tv In Depth Heather Mac Donald CSPAN March 3, 2019 12:00pm-3:00pm EST
>> our diversity is our strength. our unity as our power. >> we must also build a world where diversity and difference are promoted and celebrated. >> i think that what's important is that as a leader he speak up on behalf of the rights of all americans and the respect we should show for the diversity of our country, which is think is one of her great strengths. >> host: heather mac donald, author of "the diversity delusion", when you hear the phrase diversity is our strength, what comes to mind? >> it makes me want to throw up because it is so darn hypocritical. they don't really mean it. they are defining diversity in the most narrow, constricting way, which is gonads and melanin which is not relevant as far as i'm concerned to somebody's worldview to their beliefs, to their aspirations in life.
and they are talking about basically race and gender quotas. the idea of the intellectual diversity is foreign to them. this is just a code word for a warm-up identity politics that think is extremely dangerous and poisonous for our society. >> host: isn't it important though that as you say con ed's and melanin -- gonads dashboard included women look at these people trip for absolute not absolutely not. i could not care less what the gender of the lab worker on alzheimer's, let's say. right now our national government does and it is pressuring every scientific department in the country come in university and private scientific firms as well to hire based on gender because the
mantra now coming out of the national science foundation is the only good science is diverse science. do i really care who discovers the cure for alzheimer's disease? i do not. and i'm not going to assume that i know your views based on your skin color for your gender. i'm so sick of this prefix now that comes about every statement in our identity obsessed world, which is well, as a woman, xyz, or even better, as a black woman, xyz. and best of all, as a trance black woman, xyz. none of that follows are ongoing to treat everybody as an individual but that is that what the diversity rhetoric is about. >> host: how did we get here? >> guest: difficult. it's easier to describe the trajectory than to understand the cause. all i know is that when i was in college in the 1970s, there was some crazy their equipment t
which i unfortunately fell for, that said some very weird things about language, literature, meaning. but, but i was so fortunate to be in the '70s because it got to read the greatest works of english literature without anybody thinking to complain let's say as a female i was somehow in an unsafe space reading john milton or reading william wordsworth. i got to immerse myself in language and in beauty, in sublimity without regard to the race for gender of the authors. the ag's changed everything. you had the rise of a virulent radical multiculturalism on college campuses, women's studies, gender studies that started to teach students that they were entitled to reject some of the greatest works of
civilization and works that they had not a clue about something because of the authors, the creator of the page or philosophers were of the wrong race or gender. you know, we saw the civil rights movement which, to its credit, , fought against centurs of american bigotry, on behalf of the rights of the individual. in the 1960s, that started changing into a much more radical, a nihilistic black bar politics. i think that was something that was moving into the colleges as well. and the women's stuff, it just, it wrote on the coaches of the civil rights movement i think improperly, and -- road on the
coattails -- the funny people on the basis of race and gender. >> , from the book "the diversity delusion" you write the colleges across the country are creating what tort law calls eggshell plaintiffs. creating fragile individuals injured by the slice collisions in life. >> guest: true, absolute. they purport to be unsafe on a college campus. can't i just remind your viewers and you, peter, how ridiculous this idea is? you have students now, , it is impossible to overstate the degree of modern caterwauling. they will say as ideal student i'm at risk of my life from racism and sexism. this is crazy. there has never been a more tolerant, more opportunity filled environment in human history than a college campus. it is filled with the most well-meaning faculty who want all of the students to succeed, in particular societies
traditionally oppressed groups. and yet students are being encouraged by this growing diversity of bureaucracy to think of themselves as victims and to celebrate their victimhood. there is a ruthless competition underway on every college campus today to be the top dog victim. these days that position glorified, sought-after is occupied by trans individuals. but that won't last. anybody who can guess the next top dog victim is more forcing than i but gets the prize because they are the students are desperate to find some way to trump the current totable victim its. >> host: heather mac donald, isn't there some legitimacy in women's studies, african-american studies to tell those stories in history as well? >> guest: i don't think there should be separate disciplines. we tell them all the time. novels tell the story of women,
of blacks with extraordinary empathy. huck finn does. i just read solitude set in post-world war ii britain. incredible insights into female sexual competitiveness. of course we should open our history. we should understand reality in as great and brought away as possible. but the reality is this, peter. those separate studies department, whether it's a black studies, latina studies, women's studies, they become grievance factories. they are not about openness. they are about cultivating a very particular mindset, which is one that is at war with the accomplishments of western civilization. >> host: when you speak on the
college campus what is your reception? >> guest: its varied. it's been at times, it's been rather hostile, physically so, brute force. other times it's merely tense. but other times students have listened respectfully asked questions. the university of pennsylvania recently, it was a challenging audience but they were all respectful. there was no interruptions. i was recently at the university of colorado boulder. that was a mixed audience, a lot of people come adults from the community so they were very receptive to my message but there were some faculty there that were insulted by the fact that i actually said that there are no bigots of university of colorado. this is a very weird thing about our current moment, peter. there is nothing more insulting you can save to a college
administrator than your institution is filled with good people. there are no bigots there. because they want to say this is a bigoted environment. it is a very perverse situation where you have elite liberal institutions voluntarily embracing the narrative that they discriminate, , when this s empirically demonstrably false. so i was at university of colorado boulevard, you know, did wonderful job inviting me. nevertheless, for me to say that this is an open-minded institution was seen by some people there as an insult. go figure. >> host: what's the advantage to saying it's not in open environment? >> guest: that's a fabulous question. if one were starting from scratch not knowing the whole
victim ideology that we live in, it's absolutely puzzling, and yet there is a bureaucracy in every university today, and it's not confine to the elite colleges. it's now trickling down sadly even into community colleges, that it's invested its entire well-being is dependent on this idea that there is institutional racism on college campuses. and there are people whose identity, again, if you're doing black studies, possibly you are reading ralph ellison and do boys -- w.e.b. du bois with an ear for the language and greatness. but the far greater likelihood is what you were telling students is that the enlightenment itself, which is all about tolerance is a source of racism and bigotry.
which is historically false. these departments are invested in this narrative that america remains in chemically, permanently racist and sexist. this is ta-nehisi coates which is probably the best paid college speaker today, he is beloved by every college administrator because his message is, is that the identity of america, not just 200 years ago, but today, is to destroy the black body. and that is a message which colleges perversely welcome and encourage, and you don't want to hear a counter narrative. >> host: back to "the diversity delusion," you quote peter kuvin, vice president of academic affairs in california, i fully understand that people have strong opinions and
different often painful expenses with the issues, heather macdonald discusses. i also understand that words can hurt. why did you include that in the book? >> guest: i guess i wanted to give a full picture of what happens at claremont mckenna. >> host: what happened? >> guest: which was a blockade, a student of about 250 students that surrounded the auditorium where i was supposed to speak about my previous book, "the war on cops" which simply tries to give voice to the hundreds of people whom i've had the privilege to meet in high crime neighborhoods, whether it's south-central los angeles or central harlem who are law-abiding, they want their children to succeed and they support the cops. they want public order. they want the same freedom from fear that people in other neighborhoods can take for granted, and they say the cops
come why are you getting kids off the street? why are you not getting the drug dealers out the corner? i wanted to give an alternative story to the black lives matter narrative. this was viewed as something that was not tolerable, not allowable on claremont mckenna campus by the students, and those from the neighboring claremont colleges like scripts and pitzer, harvey mudd. and so hours before supposed to speak, students started congregating outside of the auditorium and it was so, this is just classic of students sort of wallowing in their self-pity. their rule for the blockade was that the black students would be on the inner ring, because otherwise they were so at risk from claremont feckless police
forces, the some of them come in and billy club and would be beating them. so the students believed that my presence there as a racist, sexist, islamophobe, trans folk, it's the usual litany of substitutions for thought and for engagement, that fascist mac donald adds to be shut down. peter, one of the dean's was trying to sort of i don't know threat the needle and throw them -- of courses as a threatening rhetoric or make people feel unsafe. you know, which is just ridiculous. we should not be playing to this absurd conceit. there are millions students abroad in asia right now, peter, who are studying night and day
for the privilege of attending an american college this alleged maelstrom of hatred. there are students of color. why did he want to come here? because they understand that an american college today offers boundless opportunities. you can read every book that has ever been written. this is something that would've driven the renaissance humanist mad with indian desire. and yet these students are being taught to think of themselves as victims. it is educational malpractice. >> host: has there been another time in our history, as mac donald, were identity politics has played such a large role? >> guest: interesting question. obviously, to our original sin was slavery and segregation.
that was identity politics, the because of the color of your skin you are not granted the protections of the constitution. and we fought a civil war to try and remedy that profound violation of our founding ideal. now, the civil war didn't in things, obviously, because parts of america held on very tenaciously to their identity politics. but i would argue today that we have very largely overcome that. there is not a single institution today that is not bending over backwards to hire and promote both as many people
of color as possible and females. you know, what we had in the 20th century instead of identity politics, i would actually rather go back to the leftist of marxism. it's more interesting to divide the world into, say, capitalists, railroad barons, workers, farmers. those more interesting categories than race and gender. that's an accomplishment. that's something you do, but the identity politics is really taking us back to a time in american history which i think we should all be happy to have left. >> host: journalist debra dickerson writing about you in "mother jones" in 2008 said that you are among america's harshest critic of blacks, harshest and
most devastating unlike most of the right wing blogosphere. homegirl does her homework. trekkie well, i don't know about harshest critic of blacks. i would say i'm a critic and an ideology that is going to guarantee for the racial equality -- inequality. i am a critic of any type of culture that is counterproductive, that disparages academic effort, the bourgeois values of gratification. and so i'm certainly a critic of race hustling, but i don't, i don't view, i'm surprised she was there because i think that is completely inaccurate. >> host: when you read this article though, and this was back in 2008, have you met her? >> guest: nell. now. trauma it's a backhanded
compliment. it's a very favorable article in the sense that basically she says, you come prepared, and that the left has to prepare to debate you. >> guest: yeah, it does help to look at statistics, because as i don't looking at statistics, about crime, about police shootings, say, demolishes the black lives matter narrative, police shootings of black men. so i'm always happy to debate numbers. >> host: two of the things you take on in your most recent book, "the diversity delusion" black lives matter and the #me too movement. isn't the #me too movement an important social movement? >> guest: to the extent that yes, it can find itself the sexual predation in the workplace which is a reality, and shames men into acting like
gentlemen. that is something that is very valuable, but it immediately morphed, not surprisingly, into yet just another pitch for gender quotas. and so you now have, again, hollywood, you have the music industry. they are quite explicitly saying we are going to hire, nominate award, price, based on gender kicking institution now that is going to dare put out a slate of anybody for anything that is not 50-50 male-female is asking for trouble. and the other thing is, again, like i support males acting like gentlemen, and have a sense of chivalry and restraint.
and females acting responsibly and modestly. but the #me too movement to the extent that it is still invested in a sexual liberationist view is not, would be a little conflicted in what it says is the ideal male behavior. so again, i think that we had norms of sexual behavior that before sexual liberation came about, acknowledge the differences between the male and female libidos. those were all thrown aside in sexual liberation on the assumption that they were somehow oppressive to females. and we have now a situation that is great for males. the scene on college campuses where there's no default against
premarital sex and females, if they don't want to have a drunken hookup with a guy they probably know, have to argue the way out of the default, yes. that i don't think is a particularly advantageous situation to females who react differently to casual sex, intercourse. it produces physiological, biological, hormonal responses in females that are different in males. it produces more of a desire for emotional bonding. and the hookup culture that says e-mails should regard sex with as casual and attitude as males do, something that i think is contrary to nature and is not in the best interest of females. >> host: it's a lonely job, you're right, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. they have today you wait for the casualties to show up from the campus rape epidemic, but few victims call. could this mean that the crisis is overblown?
no. it means, , according to the campus sexual assault industry in that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone has ever imagined. >> guest: exacta. again, this is another paradox, peter, of our college campuses today. just as you would think that a college would welcome the told there is no big hits you, you guys are not, you know, some jim crow slaveholders. you are open-minded tolerant people. you would also think that a college would welcome when it has low reported rapes. who wants to be a rape even? who wants to be a scene of violence of an unprecedented proportion, which is what this campus rape statistics are telling us, the meme that the obama administration picked up
which is 14, one in five venus will be sexually assaulted during their college years, that is a level of sexual violence that is almost unheard of anywhere in the globe today. you can look at detroit which is america's most violent city, and if you can find -- combine all violent felons films which fbis which is murder, rape, aggravated assault and robert, you get a grant total annual of 2%. rate is in .01 something. so 20%-25% over 4%-25% over four years is just mind-boggling. so you would think a college would welcome that people, girls are not reporting campus rapes. but when the campus rape bureaucrat at yale was asked, well, harvard has 30 rapes, they have more rates than you, the
yale rape bureaucrat was very offensive and said well, they must be over counting, you know, because we wish we had that many rates. it was as if somebody was ragging on the about the latest harvard, yale game or something. the fact of the matter is that if this cannot sexual pilots were going on, instead of a stampede of females to get into college, which is the reality we are seeing, a stampede that grows more and more frenzied every year, you would've seen a stampede of girls to get out of college. you would've seen a movement decades ago to create more single-sex schools where females can study in safety, free from this pall of campus rape. you would not see, i assume, because i'm going to assume that females have some degree of intelligence and some degree of solidarity to warn themselves off, to be strong women together
which you are supposed to believe in. if that were the case you would not see on every saturday night that coeds to be often rugby road at uva to the frats, or any other school to the frats. if these in fact, were dens of rape or i'm going to soon enough so to protect themselves, and they keep going in. >> host: you earlier on said you fell for x kind of language in your college career. what does deconstructionism mean, and what you mean when you say you fell for it? >> guest: oh, dear. it's so crazy, peter, so arcane but it was in one sense the root of what happened later, lisa for a rhetorical gesture. deconstruction was this theory about language and literature the king of france in the 1960s, 1970s. it's main goal was a french so-called philosopher named
shock -- and he had an aura of european sophistication around him, and he wrote prose of under impenetrable jargon. yale rising undergraduate was the counterpart, and he would come every or trailing his white silk scarf, trailing acolytes and graduate students starry eyed. and yale was the place -- deconstruction of a some very odd propositions about language. it said that language always failed, that language was about itself -- it never referred outside of itself because language consists of a set of arbitrary signs your there's no natural relationship between the word for dog and the dog in
french, it is -- in german it is -- these are all arbitrary. because the verbal sign is arbitrary, smo deconstruction, therefore we can't mean anything. and your -- literature is levite itself. it's not about trying to express the human dilemma. it's not about trying to discuss love and loss. it is about its own failure to meet. the real kicker, the weirdest thing about deconstruction was it said there is no such thing as the human self. the human self is just a trope of language, just fiction. why would anybody believe this? it's contradicted by daily experience at you and i are talking. i understand you. i think you probably understand it and hope the listeners understand. i hope they do. we know human beings are more than language.
and yet i had been interested always in high school, i was attracted to language. i loved faulkner because of the language was so right and strange, and i loved melville for the same reasons, these incredible sleights of description about the water and the whale. and this seemed like it was hottest thing happening. it was the thing to do. so i fell for it, and i wasted so much time in college trying to understand -- and heidegger, time that should've been spent reading more novels, reading history. but the one thing about deconstructionism, it made you pay close attention to language. you were doing it for the wrong reason. you you are doing it to find wok textbook -- but we read closely. and as i say, was also in mandarin sites because we read
the canons. nobody -- the counterpart at yale, he read rousseau. here plato. he read -- for weird reasons he read shelley may read them. and again this was pre-identity politics i was glad was glad for that. now, the language which is highly mattered, it was weird self-involved rhetoric, that then gave rise any weird perverse way because you didn't have the self rising up like a phoenix and multiculturalism and sang literary studies is only about the self. now students only want to study themselves as a female. it was a weird turn of events, so you had the idea that the self is a fiction thing had ascend, but language of deconstruction held on and so
all the negativity, that is all still with us allowed. >> host: did that make you in the sense of left is, a progressive? what your politics influenced by this deconstructionism? >> guest: no. my politics were influenced by simply growing up in america, on the coasts. i grew up in l.a. i would to school on the east coast. those were environments where liberalism was simply a default. and i did not have the desire, the impetus, whatever, to think my way out of the default. some students did obviously but i was just an unthinking not particularly lyrical but i know i very much -- political. i remember when the bike of mine got stolen from in front of the yale law school when i was back there as a graduate student, my
view i didn't deserve that bike. i had this really in summation, this was an 84 people came up with the idea of white privilege, but i guess i believe it, somehow i had the right to the bicycle. how can i complain? i think it was, deconstruction was not particularly political. when it became identity politics, that's when the politics given. >> host: when you were growing up in southern california there was a relatively solid mix of conservatives and liberals? >> guest: yes. i was in a school that a lot of hollywood kids, but my school was not particularly political. i'm very grateful for that. it was, we really, we did our science projects and we studied the krebs cycle and read huck finn. so i don't recall it.
i think it's probably more in high school and just the assumption of college. i never would've thought about that is rare was communicated. >> host: what kind of work did your parents to? >> guest: my father was a lawyer who ended up managing a trust, and the state, and had some commercial real estate with other owners in los angeles. and so he sort of, ended up being, didn't practice law, more of a solo practitioner. and my mother i'm very grateful, she was a homeowner, a home worker. what's the term? homemaker, a mother. even more importantly, both my parents read to me, and they understood the value of these great children's books, the great english tradition of children's literature, of wind
in the willows, of winnie the pooh, railroad children. and so i was allowed to fill my head with these amazing stories of innocence, of irony. the writing of the british, the british children's literature tradition is so sophisticated. the language is so rich, the descriptions of nature are so brilliant but it's also so cozy, the stories of the animals that are personified. so she read to me, my father taught me to read very early on, captains courageous. so that was i think probably very important thing in my upbringing. >> host: masters degree from cambridge, a postgraduate degree from cambridge and a law degree from stanford. >> guest: it took me a long time to get the bug out of my system. i came back to yale.
what really turned me on academic and again i apologize if this is getting into the wee tear of academics but a study linguistics at cambridge in england, and that was language. that was the study of language and a fellow something called speech x3 which was a a creation of the british analytic philosopher named jl austin, , d to do things with words. this was edited to deconstruction. deconstructions display which always fails. language breaks down. all about self. you can't communicate. often noticed a certain types of sentences that are not descriptive. they're not true in full. some like to say that table was broken. we can determine is that you are false? it's false. instead there are certain senses that do things -- sentences. if i say i, , peter, they just y married husband and were in a
proper bible we can exchange marriage vows that statement is not true or false. it is change the world. we have made a the contract, of i christened this ship, that is not a true false statement. with that statement i've changed, i did something with words. and often develop this interesting type, different things you do with different words, a philosopher at berkeley was the american version of doing beach x3. this was a completely different view of language. i love syntax, love studding phonetics but are nevertheless, have determined that i would go back to yale to start a phd and competitive ledger because i could think of nothing greater in one's life and to be given the responsibility of reading these great works, and to be the person who passes on this inheritance to students, to be able to sit in sterling library
of yale and read edmund spenser. this is the greatest thing one can aspire to. i still have the deconstruction but in the a little bit, i got back and i heard my professors who i had revered as an undergraduate but were saying the same things they said when i left, and i heard it as a form of madness. i heard paul them on talking about shelley mutilation, shelley. but this is crazy, so i left. i quit but i still was interested in the study of language and interpretations i went to law school not because i wanted to be a lawyer but it turns out though sort of a legal version of deconstruction that was hot in the aids consumed the cold critical legal studies which looked at legal text, not as things to accomplish things, but again a sort of language
product that now we're getting very political. when you get into critical legal studies things are getting very critical. they're interested in an impression it interesting legal test as a form of impression but i was interested in still of interpretation, how to read text, how to read the constitution. we are talked about this all the time. originalism debate. it's an interesting debate. how do we determine what the constitution means? do we try to get the access to the founders? can we get access to the founders intention? these are interesting philosophical question. do any of us really know what that group of men meant? but maybe it's not even relevant. all of these questions that come up in law i was thinking about in the literary context. that's why i went to law school which is not a good reason to go to law school necessarily. it's a better reason if you want to actually become a lawyer. when he went to the law library the first of my heart sunk. casebooks on the shelves that
are very, not literature but i stuck it up and what did you ever practice law? >> guest: not much. i clerked for the most liberal judge in the country, stephen reinhardt, who, he lives that i was the clerk, zola clerk who went bad because i did eventually become more conservative. but he was a very sweet that have kept up with them over the years, and he had an exquisite sense for language and helped us think to ring out some of the mannerisms i may start had in my prose thanks to deconstruction and then i worked at epa briefly at the general counsels office, which is the office that makes sure that the regulations that the scientists have written, allegedly conform with congressional intent. i had been, i volunteered for the -- i still consider myself an environmentalist. i didn't grasp, however, the epa
does toxic regulation and that, it was a lot of chemistry and that was not really to my liking. >> host: you consider yourself a classical conservative today or a classical liberal today? >> guest: i don't know. i guess, interesting, classical liberal? i suppose but i don't think i met all very libertarian. but i'm conservative to the extent i suppose that i do believe in self discipline and restraint in custom, and authority, and in meritocracy. i think that's probably one of the biggest distinctions and now. meritocracy and the capacity of individuals to determine a good deal of their fate, which isn't to say that people are not born into wildly different circumstances. there's fast privilege, people who do not have privilege in
their families circumstances. this is undeniable, , but i stil would argue today that the most important determinant of how people into in life is the effort they put in individually, and that any individual in america today has a massive scope for the exercise of individual agency. >> host: how did you get into writing books? >> guest: well, i got into writing were actually i first writing project was going to be i wanted to write the definitive reputation of deconstruction because i was so mad that i wasted so much russia's time when i could've been reading good books, reading this nonsense here. so i collected all the soundcards and does condition that none of the stuff mattered. i never did that but i did start writing on multiculturalism for places like partisan review which alas no longer exists, and
sal wood gundy and had to review, on the temporary cultural politics in the multiculturalism that was hitting museums. museums were saying we have to present everything good lens of race and gender, oppression, whether it's the smithsonian or the whitney museum pics i started writing about that, and then i publish something for "city journal" which is the manhattan institute orderly magazine, and the editors at the time my myron magnet asked me o write something about an event that was happening in new york at the time. there was a crack at it, a mentally ill crack addict named larry hogan was terrorizing the upper west side of manhattan because he would go berserk come on crack, and he was mentally ill and he would, you know, strike pedestrians. he would destroy windows. and then he would get picked up
by the police and brought to hospital and be treated, and would calm down and given the rules that make us a difficult to hold on to somebody who mentally ill and a drug addict, he went back on the streets the next day. so he asked me -- i have never written reporting before. i've not done student journalism, something i regret. all of you student journalism that are doing it, it's a good thing, it's a very good thing. so i did this with a certain amount of trepidation to do a reported piece, but after that i kept doing that. this is in the 1990s in new york. it was a very exciting time. it was during the mayoralty of rudy giuliani and it was a laboratory here. new york had become squalid. it had become crime, you become over 2000 people who were
murdered in 1990, and u.s. streets that were just chaos. the subways were chaotic. although there've been help by cleaning up the graffiti. but giuliani was taken on an insurance welfare bureaucracy that put out the notion that if you are poor, you cannot do anything for yourself, that we with a welfare capital of the world. one in seven people in the united states who were on welfare lived in new york city. and giuliani proposed a social contract that, okay, we are going to help you but you also have to help yourself. so he was one of the centers doing welfare reform at saint it to reciprocal contract, you're going to have to work. he also said policing, he had a commissioner in his first commissioner william bratton who did something that was so
radical picky set of going to lower crime. no police commissioner had said that. it was assumed up to that point that crime was a function of poverty and racism. and that until we eradicated income inequality and racism, urban violence was a fact of nature, that the police could only manage. they could try and get their response times down, and getting to a robbery, and getting to the drive-by shooting but they could certainly not avoid those things. and bratton, he set himself a numerical target is it i'm going to lower crime and% my first year. no police chief had done that. in fact, the fbi's annual crime reports during the '80s would issue an annual disclaimer saying we all know that please can't lower crime.
bratton not only met his target, he bested it. he brought in a a 12% crime reduction. next year he upped the ante and said i'm going to it down 15%. he met that and brought it down, crime, to 60%. this was a transformative time and it was a very exciting time to be doing journalism about urban policy. >> host: and two of your books are, are cops racist and "the war on cops." was there a cost to bring down that crime? was a abuse of human rights? was there abuse of police brutality? >> no. police brutality, the shooting, what got me writing about policing for the first time in 1999, was a very tragic shooting in new york, the shooting of an immigrant who was in the vestibule of his apartment in the soundview section of the bronx. and there had been a crime
pattern in the neighborhood a series of rapes that the police were looking out for, and cops saw him. they he thought he matched the description. the asked him for id. he didn't understand picky reach for his wallet. i thought he was reaching for a gun. contagious gunfire started. one person shot. the boats were ricocheting back at the they thought he was returning fire. he was not. this was the infamous orgy one shots. a heartbreaking, heartbreaking episode. this was seized upon the left, l sharpton, by susan sarandon, by the media, who were furious at what giuliani was doing in new york come to take on the welfare industrial complex, to discredit the idea that you needed come to the way to lower
crime is my more government poverty programs. they turn to shooting into very symbol of the nypd. that year in 1999, the nypd which at that point had headcount of some of between 35,000-40,000 officers, shot fatally about 11 people. this was the lowest of the nypd is history. in the '70s they were killing 100 people a year, at least. so as we were lowering crime, the use of police force was being driven down by the intensive use of data by holding police commanders accountable, and the abuse of rights goes on with uncontrolled crime. the civil rights violation in a country that we should be worried about is the fact that blacks by homicide at six times
the rate of white and hispanics combined. that is a civil rights problem. it is a civil rights problem when the elderly cannot walk to the store without fear of a drive-by shooting. so giuliani encouraged, and bratton, encouraged the police to intervene in suspicious behavior before it ripen into a felony. they encouraged something called roca in windows policing, which is attention to low-level forms of public disorder, which is the thing that when i go to inner-city neighborhoods and police community meetings, it's rare that people either complaining about shooting or robbery patterns. what they're complaining about is the fact, they will say there's hundreds of kids hanging out on the corners fighting. what if her again and again,
whatever happens, the truancy laws, like it to get them off the corner? or i smell weed in my hallway, why can't you do something about it? the people that live in disorderly neighborhoods want public order, and that's when police started paying attention to that. i would say that a civil rights triumph [inaudible conversations] heather mac donald is our guest on booktv. this is a monthly "in depth" program. one author, three hours, your calls. we'll put the numbers on the screen. we've talked for nearly an hour now it is your turn. 202-748-8200 eastern/central. 202-748-2001 mountain/pacific. we will also scroll to a social media sites so you can go ahead and comment that way if you can't get to on the phone lines. just remember, at booktv is our handle. heather mac donald is the author of these books beginning
with "the burden of bad ideas," how modern intellectuals may shape our society if they came out in 2000. we have not discussed that one yet. we'll get to it. "are cops racist?" 2003. "the immigration solution", she is a co-author on that book, 2007. "the war on cops" came out in 2016. her most recent is "the diversity delusion" ." we have talked quite a bit about that. a lot more we could talk about with that. the lot of topics on the table. go ahead and dilute and we will get to those calls and just a few minutes. you talked about, heather mac donald, the welfare and daschle complex. what about the prison industrial complex? user such a a thing in your vi, prison overcrowding, profit motive to send people to prison? >> guest: no, i don't think,
if you're asking about private prisons, they are not a major player on the horizon. and the argument has been made that some of these communities in upstate new york say their workforce is exclusively prison and so somehow this is determining what judges and prosecutors in new york do. i don't think so. what's going on, the source of the prison population of state is new york city. what's going on here is a desperate triage to handle the amount of crime that exists. prisons today remains a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending. any big city prosecutor is trying to keep people out of prison because there isn't enough space. would it be great if we had a much lower prison population? of course, but our prison
population in the united states is a function of the fact that are violent crime rates are so much higher. our murder rate is seven times higher than that of the average of industrialized nations. if you look at gun violence, , r gun violence is about 22 times higher. >> host: why is that? is it because of gun laws? >> guest: well, traditionally we have been a violent culture, and i think the family breakdown is not helping things at all. you are not socializing boys, and so there's a culture of violence in the streets now that is just terrifying if you live in those environments. >> host: are people receptive to that argument? >> guest: to which argument again? >> host: the one you made about the breakdown of families. >> guest: well, no. because when i i bring this upn
college campuses, there's two problems with that. when i say that on average children need their mothers and fathers, on average, i mean on the talking but any individual single parents home. there are many heroic single mothers that are doing the best they possibly can to raise law-abiding children. and there are obviously tragedies were you orphans and people lose their parents, but for a variety of reasons it is so complicated, peter. the marriage culture itself, the norm, the expectations that men and women were married before they had children is itself a civilizing norm. leaving aside in individual child in his household ready to talk about mothers and fathers being the best possible situation, and you know, president obama 40 became president, he gave a fathers day
speech in chicago in 2008 that laid out the data that has been available to social scientists for decades now about the fact that children growing up in single-parent homes have an average chance of getting involved in crime, ending up in prison, failing in school, juvenile delinquency, having emotional problems, being single mothers themselves. he went through the list. it's readily available, but if you say that, you're violating one, the strongest taboo is your violating a taboo the strong women can do it all. we are now in a world where we see all masculinity as toxic. it is not a normal thing on a college campus to say that males bring something to civilization. indeed, they are a driving force
in civilization. and it also has become difficult to talk about mothers and fathers because it violates various gay taboos. so it is a message that is not welcome on college campuses by and large, but, i mean, i spent, you can talk, i've talked to people in prison who say the problem is that there's not enough fathers around. so this is a knowledge that is available in the very neighborhoods where it is most needed, but there needs to be a cultural transformation to give them real life substantiation drama from "the war on cops" heather mac donald writes some members of chicago's left will argue against holding fathers or mothers responsible for the children. quote, limit on the family is totally unfair, says a board member of the developing communities project.
on tired of blaming the parents. the services for the poor are paltry. it boggles the mind. historically, you can't expect a parent who can't get a job to do something that someone with resources can do. these problems have histories. there are policies that are mitigated against black progress. progress. what needs to happen is a change in corporate greed and insensitive, insensitivity. rice corrects my use of the term the legitimacy, quote, there are no illegitimate births took a lot to breakdown in there. >> guest: first albany congratulate you. i am in awe of your sticky pad management. that's quite externally you can get the quote. i was even in there. yes, that is a very krista lean summary, encapsulation of the left-wing view, which i think is extraordinarily destructive.
it is telling people that they have no agency. that you cannot do anything, you cannot expect a lowering of crime, less involvement of drive-by shootings in the youth groups going around shooting people or you can't even get married or defer childbearing until there's more government spending. now, we have been spending a lot of money. there has been trillions that is been spent on social programs since the 1960s. it is very, very difficult to say that there's been a lack of effort on that front. but there's something that has been talked about now, william colston, an adviser to bill clinton in the '90s talked about this and it was treatment and it's true network something called the success sequence. you can avoid being poor by three simple activities.
you finish high school. you wait until you're married to a children, and you work full-time at a job, any job. 75% of the people who do that are in the middle class. .. >> they would expect their children to exercise self-restraint to think prudential he. to think about the future. and to defer behaviors that are really kind of ending their
life. you will make it very difficult for yourself to advance. >> i want to find out from you whether these stats hold up today or whether you know that or not. in the chapter getting back to "the war on cops". is the criminal justice system racist? is the name of the chapter. in 2006, blacks were 32.6 percent of all state and federal prisoners though they are under 13 percent of the national population.about 133 black men were imprisoned in 2006 compared with 1:205 white men. one in 207 hispanic men. >> the black share of the total prison population has gone down somewhat in the last couple of
years. it's over the last five years or so. but the disparities are still very large. and they come back to the statistic that i mentioned before. blacks died of homicide at six times the rate of white and hispanics combined. they're not being killed by whites. and are not being killed by the cops. there being killed by other blacks. the black, side rate is eight times that of whites and hispanics combined. if you take hispanics out of that equation, you have 11:1 black to white homicide rates. when you look at youth between the ages of 14-17, males, black males between the ages of 14-17 commit homicide at 10 times the rate of white and hispanic males combines of the same
ages. that is what's driving the disparities in our prison system. and it is not drugs. there's another stat in there. i will test your sticky pad system here. >> let's go. >> that shows you what happens when you remove all drug prisoners from the prison population of the united states. it's incredible! >> explain drug enforcement for rising disparities in prison. the facts say otherwise. in 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1.3 million state prisoners.if you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent at half a percentage point, hardly a significant difference. >> again, i'm just in awe.
you've got some sort of weird photographic memory. the point is, you can take all of the drug prisoners now and it changes the proportions not a whiff. the percentage of people in prison for drugs is negligible. the population is driven by violent crimes and property crimes. >> what's the ferguson effect? >> the ferguson effect i coined, that the st. louis police chief used. that explained the phenomenon of police officers backing off of proactive policing in the wake of the black lives matter movement. that told them that such policing was racist. so police are political animals. they got the message and they said okay, we will drive by that guy hanging out an unknown drug corner at 2:00 a.m.
hitching up his waistband as if he has a gun. we will wait for the next drive-by shooting to call in and not be proactive and be reactive. the flipsideof that , the other half of the ferguson effect. we saw an increase in violence in inner-city areas. 2015 and 2016 saw a 20 percent increase in the homicide rate in this country. nearly 3000 additional lack males were killed - - black males, compared to the two years in 2014. and so, it explained what was going on that was alarming to very many observers and certainly police chiefs. and people living with the rising violence. >> one of the things i found interesting in "the war on
cops". when he talked about black majority police forces and the effect on black policeman of this conversation. or criticism. that they get as cops. >> they say i stop a black driver and the first thing they say is you only stopped me because i'm black. i as a black policeman says no i stopped you because you ran a red light. there's a very sort of reassuring and happy making experience to go to a police precinct. because this is truly post-racial. the cops are all getting on. there's a lot of camaraderie. the black and white cops, they all say, it's not a question of race. it's a question of behavior. if you're acting in such a way to raise my suspicions to the
point - - i always have the legal authority to ask you questions. you can walk away. the question is when does that become a custodial stop. where you're not free to walk away. i am looking for behavior. i know crime patterns in this neighborhood. i know the kids hanging out, the gang bangers. that's what drives me. it's not race. now there are in some police departments, the radicals. they are not representative. >> let's take some calls. lots more topics to talk about with heather mac donald. let's start with mike in new york. thanks for holding. you are on booktv. >> good afternoon, i retired from the nypd last year in central harlem.
i also have a four year degree from boston university in political science. i'm just really sick of the massive ignorance of the public. when it comes to basic facts. empirical data you can get from the uniform crime report or the fbi. the way the mainstream media cherry picks issues like stop and frisk. it's based on a mac supreme court decision from 1968. seems like the media has turned to the tactic into something that's illegitimate what exactly one of the most hopeful things that happened for the city of new york in terms of driving crime down. i just wish the public in general would look deeper instead of just believing what they see in the media about race and crime. especially in new york city. >> mike, you talked about stop and frisk.
isn't there a case to be made for racial profiling with that? >> absolutely not. because it's actually called stop, question and frisk. you cannot initiate a stop without reasonable suspicion. it's like heather mac donald said, the reasonable suspicion is based on observed behavior. you have to have reasonable suspicion to stop someone. >> so you were in the precinct in central harlem, correct? >> yes. >> what would you say the majority of your relationships or interactions with the residents of that area? >> the overwhelming majority of people are just regular hard-working citizens. like heather mac donald said, they appreciated the enforcement efforts for the most part. they just want to live their
lives and raise their kids like anyone else. it's just in that precinct, it's less than one square mile and it's a very busy place to work. and there's a lot of guns, a lot of drugs. it's just the reality of the situation. >> are you white? >> yes. >> were most of the people you dealt with african-american? >> the population, the majority population in the 32 and 28 precinct in central harlem was obviously black. less so when i started in 97 but - - it's a mixed population.the majority is black, yes. >> thank you sir. heather mac donald, what did you hear from mike? >> is absolutely right. there was a trilogy of lawsuits that were brought during the bloomberg years. the previous mayor in new york, before mayor diblasio.
against the new york police department stop, question and frisk. these lawsuits were brought by the elite law firms. these elite lawyers. they have dormant. they're living on central park with doorman. one of the losses was targeting the police for enforcing criminal trespass laws in new york city housing. people that do not have private doorman on central park west that are dependent on the police to try and get the drug dealers and the rapists out of their houses. the way the press - - they had a very sympathetic judge that issued rulings against the nypd. the press characterized this as declaring stop, question and frisk unconstitutional but it's
not. it's based on a 1965 supreme court case which address the issue, is there some kind of intermediate authority the police have between going up to somebody and asking a question. if i as a police officer a hey peter, can you give me your id card? you don't have to comply. you can just walk away. you can say - - and walk away. is there something cops can do to investigate a situation that is short of making an arrest. if i arrest you, you are not free to walk away. you've got to stick with me. they came up with this intermediate, if a cop is observing behavior that looks like it's about to ripen into a crime or a crime in progress, they do have a right to go up to somebody and ask a few questions. possibly frisk if they feel there's a weapon. and you can't walk what that's known as a custodial stop. you are in custody.
stop question and frisk is still legal. i had a very liberal criminal law professor at stanford law school who himself has written that there is no more important police power for lowering shootings then stop, question and frisk. but it's not just shootings. one of the things the left always use is the yield of guns that the nypd got each year from stops was under 1000. therefore, they said this is all a waste. it's doing nothing. a, that doesn't take into account deterrence. people are not carrying because of impossibly stopped. it's not just getting guns off the street. it's a pattern of car theft on the street.
the cops see someone going on trying door handles bit that can give rise to a stop and go up to someone and say, what you doing here? can you explain yourself. it's a very important police power. the ferguson effect noticed the fact whether you talk about the - - of officers or talk about them personally. cops were saying across the country, we are not making those stops. it's too hostile. the environment we are getting on the streets, thanks to the maryland anti-cop demagoguery that was being pushed out by the media during the height of the black lives matter movement and by politicians and activists. when we get out of our cars now and ask a few questions, we are surrounded by people cursing at us. the cell phones go right in the face.
it's an extremely loaded environment. many cops are saying okay, your telling us the stops are racist so we will make less of them. when the cops back off of proactive policing in high crime neighborhoods, crimes go up. >> should mike come our white policeman who called in earlier, be assigned to the 2a or three to precinct in harlem? >> if he's a good cop, absolutely they should be. >> isn't it important to have somebody that looks like you, policing you? >> no point i don't think so. can i not have a black police man? i think we have to fight back against this idea that we can only identify with people that have the same melanin content in their dermatological barrier between us and the real world. i just don't think so.
in fact, these are uncomfortable statistics. the justice department under president obama and eric holder did a study of - - reception in the philadelphia police department. this is one cops like the - - shooting, they mistake a cell phone for a gun. so they are mis-perceiving a threat. and the obama justice department studied police shootings in philadelphia. and found that black cops were much more likely to shoot somebody taste on threat to misperception than white cops. so, the idea that somehow you're going to get different shooting outcomes with black cops is wrong and they may even be worse. >> next caller for heather mac
donald is jerry in nevada. hi jerry. >> hello, how are you today? i'm so happy to hear you speak with such eloquence on so many ideas. i myself don't have the ability to express like you do, thank you so much. i wonder if you've spoken with - - about the bourgeois values. >> i'm a friend of amy and i write about it in "the diversity delusion". she's a law professor. she had the temerity to publish an op-ed in the philadelphia
inquirer a lot of our social problems or urban problems are due to a breakdown of boardwalk values. the values that were more indian sentencing in the 19 0s. sobriety, marriage, waiting until you're married to have children. and this was viewed as an extraordinary violation of the political orthodoxy on college campuses. there was a huge amount of protest against her. and she stood her ground and she's tough as nails. the dean of her law school wrote - - they say of course we
believe in free speech but, the values of amy do not reflect those at - - ben she then got into further trouble by a video interview she did with the brown university economist glenn lowery where they talked about racial preferences and something i call about called, mismatch theory.and the fact that you are actually not doing the alleged beneficiary of a racial preference any favor by bringing him into an academic environment for which is not compare to compete with this is not related to race. it's related to preferences. if it's a gender preference and your admitting me to mit with low math sats and i'm not going to be able to compete. so amy during this logging has interview noticed the fact that
the black law students at - - clustered at the bottom of their class. which is true in every law school in the country because every law school is employing very large racial preferences. it is putting those students at a competitive disadvantage. this was again viewed as an even worse enormity. as an even worse - - is putting the black students at risk. she's now been banned from teaching first year law classes because she's been is so toxic. >> amy wax did an interview on c-span. type in her name and you will see the interview. it's an hour long interview that she did.
and "the diversity delusion", heather mac donald, you also take on california's. if you're in the top 10 percent of your class or nine percent of your class, free education in the uc system. sounds like a pretty good deal. >> the issue there is this was one of their many ways to try to get around proposition 209. which was a voter referendum in 1996 led by the brilliant, courageous ward connolly to try and bring california into line with our constitution. or what used to be our belief in treating people as individuals rather than the base of race or gender. prop 209 passed by voters said government agencies may not discriminate on the basis of race and gender. which means they may not use racial preferences. meaning, you have to admit students on a colorblind basis
but on the basis of their academic credentials. the university of california went into a fit. how dare you tell us we cannot use racial preferences! how will we create the leaders of the future? the snobbery that's involved in the defense of racial preferences is completely amazing. the uc chancellors, the chancellor of uc berkeley said if we can't use racial preferences to admit our critical block of black - - where were the leaders of the future come from. [indiscernible] then why did we just shut down uc riverside so everyone can go to uc berkeley? it is so crippling to one's life's chances. so you see has been twisting
itself into knots for decades to try and come up with surrogates for over racial preferences because it's so determined to, as the quote from hillary clinton in the beginning of the show. diversity defined on the basis of race. which means today, keep out the asians because their whipping everyone's - - because they study so hard. and make place for people who are not competitive. so one of the things that came up with, you get bonus points if you can say you're a really good victim. you admit people based on their class standing in any given class. and it was hoped it would bring in more blacks. but again, not all gpas are equal.
if you're graduating the top of your class from some of these inner-city schools where people are not doing their homework. you get in a particular textbook home. - - for taking a text but home and not being truant. that's not going to prepare you. you need an objective test where everyone is held to the same measure. i talk about a boy in the book who was admitted to uc berkeley under this program that gets there. his freshman year is just a nightmare. because he's not prepared point it's heartbreaking. psychologically, it's devastating. he keeps trying to rally his spirit. come on, you can do it. we can compete. but it's very hard to keep up. so the idea of getting rid of - - and the irony of course is the sat was created.
the scholastic aptitude test was created in the 1940s and 50s to get rid of class prejudice. it was in order to allow those kids in the midwest who had not gone to - - or not the elite new england prep school aristocracy to show their academic ability and be able to compete for yale and harvard. now we are saying it's elitist to use it. the further irony is, these people that are so committed to the narrative of the biggest racism. if they really believe colleges are infected by institutional racism and that nobody is capable of judging people on the basis of merit. they should want objective tests. they're completely
contradictory in their views. because they are against objective tests. they want to give discretion to these admissions officers so that they can use race illegally in many instances. in california and washington state, michigan. so that they can use race. so in fact, they really don't believe in institutional racism. because they are competent that we give discretion to college admissions officers to use race, they will use it in favor of blacks and hispanics. not in favor of whites. and that contradicts the racism narrative. >> a tweet from peggy. i would like to ask heather mac donald why she speaks with such disdain and venom about american students on campus. i have watched one or her talks and truly cannot understand her anger.
>> because for any student to think of themselves as a victim when he has at his fingertips the greatest privilege that has ever been granted an individual. the thing that - - sold his soul for which is knowledge. that student is in the grip of a terrible delusion and is failing to take advantage of opportunity. students in the world over would kill for. students that are there to learn that appreciate what they have that are spending time in the libraries. that realized that they have been given an inheritance that is precious. those students i respect that i cannot respect students who go around playing the victim card. when to be a college student