wavePod

Get Wave AI

"Affirmative Action Revisited" with Jason Riley - The Genius of Thomas Sowell | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to The Genius of Thomas Sowell

"Affirmative Action Revisited" with Jason Riley

The Genius of Thomas Sowell

Thu Jun 19 2025

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Affirmative Action Revisited"

The Genius of Thomas Sowell | Host: Alan Wolan | Guest: Jason Riley | Date: June 19, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode revisits the history, rationale, and consequences of affirmative action in America, inspired by Thomas Sowell’s decades-long scholarship. Host Alan Wolan engages with Jason Riley — author, Wall Street Journal columnist, and Sowell biographer — to discuss Riley’s latest book, The Affirmative Action Myth. Riley argues that racial preferences have failed to advance black Americans as intended and have mainly benefited black elites. The episode blends a deep analysis of policy, data, and cultural portrayals, including Norman Lear’s TV shows, to ask: Was affirmative action worth its sixty-year run, and what comes next?

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Central Myth of Affirmative Action

Riley’s Thesis: The widely accepted belief that black Americans need racial favoritism to achieve upward mobility is false. Historically, black mobility accelerated without such preferences.
- Riley:
  
  “The central myth of the title is that black Americans need racial favoritism for upward mobility in America. I think that's not true. Historically it has not been true. And if anything, these policies have throttled black upward mobility.” (00:04; 48:58)
Affirmative Action’s Impact: Rather than uplifting the black poor, it primarily improved the status of those already advantaged.
- Riley:
  
  “Affirmative action is sold as a way of helping the black poor, but in practice it has helped blacks who are already well off become better off.” (00:54; 73:13)

2. Historical Context and Policy Evolution

Origins and Drift: Affirmative action arose from the civil rights era’s intent for race-blind opportunity, but was transformed by bureaucracies and courts into a system of quotas and set-asides.
- Riley:
  
  “Children should be attending schools without regard to race, got flipped into school busing for racial balancing. Blacks should be hired without regard to race, was flipped into quotas and set asides and racial favoritism.” (00:30; 49:28)
Supreme Court's Decision: The 2023 SCOTUS ruling (Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard) marked the official end of race-based affirmative action in higher education, prompting a wide-ranging reassessment.

3. Academic Mismatch and Its Effects

Mismatch Theory: Students admitted with credentials below their peers’—often via affirmative action—tend to struggle, cluster at the bottom of classes, switch to less demanding majors, or drop out.
- Riley:
  
  “If Harvard admitted left handed redheads with SAT scores 300 points below those of the average Harvard student, you see left handed redheads pooling at the bottom of the class.” (01:08; 51:54)
Data from Elite Schools: Studies at places like Duke and MIT show dramatic attrition among black students in STEM fields when their preparation lags the student body average.
- Riley (on Duke study):
  
  “Black males who came into Duke as freshmen intended to major in either economics or one of the hard sciences, but only around 35% actually obtained a degree in that field… The attrition rate was more than 35 percentage points.” (01:45; 51:54)

4. Social Engineering & Diversity Culture

Affirmative Action’s Spread: Initially designed to help blacks, preferences extended to a broad array of groups (Hispanics, women, etc.) and institutions—including corporations, Hollywood, and the military.
- Wolan:
  
  “You really have the majority of the US population sort of now entitled in some sense or another to some form of affirmative action.” (01:59; 62:02)
Resistance and Adaptation: Riley predicts diversity efforts will persist in new forms (“whack-a-mole style”) even after legal setbacks.
- Riley:
  
  “I don't expect the people in favor of these policies to just throw up their hands any more than the Southern segregationists did after the Brown ruling in 1954... They will find ways to do this because they're hell bent on a sort of racial balance.” (02:09; 64:09)

5. Cultural Narratives: TV & Respectability Politics

Norman Lear’s Legacy: Wolan uses clips from Lear’s TV shows to illustrate evolving black portrayals—from sitcoms about suffering and struggle, to assimilation and upward mobility.
- Examples include All in the Family, Sanford & Son, Maude, Good Times, The Jeffersons, and Diff’rent Strokes.
- Critiques highlight black actors’ concerns (John Amos, Esther Rolle) when media depictions reinforced negative stereotypes.
- Riley:
  
  “John Amos and Esther Rolle cared deeply about how blacks were being portrayed... They did not like the negative portrayals of black people.” (01:46; 77:42)
Respectability Politics: Older black leaders emphasized conduct, dress, and behavior as keys to gaining respect and progress—an ethic Riley contrasts with contemporary black elite attitudes.
- Riley:
  
  “We have a hip hop culture today that celebrates antisocial black behavior... This has become the authentic black person. And while the black person who is studious... are sellouts, they're acting white. And this is a complete reversal of what you saw coming out of black leaders back in the 50s and 60s.” (01:47; 77:42)
- On respectability politics:
  
  “Blacks were by no means unique in caring about such things back in the 1940s and 50s and 60s... There was nothing new in blacks caring about these sorts of things.” (01:57; 83:40)

6. Reparations and Persistent Racial Gaps

On Reparations: Riley views reparations as another misguided wealth redistribution plan, unworkable since most whites today descend from post–Civil War immigrants, while most blacks seeking reparations are not former slaves.
- Riley:
  
  “White Americans today trace their ancestry to people who came here after the end of the Civil War. So... asking white people who aren't even descendants of slave owners to pay reparations to black people who were never slaves. And I think that's, that's probably a bridge too far.” (01:59; 86:55)
Redlining: Riley points out that even during redlining eras, black homeownership rose faster than whites', undermining some core reparations arguments.

7. Black Public Opinion vs. Elite Leadership

Elites vs. Rank-and-File: There is a consistent gap between black elite advocacy (for policies like affirmative action, busing, or defunding police) and the preferences of average black Americans, who are often more conservative or pragmatic.
- Riley:
  
  “Voter ID laws are supported by most blacks, opposed by most black elites. School choice... supported by most blacks, opposed by most black elite. Defunding the police, opposed by most blacks, supported by most black elites.” (02:02; 97:50)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Racial Preferences & Stigma:
Riley:

“Affirmative action taints black achievement. It leaves people with the impression, including a lot of black people, that they can't cut it academically without racial preferences. And those who are successful must have been given some, some distinct advantage...” (02:15; 110:29)
Summing Up:
Riley (reading from his book):

“Racial double standards have had psychological effects as well. They've influenced how others view blacks and how blacks view themselves. Black accomplishment is met with suspicion by non blacks and recipients of preferential treatment can start to doubt their own capabilities.” (02:18; 114:03)
Wolan’s Personal Story:
Wolan recalls an incident at a post office and contrasts approaches to honor, conflict, and violence with sociological insights from Sowell. (01:04; 33:16)
Cultural Analysis Through Sitcoms:
- Clips from Good Times, The Jeffersons, and others, with analysis of their social impact and the evolution of black representation on TV.

Timestamps for Key Segments

00:04 – 00:54: Riley outlines the “central myth” and practical consequences of affirmative action.
05:23 – 39:39: Wolan’s analysis of Norman Lear’s sitcoms and how they shaped American attitudes toward race.
44:41 – 48:58: Riley discusses his motivation for The Affirmative Action Myth and how he builds on Sowell’s work.
51:54 – 58:05: Deep dive into mismatch theory, academic performance, and institutional outcomes.
64:09 – 68:44: Will the Supreme Court ruling really end affirmative action, or just change its form?
73:13 – 77:42: The real winners and losers of affirmative action; the story of Good Times and respectability.
83:40 – 86:44: Discussion of respectability politics, past and present.
86:55 – 90:04: Reparations explained and critiqued.
97:50 – 99:57: Black elites vs. black public opinion.
110:29 – 114:03: Stigma, stereotype, and the psychological impact of preferences.

Additional Audience Q&A Highlights

Are Black Conservatives “Winning” in the U.S.?
Riley: Majority of blacks align more with conservative values than black elites or their media spokespeople suggest. (02:02; 97:50)
Resume Discrimination Studies
Riley: Discrimination exists, but it’s not the main driver of persistent racial disparities. Gaps were narrowing faster when discrimination was more overt. (02:04; 99:59)
HBCUs and Segregation
HBCUs, unlike “segregated” institutions, do not ban whites and are producing many black professionals, partly because they avoid affirmative action’s pitfalls. (01:59; 91:28)
Critical Race Theory’s Contradictions
Even CRT founder Derrick Bell acknowledged that racial preferences taint black achievement—a point now ignored by some CRT advocates. (02:15; 110:29)

Tone and Style

The conversation is direct, data-driven, and at times personal. Riley and Wolan communicate in a clear, accessible, but intellectually engaged style. Riley, in particular, leans on evidence and draws strong distinctions between intention and results, all within a measured but critical tone reminiscent of Thomas Sowell’s own style.

Conclusion

This episode critically examines the real legacy of affirmative action, debunks persistent myths, and explores how cultural narratives shape—and sometimes warp—our understanding of group advancement. Both the host and guest challenge listeners to rethink what “help” looks like, who actually benefits from policy, and how identity is shaped by both government programs and popular culture.

For anyone interested in race, policy, education, and the profound impact of Thomas Sowell’s ideas, this episode is an invaluable deep dive.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Jason Riley (0:04)

Well, the central myth of the title is that black Americans need racial favoritism for upward mobility in America. I think that's not true. Historically it has not been true. And if anything, these policies have throttled black upward mobility. And that's the case I lay out in the book. Children should be attending schools without regard to race, got flipped into school busing for racial balancing. Blacks should be hired without regard to race, was flipped into quotas and set asides and racial favoritism. And that gets you to the affirmative action we had today. You know, if Harvard admitted left handed redheads with SAT scores 300 points below those of the average Harvard student, you see left handed redheads pooling at the bottom of the class. So affirmative action is sold as a way of helping the black poor, but in practice it has helped blacks who are already well off become better off. And that is why you saw the most crying about the ruling coming from black elites. Many notable hip hop artists who have become fabulously rich, trading in the worst, most negative stereotypes about black people being misogynistic, drug addled, hyperviolent, hypersexual, just no respect for authority. This has become the authentic black person. Even Obama used to talk about this as president. From time to time he would go give commencement addresses at historically black colleges and talk to the people in the audience, the men you know, about the importance of being a father who's present and involved in the lives of your children and so forth. And he would get slammed by your Ta Nehisi Coates and your Ibram Kendi's and so forth for doing this, because that is verboten among black elites. They want the focus to be entirely on white behavior and not black behavior. And their attitude is, you know, so long as someone is out there using the N word or so long as someone's out there waving a Confederate flag, don't talk to me about black behavior and black criminality and disproportionately high crime rates and incarceration rates. Don't talk to me about that. You still got racists out there. And until we vanquish racism in America, until white people take care of that, I don't want to hear it about black behavior. That's the attitude today. The pragmatic problem with reparations and why they're so divisive in this country, beginning with the fact that most Americans today, white Americans today, trace their ancestry to people who came here after the end of the Civil War. So, so the reparationists, the pro reparations folks are Asking white people who aren't even descendants of slave owners to pay reparations to black people who were never slaves. And I think that's, that's probably a bridge too far. Busing was never supported by a majority of black people. Even in its heyday, it was not supported. The NAACP supported busing, but as my friend Bob Woodson has said, it's because their kids weren't on those buses. Voter ID laws are supported by most blacks, opposed by most black elites. School choice, charter schools, vouchers, supported by most blacks, opposed by most black elite. Defunding the police, opposed by most blacks, supported by most black elites. Again, another example of this divide in an opinion between spokesmen and, and advocacy groups and activists, organizations and so forth versus rank and file blacks

Alan Wolin (14:30)

All in the Family was Norman Lynn Lear's first foray into the racial controversies and politics of his time. While this series was slowly but surely becoming one of the most popular shows in television history, the show would attract more than 50 million viewers per episode. Lear launched another series featuring black characters called Sanford and Son. The show's theme song was composed by Quincy Jones with no lyrics, only instrumental. Fred Sanford and his son Lamont owned and managed a junk shop in a predominantly black neighborhood of Los Angeles called South Central. Sanford and his son were homespun entrepreneurs who frequently engaged in sundry get rich quick schemes in order to pay off their various debts. Sanford was, in a way, the black version of Archie Bunker, bigoted and cantankerous. I tried to find a good scene from the show to play here, but honestly I couldn't find anything that good, which reminded me that I never really liked this show growing up. I just didn't see the point of it. But it was very popular at the time, so what do I know? Right after Sanford and Son was getting on its feet, Norman Lear created a new show called Maude, which was the story of an upper middle class, politically liberal white woman who had been married four times. Maude was a true feminist who often crusaded for women's liberation, the Democratic Party, civil rights and gender equality. The show was one of many at the time which attempted to normalize the phenomenon of divorce which was rapidly growing in America. Not only was Maude twice divorced, but her daughter was also divorced and a single mother. There was even an episode in which the 47 year old Maude gets unexpectedly pregnant and decides to get an abortion. Here's the Maude theme song which emphasizes Maud's feminist credentials. Lady Godiva was a freedom rider she didn't care if the whole world looked Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her she was a sister who really cooked Isadora was the first bra burner Ain't you glad she showed up and when the country was falling apart Betsy Ross got it all sewed up

Alan Wolin (33:16)

This scene reminds me of the dueling culture described by Sowell in his 2005 classic Black Rednecks and White Liberals, and which I discussed in episode 17 in relation to the Will Smith slap at the Academy Awards of 2022. I think it is an empirical fact that different groups have different propensities to use physical violence or the threat of physical violence as a way to settle disputes. In fact, the other day I came personally face to face with this phenomenon. I was with my 13 year old daughter at the post office and I accidentally opened my car door and bumped into the car next to me. I honestly didn't even notice that I had bumped the other car with my door. I was too distracted with the packages and letters I was gathering to mail. As luck would have it, the gentleman whose car I had bumped just happened to be in his car at the time. Lucky me. Well, he got angry that I bumped his car and he proceeded to open his car door and intentionally bump it into my car. Not once, not twice, but three times. I wasn't in the best mood that day and in fact I was agitated over some text messages I had received earlier in the day having nothing to do with anything except that this emotional agitation combined with someone intentionally trying to dent my car led me to make a questionable decision. I jumped out of my car and started yelling at the guy in the deepest and most threatening voice I could muster. And I told him that if he had parked between the lines instead of all the way to the right side, none of this would have happened. His response surprised me and made me realize that different groups have different ways of handling conflict. He said to me that if my daughter weren't with me, we would be settling this in another way, by which he obviously meant through the exchange of fisticuffs. Now, let me say this for the record, I have never ever, not even once, gotten into a fist fight with anyone over anything. It's just not in my nature. That's not how I settle disputes. I am more likely to file a lawsuit and make the other guy's life miserable for a few months than punch him in the nose and get it over with quickly and decisively. But it does remind me of Sowell's description of redneck culture and how Southern men, both black and white, were often willing to duel to the death over perceived insults and slights to reputation or public standing. Let me just say that for the next few months I'll be mailing my packages at a different post office. At least until his memory of my facial features has receded into a foggy haze. Time heals all wounds, as they say. Hopefully, time also wounds all heals, but that's a different story. Back to Norman Lear Taken together, these five Norman Lear TV shows represent an evolution of different ways to view the black experience in America in the 70s and 80s. From unwelcome neighbors in Archie Bunker's white neighborhood to housekeeper for a white progressive couple to the ghetto of Chicago to an upper class black family in Manhattan to being adopted by a wealthy white family. Norman Lear passed away last year at the ripe old age of 101. His life, which began in the afterglow of the First World War, spanned the full racial evolution of the United States, From Jim Crow to the so called great migration of southern blacks into northern cities. From the civil and voting rights movements to forced integration of schools, from Martin Luther King to affirmative action, from the black power movement to interracial marriage, from urban riots to George Floyd. I wanted to end this section of the episode with a clip of Norman Lear himself talking about his work. Interestingly, I couldn't find any clips that were noteworthy. Mr. Learn wasn't that funny or engaging in his interviews. He was kind of blah, actually, which is okay because some people express themselves much more creatively through their work than through normal conversation. So instead, I'll end this section with some of the actors and writers talking about how Lear and his shows impacted how white Americans view black Americans and. And vice versa. I think you will recognize some of these voices.

Alan Wolin (39:39)

Before I bring on today's guest to the podcast, Jason Riley, I'd like to say a few words on the subject of today's episode. Affirmative action in America. Affirmative action was born in America in 1961 under the leadership of President Kennedy and given a boost later under President Johnson. It died on June 29, 2023, with the Supreme Court decision in a case called Students for fair admission versus Harvard. The court ruled that race based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision reversed decades of legal precedent, ending a long standing practice of where colleges could and did consider a person's race in the admissions process. Affirmative action had a good long run in this country. 62 years to be exact. Coincidentally, I'm also 62 years old, so one could say that my lifespan so far has run parallel to the rise and fall of affirmative action in America. During the affirmative action era, blacks, then later women, then later Hispanics, then later homosexuals, were given preferential treatment in school admissions and job recruitment. This was a form of social engineering which attempted to bring about a world in which all groups were equally represented at schools and in jobs which are generally considered to be most desirable. Diversity was the buzzword of these past 62 years and we were trained from youth to view diversity as a supremely worthwhile end in itself. Now that we've tried affirmative action for over six decades, what is the verdict? Were there benefits? Were there costs? What were the trade offs overall? Was it worth it? Did affirmative action even help the people it was intended to benefit? Our next guest, Jason Riley, just published a book which argues that affirmative action did not benefit the black community the way common wisdom would have us believe. I'll let him present his arguments in the conversation that follows. I spoke with Jason Riley on the X platform live in front of a studio audience, several of whom got to ask Jason questions during the interview. Jason Riley studied English at SUNY Buffalo. He wrote for the student newspaper while he was in college, then immediately after graduation became a professional journalist at the Buffalo News. Then in 1994 he joined the Wall Street Journal, where he was for several years on the editorial board there before becoming a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in 2015. He is still a contributing writer at the Wall Street Journal and also writes books on various topics of interest to me. The book most of us know him by is the 2021 biography of Thomas Sowell called Maverick, and I interviewed Jason Riley about that book back in September of 2023 in episode 34. I recently re listened to that episode for the first time since then and I have to admit I had forgotten how good that episode was. So I encourage everyone who hasn't already listened to episode 34 to check it out. I give a very thorough summary of Maverick and Jason and I discuss that book in some depth. But Jason has written several other books over the years, including including Please Stop Helping Us How Liberals Make It Harder for blacks to succeed, 2014 false black power, 2017 arguing economic success Trumps Political Power for Black Empowerment, the black boom 2022 analyzing black economic Progress Pre Covid and Now the Affirmative Action Myth why Blacks Don't Need Racial preferences to succeed 2025. In 2018, Jason Riley won the coveted Bradley Prize for thought provoking journalism and commentary that deepens our understanding of key public policy issues, including race, education and leadership in America. I am thrilled to have him back on the podcast today to discuss his newest book, the Affirmative Action Myth. Jason Riley, welcome back to the Genius of Thomas Sowell podcast.

Jason Riley (45:04)

Well, I don't think anything was missing. That's not quite the approach I have to writing about the topics I write about. I think I'm if anything, trying to popularize a lot of the things Soul has written about over the decades. If there have been new developments in certain areas, highlight sort of what's going on, I view it as more of a continuum than something missing from, from his oeuvre. And, and you know, there's a, there's a lot to be said about a lot of these topics. I mean, the impetus for this book was the 2023 Supreme Court decision to Students Prefer Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race based affirmative action in higher education. And that's a Supreme Court decision that's come out since Tom's last book on affirmative action. And I saw it as sort of a bookend to an affirmative action era that I date to the late 60s and 1970s and wanted to sort of do a compare and contrast of black progress in the pre affirmative action era and what's gone on in the era of affirmative action. And also talk about some of the ramifications of this decision. One of the things that struck me about the conversation around the Supreme Court decision back in 2023, which was not unexpected, people who follow the court had sort of looked at the makeup of the court at the time and said these days are probably numbered for race preferences in higher education. So the ruling itself wasn't much of a surprise. But I was struck by the sort of apocalyptic rhetoric coming out of certain quarters and particularly among elites and black elites who had this sort of doomsday perspective on what would happen if these preferences went away. And the argument was sort of affirmative action created the black middle Class, oh, my goodness, it will be devastated if racial preferences go away. You know, there'll be no more black upward mobility. Our college campuses will be whitewashed and so forth. And I wanted to say, wait a minute. There was a significant black middle class in place prior to affirmative action policies of the late 1960s and early 70s. And by the way, it was growing at a significantly faster rate than it was growing during the era of affirmative action. And so I sort of was struck by some of the conversation around that decision. And I wanted to. To. To put forward a sort of narrative that I don't think has received a lot of attention. And yes, Seoul has written a ton about this issue, as you know and as your listeners. No, but that doesn't mean that the matter has been settled and we can move on. I mean, I would liken it to. I think there are a few people who have written more eloquently about free markets and free trade than Milton Friedman and popularizing those concepts. But look at where we are today. Not only in a world with a Republican president pushing for tariffs and central control of all kinds of decisions affecting the free market, but a Republican president doing this with the support of a Republican party. So I think it's always necessary to reiterate why those of us who support some of these principles, believe in these principles and think they're the right way to go. We can't sort of say, oh, no, Milton Friedman covered free trade 50 years ago, so we can move on to something else. Or Thomas Sowell wrote about this. And even. Even when Sowell was writing about this, you know, he would say, when it comes to the economics of discrimination, you know, basically everything I've written was covered by Gary Becker back in the 1950s, who taught Sowell in graduate school. So I think there's always more to add to the conversation. And I see this as sort of a continuum.

Jason Riley (51:54)

Well, I don't, I don't think the Wax case is particularly unique. I mean, I recall around the same time professors might have been, an adjunct professor at Georgetown was caught on a hot mic musing about the fact that the black students in class don't tend to do as well. And, and this was not done out of animus. This was a person saying, I, I think this is awful that, that this is the case, but it's what I've observed during my career. And that person was likewise lambasted, I believe let go by Georgetown University when those remarks became public. It's a shame because as you said, it's no surprise that this would be happening. We know that that the most important attribute for an incoming freshman at a school is that his or her academic credentials match those of the average person at that institution. And if there is a significant gap, that person is going to tend to struggle, pool at the bottom of the class, as you said, switch to an easier major, drop out at higher rates and so forth. And it doesn't matter if that person is black, Hispanic, it doesn't matter if that person is a star athlete on a scholarship. It doesn't matter if that person is a child of alumni, of donors. If there is a gap in the academic, in the academic preparation, that child is going to struggle or tend to struggle. I mean, as has been said, if Harvard admitted left handed redheads with SAT scores 300 points below those of the average Harvard student, you see left handed redheads pooling at the bottom of the class. And that's what we know from affirmative action. The real shame here with respect to blacks is that at many of these elite schools, the black students who are admitted tend to be well above average in terms of their academic preparation. Among students nationwide, they're just not as competitive with the students at those elite universities. So you're taking a child, a student who would probably be hitting it out of the park academically at a slightly less selective institution and turning them into a failure at a more selective institution. And my point has always been, you know, what is the point of flunking out of Michigan instead of graduating from Michigan State? I mean, there was a study done some years ago of students at MIT, black students at MIT, on the math portion of the SAT, these students were in the 90th percentile among all kids nationwide. But among their peers at MIT, they were in the 10th percentile. So they were struggling at MIT on average. But the other thing I want to stress here is that this often gets lost in the debate. But it's a point worth noting and it's one that highlights, really highlights this mismatch effect. And it goes to some of the expert testimony that was given in the Harvard case in 2023. So a professor of economics at Duke University did a study of incoming freshmen, male freshmen at Duke, in terms of what they wanted to major in. And he looked at a survey that showed which percentage wanted to major in either economics or one of the natural sciences. And it turned out around 75% of black males who came into Duke as freshmen intended to major in either economics or one of the hard sciences, but only around 35% actually obtained a degree in that field in one of those fields. So the attrition rate was more than 35 percentage points. It's ridiculous. Among white incoming freshmen males, the attrition rate was simply 4 percentage points. And so he dug a little deeper into this data, and what he found, and this is why I want to stress this point, is that Duke University admits some black students who do meet the average credentials of the average student at Duke and other blacks who do not. And when the professor of economics did his survey, he found that whether the black student had been admitted with credentials that matched the average student at Duke made all the difference in who did not graduate in one of those intended majors. Those black students who had been admitted to Duke who did match the incoming academic credentials of the average student at Duke did just fine. They did not. They ended up graduating with degrees and what they intended to as a freshman. Those black students who had been admitted under affirmative action policies were the entirety of the students who ended up switching to easier majors. So that. That is your mismatch effect right there in a survey, and we've seen it time and time again. That's just one of the more recent studies that show what's going on.

Jason Riley (64:09)

Sure. Before I answer that, I just want to say one last thing about the student athlete comparison to race based affirmative action, which I think gets raised a lot. And it's, it's, it's Kind of changing the subject, frankly. And Clarence Thomas has pointed this out in several Supreme Court opinions. The problem with race based college admissions as a legal matter is that as the Supreme Court has finally decided, they violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, they violate civil rights statutes. There is nothing in the Constitution that bans a school from putting a thumb on the scale for the child of a donor or for a gifted athlete. You might think it's unethical, you might think it's wrong, you might think school shouldn't do it, and I would agree with you, but it's not unconstitutional. If you want to pass a law that makes it illegal, go ahead, good luck. Some states, in fact have done that. But it gets dragged into this debate over racial preferences all the time. And I really think it's changing the subject. Racial preferences are wrong because they're unconstitutional. They violate our civil rights laws. And so I just want to clarify that because people love to conflate how schools treat donors or how schools treat athletes with how they treat minorities with lower academic preparation than other students at the school. And I think there's a huge, huge difference here in what's going on. In terms of your question about how much good the Supreme Court's ruling will do in terms of stopping these policies, I don't expect the people in favor of these policies to just throw up their hands any more than the Southern segregationists did after the Brown ruling in 1954. It's not like the Southern segregationist said, well, the Supreme Court has spoken unanimously. I guess we'll just have to desegregate. No, they fought. They fought this tooth and nail for decades. They fought this. And there had to be more litigation, there had to be more court rulings and court orders to enforce the Brown ruling and later the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Voting Rights act of 1965. And I expect that supporters of affirmative action or diversity, equity and inclusion policies and so forth will fight just as hard as those Southern segregationists to resist this court ruling. And we'll see it manifest in many ways. Will they try and use class based affirmative action instead of race based affirmative action? Will they try to get rid in K through 12 schooling of test tools that admit students based on on a single standardized test? Will they try and get rid of tracking for brighter students, gifted and talented programs, honors programs and so forth? They will find ways to do this because they're hell bent on a sort of racial balance and outcomes that I think is, is utopian, but that they see as the norm of the natural state of things, but for discrimination and so forth in society. So, no, what the Southern segregationists share with today's progressives is an animus toward colorblind policies and a colorblind approach to public policy. Both of them despise those things. Today on the, on the political left, colorblindness has become a dirty word. You are not supposed to talk about colorblindness. And the Southern segregationists felt the exact same way. And so I think you will see today's progressives fighting these rulings tooth and nail for as long as they can. And I think the opponents will have to continue to sue, continue to file lawsuits, continue to form watchdog groups to make sure that these schools are playing by the rules and so forth.

Jason Riley (68:44)

Well, corporate hiring, it should be legal already. I mean, the decision. And we'll see. And we're seeing that to some extent. You're seeing a sort of a pullback on the part of some Fortune 500 companies, on the part of huge philanthropic foundations. These were all groups, sectors that, particularly after the George Floyd killing in 2020, really up to their DEI programs, which are essentially affirmative action programs and quotas and set asides under different name. But everyone went all in on these. And now you're seeing since the Supreme Court ruling, some pullback from, from going down that road. I think what's also pushing it is that you have an administration in Washington right now that takes the Supreme Court ruling quite seriously and is willing to use its powers, its leverage over corporate America or over academia to make sure that these schools are abiding and these corporations are abiding by the ruling. Now, obviously, the Trump administration won't be there forever. So I don't know if corporate America and the philanthropic world are just taking, you know, this is sort of a strategic retreat rather than a full surrender. I suspect it is the former just a strategic retreat. And they're going to wait out this administration, then try and go back to what they were doing before. I don't know, maybe under public pressure, they won't be able to do that. We'll see. You have to keep in mind, and we haven't really talked about this, is that the Supreme Court's decision was wildly popular in America among blacks, among whites, among Asians, among Hispanics, all of these groups in poll after poll after poll oppose racial preferences. And they long have. The only people who are supportive of these things are a few elites in America, in academia and the media, my profession in politics. These are the people who support these programs. But your rank and file Americans oppose racial preferences. That decision is something that most of the country simply yawned at. I mean, you might have had Barack Obama out there and Michelle Obama out there saying the sky is falling. You might have had, you know, Joe biden, who was president at the time, saying the same thing, oh, we're turning back the clock. This is a huge step backwards. But most Americans shrugged at this. They do not like these policies. They've never liked these policies. And so, you know, this was a popular, a popular decision. And one of the reason the black elites in particular favor affirmative action policies is because to the extent that they have worked, quote, unquote, they have worked to help well off blacks become better off. They've helped the Barack and Michelle Obamas of the world. They've helped the black elites in academia. We've been talking about critical race theory for last few years in this country. Critical race theory came out of legal academia and it is basically a fancy argument for racial preferences. The critical race theorists like Derek bell wanted a person's race to be an academic credential in hiring. That was what was behind critical race. It was an affirmative action ploy. And that's who it's always helped. Well off blacks become better off. I mean, just to put from television

Jason Riley (77:42)

The reason it's a part of the of my book is because the Esther Roll and John Amos objected to this development. And they didn't object to it because they were jealous that JJ had become the breakout star of the show. They objected to how the character of JJ Was written. JJ was this sort of buffoonish, almost minstrelly like character who used to run around yelling dynamite. Every time he got excited. And he was this sort of very stereotypical, jive talking, slick dressing, young black man. And the actors who played the parents just simply did not like the way he was being portrayed. I remember at one point reading an interview with Esther Roll, the mother, complaining to the writers, you know, he's 18, he has no job, and you just keep making him stupider and stupider and stupider, and I'm sick of it. And all the writers on the show were white. And so John Amos, even more than Esther Roll, the mother, took issue with this. And really it came to a head. And John Amos's character was killed off on the show because the writers and Norman Lear were tired of dealing with his complaints. They simply killed off his character. And Esther Rolle quit the show as well. I believe she came back later and did another season or so. But it was a huge deal, this fallout. And the reason I brought up this story is because it was obvious that John Amos and Esther Rolle cared deeply about how blacks were being portrayed in this medium of television. And they did not like the negative portrayals of black people. It mattered to them how blacks carried themselves, how they were depicted, how they spoke, their attitudes, their behaviors and so forth. They cared very, very deeply about that. And this story is told in a part of the book Dealing with a time when the black civil rights movement in general shared those sentiments of John Amos and Esther Roll. They varied. If you go back to your days of Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP leadership at that time, Roy Wilkins. They cared very much how you dressed, how you spoke, how you carried yourself. And they felt that this would not only caring about these things was not only important in terms of advancing their civil rights agenda. They just thought that these were behaviors and attitudes that were conducive to upward mobility in general in America, to assimilating to a middle class lifestyle. And they thought that we should pay attention to these things, that black people should pay attention to these things. And I contrast that view with the attitudes you have today among many black leaders who make excuses for antisocial black behavior, Negative attitudes towards school, certain attitudes towards law enforcement, and responsible behavior in general. We have a Hip hop culture today that celebrates antisocial black behavior. You have Sean Combs on trial. And now we know, allegedly, of course, that he wasn't only rapping about this stuff, he was living this lifestyle. But he's not alone. You have many notable hip hop artists who have become fabulously rich, trading in the worst, most negative stereotypes about black people being misogynistic, drug addled, hyperviolent, hypersexual, just no respect for authority. This has become the authentic black person. And, and while the black person who is studious, the kid who raises his hand in, in, in, in school, the girl who does her homework, who enjoys learning their sellouts, they're acting white. And this is a complete reversal of what you saw coming out of black leaders back in the 50s and 60s. And I argue that those old fashioned attitudes that were displayed not only by Esther Roll and John Amos, but by the civil rights leadership of the 1950s and 60s had a lot to do with the black advancement you saw in America at that time, with the upward mobility you saw well before affirmative action. Between 1940 and 1960, there was a 40 percentage point drop in black poverty in this country. Went from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960. 1960 is not only before affirmative action, it's before the Civil Rights act of 64, it's before the Voting Rights act of 1965, it's not only before DEI policies and so forth, it's not only before a black president, it's before blacks had any kind of political clout in this country. Before you had black mayors of large cities with large black populations like you would have in the late 60s. Beginning in the late 60s, black people lifted themselves out of poverty. By 1960, a majority of black people in this country were already out of poverty. Yet we are told that affirmative action did this, that affirmative action created the, the black middle class. But there was no affirmative action between 1940 and 1960, at least for black people. If anything, it was affirmative action for white people during this period. This was peak Jim Crow, but it did not stop black people from doing what they did in terms of upward mobility. And one of the reasons I wanted to write the book is because affirmative action is credited with all of this upward mobility. And I don't think it deserves the credit it is received.

Jason Riley (83:40)

Well, that's sort of what I was getting at in describing the contrast between the focus on black behavior today or the lack of focus on it and the focus on, on black behavior that you had among civil rights leaders of a previous. Of a previous era. Respectability of politics, again, it's just about taking an interest in how a group presents itself to the. To the wider society. And blacks were by no means unique in caring about such things back in the 1940s and 50s and 60s. If you go back and look at other racial and ethnic minority groups. If you go back to Chinese Americans coming over in the 1800s during the gold rush, setting up benevolent society to improve their image in the greater society, dealing with hygiene, drug abuse, prostitution, behavioral issues, the same thing among the Irish. The Catholic Church, of course, played a huge role in this, establishing schools and hospitals, sobriety organizations and so forth to help Irish Americans assimilate. The same thing was true of Japanese Americans, Jewish Americans. The same thing was true. You had the Eastern European Jews coming over in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but there had already been German Jews that had come decades earlier and established themselves, and they took a leading role in helping these European Jews who came later assimilate. And so there was nothing new in blacks caring about these sorts of things. There's a long tradition in America of other groups doing the exact same thing. Today, however, that is very, very much frowned on among black elites. Even Obama used to talk about this as president from time to time. He would go give commencement addresses at historically black colleges and talk to the people in the audience, the men you know, about the importance of being a father who's present and involved in the lives of your children and so forth. And he would get slammed by your Ta, Nehisi Coates and your Ibram Kendi's and so forth for doing this, because that is verboten among black elites. They want the focus to be entirely on white behavior and not black behavior. And their attitude is, you know, so long as someone is out there using the N word, or so long as someone's out there waving a confederate flag, don't talk to me about, about black behavior and black criminality and, and just disproportionately high crime rates and incarceration rates. Don't talk to me about that. You still got racist out there. And until we vanquish racism in America, until white people take care of that, I don't want to hear it about black behavior. That's the attitude today. And it used to be the complete opposite. I think in an earlier generation of blacks who felt that they had to succeed notwithstanding racism or discrimination, they were not going to let that stop them. And so that's what I'm getting at with the respectability chapter.

Jason Riley (86:55)

Well, the, I, I think that, that reparations is a form of affirmative action or DEI or whatever you want to call it today. It's preference problems. Reparation would, would be racial preferences. That's why it fits in, it fits into the book. And I think that there are a number of problems with, with this approach. I, I guess at the, the 30, 000 foot level, reparations amounts to another wealth redistribution program. And we've tried that before. And if you could address poverty or inequality simply by the government sending out checks to poor people, my goodness, we would have addressed this many, many decades ago because we've tried that repeatedly. And that's all really reparations would be, is another huge wealth redistribution scheme. And I don't see any reason to believe it would be any more successful than previous ones. Then you also have the pragmatic problem with reparations and why they're so divisive in this country, beginning with the fact that most Americans today, white Americans today, trace their ancestry to people who came here after the end of the Civil War. So the reparationists, the pro reparations folks, are asking white people who aren't even descendants of slave owners to pay reparations to black people who were never slaves. And I think that's, that's probably a bridge too far. In addition to, I said, as I said before, it just being something that I don't think would work in terms of addressing the problems that people want to address, that is income inequality and so forth. So there are many problems with reparations. Another argument put forward in favor of them is that blacks suffered due to redlining policies in the housing sector where lenders would not make loans to people who lived in certain areas. And this was known as redlining. And one of the problems with that argument, or the two, two, two major problems that I point out in the book is that, well, one, even during the redlining era, black homeownership rates were rising at a faster rate than white homeownership rates. So however awful redlining was, and it was awful and unfair, it did not stop blacks from becoming homeowners at a faster rate than whites were at the time. But the second problem with the redlining argument, and this is one that Ta Nehisi Coates's reparations argument relies heavily on, the redlining argument is that although blacks were overrepresented in areas that were redline, proportionately, most of the people who lived in redline districts were white. So if you are going to base reparations on going to people who suffered from redlining, reparations would have to go to a lot of white people in this country as well. So there are several problems with reparations that I delve into.

Jason Riley (91:28)

Well, I think the dorm issue is a little bit different than the HBCU different school situation. I agree with you entirely about segregated dorms. They do still exist, in effect on. On campuses, along with, you know, black graduation ceremonies and so forth. That's. That's, you know, dei. That's. That's where. That's where it's gotten us in terms of policies like that. But. But let's back up and talk about HBCUs, because first I need to understand how you define segregated. And. And this is not a semantic point I'm trying to make here. This. This matters a Great deal, because. And this gets you back to Brown, the decision you mentioned, desegregation is not the same thing as forced integration. If an opera house is desegregated when anyone can go there to see the opera, if only white people show up because they're the only ones interested in opera, it doesn't mean the opera house is segregated, does it? No. Okay, so HBCUs do not ban white people. So calling them segregated depends on how you're using the term segregation. My argument for HBCUs would be the same as my argument for charter schools or voucher programs or Catholic school or, or, Or Jewish schools. Let a thousand flowers bloom here, right? If people want to organize themselves in certain ways and separate themselves in certain ways because they're more comfortable getting an education, so be it. But there's a big difference between doing that and banning other people from, from. From coming, particularly if you're receiving federal funds or state funds and trying to do that, that's a violation, again, of civil rights statutes and of, I'd argue, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But my argument for HBCUs would be that they are producing disproportionate number of black professionals in this country and long have been disproportionate number of Doctors, lawyers, judges. HBCUs punch well above their weight because most blacks do not go to hbcu and haven't for a long time since white schools have been open to them. And yet HBCUs are still producing some huge percentage of, say, kids who graduate with STEM degrees, black kids who graduate with STEM degrees. I would argue it's because they don't use affirmative action that they're able, they're able to do this. I gave the Howard University Law school law school example earlier on this front. So I, you know, if there are certainly bad, poorly performing HBCUs out there, and I wouldn't argue that they should stay open if, if they don't measure up. And that's a point that Thurgood Marshall made right after Brown, because he was asked the same question you just asked me. What's going to happen to the HBCUs? And he says either they'll have to measure up or they'll, or they'll, or they'll fail. They'll go away. If anything, I think the federal government has done too much to prop up failing HBCUs. There are some HBCUs out there doing a fabulous job, just like there are a lot of non HBCUs, traditional white schools that are doing a fabulous job. Others I think should, should close because they're not, they're not doing a good job. And I would have no problem with those, with those going away, but some, but simply to blanketly ban HBCUs or put them out of commission I think would be a huge, a huge mistake. It would reduce school choice, and it would harm to a great degree the number of black professionals coming out of college because so many of them come out of HBCUs.

Jason Riley (99:59)

I love what you've done with Thomas Sowell. Jason, One thing that has recently come to light is Marianne Bertrand, economist out of the University of Chicago Chicago booth. And she did a labor study, fictional, where she submitted resumes to people for hiring. Some of the resumes had, let's say, normal US names, you know, Jack, Harry, Tom, whatever. And some had what we would call like typical black names like lakeisha and things like that. And the, they said that they found discrimination just based on reading the name on a resume. And so the way you name your child could set them up for discrimination in the future. Do you have any thoughts on that or. I'd love to see you take on that sort of study in the, in the future. Well, I, I don't deny that there is discrimination in America, that there continues to be discrimination. I don't expect to live to see a day when there is Nothing. The question is, what does the discrimination explain? Does it explain disparities in, say, poverty rates or unemployment rates in terms of income levels, college completion? And I don't think that it does because I see blacks making faster gains in all of those areas, not just in absolute terms, but relative to whites in all of those areas during an era when we can all agree that there was far more discrimination than there is today. Far more discrimination than some employer teasing out the race of someone based on a name. Between 1940 and 1960, when I described this tremendous drop in poverty, the employer didn't have to tease out the color of the applicant. He could just put a sign in his window that said we don't hire black people, period. And yet you did not see that stopping blacks from climbing out of poverty. You didn't see that stopping black incomes from rising at a faster rate than white incomes. You didn't see that stopping black homeownership rates from rising at a faster rate than white homeowners ownership rates. Again, all of this in the pre affirmative action era. So studies like that may or may not suggest that racism still exists, but it doesn't necessarily explain these racial gaps we have today because those gaps were narrowing at a time when far more racism existed today legally by custom and in other ways. I think that those studies only tell us, only tell us so much.

Jason Riley (104:17)

I think Seoul has done a great deal of that work in terms of describing the paths that vary various ethnic groups have taken from poverty to prosperity, not only here in the US but internationally. And shown along the way, as one of the earlier questions was about sort of residual discrimination in our society. And Sowell's work in the international comparisons he's done has shown that not only did a previous generation of blacks overcome racially disparate treatment to continue their upward mobility, but in other parts of the world. Seoul has written about how this has been done. Whether you're talking about the ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia in places like Malaysia, whether you're talking about the Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, as you mentioned, Jews all over the world have done this example after example. There are other scholars, Donald Horowitz comes to mind, Duke University, who's also done work in this area. But Sol is, has been my go to person on this. He's really leaned into this topic quite a bit over the decades, has written a number of very good studies laying this out and talking about the importance of making these international comparisons. So that's the person I would point to. I don't know if someone who is currently at work on doing these international comparisons or studying the different routes that different ethnic and racial groups have taken, none come immediately to mind. Maybe if I gave it some thought. But Sol's done a great deal of work on this himself from South Africa. You've seen everything play out on the. With the Trump meeting. How would you suggest, like a large scale kind of culture change in organization setup if somebody brings you in to say, talk about DEI or something like that, how would you change a culture or you know, in a specific group or something, whether it's corporate or informal social, whatever setting, people like to say that America's strength is its diversity. And I've. I have a problem with that formulation because I think, I think it, it's. It's almost the. Our strength has been our ability to overcome all of our racial and ethnic differences and focus on what unites us. And we're now going through a period, particularly with the. The sort of woke. Yeah. Where there's this hyper focus on our differences, elevating our differences, making them more and more prominent. The 1619 project of the New York Times and Nicole Hannah Jones wants To introduce these concepts to kindergarteners, to first graders, affinity groups, teaching little children to focus on their racial differences, sort of nursing grievances in, in toddlers. And I find it despicable. Absolutely. And it's, it's going in the exact opposite direction from. That's another problem with, with affirmative action in a country as pluralistic and as diverse, diverse as America, this, a sort of racial spoil system is, is a pathway to ruin. And we're becoming more and more diverse as, as a country. And the idea that the government should be picking winners and losers in terms of employment or education and so forth is, is just, I, I think will, will be tragic. The, the, the outcome here if we don't, if we don't write this court force that we're on right now. I, I do think that the other side may have gone too far. I see some backlash now, and it's welcome backlash. But when you start telling people that math is racist, that punctuality is white supremacy, that someone who swam on the boys team last year should swim on the girls team this year, and that's fine. I think many Americans say, no, that's not fine. And you're starting to see, again, maybe it helps having an administration in Washington that is leading the charge on this, but you're starting to see a great deal of pushback, and I think that is welcome by a lot of Americans who were shying away from pushing back on their own. There was a, there was a fear that they would be called names or deplatformed or what have you if they stood up to those progressives who have been pushing this nonsense for some time. So I hope the backlash continues, but it's certainly welcome. Thank you. I fully agree. Great response. Thanks.

Jason Riley (110:29)

The person who's sort of considered one of the founders of, of critical race theory is of course Derek Bell. And I in the book talk a little bit about Bell and critical race theory. And Bell wrote a Law Review Article, 1970 issue of the Toledo Law Review. And in this law review article he critiques early affirmative action programs for blacks in law schools. And he specifically says that they taint the achievement of black students. So this is Derek Bell, founder of critical race Theory, saying what I'm saying about the ramifications of racial preferences, affirmative action. So that is how I would respond to critical race theorists who argue that affirmative action policies don't stereotype blacks. I quote Derek Bell to them, the Supreme Court justices in their opinion, in their Harvard opinion in 2023 also get into stereotyping. And it makes a lot of sense. If you are a white person or an Asian person, one of these elite campuses and you're looking around and seeing a lot of black students pooling at the bottom of the class or switching easier majors or struggling in general when you leave school, what is going to be your opinion of the intellectual capabilities of black people based on your, your experience in school as their classmates? Affirmative action taints black achievement. It leaves people with the impression, including a lot of black people, that they can't cut it academically without racial preferences. And those who are successful must have been given some, some distinct advantage that others were not given because they could not possibly have done this on their own. And that is one of the more damaging ramifications of affirmative action. No one wants to be the token on, on campus or the token in the workplace. I, I often tell the story of Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts who a few years ago was accused of claiming Native American ancestry to advance her, her career in academia. She was a professor at law school and I recall a report reporter from the Boston Globe accusing her of having benefited by citing her Native American ancestry on job applications for advancement in academia. And she became indignant. She said no, I got, I got what I got because I did the hard work. I deserve every promotion, I got every job. She became hugely indignant. And why wouldn't she? Any self respecting person wants everyone else, their peers and everyone else to believe that they accomplish what they accomplished because they deserve it. Yet Elizabeth Warren is one of those liberals who will turn around and support racial preferences for blacks and Hispanics and tell them, oh, don't worry about the stigma, you'll get over it. She didn't get over it. But it is just as damning to the accomplishments of blacks as it is to the accomplishments of women. And that's one of many reasons I think the Supreme Court made the right call.