>> Replacing cancel culture with moral courage, this week on "Firing Line."

>> If we are going to be shaming, blaming, or gaming, we'll actually be erecting walls -- emotional walls.

>> She's a gay Muslim refugee, but activist and author Irshad Manji says, "Don't label me -- or each other."

>> We never stop being individuals, even as we belong to identifiable groups.

>> Manji want Americans to stop the shaming... >> What I call the basket of deplorables.

>> The failed elites from Washington.

>> ...and believes we need to rethink how we define diversity and teach it.

Manji herself has earned her share of critics.

>> I read your books and I see only polarization.

It's all black and white.

>> And at a time of deep division at home and abroad... >> [ Protesters chanting ] >> ...what does Irshad Manji say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Irshad Manji, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for the invitation.

>> Now, we have known each other for some time, and your most recent book is entitled "Don't Label Me: How to Do Diversity Without Inflaming the Culture Wars."

We know how divided these times are, Irshad, but why are labels so dangerous?

>> Well, you know, Margaret, we're not going to be losing labels anytime soon.

Our brains are pattern-seeking organs.

So we need labels to try and make sense of the world and the bits and bytes and shards of information that are flung our way every single day.

The problem is that labels often reduce people to something less than they actually are.

And in so doing, they can distort people, because labels aren't neutral.

They come with baggage.

We are all, Margaret, all of us -- the so-called white straight guy as much as the so-called queer Muslim woman -- we are all so much more than meets the eye.

And the only way we can actually ever know one another is to engage rather than assume.

>> Share with us some of the labels that you would use to have described yourself.

>> I -- You know, the only label that I can stand by now, truly, is plural.

And it's a label that I apply to you, as well.

In many ways, it is the anti-label, right?

Because it means that rather than deciding that because you're a white woman, I know who you vote for, I know what your values are, I know, you know, what you're interested in -- instead of making those assumptions, if I care enough about you, I ask those questions.

And I ask them sincerely, not judgmentally.

>> So, when people offer their own labels -- they're Christian, they're a Republican, they're married, they're progressive, they're liberal -- do you discourage people from labeling themselves?

>> Not at all.

What I remind them is that simply because you apply those labels to you or somebody else assigns you those labels doesn't mean I know you.

>> Much of your previous work had been in the context of the aftermath of 9/11, the attacks of 9/11 on this country, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and advocating for a reform -- a reform Islam.

How has your past experience brought you to this place?

>> You know, long before 9/11, I had been speaking up within my faith of Islam about the need to challenge anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, and other fears that humans so easily have.

But I was saying to my fellow Muslims, the intolerance has got to end if we're going to be taken seriously as people who embrace a religion of peace.

Well, I'm happy to say that 20 years later, a new generation of Muslims is asking tough questions of their elders and making change from within.

>> You are the leader and the creator of the Moral Courage Project.

And you define moral courage as "doing the right thing in the face of your fears."

>> The biological fear that our brain experiences whenever we're being disagreed with, is a universal fear.

White people, Black people, queer people, straight people, women, men, in between -- you name it.

Nobody wants to be disagreed with.

So it's easy with such emotional issues as identity and justice, it's so easy to feel attacked, to feel like your humanity is being undermined when somebody with whom you're engaging has a different point of view.

But the only way we can discuss diversity and our differences constructively is in fact by building trust with one another.

If we fail to build trust, then difference plants the seeds of resentment and grievance and ultimately suspicion.

This is why so much diversity work, whether it's in the corporate world or whether it's in schools, fails -- because we have avoided finding common ground before moving over to difference.

>> How diversity and antiracism are taught in schools and in our culture right now is really open for debate.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You advocate a "no shaming" approach to teaching about social justice and diversity.

And you've just launched your own antiracism program that supports educators and parents.

Why and how, Irshad, is your approach different than the ones we've been talking about?

>> Well, in many ways.

First of all, it is, in fact, a no-shaming approach.

We don't finger wag to white kids that, you know, you're white and therefore you have to fix yourself.

And -- And that's because every individual is different from every other individual.

Some white people do have to fix themselves.

Let me assure you, having battled prejudice within my own Muslim community, some Muslim people have to fix themselves.

So this is not about white versus everybody else.

That's number one.

We do not shame.

Shame, by the way, is counterproductive.

It only makes people defensive.

And defensiveness leads to blowback.

>> Some schools teach critical race theory.

First, for the sake of viewers who may be not familiar with the movement and the history of critical race theory, what is critical race theory?

>> Sure.

Critical race theory is a decades-old academic theory, a school of thought that proposes that one's race defines how much power one has.

And the darker you are, the less power you have.

Now, I want to emphasize that I'm not against critical race theory.

Not at all.

I'm against it being the only lens through which to view human behavior and the way the world works.

>> So then how do you understand this movement on the right?

Oklahoma has effectively banned the teaching of critical race theory in the schools, and several other states have similar efforts or bills in the works.

>> Yeah.

>> How do you understand that backlash?

>> Yeah, and let me begin by clarifying -- I question critical race theory.

>> Yeah.

>> I question many theories, including that one.

But I absolutely am against the banning of it, and... >> Are you against banning all speech?

>> Almost.

Almost all speech.

Yeah.

I used to be an absolutist -- free speech absolutist, I'm not anymore, because I've seen, you know, how consistent bullying can actually shut down other people's free speech.

So, again, we human beings are complicated.

There is no one perfect solution.

But we've got to own what we are doing to one another in the name of our agendas.

So, that brings us back, then, to what's happening on the right in this country.

There is such a lack of imagination on the part of extreme Republicans today.

They have very few ideas, very few policies that are -- that have traction with the general public.

And the easiest, laziest way to rally support is to tell their base, "You are being threatened.

Not just your identity, but your way of life is being threatened by this."

And it could be anything.

And again, you know, extreme Republicans are, in fact, tapping into our basest impulses, the impulses that all human beings are born with.

They're tapping into the defensiveness that we so easily feel and mimicking the either/or mentality that we see on the left, as well.

In many ways, these two polar opposites are not polar opposites at all.

They -- They do re-create an "us against them" game.

And for that reason, I have no compunction about saying that I oppose both.

>> Is what we're seeing in these red states across the country a backlash to something?

If so, what?

>> I do believe that it is a backlash, and it's entirely predictable.

Not because those who are involved in the backlash are evil people, but because people like them have been humiliated over many decades by overly educated folks who say the people who live in middle America -- you know, "flyover country" -- are rubes, they're hicks, they're idiots, they're troglodytes -- and of course, lest we forget, they're racists.

And once again, that has been a source of real grievance on the part of people who live in the heartland.

Tell you a quick story.

2009 -- I was teaching at New York University and I did a tour of various, you know, states in the -- in the Midwest.

And I kept getting the question, Margaret, "Why do they hate us?"

They weren't asking about Muslims abroad hating Americans.

They were asking, "Why do you people on the coasts hate us?"

And when I got back to NYU, I spoke to a university colleague about, you know, the tour.

And his first question for me was, "How often did you experience Islamophobia when you were there?"

Not "did you" experience it -- "how often."

That assumption that I encountered hatred of my Muslim self exactly reinforced what I was being told on the ground in the Midwest, that the overly educated make all of these assumptions about us.

It's wrong, it's unfair, and don't you dare call that diversity.

Because in that case, your diversity is a scam and a sham.

And I can very much understand that ambient anger.

Of course, now former President Trump and his acolytes have tapped into that anger.

But make no mistake, the anger was there long before Trump came on the scene.

>> Should the government ban trolls on the Internet?

>> No, no.

>> Should social media companies be responsible for the propagation of conspiracy theories?

>> That's a different question than should government ban trolls.

First of all, we need to be teaching our young people, and -- and first ourselves, how to handle trolls on the Internet.

But are tech companies responsible for conspiracy theories?

They're not responsible, obviously, for the origin of conspiracy theories.

But I think they do have a part to play.

This does not have to involve big government.

It can absolutely involve holding corporations accountable for the mega profits that they rake in by claiming that all they are is distribution platforms and not content generators.

The truth is somewhere in between.

>> You write about political correctness.

The debate about political correctness is actually not one that is new to any of us.

In fact, in Firing Line's original incarnation, which William F. Buckley Jr. hosted for 33 years, they even had a debate about political correctness.

And I want to show you two clips from that debate entitled -- 1993 -- "Political correctness is a Menace and a Bore."

Take a look at this.

>> Let it be said that the University of Pennsylvania was eager to host tonight's debate.

And any university that allows William F. Buckley on its campus can't be all that politically correct.

There are no speech codes tonight.

The only limits on freedom of expression here are the ordinary rules of civil discourse and this hammer.

>> Thank you.

>> I hope that's politically correct, Bill.

>> You are really something.

>> Captain of the affirmative team is, of course, William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the National Review, founder and star of "Firing Line."

In terms of tonight's debate, Mr. Buckley is always a menace, but never a bore.

>> [ Laughs ] >> So, you can see, I mean, that setup is to demonstrate, they're approaching this topic with levity, but then they go on to really take the issue very seriously.

So listen to a few more moments from that debate.

Here.

Take a listen.

>> We're now a nation that everybody is claiming victimhood and the right to feel hurt by all kinds of things.

And it's that kind of thing which the speech codes try to prevent, which does, I think, suppress speech.

>> The real menace is centuries of, or at least generations of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, homophobia, which do produce sometimes overreaching reactions to fight just such originating discrimination.

>> And what we do wrong as university administrators and college administrators is we should elicit the prejudice.

There's a lot of racism out there.

There's a lot of sexism out there.

We should bring it...

This is the one place, in fact, it can be heard, but then not merely heard, but constructively responded to in the name of what actually is right.

>> Should we, as the last speaker, Leon Botstein, suggests, be encouraging offensive statements so that they can be exposed and challenged?

>> It's a fascinating thought, and I would say in our current cultural moment, that's a nonstarter.

But what I will also say, Margaret, is that if we're going to be teaching young people how not to be offensive, we've at the same time got to be teaching them how not to be so readily offended.

>> Why is it a nonstarter?

>> There's too much fear, too much fear that all kinds of people feel about hurting one another, about stepping on toes and, of course, being called out on social media and therefore being canceled.

Too much fear.

I would say, ideally, yes, bring offensive ideas to light.

Let's pick them apart.

Let's show that they can be counter-argued.

But that idea today will go nowhere.

>> Privilege walks have become a common social justice activity in universities, schools, workplaces around the country.

In 2018, National Geographic conducted a segment that featured Katie Couric participating in a privilege walk at Columbia University, where individuals stepped forwards or backwards, depending on the answers to the questions.

And at the end, Katie Couric was in the front -- in other words, the most privileged of the group.

>> And then I'm going to ask you to open your eyes.

You can look around the room now, and I want you to think about how you're feeling right now.

Guilty.

>> Guilty.

>> And lucky.

>> And lucky.

>> Is guilty a helpful way to think about privilege?

>> No.

No, it's not.

Guilt, uh... encourages passivity.

Guilt incites down the road a feeling of powerlessness.

And that means that, you know, you're now handing your power as an individual over to someone else to tell you what you are allowed to say, what you are allowed to do.

You may think that that's change because now a new group has power over another group.

So, that may be change, but you know what it's not?

That's not transformation.

I'm saying that's payback.

And payback is very rarely progress.

We've actually got to change the game, get revenge out of it and begin practicing what we're preaching about all people being treated with dignity.

That is the both/and approach rather than simply the either/or approach.

>> Longtime New York Times reporter Donald McNeil Jr. left the paper after his use of a racial slur during a Times-sponsored high school trip to Peru in 2019.

And in response to a student question about the consequences of racial epithets, McNeil used a truly noxious one in an effort to understand the context in which the epithet was used.

Now, he didn't direct it to anyone, but the Times top editors said, "We do not tolerate racist language, regardless of intent."

Should some words be unsayable, Irshad?

>> In my view, Margaret, context matters.

And if you're going, for example, to be asked a question about the N-word and that word is said in the question and you repeat that word as part of addressing the question, that's vital context as to why you said it.

Should you not say it?

Now that we know the consequences -- and this is the fear that I keep talking about.

You don't have to say it.

You don't have to.

But should you lose your job for having repeated as part of your response a word that was used?

Not if the context doesn't warrant it.

And yet, we're living in a time of what I call a one-click consumerist culture, which has seduced many of us into making hair-trigger judgments about one another.

It is toxic, that kind of a culture.

And it is something, again, that will only lead to more fear unless more educators teach a new generation to slow down and think rather than merely emote.

>> There's a story I've heard you share about the time in ninth grade when someone drew swastikas on the blackboards of the classroom of a Jewish teacher, Mr. Goldman, and you found your classmates laughing at it, but at the time you said nothing and then later regretted it.

>> Yeah.

>> We are now seeing a rise in anti-Semitism across the country, across the world.

What advice do you have for people who do bear witness to these types of incidents to have the moral courage you say we need to have in our own little pockets of the world?

>> Mm-hmm.

I would say that it is really hard in the moment to stand up against activity that is being tolerated, heinous activity that is being tolerated by your own -- in this case, my classmates.

But understand that even if you are mocked, even if you are ridiculed, ridiculed for speaking up, you will regret later if you did not do it -- as I regretted.

It was a very teachable moment for me.

And I've learned this not just as a ninth grader, not just, you know, as an activist for reform in my faith of Islam, and not just as a scholar and educator of moral courage.

I have learned this through all kinds of people on both sides of the culture wars in this country who have berated one another for not "getting it," only to realize that, actually, had they explained what the other is missing rather than shoved their truth in the other's face, they would have gotten much further.

They would have been much more effective as communicators.

And this really brings us to the ultimate question, Margaret, which is, if we want any kind of change, are we actually interested in moving the needle?

Or are we interested only in thumping our chests and feeling superior about the position that we're taking?

That's a very real question that too few activists on all sides of any issue ask themselves, because that takes introspection.

>> Well, let me give you an example.

New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Yang took heat for tweeting...

He was then called out by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and he was also criticized by his own campaign workers.

He then acknowledged that his tweet failed to recognize that there is pain and suffering on both sides of the conflict.

Is this an example of the introspection you talk about?

Or is this an example of the shaming you're talking about?

>> Of course, it's not introspection.

Of course it's not.

Andrew Yang is a politician.

He is in the midst of a campaign.

>> But is that kind of calling out "shaming"?

Is that kind of calling out constructive, or...?

>> Well, AOC did call it shameful.

So, of course, yes, she was shaming him.

And she would have no problem owning that.

But -- But calling out really changes hearts.

It will incite fear in the people who are being called out, which may get you a temporary victory, as it did AOC, but over the long term, it's not as if fear, you know, allows people to grow into fuller human beings.

Quite the opposite.

It actually compels people to dig in their heels and to seek revenge when it's convenient for them.

So, temporary victories are great for the primitive part of the brain, the ego, but they're not great for long-term change.

>> Irshad Manji, thank you for coming to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you for having me.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.