Reader Responses to Maverick.

Conservative thinkers are so rare in academia, much less ones as credible, clear-thinking, and level-headed as Loury

Ravi Shankar writes: “It was not until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that someone like my father was allowed to come to America at all and that was only because he was studying to be a mechanical engineer.” This is incorrect. It is true that people from India could not receive immigrant visas and could not become naturalized U.S. citizens as a result of a 1923 Supreme Court decision (United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind). But Indians could and did receive student and business visas. Moreover, it was the 1946 Luce-Celler Act, not the 1965 Immigration Act, that made it possible for Indians to receive immigrant visas and become naturalized Americans (although the 1946 law limited such visas to 100 per year). Background for these developments is found in Joan Jensen’s Passage from India: Asian Indian Immigrants in North America, Yale University Press, 1988; Mae M. Ngai’s Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America, Princeton University Press, 2004; and Jane H. Hong’s Opening the Gates to Asia: A Transpacific History of How America Repealed Asian Exclusion, University of North Carolina Press, 2019.

I felt compelled to write BAM a letter after reading the interview with Mr. Loury in the most recent issue of BAM. Regardless of any differences in political views, Mr. Loury made a statement likely to be perceived as innocuous by many readers: “I’m proud of my accomplishments, but I don’t want to be that narcolept falling asleep in the middle of my lectures.” First, it is ironic that someone who seems to oppose reductionist thinking and logic would reduce a human to a medical condition they have. Second, the comment reveals that while disparaging remarks about people’s race/ethnicity are unacceptable (and rightfully so), it is still acceptable to make disparaging remarks about disabilities that people deal with; it is probably more acceptable when the disability is neurological in nature and not clearly visible compared to comments about disabilities that affect mobility. Lastly, it is unclear why Mr. Loury is incapable of understanding that someone can be proud of their accomplishments and have narcolepsy at the same time. For example, I completed a second master’s degree and PhD after being diagnosed with narcolepsy.

Professor Loury says that one Johnny Pippins “is serving an expected 30 years at Iowa’s Anamosa State Penitentiary for felony murder.” He (the professor) is asking that Pippins be granted clemency. Loury adds that he is directing his clemency petition to the Governor of Illinois rather than to the Governor of Iowa. This begs explanation.

Ed. Note: Pippins was originally sentenced in Illinois, so that’s where his clemency petition must be heard despite his now serving his sentence in Iowa.

I thought this was a terrific interview; I only regret it wasn’t longer. I have been a big fan of Glenn Loury ever since I saw a debate between him and Christopher Hitchens in which Loury opposed reparations. As a high school teacher, I used to show that debate to my students. It is a sad comment on our society today that Loury feels ignored and unchallenged at work because he is a Black conservative, and many people do not know what to do with that if they know they can’t get away with scorn and accusations of Uncle Tom. As for Shankar, I thought he had a lot to say, and I really appreciate his bringing up Indian democracy, because we in America get so caught up in our political divides, we end up sounding provincial. Anyway, quite a great discussion featuring a great thinker. Brown students have been lucky to have him, and I wish his name was better known.

I enjoyed “The Glenn Show,” showcasing a conversation between Professors Glenn Loury and Ravi Shankar. But I was perturbed by this pull quote from the article, boldfaced in red on the BAM table of contents: “I feel a little bit ignored really . . . I can’t help thinking that if I were not Black, I’d have a much harder time” (my emphasis).

Unless I’m reading the interview wrong, in this passage Loury is reflecting specifically on a lack of pushback from his colleagues and students when he voices certain conservative opinions on campus. He feels the pushback would be sharper for white counterparts expressing similar views. Unfortunately, a reader could easily misunderstand the second half of the pull quote as referring to Loury’s entire career, especially as the link between the two halves is far from clear in the TOC. In other words, the reader could suppose Loury is saying his Blackness has given him an easier ride in life. Of course, BAM subscribers can simply read the whole article to find out what Loury meant. Not all of them will, though. What really bothers me is this possibility: That the sentence I’ve boldfaced will be bandied about by conservatives to “prove” that even eminent Blacks admit whites suffer far more from racist discrimination than Blacks do in today’s white-guilt USA. This absurd sentiment is not uncommon on the right.

With readers’ attention so hard to come by, I understand the temptation to use Whoa, what? quotes to get them to read BAM articles. Please resist this temptation. And thanks for the article.

Great cover interview with Loury. Thoughtful, respectful, refreshing! Usually I don’t read my alumni magazines from Stanford or Brown, but this one I sat down to read and looked through the whole magazine. Sometimes the genre of alumni magazine feels like—I’m not insulting you all, but just the general genre inevitably—a little bit like marketing. I can tell you I’ll be giving careful attention to the next issue.

The only disappointing thing about this interview is that I learned Glenn Loury is retiring in three years. What a loss for Brown and for students who by definition need to be challenged. Conservative thinkers are so rare in academia, much less ones as credible, clear-thinking, and level-headed as Loury. Brown will no doubt look to replace him with someone of his caliber, but I doubt his persuasion.