As of 2024, with the popularity of dozens of news outlets, discussion forums, round tables, and podcasts, there are more public intellectuals now than ever in our history.
Not only are there more public intellectuals, but the public’s distrust of traditional media, its insatiable hunger for truth and guidance, and its need for independent thought have created a vast marketplace for heterodox views. Call them Dark Horses, rebels, dissidents—whatever the case, the market for views that fall outside the mainstream has grown exponentially.
This leaves us still with one task as we approach our thought leaders: to separate the sheep from the goats. One such goat is Professor Glenn Loury.
The various achievements of Glenn Loury’s personal life and academic career are plenty. But if I am honest, those things that are found in a CV are often the least impressive to me. The first time I saw Glenn Loury speak was during his participation in a debate hosted by Boston University. The topic of debate—should reparations be given to the descendants of African Americans as a result of their ancestor’s enslavement?
Funny enough, I was not watching at all for Glenn Loury. I, like many, was watching because the great Christopher Hitchens was participating. Hitchens’ teammate, of all people, just so happened to be Rev. Jesse Jackson. For clarity, it was Glenn Loury, admittedly a descendent of slaves himself, who was arguing against the motion of reparations:
“It is bad social ethics, bad racial policy and it averts our attention from the most profound social issues with which if we do not reckon, we’re never going to put behind us.”
This particular debate took place in July of 2001 and is a bit of a legend now. Even fans of Hitchens, who I am one, can’t help but think the young Glenn Loury might have come out on top. Throughout the debate, Glenn Loury refuses to see the reparations issue through a faulty tort law model, speaks with disdain at the idea of monetary gain, and remarks on the minimization of tragedy a cash settlement may inspire. Instead, he focuses on deeper values; integrity; the common bond of America’s citizenry and their potentiality that cannot be swiped away with a check.
In this debate, Glenn was not sermonizing on abstract values, but was instead showing a deeper thought process that was not guided by simple fiscally conservative principals, nor bereft of sympathy towards the counterargument, but by his very own education, integrity, and nods to soul searching along the way.
Glenn, like many Americans, has had shifts in his political leanings, although it is probably accurate to say he is generally conservative-leaning. But within this generalization, there lies a steady stream of heterodoxy, not all that different from the late Christopher Hitchens, who had labels like “radical”, “contrarian”, “rebel” and so on hoisted upon his name since practically the beginning of his career. Hitchens, a lifelong liberal, was accused of going to the “other side” for his support of the US war in Iraq. We can expect the same may happen for Professor Loury as time marches on-—eventually, he will find positions that are likely to be disapproved by whatever following he has garnered thus far. So goes the loner—at some point, they will piss everybody off.
Glenn Loury may be in his strongest position yet as a public intellectual with heterodox views. At the age of 75, he has recently released his memoir, Confessions of a Black Conservative, has made more guest appearances on productions that are geared towards mainstream audiences, and publishes frequently through his own Substack newsletter. He is also one half of the “Black Guys”, a podcast of conversations with John McWhorter and other rotating guests.
During one of the more recent episodes, Glenn Loury and John McWhorter were revisiting the topic of George Floyd. They had previously released a podcast discussion where they spoke on the documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis. The documentary uncovered some inconvenient truths about the infamous death of George Floyd.
From medical records, policing standards and practices (most notably, the legality and teaching of maximum restraint holds), and the mental state of George Floyd himself, the documentary sought to upend our previous notions of the case and instead instill various shadows of doubt that America has been taken for a ride. Had Derek Chauvin been a sacrificial lamb on the altar of social justice and mob rule? For the most part, Glenn and John were willing to say “yes, we had been taken for a ride, indeed”.
But as it turns out, not necessarily. The documentary was responded to through a series of pieces by journalist Radley Balko. In the series, Balko does some cross-examining of his own and finds some of the initial takeaways of the documentary were based on misleading, exaggerated, or just plain factually wrong information. Glenn and John were back on the podcast again, to ask some tough questions of themselves and perhaps do some throat-clearing:
“….I do wish I had not been so eager to accept their conclusions. I’ve spent years decrying the outsized reaction to the death of George Floyd.. When I saw a documentary that claimed to locate real, empirical corruption at the heart of the George Floyd case itself, I was primed to believe it”
What Glenn is saying here-doing, is quite remarkable, and perhaps an overlooked quality among our public intelligentsia (also, precisely the reason that so many are distrusting of legacy media). The ability to which one can ponder shortcomings, admit wrongdoing and presumptuousness publicly, make peace with eagerness, and resume clear thinking is one value that ought to separate the sheep from the goats.
To do thinking, criticizing, praising, condemning; to do any of the things we mean when we say public intellectual, admitting momentary fallibility should be one. In this episode, Glenn even gives remarks regarding the whole “heterodox” idea—in short, that heterodoxy can become its own orthodoxy, and one ought to be weary of such labels.
Glenn Loury is in no need of high praise from me. He has been at it for decades before I was born. But what I see in his public engagement is inspiring, and is worth its note; what Glenn Loury is capable of offering our public discourse is no less than Christopher Hitchens, no less than Thomas Sowell.
In his book on Why Orwell Matters, Hitchens declares:
“But what [Orwell] illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that 'views' do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.”
Right on, Hitchens. But I would like to add, a bit presumptuously—It is not only what you say, but how you say it. And with that, I think is where we meet Glenn Loury; ultimately a generous man, with a hearty laugh, an aura that speaks of love and wit—who is fearless and courageous. We should all be so lucky to have those like Glenn Loury dedicated to our discourse. Goat, indeed.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Glenn and his podcast partner John graduated from college at a time when education was about learning. I also read their review of the Floyd doc and subsequent critique of it.
The awareness and ability to admit that perhaps you were wrong and to change your beliefs based on new information is rare for the intellectual class. Both men to their credit did so. Further proof they haven’t been captured by one side or the other.
All too true.
Beyond the reprehensible modern approach of babbling on from bully pulpits about "facts" which are rarely researched, it is probably worse how few commentators have the substance to admit when they're wrong.
Used to be a standard activity to retain the respect of your peers. Now it's rare enough to get an article written when it happens. Glad you pointed it out.
ZL