Coleman Hughes
Coleman Hughes is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at City Journal, where his writing focuses on race, public policy, and applied ethics. Coleman’s writing has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Quillette, The City Journal and The Spectator. He has appeared on many podcasts, including The Rubin Report, Making Sense with Sam Harris, and The Glenn Show.
In June 2019, he testified before the U.S. Congress. Born and raised in northern New Jersey, Coleman briefly attended the Juilliard School to study jazz trombone before dropping out to pursue a career as an independent jazz/hip-hop artist. Shortly thereafter, Coleman discovered a passion for applied ethics and public policy at Columbia University, where he graduated with a B.A. in philosophy.
385: Coleman Hughes: Race and social media mobs
I first crossed paths with Coleman at a conference that previous guest Jonathan Haidt organized on promoting viewpoint diversity in academia. I hosted a breakfast panel discussion. Coleman spoke on a panel later that day. He shared views that sounded reasonable and well-expressed, but I also knew social media mobs attacked him, though not often engaged. You hear about situations like that. I wanted to bring someone on who had weathered such storms.
Partly, you’ve heard me talking more about race. My next book covers race a lot, so I’ve had to practice developing my voice in an area I’ve seen people lose their careers. Coleman didn’t. On the contrary, he recently spoke to the US Congress on reparations, opposite another well-known writer on similar subjects with different views, Ta-Nehisi Coates.
In our conversation you’ll hear his experience choosing to publicly take on subjects knowing that internet mobs might attack him, being attacked, withstanding it, and coming out stronger for it. I ask his advice on my considering doing so. Not many people take on these challenges and emerge stronger for it. His experience helped me to follow in his footsteps since then.
It’s crazy to think of how we live in times that everyone seems to recognize as suppressing open discussion—that is, our time seems like future historians, should we not destroy ourselves, will look at as historic low in terms of open exchange of ideas, understanding, listening.
If we do destroy ourselves, our lack of open exchange probably will have contributed to not finding a solution.