so for example here is one you may have never thought of. generally men say us. women say. knowing teaches that you never think of it. groups of people there are men and women involved overwhelming goals. a woman says him and a man says. subconsciously one internalizes which side of the fence you are on would create something like that. or sometimes semi conscious chris mentioned me sometimes writing the musical theater. something that we fans of that do.t no matter what we d are elsewhee in the world. the weight you signal you can have a certain conversation when you're surrounded by other peoplele is you referred to onef the stars of new york theater by just their firstst name. if you say audra, if you say bernadette, if you say it lara you insulin who you are talking

to patient if i ever thought of that concept but it sat. they do, do not say it walk in and things like that. might be one of the subgroup markers as well. my sense of these things is that it all fits into s the grand scheme of things, the grand scheme of things as we talk often about something called woke. i wrote a book called woke races racism because of hugely frustrated, infuriated during the lockdown about things that were happening to innocent people. 2020. itnf was on a sunday. that was pico woke up. that was a long time ago now. we are four years past that. something started changing from what i saw a look roughly in thn fall of 2022. thatat is not being awoke this s all bad. that does not mean the excesses of woke notes do not feel ensnare people here and there. i think anybody is aware of that.

but an era has passed and i think a lot of what might frustrate us with what we might feel as a kind of language and pressure. especially from the left is something that will ease up in becoming a new way of speaking on the left sooner rather thant later. that is my linguistic culture for an application for right now. we will see if it's the case but it's more useful way of approaching the sorts of changes rather than shaking her fists in frustration. those are my words about language, the left and what it can doan for you. and i guess now, josh, we open it up. [applause] [applause] >> okay. here we go. thank you for that bracing talk. those that classic mcwhorter

talk perimeter of the b lots of questions. i should say john and me are going to talk for a little bit. john said he was a cheerleader and he does not want to appear not modern. nobody who knowse me with think i'm a cheerleader and i'm deafly not modern. this should be a really good conversation. there will also be time for all of you to speak. if you are watching online now and have any questions or comments you wish to make you can send them to@aei.org. in a te.m oh oh r. so, john, you said you're going to talk s about and you did, language on the left too. the subtitle which i think was not mentioned was kent words create justice? you said at the very beginning you were going to talk mostly about the left.

and at some point in the middle you sort of said that again. you did not say anything about the right. you are not a man of the right. you called yourself a liberal democrat. many people say and i have to say this sounds right to me you are a radical centrist. that was a radical centrist talk. so, what would a talk by you or conceivably somebody else look like that was language in the right? in other words one of the commonalities for discrepancies on how the left is using or if you like abusing language and how the right is doing that? language and the right kind words create justice? look at that matter injustice. give any thoughts about that? asked josh i'm going to give a very honest answer to that. i do not have in my quiver in a series of examples of that kind of abuse from the right. as a problem with with the

rights doing these days. it's not as much about language. has often been more embraced by the left than the right offers that you understand the indigenous culture or cultures that are not based on the written word. her cognitive equal to us. most of this is the left if i says on both sides of the aisle certainly there are examples on the right that concerned me less. that means of got it covered in own skin sam exaggerating. the left and the right mean they differ in that way. it's about no: this. that gives you the right kinds of thoughts. rather than saying certain things over and over again. so whenn trump has an ad when he put up two weeks ago president

trump is for you that's very funny. >> is very clever. i think it is in fact a very clay will add which is in a very neutral way as i can. which is in a very neutral way as i can. this politics it's an ad it's very clever. if you put a modified defense of they, them, there's, then in defense of that and is to demonstrate the people who are interested in the ones most indebted gated as opposed to most people. >> i consider that to be clever and not slanderous in itself. i do not think kamala harris is that far left even though she's

framing herself is that rightin now. wanting to make it seemed like she is. it's formally clever summit not in thought that. i wonder what you think about how things are now chris started off talking about 19843 years before 1984 was published both the very famous fa of politics in essay i command to all of you very interesting essay. something about the bad ways people are using english now. it happens generation after generation afterju generation.

remember this is 1946. he talks a work out the word fascism. fascism has no meaning anymore except insofar as it signifies something not desirable. i think that's a direct quotation. that is 1946. if you want to not fascism is that would be a good day to think about it. these days i'm called a fascist, you are called a fascist many people in the summer being called a fascist all the time. completely unfairly so. is there a difference? youu do not have to jump off the word fascism but you do is there a difference between how things are now on the left or conceivably the right now as opposed to 1946 or if you like 1846 or 1746? >> i know what you mean. there is a difference one was expected to be more careful in

one's public statements in terms of how you phrase things. as opposed to when you're just talking. you can love or hate it. language language wore a tie what we do tend to miss we cannot hear people talking as much into her modern technology. what we get to is if you were listening to the group because of language you were hearing the samees sloppiness dealing with w not to say you cannot fascist from print or sloppily in print. there's all sorts of examples. if you got warren harding just talking apparently it was not a pleasant thing. he hammered along.

we spoke the worst english he se had ever known. there's a guy, whose name escapes me right now a candidate for mayor and the city who was known for being his voice is probably never recorded receipt transcripts of things he said from one thing to another sometimes we trump is transcribed now. cannot see it in print is formal. with orwell almost as 1972. talk about type facing on a tiny tangent and ask about capitalization. so one could imagine and print a

scenario in which i am called a fascist. you not riffing on here, any comments on any of that. i can definitely imagine it. i don't think i have the change could you please had nothing to do with creating its training euphemism treadmill. most most i have not done it

with sweat rolling down my bro i'm tooab busy thing which a written capitalize it. but now for the times i'm not going to get anywhere else but the sad thing is it's at the point that if i don't do it, if it's going anywhere but my desk, if it's going anywhere but my desk and making sonos to it for me. so there's a couple of things. a one, i think for this is been recorded so i hope it's not wrong. i think the new edition of the says about whites but came out a few weeksle ago you could do one or the other. i think they're being flexible. there certainly ones who are saying you should do it. or at least you might consider doing it. and this is one of the cases that is about changing. >> i did not like

african-american i thought i am not african and now we have so many people coming from africa that he gets confusing and some lily white person from africa schism african-american i didn't like it then i want to stick with the black and i wanted lowercase the old days were better. but here we are. they were different. >> let's go back to the "new york times." the atlantic we capitalize is black.k. >> are they doing that? >> i think so. i believe there are pieces by you that art t-lowercase-letter write effectivelyou the same pie in thehe atlantic. >> the real question there which i would like to ask you is a linguistic question. the great thing about being a a languished or the terrifying thing about being a languished is that you are what you eat.

you'reic right about politics, f you write about language and so you are in a double bind. so what is it like what do editors tell you to do? their sub publications you have great freedom to say what youan want and say it in the way you want. and others in which you don't. progressive not asking various editors although you're welcome to do so. whatha does that look like in a world in which language is as heavily policed if i could use the word policed at least on the left as what we have right now. >> that's a great question. i do not get asked a much about my writing. people think you have an opinion and it just kind of jumps out of your head and you type it. it used to be i could not get

away with even the old singular. telling students they can hand in the paper when they want too. based always correct that. once i got past 50, i started think i've been in this business a r while. i am eight languished. this rule makes no sense. i would like you to let me say they this is before roberta is getting their hair cut. that came because i got a little older. one thing that is especially frustrating is not any particular person and a lot of it comes from that otherwise but you're saying or will has problems is the notion there something wrong with the passive voice. put p something in a passive voe you are making it a weaker statement but some of that is strunk and white which frankly the history of that thing very briefly one teacher at cornell with a little mustache and a lot of teeth with this little pamphlet about how he felt about language. eb white liked his teaching and made it into a book that's the

only authority that's gotten strunk has been dead for 300 years. he was just some guy. he did not like the passes. orwell takes thatea on an okay, you do not want to write all passes but the reason youou hava passive voice is because of things about getting language across that are quite subtle and quite useful. i wish it weren't thought of. lots of editors is a responsibility of making writing good to have the passive voice use as little as possible. if it was such a bad thing, why do we have it? that when i find is very hard to get people to look at. >> you wish you were thought of her wish people didn't think of it? >> i wish you were thought of. [laughter] exactly. the last time you and i had a public conversation was at at an event at columbia appears three or so weeks after october 7. things were very bad they were e

very bad in columbia. and so here we are almost a year later. i wonder if you have anyts comments about what has happened post october 7 inn particular to the use of language. and also, languished awesome don'tn, like to make predictions you made one or two up there. what do you think the next year is going to look like? >> to be perfectly honest, thank the lord i am on sabbatical all year. and so therefore you don't have to pay attention to what happens. [laughter] >> i could be at home. of course i'm going to learn about all sorts of things going on.ha i think a lesson that has been learned for better ors worse is the nature of what we will think of free speech. it's in the column of mine that dropped d today. god love columbia. it's the size of this room. ifst there are protests, they're

everywhere but not for someone part of campus you go to the other side. and to listen to the kind of dialogue there has been. the whole question as to whether it's anti-semitic et cetera and where do you draw the line. learning there's going to be some of that and if there is the meaning of free speech and jewish students are going to have to get used tot hearing a certain amount of that sort of thing within certain parameters. that is not something i think college students have that graphical lesson about in a long time, if ever. certainly something i've had to think a lot about. my position has always been we have to remember that if anybody on the campus the ei has got to die two times, although it have to do stand saying that they set up her half-hour they'd be sent to another planet. there been a question at all. that ends up relating to the story of law school professor. there is the whole issue there. how much are groups expected tos

listen to the name of free speech? although the atmosphere at columbia was to say the least. almost eating your vegetables, a lesson in what free speech really means and the nastiness of what's going on. >> so, can you tell us a little bit more about the languished or your view as you free speech on campus and for that matter i suppose academic freedom. me trying to think in general and read and listen to the right things. obviously in bar from the notion of free speech. not only crying out in the theatern sustained, direct attacks upon individuals cannot

be thought of as free speech. constant overt discriminatory or not to be thought of as free speech. this is common in free speech. where do you draw the line? i remember one night, we had a late class we walked onto the building there is a line of people going by and yelling from the river to the sea. iha remember thinking they haveo hear this. one of them is better equipped to do it than the other i thought they have to listen to this all day long. is this free speech or too much? it's a tough one. ife thought to myself how wouldi feel listen to dei has got to die. di has got to die or something more yoshinobu yamamoto. i thought it would not bother me because there's a part of me that is but that is a come configuration of's neurons. that's not something everybody has and it's a disadvantage to

meme sometimes. i thought i don't know back then i thought i don't know. today i would say if there was a certain amount of that sort of speech being leveled by certain group against black kids i would hope if it did not go too far as in up in i your face, as in threaten physical hostility as in getting individuals if it did not go too far i would hope they would be able to withstand it. but then as i say that, and thinking about arrogant cocky me. i have to get out of him and think about what it's like to be someone else. it sends very, very difficult to rub her head around it. especially because as i'm sure you know, most people within that debate know it they know it all comes down to one thing and there are no questions. the hardest philosophical question of note in my lifetime. that won't do for me but that means is difficult. it is hard. i wonder iff we could talk a little bit more about students on campus at the moment. your atlantic colleague wrote a

piece two days ago on how students delete campuses no longer read they no longer read at all. there lots of articles about the sort of thing. no doubt there have been for decades and hundreds of years to but this one is quite damning. the distinguished historian is quoted in the article is paraphrased in that article is saying a couple of things. one is heay says students coming with the narrow vocabulary than they used to print that strikes is correct. you disagree with that strikes me as correct. the other thing he says is they have less understanding of language than the astute. and i wonder about that. i wonder whether we could talk a littler bit about whether it is the case that many of the things you decry and many people in this room decry are actually a

result of not understanding language. or could be something like the opposite. they understand all too well what it is they can do if they manipulate language. and that is what they do. >> yes, i read that piece and it occurred to me i used to teach contemporary civilization on the core curriculum i did it for five years that was essentially teaching philosophy and poly poy side junior for me. haven't done for 10 years now for i was looking back on my students then. ten years ago was when a searchn was just beginning. it literally it did change in 2013 all the sudden there is a sea change because of iphones in the twitter and facebook had become default especially twitter. that generation start in 2013. nowadays do not leave me assigning students to pull books. i would say maybe this is because i'm at columbia other

columbia professors would sayul differently. a couple date in the article. i don't know it's any different in that usage of language say 2008 when i was there. certainly among some students there is a sense using certain words is politics. i revert noticing that before 201310 thinking lorraine hansberry and martin luther king would not recognize this. this is a new way of fusing a language not harmful but a new way. definitely, josh i can say this. 2009 if i had a bright student and they wanted to know. i would tell them it's me imitating in his book the proper book to read is this and then you can read the book. i would tell students though not in that tone of voice the book you want to risk here is on my shelf go read that, go read that. that does w not work with any bt a sliver now. not tiktok but reading articles

in fits of things is the way they get their information and y would rather get it to the ear. you want to watch somebody talking about because there's so much online now of people talking knowledge for a lot of them have grown up on that. so i feel, i worried the book is becoming obsolete. percocet first set of people i think rose compared it was a great comparison. she says we know she quotes some young person or an aggregate of young people as saying we know there are people out there who listen to vinyl and that is cool. but that's a really weird subset that's what it is to read a book. >> i would not be surprised of things when you get shorter devils advocate i try to be as funny as possible. maybe most of always been too long its artificial exercise and how much you remember of any one book. saying that i am backing ending

over weight backwards. just to come here the new reagan biography i highly recommend i did not write it too. reagan biography is like potato chip or i couldn't put it down by max boot. it weighs as much as before i dragged it down here because i want that. get the feeling that now makes me old yes. but you just recommended to me and us. excellent. potato chips you want bill to put ithn down. it's really good for quick to mention it to pass up 13 i will close with this and then hand things over to the audience. 2013 he heard john height and that sort of thing. is there a linguistic oriented book tv written w as a complemet to the sorts of things he was talking aboutou that is to say there is all of this discussion about how iphones and so on may

or may not be the cause of attention deficit blah, blah, blah. what about language? is it really true they were some kind of conceivably a linguistic drop off and for the same cause question we do not want to put words in your mouth did not quite see it edging toward it. >> that is a book, someone who's not me is going to have to write someday. p whether those phones change in language and a significant way. getting beyond the topic. in the books and articles and written about that. but yes it would be interesting to see. youyo have to wait until things have happened though. for example somebody in the atlantic wrote a piece during the lockdown predicting that because children were going to be home with their parents and grandparents that children were

going to learn their home language and better than they have learned it before. that turned out to not be true at all the person who wrote the article is me. [laughter] and so you have to wait and see the result of things. but clearly that piece needs to be written with a language linguistic focus. great. okay wee have 20 or so minutes. let me handed over too all ofan you. if you have a question and are watching live and not in this room right now.org. take it away. >> somebody will come by with the mic. >> hayek, a first thank you so much for speaking with us. i was reading burke's reflections on the revolution in france recently. one of his complaints about that

event is chivalry was being let go of it. one can imagine making a similar statement about rituals related to chivalry as you did about the me and i kind of distinction. even though it might have been something someone made up it contains within it real moral value in something identifying about the civilization to practices rituals. is that an argument you find sympathetic when applied by those who would defend that me and i distinction or is that something you think does not make sense in this context? >> i was the eye don't say um and i just said it. that me and the eye thing, i know how weird this seems. i laid out very carefully. it seems like i am just being. i find it and of course i'm

wearing socks. i'm using deodorant. all it is, is a fashion. that's all it is. there is a larger point which is there are many ways of being shiver lists and language. many we have an english or just hidden. so the waiter or waitress to come so what are we having today? what are you having is a little direct. but the waiter is not going to have any food with you. though we is a form of alignment. or somebody says to a single person, this happened in the south, you all come back you here. often that would be said to one person but the you all is not calling one person you all like a bugs bunny cartoon. leaving the implication that there might be somebody else out in the s car because it is too direct to just say you come back. so