% mothers).
</Example>
I find replacing "morality" with "optimally" seems pretty effective and true.
What makes a good or bad policy good or bad? Results? Intentions? Unintended but actual results?
Incentives matter, so we need more good incentives for good behavior - because it's too mean to accept, support, or advocate for more punishment/ bad results for bad behavior.
Humans have the ability to change their behavior. Those with bad results have the most responsibility to change their behavior the most.
--
"my primary responsibility, which is to tell the truth as I see it." To me, all "public intellectuals" should be trying to tell the truth, and discuss evidence about it. Most truth includes facts about who did what, when, where, and how.
But why - "why" is never a fact for human behavior. It's a choice.
That fact that you're an established Black voice allows your voicing of the truth to be even more significant, at times, than White Charles Murray, or the (cancelled and called racist) Steve Sailor.
If a racist describes some truth as true, should you censor your mention, possibly even shame, of that truth because of the racism of the person saying it?