Podcast Summary: "Why One Yale Professor Chose To Leave The U.S."

Introduction

In the episode titled "Why One Yale Professor Chose To Leave The U.S.," What a Day hosted by Jane Coston delves into the profound decision of three prominent Yale professors to relocate to Canada. The discussion centers around concerns of rising authoritarianism in the United States and the implications for academic and personal lives. This episode offers an insightful exploration of the intersection between academia, politics, and personal convictions in contemporary America.

Context and Background

Jane Coston introduces the episode by referencing a recent New York Times video op-ed featuring Yale professors Marcy Shore, Timothy Snyder, and Jason Stanley. These academics, renowned for their studies on authoritarianism, have accepted positions at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Their departure has sparked widespread debate, particularly highlighted in George Packer’s critique in The Atlantic, where he accuses them of "obeying in advance" by leaving the U.S. amid growing concerns over the country’s democratic resilience.

The Professors’ Decision to Leave

Coston reaches out to Professor Marcy Shore to gain a deeper understanding of their motivations. Shore elucidates the multifaceted nature of their decision:

Marcy Shore [03:16]: "It was really a very long and process decision. These offers from the Munk School had been percolating, you know, for a few years."

Shore emphasizes personal safety concerns, notably the pervasive gun violence in the U.S., citing the lasting trauma from the Sandy Hook massacre as a pivotal factor:

Marcy Shore [03:16]: "I had long been anxious to get my kids out of the States because of the gun violence."

Contrastingly, her husband, Timothy Snyder, exhibits a stronger inclination to remain and "fight" for the country, reflecting differing personal thresholds for staying amidst turmoil.

Impact of the 2020 Election and Letters of Resistance

The discussion transitions to the aftermath of the 2020 election, where Shore recounts a pivotal moment that solidified her decision to remain at Yale despite initial fears:

Marcy Shore [04:30]: "I was lying on the floor of my office at Yale throwing up into a plastic bag... I felt an obligation to stay, because I felt like it was important that I was there, that we were there together."

This experience led to the creation of her book Tyranny, inspired by her and Snyder's conversations on leveraging historical insights to navigate present challenges.

Understanding Authoritarianism Through Russian Concepts

Shore introduces Russian terms to elucidate subtle forms of authoritarianism infiltrating American society. She explains "Prariz Vol" as a concept denoting arbitrary power infused with terror:

Marcy Shore [07:23]: "It has an inflection of tyranny tinged with terror... Precisely that arbitrariness that terrorizes and atomizes people because you don't know where the safe space is."

Additionally, she discusses "laying bare," a tactic employed by modern authoritarian leaders to expose the "naked cruelty" of their regimes, thereby disempowering opposition.

Responding to Criticism and the "Obeying in Advance" Argument

Addressing George Packer's criticism, Shore defends her decision by highlighting the sacrifices made by her family, particularly her husband's unwavering commitment to stay and fight:

Marcy Shore [10:19]: "I had to leave and get my kids out in a way. I would not have felt guilty if Kamala Harris had won and we would be here."

She acknowledges the complexity of labels like "cowardice," asserting her role as a writer committed to truth without necessarily endorsing physical courage in crisis scenarios.

Strategies for Resistance and Maintaining Solidarity

When prompted about incentives for those choosing to stay in the U.S., Shore delves into the mechanics of resistance against authoritarianism. She identifies the collective action problem, where individual rationality can undermine collective resistance, making solidarity essential:

Marcy Shore [12:28]: "The only antidote to that... is solidarity. You need a moment of solidarity, of overcoming the atomization."

She cites historical moments like the Maidan revolution in Ukraine and the early 1980s in Poland as examples where critical mass facilitated significant resistance, albeit briefly.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with Shore emphasizing the fragility and necessity of collective action in combating authoritarian tendencies. Her insights underscore the importance of historical awareness, personal conviction, and communal solidarity in safeguarding democratic institutions.

Key Takeaways

1. Personal and Professional Considerations: The decision to leave the U.S. is influenced by both personal safety concerns and professional opportunities abroad.
2. Historical Awareness: Understanding past authoritarian regimes provides crucial insights into recognizing and countering emerging threats.
3. Collective Action: Overcoming individualistic tendencies through solidarity is vital for effective resistance against systemic erosion of democracy.
4. Critique of Avoidance: Engagement and participation are essential, even amid fears, to preserve and strengthen democratic values.

Relevant Quotes

• Marcy Shore [01:34]: "It's like people on the Titanic... Our ship can't sink. And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can't sink."
• Marcy Shore [07:23]: "Prariz Vol... the arbitrariness has an existential dynamic that people aren't necessarily aware of."
• Marcy Shore [10:19]: "I do feel guilty about having left and getting my kids out in a way."

Final Thoughts

This episode of What a Day provides a compelling narrative on the intersection of academia, personal safety, and political stability in the United States. Through the lens of Professor Marcy Shore, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the factors driving intellectual migration and the broader implications for American democracy. The discussion serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between staying to enact change and safeguarding one’s family and principles in times of political uncertainty.