This is a lightly edited transcript of the November 24 edition of Right Now With Perry Bacon. You can watch the video here or by following this show on YouTube or Substack.
Perry Bacon: Good morning. I’m Perry Bacon. I’m the host of The New Republic show, Right Now. I’m really honored to be joined by a really special guest today. Kimberlé Crenshaw is here with us. She is a very renowned academic — a professor of law at UCLA and Columbia. If you’ve read about intersectionality, she’s one of the key authors and thinkers behind it.
I know people watching here have already heard of her and her renowned, great work. So, Professor, welcome. Thanks for joining me.
Kimberlé Crenshaw: Thank you very much for having me, Perry.
Bacon: I missed one of your titles you’re going to talk about today, which is also wrote this on African American Policy Forum—and that’s what we’re going to focus on today.
So, you all put out a report recently about the Trump administration, and it’s called: Anti-Blackness is the Point: Racism, Misogyny, and Donald Trump’s Assault on Equal Opportunity. So, I want to go through that a little bit.
And at the beginning, talk about why you used the phrase anti-Blackness?
Crenshaw: Well, Perry, we have been watching how the Trump administration and the broader MAGA universe has been weaponizing racial anxieties, and I think there’s no question to most people who are literate that race has a lot to do with Trump’s condition of possibility, but the particular dimension that we thought was being under addressed was anti-Blackness. Race comes, of course, and racism comes in many flavors, but anti-Blackness has a particular organizing force field in American history and politics, and that anti-Blackness is a fuel to the MAGA movement, but we haven’t really talked about it explicitly as anti-Blackness. And so consequently it gets absorbed within the sort of general malaise, within the general critique, but we need to be able to precisely talk about it so that we’re better able to mobilize against it.
So that’s why we pulled together this report, to help people who are trying to fight back understand where we have to be specific about anti-Blackness, and that includes its history as well as its current cultural reemergence as one of the central fuels behind MAGA.
Bacon: So, let’s go through sort of point by point. You have four sections, right? You want to go through them a little bit for us?
Crenshaw: Sure. We start with the normalization of racist and sexist narratives, and we saw this—and I think the impetus for the report was to see how quickly the media and the punditry class was willing to stop talking about the misogynoir that was in the presidential election.
I’m sure you remember that terrible rally that happened in Madison Square Garden. If you want to look up misogynoir in the dictionary, that should be there, from everything that framed Kamala Harris, as, well you remember the, “I’m not for Joe and the hoe,” or whatever. So many different ways that misogyny was tinged by anti-Blackness that then became erased, sort of like the day after the election.
No one was willing to talk about the specific ways that Kamala Harris’s Black womanhood was the target of so much of the anti-Harris, anti-Democrat strategy, and yet people were unable to quantify it, talk about it, problematize it, and it gave Black women— I know all of the political and organized Black women that I know —were not just shocked and appalled but gutted both by the attack and by the failure to address the attack. So, of course, this administration went on to make Black women the focal point of all the things that they were trying to do to dismantle the federal government.
So, it starts by identifying Black women’s authority as deeply problematic without even needing to say anything about it. It’s a continuation from what had happened with Claudine Gay. And then there’s just a whole list of finally accomplished, high-achieving Black women still being reduced to just being Black women — ranging from, of course, Harris, but also the attack on the first Black woman Supreme Court Justice, to Lisa Cook, to our own attorney general here in New York.
The racist and misogynist attack was sort of the Trojan horse, and then the wholesale attack on the rest of the federal bureaucracy came on the heels of it. You can remove Black women willy-nilly. You can say racist things, sexist things. Nobody’s going to say anything to you about it. And then you go on to deconstruct the entire federal government.
Bacon: Okay, so because you refer to the election, the post-election period featured these continual pieces by people who voted for the same candidate we did — people who said they’re liberal Democrats — arguing that Democrats do too much identity politics. That was the line. And in some ways, that comment itself obscured Harris.
In fact, the implication was something like this: Because of affirmative action, Democrats had to name a Black woman and then had to make her the candidate. She lost, and now we can move forward to some post–identity-politics, or whatever they were saying.
Crenshaw: Absolutely.
Bacon: What is that narrative about? My fear is that Democrats and liberals agree with the right on race and gender more than they would like to admit, but what do you think is going on there?
Crenshaw: Absolutely. I think that’s right, and that’s what we see in the second level.
So, yes, they have identified identity politics, but of course they’ve defined identity politics in terms of women, queer people, Black folks — that’s identity politics. When Trump and MAGA world say things like, if you want to get anything done, you have to put white men in charge, they don’t call that identity politics. When they take all the books off the shelves that they think are about identity politics and leave Mein Kampf on the shelves at the Naval Academy, that’s identity politics that they don’t talk about. So, the identity politics that is at the core of the anxiety that MAGA builds itself into is never named.
So, it’s clear that there’s a particular kind of identity politics that they are willing to wrap themselves in. And that’s an old-school, long part of the American faction that wanted to think about the United States as a white, male, Christian country, which has now shown up in white Christian nationalism. That is the identity politics of the moment.
All the politics that are trying to challenge that, trying to reclaim that this is a multiracial democracy, trying to identify the ways that inequality is structured into American society and into our culture, all of these things are what Trump calls improper ideology, and that’s what he’s trying to ban in the federal government. He’s trying to ban it in the museums. That’s why they took certain books out of the Naval Academy Library.
That is their identity politics now. It’s called the assault on improper ideology. And if you want to see what it looks like in real time, look at their assault on DEI. The assault on DEI is basically if people of color, if women, if any people who don’t look like us, are in any way involved in something that is bad, we can say that they are the fault of it.
And what does that mean? If you happen to be the mayor of Baltimore when a ship collides into your bridge, because you’re Black and you are there, we can pin the responsibility on you. If there’s an air disaster over D.C., we can pin it on DEI. No proof, no nothing. All we have to do is claim it.
So, this is where their identity politics becomes material. They go after anybody that they can, and by going after people who they want to be able to claim don’t deserve their positions, that allows for them to curry favor with those who don’t support the federal government at all and recruit masses of people into joining their effort to dismantle the very government that makes their lives possible.
Bacon: You said a couple something I want to make sure I emphasize here. You said, you said the attacks on DEI have become material. You see on the, in the sort of broader left, this divide between DEI is phony and fake and I want to focus on material things and that’s a false distinction, right?
Crenshaw: It is absolutely a false distinction. We could go through the whole list, of ways that, as you said, there’s probably more agreement between progressives and liberals and the right wing on this question than we’ve been willing to acknowledge. I learned early in my career in trying to create sort of multiracial coalitions with liberal and progressive white folks that when it comes to race, many of them share the same belief that race is just a biological thing, rather than it’s socially constructed. And that we do best if we don’t talk about it, which of course leaves the constructed part of race firmly in place.
A lot of our work with critical race theory in particular was directed to liberal progressive white folks who understand that class is socially constructed and are all about trying to show it historically and dismantle it in terms of policy and law. But when it came to race, they didn’t quite understand that race is as socially constructed, namely produced by policies and by history and by power, as class is. So critical race theory was all about trying to make the case showing with the receipts how inequality is not natural, how race and racism aren’t biological constructs. They are created by power and that power is material.
So yes, race might be a fiction. If you think that these typical differences actually have anything to do with our intellectual capacity, with our willingness and desire to work and succeed and, and, and build successful lives, yes, it’s totally socially constructed, but in the minds of those who don’t believe that, and that includes now the MAGA world. Inequality exists because people are unequal, not because structures are unequal.
And that was the fight that we were having, even with progressives. And that is the fight that we’ve inherited to this day, because rather than them saying, well, yes, the problem is structural. Yes, the problem is identity politics being used to promote discomfort and anxiety about a multiracial democracy. Rather than taking that up, they take up every other issue and don’t say a word about the assault on civil rights, the assault on Black people and the racial contours of the MAGA world.
Bacon: You reminded me of—this is something that’s not in your report at all — but I’m curious what you thought of the Zohran Mamdani campaign.
And the reason I asked is because I guess I read a lot of stuff saying he only focused on affordability and that’s how he won, in this sort of structure of he avoided these racial issues, and so on. And what I witnessed was him saying, I should not attack people defending trans people, defending Palestinians.
He did not sound like the sort of prototypical leftist who only talks about class issues and is usually white. He sounded like the kind of candidate you and I would agree with on economics and everything else too, because he can recognize the material impact of those things.
How did you see his campaign? I’m just curious.
Crenshaw: I’m glad you said that because there is this debate, and you put your finger on it, between progressives, around how to talk about class. And for some progressives you talk about class without talking about race. Of course, that turns out to be talking about race because the image that you have is the steelworker in Ohio.
Bacon: The white steel worker in Ohio.
Crenshaw: Exactly. And so that’s their approach to talking about class that they think is doing the work: first of all, telling the white working class, we’re with you, we haven’t abandoned you, but it also reinforces the idea that people of color are not working class — and if they are, you don’t have to talk about the way class plays out when you’re also dealing with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia.
So, what I saw in Zohran was the willingness to talk about class and not erase its particularity. In his acceptance speech, which I thought was phenomenal, he called out all different groups of people who are experiencing the pushback that MAGA represents, including Black women who are being disproportionately fired.
So, he’s not taking the bait to say, oh, I know the thing that shall not be said is race. He’s saying, no, we can talk about class without marginalizing its particular intersections with race. And that is why you have the possibility of creating a far more inclusive populist movement. Populism has become right-wing because of the refusal to talk about race and gender. It didn’t start out that way — it became that way because people allowed the ruling class in the 19th century and also in the 20th century to reframe and diminish class-based appeals. I see in Mamdani the opportunity to recapture a more inclusive appeal around class to rebuild the multiracial democracy that we all have a right to.
Bacon: When you say anti-Blackness, just to make sure I understand, like how it’s the root here. I think some people might say, well, he’s taken on Adam Schiff, or he’s mean to Comey too. Trump wants to marginalize anybody who opposes him. He is an autocrat who does not believe in democracy, so he’s against white people who don’t agree with him too. But why is Blackness important to name here?
Crenshaw: Yeah. Thank you so much for that, because let me tell you a few other things people hear when they hear anti-Blackness. They hear: Oh, you’re only talking about Black people—we’re talking about everybody. That’s number one.
They hear: You’re claiming that if we address anti-Blackness, that’s going to be the magic bullet that fixes everything. And they hear: You’re only talking about Black people through a singular lens, not an intersectional one.
So let me take them in turn.
When we’re talking about anti-Blackness, first of all, we’re talking about some of the foundational conditions of possibility that now allow — and actively facilitate — the federal assault on states and their ability to protect people who live within their boundaries.
So, when you see ICE swarming all over the place: yes, that is about attacking brown people and anyone they can interpret as not being red-blooded Americans. And that basically means white — they’re not talking about Canadians.
But the condition for that possibility was the fact that the Constitution itself was structured so that slavecatchers could go into all sorts of places, kidnap Black people, and bring them somewhere else, where the burden was then on the kidnapped person to prove whether they were enslaved or free.
This is an aspect of federalism built into the Constitution—and it was built there to protect slavery.
So, the mechanisms — the facilitation of so much that is going wrong now, including the Electoral College, including the Senate — all of these were structured in a way that would allow those who owned Black people to continue to own Black people. So, there’s that historical part of it. That’s the condition of possibility.
But the second, and equally important, level is the idea that in a fascist regime there always has to be a group of internalized people who are legitimate to hate, who are legitimate to frame these policies around, and that allow people to say, well, at least you’re not them. You are on the preferred side of the line as opposed to the non-preferred side.
Blackness has been that thing that allows people to say, well, at least I’m not that, and all of those downward-focusing politics make it that much more difficult for us to see how the plutocracy is working — how much of our resources are being stolen, why we’re going to be increasingly hungry, why we’re going to be increasingly unhoused. All of this comes from looking this way as opposed to looking that way, and Blackness is a core feature of it.
And the last thing I’ll say is that the main attack on diversity, equity, inclusion comes from the claim that it puts people who are intellectually deficient in positions of power that they don’t deserve.
That’s a particular anti-Black stereotype. It’s something that contractors used in California when they went after affirmative action. It wasn’t because of higher education that they were upset. They were upset at the billions of dollars that they had to funnel to minority-owned businesses. Were they talking about business owners? No. They wanted to go to, oh, we know that Black people don’t score as well on standardized tests, so that means all of affirmative action is about putting unqualified people in positions that they don’t deserve.
It’s such a fundamental stereotype about affirmative action that even a lot of Black people believe it.
So, we need to go after the ways that anti-Blackness creates consensus for policies and politics that harm people and that undermines their ability to fight it as long as some of these ideas are shaping what they think — well, they do have a point, or MAGA does have a point about that. Once you concede that, you’ve basically conceded the war.
So, we’re trying to get people back on the page of understanding how anti-Blackness shapes the condition, how anti-Blackness undermines solidarity, how anti-Blackness makes us not stand up for the policies that actually benefit all of us.
Bacon: In some ways, now that I’m listening to you talk, we need to get liberals, the Democrats back to what they were thinking in June 2020.
Crenshaw: Yes. How long was that? Six months? Maybe?
Bacon: I mean, there was a period where they said things — there was certainly some performativeness — but I think the data is just that people believed that stuff. I mean, I guess part of what I might ask you then is: was it inevitable that those ideas were going to be rolled back? Was 2020 always going to be rolled back because the people in power didn’t agree with those ideas?
We’ve seen entire publications sort of attacking your ideas. A world in which Ibram Kendi and Kim Crenshaw and Ta-Nehisi Coates exist is not a world a lot of white people with power in both parties want to live in. And so, on some level, creating the intellectual offer — do we need to change the ideas, or do we need to change who has the money, because they’re funding the ideas in a certain way. Right?
Crenshaw: Change the people; change what money can do. I think that is — that’s all behind what campaign finance reform was all about. We’re inheriting a world that was created by the intersections of the attack on voting rights and the attack on campaign finance reform, right? This is the world bequeathed to us by the Supreme Court, given to us by the most dominant person on that Supreme Court right now, which is Clarence Thomas.
So, what is it that money is allowing politics to become? How is it that a coherent project of dismantling the government, and the societal consensus that there is work to be done — and will continue to be work to be done — to make this a truly multiracial democracy? It’s always going to be a post-slavery, post-genocide, post-segregation society, but what kind of ‘post’ that looks like?
Is it going to be a complete repudiation of that history, a dismantling of that history, and a building of a new democracy built on the foundation of repudiating that stuff? Is it going to be that — is that what we mean by post? Or is it just, oh, that happened a long time ago, we don’t talk about it anymore, and, in fact, we’re going to create laws that make it impossible to talk about it? Because if you don’t talk about it, you don’t name it, you don’t see it playing out in contemporary society, then that undermines the very basis for doing anything about it. It undermines equal opportunity. It undermines the Voting Rights Act, which we may lose because of this effort to push history off the table.
So the last and most important part of our report on anti-Blackness is how to connect it with the assault on museums, the assault on critical race theory, the assault on books. When we look at books that are being censored, 40% of them are written by people of color, women, or queer people. The idea is just to take the words out of our mouths, take the audience away — so what we saw in 2020 doesn’t happen again.
Bacon: This obviously matters. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be trying to ban them.
Crenshaw: Exactly. My mentor always tells me, Kim, dogs don’t bark at parked cars. They’re coming after critical race theory, 1619, intersectionality because these ideas mobilized people; they gave them the language to actually articulate what they were seeing with their own eyes. When you see something, you look for a way to express it, a way to represent your outrage about it. These were the kinds of conversations that the George Floyd–Breonna Taylor moment created for the entire society.
So, did we see backlash coming? Absolutely. I mean, that is the history of America. Whenever we go two steps forward, we go a few steps back. The problem was: were we going to go further back than two steps? Were we going to be like the end of Reconstruction, where we had eight years in power and nearly eight decades of racial tyranny? Is it going to be that kind of backlash? And I think that’s the moment that we’re in right now.
It’s clear that it’s a backlash. It’s clear that all those companies that jumped out there — Target, McDonalds, we can go on and on — that declared their commitment to racial justice are now on a whoops, we went too far, and now they’re correcting. And the question is: is that correction going to be for the rest of this century? The rest of our lifetimes? It’s definitely going to go beyond 2028, and that is precisely why we are trying to call liberals and progressives into the conversation, because the distance that this will go is not really going to be determined by MAGA. They’re on brand. They’re going to ride this to the end of the earth and beyond.
The question is: are we going to be able to galvanize our resources and our commitments? Remember what happens when race gets erased. Remember what it was that galvanized so many people in 2020, and galvanized people in 1964, and galvanized people in 1863. Are we going to remember that those are the true moments where we were making our democracy? When we were willing to step back and make deals and disenfranchise entire groups of people — that is when our democracy faltered, and that is when we lost our power.
Bacon: So, Pete Buttigieg was at the Texas Tribune’s Festival maybe two weeks ago, and he gave this speech about how we lost our way because we started talking about identity so much. That was the only thing people heard from us. Okay, so that’s what he said. I think, due respect to Pete Buttigieg, he’s someone who wants to be elected president. I think he’s trying to figure out where things are.
What do we want the sort of aspiring Democrat to sound like when talking about the sort of race — the place of where we are in race right now? What do we want that person to sound like? Because a President Buttigieg is not going to bring us forward very much. We need the next administration to move us out of this.
And what is that? What do you want — a language that is both appealing to maybe middle America but also moves us in the right direction?
Crenshaw: Yeah, I’m going to be frank at this moment. Pete should be the last one talking about identity at this moment as being the problem. I’m sure he wouldn’t say that marriage equality is about identity politics. I’m sure he wouldn’t say his right to raise his children is identity politics gone too far. But what would he say about affirmative action, or what would he say about issues that have to do with the history of Blackness being a constraint.
So, number one, I would be very cautious about giving an inch to the idea that what Democrats have failed to do is to distance themselves from identity politics. The party of the Democrats gave us the Voting Rights Act. It gave us Medicaid, Medicare. It gave us the things that we take for granted and that we build on to expand rights. We can’t start then dismantling that stuff because what that basically means is we’re drawing divisions between some constituencies whose rights have come out of this moment, this movement, and others. That’s a disaster for us.
I think the second thing that I would want our politicians to do is stop listening to the pollsters who are making stuff up, finding groups of people to convey that stuff. We did polling and focus group work in Virginia in the aftermath of Youngkin’s victory, and we found very different things than the folks who are looking for evidence that its identity politics that defeated us. We heard from white voters — likely white Democratic voters — who were pissed off, angry that their party, the party that they cast their votes for, the party that they believe has their best interests in mind were so anxious to throw overboard a whole range of interests that they believed in, in search for the Reagan voter who left a generation ago and is unlikely to come back.
They want a full-throated argument for the kind of democracy that they think Democrats embrace. They don’t want a lot of pivoting — and I call it shucking and jiving — around the question of how our democracy has broken and what we need to do to fix it.
So, I think there is a polling industrial complex that has gotten behind the idea that there are certain things we can’t talk about. I think you hear it bubbling up with Ezra Klein and the whole thing about how Charlie Kirk practiced politics the right way, and Democrats who are willing to say we should model him. The only way they can do that is to not talk about white supremacy and racism. And the only way you can do that is to say: you folks who have to deal with that, deal with that on your private time — we’re not bringing this into mainstream politics.
That, to me, feels like disenfranchisement. It’s not that the Democrats are signing on to you can’t vote. They’re signing on to we’re going to remove things for you to vote for, right? We’re not going to talk about the things that really matter to you. We’re not going to talk about the racism that is now everywhere. We’re not going to talk about the fact that Coast Guard has now said that a noose and a swastika are no longer hate symbols.
People need to see what is happening, know that the history tells us that the last time that the party of racial justice decided to step back and negotiate a settlement with the party that represented white supremacy, we lost our right to vote. And with it we lost a whole range of policies for generations. We can’t afford that now.
Bacon: Let me do my democratic pundit, white pundit imitation here. Did you know that Donald Trump won more Black voters than any Republican since Ronald Reagan? Did you—you know, maybe Perry Bacon and Crenshaw educated people with college degrees, but the regular working-class African Americans really like Donald Trump, and maybe BLM turned them off.
How do you respond to that?
Crenshaw: That is what they say. I have a couple of things. First of all, we are still talking about 87-plus percent of Black people — Black men — voting against Donald Trump.
Bacon: Have you interviewed every black man who voted for Donald Trump?
Crenshaw: No, you definitely got to start with your baseline of single-digit percentages. And you also have to deal with the disproportionate number of Black women who saw the handwriting on the wall, understood what was happening when they went after Kamala Harris and Claudine Gay, and said hell to the no.
And let’s also point this out: Black people are disproportionately working class. Black women are disproportionately working class. Black women’s median wealth is less than a hundred dollars. So, what I push back on is: if it was really about class, explain to me why Black women — who have more incentive than anybody else to vote for the class-forward president — understood exactly what he was going to do, which is make life harder for working-class people.
So, I turn that around: that’s your identity politics showing right now, right? You’re writing Black people and Black women out of your class concern, and you’re putting white middle-class people in. I remind them that the January 6th people were not working-class people. These were people, middle income if not higher, who were basically in communities that have undergone dramatic demographic shifts.
Now, if you want to talk about identity politics, let’s talk about that. And if you think that not talking about xenophobia, not talking about — and trying to disabuse people of the idea that because Trump is white and he’s talking to their whiteness, that he’s got them on speed dial and he’s concerned about them…
You cannot disconnect them from their investment by not talking about it. That is magical thinking. And that magical thinking has gotten us into trouble before, and it’s going to get us into trouble now if we’re willing to let our base go and let our values go, trying to pursue the people who don’t want you.
Bacon: Let’s finish. That was great, I’m glad you said this. I’m late, but let’s finish with this: Donald Trump is president for another three years, sadly. So, what do we do? If anti-Blackness is the trope — one of the powerful weapons he’s using — what do, we do for these next three years?
Crenshaw: I think the number one thing that we have to do is insist on refusing to comply — refusing the preemptive concession.
This is what we’re seeing everywhere. We’re seeing it. I teach at Columbia University. We’re seeing it in law firms — I’m a lawyer — we’re seeing people comply without sometimes even being fully forced to. And we see the compliance first coming on DEI, first coming on the places where their commitments were weak.
We cannot allow that compliance to be cost-free. Because unless we change the equation on the ground, there really is no reason for Target, for the law firms, for the foundations to say, Look, this is a hot potato. We know he doesn’t like this stuff. He’s shown us he doesn’t like it. Let’s give in on it.
When that happens, our institutions and our allies — they’re not becoming neutralized. They become part of the army that’s dismantling our democracy. I used this analogy the other day and some of my friends said, “you watched that?” I used to be a big Game of Thrones fan, and I remember when the evil army would kill the good folks, let’s say. It wasn’t just that the army we were rooting for lost their soldiers and weapons — those people became the army on the other side.
So, I remember when the dragon got killed and I was like, ‘Oh, dang — she lost her dragon.’ And then when it rose again as the ice dragon, I was like, that’s a double loss. Every time they take somebody out, they come back on the other side, and they become a weapon for dismantling a democracy.
So, look at the law firms. The law firms not only have been pushed out of defending people like us — now some of them are taking on Trump’s agenda. So, they’ve become the ice dragon on the other side.
The same with our universities. Not only are our universities backing away from active recruiting, but they’re also buying into this idea that there’s such a thing as too many Black people on campus — because that will raise questions about what we’re doing. So, across the board, I’m seeing our allies saying the one thing that we can do to be safe is not talk about your stuff and not realizing that not talking about our stuff is undermining all of us.
We’re all about trying to say: look, number one, a lot of this stuff is not legal, it’s not required. You have got to be willing to fight — people shed blood and gave their lives to get to this point. So, it’s not for you to be comfortable. Fascism doesn’t thrive because people resist comfort; it thrives because they can still go to the restaurants, they can still go to movies, and they can still kick people under the bus.
We’ve got to understand what kind of fight we’re in, and it does mean discomfort. It does mean the willingness to fight, and sometimes that fight has to be our own cave. We often say that the call is coming from inside the house, right? The horror movie — when you think it’s all out there, but it’s actually in the house. We’ve got stuff in the house, and that’s why we did this report: so, people can figure out where in the house they need to look, and where they need to fight back.
Bacon: Dr. Crenshaw tell people when they can find this report.
Crenshaw: You can find the report at our website is www.aapf.org. AAPF stands for the African American Policy Form so you can find the report there.
And check out Freedom to Learn. Because we’re trying to defend the Smithsonian, and all of the black history that they’re destroying as a way to make us illiterate.
And when you’re illiterate, you’re easier to control. We all know that.
Bacon: And then where, since you’re such a brilliant thinker, where can we find your thoughts? Are you on social media anywhere?
Crenshaw: So, I’m old school and a little bit of new school. So, my largest, my largest following used to be on X. But I don’t post there anymore. You can find me on BlueSky, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.
Bacon: That’s a lot. Are you doing a newsletter? Everybody’s a newsletter these days. Where are you writing these days?
Crenshaw: My producer would kill me if I didn’t say that we have a podcast, an award-winning podcast called Intersectionality Matters. We just won a Silver Anthem award for our special episode on Selma 60 years later. If you don’t listen to anything, please go and listen to that. It gives you both the understanding about why voting rights are so vital right now and what we need to do to defend it. And we also have a special series in the podcast on the true history of critical race theory called The United States of Amnesia. So, if you want receipts, you have a sense that what you’re hearing isn’t quite right, but you don’t have time to read that big red book, go check out Intersectionality Matters. We have a special series on critical race theory there.
Bacon: And we’ll stop there. I’ve met you a couple of times, and I’m always excited to talk to you — somebody I read when I was in college, not to make you feel old, but hopefully to help you understand you’ve had an impact on so many people. So, thanks for joining me, and I appreciate it. Good to see you.
Crenshaw: Thank you, Perry. A pleasure.
