What Now? with Trevor Noah - RIP… D.E.I. with Ruha Benjamin [VIDEO]

Episode Date: February 13, 2025

Trevor and Christiana speak with professor, sociologist, and MacArthur Fellowship winner Ruha Benjamin about some of the pressing political and social issues of the day. The three discuss whether DEI initiatives are in fact valuable and how the world will look without them, why universities honor people whose voices they’ve previously tried to silence, and how best to navigate a world that was not built for us. Can the three collectively imagine a better world order? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So I was expelled from my primary school. Yeah. And now if you drive past it, no joke, they have, they'll have like a banner flying sometimes. I love it. We're proud that Trevor Noah went to. And I look at it and I'm like, you guys kicked me out. You guys kicked me out of the school. And now you're putting up a banner like, we are proud to be the school that Trevor Noah went to.

Then I'm like, but you kicked me out. went to them like, but you kicked me out! This is What Now with Trevor Noah. You know, it's funny, in preparing for this conversation, I was thinking, there's very few people we sit down with where you can talk about as many topics as we can with you. Like, when I think of a Venn diagram of conversation, Ruha fits perfectly in the middle of most of these Venns. Like, everything. I mean, like, everything. Master of none, though. Master of none.

Don't say that. No, no, no, no. Actually, no. Actually, you should say that. You of none though. Master of none. Don't say that. No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Actually, no. Actually, you should say that. You think she's a master of none? Actually, you should say that. Wait, I'm going to read you the full quote.

So I like to consider myself a master of none. And I used to hate it my whole life until I'll read you the full quote. The full saying is, a jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. Yes. I love it. I love it. You know, the word amateur.

There's a beautiful essay by Edward Said, where he talks about, you know, the difference between professionals and amateurs. And he says, you know, at the heart of amateur is amour. It's love. It is the love of something. Yeah. It's actually a source of pride because you're infusing love.

You're led by love, not necessarily a need for status and accolades and professional sort of titles. And so I embrace that. Let me say, this lady has a MacArthur, like the genius. Before we go down this Amor road, this is a very credentialed professor here. Christiana, you could not be more Nigerian if you tried. Exactly. No, because if my parents are listening, they're like, oh, she's just speaking to some person

with opinion. I'm like, no, Mom and Dad. So yeah, that's for your parents. That's for my parents. This woman has a MacArthur genius grant. So she's written a ton of books. For those at home that may not be familiar, Ruha is a tenured professor at Princeton University. That's why I'm like, she's not an amateur guys.

Who's currently on- So Nigerian. Let me tell you something, there's nothing a Nigerian will point out more than this person. This is a professor. Yes! Can I introduce you? Doctor! This is a doctor.

I'm sorry, doctor Ruha. This is, do you know what is PhD? Do you know? You're not talking to a person. This is a doctor. She's not your mate. You are so, it's so crazy how you just like, and another thing. Wait, wait. But it's important context. Trevor, let's start counting how many times she has to remind. Someone has to do it because she's too humble.

Yeah, and I think that's why you're the perfect person to speak to about every, I wrote down a list of things because I didn't want to miss anything. Everything from DEI to the world of tech, education, community and the way we see it, society, government, the role that it plays. I was like, it feels like your work has drawn you into everything. You know, your degrees, your qualifications, your expertise, the amount of time you spend on it, your books. So maybe the first thing we should jump into is DEI.

Has DEI failed? Was it bound to fail? Yeah, I was never a big booster of DEI. So to see it coming down, I feel for those who were genuinely invested in that as a potential to transform institutions and industries, but it always felt like a concession, a placeholder for something that could be more transformative.

And so, like with placeholders, I think they become permanent. As opposed to being a stepping stone, it becomes this kind of, you know, safe way of corralling those who would sort of cause trouble. And so, you know, you could say it was bound to fail or it could say it's doing exactly what it was designed to do. And so I think we shouldn't be satisfied with kind of these sort of token fleeting forms of attention because as we're seeing now, they come and go very quickly.

So a lot so many of the people who were hired under DEI programs after the killing of George Floyd are now losing their jobs, entire programs are going up in smoke. So I think we should rethink what our demands are. Ruhai, it's interesting you say that. The thing that made me come across you, not first, but a very viral moment. You gave a commencement speech at your alma mater, Spelman College, and you said black faces in high places will not save us. And for some people who really believe in like representation politics, they jump up against that idea. They think, no, we need black faces

in high spaces. What brought you to that conclusion? Because it's a very radical one, and also like, I would say kind of cynical as well. I'm a cynical person. But I'm just interested about what about your life path brought to you by that place? It doesn't matter if it's a black person at the top. This system is rotten. So many stories I could tell.

One is as a graduate student, I was in that kind of position of being enrolled to be the black face of a scientific program that was trying to recruit more black patients to undergo a very experimental treatment. So I was enrolled to be that person that was supposed to help win over the trust of this community that was needed for this program.

And it was a very uncomfortable position because I was at one hand, you know, sort of touted and put up on a pedestal, but at the same time, very vulnerable because if I had said no, then I would have lost access to X, Y, and Z. So one is my own complicity. Then very recently in the last year, in my own institution, I've observed how black administrators in particular are really being called on to do the dirty work, to write the threatening emails, to call students who are demanding an end to genocide

aggressive and angry and a threat. And so it's not the white president, but a whole flank of black administrators who are the ones who are really doing the work of these institutions to repress free speech and dissent. And I think that that is very strategic, because when that is the face of the message, people perhaps who believe in representational politics may be less likely to question it, be critical of it, to push back against it. So it's really a way of insulating business as usual

with a cosmetic veneer of change and progress and inclusion that I really believe we have to look past and look through in order to see what's actually going on. I can imagine, you know, as I'm listening to you say these two things about diversity, the first part of it is I can imagine a lot of people who don't share your politics cheering with you, first of all, because they like I think of people like Elon Musk, who who have said, no, you know, he's like, we don't want diversity. We want the best people for the job and that's it. And stop, stop hiring diversity.

Boeing planes are crashing because of the blacks. The blacks don't know how to screw doors in. Right? Even though there's no, there's literally, there's no record of this. So he would hear you and be like, yes, thank you. We don't want diversity. We want the best person for the job. Another person would be like, wait, but then Ruha, if we're not addressing the exclusion of people, like when I think of South Africa's history,

the intention behind what we called black economic empowerment, which was terribly implemented by the way, I think the idea behind it was great and it was for a long time, black people couldn't go to schools, black people couldn't get this type of education, they couldn't get this type of job, they couldn't live in the city, they couldn't do similar to America, right? You couldn't get a bank loan, you couldn't get the mortgage, your house was undervalued, et cetera, continues to be. And so someone said, how do we design a system that tries to right that wrong and get people to where they should be? And I can imagine somebody listening to what you're saying going like,

whoa, wait, wait, wait, but then what are we supposed to do? Not fix it? Because I know you're very solutions driven as well. What do you think we're missing when we only think of the inclusion or not the inclusion? Simply put, we're not asking what we're being included into. And so, you know, whether we draw on something that Martin Luther King said in terms of being integrated into a burning house, or we think about the fact that plantations were very

diverse places. But we would never say that they were progressive or liberal. So diversity and domination can go hand in hand. And honestly, many of the institutions that people are currently working on continue this plantation ethos. I just came back from a conference where educators of color working in schools around the country, specifically independent schools, private schools, that so many of them got hired a few years ago are now being let go.

They were used up, they were put on the face of the websites, they were used to make these institutions feel good. And now that they are actually using their voices, they're being let go. And so that means that it was never about true inclusion of people's insights and experiences, but it was there to make the institutions feel good about themselves.

And so again, when we're offered two choices, exclusion or inclusion, we always have to ask ourselves what's being left off the table. I actually had a follow-up. You have been an activist alongside the students in the pro-Palestine movement, kind of become the, I'd say the professorial face of this movement at Princeton. And because of your stance, you've been suspended.

And that is what you're talking about when you're talking about black administrators and the protests against genocide, etc., in the light of diversity and inclusion. Can you speak more about that? Because you're putting your career on the line and there's people out there, like, what's Palestine got to do with you? So I'd be really curious about that. I'm happy to. And just quick clarification, I'm on probation for a year, specifically for accompanying the students in a sit-in

that took place in the spring. And I went in because they were concerned about one, police brutality that we'd been witnessing at Columbia and other places. And also because up until that point, the administration was really distorting their activities and their motives. And so they wanted a kind of objective faculty observer, but the administration has rejected

that status and just said, I was with them and so now I'm on probation. And so, you know, to think about, again, at the very moment you mentioned the MacArthur, the day before I received the call from MacArthur that I won this award in September, I had just had a very tense call with the administration that was essentially investigating my role. And so when the award was announced, it was all over the university website, all of the accolades. So they take credit, and at the same time, they're investigating me for basically acting

on what I was hired to do. And so they're happy for it to stay theory. They're happy for it to stay on the page, but when you start actually living what you're writing and studying about, then it becomes a problem. And so that is, again, this disjunction between liking things to be controlled in the way that will benefit them,

but as soon as you start to challenge them, then they try to put you in your place. Try being the operative word. You spoke about this in that same address that Christiana was talking about that went viral. One of the things you speak about as well is these universities, and universities in general, being quick to suppress people's voices when a protest is

happening, but then many years later, rewarding those people with honorary degrees or, and I didn't realize that until you said it, I was like, oh yeah, there's so many people, you name it, like from MLK to Nelson Mandela to where universities, like the institutions were against them. And then many decades later, they're like, we would like to honor you, Mr. Mandela, with this degree for the peace work that you've done. And I wish like Nelson Mandela, I wish like one time he would have come out and be like, but you were a cancer.

You told me to shut up when I was protesting. But I mean, I guess you don't want to do it in that moment. But yeah. But I mean, like Alice Walker came to Spelman, she was an undergrad there. She left after a year or two maths because they were really against her civil rights activism. And now, of course, she will be touted as a former student, even though she had to go to another school to graduate.

So there's so many cases like that. And all of these schools were talking about, you know, had students who were against apartheid, who fought apartheid, you know, like thinking about South African apartheid, it's like this touchstone in all of these places where they really, in hindsight, they're like, oh yeah, we should have been against that when it was happening. And so now it's like part of the history, yeah, they want to rewrite that tradition.

They can't make connect the dots. I'm curious Ruha as like, Trevor teases me all the time because I'm a bit of a champagne socialist, right? Yes. So I'm always very curious about the people that it goes from theory, like you write all these books to to actual praxis. Like, you are on probation right now, you know, you're not working because of what you believe in. What is it about you and your history that means you're like, oh, this can't just be what I write about, it has to be what I live? Yeah, so one is that my work is not tied to the institution. Like, I carry on doing the work.

This probation is like adult timeout. It's like, if you do anything else, quote unquote, unprofessional, as that's the language they use, then you'll really get in trouble. So it's mild compared to those colleagues who have been fired and were tenured and who've been penalized much worse. The other thing is that I became a professor very reluctantly.

Like when I was applying to grad school, my undergrad professors were like, really? You want to get a PhD? Because I was always making trouble. I was always on the activist end of the spectrum. So they were actually surprised that I wanted to pursue this. And literally the day that I turned in my dissertation, I was still questioning. So I've come into this profession reluctantly, never fully wearing that coat tightly. It's always loose. I always think of myself as more like a kindergarten teacher in professor drag. I'd much rather be talking to a room full of kids

and teenagers, and I do often. And so I think partly is that I don't identify strongly with this very uptight, insulated sort of ideal of what it means to be an academic or professor. I have one foot in the academy and always one foot out. I will never turn to these institutions for my sense of self-worth or self or mission. It's like, I don't give them my all. And so they can't take anything from me

in doing this either. Wow. Let's talk a little bit more about institutions themselves, specifically institutions of higher learning. On previous episodes of the podcast, we've talked to historians like, let's say, Yuval Noah Harari, and we've talked to people like Ta-Nehisi Coates, and we've talked to, and obviously, because of the time we're in, Israel-Palestine

comes up, but then many other issues come up, and that one overshadows some of the other conversations that are as prominent in different ways, right? The one thing I've found myself wrestling with over the past few months is how universities have failed, in my opinion, to be the bastion of conversation that moves people in a direction. And what I mean by this is, you remember, Christiana, this was even when we were still at The Daily Show, I didn't like that universities were blocking people like Ben Shapiro from coming to speak. And the reason for it was because at the time people were like, no, we don't want him to

come, he's a Nazi, we don't want this, blah, blah, blah. So forget how you feel about him or not. The thing I kept on saying was, if a university cannot immunize its students to the ideas of a quote unquote radical person, let's say depending on how you look at them, then what is the point of a university? Like I feel like that's supposed to be the boxing ground where we go, it's almost like you want your kids to come back from school and say, hey, today we fought with each other about apartheid and you know, we fought about whether or not people should be segregated and we fought about, you know, what's happening in the Middle East. But in our school, they teach us how to fight because there's like a, there's a, because

there is, there is a constructive way to do it. And I wonder from your perspective, what you think we're missing in higher learning institutions that now it doesn't seem like the kids or the faculty or the institution itself have the ability to facilitate something that society definitely can't. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's, you know, there's layers to it because I don't necessarily think it's a new phenomenon that this sort of lack of capacity to engender constructive conversation.

I would say that is distinct from the kind of debate bro style of someone like Shapiro where it is very combative. It's not about us gaining knowledge together, but it's really about me winning. Oh, it's about owning people. Yeah, definitely. We should be able to wrestle with difficult conversations. And so I think part of the exceptionalism around Palestine that we've seen in the last year in particular has a lot to do with the idealization of what the university should be, which it hasn't ever been for the vast majority of people,

and really the economic underpinnings of these institutions. You know, one person described it as a hedge fund that offers classes. So to really think about, you know, really this idea that these are this enlightenment model of learning and so much of it is profit driven and these profits are deeply intertwined with the military, military, industrial complex, weapons manufacturers. Like it's not just about disclosing and divesting specifically when it comes to Israel-Palestine, but the fact that these institutions are in bed with the military so that the calling into question of that entire infrastructure is really like getting to the foundation of

what's holding these places up. And so the crackdown that we think, oh, this is so disproportionate. These students are just trying to talk about this or that. It's because what they're talking about is really getting to the foundations of what's holding these institutions up. We're going to continue this conversation right after this short break. Yeah, you know, I was thinking about it for a whole host of topics. Like let's say Donald Trump, for instance. I'm often surprised when I meet people who cannot understand why anyone would vote for

Donald Trump. I go, you mean you have no, they're like, I just don't get it. How could you? Then I'm like, what do you mean you do have no, they're like, I just don't get it. How could you? Then I'm like, what do you mean how could you? You may not agree with the person, but surely you should be able to see that this person is identifying an issue and they see Donald Trump as the solution to this issue, right? So even if you erase your politics, just for a moment, the issue will remain, right? So the factory job is gone.

The land is now, right? So the factory job is gone, the land is now barren, there's more pollution, people's birth rates, you name it. The issue is going to remain regardless of the politics. But I don't know, I find myself constantly in conversations with people who cannot even begin to fathom the possibility of another human seeing the world differently or seeing the same thing, but coming to a different conclusion on how to repair it? Trevor, we, the three of us, and many others like us, we have to navigate a world that

was not built for us. So by a matter of survival, we have to take other people's position. We have to know how we're being seen at all times in order to navigate, to stay out of danger. It's a capacity that we have grown, we've had to grow. So we're constantly shifting positions. You know, we have language for this. Du Bois called double consciousness, you know,

looking through different lenses. And so this is part of how we see the world is not to only see it through our own lens. And so the fact that people cannot switch perspective is a luxury. It's a privilege that means that, oh, you can only navigate the world only through your lens. You don't have to take other people's positions. So when it comes to something like the Trump phenomenon

or just thinking about what on the outside appears like hate and vitriol and evil even. Part of what we have to reckon with is how from the inside of that perspective, it's not experienced as hate and vitriol. In some cases, it's actually affinity, love. People are bonding over these perspectives and outlooks. And so I remember a few years ago, I saw this really heartbreaking video,

this cafeteria scene of kids that, I think it was right after he was elected the first time, these kids were chanting, build that wall. And they were pointing at this little Latino boy in the cafeteria, build that wall, build that wall. And they were pointing at this little Latino boy in the cafeteria, build that wall, build that wall. And so I was thinking about not just those kids, but the parents of those kids who see the building of that wall, the bordering of our world,

not as an evil infrastructure, not as motivated by hate, but motivated by a distorted form of love for their own children. So the idea that we have to do this to protect our children, their jobs, their futures. It's really this, what Fanon would call like this perverse form of love. I remember reading as a grad student a book called Women in the Clan that was talking about women's very prominent role in the Ku Klux Klan. And you know this...

Hashtag diversity, hashtag inclusion. Exactly. I just want to acknowledge them. Thank you. Thank you. Point, point. And how, you know, the ethnographer who really infiltrated and went inside these organizations and, youended, in quotes, these women, she writes about how they had potlucks, they took care of each other's kids, there was so much affinity and love in the inside that then got expressed by who they hated. They bonded over who they hated.

So unless we can understand that, the kind of internal workings, then we only think of it as what is experienced from the outside. We won't get to the root of the problem, which is people seeking bonds with other human beings, but only being able to do it by having something to be against. And that is not inevitable, right? That's just what the pattern, but it's not inevitable. Yeah. It's interesting that you mentioned elementary school students, because I thought

of little expelled Trevor. But, but I must clearly state, I should have been expelled. Okay. For the record, for the record, I am not, I was not doing anything worth fighting for. I was an absolute terror, and the school was right to expel me. However, you cannot expel me. Well, no, no, no, no. I'm going to correct you. The school should have been set up in such a way that would have allowed you to express your...

I think we're going to disagree on this, but we'll come back to it. One thing that struck me about what you said, they should have created a space where Demon Trevor could have thrived. I would love for you to speak a lot more about your abolitionist politics, because I think that is the thread that runs through everything you believe, whether it's Israel and Palestine, reproductive justice, how we approach universities. You have this worldview that everyone can be redeemed and fixed and that starts in the childhood arena of how we do elementary school, which I'm really curious about because I'm currently

going through the process of trying to get a little Trevor into elementary school. Yes. I love that. I'd love to know more of that because you have this very compassionate, I think, lens on the Trump voter that people may be surprised that someone like yourself has because no one thinks about the fact that, oh, these people do love their children and it's expressed by this antagonist. So I'd love to hear more. Yeah, and I think it's different that, you know, like you can understand something and not abide it at the same time. You know, I can understand it, but I also feel very strongly that part of what sometimes gets lost when we talk about

abolition is accountability. And so it's not that we can just hurt each other, harm each other, say whatever we want, and just walk through the world sort of unaccountable to each other. So I think hand in hand with this worldview is this idea that we have to build a social fabric that when I hurt you I'm both going to be accountable to and I'm going to take action to ensure it doesn't happen again.

So when it comes to school and what we would call like the the you know, the the school to prison pipeline and all the ways that we incorporate in carceral and all the ways that we incorporate in carceral processes and logics in school, including suspension and detention and all of these things, it's a lack of creativity. It's a lack of thinking, how else could we organize this such that we don't cut off people who have a bad day or are sort of wrestling with something and can't express why it is so they act out in this way.

There's examples of schools and communities that are experimenting with that. And a lot of it comes down to, again, this prioritization of order and excellence over really play and imagination and thinking about the fact that oftentimes the first things to go from many schools when there's budget cuts, recess and art, like the very places that people would be able to have self-expression. And even our language of like black excellence, like as something to strive for, has a huge underside, you know? Going back to what we were joking about, the kind of like Nigerian parents,

like there's so much that gets lost and repressed and discounted when we strive for a very narrow form of achievement. There's so many forms of intelligence and genius and creativity that gets shut down that we never get to experience because we want everyone to sit behind their desks for eight hours a day, raise their hand, walk in line, you know. And so part of it is to rethink even what we consider education and excellence and achievement because everyone could ultimately benefit from those changes. So I love that idea, but I still say I should have been expelled. Okay? No, and I'll tell you why. So I think this is one of the main things that we struggle with in society.

Unfortunately, we are always at the mercy of, you know, the average. Right? And that's most systems. You're working at the mercy of the average. If a car is too high, it cannot drive into a parking garage. Right? If something is too wide, it cannot fit into an aisle, et cetera, et cetera. And so I think of schools. Schools are a crazy novel concept when you think about it. You design one building where a thousand-odd people can come in, and

all of them are learning, and all of them are coming together, where before it was just like a little community, few people. You learn what you can, we do what we can. And we sort of, we blew this thing out for good and for bad. Right? So what I mean by I should have been expelled actually agrees with a lot of what you're saying. I think that you have to expel Trevor from that environment because he's not good for that environment. And so I think sometimes maybe the word expel has a different connotation. I don't think of expelled as like, no, they hurt me. Yeah, no, they kicked me out. Yeah, you got a free day. No. And let me let me tell you why I say this. You're so traumatized. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, where exclusion will not be part of it. It's quite impossible. The mere act of singling a person out is excluding them already.

So if you have 10 kids together, you tell them all to keep quiet and draw. One stands up and screams. Even by saying to them, come over here, let me speak to you, you have expelled them from the group and you have excluded them, right? Now your intention may be,

oh, I'm gonna make them feel good. I'm gonna now encourage them. Hey, maybe you play a little bit more. Now, your intention may be, oh, I'm gonna make them feel good, I'm gonna now encourage them, hey, maybe you play a little bit more. But even when we create this new space for them that encourages that, they are excluded from the group because they go like, no, I wanna be in the drawing group. And you're like, no, but you're not a drawer.

But the teacher having the conversation, like bringing them aside to restore them back to the group is different from bringing them to the side, to banish them from the group forever. Yes, but now you see, but this is what I don't like. This is what I don't like. Restoration? No, you guys are trying to brainwash me.

This is what I don't like. And I mean it. This is what I think is the problem, is they go, let us bring them aside, and then we'll try and turn them into the drawers. And it's like, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, and that's why I agree with you in a large part of what you're saying And maybe that's why I'm a fan of the upside of AI if it doesn't kill us all. Okay is Because the average needs to be the average. This is how any system works

You just need to find a way for the anomalies to exist and it's hard to cater to all of them But when you exclude somebody, I don't believe in trying to get them back in. No, I mean it. I mean, because they're not of the in. The more you try and put me as Trevor back into that classroom, the more I'm going to be disruptive. And that's why I love imagination. Let me, for the record, state. You can go and see me. That's why I love your book. I love your ideas. I'm a big fan of the imagining because I go, ah, imagine a world where you could have expelled

Trevor to a school like they did with Harry Potter and them. Essentially, that's a school for the gifted. You go like, yo, man, you magic kids, you need to be separate. All these other kids, they don't do magic. We're going to put you in a magic school. And then you find community in and amongst magic and magicians. Does that make sense? So I'm saying you should be expelled.

And I'm saying what we need to imagine is where we take expelled people to, as opposed to trying to bring them back into the thing. So a couple things. One is, you know, if the kind of phenomenon you're describing of people being pulled out or expelled, let's say if it was an equal opportunity expelling, you know, where all kids were treated with that same level of scrutiny, etc., that would be one conversation. But what you're describing is there's a very strong selection effect in terms of which

young people's behavior is deemed so troublesome as to warrant expelling. We have very stark disparities in the percentage of Black students, you know, Native students, et cetera, who are expelled. And if you look country by country, there's another level to this where the rates of punishment that we think of as normal, let's say in South Africa or the US or et cetera, somehow magically other societies have been able to organize their schooling such that they don't have those outcomes. They're not expelled. So what we normalize and think this is the only way

we can deal with this issue of the average and gifted, et cetera, somehow it's not universal. That should be a clue for us that it's possible to approach education in a way that's not like a factory, where we're graduating batches of kids. And if you have any little problem with the product, you have to pull it aside. And so partly is to really rethink our model of education

that we've inherited as normal and say, what if we could approach things in a way that wasn't so mechanical, that wasn't so rigid from the start? And we don't have to come up with scratch because there's other places that are already doing this. One of the examples that I've discussed is how in Finland, like kids, they're not really focused on reading and math, etc. until the kids are older. They really take play seriously. So the teachers are like studying the kids play, you know, and like getting all these lessons. Which tells you everything, by the way, that's something I've learned from

therapists and like great teachers. Play tells you everything. Yeah, play tells you everything. And so they're really taking it seriously. And what's so kind of paradoxical in a way is that when they administer these universal tests across countries, you know, to rank which country is doing better or worse. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Finland out-tests all the other countries, like the place that's not focused on testing, that's focused on play and imagination and expression and cooperation and learning how to fight, learning how to compete, you know, productively. It's

not like, it's not kumbaya, it's like, how do we, how do we manage conflicts? You know, if you can't practice that as a kid, like, of course you don't have adults that can do that. If you don't learn how to negotiate that when you're younger and you always have a teacher to step in and say, pull this aside, pull Trevor aside, expel him. No, let's figure out how to conflict and fight productively in a way that we can, you know. So part of it is to recognize that spending time and investing in this actually leads to happier, you know, more well-rounded human beings and people who can take tests if you really care about that, you know? When I was sitting looking at some of your work, there's one question I wanted to ask you, which is extremely controversial.

I'm gonna say this ahead of time. But, and I'll preface it with this, I oftentimes think to myself that as human beings, we're searching for solutions to real problems. We very seldom think that we've reached the wrong solution, right? Because we have a good intention. I really believe most human beings do. And in looking at some of your work, your speeches, your writing, and even society itself, even some of the things you're saying now. I found myself wondering, and this applies

to America, and then maybe it'll go to other places in a different way because Finland ties in. Do you think that integration was the right move? And now I'm separating two things because I know in America people are like, well, of course, I mean, there was racism and there's segregation. And I go, yeah, no, no, no, I'm separating them. Let's separate someone being oppressed and someone not being able to get a job and someone not being able to get a bank loan. Let's take all of those, the negative things away, because I'll put myself out personally and say, I think whether we're talking about gifted kids who are anomalous, let's say,

to the norm, whether we're talking about, and I mean anything, anything that does not fit into a category, I think part of the reason Finland is able to do it is because, have you been to Finland? It's very homogenous. I've been to Finland. You know who's in Finland? Finnish people. That's it. That's it.

And because they're all Finnish, there's an idea of like, no, we all head in the same direction. We all know what our actions mean. And that's a really powerful thing I've learned in communicating with other people. When I'm in a room with anyone where we start to tie together multiple things. So if I'm in a room with black people, already there's like an implicit trust because we know what certain actions, words and vibes mean. And then you're in a room with another African, ah already, now even if you shout at me, I know what your shout means. The same way an Italian knows what an Italian shout means. Yeah. Right? I know I'm prefacing it with a lot because it's a loaded question. Yes. But I would

love to know if you think integration was the right solution maybe on the other side of, you know, what America, of civil rights. Yeah, no, I don't. And I don't think it's actually that controversial when, if you understand that segregation and integration weren't the only options. Like, those are, within those two options, it may seem like integration is the more progressive. Like, of course we don't want segregation. But again, when you're being integrated into institutions, into a culture that's a supremacist culture, that's a culture that feeds off of hierarchy, that feeds off of insecurity, anxiety,

why are we being integrated into that? And so part of it is to question what we're being invited into. And so again, when you think about the example of Finnish being homogenous, you know, nation states are imagined. The national identity is not something that is, you know, God given. It's not something that, you know, existed for eternity. These identities were created, maintained, you know, made durable over time. And so, part of stretching our imagination is to recognize all of the things that have been made up, but made to seem immutable, fixed, you know, intrinsic, including our national sort of identities. And so part of it is really like to denaturalize the things that we take for granted

as somehow magically operating to make us feel connected to each other and ask ourselves, how else can we be connected to engender the sense of solidarity where what I want for my kids, I also want for my neighbor's kids, I want for the kids who don't speak English. I want for the kids who are just arriving. And so again, to push ourselves, when you think about expanding our imagination, to make it more embracing of seeming differences that are not intrinsic, that are not something that are inevitable, you know. My sister-in-law lives in Japan, and again, it's one of those places that people think,

oh, you know, it's homogenous. It's, you know, from the outside, people think everyone is, you know, a shared identity. But Japanese of Korean descent, among many other groups, are treated like shit, you know? They're treated, it's discriminated in so many different areas of life, in education, in healthcare.

When two people go to marry, sometimes their families do a deep genealogical dive They're treated, it's discriminated in so many different areas of life, in education and healthcare. When two people go to marry, sometimes their families do a deep genealogical dive to find any Korean descent in the line before they... And so again, we are so creative in creating hierarchies and distinctions out of nothing, you know? Why can't we channel that creativity to actually work in the opposite direction? If we're doing it to maintain hierarchies and division, perhaps we can do it to engender solidarity and connection, right? And I think it's a choice.

When we give up our power and think, oh, this is something happening to us, we have to just navigate this crooked system as it is. I think that only serves those who are currently benefiting from the status quo And so I always have to ask myself who who does my pessimism serve? This is this is what I'll say to that is I think of I think a lot of this was inspired by me looking into Your story, you know, how you were raised, the many places you were raised, and how I think that influenced your life. The Marshall Islands, for instance, is something, it's funny how sometimes in life you start

to experience a story from many different angles at the same time. You know how that happens, like it might be a TV show, it might be a historical event. The Marshall Islands for me is because of the Cold War. I've just been inundated with Cold War stuff in life right now, I don't know why, I'm loving it. And now with your story, it ties in in a different way because you live there with your family and you talk about how even growing up,

you're in a world where this is an American owned area now and the people of that place who've been displaced and affected by the testing and the military base, they still have ideas, they still have dreams, they still have hopes, they still have. But it's interesting to see how that's affected you. And I'd love to know how much of you living as an outsider everywhere has sort of made you want to fight for everyone who is an outsider. I resonate with the statement you made about being in and being normal is the luxury. Right? It's a luxury to go like, oh, this is the way it is. The more you moved around as a child, the more you're like, oh, wow, there is no normal

and I have to rediscover the normal every single time. So was there like one moment and one place you moved to as a child that stirred this up inside you or where do you think it came from? It was definitely a recurring theme. It was that kind of thing where, again, that distance between what's how I'm being perceived and how I'm experiencing the world. And so although on one level, I was definitely an outsider in all of these places, at the same time, I carried home within me.

I didn't need other people to make me feel, oh, like you belong. It's like, I remember listening to Lapita on the show and she's talking about, you know, I belong wherever I am, you know, like this is what. And I really resonated with that. It's like when you're not looking for it from the outside, you cultivate it within, no one can shake it. No one can take it from you. And at the same time, being in all those places

really gave me a keen sense that as human beings, like what we think of as our world, this is the way things are, I can get on a plane and move with my family, you know, into a completely different, you know, universe. And it's, you know, all of the things that I took for granted in one place are different, whether it's racial classifications, whether it's who's on top, who's considered beautiful or not, you know, like you had a great conversation about weight, like thinness is not fetishized everywhere in the world, you know?

And so that just tells us, oh, this thing that we think of as universal and inevitable, in a different context, they're a whole different set of these parallel realities, in a way. And I was a sci-fi nerd starting about a teenager moving to the Marshall Islands, like, only thing being able to watch a Star Trek and realizing, oh, you know, like we are very adept at creating these parallel universes. And part of it is to be able to like step in and out and see, okay, this is not working for us in this reality that we currently live.

Why don't we change it? Why don't we, you know, work with other, and it's not like we have to start from scratch. Let me show you, I'll peek into this other reality and show you they I'll peek into this other reality and show you they're doing something completely different with education or with accountability and safety or with healthcare.

And so, you know, part of it is not to get so locked in to one way of perceiving things. And I think that childhood of having to move every five or six years was the classroom that I needed to be able to do that. Don't go anywhere because we got more What Now after this. So Trevor Overhair is a real AI enthusiast, and I am a technophobe. Like I'm a Luddite. He talks a lot about the transformative possibilities of AI.

I'm terrified. Now I know- And also the reality, if you even rewind this exact conversation- Yeah, no, it's grounded. But you know, because he's just an optimist in nature, he has a very optimistic view of AI. And I know your work with the new Jim Code, you speak a lot about like racist robots and all of these things.

I don't want you to feed into my techophobia. I want you to describe this world if we used our imagination to its fullness. What could AI perhaps do for us that's really good? You know, I think that there are many different types of AI. And the one that people often think about is artificial intelligence. That's the one that people are excited about. That's the one getting all the funding, all the hype. And what I, my little soapbox is to say that there are other types of AI that we

need to be prioritizing, investing in, not necessarily to get rid of the first kind, the artificial kind, completely, but to really put it in its place. I personally think it's getting too much space, attention, investment as it is. And so ancestral intelligence is one thing that I think of as an important type of AI that has to do with collective wisdom, know-how, the insights and experiences of people

who have to learn how to navigate the underside of society, who are constantly buried under the rubble of so-called progress. So there's the kinds of knowledges that grow in that rubble that are often discounted as backwards, as no longer needed, as in the past that I think we need to center. The other type of AI is abundant imagination.

Like again, going back to thinking about what often the artificial type of AI is displacing our ability to actually use our imaginations and creativity, rather than just plugging in prompts and getting the outputs. The other thing is that what appears so efficient and convenient and magical about artificial intelligence hides the fact that there are people behind these screens that are doing the grunt work to make these systems work. And this labor is outsourced to places like Kenya,

to places like the Philippines, in which workers are there doing the content moderation, doing the work that on our end seems like, wow, this is just a sentient being. No, there are armies of laborers that are making these systems go, and they're being mistreated. They're having mental health toll because they're often seeing the worst of the worst

in order to clean these systems and the internet. So anyone who is a proponent of AI, the first kind, artificial, they need to have an answer or have a reckoning with the human dimensions, the human costs, the labor, and also the environmental costs of these systems, the energy, the water usage, to simply train one algorithm. At one point, a study at MIT said it was equivalent to the lifespan of five cars. So it's not to say you have to be against it,

but you need to reckon with the costs of creating these systems, the human, the environmental, in a way that's taken seriously. Yeah, I think that's the difficulty with AI, right? Is... You know, I've heard some people say, AI is like the atom bomb. You know, when we made the atom bomb, we didn't consider all the things. I disagree with that. For a few reasons. One, because the atom bomb could not think or create or do, right?

And I use think in inverted commas, okay? It could not generate is what I mean. And more importantly, the atom bomb had only one use. Do you know what I mean? Even when they were making it, they weren't like, and it'll help you cook your food. No. Everyone knew what the bomb was for. There was no other purpose.

There was no other purpose. There was no other intention. The difficulty with AI is that we have something that puts us on the precipice of everything that we haven't even imagined, right? So here's a simple example, you know, and I credit you, Christiana, with this. Like, you're the person who came into my life kicking down doors, telling me to consider women's health

more and more and more and more. Do you know what I mean? Like just kicking down my door at the daily show and being like, do you know what it is to be a woman? Do you know the pain? And Demetriosis! And Demetriosis! Do you know that?

And I was like, oh man, I've got to pay attention to this stuff. Like, Christiana is really... But in a good way, because you're my friend, you know? And so I think of the conversations I've had with a professor at Johns Hopkins who has shown me the AI that they use to detect breast cancer in women long before it would have ever been humanly possible to detect it. And sometimes even more importantly, to prevent false positives. You know how many women are getting mastectomies but they don't have any type of cancer?

And it's like, well, thanks for playing, folks. Here's the debt. Here's your health care bill. And you actually didn't have any type of cancer. And it's like, well, thanks for playing, folks. Here's the debt, here's your healthcare bill, and you actually didn't have this thing. I look at that just in one space, right? I look at it in the world of education. A teacher is a finite resource, you know? AI is the first thing we've seen where you could genuinely have a teacher for your child,

and it isn't tied to the money that your child has, right? And I know some people are like, oh, but it's still out of reach. It is in many ways, it is. But the average cost for processing a transaction, even in the conversations we've had since 2022, has gone down 95% just cost-wise. So the accessibility has accelerated. And the one thing that I keep

grappling with is this. Yes, we know that it's using up energy, because it is. It is. But it is also the thing that has helped data centers optimize how much energy they use. And so data centers that before were just like these little hubs, little ovens cooking up all of our cloud information. Those data centers can save like up to like 25, 30% of their energy bill. So it's this weird situation where, you know, you have something that you're making and you have to make the thing to try and help you fix the thing. And finding that balance is where I go, that's the real. But the reason I'm optimistic about it is because it has another use.

It has a good purpose. And that doesn't discount the other things. And one last thing I'll say, I'd love to know what you think about this Ruha, because I know you are a techie like me, is the thing I love about AI or tech in general is that it's bustable, which is not a word, but it's like you can bust it. Okay? Okay? If you say to me as Trevor, Trevor, I'm going to put you in front of a judge and this judge

is going to rule on your life. If I go, this judge was biased. The judge goes, no, I wasn't. I wasn't biased. We talk about like, you know, we had this back in the day and we still see these, you type an image, black person on the internet. oftentimes the image that'll come up black man, it'll be a guy mugshot dangerous looking or a chimpanzee or chimpanzee. Yes.

And then you go a white man will show you like, you know, an Ivy League like Abercrombie and Fitch. Okay. But what I'm saying is, unlike humans, you can actually find that and see it and code against it. You cannot with humans. I cannot prove it with a human. We've lived in a world for so long where we've gone, you discriminate, and the person's like, no, I do not. And we're like, all right, well, fun conversation. Thanks for playing. You're saying AI can't gaslight us.

No, no, no, no, no. I'm saying we can because we have data now. And the data, I'm not saying the world becomes perfect, but I'm saying it becomes a lot easier to get to a more perfect place when the thing that we're using is itself not personal and then has data that we can work off of. And that's why I'm hopeful. I'm not a person who's like, this is going to be the best thing ever. I'm saying there are many places that could be better. And I'm hopeful because we can catch it when it's not

in a way that with humans, we just flat out could not because you couldn't prove it. And I do think that one of the ways that I think of these technologies as useful is as Trevor described as a mirror. But that presumes that people are motivated by data and facts and information, like by that seeing is believing. And we know through studies that have presented hard data to people to

show them this disparity exists, this inequality exists, seeing that information or data often has them double down on whatever their priors were. You know, there was a study out of Stanford a few years ago, they presented data on incarceration to white Americans in San Francisco and New York, said, look at these black people being warehoused at disproportionate rates in our jails and prisons. And when they were exposed to the data,

they became more supportive of the policies that were creating that effect. Stop and frisk in New York, three strikes law in California. And so, partly is to reckon with, yes, these systems can be a reflection of society, but the facts alone will not save us. This is not, people are not simply motivated by information,

but by stories. By stories. But then when it comes to like the examples you offered, which I think are really important, whether in healthcare, you know, you talked about the breast cancer screening or in education, more tailored learning, there are again studies that are showing that many of these systems are just reproducing and hiding existing problems in these institutions or in these industries. In healthcare, there was an audit a few years ago where they looked at a widely used healthcare algorithm that was discriminating against black patients

because it was trained on data in which doctors were not offering adequate services and time to their black patients. So the smarter the algorithms get, the more racist and sexist they often become. Like intelligence is like learning. This is how you human be- Well, they can become. Yeah, not inevitably- I think that's the key distinction for me. Not inevitable. So there's another counter example, and this is a positive one, I think, that sort of lends

itself to your optimism, is that a group of researchers said, okay, we understand this phenomenon, it's getting reproduced in these systems. So what they did was trained AI, not on doctors, the official medical reports, but they train the system to predict what a patient would say about their own experience of pain. So the AI's intelligence was based on patients' own self-reports. So it didn't have that anti-black bias that is embedded in those doctors' reports.

So it was not only more accurate, but less biased. So this is the lesson. It matters where we go looking for the data, the knowledge that we're training these systems on. If we only train them on the official records or the official data without being more creative and thinking what is being left out, what perspectives aren't in the official record that we need to actually train these systems on, then in this case, the embodied knowledge of patients who know

what they're feeling and whose pain is often discounted, we have to turn our attention and be more creative about, again, what even counts as knowledge. And so, so many of the things in education are trying to predict whether students are going to graduate or be successful or whether they're at risk and they're reproducing the categories. Like if I say guess which students are deemed higher risk by these AI systems? You know who that's gonna be. In my view, rather than pointing it to the students, let's figure out which adults are creating risks for these students. Let's train the AI to figure out which fields and departments are creating a hostile environment for these

young people. But we never turn the lens to those who actually have the power to shape the experience. We always look at the most vulnerable and label them and stigmatize them. Can I tell you, that's just an amazing one to just jump in on. Can you imagine, because I love this idea now, imagine if we designed a system, which is not very hard, and you actually looked at judges, actually, if someone goes to this judge, they have a higher chance of going back into the system. And then I love this, because then you shift the blame. So you go, you're like, actually, there are 10 judges.

These three, with their sentencing, we've noticed that the people actually don't come back into the system and we look at what their sentencing is. And you're like, oh, these judges seem to look at you as a human, they're more compassionate, they give you, maybe they do, as you said, they hold you accountable, but they don't think of the most punitive measure, et cetera, et cetera, so they're still a judge.

Then we look at another group and we're like, hey, you guys on the other end, these three, we've noticed that everyone that you incarcerate, your rate has the highest rates of recidivism. So actually we don't think you're good for the system because you don't seem to be doing the thing that the other judges are doing. And I love that idea.

I really love that idea. That's amazing. And so that's why I say I think we agree on a lot of it because I do like that you can do that. So for instance, here's a simple example. When we talk about AI, we talk about this big thing, this massive thing, but going to some of the things we've spoken about in this conversation, like the UAE is building their

own and so they have one that is going to be trained on whether it's religion in the Middle East, whether it's the histories in the Middle East, the cultures in the... But their data set is going to be more focused on their world. And many people who work in the field have said, the future is not going to be one grand AI. In fact, if you look at the most of the data, AGI looks like it's a scam that's just getting people to put more money in. Exactly. Right? The real thing that it looks like, which this is what I'm hopeful for and optimistic about, is not that there is an AI.

It is more that every country, for instance, will be able to have its AI. Every community will be able to have its AI. You know, so you can go, oh, I'm Nigerian, I'm Igbo, I'm this, I'm this, I'm going to put all these pieces together. And my AI within the context of my world is able to give me everything that I need because it has the context of who I am and who my people have been.

And I think that for me is like one of the most magical ideas of context contributing to culture. Does that make sense? Yeah. I get what you mean. I'm, you know me, I'm just scared of the machines. Ah, you, I get it. of the machines. Ah, you... By the way, what's your favorite tech? Are you still techie or did you switch it out

for all books? You just went full books? No. Because I know you have a lot of books. I'm still hybrid. I'm hybrid, yeah. I don't know what I would say. Actually, I'll tell you, I just came out of a two-day, hosted a two-day VR exhibit. I wasn't really for a VR. I've written about it and how it's manipulated and used for like trauma porn, et cetera. But I'm collaborating with an amazing team

that's working on a project called Phoenix of Gaza. It's a VR exhibit that has footage from the last few years in Gaza before the devastation, many cultural everyday activities, weddings, sewing groups, children playing, people sharing poetry and also now in the aftermath of this genocide. And so this is where you enter the world. It's very different from seeing something on film or on screen. The kids are looking at you eye to eye.

You're standing over the shoulder of a teenager reciting poetry passionately. You're with a little boy on a skateboard going on the beach. He has the camera and you're riding with him. And so this experience of entering this world is one thing but it's the fact that it's created by and for Palestinians. And I think it matters who's creating these technologies, with what values and goals in

mind. Like, you know, the stories that they're telling are about preservation. It's about rebuilding. It's about having now the footage of churches that have been demolished, mosques that have been demolished, mosques that have been demolished, but having the architecture there, you know, in this 360 camera with the idea that we are gonna go home and we are gonna rebuild this.

And so the Phoenix of Gaza XR project is one of the few, you know, of these kind of emerging technology projects that I think of as truly liberatory in that the goal is to, you is to engender self-determination and cultural preservation and a return, a right to return. I've been wrestling with this idea, and some of it has been inspired by conversations, some of it has just been reading, learning, et cetera,

about how much responsibility everybody bears for how they frame every single conversation they have. And the reason I think about it is because, in our conversation, we've touched on ideas of intention, culture, power, perception, all of these things. And I can't help but think about Israel, Palestine, and how, when I've sat down with people who are pro-Israel, Israeli or Jewish and Jewish American,

what's been interesting to me is seeing how different or how differently people are hearing the same thing. Do you know what I mean? So here's a simple one, not the simple issue, but like just an example. You know, there's a chant that people often say, from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free. For anyone I know who's Palestinian, when I've asked them, what does that chant mean? They say, well, we want freedom for all our people, not just in Gaza, but from the West

Bank. We want freedom for everyone. Yeah, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Yeah, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, we want our freedom, you know? And that's what we chant. And then when I've spoken to my friends who are Jewish or Israeli, maybe, and not even, you know, religious Jew or whatever, but Jewish, they go, no, this is a chant of genocide. They're saying from the river to the sea, they're going to cleanse us. What stands in the way of the river and the sea? It's Israel.

And I can't help but have compassion for anyone I speak to in this, because in some ways, like in South Africa, we've had stories like this, where there was a struggle song and a chant that was sung by black people who were fighting against an apartheid government. And then now that song, some people feel like targets them if they are a white person who's a farmer in the country. And then the person singing it goes like, no, no, no, no, no, it's not about that. And I couldn't help but think about like how many times Nelson Mandela would give a speech.

And at times I would think it was unnecessary, but he would say, he would go like, I am not for the oppression of black people. And he's like, and I'm against the oppression of white people. I'll be like, well, that's a, that's an unnecessary, why would you need to say it? I used to think that all the time when I'd hear it. And then now I find myself wondering, how much burden should we bear? Like how much should we be cognizant of how we are saying what we are saying? Because the fights are still going to happen. But we almost want the most clarity to be fighting about the thing we actually, or arguing or discussing the thing we actually need to be discussing.

Does this make sense? Because you would think it's not necessary for Nelson Mandela to say that he does not want white people to be discussing. Does this make sense? Because you would think it's not necessary for Nelson Mandela to say that he does not want white people to be oppressed. But then you realize that if he, Black Lives Matter is a good example and all these things. If you do not say that at times, and even if you do, because he was labeled a terrorist, let's not forget that. There are some people who go, wait, wait, wait, you don't want black oppression, so what about white oppression? And it's amazing to me that he thought about, there was no social media. Nelson Mandela wasn't on Facebook, this was long before this time. But he intuitively knew that he has to say, I don't want black people to be oppressed.

However, this does not mean that I want white people to be oppressed either. I'm against all oppression. And so I'd love to know, yeah. I love that, because you can interpret that as, you know, him sort of pacifying or conceding to this sort of white fragility, let's say. But you could also understand it going back to how we started the conversation about, you know, sort of what we're being integrated into is that oftentimes we've seen when an oppressed group gets power, they reproduce the same forms of domination

that they were once resisting. And so part of it is the fact that his historical imagination is so keen that he knows that it's not out of bounds to think that, oh, if this is all you've known, this is how you've seen power exercised, that's all you've known, then once you seize it, you are very likely going to mimic or reproduce exactly what you were against. And so part of it is really to think about, you know, not just who is doing the action or saying the words, but really what are the logics behind it. And so language, you know, is a kind of technology in that way that can be wielded in various ways.

My own sort of approach is really to try to stay keenly attuned to those who are oppressed in any situation and thinking about language from that perspective. I just came from a conference where after I gave my talk, there was a backlash because people, I guess, don't like using the word genocide to describe what's happening to Palestinians. And so I said, but I also had a slide there about caste and caste hierarchies. I was born in India and there's an image that I show

of Dalit protesters saying caste is evil. And I said, you know, upper caste people who see that, I'm sure that makes them very uncomfortable. They're opposed to it. You know, I talk about how religion is used to naturalize caste and make it seem like it's ancient and inevitable and cultural, right? And so I said, you know, the difference is, is those people, the upper caste who might be opposed to me showing that and talking about that, they don't currently have the power

to impose their worldview on me. And I think it's a kind of hubris, and it's a kind of supremacist thinking that you can tell me or tell an oppressed group how they can talk about their own oppression. That is a self, a symptom of supremacist thinking and hubris that I think people need to reflect on themselves No, I agree with that, but I think even in trying to channel. Let's say an argument someone might have they would go

Yes, but you are not in that situation. So I'm not telling them how to say it I'm saying to you as the person who's not in the situation that your language is dangerous. Does this make sense? Yeah, I know. I completely understand. And I mean this when I say I wrestle. I think it's a tool for censorship, though. So it's interesting you say this, because... That's how I feel. I think about it in many different...

Because I can't tell them how to articulate their experience. Exactly. Do you understand? Like, if we invert that. It's exactly. If we say, well, I believe it's a genocide, this is a chant that I choose to use as an ally, if I then in turn say, well, your language is problematic and it's insulting to me, I'm not allowed to do that. And my view is, it's like if we really do have free speech, if we have freedom of thought

and expression and views, everything is fair game. You know my favorite saying, racists have outlets too. It's the fact that people should be free to say what they like and I resent that policing instinctively on either side. It tells you a lot about power. Who can impose their language on others? Who can get people fired for using certain language or saying certain things? Whether it's the word genocide or a child. I agree with you on that.

I think that's a different thing that I'm speaking to. Okay, what are you speaking to? Just to clarify. No, no, no, because I think so many of these things overlap, you know? It's the Venn diagram again of issues. So for instance, to play devil's advocate or whatever, there are many conservative people in America who have said, it's interesting how if that person, the person who is black, gay, trans, whatever, if they say something about me or my group or whatever, they can say it.

But if I say something, even questioning, you know, I just wonder, like, should a trans child be converted at this age? I am then labeled as transphobic and I'm fired from my job and I'm, and it's exactly what you're saying, by the way. They go, but I was not trying to be inflammatory. I was trying to ask a question. And the person goes, no, by even asking that question, you are enabling the idea. And they go like, whoa, what are you doing to me? And then their job goes, hey, we have to let you go because you're transphobic.

I've always kind of thought that's a straw man argument, just because if we look at the state of society today and who has actual power, you know, these people aren't talking about freedom of speech. We know people are free to say what they say. But the people who bear the most consequences, I think, seem to be the most radical, especially if we think about it. The people who bear the most consequences? The brunt of the consequences have the more radical view.

Which I think is normal in a society. I mean, right now, it's very hard to find a professor on probation for being pro-Israel. The brunt of the consequences have the more radical view. Which I think is normal in a society. I don't think there's any society. Right now, it's very hard to find a professor on probation for being pro-Israel. Let's be clear. In this moment in time, in this country, but Ruha's on probation for being pro-Palestine. And it's the chance of the people who align with Palestine who are being censored and saying, making me uncomfortable. Right.

So I'm, you see on that part, I'm saying that is clearer to me. Because whether we like it or not, throughout history, those who have power have used their power to protect themselves. And I mean, this seems like a natural human inclination. It would be weird for a person with power to not use it. You'd be a very interesting type of person I'd love to meet. Please send us an email so we can talk to you. No, I'm speaking to something different.

Like Ruha, I'd love to know even from your experiences, were there moments where you were able to either facilitate or notice a breakthrough in the communication that the kids on campus were having with each other? That's what I'm talking more about. The ramifications of your speech are a separate issue. And who gets to decide is a separate issue. I'm just talking about with us as people, when we say something and how we say it,

how much responsibility do we bear to clarify? And then also, because you've been in like literally the hotbed of it in America in many ways, have you seen anything that was a glimpse of hope? Have you seen a conversation or an idea where you went, oh wow, as a sociologist, as a MacArthur genius, you were even surprised by the effect that it had? I would say the most heartening and the most... It surprises the wrong word, but the breakthrough that you might say that I've observed is not about this kind of liberal speech exchange

where we understand the other person's perspective, but it's been seeing specifically how Jewish students have stood with many others in terms of being against genocide. And so that it doesn't break down neatly along identity lines that they are able to understand not despite their Jewishness, but because of their Jewishness, they're able to articulate how their values as Jews actually motivates their understanding that somehow this radical notion that all life is sacred, that their well-being, their security should not be at the expense of anyone else.

Like that to me has been the most heartening way in which things are not reduced to identity and they don't simply live at the realm of speech but at the realm of action. Like people actually, Jewish students putting their own status and well-being on the line in order to stand in solidarity. So I would point to that as a place where we're breaking old patterns. Right. I often wonder to myself, I wrote this thought down. It applies to everything, the world of tech. Ruha, when I've read your work, you know, talking about who designs the tech that shapes our lives, there was a professor who's really well-acclaimed or like a researcher scientist, and he said, you know, and I paraphrased, like, the problem

with having women in the lab is that they're distracting and they're beautiful and you fall in love with them and they make, you know, they, and it's, and it was just like, what are these ladies? They, I can't think about the test tubes when I'm thinking of fallopian tubes. It was like that kind of vibe, you know? Yes. And, and I was listening to that. And obviously, you know, rightly so, there was like a straight up backlash. Like, all women who are scientists were like, what, so we're not supposed to be in a lab because of this? But I found myself thinking about how every group is affected by another group in some way, shape or form. And to your point of imagination, can we imagine other ways to do the thing,

or is homogeneity and sameness the only way to achieve it? Right? Because I think of, let's say, schools at the lowest level, at the lowest, like even before sort of like people are formed, you see these little kids where they show that if girls are in a class with boys, they perform less. Oh yeah, you know I'm very pro-girl school. Yeah, you are. I'm a product of a girl school. And so, I don't know, what I found myself thinking about is,

is there something to be said to the idea of like creating more of as opposed to trying to jam everybody more in? Does this make sense? Yes. And I know someone might hear me say this and go like what so you're saying we should have like a women only lab? Maybe is what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't know by the way. I'm just saying like what would happen because that guy's not wrong. Like even in war. But Travis it's going to be tough for you mixed race people isn't it?

Ah don't worry about us. Look at my kids. Don't worry about us. Dominican, Nigerian, Puerto Rican, Brazilian, British, and American parts. They're going to be the only ones in the lab. Yes, but can I tell you something? And I'll tell you, I've believed in this for a long time. I still do. I believe adversity is your friend if you're taught to deal with it. You know, I talk to you all the time about anti-fragility as opposed to just resilience.

I remember having a conversation with a group of like former military, you know, I don't know what they, where they served and how, I think it was even from different countries. And they talked about how they were less efficient and less able to do their jobs if they were serving with women. And not in like, these people weren't being shitty, by the way, they just gave me a new perspective, you know, they weren't like, women shouldn't be in the military. They were like, can I be honest with you? When I'm in a gunfight and I'm surrounded by guys, I just think about winning the gunfight. When I'm in a gunfight and there's a woman in the battalion, I'm like, damn, we've got to make sure she's also, because when we're picking up the backpacks and

we're running and then I'm thinking of her, the weight that she's carrying, and some of it, I know some of it will tap into like patriarchy, some of it will tap into infi, but some of it, I know some of it will tap into like patriarchy, some of it will tap into infi- But some of it also taps into the very real thing that human beings have, where a mother will care more for a child than she will for an adult. You know what I mean? And where like instinctively as people sometimes we act differently in an environment. So I just wonder, even for you talking about the sisterhood, what do you think is so important about finding spaces where people who are alike can come together

without those spaces being exclusionary? Because it's a paradox. And so I think, you know, it's like when I talk about the sisterhood, it's always with an eye to what often gets assumed about the sisterhood. For me, the value of bringing together everyone that seems the same on one level is that you immediately realize how different you are. So for me, the great value of my Spelman education

is I realized how much difference and hierarchy there is among black women, whether it's because of skin tone, region, where you're born, your class, your religion, your sexuality. And so the value is to actually undo the notion that we're all alike, and that you actually get to wrestle deeply with the fault lines that you often don't have to get to do in predominantly white settings because you have to band together. And so the value of it is not to relish

in some idealized notion of shared identity, but to actually say crap. Like we have all of these issues that we never ever get to deal with because we always have to have this false sense of unity and sameness, right? And so there is definitely a function for that. I would love to know, like, you know, I know it's a big thing, but from yourself personally,

and then what you see hopefully unfolding or what you see realistically unfolding in the landscape of education. I'm terrible at prognostication and prediction, in part because that's what AI... Real sociologists. I've noticed none of them do it. I know. But I mean, going back to AI... No, I love it.

I love it. But it's also like, that's the whole, like, so much of AI is about prediction and it closes off possibilities in my view, like, closes off, you know, futures when we try to predict everything. And so part of it is like, you know, we think about these institutions, what we've been experiencing I think is like pulling back the curtain on what was already there to begin with. It just has become more manifest, like these interests of big donors, for example. There was always there, manipulating things behind the scenes, but now it's come to stark light because of the protests. So I feel like in this moment,

it's an opportunity to be truthful about what these institutions are about, what our own complicities and obligations are, and to act on those truths. Rather than feeling disillusioned or we're going backwards somehow, really thinking about who we join in community with to actually build the world. And the world is not some grand thing, but like the micro-worlds, the reality that we have to function in. And I would say one thing that gives me hope is that I'm in a department within a larger

institution that is acting on different values where we're not trying to be stars, but we're trying to cultivate a constellation, a community in which we're in this together. And so I feel tangibly that it's possible to do things differently, even if the dominant culture of whatever industry or institution we're in is moving in one direction. We have the power, especially when we band together and we work together, to actually create a different way of doing things, perhaps like a seed that can grow and become a model for something that we want to develop over time. Wow.

That's amazing. I know. From saying maybe you won't have something and then you had it all. I know. Ruha, thank you so much for joining us. Pleasure. Yeah, I can't wait to see where your journey takes you. We'll be following Keenly, reading the books, listening to what you say, and hopefully you'll

come and join us again. Absolutely. Thanks for having me, both of you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming. Bye. What Now with Trevor Noah is produced by Spotify Studios in partnership with Day Zero Productions.

The show is executive produced by Trevor Noah, Sanaz Yamin and Jodie Avigan. Our senior producer is Jess Hackl. Claire Slaughter is our producer. Music, Mixing and Mastering by Hannes Brown. Thank you so much for listening. Join me next Thursday for another episode of What Now? Thanks for watching!