Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Katie Curic and this is next question.
Speaker 1: Dr Evramex Kendy is one of the country's leading anti
Speaker 1: racist scholars, and in fact, everything that Dr Kendy does
Speaker 1: as a professor, an author, a researcher, a podcast host,
Speaker 1: a human is in an effort to reframe how we
Speaker 1: think about racism and how we fight it, and he's
Speaker 1: very prolific. In addition to his academic career, he just
Speaker 1: co edited a new book called four Hundred Souls. He's
Speaker 1: starting a new journalistic endeavor, an online publication centered on
Speaker 1: racial justice called The Emancipator, and he's creating a podcast
Speaker 1: based on his two thousand nineteen bestselling book, How to
Speaker 1: Be An Anti Racist. He is also a Stage four
Speaker 1: calling cancer survivor. I think it gives me a level
Speaker 1: of urgency. I think that's why some people are like,
Speaker 1: why are you doing all these different things? You know,
Speaker 1: why don't you wait to do this or that? And
Speaker 1: I'm like, wait for when? Even and I talk about
Speaker 1: that life changing diagnosis a little later in the show.
Speaker 1: I couldn't start our conversation though, without acknowledging that it's
Speaker 1: been a year since George Floyd's murder in Minneapolis, a
Speaker 1: year since, a nearly ten minute video of his death
Speaker 1: reverberated across the country, prompting all of us to look
Speaker 1: at ourselves, really look at ourselves collectively and individually. I
Speaker 1: asked Abraham if he would share his reflections on this
Speaker 1: somber anniversary. So I I wanted the nation to be
Speaker 1: at a different place at the one year anniversary of
Speaker 1: George Floyd's death. You know, certainly it is good that, um,
Speaker 1: the person who murdered him is being held accountable. Certainly,
Speaker 1: it is good that there is a larger number of
Speaker 1: Americans and indeed people around the world, who are aware
Speaker 1: of the existence of systemic racism, who are aware that
Speaker 1: there's that there's fundamental problems in American policing. But I
Speaker 1: was hoping that we would have begun to make some
Speaker 1: pretty drastic changes to actually ah to actually sort of
Speaker 1: solve these these systemic problems. And we're we're still in
Speaker 1: a moment in which we're arguing over whether even racism exists, um,
Speaker 1: And even though we live in a nation of racial
Speaker 1: inequities and you know that are all around us. So
Speaker 1: I am I have mixed feelings, you know, I'm elated
Speaker 1: that there's this awareness, and certainly more awareness than than
Speaker 1: this time last year. But at the same time, I
Speaker 1: am frustrated that there hasn't been more action. If you
Speaker 1: had a magic wand Abram and you could have said,
Speaker 1: these are the changes that we needed to see. These
Speaker 1: are the changes that make me feel hopeful about the
Speaker 1: future and the present, what would those have been. Part
Speaker 1: of this is about policy, and part of is it
Speaker 1: about framing. So as a result of the COVID nineteen pandemic,
Speaker 1: and even as a result of the economic pandemic within
Speaker 1: the pandemic, the number of Americans who've lost jobs, who've
Speaker 1: lost businesses, who have fallen into poverty, if we as
Speaker 1: a nation, uh would have not only provided relief as
Speaker 1: as we have to a certain extent to two people,
Speaker 1: but we would have also said that this relief isn't
Speaker 1: just relief to get people back on their feet, to
Speaker 1: get businesses going again. This is also a crime fighting measure.
Speaker 1: In other words, the communities, the neighborhoods in our nation
Speaker 1: with the highest levels of poverty and unemployment are also
Speaker 1: typically the neighborhoods with the highest levels of violent crying,
Speaker 1: and we consider the people in those neighborhoods, namely black people,
Speaker 1: to be dangerous, when indeed poverty is dangerous, when indeed
Speaker 1: unemployment is dangerous, When indeed housing insecurity and food insecurity
Speaker 1: is dangerous, and you know, indeed sexual sort of violence
Speaker 1: and patriarchy that it stems from is is dangerous. And
Speaker 1: so what can we do as a nation to completely
Speaker 1: transform the conditions? And that would have been the start,
Speaker 1: right and and and we would be working on how
Speaker 1: do we eliminate again housing insecurity, how do we eliminate
Speaker 1: the fact that so many Americans don't have access to
Speaker 1: to to quality healthcare um and and we would have
Speaker 1: again seen those as not only efforts to help people,
Speaker 1: but even efforts to to eliminate violent crime or reduce it.
Speaker 1: And I'm saying that because part of what happened to
Speaker 1: George Floyd is partially what happens to to to black
Speaker 1: people or even black men across this country. We're seeing
Speaker 1: as dangerous, We're seeing as the problem. And the solvent is,
Speaker 1: you know, more weapons or more armed people in our
Speaker 1: communities as opposed to weaponizing against the social conditions you know,
Speaker 1: in those communities. And so that's what I would have
Speaker 1: wanted us to be thinking that big um and and
Speaker 1: and broadly, do you think that they're our hopeful policy
Speaker 1: discussions going on right now, Abram about police brutality, about
Speaker 1: some of the disparities that were laid bare, not only
Speaker 1: as a result of what happened to George Floyd, but
Speaker 1: so many police killings involving black people, not just black men.
Speaker 1: Are you seeing the seeds of some policy conversations that
Speaker 1: you would like to see pushed faster? Further? So? In
Speaker 1: ethical New York, a very enterprising and courageous young mayor
Speaker 1: just decided that he was going to completely reimagine public
Speaker 1: safety in that city, and that he was going to
Speaker 1: essentially let go of the entire police force and completely
Speaker 1: reorganize it to the point in which some obviously officers hired,
Speaker 1: but others would be rehired to specifically focus, let's say,
Speaker 1: on on on on mental health services or social services,
Speaker 1: um and and and So, I think in part of
Speaker 1: the reason for that is because upwards at fift of
Speaker 1: people who are killed by police in this country have
Speaker 1: a have a mental illness or have a mental disability. Uh.
Speaker 1: There's also efforts in places like I believe San Francisco.
Speaker 1: And I think it's Berkeley, in which the police are
Speaker 1: no longer a large allowed to stop people for traffic stops.
Speaker 1: Why because there's so many people who die unarmed uh
Speaker 1: during traffic stops, as Dante Wright did in Minnesota. Um
Speaker 1: and and then there are certainly efforts to think more
Speaker 1: deeply about funding uh and and and I think, you know, Katy,
Speaker 1: this is the fundamental question, why are people committing crimes?
Speaker 1: Are people committing crimes out of despair and poverty and unemployment,
Speaker 1: or people committing crimes because there's something culturally or fundamentally
Speaker 1: wrong with them? And how we answer that question is
Speaker 1: going to determine how we sort of, you know, attack
Speaker 1: the issue. Um and So there are people asking that
Speaker 1: question and and building policy you know, around it. And
Speaker 1: I think we need to move away from this model
Speaker 1: of whether there are sort of bad apples of good apples,
Speaker 1: you know, in American policing. The issue isn't the individual cops.
Speaker 1: And I think that's where we trap ourselves because we
Speaker 1: all are related to cops. We all know, we've all
Speaker 1: interacted with with cops who have helped us. So that
Speaker 1: but that's not the issue that the issue is the
Speaker 1: fact that, uh, the the American the combined cost of
Speaker 1: American policing is more than every their military in the
Speaker 1: world combined, aside from the Chinese and the American military.
Speaker 1: That's the issue. So it's not about individual cops, It's
Speaker 1: about the structure. As you saw people take to the
Speaker 1: streets as the Black Lives Matter movement really gained steam
Speaker 1: and momentum following the death of George Floyd, was that
Speaker 1: something that you embraced and did it feel as if
Speaker 1: America was finally all Americans or many many Americans, not
Speaker 1: just sort of the prototypical Americans. The fact that it
Speaker 1: did seem to span the racial divide to a certain extent,
Speaker 1: was that heartening to you? It was? It was certainly
Speaker 1: heartening to me. I mean, the fact that you had
Speaker 1: demonstrations against police violence and systemic racism in every single state,
Speaker 1: in almost every single town, uh, no matter it's racial
Speaker 1: and economic sort of makeup, um, And I mean certainly
Speaker 1: was was was heartening to me, As some observers estimated
Speaker 1: that it was the largest series of demonstrations in American
Speaker 1: history and um, And so how could you not as
Speaker 1: someone like me who's who've been calling on Americans to
Speaker 1: to to to to to see the problem not as
Speaker 1: bad people, but to see it as as bad policy
Speaker 1: and um and as structural racism. How could I not
Speaker 1: be heartened? And and indeed, by June of last year,
Speaker 1: one survey found that seventies six percent of Americans we're
Speaker 1: reportedly saying that racism is a big problem. That's the
Speaker 1: highest number ever recorded UM for survey. And and so
Speaker 1: we'll we'll never get to a point on any issue
Speaker 1: where there's a of agreement. That's the beauty of humanity, right.
Speaker 1: We we see things differently, and we have different perspectives.
Speaker 1: But but obviously with some critical issues that is facing humanity,
Speaker 1: like bigotry, like climate change, like nuclear war, like pandemics,
Speaker 1: we have to have a governing majority that recognizes it
Speaker 1: as a problem so that we could, you know, keel
Speaker 1: from it when we come back anti racism for kids,
Speaker 1: while starting the conversation early is so important. That's right
Speaker 1: after this, This is so systemic and so foundational racism
Speaker 1: in America. And I know that you are working so hard, Abraham,
Speaker 1: to reframe and reshape the way we learn about race,
Speaker 1: the way you learned about race, and what was sort
Speaker 1: of force fed into you as a young man, and
Speaker 1: you're doing so much in that arena. But tell me
Speaker 1: about how you're trying to address this at a very
Speaker 1: young age, because it seems to me the more we're
Speaker 1: culturally conditioned, the harder it is to unlearn certain attitudes
Speaker 1: and behavior. I agree, I made it. You know, we
Speaker 1: as adults often talk about how hard it is to
Speaker 1: talk about race and racism. Part of that is because
Speaker 1: we only really started talking about it as adults. Right
Speaker 1: If if we would have been conditioned to talk about
Speaker 1: it and conditioned on how we should talk about it,
Speaker 1: you know, from a young age, then I think it
Speaker 1: would be easier for all of us. And so part
Speaker 1: of for me and ensuring that the youngest of people
Speaker 1: are are talking about this so that they have easier
Speaker 1: lives than we do right over this specific issue. But
Speaker 1: then also they don't grow up like I did, you know,
Speaker 1: thinking that that the problem is is black people. By
Speaker 1: the time I graduated high school in the year two thousand,
Speaker 1: not to date myself, UM, I had consumed a decade
Speaker 1: worth of of anti black ideas saying all the things
Speaker 1: that were wrong with black people, and I thought those
Speaker 1: ideas were true, and I thought, therefore that the problem
Speaker 1: that needed to be addressed were people were black people
Speaker 1: as opposed to systemic racism. And really, I've spent the
Speaker 1: last twenty one year is trying to unlearn uh those
Speaker 1: those those racist ideas that have been fed to me.
Speaker 1: And it's been unbelievably difficult. And I only wish that
Speaker 1: I would have instead of learning racist ideas, I would
Speaker 1: have learned anti racist ideas, because then I could have
Speaker 1: built and I feel like I would have been so
Speaker 1: much further along right now in my life. And in fact,
Speaker 1: you write very movingly about in many ways you had
Speaker 1: to accommodate these anti black narratives from an early age,
Speaker 1: and instead of looking at your potential, your potential was
Speaker 1: kind of imposed on you. Yeah, and because they think
Speaker 1: about it, if in the nineties, if there was ever
Speaker 1: a decade in American history where like black youth were
Speaker 1: considered the American problem, which so much of American politics
Speaker 1: revolved around around black youth. Um, you know, it was
Speaker 1: the nineties, and and so if you're constantly being told
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with black youth, and you are a
Speaker 1: black youngster and you struggle in any capacity. It's easy
Speaker 1: for you to delete. But I'm struggling in this way
Speaker 1: because I'm a black youth, right as opposed to you know,
Speaker 1: I'm struggling in this way because I should be working harder,
Speaker 1: or I should be doing this, or I should be
Speaker 1: doing that, and um and so it. By the time
Speaker 1: I graduated high school, I was deeply self conscious, you know,
Speaker 1: about even my academic, uh skills, whether I was even
Speaker 1: worthy of college. I only end up graduate applying for
Speaker 1: two colleges because I didn't feel that I was worthy
Speaker 1: of college. I was shocked when one of the colleges,
Speaker 1: the first of the two, admitted me, like literally, I
Speaker 1: did not think I was college material. And and you know,
Speaker 1: I always wonder how much of that had to do
Speaker 1: with this internalized idea that there was something wrong with
Speaker 1: people like me. You are now working to to kind
Speaker 1: of stop that conditioning and young kids with a picture
Speaker 1: book you have The Anti Race Is Baby. You also
Speaker 1: have a two thousand sixteen books stamp. From the beginning,
Speaker 1: it was just rewritten for middle school students and talk
Speaker 1: about what you're trying to do in terms of shaping
Speaker 1: their perspective and why that is. I think you really
Speaker 1: just described why. That's so critically important because you want
Speaker 1: them to not be in your situation when you were
Speaker 1: a high school senior thinking you had no right or
Speaker 1: or college material. So talk about those projects. So first,
Speaker 1: I think as as caretakers, as people who love young people,
Speaker 1: and I have people love young people. Um, I think
Speaker 1: it's important for us to recognize that they see racial inequality.
Speaker 1: Um it's not hard to see, right, And so they're
Speaker 1: going to see that some people, namely white people, have more.
Speaker 1: They're gonna see that other people, you know, let's say,
Speaker 1: you know, black and brown people have less. The question
Speaker 1: that they're gonna be asking is why. And but they're
Speaker 1: also going to live in a society where they are
Speaker 1: these messages that are told to adults and young people
Speaker 1: that that there's something wrong with black people and something
Speaker 1: wrong something right about white people. And so you take
Speaker 1: you separate those two and you put them together. Young people,
Speaker 1: If we're not talking to them about why certain people
Speaker 1: have more and other people have less, will they not
Speaker 1: conclude that white people have more because they are born.
Speaker 1: Will they not conclude that black people have less because
Speaker 1: they are less? Will they not then look at themselves?
Speaker 1: Will not a young white boy say I'm special because
Speaker 1: I'm white, as opposed to I'm special because I'm nice
Speaker 1: or because I'm inquisitive. Well, not a young black girl say, uh,
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with me because of the color of
Speaker 1: my skin. Will that not affect their development in terms
Speaker 1: of whether, you know, self esteem or even conceit. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't want our kids thinking to high or low
Speaker 1: of themselves. Um, But ultimately, will they have an accurate
Speaker 1: rendering of society? Uh? And and and the key to
Speaker 1: this isn't you know to teach them that, uh the
Speaker 1: opposite of those ideas that you know, white people are
Speaker 1: less or black people are more. The key is, well,
Speaker 1: you know, this is the result of bad rules that
Speaker 1: have favored certain groups of people over the course of
Speaker 1: time and still do. Just like you know, you don't
Speaker 1: like your curfew or your bedtime. You know their rules
Speaker 1: in society that have created these inequalities. And and it's
Speaker 1: and and these uh inequities don't just exist between let's say,
Speaker 1: black and Native people. They also exist between white people.
Speaker 1: In other words, certain wealthy white people have certain advantages
Speaker 1: over certain white poor people, and white poor people are
Speaker 1: called white trash. Which is a racialized term, and you
Speaker 1: shouldn't think of anybody, any group of people in that way.
Speaker 1: And and so there's so many different It allows us
Speaker 1: to really get at and explain why inequality exists, and
Speaker 1: and and it allows young people to not think that
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with people. I I I'm gonna continue
Speaker 1: to say this, like, it is so important for us
Speaker 1: to teach adults and young people that the groups, the
Speaker 1: racial groups are equals. And that doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: individuals within the groups are all the same. You know,
Speaker 1: I know some black folks and white folks who work
Speaker 1: harder than me. Right, It's but when we talk about groups,
Speaker 1: to say that a particular racial group works harder or
Speaker 1: as lazier, or as more gifted or more smarter than
Speaker 1: another group, that the problem. Let's talk about the royal
Speaker 1: Critical race theory has in this because it's become you know,
Speaker 1: a dirty phrase amongst certain segments of the population. And
Speaker 1: I think it's quite misunderstood because like so many things
Speaker 1: in our current culture, it's become weaponized. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think can we begin by just explaining what critical
Speaker 1: race theory is and why it doesn't need to be
Speaker 1: a dirty phrase, sure. So, I think critical race theory
Speaker 1: emerged in the late nineteen seventies and especially in the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, specifically among legal scholars and lawyers and activists
Speaker 1: who recognized by the nineteen eighties that racial inequity in
Speaker 1: housing and education and criminal justice in the environment, we're
Speaker 1: persisting after civil rights and and so critical race theorists
Speaker 1: then started to examine the structure of policies and power, uh,
Speaker 1: many of which were perceived to be race neutral, that
Speaker 1: was maintaining the inequity. In other words, the critical examination
Speaker 1: of structural racism. And and it wasn't necessarily an attack
Speaker 1: on white people, as it's consistently being framed. It was
Speaker 1: an attack on structure, on policies, on practices that we're
Speaker 1: leading to this inequity, you know, an injustice. And and
Speaker 1: I think it's unfortunate that critical race theory, which again
Speaker 1: started out in legal circles and now has expanded to
Speaker 1: to other circles. One of the personally one of the
Speaker 1: most fascinating interventions of critical race theory was was by
Speaker 1: Kimberly Crenshaw, who who coined the term intersectionality, in which
Speaker 1: she really wanted us to think about the intersection of
Speaker 1: let's say, racism and sexism and the way it was
Speaker 1: impacting black women. So you can't really understand what's impacting
Speaker 1: these the race genders without understanding both um and and
Speaker 1: this gave us the tools to really analyze our society
Speaker 1: and the laws, in particular that we're maintaining inequity, which
Speaker 1: is why it's sort of derived from legal theory. And
Speaker 1: the governor of Idaho recently signed a bill to ban it.
Speaker 1: What happened? How did critical race theory become a weapon
Speaker 1: by the status quo or by certain segments of the
Speaker 1: population or political groups. So I think I mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: how last June, seventies six percent of Americans that we're
Speaker 1: recognizing that's just that that racism is a big problem.
Speaker 1: Um And ever since the June there has been a
Speaker 1: concerted effort to basically chip away at that highest ever
Speaker 1: percentage of of of of sort of anti racist awareness
Speaker 1: in this country. And this is the latest effort, um
Speaker 1: and and the and and and largely because so let's say,
Speaker 1: for instance, if you are a legislator who recognizes that
Speaker 1: the ideology of the country and the demographics of the
Speaker 1: country are moving away from you such that you can't
Speaker 1: get elected if everyone is easily able to vote. So
Speaker 1: what you're going to do is figure out ways to
Speaker 1: suppress the votes of your political opponents. And if you
Speaker 1: tailor those laws to specifically target black and brown indigenous voters,
Speaker 1: whether they're written into the law or not, those are
Speaker 1: racist policies. But how do you get away with those
Speaker 1: racist policies by convincing your constituents in the American people
Speaker 1: that racist policies don't exist and that actually the real
Speaker 1: problem are those people who are identifying certain policies as racists.
Speaker 1: You know, those are the real racist, the people who
Speaker 1: talk about racism, um, not the policies themselves. So that
Speaker 1: allows you to get away with those policies, uh, continue
Speaker 1: to pass them, continue to think caused people to think,
Speaker 1: uh that that uh, that the problem are those who
Speaker 1: are identifying racism rather than the racism itself. And then
Speaker 1: you're able to convince your constituents, who now it's harder
Speaker 1: even for them to vote, that those policies are not
Speaker 1: only good for them, but they're also not racist. And
Speaker 1: and so to me that it's part of a larger
Speaker 1: plot and plan to establish sort of a very small
Speaker 1: segment of people bull controlling the rest of us. Is
Speaker 1: it the the last gasp of a white patriarchal system.
Speaker 1: I'd like to hope so. Um and I like to
Speaker 1: hope so, because even the white patriarchal system white men,
Speaker 1: for instance, many many millions of white men right now
Speaker 1: are not benefiting from it. Uh. You know, and to
Speaker 1: give an example, you know, we have this epidemic right
Speaker 1: now that we're not talking about of white male suicide
Speaker 1: by hand gun. Uh. And the levels of white men
Speaker 1: who are who are dying be a suicide by handgun
Speaker 1: are at the levels of black men who die by homicides.
Speaker 1: Um and And so why is that and where is
Speaker 1: this primarily happening? This is primarily happening uh in states
Speaker 1: that are controlled by politicians who primarily say they're defenders
Speaker 1: of white men. Right. And I'm going to make it
Speaker 1: easier for you. I'm gonna make sure that you know
Speaker 1: you have your Second Amendment rights. I'm gonna make sure
Speaker 1: you have access to guns so you can protect you
Speaker 1: and your family and your your quote women from those
Speaker 1: black criminals, those Latino X immigrants, and those Muslim terrors.
Speaker 1: So then people they're able to get guns and now
Speaker 1: they're killing themselves and uh and it's a tragedy. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a tragedy that continues to happen, just as you
Speaker 1: have so many white working class uh men who were
Speaker 1: devastated by this pandemic and this previous presidency. You know,
Speaker 1: at the same time they are imagining that that certain
Speaker 1: elected officials are seeking to benefit. Then we become so tribalistic,
Speaker 1: abram and it seems like that we're just a society
Speaker 1: of warring tribes that you know, it's a zero sum game,
Speaker 1: and that someone else's move towards equality is going to
Speaker 1: hurt someone else. I'll never forget I worked at a
Speaker 1: network and the guy said to me, here, someone else's
Speaker 1: success diminishes you, someone else's failure elevates you. Well, you
Speaker 1: can imagine I wasn't very excited about working at this organization.
Speaker 1: And I feel like that you could almost apply that
Speaker 1: to society today. How do how do we get out
Speaker 1: of this trap of feeling that if someone else does well,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do well, and that there's something
Speaker 1: important and beautiful dare I say about leveling a playing field?
Speaker 1: So I actually, I actually think this is extremely important
Speaker 1: issue and and and it's certainly an issue that Heather
Speaker 1: McGee addresses in her new book called The Some of
Speaker 1: Us Um, in which she pushes back against this sort
Speaker 1: of zero sum myth of American society, and specifically the
Speaker 1: myth that many white Americans have um that as people
Speaker 1: of color gain, they lose in the greatest in the
Speaker 1: in the most general sense, what I would actually urge
Speaker 1: white Americans to think about it's to not compare their
Speaker 1: lot two people of color. I think white Americans should
Speaker 1: be comparing their lot to white Canadians, to white folks
Speaker 1: in Europe, and think about what do they have that
Speaker 1: you don't have, Whether it's universal health care, universit of
Speaker 1: child care, whether it's lower levels of income um and
Speaker 1: economic you know, inequality, whether it's lower levels of white
Speaker 1: people dying by police, and on and on. Uh. And
Speaker 1: I think once if if I think white Americans was
Speaker 1: to change their frame of reference two. Okay, you know what,
Speaker 1: my kid goes to a first class school, and if
Speaker 1: we change things, they're gonna have to go back and coach.
Speaker 1: You know, Actually, why can't all of our kids be
Speaker 1: going to like private jet schools, which you haven't personally
Speaker 1: even been exposed to right and and and why can't
Speaker 1: all of us have that level of resources, you know,
Speaker 1: for our children, Because if we were to change this country,
Speaker 1: most people would actually gain. Um. But I don't think
Speaker 1: people think about it in that sense, particularly right Americans.
Speaker 1: And it's this isn't just white Americans. You have black
Speaker 1: elites who are like, oh, if if things change, we're
Speaker 1: gonna lose. You have, you know, different elites of color
Speaker 1: who think the same way, and and and that's just
Speaker 1: not true, um, and and and and I think that Unfortunately, UM,
Speaker 1: it's gonna take some time for people to realize that.
Speaker 1: And I think as we make changes and people see that, whoa,
Speaker 1: I actually thought I was gonna lose with the institutionalization
Speaker 1: of the Affordable Care Act, but I'm gaining This is
Speaker 1: actually good for me. Oh whoa, whoa, wait wait they're
Speaker 1: trying to do it. Wait with this No no, no no
Speaker 1: no no. Even though before I was against it, now
Speaker 1: I'm going to defend it. And so that's what I'm
Speaker 1: urging us to be focused on. We need to make
Speaker 1: people's lives better. We need to show them that by
Speaker 1: making these these huge changes, that they're gonna gain. There's
Speaker 1: no better proof than that when we come back the
Speaker 1: guilt and urgency that comes with the devastating cancer diagnosis
Speaker 1: at just thirty five, that's right after this. It feels
Speaker 1: as if you were we make take two steps forward,
Speaker 1: one step back. It's just a constant, dizzy kind of
Speaker 1: progress and then setbacks. Recently, Nicole Hannah Jones was denied
Speaker 1: this position at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
Speaker 1: She was denied tenure by the board of trustees. What
Speaker 1: was your reaction to what happened to her and the
Speaker 1: outcry that resulted, and what did it tell you about
Speaker 1: the power and balance in the country that still exists?
Speaker 1: So I wasn't surprised and and that the board of
Speaker 1: Trustees at unc Chapel Hill would would politicize her her
Speaker 1: her tenure case and decide uh that they were going
Speaker 1: to deny her her tenure. And the reason why I
Speaker 1: wasn't surprised is because as someone who has been doing
Speaker 1: similar work within the academy UM, I know that what
Speaker 1: is expected of scholars and intellectuals like us, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: like Nicole um is sometimes we simply are unable no
Speaker 1: matter what we do, even if we're genius to her
Speaker 1: winner of Politzer Prize, winner MacArthur. Even if we've won,
Speaker 1: as Nicole has multiple national magazine awards, you know, even
Speaker 1: if we are the conceiver of one of the most
Speaker 1: important journalistic projects, uh, you know, of our time, that's
Speaker 1: still not enough because your politics, and I should say
Speaker 1: they're politics, uh, sort of block us. And and I
Speaker 1: think I took it very personally in the sense that
Speaker 1: I've seen that happen to so many people in the academy, um,
Speaker 1: you know obviously who weren't as well known as Nicole
Speaker 1: and and in certain ways I've I've had to overcome
Speaker 1: massive um uh speed bumps because of the type of
Speaker 1: work I was trying to do. So I was at
Speaker 1: the same time outraged because to me, she is a
Speaker 1: slam dunk um. You know, she's the type of person that,
Speaker 1: you know, any journalism school in the country would want
Speaker 1: to have tenured as a full professor teaching their students.
Speaker 1: At the same time, I wasn't surprised in the least.
Speaker 1: Have you spoken with her about this? I haven't spoken
Speaker 1: with her about this specific instance, but over the last
Speaker 1: year we have spoken about the similarity OVC of the
Speaker 1: attacks that we've both been receiving, right, And so you know,
Speaker 1: she has been just consistently with been an attack and
Speaker 1: you know, misrepresented for her sixty nineteen project and really
Speaker 1: her work in general. And obviously I've been consistently attacked,
Speaker 1: you know as well. And so I think we have
Speaker 1: reassured each other and and and been there for each
Speaker 1: other and been able to you know, share that you know,
Speaker 1: we were going through similar sort of experiences and um.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I know how deeply she
Speaker 1: cares for students, journalism, students. I know how deeply she
Speaker 1: cares for this nation. I know how deeply she cares
Speaker 1: for for black life, and I know how um just
Speaker 1: brilliant she is as a thinker, you know, as a writer,
Speaker 1: you know, as and as a creator. And so I
Speaker 1: also took this personally as someone who who's a huge admirer,
Speaker 1: you know, of her, because to me, she should be
Speaker 1: celebrated as opposed to denied, you know, tenure, what should
Speaker 1: she do? Um, I think she should do what she
Speaker 1: has just continued to do amazingly despite the critiques on
Speaker 1: the six nineteen project and her work and her vision
Speaker 1: for the country. She has continued to power through and
Speaker 1: do her work. Um, but should she should she leave
Speaker 1: that institution? That's not something I can answer. Um, if
Speaker 1: it were you, would you? So? I think if I
Speaker 1: was in her shoes, I mean, I think I would
Speaker 1: consider it certainly. Um, but I'm not sure what I would.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what I would do. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people's eyes were opened in a way they
Speaker 1: hadn't been before. Uh. You know, they might conceive that
Speaker 1: racism exists, it's bad. But I think that many white
Speaker 1: Americans got a very important and and late education in
Speaker 1: racism because it was talked about in a way that
Speaker 1: had been only addressed around the edges really in media
Speaker 1: and in culture at large. How do we continue the conversation?
Speaker 1: How in a in a country that has a very
Speaker 1: short attention span and really demands almost instant gratification, uh
Speaker 1: and and and instant solutions. How can we continue these
Speaker 1: important conversations? How can we push for change? What is
Speaker 1: the most effective means of doing that? I think that
Speaker 1: we should think about this in terms of as individuals
Speaker 1: and as organizations and institutions, and so as individuals, each
Speaker 1: and every one of us can think about sort of
Speaker 1: what are we passionate about and knowledge about what sector? Um?
Speaker 1: You know, based on our hobbies or our profession, our interests,
Speaker 1: you know, where are we at in society? Are are
Speaker 1: we in you know, education? Are we in healthcare? Are
Speaker 1: we in the environment? Or we in sort of mass media?
Speaker 1: Where do we sit? Um? And then secondly, I think
Speaker 1: each and every one of us as individuals can think about, Okay,
Speaker 1: those organizations in our specific space that are challenging racism,
Speaker 1: that are trying to create equitable and just sectors or
Speaker 1: institutions and communities, how can we support them? Right? You know,
Speaker 1: what can we do as individuals to support them, whether
Speaker 1: through volunteering, whether providing our expertise, whether donating to those organizations?
Speaker 1: You know what do we have to give um to
Speaker 1: those efforts? Um? And then obviously each of us, most
Speaker 1: of us live in local communities, neighborhoods, working institutions, and
Speaker 1: so it's thinking about that in the same bandage point.
Speaker 1: You know, those folks who are working against this in
Speaker 1: my specific neighborhood, in my specific institution, how can I
Speaker 1: support them? I can't let you go without asking you
Speaker 1: about your health because you were diagnosed with something that
Speaker 1: affected me personally, I lost my husband to calling cancer
Speaker 1: in n he was forty two years old. And first
Speaker 1: and foremost, I want to see how you're doing, if
Speaker 1: if I can help you in any way, and how
Speaker 1: you're kind of soldiering on, because I know firsthand it's
Speaker 1: a rough road. Wow. Um. Well, first you know, of course,
Speaker 1: you know, UM, my heart of course goes out to
Speaker 1: your family and you know, I'm sure it's something that
Speaker 1: you've been living with. And I'm dealing with for for
Speaker 1: for quite some time. And I am elated. Whether elated
Speaker 1: is the best word, I don't know that recently the
Speaker 1: screening age was lower to and so there's a growing
Speaker 1: awareness of the number of young people who are being
Speaker 1: diagnosed UM and who are facing this um, this ugly disease.
Speaker 1: And I personally, I was recently, you know, scanned and
Speaker 1: everything looks looks fine, um, And so I think I've
Speaker 1: been doing good. I am don't have any noticeable cancer
Speaker 1: in my body. But you know, obviously it's just when
Speaker 1: you have stage four cancer, it's it can come back
Speaker 1: at any point. And so UM, I feel lucky. UM.
Speaker 1: And in a way, I feel almost like a survivor's
Speaker 1: guilt because of so many people who were diagnosed with
Speaker 1: the same disease who tragically are just not with us.
Speaker 1: And I'm always asking, you know, why me, why am
Speaker 1: I still here and not them? But I also try
Speaker 1: to soldier or on in, you know, as you sort
Speaker 1: of characterize it, to just do do good for the world,
Speaker 1: right um. And to even have a sense of urgency.
Speaker 1: I think the best aspect of facing this illness is,
Speaker 1: I know, you know, time is something that I know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's not guaranteed, and we all know
Speaker 1: that theoretically, but you know, for me, it's you know,
Speaker 1: the idea, oh, we can just wait to do that. Well,
Speaker 1: I can't wait, you know, I don't know what's gonna
Speaker 1: happen at my next scan. I don't know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen, you know, two months from now, or if
Speaker 1: I start feeling, you know something, and and so I
Speaker 1: think it gives me a level of urgency. I think
Speaker 1: that's why some people are like, why are you doing
Speaker 1: all these different things? You know, why don't you wait
Speaker 1: to do this or that? And I'm like, wait for when? Right? Um?
Speaker 1: And And also I think we have to have a
Speaker 1: certain level of urgency because there's so many people who
Speaker 1: are suffering. Is that what propelled you? I mean, you're
Speaker 1: doing so much, Abram, And I know one of your
Speaker 1: latest project is that you've gotten together a chorus of
Speaker 1: black voices to talk about the African American experience. And
Speaker 1: you have put together this incredible roster of people. And
Speaker 1: was that born of what's happening to you personally? And
Speaker 1: because you're kind of your tentacles are are are reaching
Speaker 1: far and wide. I think so I for me, once
Speaker 1: an idea emerges in right, I obviously you know I
Speaker 1: can only I'm only one person. I can only do
Speaker 1: so much. I need support, UM. But for me, I
Speaker 1: tried to think about instead of whether we can do
Speaker 1: the idea, whether we can put together four Souls, which
Speaker 1: was just an unbelievable experience to really work with ninety writers,
Speaker 1: eight of who wrote five years of African American history
Speaker 1: amounting to forge years, and intent poets who almost acted
Speaker 1: like these lyrical soloists in the books. So every sort
Speaker 1: of UM section would end with with with with the
Speaker 1: poem to really commemorate the four symbolic birthday as we
Speaker 1: called it, of you know Black America. You know, for me,
Speaker 1: it's always okay, how can I not whether I can
Speaker 1: do it? But what type of support would I need
Speaker 1: to participate in this in this project if it's important?
Speaker 1: And I'm glad we were able to. I was able
Speaker 1: to work with Professor Keisha Blaine and we were able
Speaker 1: to put together four intred souls and their ninety writers
Speaker 1: in all, What did you learn from these people, because
Speaker 1: you have been so steeped in in this issue for
Speaker 1: a very long time, what did you personally kind of
Speaker 1: gleaned from their experiences that added to your own perspective? So,
Speaker 1: I think the biggest thing that I learned is just
Speaker 1: how universal history and the writing of history and the
Speaker 1: writing of the past is. So we have so many
Speaker 1: people who weren't necessarily trained historians who contributed to the text,
Speaker 1: but they were also they were able to write about
Speaker 1: the past from so many different vantage points in so
Speaker 1: many different ways, which made this story is so compelling
Speaker 1: And if anything, it taught me how we can write
Speaker 1: history in an accessible way, you know, bringing in people
Speaker 1: you know, many different people to do so well. Thank
Speaker 1: you for spending this time with me. I really enjoyed
Speaker 1: our conversation and um you've given me a lot to
Speaker 1: think about in terms of what more can I do,
Speaker 1: both individually and you know, collectively. So thank you, You're welcome.
Speaker 1: You're welcome, Katie, and you know again of course it
Speaker 1: admire your work. And um, she was so glad recently
Speaker 1: to see you on Jeopardy and should looked like you
Speaker 1: were having tremendous fun. I was very stressed, daddy from
Speaker 1: so You're black. You thought it looked like I was
Speaker 1: having fun. A huge thank you again to my guest
Speaker 1: dr Abrahm X. KNDy will link to all of his
Speaker 1: work in the description of this podcast, and you can
Speaker 1: catch his new podcast called The Anti Racist beginning June nine,
Speaker 1: and his new book, which he co edited with Kesha Blaine,
Speaker 1: is called four Hundred Souls, A Community History of African
Speaker 1: America six nineteen to two thousand nineteen. Buy it, read it,
Speaker 1: and spread the word. Next Question with Katie Kurik is
Speaker 1: a production of I Heart Media and Katie Curic Media.
Speaker 1: The executive producers Army, Katie Curic, and Courtney Litz. The
Speaker 1: supervising producer is Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Adriana Fasio,
Speaker 1: and Emily Pinto. The show is edited and mixed by
Speaker 1: Derrick Clements. For more information about today's episode, or to
Speaker 1: sign up for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call, go
Speaker 1: to Katie currect dot com. You can also find me
Speaker 1: at Katie Currect on Instagram and all my social media channels.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows,