 So I think this may be the most famous I ever get is being able to be on the stage with Jim Amanda. We've had a long day and a wonderful day of raising all sorts of issues about how do we renew America in a deeply, deeply divided time. And one of the key issues is something that I think has been an undercurrent and actually explicit in much of the day, which is how should, let me put it in these terms, the most neutral terms, how should Clinton voters engage Trump voters? And right after the election, indeed, I originally wrote a note to the New America community and then published it later and I said, you know, on the one hand we have just elected an open racist to treats women like meat. On the other hand, my overwhelming reaction watching the election returns was just being horrified at this map of red and blue and how divided it was. And I ended saying we will never be on the same team as President Obama himself claimed, if none of us even know voters on the other side. We have to meet one another beyond the Thanksgiving table. This was obviously right before Thanksgiving and must learn to talk with and above all listen to one another when we do. So that was my reaction. You wrote a fabulous piece in The New Yorker that I think everyone here has probably read and many people have taken that as a rallying cry. Indeed, I just recently was emailing with a political scientist friend of mine and he has a quote from your article underneath his signature, so just to give you a sense. And you said, quote, hazy visions of healing and not becoming the hate we hate sound dangerously like appeasement. The responsibility to forge unity belongs not to the denigrated but to the denigrators. So that's sort of two different views and I wanted to ask you, how do we think about that now? Is it the responsibility of Trump voters who elected a man who ran on hate to reach out to Clinton voters or just more generally how do we navigate this? And I asked this in Washington, obviously very close to the White House. I think it's lovely to be here, by the way, and thank you. It's lovely to be here with Steve and Marie. You know, I have thought about this quite a bit and I think my first thought is, why do we have to? In other words, it makes me think of what I often call a certain kind of American addiction to optimism that somehow we all have to get along and we all have to hold hands and we all have to. And I think, well, do we really? I think that there are certain people with whom I will never get along and I've made peace with that and I don't need to get along with them, you know what I mean? But on the other hand, I also think that I wrote that piece for the New Yorker from a place of just intense anxiety and a feeling of just deep unrest. I was just, my spirit was deeply troubled and I think it's not even ideological because while I consider myself left leaning, the ideas from the right that I think have value and merit and that I'm interested in debating, I'm very open and interested in people who don't agree with me because there's a part of me that wants to press with them to get them on my side. But with Trump, it felt to me so different. I mean, it seemed to me that he won and suddenly people on the left lost their confidence. And suddenly, because I think if somebody has said, for example, that a group of people are rapists and liars and women are greeted based on a one-to-ten rating and pussies are grabbed, I don't see why I should then have to engage with that. It just seems to me, I really don't. And so I suppose for me the question then becomes what kind of Trump voter? Because I do think that there is diversity in sort of that. I know of an Nigerian physician, for example, who voted for Trump. And it's the kind of thing that in certain liberal circles people will be horrified to hear because their assumption is that somehow every black person hates Trump. But black people who voted for Trump, right? But he voted for Trump, he said to me because he wants lower taxes. So it's a kind of reflexive Republican vote. I can't vote for the Democrat because the Democrat is not going to cut my taxes and I have a small business. I do think that there are people who, and I also empathize with the idea of feeling lost and economically excluded. So I've read Hillbilly Elegy, for example. But at the same time, I know of black and Hispanic Americans who themselves are walking class and feel economically excluded but did not vote for Trump. And so to me it just feels a lot more textured than saying that it's a product of economic exclusion. And so while I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of people who feel lost in this country, it's hard for me to, I don't know, it's hard for me to make peace with the fact that it then means that you're willing, in some ways, what are you willing to tolerate? So I think you've actually gotten at many of the themes we've heard today in terms of people's sense of economic pain, but that's not enough. As you point out, there are plenty of people with an economic pain who didn't vote for Trump. There's a sense of loss. There's a sense of deep anxiety and fear. And then there are also much more open motivations. There's the taxes, but I've heard people simply say my husband voted for Trump. He couldn't handle the idea of a woman president. Oh yeah. That's a major. But it's not just my husband voted for Trump. It's also I voted for Trump. I think there are many women who did not want a woman to be president. Well, I think that's true as well. I'm going back to your first response, which I think is a powerful one, which is why should I have to? And I think that's a key question. Because on the one hand, yes. So suddenly it's on the burden is on those who were defeated to engage with those who won. Why should that be? Particularly when the campaign was so ugly. I guess where I look at it though politically is unless we find some way to engage, this divide risk just getting deeper and deeper. I mean, as a Nigerian also in your background, you know what this division can lead to. So I guess it's more what's our burden as citizens rather than as people of a particular political persuasion or as women or as people of color or however you think about that. I also wonder, I mean, do you think this is something that bothers people on the right? Would this be a conversation that will be heard on the right? Do you think? I'm smiling only because I started my career teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, which was mostly conservative in some liberals. And the liberals, Elena Kagan was one, and I was another, and Larry Lessig was another. And many of us bent over backwards to make sure that all the points of view were presented and that we didn't wear our politics into the classroom. And I have to say, not all, but certainly many of my conservative colleagues had no sign of inhibitions. I mean, they, they, and so I don't know. I do think there are, I think there are, there's certainly many conservatives I know who are worried. Many of them are anti-Trump. I don't know about in sort of Trump voters, but I guess what I would say is that's part of the reason I'm a liberal, right? In other words, that, that, I mean, this is a fight my husband and I have all the time. He wants to be completely ruthless in whatever it takes and we're going to win. And I'm like, no, that's not actually how I understand my ideology. So I don't know, but I don't know that it matters. You know, I think for me, it would depend on who might, who was on the other side. So I think it's, it's particularly Trump. I just think that a madman is in charge of America. And we can't pretend as though it's normal. That's really my thing. Right. So with, with George W. Bush, for example, the president I didn't particularly admire, but I didn't feel this way. I didn't, I mean, I, if I were having that conversation, this conversation during George W. Bush's presidency, I would probably say that it's important to sit down and see where people agree and that sort of thing. But it's just hard for me because being Nigerian, I mean, I grew up in, in, in under military dictatorships. And, and I know what it's like to live in a country where, where fear is like a shroud around you. And I also know what it's like, how fragile, how just incredibly fragile, how things can change, how, you know, General Buhari became head of state. And my mother and my father, both of them walked in the university, were so terrified because the story was that soldiers were going to come into their offices, drag them out, make them recite the national pledge. If the, if the missed one war, they would be flogged. So my parents came home and said to us, teach us the national pledge. And I was maybe eight or nine. My brothers and I then start to say to my parents, all right, repeat after us. I pledged to Nigeria, my country because my parents went to school before the national pledge became a thing that everybody had to know. But all of this is to say that that's what happens when you live in a system that in which anything can happen, in which uncertainty is the order of the day. And I feel as though America can very easily become that. And which is, I think, is why for me in writing that piece, my point was this is not the time to sort of talk about holding hands. This is the time to make sure that America doesn't dissent to that. I don't know how to do that because in some ways I'm not an American. But it was my way of saying to Americans, you need to make sure your country doesn't become that. That's so interesting. That's exactly the reason I think we have to reach out. It's exactly the same as a foreign policy expert. I know what happens when democracy fails. I haven't lived it, but I've studied it. And I also understand democracy is much more fragile than many Americans think it is. And I'm terrified that if we don't find a way to cross this bridge, there's nothing that says that we can't have civil violence again. I talked about the Civil War this morning, but you don't have to go that far back. In the late 1960s, there were 300 bombings a year in this country. And in inner cities now with police violence against people of color, but even then violence within cities. So it's to me the fragility of what many of us take for granted as Americans, that optimism. So let me shift from Trump specifically to the broader question of identity politics, because we've talked about this all day. We heard about it yesterday from George Packer identifying different forms of American identity as kind of libertarian or globalist or identity politics, meaning that you're American as part of a particular group or America first. And in that piece, you say, and it's, again, very powerful, you say, quote, identity politics is not the sole preserve of minority voters. That's the, and this election is a reminder that identity politics in America is a white invention. It was the basis of segregation. So I wanted to ask you, so one way of reading that is, well, sure, everybody has an identity. White politics is identity politics. African-American politics is identity politics. Women's politics is identity politics. And everybody should just practice identity politics and not feel ashamed of it. So that was, that's one way of reading it. Another would be, don't let white people tell you you're practicing identity politics when they are too. We should all transcend it. So I just, I wanted to sort of push you on that a little bit. I think both. It just seemed to me that in political discourse in this country that expression identity politics immediately means people who are not white. And sometimes also people who are not straight. Yes. And it just seems to me a very dishonest way of talking about this because whiteness is very much an identity in this country. And it's very much a politicized identity. I don't, I guess I don't also subscribe to the idea that identity politics is something for which to feel ashamed. I think all politics is identity politics. And I think what happens is that they're intersections, right? That there are different identities that intersect. So that there is, in fact, it's possible to create a coalition. But, you know, I think that being a woman, there's certain things that concern me that don't necessarily concern a man. And being a black person, you know, I think, so I don't really see it as a thing. I don't really see it as a thing to be ashamed of. I think it has, in American political discourse, become something to be ashamed of. Because it somehow suggests that you're not being... American. Yes, you're not being American, exactly. You're not being American. There's something un-American about it. But also even more, I'm thinking about your commencement speech. I was just going to move to that. There's a sense of which you're not being rational. You're being... You know, if identity politics suggests that you're not thinking clearly, you're using the part of your brain that has to do with sort of emotion and unclear thought. And you're just thinking about group, you know, the herd instance. Yes. I don't think that's true. I don't think that's necessarily true. So I guess my... And I sort of feel like I'm having to answer for this speech, which I remember just writing it from a place of just... Well, but it was powerful. It captured something very deep for many people. You shouldn't... I do think that... I think that the political atmosphere is different now. I do think that people are a lot less... Because the madness is apparent. Yes. So I think people are a lot less inclined to what I thought was a certain kind of appeasement. So I want to come... I want to talk about intersectionality. You raised that. And you were talking about the graduation speech. I just gave it at Indiana University about reason and emotion and how we... It's been one of the themes of today, that you have to hear the emotion before you can exercise reason. Trying to reason with someone when you do not acknowledge the underlying emotion will get you nowhere and is frankly wrong. Because you... To recognize somebody as a full human being, you have to see and hear the emotion. But you and I met when I gave another commencement speech a year ago, and I wanted to ask about this. So Chimamanda and I met when we were both on stage at Barnard. We both won the Barnard Medal of Honor a year ago at the Barnard commencement. But it was a subject of some controversy, because many people in the class thought that Chimamanda should be the speaker, and I ended up the speaker and there were protests. And I spent, as somebody pointed out on Twitter, I think I referenced you so many times in my commencement remarks that I might as well have just let you speak. Did someone actually said that? Yes. But here was... So I took it as a challenge to say, and this is of course in the context of Hillary Clinton running and lots of controversy, but I tried to make the argument I can... Actually, I asked it as a question, can I speak for women who neither look nor live like me? That's the way I framed it. Obviously, we're both women, but there were women, particularly women of color who thought I was a white corporate feminist. White, guilty as charged, corporate snooze to me. New America were for profit. But point being, I asked that question, and you will remember somebody yelled from the audience, no, loud and clear. But I want to ask you about that because this is one of the deep questions about multiple layers of identity. I'm a woman, but I'm not a woman of color. But to me, that doesn't mean I can speak only for white women because then in the first place I would not be able to be as effective in terms of speaking when I'm in a room full of only white men. I want to be able to speak for all women. On the other hand, clearly, I don't have the same full experience as a woman of color, as a woman who is gay and a woman of color. And yet, how do we navigate that? And this goes back to, are you a person of color but also working class? How do we layer these identities so actually our identities don't divide us but can also form some cross-cutting identity that allows us to connect as women even if we're of different colors? I don't know. I think that, you know, I remember being quite grateful that I didn't have to write a commencement speech for. Those things are so hard to do. So I was quite happy to come and get the medal, so it wasn't a problem for me at all. But I mean, I've been thinking about that a lot because I sometimes worry that, on the one hand, I think there's something wonderful about this country, which is that idea that to see the humanity of people, I think it's something that America sort of does generally better than any other country, I think, which often means then acknowledging identities. But I think on the left, and I keep saying the left because I sort of feel like I am really struggling with... We often then tie ourselves into knots and in the end it's ineffective. In some ways it's like nobody can speak. It becomes a way of silencing. You're not this, you're not that, therefore, you can't spin. But on the other hand, I also think that it's not just identity, it's when identity is linked to power that it becomes problematic. So I think, for example, that there's a sense in which if you're a white, wealthy woman, it opens the door to a certain kind of almost reflexive resentment because you're privileged, right? But even that, I mean, because I do think there's truth in everybody's experience. I really do. And there's a part of me now that God saved me, but I'm starting to have a lot of sympathy for straight white men. I feel so bad for them. I mean, I feel like they need a small break, right? Because there's a sense in which now to be a straight white man and to say anything, your straight white maleness is a reason to silence you. But I think there's truth in that experience as well, right? But I mean, the thing about, I think that there's something that all women and cuts across cultures, I think to be a woman in the world, to be born a woman in the world is to start at a very early age, to sort of hear what the world is telling you. Little messages about reducing yourself. Not talking too much. Yes, don't talk too much. Reduce yourself. Caregiving is what you need to do. I think it cuts across cultures. It manifests itself in different ways, but it's universal across cultures. So I think, for example, that one can speak to that. There's something about, there's something, which is why I think I talk about feminism. And my feminism is very rooted in my, not just my Nigerianness, but my immowness. In a way that I think had I been born in Yoruba in Nigeria, it probably would have been different because the cultures are different. But I talk about feminism and a woman in Japan writes to me to say, you spoke to my experience. Yes. She's not evil. So there is something there. But at the same time, I think, I can't speak to everything in that Japanese woman's experience. So I think, in your case, for example, my sense is that the young woman at BANA just wanted to see my hairstyle. So they wanted me to go and say, that's really... That is an important question. Yes. And I think that... I think it's legitimate. But I also think that... I mean, so does it mean then that it's only going to be black women who... And also there's class. Are we going to ignore class? No. Because I think that in some ways, when I think about privilege, I think about the position of privilege that I occupy and it's class. So when it comes to being black and woman, I think about privilege in those sections, right? But when it comes to class, I know about privilege. And it means that there's certain things that I haven't earned, really, but that I have access to. And I recognize that there are people who don't have that kind of access. And I can't really speak to their experience. I really can't. I want to learn and I'm open. And particularly in Nigeria where class is so much more... In Nigeria, class is honest. In America, it isn't. In America, I just think that class is very dishonest in this country. We're good at humanity, not so great on class. No, just really not. And it's always also gender, I think. Gender is so dishonest in this country. In Nigeria, it's almost refreshing because you know what you're dealing with. So say a little more about that. So in this country, for example, I think that the way that misogyny manifests itself is so layered and so covert, which is why often people are told, well, it's not really gender. Don't you think it's the cookie monster, right? In Nigeria, and women constantly in this country, women know that they're being diminished. Yes. In Nigeria, people are very in your face. They're just like a woman cannot be governed. Exactly. Much easier to deal with. So it's refreshing, right? Yes. And I think class is the same. So in Nigeria with class, I'm constantly looking to learn. So I'm constantly saying to myself, what am I blind to here? What am I not seeing? So I'll have opinions about, why would my driver behave the way I think he should behave? And then I think, what am I being blind to here? So I think in that case, I guess my point simply is that I do think that, you know, I do think that a woman like you who's white and privileged No question. can in fact speak at Barnard. What I'm not sure I agree with is the idea that one should speak for everyone. I don't know how I feel about that because you could maybe speak for the womaness, but yes, yes, not the other layers. Yes, yes. That's helpful. Because the things I just don't think I can speak. There's certain things I can't speak for. I can have an opinion about it, but I can't see that I'm speaking for you because I don't know. I mean, I think there are many layers. The other question is, what's the language we use? And here you, you recently tangled on questions of language. You were talking about how trans women have a different experience than women who are born women. And as you've just said, and I deeply agree with you, and we know this, you know, baby girls get treated differently from sort of the moment of birth and all these coded messages, the voices people use, the assumptions. And so you were saying, you know, a woman who is born a woman and grows up that way, grows up as a man and becomes a woman has a different experience. But very quickly, and I didn't read about this preparing for this, just in general, you got attacked for saying that trans women weren't real women and that you should have talked about cis women and trans women. This is not unique to this situation, right? The kind of walking on eggshells and if you say the wrong thing, and suddenly, you know, your bona fide says a person of good faith as a person on the left, as a person of all sorts of, sort of as a tolerant person is called into question. And you responded, you sort of said that it illustrates the less pleasant aspects of the American left. How do we fight this? And it's deep because, you know, the whole sort of left-right divide is also about political correctness and you don't want to feed that at the same time. You really have to recognize... Yes. And you're a novelist, languages... That is such an interesting thing to me what you said about, because I remember feeling so uncomfortable getting emails of support from people whose politics I don't like. And I was like, I don't want you... So it made me so uncomfortable. Because actually before this happened, I was having a conversation with a friend in the US and he... We were talking about Caitlyn Jenner. And this friend said, you know, Caitlyn Jenner is mentally ill and kept insisting on using he. And I... So we got into this argument where I'm like, no, no, if you don't understand something, leave it alone. Respect what people... We sort of went through this. And then all that noise happened and he sent me this email. He's like, sure, you're happy now. And I remember just thinking... It wasn't good. I mean, it came from an ugly place. And it made me very uncomfortable because on the one hand I really do... And even before all the noise about saying that trans women are trans women, I had started to find myself very uncomfortable about the kind of silencing that I think that left does because, you know, it's almost as though context and intent no longer matter. I mean, I felt hurt the first few days because I thought... How can you... You're my tribe. And really, my point was more that... I think the left because difference of all kinds is the reason for oppression. There is the need to wish away difference thereby wishing away oppression, rather than... And for me, my position is we should acknowledge difference, engage with difference and also sort of break down our oppression. And so I felt that there were people who would say, there's no difference. It's all the same thing. And I thought it's dishonest. And it's important for many things. I mean, it's not... A woman said to me, well, she said to me, okay, it's different, but why should you say it? And I thought, well, because it's true. But also because... I mean, if we're talking about the violence that trans women, trans women in particular are susceptible to... I mean, so we know that's true. So how can we talk about it if we don't acknowledge difference? And there's also often the assumption that if you acknowledge difference, then you've created a hierarchy. I mean, I think the left is so terrified of, you know, we can't talk about the different ways in which people experience oppression without creating a hierarchy of suffering. Therefore, let's not talk about it. And I just think... Yeah, I have such a hard time with it. I believe very much in talking about things. I think we should be willing to be uncomfortable. Right? Because I also think the part of it is that we all kind of want to be comfortable. And so let's all insist that everything is the same. I think that's not only with gender. I think it also happens with race. I mean, that people who... Or even with culture, that people on the left who are horrified when someone maybe suggests that, you know, maybe an immigrant from Bangladesh has a different experience from an immigrant from Sudan. Some people will be like, oh, you know, I'm suggesting that one is more important. And I'm like, no. I'm suggesting that they're different. Right? And that there's value... I mean, I'm interested... And I think because I'm a novelist and a storyteller, I'm interested in the texture of lives. I don't much care for theory. And when all of this noise started, I remember thinking that when I first wanted to learn about sort of the experience of being transgender, I actually read a bit about Asia where trans people are referred to as the third sex and refer to themselves as the third sex. And kind of it was my work, sort of it was my entrance into the conversation about transgenderism. And then I also read quite a few memoirs by trans women in this country. I did not read trans theory. I'm not interested. And so because of that, you know, I'm not part of the language. I, you know, it doesn't... That word, C-I-S, doesn't come naturally to me. I don't use it. I don't have to use it, you know? And so to get the kind of pushback, it was sort of like you're now going to be sent to the headmaster's office for your whipping because you didn't use the language we want you to use. And I realized that nobody actually cared about what I did mean. I realized it was sort of immediate sensual and we don't want to hear what you're saying. I mean, I did events in which people get up on very rudely just sort of, you know, stop talking, your violence is killing trans women, you're a murderer. I mean, it was just really incredible to me. Well, and that then leads to the even larger issue which you and I emailed about you've been thinking about and I've been thinking about a great deal, which is the issue of silencing people on campuses, right? So, you know, not even letting them speak to begin with or shouting them down when they try to speak, or as in the case of Alison Stanger, who's a close friend of mine at Middlebury, you know, actually violence against her for engaging in an interview with Charles Murray. And this is one where, as you said, it's territory where very quickly you are, at least if you're me and you're an academic, you're making common cause with people on the right who want to claim, you know, universities or hotbeds of intolerance and, you know, really deeply anti a lot of things I'm for. On the other hand, I feel very strongly that if we cannot have, I mean, it's not unlimited because university is not the public square. You can perfectly well deny certain kinds of speech, but that in general, the answer to speech is more speech and silencing will end up silencing all of us. You know, this is again as somebody who, as you said, you believe in speech, you believe in difference, you believe in exploring it. How do you think about this? I think I'm very troubled by all the sort of, certain people I will not fight for their right to speak, to be honest, but I also won't, if they've been asked to come speak somewhere, I won't sort of go through stones at them. I'll either just not go, or if I'm particularly interested in the subject, I'll go and engage in debate, and the point will be for me to prove them wrong. I mean, one of the things that bothers me about all of the silence and then you can't speak is that sometimes there's the sort of, there's the, the suggestion, just simmering underneath the surface that maybe what they're saying is true. So when this man says that black people are naturally inferior, which I think is just absolute bullshit, he's, you know, all of the noise made, and I remember talking to somebody who, a friend of mine who's, you know, conservative, and he said to me, you know, but there are facts that need to be aired, and so I realized that sort of what he was suggesting was that this man was right. And I thought, this is why we should actually not silence them. We should debate. Yes, we should not just debate, but make him realize very clearly and very calmly with facts that it's bullshit. Because the thing about saying you can't speak is, is also, I mean, how do we learn? How do we learn? I think on the left there is noun, and I think the intent is a good one, I should say, right? So although now I'm kind of looking for a political home. Come to New America, we're a home for the ideologically homeless. I'm looking for a home, but it will not be the right because, I mean, also there's a lot of racism there, but anyway, but here's the thing, if only the American right, there's a lot of racism, let's be honest, if not for that, I think many immigrants would be Republicans, because many of the sort of social ideas of the right are very sort of in tune with many immigrant communities. But I mean, I also feel that the silencing means that we can't learn, and increasingly I feel a kind of paranoia when I read certain pieces in leftist publications because I think they're not telling me everything. They're protecting my emotions and my feelings. Really, I do. I mean, I kind of get paranoid now, because I just wonder how much has been edited out to be... Yeah, I mean, how much has been edited out to keep all of us comfortable? Yeah. Yeah. I want to learn and I'm willing to be uncomfortable. And because I also come from just a very clear and completely... You know, it's not open to debate, the idea that all human beings have value and are equal. Right, for me, it's not debatable. And so I think if you start from that premise, I'm open to hear what whoever wants to say. And I'm also quite keen for them to be called out on the bullshit rather than to be silenced. Exactly. I mean, I think in that way we learn. I think one of the things that troubled me lately, reading about, not just Middlebury, but it's also just the tone in which things are talked about in many universities in this country, is that idea that unless you agree with us, you cannot be among us. And it seems to me very different from what a university should be. I grew up in a university campus in Nigeria and you should be at the staff club and see people just go at it. Because the ideological range was very wide. And I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I love the idea of learning by being made uncomfortable. I think that's a wonderful way to think about it. And indeed, again, it's like the sand in the oyster. I mean, it's that irritation that pushes you to question yourself and to question others. I have many more questions, but I'm being deeply unfair. We've got about 10 minutes left, and the microphone is there, so raise your hand. Right there. Hi, my name is Adele Stan, and I came up in progressivism through the feminist movement. And so 30 plus years, there has been a longstanding racial tension within feminism. And it's now reached probably the third generation since I first started. And yet, we're facing this incredibly, you know, the misogyny has been laid quite bare over, especially during the last campaign. And I am wondering if you have any thoughts for us on how to engage both with each other. Why do we seem to be so stuck? And I would say, you know, and I would, not in the guise of being comfortable, I would take the burden of that on, you know, the white, my white colleagues very plainly, because of the assumption that, well, if we're for all women, then we're for all women. Hey, aren't we good? So anyway, I'd like to know what your thoughts are. I think maybe the first thing is that all white feminists should wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and repeat, all women are not white. Three times every morning, and that probably should solve the problem. No, but here's why. Here's why. I think maybe it's that, and also I think maybe just hearing the anger is a good thing. I mean, there are many women of color who are angry about the way that American feminism has excluded them, and I think it's a very, very valid and justifiable anger. And I think sometimes there is a need to say to them, all right, everything's fine now. And I think hearing the anger is a good thing. Just hearing what people feel. There's an African-American friend of mine who said she wasn't going to the Women's March. And she's like, I just don't feel a part of it. I mean, I was going quite happily, but it made me stop and listen to her. And my experiences are different because I'm Nigerian. I'm not African-American. And I remember thinking, had I been African-American, I might not actually go. So I think maybe hearing it is a good idea. I also think that even in political discourse in this country, the way that you sort of turn on the TV and they're talking about who voted for whom, and they say women voted for so-and-so, and black people voted for so-and-so. And I find myself thinking, well, what about black women? Because the idea being that in this country, when people say women, they really mean white women. When they talk about women politically, they really mean white women. And I think it's changing slightly, particularly with Trump, because now they break it down and they tell us actually white women voted for him. So we're like, all right, our white sisters need to answer for that. But also, I think maybe the expectation that everything should be okay very quickly is not a reasonable one. I think the history of American feminism is one that was very... So I think it will take time. It has to involve real dialogue and really sort of hearing each other. And I don't mean... Often there can be a kind of tokenism in... And that's not what I mean. I mean a kind of just really hearing and also just being uncomfortable. It will take a certain kind of discomfort. But in general, I think I'm generally optimistic because in the end, if Trump is grabbing pussies... Pussies are pussies, right? So that can be like a uniting thing. Hannah, right there. So my question addresses the thing you were talking about, about silencing and who gets to speak. And my question is if the people who are bigoted and the people who have this platform to talk about grabbing and all these other things are the ones who continue to have the platform to speak, how do we reconcile that with more speeches better? But they're not the ones who always have the platform to speak, though. I don't think that they are. I think in a university, I think Middlebury, for example, I'm sure that maybe 90% of the people who came to speak were not bigoted. I think my point is simply that it makes sense to have a diversity of opinion. And maybe part of it is also that there's a kind of... There's a kind of self-righteousness and sanctimony that just infuses a lot of the debates on the left that, quite frankly, just... bores me. Because here's what I mean. When I teach classes, I start by telling my students, let's start today by saying I am ignorant. I am flawed. I have also done bad things. And I say that because there's often, on the left, there's the idea that somehow we all have it right. I mean, sometimes I'm talking to sort of fierce progressives that I know, and I feel terribly... You know, I feel like, my God, these people are spotless. Right? And it makes me feel really bad because I'm certainly not spotless. I'm like, my God, they really haven't said anything bad about anybody ever. You know? They've never made stupid assumptions about people. You know, we're human. So I don't know. I mean, I really have to say that I just really... That's what I think. I think that people with whom we disagree should be allowed to speak. And it's our responsibility, then, to engage with it and not to sort of throw things at them, but to shut them down in other ways. So Charles Murray, whose book I read, and it was actually quite terrible, because I went out and I read it because I wanted to know what all the notions are about. Which I didn't think was very good particularly. I mean, just in general. I don't have the time, but I mean, I could actually write a piece about it showing you how stupid it is. I think that should be what the young students are probably doing. And they should sort of publish it in the student papers and sort of take it all out there and say, here's why this is bullshit in very, very good prose, sort of engaging with what he wrote. Because I do think that there's some of the students who are shouting who probably don't even know what's in the book. Yeah. I mean, they're in the center. I've got a call on a man next. Okay. I'm going to push back a little bit. I'm actually a Middlebury College alum. I want to ask about that line between having a conversation that's uncomfortable and a conversation that makes you feel unsafe. Because I think, and I think you're totally right that there is a part of the left that gets really high and righteous about being politically correct and not making people uncomfortable. But I also think there is a line where conversations where they're saying that a woman of color in a room at Middlebury perhaps is a respected member of the community because they invite someone who says that her knowledge and values aren't worth as much as someone else's and where you draw that line and how a community like a student community that is navigating their own knowledge and experience and support for one another can find that line and make sure that they can listen to opposing communities and have really uncomfortable conversations but also maintain a community You know, here's the thing I mean so I actually also sort of happened to be in the group of people that this man says are inherently inferior. Well he's wrong we're not inherently inferior and I also kind of want to pass this idea of safety because that too increasingly so here's a brief story a friend of mine who lives in Europe came to teach in the US and he said his first pre-teaching office meeting was about being told over and over make sure your students are never uncomfortable and he was taken aback by that because he thought he was going to be told about exam policies and sort of you know this is how you grade but he was about make sure they're not uncomfortable and he said it made him feel tongue tied when he started teaching because of this idea so on the one hand I was a good one and I can use my own experience in teaching when I teach and I teach writing in Nigeria I started by saying to my students that this is a space that has no time for denigrating other people we're all sort of everybody's story here has value but at the same time I think the world is a place that doesn't necessarily have those ideals and how do we then how do we create a certain kind of resilience I want to be able to have whatever it is that it takes in my character to push back at somebody who denigrates me and how do you do that I think it's like training a muscle so I do think that in the same way that I think that we should have people who say that white people are inferior we should have them speak as well I don't know how many there are but my point being there's a certain kind of there's a certain kind of resilience I mean I worry about I don't know I worry about how much the way that colleges in this country have shaped themselves the starting point is a very good one which is let's make people feel that they have value and I think that everybody for example who's at Middlebury knows that it's a space that gives value to them and so if you then bring this person from the outside to come speak and challenge those ideas it's not such a bad thing I don't think and I would actually argue that it's not we should pass the word safe and I also worry that by overusing safe we run the risk of of making it meaningless so that when in fact it's a real situation of not being safe we lose it loses its power I don't think that a person and by the way can we also just agree that America is a country so steeped in racism that that young woman of color has actually had to deal with it before it's not new to her so this idea that we're protecting her in America is ridiculous you know we have time for one last question and I did promise that I would call on a man there Yasha in the back it's coming toward you I think Thank you Yasha Monk I've been really struck by the observation which I read at the time I've been thinking about throughout your conversation but there's a similarity between one way of putting this is that look like perhaps in some way all politics is identity politics and you know certainly that's what Trump had a form of white identity politics wondering about which way around to read the analogy because one way of one way of reading the analogy is to say well look this is just what politics is and so it's completely legitimate to have certain kinds of identity politics everywhere but you know there's certainly some forms of perfectly appropriate identity politics one is to say our identity group is being oppressed and we need to remedy those injustices there may be even some legitimate sort of just interest representation right like we're just fighting for our interests as a group in the way that farmers would or whatever right but there's also something about the kind of it's true that Trump was elected by white identity politics there's at least part of that energy but I'm not okay with right I do not want to say that that's okay with and so I guess I'm wondering which way around do you read the analogy is the point that if there's a similarity there it sort of makes what the left course identity politics more cave in the right ones to say or is there a way of reading it the other way around where it sort of makes it more problematic and I guess I'm wondering which way around you mean the analogy I'm curious about that's actually very interesting and so because I also think that maybe what you so you maybe it's that distinction between white identity politics and white supremacy right that does white identity politics mean white supremacy and it can I think I think I think with Trump it does right and I think by my saying that all like that all politics fundamentally identity politics is not necessarily my saying that I approve of it it would be my saying that if I were a politician for example I intend to be so I can say this I would be very careful about plotting about how to appeal to different identities because that's how to get people I would do that in a very ruthless way but but I mean I'm also not okay with the white identity politics that elected Trump my point was let's acknowledge it because it seemed to me that suddenly there was this barrage of criticism about people on the left who were being told the reason Hillary Clinton lost is because you people on the left are so drenched in your identity politics that you can't see you can't see anything clearly and I thought but no it's also identity politics that elected Trump so it was really my way of saying let's acknowledge it I think that there are some that are are more valid I mean I think you know questions of power I think that groups that have been oppressed I don't think that I would talk about their identity politics in the same way that I would talk about the identity politics of groups that are not oppressed groups that have power I mean I think for example wealthy Americans that's in some ways an identity group because you know they are the ones who want lower taxes for example and sort of you know know things about magic money where you sort of wave a wand and money appear I don't really understand how those things happen but there are groups of people in this country for whom that's an important thing and they will vote for the candidate who will protect that right I mean so I think my larger point is it's either we decide to talk about identity politics honestly and across the board and that we agree that we're going to extend the same courtesies to every identity group so we're being told that white people who voted for Trump who want the coal mines to come back we're told that we should read you know Hillbilly Elegy and go talk to them and understand them which I think is you know debatably valid but let's also say that for you know African Americans in the inner cities let's also say that for immigrants who come from Mexico let's also say that's my point right it's really that it's either we do that or we then erase that expression identity politics from a political discourse but yeah that's that's kind of what thank you so before I invite all of you to thank Chimamanda I also have to just urge you to read her latest book which you heard letter to I knew I was going to mess it up well done I wanted to hear I just want to name letter to Ijewele which is just it's how to raise a feminist in 15 suggestions written as a letter to one of her close friends who has a daughter who says how do I raise a feminist just marvelous but I also raise it particularly here because New America prides itself on trying to address important public issues in many different ways in bestselling books but also in novels in documentary films and one of our fellows Peter Singer wrote a novel with footnotes about the future of war and this is to return to an epistolary style which is an older literary form that we don't see that much of now but it is nonfiction but it's written I feel as if I know Ijewele and I feel as if I know her daughter and her husband in the way that I feel when I read your novels so I just compliment you on finding a way to raise these critically important issues in a way that everybody wants to read and absolutely should and please you couldn't have given us a better end to our conference so thank you thank you thanks Henry this was so much fun