John McWhorter: “Kendi and DiAngelo don’t debate people like me”
If social media is any indication, many people seem to be of the opinion that people like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo should want to “debate” people like me and Glenn Loury. These people are roasted endlessly on social media for not engaging in “debate.”
It isn’t fair. I completely understand why they don’t…
…[G]iven the way people like me or Glenn Loury have discussed people like Kendi and DiAngelo on line and in print, how reasonable is it to expect them to “debate” us? I wasn’t nice to White Fragility last year and meant it, as that review needed to be written – but fully get why DiAngelo thereafter did not want to appear with me on Morning Joe. I didn’t write that review expecting DiAngelo to put on the gloves and “debate” me – I knew full well it meant that sometime in the future we’d be in a talk show green room carefully avoiding eye contact. Glenn has called Kendi an “empty suit” in our conversations and it has gotten around; I guarantee that I would never appear on the show of someone who called me that.
Some may be thinking that people like that are responsible for defending themselves in public competition, that this is the burden of the public intellectual. But the question is why they are supposed to do this in a live, back-and-forth sparring match.
Life is short. Why should someone spend even an hour or two of their time engaging with someone who has given all indication that they heartily disapprove of their work and even find them off-putting personally? Whether it was about winning or losing, who does this?
It seems to me I’ve indeed seen people do that, although it doesn’t tend to end well. So yes, sometimes it happens, but since I don’t usually watch that sort of thing I can’t name anyone except perhaps William Buckley vs. Gore Vidal long ago.
But far more importantly, do Kendi and DiAngelo debate anyone who disagrees with them? If so, I’m not aware of it.
And it makes sense that they wouldn’t be willing to do so, but not for the reason that McWhorter gives. As post-modernists, isn’t it the case that they don’t really believe in debate? They don’t believe in meritocracy, they don’t think traditional logic and argument prove anything – and in fact they believe those things are examples of the systemic racism embedded in our entire society. So why would they subject themselves to being judged by rules and standards they reject as not just wrong, but racist? If they can get away it – and apparently they can, at least so far – they will continue to refuse.
I think you are correct. These folks have their own truth so debate and argument are moot.
They don’t believe in meritocracy, they don’t think traditional logic and argument prove anything
You can’t really debate such people anyway. You can only carefully explain why they’re wrong to others. But engaging directly with them is a pointless exercise.
But I’ve never liked the whole live TV “debate” thing you see on those talking head news opinion TV shows anyway. Far more often than not they devolve into a shouting and interupting matches that have absolutely nothing to do with presenting any kind of reasoned, logical argument and responses. They’re severely timed constrained to the show “segment” between commercials. They’re completely controlled by an unobjective arbiter (the host) who has their own agenda that has nothing to do with solving an issue, just appealing to an audience.
In short, they almost always resolve nothing and in fact usually make the underlying disagreements even worse, making people angrier or more confused about a topic. They don’t enlighten viewers but make them more entrenched in their opinions.
But far more importantly, do Kendi and DiAngelo debate anyone who disagrees with them? If so, I’m not aware of it.
Nor does Michael Mann. Too many false prophets bathe in media adulation, absolutely refusing to allow questioning or opposing views to appear on their precious, exclusive platforms in the public eye.
The Buckley vs Vidal debate was a classic. It ended with Buckley calling Viodal a F*g. LOL
I think if Kendi and DiAngelo ever did face John McWhorter, he’d wipe them out with a couple of sentences.
Actually these leftist intellectuals wouldn’t stand a ghost of a chance against Thomas Sowell.
Debating is a chore. You have to research the facts and construct a clear, rational, and persuasive argument based on them. That’s a lot of work. Why would you bother with all that when you can simply cancel anyone who disagrees with you? Label them as -ists, -phobes, and bigots. Get them fired from their jobs and destroy their career prospects. Make sure their social media accounts are shut down, nothing they write will be published, and all of their public speaking invitations are withdrawn. That’s a lot easier (and more fun), since all you actually have to do is labeling part, and the SJW lynch mob will do the rest of it for you. And since due process is no longer a thing, no defense against this is possible.
Why debate your opponents when you can silence and destroy them?
“Why should someone spend even an hour or two of their time engaging with someone who has given all indication that they heartily disapprove of their work and even find them off-putting personally?”
Does McWhorter mean this as just another dig at Kendi and Diangelo, or is he being serious? I mean, the answer is…
THAT’S HOW YOU BEHAVE IN A CIVIL SOCIETY.
It’s one thing to shy away from discourse or debate from those who are rude, trollish, or excessively confrontational. It’s something else to refuse to engage with strongly negative opinions and critics. It’s the philosophical version of the scientific method, for pity’s sake. If you don’t expose your ideas to hostile fire, you can’t really improve or refine them.
Epistemic closure was all the rage among liberal pundits a few years ago, with conservatives being accused of it, of course. But epistemic closure has run rampant on not so much the Left but among the professional/managerial class and its aspirants who exclusively consume mainstream media. Rightwing media almost always exposes you to some version of the liberal argument in order to “debunk” it. Actual Leftwing media does the same. Mainstream media has become this Orwellian place where an enormous amount of information simply isn’t mentioned.
Mike
I was sad to see McWhorter say this — and think he’s wrong. However, it’s interesting how we got here. I personally miss the confrontational format.
Two more or less technological things are, imho, a factor. One is, remember back to the late 80s or possibly 1990? The young Bill Kristol pioneered the use of the fax machine to distribute daily “talking points” to Republicans which were to be brought up and stuck to in all media appearances. Such a uniformity of messaging was simply not possible to coordinate by phone, messenger, or in person meeting. And of course the technology to keep everyone “on the same page” just got better. It became acceptable not to answer the questions put to one at all, but instead recite one’s spiel no matter how nonsensical it was as an answer. The GB prime minister, Theresa May, was someone I came to regard as almost an automaton rather than a person in her mechanical replies, and she was just typical. And while politicians alway bullshitted, I think the “on message” style led to a decline in reporters even trying to penetrate through it. The style of interviewing by say, Robert MacNeill or Jim Lehrer, in the earlier days their news show was far different from the PBS Newshour when last I watched (which I haven’t since the 2016 election).
A slightly different factor leading to the increasing entrenchment of positions is, I think, the internet itself, based on my experiences online since back when it was all new and exciting. People’s projections of what their interlocutors were like was so much more a factor than in the old days, when one saw the other’s face and heard their voice. And of course the anonymity of online made people licensed people to almost become participants in some Milgram-experiment type cruelty — shocking the unreal subject on the other side of the electric screen. I came out of my early online experience thinking — for the first time — that people’s minds really couldn’t be changed. But I didn’t feel that way before.
Personally speaking, I skip all the so called debates because they aren’t really debates attempting to find truth. The other issue is every one of these events quickly reminds me of Monty Python and the Argument sketch.
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ
As far as I’m concerned with debate, nobody has to do nuthin’.
That Kendi and DiAnglelo don’t debate is no surprise. They are not only ill-prepared but as postmodernists they see debate and reason as tools of oppression.
Still I was disappointed that McWhorter said he wouldn’t want to debate Kendi either because it would make McWhorter look like a “bully” and only appeal to those who wanted to see a “cage match.” McWhorter prefers to debate with his articles, books and podcasts. Fine.
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/kendi-and-diangelo-dont-debate-people
But IMO McWhorter misses that such debates are opportunities for arguments to be aired in public and some people, perhaps not many, are genuinely listening and open to persuasion.
I find the current lack of open debate regrettable and a serious problem. Instead of debate people go off to their bubbles and complain about the other side. Or make rules and arrange consequences to prevent debate. The Left is by far the worse culprit in this respect for its shoutdowns and cancellations.
Back in 2007 there was a heavyweight debate over climate change hosted by Intelligence Squared. It was civil and well-moderated.
https://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/global-warming-not-crisis
The climate change side went in with the majority of the audience on their side and left with only a minority. They made their excuses and complaints afterward, then the climate change movement basically decided never to debate in public like that again and haven’t.
huxley;
You’re absolutely right that the kind of debate you desire would be extremely helpful. But as I’m sure you realize, your example shows why the Kendis and the DiAngelos of the world will never participate. It’s not because they have theoretical objections to debate (though they do, however disingenuous they may be) but because they know they will lose. That is something they will not risk.
It doesn’t give me pleasure to say this – but
McWhorter and Loury have zero influence in the “black community”.
He’s letting them off the hook for some reason. CRT only exists in the absence of debate. The whole point is to shut down dissent. Once you start arguing about the facts, the underlying fundamental premise evaporates and all that’s left is the sad truth that it’s really all about sowing division and hate within the population for political purposes. That’s why they don’t debate. They’re not there to debate!
I’m always happy to debate anyone on a public policy issue. When I hear of someone declining to do so, on a subject on which they have a history of publishing, I assume they know their ideas are weak.
Debates are not now what I remember them to be, but it would be an interesting video if they did one in the “modern” style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
I vaguely remember Buckley debating Gloria Steinem in front of a college-age crowd, who then were polled as to who won. He wasn’t afraid to accept such a challenge, even though he had to have known that the audience leaned overwhelmingly to the left.
I’m always happy to debate anyone on a public policy issue. When I hear of someone declining to do so, on a subject on which they have a history of publishing, I assume they know their ideas are weak.
Robert P. George doesn’t care for debates. He thinks the back-and-forth on stage is a poor way to get ideas into circulation and induce people to evaluate them.
He wasn’t afraid to accept such a challenge, even though he had to have known that the audience leaned overwhelmingly to the left.
Buckley had an unusual virtuosity in such situations and got a certain amount of practice. (He hosted a half-dozen episodes of Firing Line every year from 1966 to 1999). He was competing with Steinem, a woman who could turn in publishable copy on time but had no other talents nor much of a fund of knowledge. Steinem also peaked early; have a gander at a collection of her magazine journalism published in hard cover in 1984; you’ll see her most engaging work hit the presses during the period running from 1963 to 1968. And, of course, she wasn’t 1 / 10 th as prolific as Buckley.
Earlier I mentioned Intelligence Squared. Here’s its Mission Statement.
____________________________________
A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Intelligence Squared U.S. addresses a fundamental problem in America: the extreme polarization of our nation and our politics.
Our mission is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to American public discourse.
https://intelligencesquaredus.org/about-iq2
____________________________________
Sounds like a beautiful thing — but also a relic of the not-so-distant past when critical thinking didn’t mean Marxist critique.
Intellilgence Squared US is a spin-off the original UK version. It’s still going. In fact the current debate is:
–“The New York Times Has Lost It’s Way”
https://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/new-york-times-has-lost-its-way
Kinda painful to see that apostrophe in “Its”.
It’s one thing to shy away from discourse or debate from those who are rude, trollish, or excessively confrontational. It’s something else to refuse to engage with strongly negative opinions and critics.
You’re not going to get any arguments of value out of Kendi or DiAngelo.
The Buckley vs Vidal debate was a classic. It ended with Buckley calling Viodal a F*g.
No, it was embarrassing. The film critic Ian Shoals had this to say 20 years later, “Remember that debate between Gore Vidal and Wm F. Buckley where Vidal calls Buckley a crypto-Nazi and Buckley calls Vidal a faggot? Those are our commentators”. (Actually, Buckley called Vidal ‘you queer’). Vidal made himself wealthy through his novels and screenwriting; his political commentary was an illustration of Thos. Sowell’s observation that intelligence and articulateness are not the same thing.
Buckley and Vidal subsequently had unpleasant exchanges in magazines which in turn triggered a defamation suit. Per his sister Nina Straight, Vidal ran up a seven figure sum in legal bills (ca. 1971). Christopher Buckley in 2008 found some of his fathers oppo research into Vidal’s off-stage activities and destroyed the files.
I don’t know if it was common in the public school curricula I had in the ’70s, or if I was simply fortunate to have some uniquely good science teachers, but the scientific method was really drilled into me and my classmates. Theory, hypothesis, test, conclusion… We were drilled on the definitions of those concepts and had frequent assignments on how to apply them. About 15 – 20 years ago I noticed more and more mainstream information pieces that either ignored the method or turned it on its head. I couldn’t understand how this was happening.
The scientific method was so ingrained into me it appeared to be common sensical. Even before scientists codified the process and steps, wasn’t that how all humans functioned throughout history? Even animals follow the process. Dogs learning what type of begging works with which humans. Birds trying different materials in their nests. Yet, more and more I noticed news items, political debates, legislation, parenting techniques, educational curricula… where hypotheses, tests and conclusion were not even part of the discussion. Reasons and theories were put forth, seemingly out of thin air, and regardless of how well they fit observed data, they would be shouted into action.
How did we get to a point where we lost this seemingly innate process?
At one point I was reading a book about Galileo and his legal proceedings within the Catholic church and I got the insight I was missing. I had assumed, like me, all people were interested in the truth; in getting to the most useful approximation of reality as possible. What I had failed to understand is more people are motivated with a desire to fit in socially, and avoid ostracization from a “preferred” group.
huxley,
Kinda painful to see that apostrophe in “Its”.
That’s the best laugh I have had in quite some time!
They would be completely outclassed. Any “debate” would be a complete joke on them and they know it. On the other hand, the media would work full-time to spin it and publish selective quotes to make it look like the losers won or that it was a draw. And who other than the type of folks who comment here would look for what was actually said? Cynical T-Rex is out this afternoon. lol
neo has the right of it when she states, “As post-modernists, isn’t it the case that they don’t really believe in debate? They don’t believe in meritocracy, they don’t think traditional logic and argument prove anything – and in fact they believe those things are examples of the systemic racism embedded in our entire society. So why would they subject themselves to being judged by rules and standards they reject as not just wrong, but racist?
That is, they claim to believe those things but in their heart of hearts, all advocates of post-modernism know that post-modernism’s jump from the personal subjective to the claim that objective truth doesn’t exist and is only a social construct is pure BS. Proof being that they refuse to prove it by jumping off a tall building or putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger. As, if objective truth doesn’t exist… they have nothing to fear, right?
But in denying objective reality and trying to impose their illusory subjective reality upon us… they guarantee a decidedly painful future encounter with objective reality. For some, it will be a fatal encounter. As there’s no other ‘cure’ for stupidity and tyrants.
Geoffrey Britain:
It is both an extremely useful ploy AND something they believe when it’s useful to believe it, and which they discard when that would be in their interests. O’Brien explains it to Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four in terms of believing 2+ 2=5 when the party tells you to.
That is, they claim to believe those things but in their heart of hearts, all advocates of post-modernism know that post-modernism’s jump from the personal subjective to the claim that objective truth doesn’t exist and is only a social construct is pure BS.
Geoffrey Britain, neo:
I’ve harped on it before, but IMO you are assuming they are like you and if you said what they said, they would be thinking what you would think if you said those things.
Ahem. A bit hard to follow.
But really, speaking as a New Left hippie back in my day, that’s not their internal process. They may feel they are winging it a bit, but they are also sure they are right.
As I’ve also said before, “2+2” easily equals “5” when one’s social group demands it. That’s how humans work.
And if you think conservatives are exempt, that’s “2+2=5.”
Here’s what happens when the leftist accepted an invitation to debate.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/08/09/grab-a-seat-bill-maher-had-a-segment-on-critical-race-theory-with-ben-shapiro-n2593755
“Left-wing America is quite anti-free speech, pro-terrorist anti-cop, anti-reason, and utterly insane as of late.
So, it shouldn’t shock us that the debate between conservative Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire and MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance was lively. And by that, I mean, Shapiro owning Nance. Of course, left-wingers would disagree, but even former CNN producer Steve Krakauer noted that Shapiro brought facts, while Nance just offered insults. It was the perfect juxtaposition between how conservatives conduct themselves and how liberals react when their grand ideas are exposed as utter trash in less than 10 minutes.”
I suppose that Nance expected Maher to run interference for him, but apparently he didn’t.
Did any one else see Kendi in Aspen during July? (it made Tucked and The Five and online and elswher.) A man in the audience asked him to define racism.
People laughed at first, when Kendi gave a circular SWJ-style definition. He tried again and failed again, ending in the authoritarian it means what we say it is, bro!
Kendi really is that dim witted. The Left the Ruling Class who expect us to respect his sort is completely incompetent.
The mask is off. Thank you President Trump!
He’s letting them off the hook for some reason. CRT only exists in the absence of debate.
CRT explicitly privileges “narrative” over facts. If they did agree to a debate, each speaker would be using different rules. McWhorter would bring facts, perhaps bolstered by his experience as an American black man and intellectual. Kendo would decry McWhorter’s “violence” against “his own kind” in whatever terms elitist CRT folk use to say “Uncle Tom.” DiAngelo would wipe away a tear at how her whiteness made her want to tie McWhorter to a tree and whip him. Only figuratively, of course.
I speak as someone who hasn’t read anything but excerpts from the latter two. Their books are, to my dismay, next on my list after the Sowell I’m on now. I’m really disgusted that I’m finding it necessary to “educate myself” (as they say) in this way, when it seemed we as a society, following King’s uplifting but still realistic model, were on the right track for so long. But my husband’s job is in jeopardy over his failure to embrace CRT as a guiding philosophy, so I guess I have to “do the work.” As they say.
Kendi really is that dim witted. The Left the Ruling Class who expect us to respect his sort is completely incompetent.
The scandal is that he’s been awarded an endowed chair at Boston University. It’s the emperor’s new clothes. The people responsible know perfectly well he’s a parody academic and he has rare honors. The humbug is so thick it has crowded out everything else.
(Note, he has one peer reviewed article in a mid card history journal and has produced an anthology and a polemical monograph. That would hardly get you tenure at a 3d rate college).
Firm believers in truth being decided by the biggest battalions.
There is little debate, in my experience. The leftist brings self-serving falsehoods and new “definitions” of generally-accepted concepts. And you end up going in circles. Need to be as quick as Shapiro to make any progress.