this is bbc news. the headlines: i'm david eades. sri lankan president gotobaya rajapaksa's assured people he will resign as promised this week as crowds continue to overrun the presidential palace. protesters say they won't leave until he's out of office. he's believed to have fled the island to safety. much of europe's experiencing a major heatwave. in spain, temperatures have hit 43 degrees celsius. the heat in neighbouring portugal has sparked wildfires while temperatures are expected to nudge a0 degrees in france. here in the uk, the foreign secretary liz truss has become the latest senior party member to join the contest to succeed borisjohnson as conservative leader, and prime minister. 10 other mps from the party have so far announced

their intentions to run. those are the headlines. now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. the fractures in american society are widening over guns, abortion, education, and more. but the deepest, most traumatic fracture is surely over race — and it impacts all of the others. the us is post—slavery, post—segregation, but definitely not post—racism. my guest is ibram x kendi, an influential writer and academic who argues the only way to not be racist is to be actively anti—racist — a message he says children must

hear. is his approach bound to intensify america's internal conflict? ibram x kendi, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me on. it's a pleasure to have you here. your focus right now seems to be on children, and your contention that children, very young children even, should be told about racism, even if it's not a daily reality that they are actually living with. why? because unfortunately, studies

are showing that it is a daily reality that they're living with. one study found that kids as early as three years old have what one scholar called an "adult—like concept of race". they're already attaching skin colour to behaviours like who's smart, who's clean, and even who's honest. and so, if we're not teaching children to not connect skin colour to behaviour, to recognise that, you know, someone�*s skin colour is not a reflection of how they behave, then they may think differently, you know, and i think that's why we have to counteract that. so, your idea is that even in preschool, as kids start their educational journey, they are being exposed to discrimination, to prejudice in all the different aspects of their lives. well, one of the fascinating things about particularly racist ideas, and one of the reasons why they've spread across history,

and even across the world, is because they're so simple. like, dark is bad. light—skinned people are beautiful. and these ideas are so simple that even a young pre—schooler could internalise them and start thinking that there's something wrong with them, or special about them because of their skin colour. so, we have to actively teach kids a different message — to recognise the beauty of the human rainbow and see themselves in it, and recognise all the skin colours as equals. you talk about the beauty of the human rainbow, but isn't there also something about innocence and the joyfulness of childhood, when kids of whatever colour are not exposed to the reality of a world that is often times tainted by human failings and flaws? do they need to be exposed to that truth so very young? well, again, ithink when we think about other things, we recognise it's dangerous to cross the street, right?

and we recognise it's important to teach young children to look both ways, because they could be hit by, let's say, a car. and similarly, if we recognise that there are these messages that can hit children, even young children, then why would we not seek to protect them by teaching them that those messages are wrong and bad? i guess what's interesting about it is the notion of teaching about racism. i mean, would it be not possible, at this stage of a child's life, simply to exemplify respect, caring, sharing, non—discrimination, and leave it at that? in your view, why does it have to be made so explicit? and why do conversations about it and analysis of it have to begin so young? well, for younger children, actually, a lot of it is about what we're modelling. and so, one of the ways in which we're modelling equality is by showing our children that we have an interracial set of friends. we can model equality

by putting them in diverse environments. we can model that everyone is equal when we're walking down the street and we come across a black male at night, we don't — our child doesn't see us get scared. so, for younger children, actually, what's called "non—verbal language" is actually more influential than what we're actually stating. do you think, as you look at america today — and you are steeped in, sort of, anti—racism studies, you look at the way american society works, and you try to improve it — do you believe that most young people, whether they be black or white, are coming out of american school systems with in—built prejudices and fears, and problems when it comes to race? well, i think... you ask whether i do. i think specifically as it relates to this topic, we should lean on the evidence and the data. and the data is showing that

actually, most kids are — even i did, you know, when i left high school, i thought there was something wrong with black people, and that's why we were on the lower end of racial disparities. but if you think about this, if in school, you're not actively taught about racism in a society where there's all sorts of racial disparities, then the only other explanation as a child, or even an adult, you're going to think, as to why those disparities exist, is certain people have more because they are more. and, particularly for white children, even children of colour, if, let's say, the experiences of people of colour are rare in the curriculum, and white people literally are more in the curriculum, it's going to reinforce these ideas — so we don't talk about race at all, but in many ways, we are talking about race. there's a buzzword that people use, agency, to indicate that often times, one has to consider the impact that a collective view like yours about what is happening in america,

what impact it has on the individual�*s mentality. if you tell a teenager coming out of a school that, because he's black, the system and the odds are stacked against him, and there are handicaps and hurdles he will have to face, is there not a danger that you are encouraging that child to be fatalistic about his future? to believe that somehow, his agency is not going to convert him into the success he or she wants to be? well, you take that same black child, in the united states, black teenagers report five instances of racist discrimination per day. and so, when they're experiencing these things, they're trying to figure out why it's happening to them. and so, if you're not talking to them about racism, that that is why people are mistreating you, then what else are they going to believe? they'll believe that, "there's something wrong with me, "and i'm being pulled over and harassed by the police, "i'm being looked down upon by teachers

because there's "something wrong with me" — which actually causes them to think lesser of themselves, which actually causes a more fatalistic perception of the world. i get that. but i'm just focused perhaps on the flip side of that, the degree to which kids can have their aspirations, and the degree to which you're writing in this book, how to raise an anti—racist, and in the previous book, how to be an anti—racist, where there, you know, there are some black commentators likejohn mcwhorter who fear that you may be sending a message which denies agency and the individuality of people of colour. well, it's an interesting argument, because, you know, if these commentators would actually read my work, the whole construct about being anti—racist is steeped in agency, that we, as individuals, have the ability to deconstruct racism, to eliminate disparities and inequities, to challenge

policies that are creating unequal opportunity... but that, if i may say so, is on the strategic level. on the level of a kid emerging from school or university, that's not so useful. that's big—picture, it might take decades to achieve. he just wants to know, and he has to believe, he or she, that life can be conquered. and your message sometimes is life cannot be conquered. no, actually, i never say life can't be conquered. so, in my work, i constantly chronicle people who conquered racism. like, that's the whole construct of being anti—racist, is conquering anti—racism. what these commentators are actually arguing is the status quo persisting permanently, which, to me, is actually more destructive to a child — that essentially, this world of inequities is permanent. there's nothing we can do about it. and indeed, the cause of those inequities is not racism. it's what's wrong with black people.

it's what's wrong with "people like you". that's what we'll teach children if we're not teaching them, no, the true cause of it is racism, and join in this effort, you know, to challenge it. have you been surprised by the intensity of the pushback to some of your ideas? the whole idea of introducing a sort of anti—racism element to the school curriculum, for example, has set conservatives and many republicans off. and they are after your ideas — and some of them are after you personally. i mean, of course, it hasn't surprised me, particularly being an historian. i mean, if we think about abolitionists and how much they were ostracised in the united states and in england, if we think about people who were trying to eliminate segregation and how much they were ostracised and made into villains, you know, that's unfortunately what happens when you try to rock the boat and

change the status quo. and people who are trying to conserve inequality, conserve racism, are going to demonise those people who are trying to create equality and justice for all. critical race theory is an academic subject. it is also the phrase now used by some of these conservatives to condemn and dismiss as "false and dangerous" an attempt to introduce some of your anti—racism ideas into the school curriculum. first of all, are you an advocate of critical race theory? so, critical race theory, just so we're clear, emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s when legal scholars and lawyers were recognising that, despite this mantra that policies and laws were race—neutral, inequality and inequities persisted. and so, they created an intellectual movement to really deconstruct and understand the law, and how it was actually

maintaining racism. i don't see any problem, you know, with that if we're really trying to create, you know, an equitable and just society. what you're trying to do, according to donald trump — let's name him amongst many other conservatives — what you're trying to do is lay a burden of guilt on white people. well, again, ithink in many cases, these people are distorting and weaponising my work. i'm actually trying to lay a burden on people who are being racist. and those people don'tjust include white people. there's someone like clarence thomas, who supports policies that reinforce inequities. there are people of all racial backgrounds that are supporting policies that are maintaining inequities, just as there are white people who are being anti—racist, and who are challenging racism. you are accused by some — i'm going to quote you one — some politicians of pitting whiteness and blackness,

white people and black people against each other. he specifically — that isjosh hawley in congress, speaking in the senate floor — he said, "dr ibrahim kendi is opposed to equality under the law. "he's opposed to our merit—based system in the us. "dr kendi and his followers are advocating for "state—sanctioned racism in the united states." i mean, it's a ridiculous construct. so, my whole sort of theory around anti—racism is to move from the black—white binary to a recognition that people are being either racist oranti—racist, people of all skin colours. so, when you say that — sorry to interrupt, but when you say that the only remedy for discrimination in the past is discrimination in the present, what do you mean by "discrimination" ? well, i think that's the question, because in that chapter... well, what's the answer? no, what i mean by "that's the question" is typically

people are not actually reading that passage. so, to give an example, in the united states, when we had the vaccine, we specifically decided to provide vaccines to elderly people first because there was a recognition that elderly people were dying at the highest rates. that's a form of discrimination. that's a form of discrimination in which you're essentially providing resources to those who have the greatest needs. and typically, when we've sought to do that as it relates to black people or people of colour, people have described that as discrimination in a pejorative sense. and to me, i'm like, no, we need to provide resources to the people who have the greatest needs. it would've made no sense to provide vaccine to young people at the same rates we were doing it to older people on the pretext that we're discriminating against younger people if we give it to elderly people first. in the �*70s and �*80s,

that would have been called "positive discrimination". is that a phrase you're still comfortable with? you believe in positive discrimination? the question isn't the discrimination itself. the question is the outcome. and so, i think — but i don't even use the term "discrimination". i focus on policy. and the fundamental question — so, you know, senator hawley mentioned i don't believe in our merit—based system. so, what he would argue is that apparently we have merit in the united states. so, white people are more likely to be getting in highly—selective colleges because they're smarter, he would say. they are more likely to be wealthy because they're better with money. they're more likely to not be incarcerated because they're less criminal — which means he's arguing ideas of white superiority, which is ideas that i don't believe in, and which are racist ideas. no, people have more not because they are more, but because of bad rules. you wrote the bestselling book

how to be an anti—racist in 2020, so two years on do you have a sense that...? and it sold millions. do you have a sense that you've made any difference to the debate — ie, that race division in america is becoming any less corrosive? that progress of any sort is being made? well, i mean, ithink that, you know, in 2020, in the united states, there were upwards of, what, 25 million people who took to the streets and demonstrated against police violence and racism. and many of those people went home and started orjoined organisations in their local communities. and looking at the statistics, and it's interesting you alight on that one, the statistic suggests as ofjune of this year, the rate of fatal police shootings amongst black americans stands higher today than it has... ..for a very long time.

39 fatal shootings per million of the population for black americans — much higher than for any other ethnic grouping. so, again, i would suggest to you, there's very little evidence of progress. well, i guess what i mean, what i wanted to emphasise is that people are still fighting and organising. and so, it really depends on how you consider progress. i think that it is certainly the case that there are more people who recognise racism as a problem. now, will our elected officials actually be willing to pass national legislation that holds police accountable, or even re imagines how we're, sort of, creating public safety? even many members of the democratic party are not supportive, you know, of that... well, that's because there are electoral costs, as many democrats see it, to going too far down that particular track. you see it with a whole bunch of different issues. to go back to critical race theory, i was in america

when the last gubernatorial race in virginia took place. the republican candidate ran hard on stopping critical race theory getting into virginia's schools. he won that election. on some of these issues which you think are central to improving the anti—racist nature of america, the democrats appear to worry that it'll cost them votes. well, because part of what the democrats are facing, and what happened in virginia was an elected, or someone who's running a campaign in which he was completely distorting critical race theory, and then, applying it based on that distortion. so, he was arguing that critical race theory is anti—white, which is an old white supremacist talking point. he was arguing that, like, that critical race theory is seeking to make white children feel bad — which critical race theorists, let alone anti—racist teachers, are certainly not seeking to do. so, it was all to really anger and inflame white voters.

so, it wasn't actually what we're saying. it's what they were distorting and weaponising, you know, in the course of the political process. your notion — that this is a systemic issue and it infects all different aspects of us society — it seems to go into, for example, your view of the way the health care system works, your view of the way in which the roe versus wade supreme court decision is unfolding and the impact that the supreme court decision will have on different groups, communities across america. explain to me how you think ultimately these are all part of the anti—racist agenda? well, let's take health care — so black people are more likely to die of eight of the ten leading causes of death in the united states. there's two explanations for that. either there's something genetically or culturally, or behaviourally wrong with black people, and that's why they're dying at greater rates than white people of eight of the ten leading causes of death —

or it's the result of a whole host of racist policies and practices that are unhealthy for black people, that need to change. and i don't think black people are inferior. and i don't think white people are superior — which is why the anti—racist position is that we should address these racist policies and practices. let me quote to you a senior figure in the democratic party, a black politician who i've interviewed on hardtalk, james clyburn. he says this of the mood of black voters in america today. he said, "the mood is dangerous. "this is not a democratic problem. "this is a country problem. "our country is in danger of imploding." "democracy," he says, "is in danger of disintegrating." and by that, i think he's pointing to the degree to which he sees the republican party now open to racist and white supremacist groups who used to be excluded,

and who now, to a certain extent, have found ways of crossing into mainstream politics. do you feel that danger? i do — and, you know, to connect that to what we've been talking about, one of the oldest white supremacist talking points is the idea that diversity, multiculturalism, anti—racism — and now they would say critical race theory — are anti—white, are seeking to harm white people, are seeking to replace white people. and that's what white supremacists have long used to essentially weaponise and demonise those who are trying to create equity and justice in this country. and that's a mainstream republican talking point now, that white supremacist, sort of, idea. and so, as a result, it has led to those of us who are engaged in racial justice work to be perceived as anti—white, when indeed, we're trying to create things, like — stir up things like democracy and equality, and justice. but isn't it incumbent upon you, then, to figure out new ways to reach —

you just talked about the mainstream — reach mainstream people who need to hear yourfundamental message about everyone being equal, about anti—racism, not being about being down on white people, but being aboutjust fairness and justice. you've got to reach these voters. well, i'm not a politician. and i'm not a political operative. you know, i'm a scholar. but you live in the united states of america. you live in a country which right now, according to the opinion polls, might be prepared to vote donald trump for president and a fully—republican congress. but again, like, as a scholar, you know, i'm not a political operative, i'm not a politician. you know, it's not myjob to necessarily figure out ways to respond to propagandists, and to create a new form of propaganda that would reach people. it's myjob to tell the truth. it's myjob to tell the truth based on the evidence. you know, it's myjob to convey to people, really, to clarify

the complexities of race. and so, if people aren't listening to me or other scholars, that's a different scenario than if they're not listening to politicians like clyburn. right — i talked at the beginning about the fundamental division caused by race in america. how, as a citizen of this country, a father of children in this country, are you going to see it get better? i think through talking about and writing about anti—racism, you know, as i have. i mean, i've written so many books on this topic for the youngest of people, to the oldest of people. i've spoke all over the country about these issues. i've also, of course, been figuring out new ways to reach people. but i'm mentioning that — i just wanted to say that it's not necessarily if people don't understand that racism is the problem, and that we need to come together to eradicate it. i wouldn't necessarily say it's the job of scholars. you know whose job it is to understand the reality

of their world? those people. and it's the job of us as individuals to make sure we're not living in the world of make—believe. it's the job of us as individuals to make sure we're not being manipulated by propagandists. it's the job of us as individuals to recognise that the racial groups are equals, and that we should all come together. ibram x kendi, we have to end there, but thank you very much indeed for being on hardtalk. of course, thank you. thank you. hello. sunday, scotland and northern ireland saw their highest temperatures of the year so far. monday could well be the turn

of wales and england, so feeling just as hot out there, if not hotter. and a lot of sunshine, yes, though increasing high cloud will turn things hazier out there. and if you're looking for rain, this is the next five days. while some will push in towards north—western areas — not very much, mind you — but where temperatures are at their highest for the next couple of days at least, well, it will stay mainly dry, just exacerbating the very dry conditions out there with high pressure close by. although some changes from low pressure, slowly, as we go through the next few days. a lot of sunshine as monday begins, temperatures rocketing. misty, low cloud just pulling away from some irish sea coasts. an increase in high cloud from the north, again, turning things hazier out there and temperatures widely into the upper 20s from eastern scotland through wales. a large swathe of england 30 or above, maybe 33 in south east england. strong sunshine, high, very high uv levels. cooler sea breezes around the coast. going into monday night, look at the change for northern ireland and scotland from that low pressure system i showed you — we see some outbreaks of rain moving in. ahead of all of that, though,

it will be a much warmer night going into tuesday, and that does make it tougherfor sleeping. the house really doesn't want to cool down after it's been so hot during the day. well, slowly, we take some outbreaks of rain away from scotland and northern ireland on tuesday, where it'll be cooler, fresher, brightening up. the chance of a shower. breezier, too. thicker cloud with maybe the odd splash of rain working into parts of wales and england, bringing temperatures down a little — though still for east anglia and the south—east into the low 30s, with for london, for example, a heatwave continuing to be throughout the week and into next weekend, whereas elsewhere, it will cool off a touch. wednesday brings temperatures much closer to average, particularly across northern areas of the uk. some patches of cloud. the chance of a few showers around. for many, though, it'll be staying dry. still into the upper 20s in south east england. for most locations, though, well shy of that at this stage — and, thankfully, if you're not a fan of the heat. looking further ahead, whilst scotland and northern ireland are no great change, wales and england heat up again — look at that temperature potentially for london into next weekend. i just want to show you the uk

high temperature record. there is a concern that this will come under threat next weekend — not a guarantee, but there's a potential for some extreme heat to build in across southern areas next weekend — and that's certainly something we are watching.

this is bbc news broadcasting in the uk and around the world. our top stories. i'm sally bundock. sri lanka's president confirms he will resign. the palace is now a protest site as crowds continue to pour inside. our correspondent is there. how does it feel to swim in the president's personal pool? translation: i'm happy. i'm so happy. parts of western europe suffer in the heat. it's reached 43 degrees in some areas of spain. eleven and counting, the british mps hoping to replace borisjohnson. the rules for the election will be decided today. and contraceptives for squirrels.

how british scientists hope to stem an expanding population.