Making Sense - Sam Harris - September 10, 2018


#137 — Safe Space


Episode Stats

Length

40 minutes

Words per Minute

179.98163

Word Count

7,252

Sentence Count

434

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

2


Summary

Jonathan Haidt joins me to discuss his new book, The Coddling of the American Mind, and to talk about the recent moral panics among young adults about free speech on campus and the role of intentions in morality, and the economy of prestige in so-called call-out culture. We also talk about how we should define bigotry, systemic racism, the paradox of progress, and how we coddle our kids more and more because we want life to be as safe and as easy as possible for them. And we talk about why this is a problem, and why it should be a problem for all of us, not just for young adults. This episode is sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers, who are the ones who make this podcast possible. We don t run ads on the podcast, and therefore, without your support, you are not getting the full benefits of the podcast. If you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming a subscriber. You'll get access to the full archive of episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, including the podcast's most popular episodes, as well as access to our newest episodes, and much more. Thanks for listening to the podcast! Sam Harris and Jonathon Hays to make sense of it all. Jonothan McElowt and Greg Lukianoff To find a list of our sponsors and show-related promo codes, go to bit.ly/OurAdvertisers. To buy tickets to our upcoming events, go here and support the podcast by becoming a patron of Making Sense: bit.fm/OurMakesensecords or to get 10% off your tickets only get 20% off the first week of the show starting on the next week, starting at $99/month, starting on $49/month! Subscribe to our second week only get 5% off our ad-free version of the making sense podcast starts on Nov. 21st, only 3 months only get 15% off for the VIP discount, only 2 months get free of the ad-only course, and 5% discount, shipping free on the second week, shipping worldwide, and they'll get the discount gets free on all other places get full access to all the best deals, two months get the best of that offer, discount offers, and a limited discount, and more!


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast.
00:00:08.820 This is Sam Harris.
00:00:10.880 Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber
00:00:14.680 feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.
00:00:18.420 In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at
00:00:22.720 samharris.org.
00:00:24.060 There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with
00:00:28.360 other subscriber-only content.
00:00:30.520 We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support
00:00:34.640 of our subscribers.
00:00:35.880 So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.
00:00:46.640 Today I'm speaking with Jonathan Haidt.
00:00:49.340 John is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern
00:00:54.540 School of Business.
00:00:55.440 He got his PhD in social psychology from the University of Pennsylvania, and then he taught
00:01:01.640 at the University of Virginia for 16 years, I believe in the psychology department.
00:01:07.240 He's the author of The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis, and most recently, The
00:01:14.240 Coddling of the American Mind with his co-author, Greg Lukianoff.
00:01:18.520 And this is John's second time on the podcast.
00:01:22.940 John and I have a somewhat colorful history.
00:01:26.440 We now play well together, but that was not always so.
00:01:31.100 I recently went back and looked at some of our skirmishes in print and was surprised to
00:01:36.800 see how hard we rolled.
00:01:39.600 We really tried to take each other's head off.
00:01:41.560 But this is an example of a collision that ultimately worked out.
00:01:47.160 There are people who I've fought pretty hard with in the past, where our debate over ideas
00:01:53.900 definitely slipped the bounds of collegiality.
00:01:58.560 This happened with my friend Dan Dennett about free will, and it happened with Sean Carroll,
00:02:04.860 the physicist.
00:02:05.460 But then, further conversation got us back on track.
00:02:10.320 Of course, there have been other skirmishes, where the outcome seemed to cancel all possibility
00:02:17.580 of future conversation.
00:02:20.060 Admittedly, it's hard to know when that point has been reached.
00:02:24.040 I'm hearing rumors, for instance, that Noam Chomsky may want to do a podcast.
00:02:28.120 And that's an experiment I'd be willing to run, actually, as bad as that email exchange was.
00:02:33.760 And probably have to do that in person, and with a mediator, and maybe with some MDMA and
00:02:41.860 an armed guard.
00:02:43.860 But I'd be willing to try it, so I'll let you know if that comes together.
00:02:49.500 Anyway, John is now very easy to talk to.
00:02:52.740 He is a collaborator, and he is doing very important work.
00:02:56.940 And here we speak about his new book and about the recent moral panics among young adults.
00:03:02.440 We discuss controversies over free speech on campus, the role of intentions in morality,
00:03:09.820 the economy of prestige in so-called call-out culture.
00:03:14.820 We talk about how we should define bigotry, systemic racism, the paradox of progress, how
00:03:21.360 the world gets better and better, and we coddle our kids more and more because we want life
00:03:26.380 to be as safe and as easy as possible.
00:03:30.020 Understandably so.
00:03:31.400 But there is a downside.
00:03:34.200 In any case, this is a timely conversation, which should be relevant to people in every
00:03:41.580 generation, really.
00:03:43.460 We're talking to the young, and we're talking to their parents, who have to live with them.
00:03:48.540 So, without further delay, I bring you Jonathan Haidt.
00:03:59.640 I am here with Jonathan Haidt.
00:04:01.480 John, thanks for coming back on the podcast.
00:04:03.420 My pleasure, Sam.
00:04:04.180 So, you have a new book, which really the world has been waiting for for quite some time because
00:04:10.440 you're addressing a problem that has been like this cresting wave of leftist intolerance
00:04:17.100 that is breaking over us now for some years.
00:04:19.920 And the book is The Coddling of the American Mind, which you wrote with your co-author Greg
00:04:25.480 Lukianoff.
00:04:26.440 This book is long overdue.
00:04:28.440 It's based on an Atlantic article that you guys wrote a few years ago.
00:04:33.720 So, let's just talk about the genesis of this.
00:04:36.680 Yeah, but you were on my podcast a while back.
00:04:39.040 I don't know if that was six months or a year ago.
00:04:41.340 Yeah, sometime last year, yeah.
00:04:42.280 And we got somewhat into this, but the problem has kind of crystallized since then, and there
00:04:49.200 are more elaborations of this.
00:04:50.580 So, take me back to the writing of the Atlantic article and just state the nature of the problem
00:04:56.560 for us.
00:04:56.980 So, Greg Lukianoff is a friend of mine.
00:05:01.180 We just knew each other casually through a mutual friend, and he came to talk to me in
00:05:04.840 the summer of 2014 and said, John, all this weird stuff has been happening on campus.
00:05:11.240 Greg is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and he's been fighting
00:05:15.780 for free speech rights for students since around 2000.
00:05:18.860 And usually that means fighting campus administrators who are always imposing speech codes and designating
00:05:25.300 little areas as free speech zones.
00:05:28.520 And suddenly, in 2013, 2014, students started asking for safe spaces, trigger warnings.
00:05:36.760 They started saying that certain things need to be removed from the curriculum because they
00:05:42.700 were dangerous or threatening or traumatizing.
00:05:45.680 And in a variety of ways, the students were showing the very thought patterns that Greg had
00:05:51.640 learned not to do in cognitive behavioral therapy.
00:05:55.300 Greg is prone to depression.
00:05:57.340 He's had some very serious suicidal depression episodes.
00:06:01.680 We talk about one in the book that led him to learn CBT.
00:06:05.340 And in CBT, you learn to do things like recognize catastrophizing.
00:06:10.320 You know, if someone comes to speak, it'll, you know, it'll destroy people.
00:06:13.400 Black and white thinking.
00:06:14.900 You know, somebody is all good or all bad.
00:06:18.080 Discounting the positive.
00:06:19.520 The Western tradition or whatever you want to say, you know, you focus on just the negatives,
00:06:24.020 not the positives.
00:06:24.760 So Greg saw like, wow, this is really weird.
00:06:27.220 Are we teaching students to think in ways that will make them depressed and anxious?
00:06:31.800 So he came to, he came to talk to me in the summer of 2014, and I had just begun to see
00:06:38.340 some of that same stuff in my classes.
00:06:40.540 And we, you and I talked about that in our last discussion, just students acting in a
00:06:44.400 really, you know, very sensitive, getting angry easily and then filing charges, that
00:06:50.380 sort of thing.
00:06:51.340 So that stuff was, I was puzzled by that.
00:06:53.820 And when Greg said, told me his theory, I said, wow, that is such a cool idea.
00:06:58.940 And if you, I'd actually kind of like to write this up with you, if you'll have me as a co-author.
00:07:03.640 And so he took me on, we wrote the article, and it came out in August of 2015, before all
00:07:08.980 the protests and all the, you know, the changes that happened around Halloween, especially
00:07:13.420 Halloween of 2015.
00:07:15.040 So we, we were, you know, people thought that we were cherry picking in 2015, but then all
00:07:19.980 this stuff happened in 2015 through 2017 and violence at a few schools.
00:07:24.500 And so we ended up, Greg decided we actually had a lot more to say, and the problem was
00:07:29.980 a lot worse.
00:07:31.000 And he wanted to write it up as a book.
00:07:32.580 And I said, I'm too busy.
00:07:33.600 I've got to write this other book on capitalism and morality.
00:07:36.300 But as I thought about it, I thought, no, wait a second.
00:07:39.080 You know, I can write about capitalism and morality and try to help people think about
00:07:42.820 economic systems, which I'm just learning about myself, or I can focus on the universities,
00:07:47.900 which is where I live and what I know about, and we can actually try to do something together.
00:07:51.760 So I decided to write the book with him, and here we are.
00:07:54.500 Now, in recent months, some people have argued that this problem is vastly overblown, that
00:08:01.200 it's a minority of campuses and even a minority of people on those minority of campuses.
00:08:08.180 I think it was a Vox article not long ago that argued that this was just a pseudo problem.
00:08:13.220 Yes, I think their headline was, everything we think about the political correctness crisis
00:08:16.840 on campus is wrong.
00:08:18.440 And, you know, you say that kind of language.
00:08:19.680 Everything.
00:08:20.300 Yes, everything.
00:08:21.080 Right.
00:08:21.240 Who could imagine that Vox would get anything wrong here?
00:08:24.500 Yeah, that's right.
00:08:25.520 That's right.
00:08:25.980 We're rather careless.
00:08:26.900 So what has happened to increase your confidence that you're not imagining this problem?
00:08:33.820 Yeah.
00:08:34.700 So, you know, what I'm all about is that we are all imperfect.
00:08:39.560 We are all biased.
00:08:40.500 We all look for confirmation of what we want.
00:08:42.760 And that's why we need viewpoint diversity.
00:08:44.320 And so I co-founded Heterodox Academy precisely because we need viewpoint diversity.
00:08:49.880 We need to be challenged.
00:08:51.300 And so when a political scientist from Canada, Jeff Sachs, not the economist at Columbia,
00:08:56.820 different Jeff Sachs, when he wrote an essay, originally it was a set of tweets, but then
00:09:01.180 an essay, arguing that actually the data show that there's no change, there's no problem.
00:09:05.680 It was actually wonderful.
00:09:06.840 It was a really great demonstration of the value of viewpoint diversity and challenge
00:09:12.340 because it forced us to go to look at his data and say, wait, really?
00:09:15.800 You see no change?
00:09:17.100 And then to refine our position.
00:09:19.160 And so what Sachs showed is that if you look at data in the GSS, the General Social Survey,
00:09:23.380 and you look at millennials, they're no different on attitudes towards free speech.
00:09:27.980 And he's right.
00:09:28.920 And that really helped us refine our argument that all along we weren't talking about millennials.
00:09:33.580 We were talking about the kids who started showing up on campus in 2013, because you
00:09:38.460 don't see any of this stuff before 2013.
00:09:40.220 It all comes in between 2013 and 2015.
00:09:43.060 So right there, that helped us see that the issue is not millennials.
00:09:47.520 And our book is not about millennials at all.
00:09:50.280 It's about iGen or Gen Z.
00:09:53.500 So that's the first clarification that was very helpful.
00:09:55.740 Second clarification is that there are about 4,500 institutions of higher education in the
00:10:02.920 United States.
00:10:04.080 Most of them are two-year schools or vocational schools.
00:10:07.740 Most of them are not selective.
00:10:09.580 If students go attend one of those schools and they go home to a family or off to a job,
00:10:14.360 there's no way they're going to buy into this very arcane worldview in which words are violence
00:10:19.840 and they need safety from books.
00:10:22.720 That kind of morality can only flourish if there's very little diversity.
00:10:27.520 There's no other political diversity.
00:10:29.020 If students are kept together for four years, under certain circumstances, this arcane,
00:10:35.580 moralistic worldview can flourish.
00:10:38.100 And that seems to happen especially at liberal arts colleges in the Northeast and the West Coast.
00:10:43.580 That's where the problem seems to be strongest.
00:10:45.660 So when Sachs said it's not happening at most schools, we had to realize, you know what?
00:10:51.060 He's probably right.
00:10:52.040 Like we don't know.
00:10:52.620 We don't have data from most schools, but it's probably not happening at most schools.
00:10:56.120 But if you just look at, say, the top hundred, from what we hear from people there, students and faculty, it is happening.
00:11:03.760 People are more afraid to speak up.
00:11:06.100 Bad things can happen if you challenge the prevailing view.
00:11:08.800 And it's not because most students have suddenly gone off the deep end.
00:11:12.560 They haven't.
00:11:13.760 This is another good thing from Sachs' challenge is we had to refine our argument and say it's not due to a big change in the average student.
00:11:21.760 It's due to a big change in the dynamics so that now the sort of a subset of students who are very angry and who buy into some views that we can debate, but, you know, I think are bad ideas.
00:11:34.380 A subset of students who buy into certain ideas now is allowed to ride roughshod over everyone else and people are afraid to stand up to them.
00:11:41.080 So it's a change in the dynamics.
00:11:42.440 Yeah, I mean, the dynamics are interesting because I think our intuitions about just how many people in a group are required to kind of nullify the intentions and the aspirations of the whole group are pretty bad.
00:11:57.760 I mean, it doesn't take 50 percent of a group to turn the tide against the rest.
00:12:02.740 Mm-hmm, that's right.
00:12:04.320 And with social media, so a lot of our conversation, like a lot of many conversations, will probably be about social media and what happens.
00:12:13.440 How does the system change when you have various things and forces in balance and then you suddenly increase connectivity by a factor of 100?
00:12:22.100 How do things change?
00:12:23.360 And so an essential term here is call-out culture.
00:12:26.800 This is what the students themselves call it.
00:12:28.520 Anytime you're in a culture in which you can be, you know, behaving as you've always behaved and suddenly someone will pick on one word, one thing you said, and there could be no end of trouble for you.
00:12:38.860 There could be shame, humiliation, mobbing.
00:12:41.140 When you are in such an environment, even if it's only one or two percent of your fellow students who would do that to you, it'll likely have an effect on your behavior.
00:12:50.020 Just to be clear, this is not just a problem on college campuses.
00:12:53.220 We're seeing this because, first of all, people graduate from college and they enter the workforce from these colleges at a very high level.
00:13:01.200 So we see this sort of thing now at companies like Google.
00:13:04.700 Among software engineers, we see it at the New York Times in what was happening to Barry Weiss.
00:13:10.520 I don't know if you recall when the Slack channel for the New York Times was published and Barry had said something about,
00:13:16.920 she had made a joke about immigrants, so they get the job done, quoting Hamilton.
00:13:22.300 This was during the Olympics and she named an Asian-American figure skater, I believe, who, in fact, was not an immigrant, but she was merely the daughter of immigrants.
00:13:32.080 So it was marginalizing to say they get the job done.
00:13:34.480 That's right.
00:13:35.380 We got a glimpse of what the back channel discussions were like at the New York Times,
00:13:39.040 and they seem very much to be of a piece with the kinds of triggering effects you describe in your book on college campuses.
00:13:45.680 That's right.
00:13:46.600 So when our article came out in 2015, a lot of people said, oh, come on, you know, students protest.
00:13:52.560 This is student culture.
00:13:53.960 As soon as they go out into the real world, they'll have to drop this stuff.
00:13:57.240 You know, once they are hired in a corporation, the corporation is not going to stand for, you know, for this way of behaving and this very confrontational way of addressing hurt feelings.
00:14:07.320 And we didn't know what would happen.
00:14:08.760 But it turns out, yes, as you say, it became especially clear in 2017 with the Google memo and with a variety of other ways that these norms have spread out into some parts of the corporate world, primarily those that hire, I think, creatives from the elite universities.
00:14:24.200 That's where this culture is most intense.
00:14:26.920 So, you know, if you were to look at a mining company based in Colorado, I bet you'd see no trace of it.
00:14:31.680 Right. Yeah.
00:14:32.380 But yes, from what I hear at top media companies, at the New York Times, at the Atlantic, there's a big generational divide.
00:14:38.920 And this is very important for people to understand.
00:14:40.520 Whether you're on the left or the right, if you're over 30 or 35, you believe in free speech.
00:14:47.140 And a lot of people on the left in journalism are looking at these new norms and saying, wait a sec, what is this?
00:14:54.020 So this is not it's not, you know, while there is a left right aspect to it, unfortunately, it's more of a generational divide.
00:15:01.820 There's a set of new understandings among young people.
00:15:04.180 And we should go into why that is, because when every, you know, part of my whole approach to morality is that we all live in a moral world.
00:15:13.480 We all live in a moral world, a moral matrix.
00:15:16.320 And it's not things don't happen because they're evil people out there pushing the evil ideas.
00:15:20.600 They happen because there are good people pushing their ideas about virtue or goodness that end up producing some bad effects.
00:15:28.260 And I think that's what's happening here.
00:15:29.740 So we just we should just be very clear. This isn't about bashing young people or Gen X or iGen.
00:15:34.860 This is about understanding how a new morality emerged, which prioritizes inclusion and diversity, which are good, good things, of course.
00:15:43.280 But it prioritizes them in a way that I think sets us up for unending conflict in all of our institutions.
00:15:50.860 Well, I want to get into the root cause of this problem and talk about your three great untruths, which I think was a great way to structure your analysis here.
00:16:00.240 But before we broaden the focus, I just want to give an example of the kind of thing that has happened on some of these college campuses that has motivated you to pay attention to this problem.
00:16:11.400 Because I've had a lot of attention to it, but the details of some of these cases were still blurry to me.
00:16:18.720 And it is just amazing to consider what has been happening.
00:16:22.880 So I think let's just talk about the Dean Spellman case at Claremont McKenna College.
00:16:28.100 Yeah, that's a really, really clear one.
00:16:30.180 Yeah, sure.
00:16:30.740 No, let me see if I can tell the story very briefly.
00:16:32.700 So Claremont McKenna College out in Los Angeles, there was a student whose parents had emigrated from Mexico.
00:16:42.520 And so she was born in California.
00:16:46.440 She's a student at CMC.
00:16:48.140 And she writes an essay in some, I think it's a campus publication.
00:16:51.100 She writes an essay talking about how marginalized she feels.
00:16:54.980 And, you know, she makes some points about what it's like to be seen as an affirmative action, admit, to be on a campus where all the people like you or most of the people like you are the gardeners rather than the professional staff.
00:17:06.380 So, you know, it's a perfectly reasonable essay for a student to write.
00:17:11.560 And then in response to that, the Dean of Students, Mary Spellman, sends for private email, just person to person, private email.
00:17:19.800 And I'll read you the whole email.
00:17:20.540 So, Olivia, we changed her name here, but Olivia, thank you for writing and sharing this article with me.
00:17:26.860 We have a lot to do as a college and community.
00:17:29.260 Would you be willing to talk with me sometime about these issues?
00:17:32.100 They're important to me and the Dean of Students staff, and we're working on how we can better serve students, especially those who don't fit our CMC mold.
00:17:39.540 I'd love to talk with you more.
00:17:41.380 So, Olivia posted this email on her webpage, and it's not quite that a riot ensued, but she invited people to comment on it.
00:17:50.540 To share her outrage.
00:17:52.200 Now, I leave it to the listeners to find the outrage.
00:17:54.480 What was she outraged about?
00:17:56.340 I guess you read the book, Sam, so you know.
00:17:58.780 Yeah.
00:17:59.120 It was the use of the word mold.
00:18:00.680 Yeah.
00:18:00.820 The amazing thing is that it hinges on a single word, and this is way beyond a campus problem,
00:18:06.400 but the dynamics of this is that it is to seize upon the worst possible interpretation of, in this case, a single word.
00:18:15.900 I think with the understanding that the author of, in this case, Dean Spelman, couldn't have possibly intended those worst possible associations with that word.
00:18:28.780 Oh, but intent doesn't matter, Sam.
00:18:30.740 Intent doesn't matter.
00:18:32.560 Now, you and I know that basic moral psychology is not, you know, if somebody bumps into you, we don't say they've done something immoral unless they meant to.
00:18:41.160 If they intended to push you, it's immoral.
00:18:42.740 But if they tripped or if it's an accident, then we say, no, you know, you didn't mean it.
00:18:47.100 Okay.
00:18:47.460 You apologized.
00:18:48.320 We're done.
00:18:49.040 But that's the old-fashioned, otherwise known as the universal view of morality, which is that intent matters primarily for judgment, not outcome, or not impact, as they say.
00:19:00.140 But the new doctrine is intent doesn't matter.
00:19:02.980 It's impact.
00:19:03.860 And so if something makes someone feel marginalized or victimized, then they have been marginalized or victimized.
00:19:12.800 And this is a really, really good way to set students up to be really hurt and angry often.
00:19:18.900 And that's why the subtitle of our book is How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.
00:19:26.140 So, yeah, in any normal world, even if she felt a flash of, like, this mold, what is this word?
00:19:35.280 Well, it turns out it's actually a word that they use on campus a lot to talk about how there is a standard prototype, you know, waspy, jockey sort of white person.
00:19:42.920 So, fine, you know, that's the prototype.
00:19:44.720 And Dean Spellman is trying to help people who don't fit it.
00:19:47.520 So, but yes, as you say, the goal of discourse is to find the worst possible reading so that you can call them out and then you get the prestige for identifying a racist or something like that.
00:20:01.140 So I think we should linger on why intentions should matter, but let's just close Dean Spellman's case.
00:20:07.560 So what happened in the aftermath?
00:20:09.180 All right. So Olivia posts the email on her Facebook page and she says, her comment is, I just don't fit that wonderful CMC mold.
00:20:21.760 Feel free to share.
00:20:23.160 So her friends took that invitation and they did share it and added their outrage about the event.
00:20:27.820 And that sparked a wave of giant protests.
00:20:30.920 There were marches, demonstrations.
00:20:32.740 As usually happens, there's usually a list of demands given to the president.
00:20:35.880 And it almost always includes mandatory diversity training for everyone.
00:20:39.820 And this is key, demands that Spellman resign.
00:20:43.360 So in the new call-out culture, it's not enough to shame someone.
00:20:46.200 You have to appeal to an authority to get them fired or punished or renounced.
00:20:50.620 And the leadership there did what leadership at almost all universities does, which is they don't stand up for the person being attacked.
00:20:57.560 They don't stand up for their faculty.
00:20:59.200 They try to placate the angriest students.
00:21:01.800 They do what they can to basically buy peace.
00:21:05.140 And in so doing, they validate the narrative that CMC, like all schools in America, is so deeply institutionally racist that it needs radical reform.
00:21:13.740 Why do you think the administrations are so craven in the face of these?
00:21:18.840 What clearly, I think, would take 15 minutes to assess are moral panics.
00:21:24.860 Yes, that's right.
00:21:26.200 It is a moral panic.
00:21:27.760 And we should return to that.
00:21:28.880 And we should note that there are moral panics on both sides.
00:21:31.340 The right-wing media is in a moral panic about this, just as the students are.
00:21:35.780 So there's enough craziness to go around.
00:21:38.380 But yeah, I've wondered about that, too.
00:21:39.800 Why did the universities almost always, why did the leaders almost always show no backbone?
00:21:45.000 And I think it's in part because they could not understand this.
00:21:48.220 So in the first year, nobody stood up.
00:21:50.340 There wasn't a single college president except for the president at Ohio State when he said, when they occupied his office.
00:21:56.280 And he said, OK, you've made everyone here in this building feel unsafe.
00:22:03.500 I'm going home now.
00:22:04.900 The police will come at 7 a.m.
00:22:06.400 And anyone here will be arrested.
00:22:08.000 So then the protesters left.
00:22:09.900 When presidents, and also at Oberlin, when they gave the president there the list of demand, they gave him the ultimatum.
00:22:16.280 And he said, I don't do ultimatums.
00:22:18.120 If you want to come talk to me, my door is open, but I don't do ultimatums.
00:22:21.080 And then they, you know, retracted it and met with him.
00:22:25.160 So the point is that the students are in part, they're in part, they're behaving that way because there's been a vacuum of leadership.
00:22:33.280 There's not any clear moral order.
00:22:36.020 And so things just sort of drift to more radical, more confrontational approaches.
00:22:41.260 And then we should say that Spellman did wind up resigning.
00:22:44.040 Yes, correct.
00:22:44.680 That's right.
00:22:45.000 She did resign.
00:22:45.720 The university leadership never stood up for her, never said a word publicly to defend her.
00:22:50.760 They didn't fire her, of course.
00:22:51.940 I mean, they couldn't possibly fire her.
00:22:53.260 But, you know, you can imagine what it would be like to be, you know, a dean of students.
00:22:58.400 I mean, she seems like a, you know, you can see, you can watch the videos.
00:23:00.920 If you Google CMC student protests, you can find them.
00:23:05.940 You know, she seems like a very sweet woman who is the dean of students.
00:23:08.940 And to have students, you know, swarming around, you can watch.
00:23:11.840 I mean, it looks kind of like one of those shame circles from the Cultural Revolution.
00:23:16.980 You know, in a circle, berating her through a megaphone.
00:23:21.220 I'm sure she was quite, well, I hate to say traumatized, but I mean, this really would
00:23:24.960 be traumatizing to have everyone calling you a racist and demanding that you be fired.
00:23:29.740 And I think she was castigated for falling asleep in one of these meetings.
00:23:34.380 But really, she was just trying to hold back tears.
00:23:36.880 I mean, it was just like, this is...
00:23:37.940 Yeah, that's right.
00:23:38.220 You watch the video.
00:23:39.120 And again, it's so, you know, at one point she closes her eyes and she's squeezing her eyes
00:23:43.020 show.
00:23:43.160 I mean, you can't see very clearly, but it's, you know, a woman berates her, says, and she's
00:23:48.140 even falling asleep while we're talking to her.
00:23:50.340 No, she's crying.
00:23:52.100 Anyway, so the whole thing is really horrible to watch.
00:23:54.660 And there are a number of these stories, a number of these situations.
00:23:58.540 And most Americans don't know about them.
00:24:00.700 So let's just pause for a second to talk about the underlying ethics of intentions and
00:24:06.400 I guess apologies.
00:24:07.940 I mean, it's pretty interesting to me to see, and this goes far wider than the kinds
00:24:14.760 of cases we're talking about, but just what are the criteria for an apology being accepted?
00:24:22.020 We're witnessing now on social media, the casual and in many cases, warranted destruction
00:24:28.160 of people's reputations.
00:24:30.320 And I mean, this goes out to, you know, the Me Too phenomenon.
00:24:33.920 And I mean, just this is now ubiquitous in our lives.
00:24:36.240 We're seeing people who just issue a stream of, or a single unfortunate tweet, and this
00:24:43.220 comes back to haunt them.
00:24:44.540 And, you know, they're either destroyed or not, depending on kind of the luck of the draw
00:24:48.820 in many cases.
00:24:50.100 And often there's an attempt to apologize and the sort of degrees of sincerity here.
00:24:57.780 But all of this runs to the significance of what a person actually intends by his or her
00:25:04.860 actions and how those actions are perceived by others and the mismatch there.
00:25:09.420 And then what is subsequently said to clarify intention, or even when intentions were in fact
00:25:17.240 bad or less than perfect, how is it that an apology can thereafter matter and redeem a
00:25:24.620 person?
00:25:24.900 So how do you think about this?
00:25:26.320 So I think you're focusing a little bit too much on the dynamics of the interaction between
00:25:30.600 the people calling for the person's head and the person who's being accused.
00:25:35.680 I think that's not the right place to focus.
00:25:37.480 The right place to focus is on the dynamics between the person calling for the person's
00:25:42.300 head and all the other members of that person's team or side.
00:25:46.040 So the way I like to think about things is, I'm a social psychologist, so, you know, you
00:25:52.600 often hear it said in journalism, follow the money.
00:25:55.580 And if you know who's paying off who, you understand what the motives are, you can unravel
00:25:59.700 the mystery.
00:26:00.740 Well, for a social psychologist, I would say, follow the prestige.
00:26:04.740 What is it that one gets prestige for doing?
00:26:07.820 Now, everybody of all ages is interested in prestige, but especially for young adults
00:26:12.340 who are working it out, it's really, really important, and especially in a new environment
00:26:16.100 like college.
00:26:16.760 So what do you do to gain prestige?
00:26:18.420 Is it being a great athlete?
00:26:20.100 Is it being beautiful?
00:26:21.500 Is it being smart?
00:26:23.000 And it varies.
00:26:23.840 Depends on your subculture.
00:26:24.900 Depends on the school.
00:26:26.140 But you have to understand the economy of prestige.
00:26:28.900 What is it that earns you prestige?
00:26:30.000 And I think what has changed since 2013 or 2014 is that we've seen the growth of a new
00:26:37.020 economy of prestige in which you gain prestige by calling out others, by essentially accusing
00:26:42.900 them of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, or some other form of bigotry.
00:26:47.980 Now, if you think about this, imagine, you know, many of your listeners will know the term
00:26:52.240 externalities from economics.
00:26:54.160 You know, when I save money by buying a diesel car, but it imposes an externality on the
00:27:01.080 world because my car pollutes.
00:27:03.580 Well, in the same way, if we have an economy of prestige in which I gain prestige by accusing
00:27:10.000 others of racism or calling them out for various forms of bigotry, there's an externality,
00:27:16.140 namely all the people that I am accusing every day.
00:27:19.660 You know, it's like, imagine if we were all paid by the bullet.
00:27:21.920 You just, here's a gun, here's a thousand rounds of ammo, just shoot, shoot as much
00:27:26.060 as you can.
00:27:26.620 You get paid by the bullet.
00:27:27.420 Doesn't matter where it hits, just shoot.
00:27:29.540 And I think that's what we have unleashed on some campuses.
00:27:32.000 Again, not most campuses.
00:27:33.580 You know, if you go to schools in the South or the lower Midwest or the mountain areas,
00:27:37.220 I don't think it's as much.
00:27:38.380 But along the coastal strip of the West Coast, not inland, but the coastal strip of the West
00:27:42.340 Coast and New England at elite schools.
00:27:45.840 And again, not so much in the business school, not in the engineering departments, but in some
00:27:50.660 of the humanities departments and education schools, there are sub, there are sub areas
00:27:55.200 of universities where this new economy of prestige has taken root.
00:28:00.000 So that's the way I analyze it.
00:28:02.180 Well, so this reveals why it is totally divorced from any good faith interaction with the intentions
00:28:10.280 of the person you're targeting.
00:28:11.840 Exactly.
00:28:12.760 If your eyes are on your group and the stock price of your prestige in your group, you're
00:28:18.400 not actually detecting the thought crime you're claiming to detect in other people because
00:28:24.140 you don't actually care what their intentions were.
00:28:26.600 That's right.
00:28:27.340 And I think it causes so many problems for a closed system like a university where you
00:28:35.400 could, you know, here we are, we're all trying to create diverse cohorts, diverse institutions.
00:28:42.180 We're pretty much all in favor of diversity in universities.
00:28:45.740 So we're trying to create this kind of a culture in which the potential for risk for offense
00:28:52.660 taking is huge.
00:28:54.500 You know, if you have people from all over the world, you have people from all different
00:28:58.300 ethnicities.
00:28:58.880 So we're putting people together in ways where it could be like a tinderbox.
00:29:03.480 And what we should be doing is teaching them skills of how do you get along and not give
00:29:08.360 offense?
00:29:08.800 How do you give less offense?
00:29:10.300 And how do you take less offense?
00:29:11.580 But instead, again, not everywhere, but in some subcultures, we're teaching people to
00:29:17.180 take maximum offense, be maximally flammable, as it were.
00:29:21.400 And then, of course, we have all these fires breaking out.
00:29:25.000 So then, again, just to back up here, why should intentions matter?
00:29:28.880 Why is the status quo we're describing here such a moral error?
00:29:34.640 Because normal human morality, I think you and I both agree, normal human morality is
00:29:40.260 an adaptation shaped by natural selection to facilitate cooperation.
00:29:45.400 Morality is about having the traits or virtue and character or about having traits that make
00:29:50.840 you a good partner for cooperation.
00:29:52.980 And so if somebody harms you deliberately, you need to know that and write that person off.
00:29:58.880 If they harm you accidentally, it would be foolish to write them off.
00:30:01.480 You know, everybody harms people accidentally.
00:30:03.300 And if you wrote off your family members, you know, when they offended you, you know,
00:30:07.940 or hurt your feelings, especially if they didn't mean to, none of us would have any family.
00:30:11.760 So we have to pay attention to intent.
00:30:14.760 That's what matters to judge a person's character.
00:30:16.940 But as I said, this is not a game.
00:30:20.040 This is not really about what happens between the offender and the offended.
00:30:23.720 This is a game of what happens between the offended and all the other people that the offended person is signaling to.
00:30:31.840 So following from there on the kind of primacy of intention, how do you think we should define bigotry?
00:30:38.240 Well, so I think the central definition should focus on intent.
00:30:42.460 The central definition should focus on some element of hostility or negative evaluation.
00:30:48.940 And so the term microaggression could be a useful term if it was limited to small acts that convey hostility, dislike, contempt.
00:31:01.520 So I think that would do most of the work for us if we focused on intent.
00:31:04.500 Now, that would still leave something that would need to be addressed.
00:31:09.320 And, you know, again, my approach is to say if there's a moral concept, there probably is something good, useful, or true behind it.
00:31:16.920 And so the people who promote the idea of microaggressions are saying, you know, even if people aren't hostile to me,
00:31:25.940 if they keep asking me where I'm from because I have dark skin or I look Asian or I look like I'm from the Middle East,
00:31:31.700 and they keep saying, where are you from? And it's clear that, you know, my answer of New Jersey doesn't satisfy them
00:31:36.840 because what they really want to know is where are my parents from?
00:31:39.260 You know, so I can see that if you repeatedly are asked that, it could get tiresome.
00:31:43.880 And so I think it's good to have a term for that.
00:31:47.700 It's good to train students to not do things that might make students feel self-conscious or make them feel bad.
00:31:55.780 You know, black students sometimes say people touch their hair.
00:31:58.080 OK, now, maybe the person who touches their hair might say, well, I'm just curious.
00:32:01.520 You know, I didn't mean anything by it. And maybe they didn't.
00:32:03.880 But like, that's really rude. OK, so, you know, we need a term for that.
00:32:07.600 But the term should not be aggression. The term should be a faux pas or something like that.
00:32:12.560 It should be something foolish.
00:32:14.120 So I would be totally fine with training students.
00:32:16.860 If we're going to do this experiment of putting together a very diverse student body,
00:32:21.700 I think we should do some training and norms of how to get along and give less offense.
00:32:25.860 But if we teach students about microaggressions and we teach them to follow their feelings
00:32:31.580 so that if they feel offended, then they were attacked.
00:32:34.880 And if they were attacked, then they need to call this number.
00:32:38.180 Here's the number for the bias response team.
00:32:40.020 You can find it in the bathroom of every on every bathroom at NYU.
00:32:43.280 When I go to the bathroom, there's a sign they're telling students three ways they can report me
00:32:47.360 if I say something that offends them.
00:32:49.080 So I think what we're doing here is when this is the second grade on truth in our book
00:32:52.620 is always trust your feelings. Don't allow anybody to challenge them or to say,
00:32:57.440 maybe you've interpreted this incorrectly.
00:32:59.340 Yeah, so we'll get to these untruths in a second.
00:33:01.780 Again, just to capture what we care about here that may be beyond intentions,
00:33:08.260 I certainly don't have an up-to-the-minute sense of, you know, what has been replicated.
00:33:12.280 Perhaps you do.
00:33:12.980 But some research suggests that there really is a problem here that is very likely outside
00:33:19.480 the conscious understanding of any person who may or may not have bad intentions.
00:33:25.120 And I think it's nowhere more clearly expressed than in these resume or CV tests that we have
00:33:32.320 heard about where you send out identical resumes and you just change the name, in one case being
00:33:39.040 a, you know, WASP-y name with white connotations and in another name that has, you know, obvious
00:33:44.380 black connotations. And you see a very different pattern, or so it's reported, in callbacks for
00:33:51.200 interviews. I guess, one, I'm just asking you if you know what the status of that research is and
00:33:55.440 can we rely on it? And two, that does seem like a problem worth worrying about that really does slip
00:34:02.160 this net of any person's individual intentions.
00:34:04.940 Sure. So a couple things about this. One is, I don't doubt that there are many of those studies
00:34:09.280 and many of them find that result. An important thing to note is that in general, changing the
00:34:14.520 name of the person matters. But when you look at the race or sex of the person doing the judging,
00:34:20.380 it tends not to matter that much. In other words, it's not just that white men are bigots against
00:34:25.520 everyone else. It's that people in a, you know, is that professors, let's say, or wherever it's done,
00:34:30.880 professors have different expectations about a person based on their race or gender.
00:34:37.680 So that's one thing. And here we should bring up Lee Justin's work on stereotype accuracy.
00:34:41.940 If we live in a world in which there are, in fact, correlations between things,
00:34:45.760 there's no way we can stop people from noticing those correlations. So I don't doubt that people
00:34:50.960 have stereotypes and that people do act on those stereotypes. And those stereotypes tend to be
00:34:54.940 shared across demographic groups. That's one thing. Second, I think that would certainly count as a kind
00:35:00.380 of racism or prejudice. It is a judgment of people based on their category membership. That's not
00:35:06.760 systemic racism. Systemic racism and sexism is something different. That means there's something
00:35:11.520 about the structure of the institution that ends up disadvantaging members of certain groups,
00:35:16.540 even if nobody, no individual in the institution holds prejudiced attitudes. So that's a very important
00:35:24.480 concept. Now, I don't doubt that that is real and it matters. But what I think is really important for us
00:35:29.480 to all understand is what does it take to show systemic prejudice? And I heard your talk with
00:35:36.580 Coleman Hughes, who's wonderful, and he put his finger on one of them. You cannot just say,
00:35:44.020 oh, look, you know, women are only 30% of the physicists, therefore it's systemically sexist
00:35:48.600 against them. You cannot just point to differences of outcome and say this proves systemic sexism or
00:35:55.620 racism. You have to look at the pipeline. And only if the pipeline of very qualified people
00:36:02.280 coming in is very different from the people getting hired, then now you're off and running. Now you can
00:36:07.620 start saying there might be some systemic problem in the institution. So that's the first thing is
00:36:12.200 when I ask students, okay, give me an example. It's almost always two categories. Examples of systemic
00:36:18.940 sexism, prejudices, et cetera, are almost always underrepresentation, which, as I say, is not
00:36:24.320 sufficient. It might be a reason to look into it, but it's not proof. It's not even necessarily
00:36:28.800 evidence. And the other thing that people point to is individual cases. So like at Yale, there was a
00:36:36.020 really ugly case where, you know, it was a few months ago, where a woman, a grad student, there
00:36:41.460 was a black woman sleeping on a sofa in a common area, and she called the police on this woman.
00:36:46.400 Now this is obviously racism. She obviously thought, oh, this is a fellow student. So this is racism.
00:36:52.700 Okay, but now does this mean that Yale is racist? And if your goal is to prosecute to the maximum
00:36:59.940 possible, if your goal is to show how everyone and everything is racist, then you say this shows
00:37:06.680 that Yale is racist. Yale must do more, still more diversity training. When in fact, I think the way
00:37:11.560 to look at this is, yes, here was an act of racism, and it's appropriate for that woman to feel very ashamed
00:37:16.820 of herself. And if Yale has, I don't know, 15,000, 20,000 people in it, and if this sort of thing is
00:37:23.700 happening every day, and especially if it happens every day and people don't care, well, wow, that
00:37:28.560 would be a systemically racist place. But you cannot take zero as the only acceptable number of
00:37:34.260 racial or sexist incidents. In other words, if you have a group of 20,000 people, and there are three
00:37:39.360 cases like this per year, that would be amazingly good. Like, I can't imagine any human institution
00:37:44.280 that would get that close to zero. And then, of course, if you factor in misunderstandings,
00:37:49.240 now here there was not a misunderstanding, but often people mishear each other, someone says
00:37:53.220 that it was a joke. So no human institution will ever get down to zero per year. That's just not
00:37:58.580 possible. And so you can't take instances as evidence of systemic racism or sexism.
00:38:04.520 It's interesting because the leading edge of this ethically and politically for me are those cases where
00:38:09.920 you really just have the perfect instance of just kind of no bright lines. As you say,
00:38:16.480 there are cases where stereotypes are more or less accurate. We have stereotypes very often for a
00:38:22.360 reason. And those are cases where otherwise well-intentioned people can be caught out as
00:38:30.440 essentially spreading this impression of racism or bigotry where it probably doesn't exist, or at least
00:38:37.480 doesn't exist at the level of bad intentions. I don't know the Yale case specifically, but let me
00:38:42.960 just take, you know, violence in the black community among, you know, men age 18 to 24. If you go to
00:38:50.340 inner city Chicago and decide to be blind to the statistical reality that there is way more violence
00:38:58.960 among young black men than in other populations, you're just being willfully blind to what is in fact
00:39:06.340 a reality. So you could imagine someone in a coffee shop in Chicago seeing a young black man
00:39:14.500 in, you know, some situation that's analogous to the one you describe at Yale, right? So someone who
00:39:20.320 seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and having this, you know, reaction, you know, calling
00:39:26.440 the police and it turns out to be totally unwarranted, right? Now, in that case, what's interesting for me
00:39:33.480 is, does the person feel ashamed to have done that? You know, ashamed at the misunderstanding?
00:39:40.440 The shame there is a measure of, I would argue, the person not being racist in the primary sense,
00:39:47.080 if you'd like to continue listening to this conversation you'll need to subscribe at
00:39:54.580 samharris.org once you do you'll get access to all full-length episodes of the making sense
00:39:59.260 podcast along with other subscriber only content including bonus episodes and amas and the
00:40:05.520 conversations i've been having on the waking up app the making sense podcast is ad free
00:40:09.920 and relies entirely on listener support and you can subscribe now at samharris.org
00:40:17.080 you