All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
47:30
Amy Wax — “Can America Handle ‘Race Realism’? Can It Survive Without It?” (2024)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Amy Wax has been a professor at Penn Law School for more than 20 years.
As it happens, she and I overlapped at Yale as undergraduates, but we didn't know each other.
I suspect many of you have followed the saga of Professor Wax's persecution by Penn.
But I'll briefly summarize.
For years, she has given offense.
For example, she had the temerity to state that certain cultures are better than others.
She also said that I don't think I've ever seen a black student graduate at the top quarter of the class and rarely, rarely in the top half.
Now, no data was ever presented to refute this, but having said so was a great offense.
These and other comments.
Some alleged, some probably real, hurt the feelings of those whose feelings we must never hurt.
But one of her blackest crimes was to invite your servant to speak to her class several times, a class called Conservative Political and Legal Thought.
You see, I am, according to the law school, not just a white supremacist, but a renowned white supremacist.
Well, I'm not a white supremacist.
I would think that if a professor were going to invite an example of anything, choose a renowned one, not some penny ante example.
And so in early 2022, the law school started formal proceedings against Professor Wax that could result in stripping her of tenure and firing her.
So last year...
She was in the thick of this extremely burdensome, time-consuming legal procedure.
She was suffering debilitating cancer treatments.
And I thought, well, what are the chances that she'll invite me back to speak this year?
Well, I misjudged Amy Wax.
I think many people have, many times.
She never apologized.
She never gave an inch.
And so, last fall, there I was, back on campus.
But the class went very well.
But while the class was going on, about 60, 70, 80 demonstrators had gathered.
And by the time we stepped out of the class, there they were.
And they began to yell.
They began to chant.
And guess what they said?
One, two, three, four.
Amy, wax.
There's the door.
Five, six, seven, eight.
Penn law tolerates hate.
Idiotic stuff.
But still, a kind of potentially intimidating thing.
Now, most professors...
They would just scurry it off to their office.
Not Amy Wax.
She went up, up, all and down the line, and with her cell phone, took pictures of the people who were doing this.
And in what is perhaps her greatest act of defiance, she's done us the great honor to be willing to be with us today.
So please welcome the most fearless academic in the United States of America.
Amy Walsh.
Thank you.
Okay, well, fearless might not be it.
Reckless. Reckless certainly applies.
But in a good cause.
So thank you very much for inviting me.
Thank you to my good friend Jared Taylor for inviting me today.
And I owe him because he has a number of times made the trip up to the city of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, to speak to my class.
And I greatly appreciate that.
And he's coming again in early December.
And my class is very much looking forward to that.
I will try to stay within time here so that we can have comments and questions at the end, which is always the best part, of course, and the part from which I learn the most.
So the topic here is race realism, a topic that those in the audience, of course, are not unfamiliar with.
Up until recently, I would not have called myself a race realist.
When interviewed by the New York Sun a while ago, I rejected that designation.
But through reading and thinking about the issues surrounding group differences, I have come to embrace the term.
This despite the fact that in my mind, the term race realism doesn't have a single settled meaning.
In fact, it's a matter of degree.
And of course, this doesn't prevent the left opinion makers, the truculent arbiters of our language and our words.
As they are, as they function, from using it as a broad brush pejorative and depicting its proponents as unenlightened bigots and worse.
In attempting to counter this panicky opposition, I have learned that selling race realism, more broadly, is actually a multi-stage process and one that meets opposition all along the way,
at every turn, at every step.
Defining and defending race realism is a little bit like climbing a tall, formidable mountain, a ziggurat, in fact, an arduous process not for the faint of heart.
The first hurdle to race realism, one that realists don't talk much about, but it looms very large in the academic world, is the dogma that, quote, race is not real, unquote.
The contention is that racial categories are mere social constructs, contrivances of an oppressive system of white supremacy.
What does that imply for race realism?
Since racial categories are somehow not real, they're made up, arbitrary, then supposed differences between racial groups are correspondingly unreal, made up.
Arbitrary as well and cannot be the basis for any valid assertions or predictions about social life.
To my mind, this is an incoherent contention, but it turns out, and I speak from experience, That countering it is not all that easy, and I learned this the hard way by mounting a failed opposition to the hiring of a professor at my school,
a professor named Dorothy Roberts, someone who just recently got a MacArthur Genius Award, who centered her entire scholarship around the unreality of race.
That's all I'm going to say about this topic for now, but I'm happy to answer questions about it.
Moving on to the second obstacle, race realists encounter a widespread reluctance even to acknowledge the basic facts of group differences, including especially black-white differences in measured intelligence,
in crime rates, in family structure.
All of these are particularly sensitive topics.
And, of course, there are other categories, executive function, conscientiousness, As has been recently documented, even the rudimentary first step towards race realism, which is empiricism,
is a powerful taboo in our society.
The acknowledgement of simple facts and the opposition to it is illustrated with two books I recently read and reviewed in I wouldn't call it the mainstream media.
Let's call it the right-wing media.
Charles Murray's Facing Reality and Richard Hanani's The Origins of Woke.
In Facing Reality, Charles Murray thoroughly documents the fact of these two already mentioned black-white disparities, IQ, and crime rates, and these are both significant.
Murray also notes...
That strenuous, prolonged past efforts to close these gaps haven't succeeded.
And of course, he alludes to the differences in family structure, the plethora of single parenthood and the like, and the needle has not moved on those either, except that the rates have risen.
This situation, he asserts, Has implications for all sorts of social patterns, school admissions, job prospects, performance, other behaviors, the character of neighborhoods.
Well, we all know.
Now, in Hanania's book, the author does not make these realities a focus of his attention, although he doesn't deny them.
Rather, he concentrates on the laws, programs, and governmental and private practices that are pervasive in our society and designed to affect equal outcomes for blacks and all other ethnic groups.
These, I assert in my review, are manifestations of a powerful equalitarian imperative that now controls our civil rights practices, And controls our minds and the minds of our young people.
And I question Henania's insufficient emphasis on that imperative.
It's actually based on a delusion.
The belief that all groups have equal, if merely latent, ability and competency for social roles and demands in our society.
This delusion is widespread.
Powerful, and highly moralized.
And the worship of diversity, equity, and inclusion priorities that all our institutions must honor come out of it.
They are based on this delusion.
Both Murray and Hanani have in common that they advocate a return to a largely colorblind meritocratic society.
Murray calls this the American Creed.
However, neither author really grapples with what a colorblind meritocratic society would look like in light of the facts of actual group differences.
They never fully confront the inevitable result, an extreme scarcity of black faces in high places, and even greater racial inequality than we have today, greater stratification than we have today.
As Nathan Kofnes, an unabashed race realist, puts it in his essay on Substack, and he is a Cambridge philosopher who has written extensively on these topics and got into tremendous trouble because of it, quote,
in a meritocracy, Harvard faculty would be recruited from the best and the brightest, which means the number of black professors would approach zero percent.
Blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile position outside of sports and entertainment.
Now, these are facts that most people, and not just elites, do not comprehend.
And they are not informed about them.
They are not ready to accept them.
As someone or other tweeted not long ago, When people realize that race-blind admissions means only 0.5% of medical students will be black, and you can crunch the numbers and see that result, that is bound to produce surprise and dismay.
And who knows what the effect would be on the embrace of colorblindness.
Yet another set of obstacles to even the basic facts and empirics Surrounds the use of IQ and IQ tests.
Doubts are repeatedly expressed among the educated about what IQ tests actually measure other than the ability to do well on an IQ test.
Do they assess fixed attributes?
Are these qualities significant?
Are they predictive?
Are they important?
Or are IQ tests culturally And racially biased.
And do they fail to bring out latent ability?
Latent ability is sort of like phlogiston.
It's really not something you can see or touch.
It's kind of a figment of the imagination.
All of these challenges are tied to a broader conversation, a serious one, about definitions of merit and the meritocracy.
Raising a further set of questions about whether we should adopt meritocratic practices across the board in economic and social life and beyond, and whether meritocracy requires colorblindness or sometimes color consciousness as a practical matter in sorting people.
These are serious questions.
Defending merit and colorblindness is not straightforward, and many on the left, and even some on the right, are not completely sold on it, as evinced by critiques by commentators like Michael Sandel, Freddie DeBoers, Paige Harden,
as well as John McWhorter, Bo Weingart, Sean Last, and the responses to Coleman Hughes' new book, That is a full-throated defense of colorblindness called the end of race politics.
The case is further complicated by important questions, which race realists and denialists rarely take on, about how society should deal fairly and justly with the reality of unearned disparities in intelligence or other traits that bear on success in our system.
Unearned endowments is the term that lefties like to use.
Of course, the truly formidable hurdles to race realism pertain to questions of the source of observed group differences.
That is the relative contribution of nature versus nurture, of social conditions versus innate traits that are written in our DNA.
It is in dealing with the question of whether group differences are mostly malleable or fixed that opposition to race realism acquires its most moralistic fervor and indignant opposition.
Here I myself have identified two types of race realism, especially on intelligence, soft and hard.
The former, soft, attributes group disparities to either cultural influences or social influences, including past discrimination, present racism, structural racism, the whole lefty litany of degrees of phlogiston.
The latter, hard realism, acknowledges an important innate hereditary component, and I don't know anybody.
In behavioral genetics or in psychometrics, and I'm not a scientist, but I do follow the literature, who thinks that IQ or any other human trait is 100% innate.
I mean, maybe things like blue eyes or whatever, but beyond that, behaviors are only partly innate.
Nathan Kofnes, our Cambridge University scholar, Has taken the position that wokeness and its core equalitarian imperative cannot be vanquished without adopting a hard, realist stance.
Why is that?
Because attributing group disadvantages and differences to cultural factors opens the door and devolves inevitably into blaming white racism for disparities.
It must.
It will.
This gives rise to the full woke remedial imperative.
Society must atone, make amends, and fix the effects of racism, social conditions, whatever it is, by ensuring equal outcomes by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to compromising the traditional meritocracy.
Adopting race, conscious, affirmative action, and the whole DIE apparatus.
Of course, even the woke case for rectification rests on flaws and fallacies.
The fact that some trait or habit is the product of environment or social conditions does not mean it can be reversed or fixed by those who are responsible for creating the conditions in the first place.
As I point out in my 2009 book, Race, Wrongs, and Remedies, Wrongdoers cannot always fix or reverse harms they cause.
If someone carelessly puts out your eye, he can't put it back.
That I assault you and put you in a coma doesn't mean that I can take you out of it.
I contend that much of what ails black society is like that.
Whatever the cause, whites can't fix it.
Only blacks can fix it for themselves.
Or maybe not at all.
But it's very hard to get people to understand and accept this point in the race context because the imperatives of justice are mesmerizing.
The remedial imperative is strong.
The one who breaks it must fix it.
Does this difficulty with soft realism just reinforce the argument that hard realism is necessary to defeat woke demands?
Maybe. Innate heritable traits cannot be attributed to racism or white society.
They're beyond human control, at least for now.
The argument is that ought implies can, so society is not required to reduce or eliminate unequal outcomes that it didn't create.
Of course, that argument is subject to serious questioning, and it is questioned on the left.
Writers like Freddie DeBoer and Paige Harden, for example, have suggested that a luck egalitarian framework requires society to hold people harmless for unfortunate endowments that are not their fault,
such as low intelligence or poor self-control.
So even if we can't give people more IQ points, although some people continue to believe that we can against all experience, perhaps we can somehow and should make up for the effects of low IQ.
That position raises further questions of whether we should accept this so-called luck egalitarian paradigm as a guide to social duties.
And then if we do, how should we go about holding people harmless for their bad endowments or softening their effects without creating undue moral hazard or perverse incentives or without wreaking havoc on the rules and structures that are vital to our society's success and prosperity?
These are very serious questions, but you know what?
We never get to them.
We never really, at least in academia, there is no discussion of them because of the taboos surrounding race realism.
Now, just to touch on some other critiques of race realism worth taking seriously.
Most people dismiss realism as evil, but there are a few intelligent attempts to take on the topic.
I mentioned Coleman Hughes.
He is a thoughtful young black commentator who I count as a friend.
And in a podcast conversation with Charles Murray, available on YouTube, he has noted opposition to what he terms mainstreaming of race realism.
Openly acknowledging black-white IQ differences and their possible hereditary source, he says, will demoralize, discourage, and traumatize blacks, and especially young people, who will come to believe that they are inferior.
and regarded as such, and that their social and occupational prospects are limited.
That it is pointless to behave morally
Now, these are serious contentions, but I would challenge those conclusions by reference to the category of gender and my own experience.
Although many feminists do not accept that women are intrinsically different from men or less brilliant or less driven, Or more risk-averse?
I don't believe that to be so.
I accept that the bell curve, the distribution for women, shows less variance and lower numbers at the extremes than men.
That testosterone matters.
That women are less competitive on average and more risk-averse.
And that some of these attributes are evolved and innate.
That means accepting that there are and always will be fewer women at the right tail of the right tail of the bell curve, at least for some qualities, some endeavors.
The Harvard Physics Department will, I think, always be predominantly men, unless we have double standards.
Not exclusively, but predominantly.
I have never found that personally demoralizing or even concerning about it.
I do not lose sleep over this.
There are a lot of things I do lose sleep over, but this is not one of them.
How do I think about it?
My ability is my ability.
My endowment is my endowment.
And I have to work within those limits, as we all do.
The imperative to aim high, to be all I can be.
Is there.
And I have never been deterred from that imperative and responsibility.
One key here, and one that is forgotten, even by educated people, is that these differences involve averages or distributions.
It is a cliche of race and gender realism that group differences.
Do not tell you anything about the individual standing in front of you.
Well, that's not quite right.
That's a little bit of sugarcoating and Pollyanna-ish.
Why? Distributions do tell you about your chances, your probability of being truly, truly outstanding or filling roles at a high level.
They do affect the shape of the bell curve and the percentages at the extremes, but not to a predictable certainty for each individual.
What realism for different populations boils down to is that there are simply fewer people, there will be fewer people, maybe far fewer, from a lower-performing group or at the highest levels of achievement.
Does that have to be demoralizing?
I don't think so.
But viewing it as such rests on an important part on weak norms.
Surrounding the status of truth-seeking relative to other values, the status of acceptance of what one is and who one is, and that there are always limits to what one can achieve.
There's a little anecdote that I tell my students.
One of my students told me that he was discussing with a fellow student.
You know, what the potential of people is.
They didn't even get into group differences.
And this fellow student, female, I am sorry to report, says, I believe that anyone is capable of anything.
There are people who think that.
And I said to the student I was talking to, you mean I can be Mozart?
That's great.
Now can she tell me how I can be Mozart?
You never get to that part, right?
Now what about Glenn Lowry, who I also admire and count as a friend?
He has expressed the concern, prompted by the publication of The Bell Curve, etc., that open acceptance of race differences in IQ or other socially desirable traits will foster indifference and fatalism.
Towards the disadvantages that blacks continue to suffer, especially beliefs well off among them.
My answer to this would be, not necessarily.
I have already referred to the luck egalitarian position that society is obliged to take some steps to rectify the unearned effects of unfortunate endowments.
This implies that society should address disadvantages suffered by people in our milieu due to untoward, partly inherited traits.
And we have not just intelligence, we have impulsiveness, laziness, low executive function, proneness to addiction.
It goes on and on.
But this doesn't tell us how best to address these inequalities and to what degree.
To be sure, race realism does advise weariness towards certain interventions faced by the left, services, programs, and initiatives without end to achieve parity, including heavy-handed measures that effectively turn society upside down,
and we have to attend to what will work and what won't, what will do more harm than good.
But that does not prevent us looking...
In other directions.
Many of you here are Christians and you know what I am talking about.
We have some responsibility towards our fellow man.
I have written elsewhere though, but strong social norms and mores are the key.
They act as guardrails and guideposts for behavior.
And are especially important for less smart people, or those with shorter time horizons, or less self-control.
I have spoken and written about bourgeois values.
Maintaining and defending these values strikes me as the right direction to go, to embrace the habits and expectations that help ordinary people regulate their behavior.
And as I also tell my students, and I say to them, this is a shocker, so wait for it.
Only 20% of people can be in the top 20%.
Oh dear.
Now, I want...
Now to address, and I'm almost finished here, what perhaps I should have talked about in the opening bell.
Why push for more openness about race realism when obviously the facts behind it are unpleasant?
They meet so much indignant resistance.
They upset so many people's fond beliefs, convictions, and hopes.
I readily concede that there is something to be said for letting people maintain their conceits and delusions if it helps encourage social harmony.
When I was up at Yale, one clever student at the dinner they held for me said, oh, this is like blasphemy laws.
It's to keep the social peace.
The problem is that delusions about group differences and race denialism, the equalitarian delusion, don't end up promoting social peace, and they carry many pernicious costs beside.
So here is just a very brief list.
Which deserves a whole talk of its own.
The equalitarian dogma results in blaming bias and racism, and that devolves into blaming the West, blaming whites, blaming European society, blaming European culture,
which devolves into condemning and destroying precious aspects of our civilization.
That deserve to be defended, venerated, and preserved.
And of course, Jared has talked at length about this.
More specifically, equalitarian demands end up threatening many salutary social arrangements, such as meritocratic, identity-blind, competitive selection, which works very well for many positions in our society and many social...
And career roles.
These are essential to our prosperity, our growth, our economic well-being, our efficiency.
We need standards.
We need competence.
We need to match people to the jobs they do best.
And diversity, equity, and inclusion and affirmative action undermine all of that.
In encouraging heavy-handed and despotic interventions to bring about equity, Race denialism grows and expands government and other centralized instruments of social control, including pernicious forms of private power.
If you're crushed by Google, how does that feel different than if you're crushed by the government?
And thus reduces valuable liberties and freedoms and unfairly disadvantages some groups such as white males.
Try doing without them.
As my son says, next time the lights go out, think about it.
Rejecting race realism entails the suppression of facts and the promotion of censorship, which compromises free expression and truth-seeking, and it is thus destructive of human knowledge and progress, and it is also humiliating.
As Theodore Dalrymple notes, forcing people to lie about what they know to be true, forbidding them to notice social facts in front of their eyes, as Steve Saylor would put it, and demanding that they suppress jubile beliefs,
these are the very essence of tyranny.
Along these lines, one regrettable development, which is a powerful recent obstacle to clear-eyed race realism, Is the controls that are now being placed by the government and scientific authorities on access to data and information that might reveal innate group differences?
And on this topic, the case of Brian Pesta is emblematic.
Who is Pesta?
He is a former professor who is fired from his tenured position at Cleveland State University.
for collaborating with independent scholars, including Emil Kierkegaard, on a paper about the heritability of intelligence across groups.
His university denied that they fired him for writing on this sensitive topic.
Rather, their rationale was that he committed so-called ethical lapses by violating NIH rules on using data from a large genome data bank that is maintained by the U.S. government.
What were the rules?
In order to have access to this databank, researchers have to submit a proposal, get it approved, and promise not to use the information for any other research.
And the NIH czars, the guardians of this data and of virtue, Have elaborate rules about what or is not allowed, what is or is not allowed, based on what they judge as good for society.
And anything to do with group cognitive comparisons is not among them.
Pesta's original submission was about mental illness, not intelligence, so he went beyond his approved project.
That's a violation.
He was fired.
Very conveniently.
What is the lesson here?
The scientific establishment is increasingly controlled by far-left wokistas and their priorities.
They serve as guardians of key data and information under the guise of ethical regulation for the public good, which quite frankly is none of their business.
And it is inherently partisan.
It is not objective.
And increasingly, this stands in the way of scientific analysis, which would inform and settle the debate surrounding race realism.
That is censorship, of course, and yet another obstacle to candid objectivity.
It is an obstacle with no immediate solution except a political one.
In conclusion, Even if the obstacles to race real are formidable, which they are, and advocating for more candid investigation elicits opposition, outrage, or worse,
there is a compelling case to be made for bringing race realism into the mainstream and working against this powerful taboo.
We should all be in favor of facing reality and even willing To sacrifice for it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Amy.
Two questions.
One, do you have any other terms you might recommend aside from race realism?
That we would use.
Second, I see you are one person who's really stuck her neck out, but many other people are in the shadows.
At what point will our numbers be great enough that people can all just speak openly?
Because I think of the Cuban dictatorship.
They don't want to see protests because it would reveal that everyone is basically against them.
And we are hiding, basically, in the shadows.
And I just think that's a weakness.
I am really averse to trimming our language to please the lefties because I think that never works.
It's a fool's game.
It's a mug's game.
And I don't like to cede control of the language to the left.
So I think race realism is a perfectly good term.
But I think it bears emphasis when you do.
Use that term to say, you know, it's really just fundamentally about recognizing what is the reality.
And, you know, we're not behavioral geneticists, so all we can say is that the data on the source of it is inconclusive, which I think is a fair statement, that that can get you tarred.
I mean, at a conference, someone called me vile for saying that, but I think that's a start.
The way towards greater acceptance of race realism is going to be gradual, obviously.
But I think it has to start with this, which is talking more about individual responsibility and the power that black people have to improve their own lives and their own group.
Because there is a lot of room for that.
There absolutely is.
And it used to be in the good old days that people did talk about it until it became taboo, thanks to the left and their power over our cultural institutions, including the universities and the schools.
I distinctly recall my parents talking at the dinner table.
My parents were very sympathetic to civil rights.
They were, you know, fairly observant Jews, and they took this sort of stuff seriously.
They were open about the self-inflicted behaviors and wounds that blacks engaged in.
They disapproved of out-of-wedlock childbearing.
They deplored the high rates of crime.
They worried about the abilities of blacks to, you know, really help run our society in an effective way.
They talked about it.
Well, my dad was a Reagan Republican, but my mother was a bleeding-heart Democrat.
So let's go back to that.
And I think people can get behind the idea of self-improvement and of responsibility and of self-help, and maybe that's the way to start.
Thank you for your talk.
What percentage do you think, or how many of your fellow professors agree with you privately, but they're not just as brave as you to actually talk about it?
And also, as far as your own students, what percentage would you say do agree or are receptive to race realist ideas?
Well, I mean, at this point, my fellow professors barely speak to me.
And, you know, the handful that do and who privately support me are, you know, on their way out.
There are older guys who are classic liberals.
There are one or two younger professors who don't like the fact that I'm being punished for speaking out, even if they disavow agreeing with me and all of that.
But really, academia is completely captured by the woke left.
Don't kid yourself.
It absolutely is.
And I'm in law.
Law is maybe a little better than most.
I was listening to the FedSoc Lawyers Convention this weekend in Washington.
And, you know, there is some diversity of opinion, but boy, do they stay away from these hot-button issues like race and race realism.
And they openly acknowledge that these are untouchable topics.
In passing.
But even the scientific establishment has gone woke.
I, you know, have family members that are in academic medicine, and it's the worst.
The worst of the worst.
I mean, there is no dissent, or no dissent is tolerated.
Now the students, they're a little different.
I have noticed a growing contingent of what I call my hearty band.
First of all, just to take my courses is an act of rebellion that elicits disapproval from fellow students.
The peer pressure here is tremendous.
I mean, it's just devastating.
But I have 13 students in my conservative thought seminar.
And, you know, three women.
It's usually mostly men, but I have some diehards.
And they're not all right-wingers, but they're curious.
They understand that they've sold a bill of goods.
They've paid top dollar for what is really just indoctrination most of the time.
And they're rebelling against that.
So I think there is an undertow of students, and it's growing.
I don't know Generation Z. I don't know what these different generations are.
But, you know, the early 20-somethings, the late teen guys, are turning right.
A lot of them.
And that's good.
I just wanted to thank you for your speech, and then I was going to ask...
In my personal life, I've pledged in my heart to hard race realism, and seeing somebody as successful as you and Mr. Taylor...
Going through college and becoming great people in this movement and holding even great jobs in the real world.
How would you suggest I and those like me go about my life who would like to hold higher positions and still stay true to race realism?
Right. Well, it's a tough one, let me tell you.
I'm not into self-immolation and I don't advocate at it.
I don't advocate it for my students, so I often get this question.
As I say to them, there's a reason they call it a culture war.
In a war, people get hurt.
So you have to recognize that.
I think one of the most effective ways...
To operate is to look at education, K through 12 and higher ed.
K through 12 is a disaster.
It is where young minds are turned against our way of life, the glories, the achievements of our way of life.
Those are seen as emblematic of white supremacy.
That is completely unacceptable.
It's horrible.
And I see the product of it, you know, 20 years later.
And there's not enough emphasis on that.
The Republican Party, my mission is to get the Republicans to pay more attention to that and, you know, do something about it.
Now, unfortunately, there are a lot of obstacles to that.
Our teacher corps, as Trump would say, they're not sending their best.
This is done on the state level.
The power of the feds to really...
Turn the ship is limited.
So I say to people, get married, have kids, join your school board, or join the education department at your state level.
We need to spread the DeSantis mission for K-12.
I think for higher ed, it's a little bit tougher, not for various reasons.
Because you've got free speech concerns for K-12.
You don't have any.
They do what they're told.
The teachers and the principals do what they're told.
The parental rights movement.
Moms for Liberty is a heroic organization.
And they divert support.
And of course, they're hated by the left.
That means they're doing something right.
So that, I think, is an arena where people who...
Take this stuff seriously can have some effect, and it's essential.
If we don't reform education, the Republican Party, you know, such as it is, the conservative movement, realism of any kind, Europeans taking back their culture,
supporting it, taking back their country, none of that is going to happen.
Do you ever have to worry about your safety or security on or off campus, and if so, does the administration give you any support, like security?
There have been, I have gotten some threats, remarkably few.
Mostly I just get insults.
You know, just these screeds, these horrible strings of profanity.
I have a lot of support, believe it or not, from the Penn police.
Because the Penn Police is full of deplorables.
APPLAUSE
And they just call me up when I'm going to be involved in some event or conference where they anticipate protests like when Jared comes to talk to my class and say, we'll be there.
Don't worry.
We're in your court.
And that's very nice.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection