NPR is good for peering in on the programming of the aspirational Brahmin Left. Sort of like watching Fox News to know what is the issue du jour on the lumpen-right.
What I find most shocking is the fact that what Glenn is saying is considered "controversial" and "outside the box" in today's America. Glenn is inside the old box, he didn't leave it when the zeitgeist did, he just shored up the old arguments that never stopped being valid. I have to laugh at the way Ms. Hoover asks him to "unpack" statements that sound so straightforward and obvious (no disrespect to her, she's a good dispassionate interviewer who has to probe with neutral language etc). I'm a big fan of Glenn, I think he's a very insightful guy, but his valuable role in this particular conversation is that of a humane voice of reason, not as a radical innovator.
Having Mr. Loury on PBS is a step in the right direction. Hopefully this will be seen and open some minds. I was always taught color blindness from my extended family from Mississippi!
I completely understand Professor Loury point about affirmative actions being a boulder on the back of a black professional. Being a woman, I worked in the male-dominated field (less than 20% women). The biggest insult to me would have been to offer me a job just because I was a woman, to make their stats look good.
@@gc95014 and you know her personally and professionally, that's why you are making this point? And why do I not see a similar comment from you in regards to Amy Coney Barrett? Maybe because Ms. Coney Barrett is not black?
@@gc95014 I disagree. The fact that Biden intended to select a black woman for the role (and I was furious about this announcement, it was a terrible idea to say that) has nothing to do with her own qualifications - check them out. Even if she was accepted to Harvard on AA, she graduated cum laude, became an editor at Harvard Law Review and got her Juris Doctor from Harvard also cum laude. Not being a lawyer, I can't judge her career on it's merits, but just her educational record tells me that she is a real thing, I can't imagine that Harvard profs are so keen on AA that they would give her cum laude for naught. I can't hold it against her that she accepted the role, a chance like that occurs once in a lifetime, but I do hold it against Biden that he tarnished her credentials by saying what he said. Your position is another proof that affirmative actions are the boulder on the back of a black professional, because it throws a black shadow even on those who are qualified on their merit.
@@gc95014 So, in your logic, Ms. Jackson should have not accepted the nomination, whether she was qualified (which you don't really deny) or not, just because Biden said what he said? in your mind, the only right solution would have been for her to decline the nomination in favor of an Asian or white candidate? Do you feel the same way about Clarence Thomas, who also was a beneficiary of AA?
@gc95014 Well, how do you know that she doesn't feel exactly the same way as Thomas? What other than law degree qualified Mr. Thomas to be a career lawyer, if he thinks it was worth $.80 and why didn't he decline the nomination if he felt that way, especially because he was specifically nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall, which President Bush was quite open about does that not concern you? Either way, your logic is inconsistent. You easily give a pass to Thomas, but not to Jackson, for the reasons you can't explain logically. To me, it is clearly double standard.
Glenn, I frequently attempt to take you to task on your podcast almost every chance I get, but I do need to express how much I admire respect and am grateful for you. Thank you Glenn.
If I had to demean my humanity with a political label, I suppose I would identify as an eco-socialist. Despite this, I enjoy listening to Glenn Loury, and even occasionally agree with him on certain issues. The main reason I find him so appealing, is not only his eloquence and intelligence, but mostly his honesty and sincere willingness to engage in dialogue with those who hold different views from his own. His wife, apparently, is a fan of Bernie Sanders, which is an interesting bit of trivia. I particularly enjoyed his discussion with Briahnna Joy Gray on her podcast Bad Faith.
Thank you for welcoming Professor Loury to this national platform. More people need to hear his logical and practical positions that are soaked in substantial academic experience and understanding of the human condition. I'm tired of being undercut and dismissed by the prophets of systemic racism. Professor Loury gives me hope - and words - that we can move forward as humans.
The prophets of systemic racism are the racists that need it to survive. This is those that designed rather than those that were subject to it. Yooo R veri, veri silli and a little chikki. Grow up. Veri cawadli also.
Hoover is providing an excellent interview...she does her homework! Professor Loury is utterly amazing and is a bastion of wisdom during turbulent times. Thank you!
Loury is awesome. Thanks for hosting! And for the record, Loury was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT vindicated in his "Firing Line" debate. Freedom of Thought on campuses is damned near an extinct species....
I'm a huge fan of Loury and his work. I'm a bit surprised that PBS "platformed" him, but I'm extremely grateful that you did. My hope is that his appearance has led to a few new converts from the traditional Left. Good job... and God bless Glenn Loury.
Excellent 👍 the difference between a real reporter and a propoganda puppet reporter.she let him speak his mind without trying to correct him with the party speak 🗣️
@Google Sucks Ass you do realize that propaganda has an actual definition, right? And speaking of definitions, how would you define a leftist? I used to think of myself as a progressive when I was younger before I became a classical liberal. But now, especially on TH-cam among people like Brianna Joy Grey, Krystal Ball, Kyle Kullinski, I hear the word leftist used to refer to what they seem to agree are people who are more or less just opposed to private markets and commerce full stop.
"True equality comes from parity of performance, not from patronizing deference." ~ Glenn Loury. Here is a man bravely and honestly speaking the truth. The real truth, not some contrived BS desgined to craft a self-serving political narrative. I am truly appreciative of Glenn's insight. He's not pandering to an audience.
I highly recommend watching THE GLENN SHOW (on TH-cam) hosted by Glenn Lourey with liberal John McWhorter. No matter your political philospophy--from conservative to the Left--you will be inspired towards critical thinking and constructive action. As a progressive, I am increasingly inspired towards Lourey's DEVELOPMENT mode as SOLUTIONS to "systemic racism". Plus: the NECESSITY of a HUMANISTIC Vision, that includes ALL of us.
Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but Glenn Loury is without a doubt a class act and a thought-provoking communicator. Always interested to see what he has to say.
Really think about what Glenn said about Harvard. Here I am. A full prof. at Harvard. Am I up for it? The really is a Double Victory ethic. He could have coasted and no one would say a thing. But there is the is I worthy of the We. Glenn can make PBS relevant. No small feat.
Buckley asked thoughtful questions he wrote himself and engaged with the interviewees with challenging follow-up questions. Hoover almost exclusively reads polished questions generally prepared in advance by a producer. It's a sad aspect of the decline in our public programming and discourse that this show is nevertheless called Firing Line. Apart from that, Loury is an excellent guest.
Yes: there are rich people (of all ethnicities) that turn to crime. The point the OP was making is that (& I say this as a low-income person) POVERTY is too often used to EXCUSE crime--most importantly VIOLENCE crime. And that's NOT acceptable. We ALL have SOME choices--like to NOt hurt other people!@@ondolite3789
Sadly, those types of discussions are impossible today, as the left has moved beyond the realm of reason, facts, and nature, and therefore beyond the ability to follow the Socratic "common master." The differences used to be about policy. Our present differences are about human nature. The Rousseauan Marxists have taken over half of the mind share, so there's no mere differences of opinion - Nietzschean power dynamics do not allow for the "oppressors" to make a valid point.
Excellent interview, excellent questions. I deeply respect Prof. Loury and his positions. As much as I believe some sort of reparations are necessary, I understand that the politics, policy of reparations are deeply flawed and perhaps they would do more harm than good.
@Google Sucks Ass Amy Goodman has her own Democracy Now and makes millions of dollars every year being a propaganda arm of the Democratic party/ the left. PBS just like NPR is a propaganda arm of the Democratic party/ the left. Chomsky and other leftists are routinely interviewed on Democracy Now and their views are pushed by the Democrat-controlled mainstream news media such as the NY Times, the WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS...etc. The left owns the mainstream news media and a lot more. So, as a leftist, you are already exposed to the Orwellian, Democrat-controlled news media.
@Google Sucks Ass, OK, now I see. You can NOT understand American politics until you see the existence of a deep state with its own agenda that is accountable to nobody. In 2016, The deep state/the permanent government was bent on crowning Hillary Clinton as the US President. So, Bernie had to be eliminated. Once Trump won, the same deep state with all its power staged a coup against Trump that continues to this day. Bernie is also a loyal member of the same deep state. Bernie has made millions of dollars and owns three mansions. He talks like a Marxist/socialist but he lives like a capitalist.
This program is a revival of conservative leader William F. Buckley's original 'Firing Line' which aired on PBS for 34 years until his retirement. He also interviewed intellectuals from both sides. Margaret Hoover is a moderate conservative herself. So, yes it is allowed on PBS. In fact, it's necessary.
@@YogGroove It's not a parallel. It's the same show. Also, there has always been a conservative vs. liberal assessment of every week's news on the PBS News Hour for almost 50 years. It's currently called the Brooks and Capehart segment. Previously, Shields and Brooks, etc.
Michael Kinsley's face at 23:05 after listening to Catharine Stimpson 😂 Prof Loury provides a link to the full 1991 episode of Firing Line on his Substack and points out, "As you can see, the issues at play in 1991 are still very much with us in 2023."
Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there was affirmative action for white males in education and jobs. Due to the presence of those who would still exclude blacks and females, no matter how qualified, a new affirmative action was necessary to open those doors. The changes in society have been so rapid it has given me whiplash. Anyone who says we still need affirmative action is stewing a pot of grudge.
Glen and I disagree on politics and religion, but we could not agree more on the the heart of the Civil Rights movement that achieved the Civil Rights act. The concept of progress when it comes to our sense of self and identity. The left is currently playing a dangerous and hackneyed game by using hate-based, enemy/other-creating tactics that set people who look a certain way against others. Let some boats rise at the expense of other boats. Black lives matter, but Asian and Hispanic lives don't. All lives certainly don't matter, including the unarmed white people who are also killed by police in this country. The issues we face in this country are fully human, American problems, not exclusively the issue of a specific race or demographic. We are all the 1% globally, but also still struggle with inequality in the richest country ever in human history. We have real problems that won't be solved by dividing people, blaming entire populations of people who have committed no crimes. Also, the notion of systemic racism is, like Glenn says, dis-empowering to those that believe it. It puts all power and change in the hands of those they're claiming have put them in the precarious position that they're in. This, versus building a movement focusing on the self, the idea of race being a false concept, addressing the worst forms of poverty in this country for all people, providing access to higher education to all people, reforming how public schools are funded, etc. But why move forward when it's much easier to always look backward? If you fall into the modern left, ask yourself - is this the best message you can send? Is this really the best we can do? I believe in actual progress, societally and conceptually.
I had written off PBS and NPR as biased sources of information for some time already until I saw Mr Loury’s in the title of this video. I agree with this man and feel thankful he’s being given more airtime to speak 👍🏼
I think that the problem with arguments about structural racism is that it seeks to use the overwhelming public belief that racism is reprehensible to get people to oppose phenomena that sometimes have little or nothing to do with racism. I was having a discussion with a woman that told me that the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine was an example of structural racism even though the harsher punishment for crack were overwhelmingly supported at the time by the Congressional Black Caucus. According to her, anything that had a disparate negative effect on African-Americans was an example of structural racism. If so the law of unintended consequences is one of the most racist laws we have. But even when a disparity is clearly the result of past racism, labeling it as structural racism doesn't do anything to solve the problem. Yes, some of our institutions were guilty of discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities in the past. But that doesn't mean we have to abolish those institutions. If very few African-American students score high enough on the the entrance exam to be accepted at the Bronx High School of Science, the answer shouldn't be to throw out the test. The answer should be to do a better job of educating African-American children in elementary and middle school so that more of them can pass the test. For the record, I don't think that a single exam is the best way to choose students for an elite school, but it is objective. I'll finish with a fact I found surprising when I heard it. Do you know what American ethnic group has the highest percentage of advanced degrees per capita? It's not Asians, it's Nigerian-Americans. I think that goes to show that the most important factor in determining educational excellence is the parent emphasis (or lack thereof) on the importance of doing well in school. Immigrants, whether from Africa or Asia, usually stress the importance of their children doing well in school.
Why do these interviews always compare just black communities and white communities when citing statistics? Why not Asians? Since they are really the top dog financially speaking. They don't because it will reveal that decisions, for the most part, brings you wealth. Asians makes better decisions. So does African born immigrants. It's daily individual decisions, not skin color.
he said he's an affirmative action 'baby' .. were standards lowered for him ? and now that he's in the 'club' he sings a different tune .. he made it with help so what about the others ??
I feel like Loury only recently started to come to prominence. It's unfortunate that people like him couldn't have been at the forefront of the black community earlier. Maybe more voices like his would have prevented us from being in the toxic landscape we now find ourselves in. But who am I kidding? He has integrity and is interested in pursuing the truth. Only megalomaniacs interested in money and power find their way to the front...because they are willing to say anything or do anything to get there. God bless him and may he stay with us for many more years.
No he did not - she made him look like a fool - this man is Clarence Thomas’s cousin ….. go Read a factual history book .. y’all are goons … this man makes whites look good because he pushes away from racism and thinks we all can achieve greatness on our own.
Commendable to acknowledge the negatives of his own affirmative action, his main premise really. Yet when advocating for prison reform, he sites a violent criminal who wound up with a Yale law degree. Not as a result of affirmative action? Incoherent
Fun fact. Overall and in totality b lack Americans use/receive roughly $700 billion dollars per year more than contribute to the tax system. If people understood how much has already been given and how much continues to given maybe they would simmer on the reparation's talk.
I've heard him be more eloquent about things before, but here he acknowledges there are structural issues, then proceeds to describe the structural issues and then blames the individual for not being able to overcome the structural issue... He does it when he describes both oppression and affirmative action; describe the systemic forces working against people of colour then tells those people of colour to pull themselves up by their bootsraps. He actually makes the case FOR affirmative action in a weird way by describing how black children are SO overwhelmingly unprepared (a systemic issue) for university that university's need to make sure they do have representation through Affirmative Action. And it is in that double standard that he hits my (personal) biggest issue with this type of thinking. He vaguely describes all of these issues and trashes what were meant to be stop gap solutions, but comes up with zero actual and actionable changes that can be made. "Fund early-childhood education" - ok great! How? Public education across the country is under attack. "Affirmative Action should be stopped because it belittles black students" - Ok Great! How do we ensure a diverse student body when you yourself acknowledge the education system does not prepare black students for higher education? He mentions that 50 years of Affirmative Action is too long. Ok Great! But how do you overcome nearly 200 years of black people being shut out of these institutions and refused entry into "legacy" organizations? Maybe it's the format of the interview (though I think the interviewer does a good job asking him to elaborate to try and get to these core issues in his positions), but he doesn't come across as great in this.
Professor Loury is truly a man of intellect, integrity and unwavering commitment to true justice. I love him so much. His voice is so valuable over the other victimhood-obsessed "public intellectuals," particularly those with "three names."
Probably because the rest of the college and university system tends to follow what the Ivy League does. Once the Ivy League starts adopting policies, the rest of the universities go the same route. There's no point in discussing the Universities of Rhode Island or Central Florida, because those schools don't de facto set policy for the academic world. A professor from Harvard, Dartmouth, or Yale has a cachet that one from Central Florida just doesn't, not only to people in academia but to the average American. Their ideas have a little bit more weight to them because of their position, based on the idea that the Ivy League is the most selective group of schools in the country (whether that's true or not is another discussion). The professor down at the community college might have the best thoughts in the room, but he's not getting a primetime slot on a CBS or CNN news program and he's not testifying to a congressional committee.
On reperations, that word salad of nothingness is shameful at best. This is an obviously sad attempt to carry water for a certain group. And be the mouthpiece for injustice. Any college-aged person with a slight understanding of history will see this as rubbish.
Love Glenn but the inherent contradiction in criticizing the idea of systemic racism in that it puts responsibility on others (whites) to close these racial gaps yet advocate for trans racial coalitions... so we need white people or we don't?
Erm no, you are completely stoopid. Blaqs are asked to solve systemic racism and close racial gaps whilst seeing whytes as true victims. Yooo R a liar and Lousy's life is devoted to whyte innocence project. How did you miss this?
You can tell this interviewer wants to disbelieve everything Glenn is saying, especially when he gets deep about the Georgetown professor and the facts on the ground, but her facial expressions are that she's being hit with truth bombs and it's making her very uncomfortable because it goes against evrything she's let herself believe and she knows it's true.
Loury seems to hold some extreme allegiance to the idea of meritocracy. He applies it selectively, it seems, to the issue of race, especially affirmative action. If this notion was made to be applied all across society, theoretically, no set asides/quotas for anything, would ever have existed in our society. The whole notion that one could inherit thier parents wealth, contradicts this notion, that everyone has to largely make it on their own. This contradicts the whole idea of the family unit, which our continued existence, is a result of.
So Loury believes that capitalism with its inherent tendency to foster greed and power, and thus extreme social imbalance, is better than a more moral humanistic vision, than would be one based truly on the idea of the 'common good'? Doesn't capitalism follow a straight line from the achaic ideas of monarchies, feudalism, imperialism, colonialism, and slavery? At what point do we ask ourselves to measure up, to the claims we make of being evolved, enlightened, and/or spiritual/religious beings, who are said to be the product of a supreme being, who made us custodians of the planet we liive on?
Economic systems are abstract and theoretical. As such, they do not have inherent tendencies. Human beings do have inherent tendencies. To claim that capitalism fosters greed, power and social imbalance is to ignore the reality that non-capitalist systems, socialism and communism for example, foster greed, power and social imbalance just as much and often a lot worse. In answer to your first question: No, capitalism does not follow in a "straight line" from previous economic systems. Sticking with economic systems (you conflate political systems and economic ones) feudalism and slavery exist a part from capitalism. The overwhelming majority of countries with slavery, both ancient and modern, exist where capitalism never has been and might never will be the primary economic system. Moreover, it was capitalist countries that led the world in trying to eliminate slavery. So, far from a "straight line", they come a part and are a part in many ways.
@@markpaul1383 I'm not equating these other things with capitalism from its economic sense, but in the sense that they are all social systems, that have an extreme imbalance of power, and a low standard of fairness. My arguement that capitalism fosters greed, power, and social imbalance is not invalidated by your argument. You equate socialism with communism, which is unfair and not true. Democratic Socialist don't advocate communism. There are plenty of well functioning and just socialist countries. They also have private enterprise, but don't have or allow to exist the level of exploitation and predatory private enterprise, that we allow. Capitalist countries had the greatest obligation to eliminate slavery. Need I mention why? It seems a common practice among people on the Right to equate all practices of slavery. That is another false argument. I thought the Age of Enlightenment, set a new standard for secular people - that's not even considering the high standards that religions had long ago established.
@@siriuslyspeaking9720 So, unfortunately, I don't think you really understood much of my reply to your comment. That's okay. I will respond to your reply by asking two questions. First, which countries do you have in mind that exist in the world today that are socialist? I will mention that if you are thinking of countries in northern Europe, they are not socialist. So, tell us which socialist countries are well-functioning and just. I can tell you many that are not well-functioning and not just. But I am interested in hearing of the ones you have in mind. Second, what do you mean by a social system? Just what is that exactly? Thank you in advance!
Religious feelings are irrelevant to economic realities. People are naturally "greedy". First they want stuff that keeps them alive. They also want physical security, and if possible comfort. Only those, who had a strong drive to secure these things, survived and reproduced. So it's our genetics, it's not caused by Capitalism. Is it a bad thing to own property? Tools? Machinery? Is it a bad thing to direct one's limited resources into a productive enterprise? To make a valuable product? Is it wrong to expect some reward (profit) from your thrift, labor, proficiency, organization and liability
No matter what amount of reparations, it would not be enough. The problems would not stop and they'd still ask for more money. Why should some people be held responsible for bad things they didn't do when the other people wont be held responsible for bad things they currently do?
@@ondolite3789 Reparations are completely about money. And they will ask for more money because the problems they have will not be solved by money and will continue even after they are paid.
@@ondolite3789I also don't understand your point. How is reparations not about money? Is it possible reparations can be paid WITHOUT money? If yes, I'd love to hear more.
I see Professor Loury. I click. I learn. 🙏🏾❤️🇺🇸
100% in alignment.
Lousy stinks.
Step bak!
@@ondolite3789 You don’t like the fact Loury is Black. Racist!
Right?!
@@maxonsax1 Wrong?!
I know it's a cliche, but Glenn truly is a national treasure.
He stinks.
He sure is!
He's really a moron, but have fun.
A rare commodity as he is a minority. We need more like him. It starts at home. What are Black parents telling their kids and who are our role models.
Thanks to PBS and Firing Line for having Glenn Loury on!!
Incredible right!
PBS having Glenn Loury on what! This is great
Seeing Glenn Loury in more "traditional" media always gives me hope and brings a smile to my face.
Regardless of how you got to where you are Professor Loury, you have my respect. You earned it.
He got there face down ass up like the fukking rest of them.
Love this guy. So glad PBS--unlike NPR--gives a voice to all kinds of different voices.
Yup. NPR is the most painful listening I've ever experience. The same 3 topics come up over and over and over and only from crazy progs
@@Dan16673 "National 'Progressive' Radio."
@@name-vi6fs National Proletariat Radio
NPR is good for peering in on the programming of the aspirational Brahmin Left. Sort of like watching Fox News to know what is the issue du jour on the lumpen-right.
@@ajsfa this is in fact, the correct answer.
Glenn's authenticity and brilliance are unparalleled.
What I find most shocking is the fact that what Glenn is saying is considered "controversial" and "outside the box" in today's America. Glenn is inside the old box, he didn't leave it when the zeitgeist did, he just shored up the old arguments that never stopped being valid. I have to laugh at the way Ms. Hoover asks him to "unpack" statements that sound so straightforward and obvious (no disrespect to her, she's a good dispassionate interviewer who has to probe with neutral language etc). I'm a big fan of Glenn, I think he's a very insightful guy, but his valuable role in this particular conversation is that of a humane voice of reason, not as a radical innovator.
Well said, Patrick.
'Humane voice of what'??!!
"unpack" makes me cringe.
Props to PBS for having Loury on
Glenn is awesome!!! I wish him a long life!
Having Mr. Loury on PBS is a step in the right direction. Hopefully this will be seen and open some minds. I was always taught color blindness from my extended family from Mississippi!
I completely understand Professor Loury point about affirmative actions being a boulder on the back of a black professional. Being a woman, I worked in the male-dominated field (less than 20% women). The biggest insult to me would have been to offer me a job just because I was a woman, to make their stats look good.
@@gc95014 and you know her personally and professionally, that's why you are making this point? And why do I not see a similar comment from you in regards to Amy Coney Barrett? Maybe because Ms. Coney Barrett is not black?
@@gc95014 I disagree. The fact that Biden intended to select a black woman for the role (and I was furious about this announcement, it was a terrible idea to say that) has nothing to do with her own qualifications - check them out. Even if she was accepted to Harvard on AA, she graduated cum laude, became an editor at Harvard Law Review and got her Juris Doctor from Harvard also cum laude. Not being a lawyer, I can't judge her career on it's merits, but just her educational record tells me that she is a real thing, I can't imagine that Harvard profs are so keen on AA that they would give her cum laude for naught. I can't hold it against her that she accepted the role, a chance like that occurs once in a lifetime, but I do hold it against Biden that he tarnished her credentials by saying what he said. Your position is another proof that affirmative actions are the boulder on the back of a black professional, because it throws a black shadow even on those who are qualified on their merit.
@@gc95014 So, in your logic, Ms. Jackson should have not accepted the nomination, whether she was qualified (which you don't really deny) or not, just because Biden said what he said? in your mind, the only right solution would have been for her to decline the nomination in favor of an Asian or white candidate? Do you feel the same way about Clarence Thomas, who also was a beneficiary of AA?
@gc95014 Well, how do you know that she doesn't feel exactly the same way as Thomas? What other than law degree qualified Mr. Thomas to be a career lawyer, if he thinks it was worth $.80 and why didn't he decline the nomination if he felt that way, especially because he was specifically nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall, which President Bush was quite open about does that not concern you? Either way, your logic is inconsistent. You easily give a pass to Thomas, but not to Jackson, for the reasons you can't explain logically. To me, it is clearly double standard.
Whytes are offered jobs in America because they are whyte.
I suppose that is ok.
Looking forward to Glenn's upcoming book. He read a small part of the book once and it was absolutely fascinating and beautifully written.
Ditto
He's fantastic, he needs to be heard more instead of that clown Sharpton.
Glenn, I frequently attempt to take you to task on your podcast almost every chance I get, but I do need to express how much I admire respect and am grateful for you. Thank you Glenn.
Glenn IS a national treasure!
Great interview! Margaret Hoover's questions were often probing and challenging without being hostile or strawmanning, and she let Glen fully respond.
If I had to demean my humanity with a political label, I suppose I would identify as an eco-socialist. Despite this, I enjoy listening to Glenn Loury, and even occasionally agree with him on certain issues. The main reason I find him so appealing, is not only his eloquence and intelligence, but mostly his honesty and sincere willingness to engage in dialogue with those who hold different views from his own. His wife, apparently, is a fan of Bernie Sanders, which is an interesting bit of trivia. I particularly enjoyed his discussion with Briahnna Joy Gray on her podcast Bad Faith.
Good to see you, Professor Loury!
This is a wise man. I listen to him frequently. He and Professor McWhorter make a great podcast tagteam.
Thank you for welcoming Professor Loury to this national platform. More people need to hear his logical and practical positions that are soaked in substantial academic experience and understanding of the human condition. I'm tired of being undercut and dismissed by the prophets of systemic racism. Professor Loury gives me hope - and words - that we can move forward as humans.
The prophets of systemic racism are the racists that need it to survive.
This is those that designed rather than those that were subject to it.
Yooo R veri, veri silli and a little chikki.
Grow up.
Veri cawadli also.
Hoover is providing an excellent interview...she does her homework! Professor Loury is utterly amazing and is a bastion of wisdom during turbulent times. Thank you!
What!! Glenn Loury on PBS???? Bravo! Great questions.
Loury is awesome. Thanks for hosting! And for the record, Loury was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT vindicated in his "Firing Line" debate. Freedom of Thought on campuses is damned near an extinct species....
Glenn Loury is a wise man and I’m always grateful to learn.
I'm a huge fan of Loury and his work. I'm a bit surprised that PBS "platformed" him, but I'm extremely grateful that you did.
My hope is that his appearance has led to a few new converts from the traditional Left. Good job... and God bless Glenn Loury.
Agreed
Dr. Loury is awesome.
Excellent 👍 the difference between a real reporter and a propoganda puppet reporter.she let him speak his mind without trying to correct him with the party speak 🗣️
@Google Sucks Ass you do realize that propaganda has an actual definition, right? And speaking of definitions, how would you define a leftist? I used to think of myself as a progressive when I was younger before I became a classical liberal.
But now, especially on TH-cam among people like Brianna Joy Grey, Krystal Ball, Kyle Kullinski, I hear the word leftist used to refer to what they seem to agree are people who are more or less just opposed to private markets and commerce full stop.
"True equality comes from parity of performance, not from patronizing deference." ~ Glenn Loury. Here is a man bravely and honestly speaking the truth. The real truth, not some contrived BS desgined to craft a self-serving political narrative. I am truly appreciative of Glenn's insight. He's not pandering to an audience.
i love glen lowery!!
I highly recommend watching THE GLENN SHOW (on TH-cam) hosted by Glenn Lourey with liberal John McWhorter. No matter your political philospophy--from conservative to the Left--you will be inspired towards critical thinking and constructive action. As a progressive, I am increasingly inspired towards Lourey's DEVELOPMENT mode as SOLUTIONS to "systemic racism". Plus: the NECESSITY of a HUMANISTIC Vision, that includes ALL of us.
I love Glenn ❤!
This is the most impactful man I have heard!
Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but Glenn Loury is without a doubt a class act and a thought-provoking communicator. Always interested to see what he has to say.
I appreciate how Glenn Loury can admit others have a valid point and also his own failings.
Really think about what Glenn said about Harvard. Here I am. A full prof. at Harvard. Am I up for it?
The really is a Double Victory ethic. He could have coasted and no one would say a thing.
But there is the is I worthy of the We.
Glenn can make PBS relevant. No small feat.
Buckley asked thoughtful questions he wrote himself and engaged with the interviewees with challenging follow-up questions. Hoover almost exclusively reads polished questions generally prepared in advance by a producer. It's a sad aspect of the decline in our public programming and discourse that this show is nevertheless called Firing Line.
Apart from that, Loury is an excellent guest.
I see Professor Loury, I watch. ♥️
Dr. Loury is truly a National Treasure and we should be thankful we have him
This guy is a bad ass.
There are dirt poor people all over the world that don't turn to crime.
There are wealthy whytes who do.
Yoo R veri silli
Yes: there are rich people (of all ethnicities) that turn to crime. The point the OP was making is that (& I say this as a low-income person) POVERTY is too often used to EXCUSE crime--most importantly VIOLENCE crime. And that's NOT acceptable. We ALL have SOME choices--like to NOt hurt other people!@@ondolite3789
I'll be impressed when NPR has an honest portrayal of James Lindsay and Coleman Hughes 🤨
Oh wow. Downloaded!
Great interview!
Fantastic interview.
He’s the Thomas sowell of today -I adore him
BTW, Thomas Sowell is still alive.
Not quite. He is different. But lovely too
Just found you. Have to say I had to sub. Really enjoy your intelligent take on things.
Possibly the only remaining way left to actually get me to watch PBS these days...
Economics should be the only social science discipline.
That was great
This show used to be about opposing views when Buckley was alive.
Sadly, those types of discussions are impossible today, as the left has moved beyond the realm of reason, facts, and nature, and therefore beyond the ability to follow the Socratic "common master." The differences used to be about policy. Our present differences are about human nature.
The Rousseauan Marxists have taken over half of the mind share, so there's no mere differences of opinion - Nietzschean power dynamics do not allow for the "oppressors" to make a valid point.
Great stuff. Glenn rules.
Excellent interview, excellent questions. I deeply respect Prof. Loury and his positions. As much as I believe some sort of reparations are necessary, I understand that the politics, policy of reparations are deeply flawed and perhaps they would do more harm than good.
Good guest. Next, please interview Victor Davis Hanson.
How about Chris Rufo or James Lindsay? Since we’re dreaming.
@Google Sucks Ass 😭
@Google Sucks Ass Amy Goodman has her own Democracy Now and makes millions of dollars every year being a propaganda arm of the Democratic party/ the left. PBS just like NPR is a propaganda arm of the Democratic party/ the left. Chomsky and other leftists are routinely interviewed on Democracy Now and their views are pushed by the Democrat-controlled mainstream news media such as the NY Times, the WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS...etc. The left owns the mainstream news media and a lot more. So, as a leftist, you are already exposed to the Orwellian, Democrat-controlled news media.
@Google Sucks Ass What do you mean by the left? Are you a Marxist?
@Google Sucks Ass, OK, now I see. You can NOT understand American politics until you see the existence of a deep state with its own agenda that is accountable to nobody. In 2016, The deep state/the permanent government was bent on crowning Hillary Clinton as the US President. So, Bernie had to be eliminated. Once Trump won, the same deep state with all its power staged a coup against Trump that continues to this day. Bernie is also a loyal member of the same deep state. Bernie has made millions of dollars and owns three mansions. He talks like a Marxist/socialist but he lives like a capitalist.
Funny how this PBS comment section is open
A Straight Forward Look at a Conservative? Is this still allowed on PBS / NPR?
This program is a revival of conservative leader William F. Buckley's original 'Firing Line' which aired on PBS for 34 years until his retirement. He also interviewed intellectuals from both sides. Margaret Hoover is a moderate conservative herself. So, yes it is allowed on PBS. In fact, it's necessary.
@@jsharp3165 That's my point. Look how far back in time you had to go to come up with a parallel.
@@YogGroove It's not a parallel. It's the same show. Also, there has always been a conservative vs. liberal assessment of every week's news on the PBS News Hour for almost 50 years. It's currently called the Brooks and Capehart segment. Previously, Shields and Brooks, etc.
Professor Glenn Loury is Fantastic, Margaret Hoover on the other hand not so much.
She is the Great-grandaughter of an US President.
Nature is healing
Margaret Hoover is a fantastic interviewer. Very interesting and insightful commentary from Professor Loury.
Based Glenn
Michael Kinsley's face at 23:05 after listening to Catharine Stimpson 😂 Prof Loury provides a link to the full 1991 episode of Firing Line on his Substack and points out, "As you can see, the issues at play in 1991 are still very much with us in 2023."
OMG 😱 I hadn’t seen that proud family scene
If affirmative action is to be continued perhaps it’s time to be class-based more than race-based
Affirmative action barely exists and it is class based.
Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there was affirmative action for white males in education and jobs. Due to the presence of those who would still exclude blacks and females, no matter how qualified, a new affirmative action was necessary to open those doors. The changes in society have been so rapid it has given me whiplash. Anyone who says we still need affirmative action is stewing a pot of grudge.
Glen and I disagree on politics and religion, but we could not agree more on the the heart of the Civil Rights movement that achieved the Civil Rights act. The concept of progress when it comes to our sense of self and identity.
The left is currently playing a dangerous and hackneyed game by using hate-based, enemy/other-creating tactics that set people who look a certain way against others. Let some boats rise at the expense of other boats.
Black lives matter, but Asian and Hispanic lives don't. All lives certainly don't matter, including the unarmed white people who are also killed by police in this country.
The issues we face in this country are fully human, American problems, not exclusively the issue of a specific race or demographic. We are all the 1% globally, but also still struggle with inequality in the richest country ever in human history. We have real problems that won't be solved by dividing people, blaming entire populations of people who have committed no crimes. Also, the notion of systemic racism is, like Glenn says, dis-empowering to those that believe it. It puts all power and change in the hands of those they're claiming have put them in the precarious position that they're in.
This, versus building a movement focusing on the self, the idea of race being a false concept, addressing the worst forms of poverty in this country for all people, providing access to higher education to all people, reforming how public schools are funded, etc.
But why move forward when it's much easier to always look backward? If you fall into the modern left, ask yourself - is this the best message you can send? Is this really the best we can do?
I believe in actual progress, societally and conceptually.
Looking good at 70!
The wealth & income gaps are not adjusted for the same situation.
Getting rid of CRT out of University s. Thats the driving factor causing problems
I had written off PBS and NPR as biased sources of information for some time already until I saw Mr Loury’s in the title of this video. I agree with this man and feel thankful he’s being given more airtime to speak 👍🏼
I think that the problem with arguments about structural racism is that it seeks to use the overwhelming public belief that racism is reprehensible to get people to oppose phenomena that sometimes have little or nothing to do with racism. I was having a discussion with a woman that told me that the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine was an example of structural racism even though the harsher punishment for crack were overwhelmingly supported at the time by the Congressional Black Caucus. According to her, anything that had a disparate negative effect on African-Americans was an example of structural racism. If so the law of unintended consequences is one of the most racist laws we have. But even when a disparity is clearly the result of past racism, labeling it as structural racism doesn't do anything to solve the problem. Yes, some of our institutions were guilty of discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities in the past. But that doesn't mean we have to abolish those institutions. If very few African-American students score high enough on the the entrance exam to be accepted at the Bronx High School of Science, the answer shouldn't be to throw out the test. The answer should be to do a better job of educating African-American children in elementary and middle school so that more of them can pass the test. For the record, I don't think that a single exam is the best way to choose students for an elite school, but it is objective. I'll finish with a fact I found surprising when I heard it. Do you know what American ethnic group has the highest percentage of advanced degrees per capita? It's not Asians, it's Nigerian-Americans. I think that goes to show that the most important factor in determining educational excellence is the parent emphasis (or lack thereof) on the importance of doing well in school. Immigrants, whether from Africa or Asia, usually stress the importance of their children doing well in school.
Well said.
Why do these interviews always compare just black communities and white communities when citing statistics? Why not Asians? Since they are really the top dog financially speaking. They don't because it will reveal that decisions, for the most part, brings you wealth. Asians makes better decisions. So does African born immigrants. It's daily individual decisions, not skin color.
Now I want to know why Glenn Loury left the Christian faith
he said he's an affirmative action 'baby' .. were standards lowered for him ? and now that he's in the 'club' he sings a different tune .. he made it with help so what about the others ??
Slaves had a minority influence on building this country--
do the math.
😂🤣🤣
@@ondolite3789 thanks ondo.
@TheWhitehiker Come on man!!
We are in a hilarious period.
@@ondolite3789 huh?
Are you serious! You do know slavery jump started America’s Economy.
any good ever comes out of there
Not William F Buckley.
A successful recipient of "Affirmative Action" believes it should be ended.... 😐😱😥
I feel like Loury only recently started to come to prominence. It's unfortunate that people like him couldn't have been at the forefront of the black community earlier. Maybe more voices like his would have prevented us from being in the toxic landscape we now find ourselves in. But who am I kidding? He has integrity and is interested in pursuing the truth. Only megalomaniacs interested in money and power find their way to the front...because they are willing to say anything or do anything to get there. God bless him and may he stay with us for many more years.
loury is very educated and he knows it,but a wise man always knows he does nor know everything!
Margaret is still using the same old Liberal talking points, on race. Glen dismantles those taking points.
No he did not - she made him look like a fool - this man is Clarence Thomas’s cousin ….. go
Read a factual history book .. y’all are goons … this man makes whites look good because he pushes away from racism and thinks we all can achieve greatness on our own.
Yoo R a bit muddled up
@@ondolite3789 You still working on English?
@@stephdrake2521 Like what?? The 1619 project? It’s about as factual as a comic book.
@Skip Fluck No, I prefer to use italo english creole for the muppetosi.
Commendable to acknowledge the negatives of his own affirmative action, his main premise really. Yet when advocating for prison reform, he sites a violent criminal who wound up with a Yale law degree. Not as a result of affirmative action? Incoherent
They blinded Glenn with the lights
This was pointless given that there was virtually no pushback. Why is this even called Firing Lines?
Fun fact. Overall and in totality b lack Americans use/receive roughly $700 billion dollars per year more than contribute to the tax system. If people understood how much has already been given and how much continues to given maybe they would simmer on the reparation's talk.
I've heard him be more eloquent about things before, but here he acknowledges there are structural issues, then proceeds to describe the structural issues and then blames the individual for not being able to overcome the structural issue... He does it when he describes both oppression and affirmative action; describe the systemic forces working against people of colour then tells those people of colour to pull themselves up by their bootsraps. He actually makes the case FOR affirmative action in a weird way by describing how black children are SO overwhelmingly unprepared (a systemic issue) for university that university's need to make sure they do have representation through Affirmative Action. And it is in that double standard that he hits my (personal) biggest issue with this type of thinking. He vaguely describes all of these issues and trashes what were meant to be stop gap solutions, but comes up with zero actual and actionable changes that can be made. "Fund early-childhood education" - ok great! How? Public education across the country is under attack. "Affirmative Action should be stopped because it belittles black students" - Ok Great! How do we ensure a diverse student body when you yourself acknowledge the education system does not prepare black students for higher education? He mentions that 50 years of Affirmative Action is too long. Ok Great! But how do you overcome nearly 200 years of black people being shut out of these institutions and refused entry into "legacy" organizations? Maybe it's the format of the interview (though I think the interviewer does a good job asking him to elaborate to try and get to these core issues in his positions), but he doesn't come across as great in this.
Professor Loury is truly a man of intellect, integrity and unwavering commitment to true justice. I love him so much. His voice is so valuable over the other victimhood-obsessed "public intellectuals," particularly those with "three names."
Why the obsession with Ivy League schools?
Probably because the rest of the college and university system tends to follow what the Ivy League does. Once the Ivy League starts adopting policies, the rest of the universities go the same route. There's no point in discussing the Universities of Rhode Island or Central Florida, because those schools don't de facto set policy for the academic world.
A professor from Harvard, Dartmouth, or Yale has a cachet that one from Central Florida just doesn't, not only to people in academia but to the average American. Their ideas have a little bit more weight to them because of their position, based on the idea that the Ivy League is the most selective group of schools in the country (whether that's true or not is another discussion). The professor down at the community college might have the best thoughts in the room, but he's not getting a primetime slot on a CBS or CNN news program and he's not testifying to a congressional committee.
"mere 50 year career"?
On reperations, that word salad of nothingness is shameful at best. This is an obviously sad attempt to carry water for a certain group. And be the mouthpiece for injustice. Any college-aged person with a slight understanding of history will see this as rubbish.
Today, who is acting racially immorally toward any Identity Group?
Whytes.
Love Glenn but the inherent contradiction in criticizing the idea of systemic racism in that it puts responsibility on others (whites) to close these racial gaps yet advocate for trans racial coalitions... so we need white people or we don't?
Maybe we need people?
Erm no, you are completely stoopid.
Blaqs are asked to solve systemic racism and close racial gaps whilst seeing whytes as true victims.
Yooo R a liar and Lousy's life is devoted to whyte innocence project.
How did you miss this?
You can tell this interviewer wants to disbelieve everything Glenn is saying, especially when he gets deep about the Georgetown professor and the facts on the ground, but her facial expressions are that she's being hit with truth bombs and it's making her very uncomfortable because it goes against evrything she's let herself believe and she knows it's true.
My god apparently even PBS has become radically partisan. How sad and pathetic. Stop trying to be woke, and actually wake up, please.
Loury seems to hold some extreme allegiance to the idea of meritocracy. He applies it selectively, it seems, to the issue of race, especially affirmative action. If this notion was made to be applied all across society, theoretically, no set asides/quotas for anything, would ever have existed in our society. The whole notion that one could inherit thier parents wealth, contradicts this notion, that everyone has to largely make it on their own. This contradicts the whole idea of the family unit, which our continued existence, is a result of.
Stay away from children.
So Loury believes that capitalism with its inherent tendency to foster greed and power, and thus extreme social imbalance, is better than a more moral humanistic vision, than would be one based truly on the idea of the 'common good'? Doesn't capitalism follow a straight line from the achaic ideas of monarchies, feudalism, imperialism, colonialism, and slavery? At what point do we ask ourselves to measure up, to the claims we make of being evolved, enlightened, and/or spiritual/religious beings, who are said to be the product of a supreme being, who made us custodians of the planet we liive on?
Economic systems are abstract and theoretical. As such, they do not have inherent tendencies. Human beings do have inherent tendencies. To claim that capitalism fosters greed, power and social imbalance is to ignore the reality that non-capitalist systems, socialism and communism for example, foster greed, power and social imbalance just as much and often a lot worse. In answer to your first question: No, capitalism does not follow in a "straight line" from previous economic systems. Sticking with economic systems (you conflate political systems and economic ones) feudalism and slavery exist a part from capitalism. The overwhelming majority of countries with slavery, both ancient and modern, exist where capitalism never has been and might never will be the primary economic system. Moreover, it was capitalist countries that led the world in trying to eliminate slavery. So, far from a "straight line", they come a part and are a part in many ways.
@@markpaul1383 I'm not equating these other things with capitalism from its economic sense, but in the sense that they are all social systems, that have an extreme imbalance of power, and a low standard of fairness. My arguement that capitalism fosters greed, power, and social imbalance is not invalidated by your argument. You equate socialism with communism, which is unfair and not true. Democratic Socialist don't advocate communism. There are plenty of well functioning and just socialist countries. They also have private enterprise, but don't have or allow to exist the level of exploitation and predatory private enterprise, that we allow. Capitalist countries had the greatest obligation to eliminate slavery. Need I mention why? It seems a common practice among people on the Right to equate all practices of slavery. That is another false argument. I thought the Age of Enlightenment, set a new standard for secular people - that's not even considering the high standards that religions had long ago established.
@@siriuslyspeaking9720 So, unfortunately, I don't think you really understood much of my reply to your comment. That's okay. I will respond to your reply by asking two questions. First, which countries do you have in mind that exist in the world today that are socialist? I will mention that if you are thinking of countries in northern Europe, they are not socialist. So, tell us which socialist countries are well-functioning and just. I can tell you many that are not well-functioning and not just. But I am interested in hearing of the ones you have in mind. Second, what do you mean by a social system? Just what is that exactly? Thank you in advance!
Religious feelings are irrelevant to economic realities.
People are naturally "greedy". First they want stuff that keeps them alive.
They also want physical security, and if possible comfort. Only those, who had a strong drive
to secure these things, survived and reproduced. So it's our genetics, it's not caused by Capitalism.
Is it a bad thing to own property? Tools? Machinery? Is it a bad thing to direct one's limited
resources into a productive enterprise? To make a valuable product?
Is it wrong to expect some reward (profit) from your thrift, labor, proficiency, organization and liability
Leave the children alone 🤡. Your revolution failed.
No matter what amount of reparations, it would not be enough. The problems would not stop and they'd still ask for more money. Why should some people be held responsible for bad things they didn't do when the other people wont be held responsible for bad things they currently do?
Yoo miss the point entirely.
Reparations are not about money.
Also, why do yoo believe that they would ask for more?
@@ondolite3789 Reparations are completely about money. And they will ask for more money because the problems they have will not be solved by money and will continue even after they are paid.
@@ondolite3789I also don't understand your point. How is reparations not about money? Is it possible reparations can be paid WITHOUT money? If yes, I'd love to hear more.
Fantastic interview