Today, Yascha Mounk and Christopher Rufo debate the origins of DEI and the right way to fight the illiberal orthodoxy that has consumed our schools and institutions. Christopher is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a board member at New College of Florida, and maybe the country’s most influential conservative activist. He thinks that using the power of the law to stop DEI is essential.
This was great and informative debate. I'm with Rufo on this one. Having spent a large chunk of my career in what we here in Canada call post-secondary education, it is abundantly clear the foxes are fully in charge of the henhouses. To expect them to self-critique and self-regulate seems naive, almost delusional. The only way to combat the DEI/Woke ideology is to starve it of money. And since in the public education system a lot of that money comes from taxpayers, it hardly seems undemocratic to me to do just that if that's what people vote for. Sadly, we are usually a decade behind you in social trends so I am not optimistic about the ideological situation up here.
I see that some people were upset that Rufo seemed to go ad hominem. I don't think he had much choice as Mounk was pursuing the dual strategies of misrepresentation and talking non-stop till someone dies of old age.
This was one of the best podcasts I have ever heard. Both make strong points, so much so, I listened to it a number of times. I think the identity trap (that yasha refers to) is the notion that the source of one's problems are some other group, some other person, some other political part, they guy down the hall, anybody but NOT ME. One never gets elected by telling a group they are the source of their own problems. It's important to recognize bias and discrimination. it's important that we work toward equality. But at some point we have to recognize it's not just the cards, it's the way you play them.
At first I was convinced by Rufo"s arguments but like most right winger he went for ad hominem attacks and lost the thread. Mounk had the stronger argument in the end, and i think the government should be at arm's length. I thought Rufo was for limited government, but I guess not.
It is good to teach mature students what Critical Theory and DEI ideology are, as it is good to teach mature students what Nazism, communism, and other evil ideologies are. Students entering adulthood need to understand and recognize evil, so that they can defend themselves against it. But it is wrong to adopt an evil ideology as a framework to guide all teaching--for example, to give students assignments designed to teach them that their race and ethncity are central to their sense of self. Think “White Abe” instead of “Honest Abe.” DEI offices, along with many teachers, have adopted such an evil framework.
Some parts of some anti-Woke legislation are certainly poorly written. Overall, though, these bills are holding up to challenges. It needs to be an iterative process: pass good legislation, fix bad legislations, rinse and repeat. The bottom line is Rufo is part of an actual solution.
When asked, Mounk said he was fighting illiberalism at JHU by talking and writing books. That's when he lost the debate. Enough books have been written; enough speeches have been made. It's time we exercise our rights as citizens.
Bari, I am definitely on Yascha after hearing this conversation.
As a faculty at the California State University system (Northridge) I am terrified of thinking that Neusolini will start deciding what I can or cannot say in the classroom!
During most of this conversation I found both men to be convincing until the last part of the episode. Chris was very adversarial while Yascha remained measured and calm. I was already questioning Chris when he said America is a republic, not a democracy. I’ve heard that juvenile remark dozens of times from college freshmen taking their first political philosophy course. It’s intellectually lazy. Couple that with his constant interruptions and calling Yascha a liar, I just couldn’t take him seriously anymore.
Rufo did get hot under the collar. This doesn't weaken his arguments, which IMHO were better. Yascha was the "academic" and Rufo was the "activist" yet Rufo's knowledge and intellect were stronger. Rufo's refutation of Yascha's claim he could teach in Florida was masterful. This was just one example.
This absolutely is the way to end illiberalism. Both sides presented their argument and, frankly, one side clearly won. The other was part and parcel of the DEI movement, but kept saying he was not. Mounk reminded me of the many educators who swear that CRT is not being taught in schools while splitting kids by race and holding shame walks. Rufo had a great point when he asked what Mounk has done lately to remove DEI from his campus -- the self-aggrandizing answer was he wrote "an influential book." Sure. Great discussion. Thanks.
[Time 1:07:00]; Mounk describes his students as “…seeing genuine injustices in our country…”. I disagree. In the 3rd largest nation with a population of 330 million; I could hypothetically see 10 feet in front of me - 10 gays getting beat up by homophobes in 30 minutes. But, that may be a random event during a hypothetical regional and nationwide homophobia decline. Epidemiologists help us understand phenomena beyond our physical view. But, epidemiologists are DEI’s worst nightmare and must be kept silent. Students (above) likely “see” TV news, text on screen or words on paper about “recent and current injustices”. These are probably propaganda stories.
I found it a very interesting discussion, with Mounk clearly outclassing Rufo both in intellectual depth as well as fairness in debating. Mounk tries to encourage re-defending the American universalist ideals, while Rufo wants to use government power to strike back at those he disagrees with. The latter may be a good strategy to win voters, but it's Mounk's vision of America that I want to live in.
I literally have almost the exact opposite views. Ivory tower academics won't lead us to "re-defending the American universalist ideals" -- voters will. Ultimately Rufo's arguments were sharper and he did a better job defending them.
I don't think you (or Rufo) really get the point. So you don't want free speech, but instead want to prohibit speech that goes against the opinions of the elected party But then, should the DEMs win, they can then prevent teachers in schools from teaching that America is great. Would you like that?
First that's already the status quo. The Supreme Court has already ruled that legislatures have a great deal of control over public schools.
2nd, yes I'm ok with that. Public schools should be under control. What's the alternative? And out of control school bureaucracy that can do what they want?
At least with public control you have a way to change things. What's the alternative without that?
It's way better to have an honest debate. Let the Dems push their racist/anti-Semitic anti-Western worldview instead of trying to hide it.
This isn't about being for or against free speech. This is about controlling government employees and how they do their job. We shouldn't have to use our tax dollars to incoordinate kids into how awful America is.
Maybe its my own speciality in Psychology at work but I think both of these men missed something big. The ideology started on campus and spread outward as the faithful wokeists went forth. But why did indoctrination stick in the first place? Believe it or not you can’t brainwash someone against their will.
Try to debate a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest into renouncing their faith. It won’t work. Try torturing them even, they might outwardly say they have changed to survive but even torture can’t make someone change their beliefs by force, it can only make someone keep quiet about them. With any cult the people that join do so willingly and willingly drink the ideological kool-aid. So what was it about college kids that made them susceptible?
I think elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism are to blame. Any time there is a special club that not everyone is allowed into it will attract a disproportionate number of people with these traits. Right? “Because the stupid people don’t get into college and we are the smart ones”
Why do I have so many clients that drop $90,000 on for some type of humanities degree, going to an expensive out of state private liberal arts college. Then Experience massive financial distress for decades after and still sneer at blue collar folks as stupid? Because of elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism. Mind youp not every college student is this way.
But when you come to college with this mind set. Ready to learn the sage wisdom that the plebs aren’t smart enough to know. You’ll drink down DEI with enthusiasm and when a plumber tells you it sounds dumb, you can stick your nose up in the air and ignore them because they’re just too stupid to understand it. No need to consider their point of view.
That I think is how it spread.
Hmmmm.... I think I need to flush this idea out more.
Jonathan Haidt shows in the excellent book "The Righteous Mind" that really the way most people change their minds is being around other people that think a certain way.
IE it's VERY difficult to argue someone into a different position. But if everyone around them has that position over time their own position will moderate.
Of course that assumes you already have a strong position on the matter. If you don't you are even easier to influence
Me: MPH in behavioral science. Successful indoctrination requires that dissent be silenced. At work st SF-Gov all dissenters were scared silent, except me and my loud mouth. So, they threatened my job - but I refused to be silent. These control mechanisms are important.
Omg, so much to respond to... Listen, the debate about human nature is over and your guests are woefully ignorant. Read Eve by Cat Bohannon, the confidence game by maria konnikova, how good works by David desteno, behave and determined buy Robert sapolsky. So why are these guys talking about how to treat adults (read men)? We need to agree that our society should set our sites on how to raise one generation of healthy secure love-felt children reducing childhood PTSD. Age 0-5 now! Including all children being wanted children and women should not have stress until they are done having kids! Most us citizens support low cost child care and women trained and hired to do it. Now! Second, follow the money... Right wingers aren't at universities because they are rich from right wing think tanks. Duh. Lastly, love the reference that we can unify if we want to honor the legacy of the promises of the constitution. Also, RISUG should be administered to every 10-18 yo male asap. Stop enslaving girls to unwanted babies and you'll see the world improve. Stop fiddling around the edges you are not revolutionary at all.
I'm curious what Yascha would say in response to the map in the NYC public elementary school that was missing Israel, as well as all the many other examples of DEI run amok in K-12. How would he say they should be handled?
Very interesting debate, I’m very glad TFP produces content like this. My takeaway from this discussion is that the path to a positive resolution to this problem will likely require a bit more legislative action than Yascha would like but much less than what Rufo is pushing for.
There is no doubt that Rufo’s methods have been successful in the short term and Yaschas perspective is too idealistic, but government overreach cuts both ways. Yascha is completely right that you cannot save liberalism with illiberalism and despite what Rufo says, the work he’s done often qualifies as illiberalism.
No I don’t think it’s illiberal ‘to have some control over our public schools’, but I also don’t think that statement is representative of Rufo’s work. Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship.
"Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship."
Can you cite a specific example? This sounds untrue to me. Rufo makes clear he isn't involved in the drafting of actual legislative proposals, but rather references model legislation.
Mounk references the Stop WOKE Act specifically and in my view makes a compelling case (he goes into more depth in other podcasts/articles).
If Rufo is going to take credit for the legislation he’s influenced don’t you think it’s kind of disingenuous to then claim no responsibility for any overreach that comes from it?
In theory I am too. But I am afraid that when you enshrine this power into law, eventually unreasonable people will get to be in charge and we will have granted them a power they shouldn’t have. This is always the problem with censorship of any kind.
agreed it's a danger. I just don't think we can wait decades in the hope that we can take our education system back. Meanwhile they indoctrinate millions of kids in this poisonous ideology
This was great and informative debate. I'm with Rufo on this one. Having spent a large chunk of my career in what we here in Canada call post-secondary education, it is abundantly clear the foxes are fully in charge of the henhouses. To expect them to self-critique and self-regulate seems naive, almost delusional. The only way to combat the DEI/Woke ideology is to starve it of money. And since in the public education system a lot of that money comes from taxpayers, it hardly seems undemocratic to me to do just that if that's what people vote for. Sadly, we are usually a decade behind you in social trends so I am not optimistic about the ideological situation up here.
I see that some people were upset that Rufo seemed to go ad hominem. I don't think he had much choice as Mounk was pursuing the dual strategies of misrepresentation and talking non-stop till someone dies of old age.
This was one of the best podcasts I have ever heard. Both make strong points, so much so, I listened to it a number of times. I think the identity trap (that yasha refers to) is the notion that the source of one's problems are some other group, some other person, some other political part, they guy down the hall, anybody but NOT ME. One never gets elected by telling a group they are the source of their own problems. It's important to recognize bias and discrimination. it's important that we work toward equality. But at some point we have to recognize it's not just the cards, it's the way you play them.
At first I was convinced by Rufo"s arguments but like most right winger he went for ad hominem attacks and lost the thread. Mounk had the stronger argument in the end, and i think the government should be at arm's length. I thought Rufo was for limited government, but I guess not.
I wish this was in the standard debate format as it seemed Yascha got to run the show.
It is good to teach mature students what Critical Theory and DEI ideology are, as it is good to teach mature students what Nazism, communism, and other evil ideologies are. Students entering adulthood need to understand and recognize evil, so that they can defend themselves against it. But it is wrong to adopt an evil ideology as a framework to guide all teaching--for example, to give students assignments designed to teach them that their race and ethncity are central to their sense of self. Think “White Abe” instead of “Honest Abe.” DEI offices, along with many teachers, have adopted such an evil framework.
Some parts of some anti-Woke legislation are certainly poorly written. Overall, though, these bills are holding up to challenges. It needs to be an iterative process: pass good legislation, fix bad legislations, rinse and repeat. The bottom line is Rufo is part of an actual solution.
When asked, Mounk said he was fighting illiberalism at JHU by talking and writing books. That's when he lost the debate. Enough books have been written; enough speeches have been made. It's time we exercise our rights as citizens.
Bari, I am definitely on Yascha after hearing this conversation.
As a faculty at the California State University system (Northridge) I am terrified of thinking that Neusolini will start deciding what I can or cannot say in the classroom!
It really sounds like you didn't listen to the podcast.
he doesn't need to, the CA system is already under the control of the far left
At end of podcast- I believe Rufo won the debate. He speaks simple short sentences about specific action.
During most of this conversation I found both men to be convincing until the last part of the episode. Chris was very adversarial while Yascha remained measured and calm. I was already questioning Chris when he said America is a republic, not a democracy. I’ve heard that juvenile remark dozens of times from college freshmen taking their first political philosophy course. It’s intellectually lazy. Couple that with his constant interruptions and calling Yascha a liar, I just couldn’t take him seriously anymore.
Rufo did get hot under the collar. This doesn't weaken his arguments, which IMHO were better. Yascha was the "academic" and Rufo was the "activist" yet Rufo's knowledge and intellect were stronger. Rufo's refutation of Yascha's claim he could teach in Florida was masterful. This was just one example.
This absolutely is the way to end illiberalism. Both sides presented their argument and, frankly, one side clearly won. The other was part and parcel of the DEI movement, but kept saying he was not. Mounk reminded me of the many educators who swear that CRT is not being taught in schools while splitting kids by race and holding shame walks. Rufo had a great point when he asked what Mounk has done lately to remove DEI from his campus -- the self-aggrandizing answer was he wrote "an influential book." Sure. Great discussion. Thanks.
[Time 1:07:00]; Mounk describes his students as “…seeing genuine injustices in our country…”. I disagree. In the 3rd largest nation with a population of 330 million; I could hypothetically see 10 feet in front of me - 10 gays getting beat up by homophobes in 30 minutes. But, that may be a random event during a hypothetical regional and nationwide homophobia decline. Epidemiologists help us understand phenomena beyond our physical view. But, epidemiologists are DEI’s worst nightmare and must be kept silent. Students (above) likely “see” TV news, text on screen or words on paper about “recent and current injustices”. These are probably propaganda stories.
I found it a very interesting discussion, with Mounk clearly outclassing Rufo both in intellectual depth as well as fairness in debating. Mounk tries to encourage re-defending the American universalist ideals, while Rufo wants to use government power to strike back at those he disagrees with. The latter may be a good strategy to win voters, but it's Mounk's vision of America that I want to live in.
I literally have almost the exact opposite views. Ivory tower academics won't lead us to "re-defending the American universalist ideals" -- voters will. Ultimately Rufo's arguments were sharper and he did a better job defending them.
Rufo isn't striking back at anyone. These are public schools paid for with our tax dollars that are teaching a poisonous ideology.
It's ok for the voters through their elected representatives to say enough, our kids don't need to be taught this racist anti-American propaganda
I don't think you (or Rufo) really get the point. So you don't want free speech, but instead want to prohibit speech that goes against the opinions of the elected party But then, should the DEMs win, they can then prevent teachers in schools from teaching that America is great. Would you like that?
First that's already the status quo. The Supreme Court has already ruled that legislatures have a great deal of control over public schools.
2nd, yes I'm ok with that. Public schools should be under control. What's the alternative? And out of control school bureaucracy that can do what they want?
At least with public control you have a way to change things. What's the alternative without that?
It's way better to have an honest debate. Let the Dems push their racist/anti-Semitic anti-Western worldview instead of trying to hide it.
This isn't about being for or against free speech. This is about controlling government employees and how they do their job. We shouldn't have to use our tax dollars to incoordinate kids into how awful America is.
Maybe its my own speciality in Psychology at work but I think both of these men missed something big. The ideology started on campus and spread outward as the faithful wokeists went forth. But why did indoctrination stick in the first place? Believe it or not you can’t brainwash someone against their will.
Try to debate a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest into renouncing their faith. It won’t work. Try torturing them even, they might outwardly say they have changed to survive but even torture can’t make someone change their beliefs by force, it can only make someone keep quiet about them. With any cult the people that join do so willingly and willingly drink the ideological kool-aid. So what was it about college kids that made them susceptible?
I think elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism are to blame. Any time there is a special club that not everyone is allowed into it will attract a disproportionate number of people with these traits. Right? “Because the stupid people don’t get into college and we are the smart ones”
Why do I have so many clients that drop $90,000 on for some type of humanities degree, going to an expensive out of state private liberal arts college. Then Experience massive financial distress for decades after and still sneer at blue collar folks as stupid? Because of elitism, pretentiousness, and narcissism. Mind youp not every college student is this way.
But when you come to college with this mind set. Ready to learn the sage wisdom that the plebs aren’t smart enough to know. You’ll drink down DEI with enthusiasm and when a plumber tells you it sounds dumb, you can stick your nose up in the air and ignore them because they’re just too stupid to understand it. No need to consider their point of view.
That I think is how it spread.
Hmmmm.... I think I need to flush this idea out more.
Jonathan Haidt shows in the excellent book "The Righteous Mind" that really the way most people change their minds is being around other people that think a certain way.
IE it's VERY difficult to argue someone into a different position. But if everyone around them has that position over time their own position will moderate.
Of course that assumes you already have a strong position on the matter. If you don't you are even easier to influence
Me: MPH in behavioral science. Successful indoctrination requires that dissent be silenced. At work st SF-Gov all dissenters were scared silent, except me and my loud mouth. So, they threatened my job - but I refused to be silent. These control mechanisms are important.
Omg, so much to respond to... Listen, the debate about human nature is over and your guests are woefully ignorant. Read Eve by Cat Bohannon, the confidence game by maria konnikova, how good works by David desteno, behave and determined buy Robert sapolsky. So why are these guys talking about how to treat adults (read men)? We need to agree that our society should set our sites on how to raise one generation of healthy secure love-felt children reducing childhood PTSD. Age 0-5 now! Including all children being wanted children and women should not have stress until they are done having kids! Most us citizens support low cost child care and women trained and hired to do it. Now! Second, follow the money... Right wingers aren't at universities because they are rich from right wing think tanks. Duh. Lastly, love the reference that we can unify if we want to honor the legacy of the promises of the constitution. Also, RISUG should be administered to every 10-18 yo male asap. Stop enslaving girls to unwanted babies and you'll see the world improve. Stop fiddling around the edges you are not revolutionary at all.
I'm curious what Yascha would say in response to the map in the NYC public elementary school that was missing Israel, as well as all the many other examples of DEI run amok in K-12. How would he say they should be handled?
Very interesting debate, I’m very glad TFP produces content like this. My takeaway from this discussion is that the path to a positive resolution to this problem will likely require a bit more legislative action than Yascha would like but much less than what Rufo is pushing for.
There is no doubt that Rufo’s methods have been successful in the short term and Yaschas perspective is too idealistic, but government overreach cuts both ways. Yascha is completely right that you cannot save liberalism with illiberalism and despite what Rufo says, the work he’s done often qualifies as illiberalism.
Is it really illiberal to have some control over public schools? Or do we have to wait decades in the hopes that they will fix themselves?
No I don’t think it’s illiberal ‘to have some control over our public schools’, but I also don’t think that statement is representative of Rufo’s work. Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship.
By which I mean that something needs to be done but it needs to be done carefully and Rufo isn’t doing it carefully enough for me.
"Some of what he has advocated for and achieved arguably amounts to censorship."
Can you cite a specific example? This sounds untrue to me. Rufo makes clear he isn't involved in the drafting of actual legislative proposals, but rather references model legislation.
Mounk references the Stop WOKE Act specifically and in my view makes a compelling case (he goes into more depth in other podcasts/articles).
If Rufo is going to take credit for the legislation he’s influenced don’t you think it’s kind of disingenuous to then claim no responsibility for any overreach that comes from it?
Fair enough.
I'm o k with censorship that says you Can't teach white supremacy in public schools
I'm also o k with censorship that says you can't teach Whites are evil in public schools.
In theory I am too. But I am afraid that when you enshrine this power into law, eventually unreasonable people will get to be in charge and we will have granted them a power they shouldn’t have. This is always the problem with censorship of any kind.
agreed it's a danger. I just don't think we can wait decades in the hope that we can take our education system back. Meanwhile they indoctrinate millions of kids in this poisonous ideology
I agree