Biola UniversityTopics this week:
- How AI-generated media is breaking our ability to tell what’s real, and why rebuilding trust and virtue matters more than just better tech.
- : How AI can distort protest footage and narratives, making propaganda easier and truth harder to confirm in real time.
- : Is affirmative action “dead,” what loopholes might remain, and what recent law school enrollment data suggests.
- Supreme Court : The conversation covers the legal argumentation, the Idaho and West Virginia cases, and how this may push decisions back to state-level authority.
- Listener Question: Spiritual transformation
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Is 2026 the year in which AI slop takes over? How AI manipulation is shaping the protests in Iran and the responses. In light of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, is affirmative action officially dead? And the Supreme Court appears likely to uphold transgender athlete bans. These are the stories we will discuss, and we also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this story jumped out to me 'cause it was more in a podcast dialogue on, the Opinion podcast as part of The New York Times, and they're really talking about how 2025 seemed to be the year where the ability to tell [chuckles] between truth and fiction is gone with artificial intelligence. So it's like we've moved into a 2.0 with artificial intelligence, where the original rules don't work anymore. So I'm just gonna... Well, some of the people say here, and maybe confuse their names, but make the point of the article. One of the writers says, "The scariest element of all this isn't just when things that are funny are too funny, but the manipulation of hugely consequential world events. Our ability to trust what we're seeing in the news is actually news." Like fake images of Maduro's capture in Venezuela, people using AI images to try to identify ICE agents. We're gonna talk about Iran. One of the things that people certainly in the world who've thought about digital space and social order are pretty much in agreement about is that this is not a problem about developing the right skills is going to solve. So earlier conversations we've had, Scott, is here are things we can do to minimize the effects [chuckles] of AI and recognize fake news, et cetera. This piece is saying 2026 shifts things, where we can no longer just develop skills, because the very tools of AI themselves are built around human response, built around human thinking, and done in a way to manipulate us and anticipate the very thinking that we will have. Jump in here. Go ahead. There's a lot more in this article, but tell me what you're thinking.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this, my- this jumped out at me immediately, that seeing is believing is now a thing of the past. And it raises, I think, a really interesting question, is: how do we know what we know?
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: This is fundamental. It's a worldview question. Philosophers call this a question of epistemology or about our understanding of knowledge, and I would suggest that we are entering into a crisis of epistemology. A crisis of knowledge, it seems to me, is at hand. And here's... This is where, you know, the guardrails, I think, we've just, we've just sort of blown through all of those with, you know, the reports in the last couple of weeks of, Elon Musk's, site doing s- you know, being able to undress people in their, in the photos that they send. And now what we're, what we're doing with this AI slop, and we'll, we'll talk about how it affects the protests in Iran in just a minute. But I think one of the things that you pointed out that's so important, that this is not a problem that the right skill set's going to solve, and that is... The reason for that is that the, that AI is programmed to stay a step ahead of us, and it's, and it's, it will always be a step ahead of the guardrails. And here, the next sentence in that paragraph that you quoted from, said, it said, "This is a consequence of low social trust in the first place." Trust in leaders and institutions has fallen off. AI has further eroded that trust. And, Sean, this is not a matter of skills or technology. The reality is that the technology has outstripped our ability to teach ourselves the tools that we need. So what does that leave us with? It's fundamentally, I think, it's a matter of character, not skills or technology. It's, it's fundamentally a matter of people adhering to basic moral principles and moral virtues about deception, and trustworthiness, and truth-telling. We've said before, numerous times, Sean, that if tru- if the principle of truth-telling goes out the window, then meaningful communication is not gonna be far behind. And I think this is a good example of this. We, we now have so little trust in what we see online and increasingly in the, in the news media, because we have all of these tools that enable us to deceive people at levels that we've never had before. Now, I'm interested in your take on this, but for myself, I'm not super optimistic about a renewal of character in our day, at least not apart from a spiritual revival, because it requires things of us as a culture that I'm not persuaded that we are willing to do.
Sean McDowell: I think-
Scott Rae: So I got more to say on that, but I'm interested in your take, too, as well.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, I'd like to come back to that. I think, I think you're right. We can talk about top-down, or we can talk about bottom-up. And you and I, maybe we have a podcast [chuckles] a few people listen to, but we have little control over government changes and cultural shifts, but we do over our classroom, do over our family, we do over our individual lives. So in many ways, this is a clarion call to become virtuous people. It's a character issue at root. I love the way you framed it.... I really think 2025 was the year that marked, our inability to really know if something is true or not true. So some of the leading songs on Christian [chuckles] music-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Are AI-generated. We have commercials being AI-generated. We have content all over social media being AI-generated, and it- there's no, like, smell test where you can see it. This article is about experts, and they each- it's written by experts, and they each told stories of how they had been fooled by AI. So some of the things we've, in the past, talked about, as they say here, they say, "Well, one way, if you can trust something, is consider the source." And they're like: We can't even use that anymore. I'm not, I'm not quite sure I'm willing to throw that out. If our task is to become virtuous people, then I also have to find out, who else do I think is virtuous in the news? Who do I think is virtuous as a theologian? Who do I think is virtuous as a pastor, that I can trust and do my best, even though that's not a foolproof approach? One of the things in this article that really jumped out to me, Scott, and, I really want your take on this. This is a direct quote. It says, "This is one of the cases where I'm not sure that AI slop is creating the crisis. It is exacerbating it, but it is not creating it. This is a consequence of low social trust already." And people have been talking about low social trust since, well, your generation, the baby boomers, right? Rebelling against [laughing]
Scott Rae: Long, long before that, too.
Sean McDowell: And long before, fair enough, but especially after 2020, there's such a lack of trust in almost every institution. So AI, I think more than creating this, I think it's bringing to the surface and exacerbating, one, a lack of trust, but number two, how radically different worldviews we have about what it means to be human, about the source of truth, about the good life. And so these debates going on in Minneapolis, these debates going on about transgender athletes, these are really about fundamental worldview differences, and AI exacerbates that, rather than creating it. What do you think?
Scott Rae: Well, I would say that AI has really exacerbated it. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing] Okay.
Scott Rae: Like, a lot. And it's expo... I think it's exposed this low social trust for what it is. And I think you're right. Twenty, 2020 and beyond, we lo- we lost trust in science. We lost trust in healthcare. We lost trust in experts. People who we had counted on as part of our [chuckles] epistemology, were no longer considered reliable. Now, we can debate whether that was an overreaction or not and whether it's coming back, but I, you know, I think a lot of that, a lot of that social trust was broken, and it's gonna take a long time to repair that. And it's the same, it's the same for institutions as it is for individuals. Trust is easy, it's easy to forfeit, but it takes a long time to build. And it's gonna take a long time to build back. Sean, let me say a little bit more about the character part, 'cause I think your call, your clarion call to be virtuous people is the big takeaway from this. And our friend James Davison Hunter, who's a brilliant sociologist, who has w- he's written about this, is so- one of the most insightful things I've ever heard on this subject about a renewal of character. Here's... Let me, let me s- let me quote him, this, 'cause it's so insightful: "We say we want a renewal of character in our day, but we don't really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a credal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels. This price is too high for us to pay. We want character, but without unyielding conviction. We want strong morality, but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame. We want virtue without the particular moral justifications that invariably offend." Here's the one that stood out to me: "We want good without having to name evil. We want decency without the author- without the authority to insist on it. We want more community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we cannot possibly have on the terms that we want it." And Sean, that's why I say that only without a s- a spiritual renewal am I, am I reasonably optimistic about a renewal of character. Without that, I don't, I don't see that culturally we have the resources to stop things like what we're seeing with this, you know, AI deepfakes and just the slop that's out there.
Sean McDowell: So maybe our prayer would be, amidst the lies, amidst the deception, amidst the way people are using AI for personal gain and profit and the sacrifice of truth, that more and more people would be aware of the epistemic [chuckles] crisis and ask the question: Who can we trust and why? So in some ways, we only feel a need for revival, we only feel a need to be virtuous people, oftentimes, when we're in pain, and we've been lied to, and we've been deceived. It creates an, a need for the real when we see the fake. That would be one prayer, that there'd be more and more people saying, "You know what?... I'm tired of this fake stuff. I know, and I want what is real. And those are the big questions that matter. Like you said, it's an epistemic question. One of the questions we got this week specifically is asking about Trump and his response in Venezuela, but it says, "Which sources should I trust?" There's a crisis of trust. I think the church, and each one of us, I don't wanna speak too macro, has a chance to just ask ourselves the question: Am I a trustworthy person? Why should somebody listen to me? I mean, all the time when I speak, Scott, and I do YouTube, I think, "Why is somebody gonna watch my video? Why are they gonna listen to me? Why are they gonna follow me on X?" One reason might be [chuckles] is that people find you interesting and entertaining. That drives it. But I also know it's like, is this person trustworthy? Are they honest? Do they speak the truth? So I would encourage Christians to not buy into... The, the last thing I'll say from this article is they say, "Incentives economically are not built in to affirm the truth." So in newspapers, there used to be a process where you had editors and researchers that would read things before it was published, and they still got a lot of things wrong and it had a bias. Now there's no incentive. Just retweet, shock, awe. The more radical it is, the more following I can get. As Christians, we must absolutely refuse to give in to that and just ask ourselves, "Why should my neighbor, why should my family, why should people follow and trust me?" And I think that goes back to what you said, Scott, which is a question of virtue. This, this next story, I think we-- in some ways, we could have tied this in together, but I found it so interesting. A lot of people are talking about the protests going on in Iran, and there's so many angles we could take here, but this one was about how this is one of the first big protests really being dominated by AI. And I think we've seen this, I know we've seen this in what's happened in the war in Gaza. We've seen some in Ukraine, but there seems to be certain tools that are available now. And so this article, and this is out of The Atlantic, it's called "How Doubt Became a Weapon in Iran." They say, "The accounts, photos, and videos coming out of Iran are riddled with accusations of AI manipulation and fakery that have the effect of calling even what's true into doubt." [chuckles] There's a term for this, and they call it the liar's dividend. And it's, in other words, that when you have the ability to fake, it tends to favor those who are lying rather than it does telling the truth. So AI-generated or enhanced online content has become a global problem for those seeking to understand or document protest movements, 'cause it allows interested parties to shape narratives. It doesn't just allow them to. When you talk about, for example, Israel and the war that they've had to face, they talk about multiple fronts, and one of the fronts is the public media front, the view of the people in the world, how they view Israel. And now, because of AI, people can manipulate so much information and shape how people see the world. So we're seeing this for and against. We could go into some details, but what's your assessment of, as it ties to this issue in the protests?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this story captures, in my view, what people are afraid of with AI. It... This is a great example, I think, of AI run amok. And here's the difference. The diff- the previous story was, in my view, about AI slop, which is basically har- that was describing basically harmless stuff.
Sean McDowell: Right.
Scott Rae: I mean, you got, you got tricked, you got deceived, but nobody got hurt. You know, maybe you may, you may have felt like an idiot for a few minutes, but other than that, it was no harm, no foul. But this is different. You know, in the previous story, people got fooled about something inconsequential, but this is about the misuse of AI for something that really matters. It's about the future of a country. And Sean, you know, I've- I lived through the Cold War era and, you know, the disinformation that the Soviets were so well known for during the Cold War, this stuff now in Iran makes the Soviets look like child's play.
Sean McDowell: Wow!
Scott Rae: And I would say this is sort of deepfakes, you know, on steroids. We're, we're... I think we're going back to the day... We're going, really going back to biblical times when eyewitness testimony may be the only thing that's reliable on this. And it may be that seeing is believing only when you are in there, in there in person and see it all for yourself. And this is where AI now works both ways, where legitimate documentation is dismissed as fake, and fake documentation is passed off as real. And it creates what the article calls a world of epistemic fog, which you just, you just don't know what you're seeing is true or not. Or the article puts it like this, that, "Journalists, courts, and human rights investigators, and protest movements everywhere have long depended on shared standards of proof. Today, we are seeing what happens when those standards collapse." And I think Iran [chuckles] is a really good example of how those standards have collapsed. And they go on to say, "When any image can be dismissed as possibly synthetic, those in power no longer need to suppress speech. They only have to raise questions that undermine belief in a shared reality." So Sean, really what this has, what this has created a w- a world in which any narrative you don't like, you can claim it's fake.... And we're now in a world where, in which that c- the claim that it's fake can be plausibly believed. Now, there are certain, obviously, with AI, there are certain signs and tells that will, might tip you off-
Sean McDowell: For now
Scott Rae: ... To something that's, fake now.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: But yeah, we'll see six months from now, that the jury's still out on that, I'd say. But this one, got me riled up a little bit more than the previous one- ... Because there's so much more at stake, and that's why, that's why this is, this is the story about AI this week that I think really matters.
Sean McDowell: That's really well said. I think that's a good point. I wanna read for a couple people exactly what happened in a couple of these stories. So apparently, there was a picture that came to be known as Iran's Tank Man photo. And the moment I heard that, of course, I think of Tiananmen Square going back now maybe 30-plus years, in China. But it was a low-quality video captured with a zoom lens on December 29th, and apparently, the event was real. It's been verified from multiple angles and fact-checkers, but somewhere along the way, someone enhanced the still image with AI editing tools. So it made things that were blurry more clear. So the event happened, but now we're seeing it with a clarity through our eyes in a way that never was possible in the past, and they argue, they say, "Deepfakes have given AI a reputation for being deceptive, but many common images-- employed image editing tools use generative AI capabilities, for better or worse. The public does not know how to distinguish good-faith use of these tools from malicious fakery." So in principle, I don't have a problem if an event is real, and it's blurry, and making it clearer, like, fine, good. That's an amazing tool to tell a story. But when we can't tell what is real and what is fake, and there's generative AI adding to it, man, that is dangerous, and that's a crisis of epistemology I don't have a simple answer for. The other one they give in here is related to a protest with thousands of people, and they took audio from one protest, added it to another protest, so it's a real protest, real audio, but the message being sent is totally manipulated. So in the past, I'd look at footage of a protest, and you kind of look close and go, "Okay, how many people are really there?" I see a news story of, like, massive protests. I'm like, "There's 200 people there." Well, you can't use your eye to judge that anymore, and like you said, we used to think seeing is believing. Well, hearing is also not believing. It's like all of the senses can be manipulated, which makes this harder than ever, and this article says, "It favors those who wanna lie and who wanna deceive and who wanna tell a false narrative," which puts more impetus on those who care about the truth. All right, Scott, we got another story here. We're going from New York Times, Atlantic, to The Wall Street Journal, and, I'm glad you are interested in this one 'cause I, in part, picked it 'cause [chuckles] I wanna know what you think about it. But there's been talk about affirmative action for probably about five decades in the States, and this opinion commentary says affirmative action is finally waning. Now, what are they referring to? So the Supreme Court ruled against racial preferences in college admissions in 2023, so two and a half years ago, roughly. Most observers didn't expect the very large preference that had been in place for 50 years simply to disappear. So when the Supreme Court overturned this, there was a lot of debate about what would happen in universities. Would this harm, minorities trying to get into universities and law schools? Well, this article is rooted in a new and surprisingly reliable data from law schools, and apparently, they studied 150,000 law school applications over the past five admissions cycles to measure, what they say with surprising accuracy, how law school admissions were changing in response to the Supreme Court's decision. So again, to frame it for people, this affects a wide range of different schools and universities, but a lot of the data has not yet been released by universities, so people are trying to piece together what are the effects, and here's one study over five years, 150,000 law school applications. And here's what they argue, and this actually really surprised me, Scott. They said, "In the 2023-24 admission cycle, the typical top 40 law schools reduced by about a third the weight it gave preference for Black applicants." So they didn't get rid of it entirely. They reduced it by about a third. "24-25, they say they reduced it about half, for Black and Hispanic students. They say university leaders, including law school deans, had warned before this decision it would dramatically diminish minority enrollment at professional schools and elite colleges. So far, the opposite is true at law schools. The total number of Black and Hispanic students matriculating at law schools has risen [chuckles] more than 5% over the past two years." That's remarkable. Now, they say for two reasons. They say, "First, the number of Black and Hispanic applicants to law school jumped by more than 30%-"... Over the two cycles following the 2023 SCOTUS ruling. That's incredible! 30% jump after the ruling that rule out racial preferences. So far in the '25, '26 admission cycle, Black and Hispanic applicants to law school are again growing faster than those from white and from Asians. And their implication they draw from this, before I go to the second point, is that Blacks and Hispanics prefer attending schools where they're being admitted under the same standards that apply to everyone else. That's what the author draws about this. They likely recognize that degrees untainted by preferences will have greater market value. Interesting. I wanna come back to that and get your thought on it. The, the second point they say is what they call a cascading effect. So although Black first-year enrollment at top 40 law schools fell by 16%, it rose by 19% at non-elite schools. So instead of racial preferences getting Black students into certain elite schools, that did drop off, but it increased more at non-elite schools that presumably, if you take race out of it, was more of a fit for those particular applicants. So they would say it's more of a natural fit now, when race is taken out of it, where somebody's going to thrive in a law school. Scott, you've been studying this a long time. What do you make of this article?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, maybe a little history might be helpful for our listeners on this. You, you mentioned that, roughly 50 years ago was when this first became an issue. It was actually an issue before that, but 1978-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Was the first Supreme Court decision that explicitly eliminated racial quotas. U, UC Davis Medical School had a, had set aside 16 out of 100 spots for minority students. It was an explicit quota. Supreme Court ruled that that was unconstitutional. And then in another case in 2003, they affirmed, however, that race could be a factor, it just couldn't be the only factor in admissions. And where... And in 2023, as you described, race, the court ruled that race could not be a factor at all in admissions. Now, the article points out, I think correctly so, that there are still ways for it to be a factor. It can just, it can just have a different heading for it. For example, how someone c- overcomes adversity or disadvantage in their lives can be a criteria. And I think you're right to point out one result of this is, I think, a terrific result, that more students are ending up at schools that are a better fit, and that more minority students are being accepted into law schools than before the decision. Now, here, my, and really, the notions of affirmative action, that term, we don't really use that term anymore to describe this, but I can't think of a better one. But the, my-- the big problem I have with affirmative action policies in the past is threefold. One, it stigmatizes legitimate minority achievement. Second, it equates disadvantage with race instead of socioeconomic standing, which I think can be insulting to minorities. And third, I think the most important side effect of this is that it sets up students to fail if they're given admissions to places where they don't have the background. And that's not good. That's not good for anybody. Now, to be fair, I don't have a problem with ensuring that people who have been disadvantaged through no fault of their own get a chance. I would like to see the chance come at much earlier places in life, rather than when you get to college and graduate school. I'd like for those, you know, for those opportunities to come with, you know, better educational systems that don't depend on where your zip code is. And I think, Sean, I think having a diverse student body in a college or a law school is a good thing in general because it reflects the world as it is and helps students interact with those who are different than you. And, and of course, companies can have valid business reasons to have a diverse workforce, which nobody really questions. But the part that I'm troubled by with this is that in the, in the culture at large, I think, and I think this decision in '23 is a step, I think, in the right direction, but I'm troubled by culturally the downplaying of the notion of merit today. That's sort of, that's sort of a... It's a, it's an undercurrent culturally, that tends to say things like, "You know, you didn't earn that all on your own. You don't, you know, you don't get full credit for that. We don't-- we shouldn't measure people based on merit alone." Now, I agree that, you know, nobody achieves what they do by themselves. You know, our, your kids and mine have, you know, have their parents to thank for a lot of what they achieve. Simply by virtue of having two parents in the home sets them up with advantages. But I wanna be careful, Sean, that we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by downplaying the importance of merit, 'cause I think it still counts, it still matters. I remember Dallas Willard saying that self-esteem is earned, not granted.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: And he distinguished, of course, between the intrinsic worth that we have by virtue of being made in God's image and the self-esteem that we, that we feel, you know, based on what we, what we have achieved. So I think there's, there's-- I wanna be careful that we sort of resurrect the notion of merit today, while recognizing at the same time that, yeah, some people, you know, they start, they start the race behind others based on, you know, based on socioeconomic factors. You know, I think the educational, the educational system that our kids had puts them ahead-... Of people who have other zip codes that have fail- that have failing or sub, or substandard schools, for example. And I think that, you know, the fact that, you know, we've, we've talked about this before, there's good empirical data that simply having two parents in the home gives kids a natural advantage. So I don't want, you know, I don't wanna say that, you know, you earned it all on your own, but I don't, I don't wanna downplay the importance of, people who overcome adversity, who earn things basically on the basis of their hard work and effort. So I think there's, there's room for both of those, I think, to coexist comfortably.
Sean McDowell: And to clarify what I think Dallas Willard was getting at, is that our value comes from the fact that we're made in God's image: tall, short, rich, poor, male, female, [chuckles] Black, white, Jew, Gentile, whatever distinction we wanna come up with. But God has made us to naturally feel good when we work. That's a part of work. We've contributed something. We naturally feel good when we develop certain virtues and do good moral things, and so we should want to feel [chuckles] good and develop a healthy s- health self-esteem rooted in doing good things. I think that's the key point that he's making. Can we go back to the three things that you said?
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: I wanna just make sure we explain these. What was the first one, why you got-
Scott Rae: Well, is it tends to stigmatize legitimate minority achievement by saying that you, that you know, you got into law school not on your merits, but because of pr- racial preferences.
Sean McDowell: Got it. Okay.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: So somebody gets in, they're often thinking, "Well, others are looking at me, wondering me-- wondering about me. Do I really deserve to be here?"
Scott Rae: That's right.
Sean McDowell: "Did I earn this?"
Scott Rae: We had a student in our, in our ethics class at the undergrad level several years ago who was African American, valedictorian in his class.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And he said, "I felt that from the moment I walked on the campus-
Sean McDowell: Gotcha
Scott Rae: ... That some people looked at me skeptically, like I didn't deserve to be here."
Sean McDowell: And that's not just true in the education. That is true in a range of fields. Did this person get this job? Did they get this opportunity because of racial preference? It undermines the real contributions of those who earned it just like anybody else, or probably in a lot of cases, even more so. Second one.
Scott Rae: Second one: It equates disadvantage with race.
Sean McDowell: Okay, explain.
Scott Rae: Instead of socioeconomic standing. You know, how many, how many, you know, people do you know who are, you know, Black and Hispanic, who are in the middle class-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Who are not disadvantaged? And how ma- how many kids have you taught who are minority kids who grew up in affluent areas and had none of the disadvantages that minority kids have in some, in some, you know, lower-resource neighborhoods? I wanna equate disadvantage with your, with your economic standing, not so much with race. 'Cause I think in many cases, equating disadvantage with race is just outright false, and I think... And often it's misleading for people.
Sean McDowell: So you would say in the past, that certainly was a disadvantage, but now as a whole, not so much so?
Scott Rae: It, it's le- it's less so. And I think the dis- the disadvantage is, i- you know, it's measured in different, it's different ways. So I would, I would rather equate people having no, having a lack of economic advantages, equate that with their income or, you know, their, you know, where they fall, on or above the poverty line, or the wealth that they've accumulated. Their ability to obtain certain advantages in education, in, you know, training and coaching and preparation for their kids, that people who don't have the financial resources wouldn't be able to do.
Sean McDowell: Okay, your third critique of affirmative action.
Scott Rae: Third, it sets up students to fail if they're given admission f- to places that they're, that they don't have the background for.
Sean McDowell: Okay, so that's a point I've heard Thomas Sowell make over and over again, is that students who maybe are a really good fit for a mid-tier law school, which is respectable, it's best for that student, it's best for the other classmates [chuckles] , are moved forward because of a racial preference, and it ends up just not matching their training, their experience-
Scott Rae: Well, they-
Sean McDowell: ... Whatever factor it is, and so-
Scott Rae: Well, they drop out, and then they-
Sean McDowell: And they end up dropping out. Yeah, that makes sense. So this seems to be, based on this data, a correction that we're seeing less in the elite universities and more on the mid-tier law schools. We've seen an increase there. Now, of course, we wanna ask the question: What would it take to get minority students and any others in the category you described as feeling disadvantaged into those top-tier universities, in the sense of making sure they have the opportunity to get the training they need if that is something they're capable of doing? That's below or before the question of when somebody's ready to go to law school and mismatched because of a racial preference, and there's other ways somebody could be mismatched [chuckles] as well, that wouldn't be good for them or the university. That's the key other criticism you have-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... If I understand correctly.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Is that fair?
Scott Rae: Yeah, and I'm very encouraged with this data- ... That s- that shows that we have, you know, f- many more minorities, you know, Black and Hispanic students in law school, so period. What tier they're in, I think is less important than the fact that they're getting a law school education, that they've worked hard-... To gain admission for and will continue to work hard once they're in school. And to- I think, Sean, overcoming the disadvantage has to start a lot earlier than where we typically start. It starts, I think, in elementary schools, because once pe- once people get behind, it's really tough to catch up. We've s- we've seen this with COVID, for example. The, the years that students lost during COVID, they've had a really difficult time catching up and making up for the year or two that was basically lost, in their, in their education. So I think there are, there are a number of strategies, I think, that can be put forth, a number of policies, that would give parents a bit more choice in the schools that they choose for their kids, where their education is not... They're not trapped in a certain educational level simply by virtue of their zip code. I think that's, I think that's an injustice to minority students.
Sean McDowell: You could add a fourth here, and we probably don't want to spend too much time [chuckles] talking about this, it'll take us aside. But a fourth criticism would be, it can also create resentment on students who are overlooked that meet the criteria for, say, an elite university. This would probably tend to be white or Asian students, denied for somebody else who they feel like they are more qualified than, or at least equally qualified to. I don't know how to quantify that, but there's a certain segment of what we call the woke right that is just really leaning into this white community, and sometimes I hear it tied to Asian community, and leaning into this bitterness and resentment that can be there. Now, that's not just tied to affirmative action, but that could be a criticism of it to ask the question: not only does it create a mismatch for minority students, but does it create resentment of those students who do in fact qualify to be there and are rejected? That seems to be another piece of the equation. Would you agree with that or not so?
Scott Rae: I would, and yes, it's a good insight. And we've, we've said before, Sean, that, the notion that affirmative action programs constituted reverse discrimination was never really debated by proponents of affirmative action. It was j- it was justified as achieving other ends that outweighed the fact that it, that it was, it was reverse discrimination. And so... But it was justified based on other ends that were, that were considered more significant. So that resentment, I think, is understandable. But it may, you know, it may be that, you know, white and Asian students have lots of other options.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: But I understand that, you know, somebody can work really hard and, you know, be denied a place that they consider rightfully theirs, because of, some, you know, some racial criteria. Now, I think that's, you know... There's probably less of that explicitly in admissions than there has been. But I think as the article points out, universities have long had ways of, doing a bit of an end run around some of what the law is ask- is requiring them to do.
Sean McDowell: Well, we'll look for the rest of the data to come out, not just in law schools, and then assess it. But as I view it, and it sounds like you do, too, this is at least a promising move in the right direction for, all students. All right, this last story, again, we could probably spend hours talking about this, but this was a huge story this week because the Supreme Court talked on Tuesday about whether or not they would uphold certain transgender athlete bans in individual states. Now, I'm gonna actually pull from a SCOTUS blog for this one, which I'm not sure we've officially done on this podcast before. Maybe we have, but it says-
Scott Rae: Make sure it's not AI-generated here. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Fair enough. I... [chuckles] Good point. "The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to uphold laws that prohibit transgender women, biological men, and girls from competing on women's and girls' school sports teams. After nearly three and a half hours of argument in a pair of cases from Idaho and West Virginia, a majority of the justices appeared," and I'm gonna emphasize that word appeared, "to agree with the states that the laws can remain in place, even if it was not clear how broadly their ruling might sweep." So here's the two states. One, Idaho adopted this law in 2020, and if we go back to 2020, I mean, that's when people were really asking: "Is this, is this transgender movement going to really take over the culture?" This is in the middle of what people might call peak woke. It's in the middle of COVID. There just was kind of a craziness and such a fear going on. Now, six years ago, Idaho, and West Virginia followed one year later in 2021. Based on a Lindsay Hecox, I think is how you say it, 24 years old, went to federal court in Idaho to challenge the state's law. Hecox is a transgender woman who wanted to be able to try out for the women's track and cross-country team at Boise State University. She did not make those teams but later played club. So this went back and forth between a federal appeals court in s- San Francisco. US Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court agreed with her. Now it's in the Supreme Court. Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst told the justices that Idaho's law, Idaho's law "classifies on the basis of sex because sex is what matters in sports. It correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages, size, muscle mass, bone mass, heart and lung capacity, et cetera."... And he said, I think interestingly, "The purpose of the state's law is to preserve equal opportunities for women and girls in sports." There was a other case in West Virginia that dealt with a high school student, and so the Supreme Court ruling is looking at both of these cases. Now, it's not an attempt to create a nationwide ban on this. From what I understand, it's moving it back to the states in a federal way that will enable states like West Virginia and Idaho to keep their bans in place against transgender, females, biological males competing in female sports. That's what's at stake. So we're gonna get a ruling in June that could be, I hope, sweeping, in the sense that they really deal with this and don't just pass it off like other rulings have. But we're finally seeing some debates over the past five years come to fruition on this issue. What's your sense of this article and this issue and this- the debate this week?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think if the decision goes as the Supreme Court watchers expect, this is a major, [clears throat] major win for women's sports. Now, as you, as you, I think, rightly pointed out, this is not a final decision, but a fairly strong indication of where that decision is headed. And it would not mandate states to ban trans athletes, but it would allow them to do so.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And presumably would also allow states to permit male-to-female trans athletes to compete as women. So it's not, it's not mandating one or the other, but allowing states to set their own, laws and standards on this as they see fit. Now, i- should the Court, by chance, decide otherwise, I'm a, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that it's the end of women's sports. Because we're in a different era than we were in 2020, when I, when I think there was, there was a, what I would call the trans wave was cresting. But I think there... It seems to me there are not enough male-to-female transitioners competing in women's sports, especially at the elite level, to tip that balance in a, in a, in a way that would jeopardize women's sports as a whole. But I do think it's a win for fundamental fairness, and I think it's a win for the safety and well-being of non-transitioning females in so- in some sports, like in sports that are heavy on physical contact. We saw, you know, the o- the Olympic boxer, for example.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: You know, that, I think that put, female athletes at serious risk of ser- [chuckles] serious injury. And I think there are other sports in which that would also be the case. But I c- I could be proven wrong on that, but in any, in any case, I think this is a, this is a win for women, for the integrity of women's sports, and for the safety of women athletes.
Sean McDowell: And I think it's also potentially a win for reality. I mean, really underlying the debate here are questions that we saw yesterday in Supreme Court hearings, we saw in discussions within the Supreme Court that we've been talking about for five years: What is a woman? Can we define what it means to be a woman? Is it rooted in biology and history, or is it rooted in feelings? And I think what's interesting about this is that the science is clearly on the side of the biblical position here. And so oftentimes, left versus right, we talk about science deniers here, and we're just focused on this issue, but the science is clearly on the side of we know that sex is dimorphic. There is male and there is female. And even before puberty hits, there are biological changes taking place in the body, giving males certain advantages that are not erased by puberty blockers. So this ruling, you're right, it's about fairness to sports, it's about protecting girls and women in particular, but it's also about reality. Is there such a thing as truth? Will we conform our laws to what is true? Because you and I know when we do that's when we tend to flourish best. And by the way, this might surprise people, but, the Barna Research Group has done three volumes going back to about 2018, sponsored by our friend Jonathan Morrow at Impact360, on Gen Z, volume 1, volume 2, and volume 3. And the most recent volume talks about how a majority of Gen Z-ers actually don't think that a biological male should be able to compete in female sports. And so science is on the side, I think morality is on the side, [chuckles] population is on the side. I- the population holds this view, younger population, too. We have a conservative Supreme Court, so I just have to believe that the ruling's gonna go in the direction of preserving states' rights to uphold these bans. Gotta pray for that, think about that, look for that, but of course, this is gonna continue on. And the last thing I'll say is it does show even greater divide now. We have pro-life states, we have pro-choice states. We have states ban transgender athletes, states that don't, and we're seeing more and more of this division between blue and red states, which in some ways doesn't bode well for our nation, but that's a conversation for another time. Anything else in this story, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, I'm not, I'm not holding my breath that in, on the, on much of the West Coast, they're gonna be banning trans athletes.
Sean McDowell: ... I agree with you on that.
Scott Rae: So we'll, we'll have, we'll have to wait and see about that, but I'm not, I'm not optimistic about that.
Sean McDowell: I agree. This is one step arguably in the right direction, right? We're gonna move to questions, but as always, before doing so, we would love to have you think about joining with us at Talbot School of Theology. We have programs online and in person, in theology, in apologetics, philosophy, marriage, and family. We are growing. We just got an update, from our dean, Ed Stetzer, and we are growing with students. We had a record class. I think there's more enthusiasm for theological education than ever. So if it's on your radar now, join us, in particular, in the apologetics program. All right, Scott, commercial is over. We got some great [chuckles] questions here, and this first one said they... This individual enjoyed our conversation with Ryan Burge about religious trends in America. It has a question about why we are where we are now. "It seems like influence from a 19th century revivalism in the Church could be a contributing factor why many people think they are Christians but have no noticeable spiritual life. The mentality stemming from a simplistic approach to evangelism, 'Just pray this prayer, and you'll be saved,' without a call to surrender your entire being to the lordship of Christ, has misled people about the depth of Jesus's calling." How big of a factor do you think this has been over the last century or more?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this is a, this is a challenging one because, for one, the call to surrender your entire being to the lordship of Christ is a lifetime project. Not, not a... It's not an instant thing. And I don't- I'm not sure I would call our approach to evangelism simplistic because, you know, Acts 16:31, you know, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Romans 10:9, "Declare that Jesus is Lord, and believe that he rose from the dead, and you will be saved." so I don't wanna put works conditions on someone's coming to faith, and I know our listener doesn't want that either.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Nor do I wanna put the assurance of our salvation in anywhere else but the cross of Christ. However, I do think our listener is onto something here when I think we likely, I think, downplay how the Spirit will transform someone's life by virtue of coming to faith. Now, it's also possible for people to quench the Spirit, to grieve the Spirit, not cooperate with what the Spirit's doing in a person's life. But I am, I am q- I'm very reluctant to assess someone's spiritual condition based on what I see in their life. Because there's always more to it than that, and God's the one who knows people's hearts, and so I'm, you know, I'm just... I'm not thrilled about making any of those kinds of assessments of people. But I do think the listener's onto something by suggesting that, when someone comes to faith, your life is gonna change in some, in some very positive ways that will contribute to your flourishing. I think that's a fair point to make, without requiring that when we share the gospel with someone, they've gotta completely surrender to Christ.
Sean McDowell: That, that's a great observation, and y- I think you got right to the heart of this. I read this a little bit differently, and you probably captured it better than I'm going to. I read it kind of in the sense of how we have a simplistic call to Jesus, and like when you said, you know, "Confess and repent and believe you're saved," of course, in the Bible, that doesn't mean just check off a box and have your fire insurance and move on with your life. That kind of belief entailed a life change, even though it's a process. And I think clearly we see the effects in the Church today, that we, in some ways, become a Christian, have fire insurance, and that's all that it entails. I don't know how much the 19th century revivals played into this. I'm not a church historian. I won't pretend to be able to answer that. I think some factors like the Enlightenment, that really shifted religion to personal preference and a lifestyle choice, and sh- Francis Schaeffer pushed against this and said there's upper truth and lower truth, and philosophy and art and religion are about my personal values. Science and math and history give us objective truth. I think that's a piece of it. I think there's been a trend in consumerism infiltrating the Church, and I just highlight this week that, you know, it's, it's sad, but it's been a big conversation. Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... Comic, passed away, and he wrote a letter. In his letter, I just wanna read what he said, 'cause I think this writer is getting onto something within Christianity we need to pay attention to. He said, "Many of my..." This is Scott Adams, who passed away this week. "Many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I'm not a believer, but I have to admit, the risk-reward calculation for doing so looks attractive, so here I go. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and I look forward to spending eternity with him. The part about me not being a believer should be quickly resolved when I wake up in heaven. I won't need any more convincing than that, and I hope I'm still qualified for entry." It... I don't know his heart. I don't know what happened on his deathbed, but it gives the impression that I just check off a box, just say that I believe cognitively, I join this team, apart from what I see in Luke and Acts I've been reading lately about repent and believe in Christ, and it transforms me. So whether it's tied to the 19th century revivals or not, I think this is an issue in the Church that we need to attend to. All right, Scott, one more. Before we probably have time for one more question. This person has been Christian, basically his entire life.... And, says, "I cannot name a single Christian nationalist from among my friends, even though I listen to a lot of political podcasts about this, or Christian speakers, writers, or pastors I know. Is my issue that I can't recognize my own biases?" In other words, Christian nationalists [chuckles] are all around this individual, "or that I really haven't been exposed to Christian nationalists? Are they more regional than media portrays, and thus not equally influential everywhere? Problematically, when Christians publicly criticize Christian nationalism, actual opponents aren't called out by name," and he thinks this is dangerous. So what's your sense? What would you say to this individual who's asking this question?
Scott Rae: Well, I think in one sense, I'm a bit encouraged that he is n- you know, he can't name a pe- a single Christian nationalist from among their friends. I think that's a good sign. But I think in general, Sean, what we have to be clear about, the definition of Christian nationalism is still so hazy culturally. It can- it has come to mean anything, basically, that those who are left of center disagree with. And the definition, as we've pointed out numerous times before, is fundamentally a theological one, not a cultural one. You know, and some, you know, some who are called Christian nationalists, I would say, are more nationalistic than they are Christian. And I think you and I would be called Christian nationalists by some because we're pro-life, we're pro-traditional family, we're anti-euthanasia, with religious grounding for those views. And so there's a lot that's falls under that heading that I don't think relates to it at all. Theologically, what we mean by a Christian nationalist is someone who believes that the United States, or any other country, for that matter, is God's chosen nation in the same way that Old Testament Israel was God's chosen people, and divinely ordained for critical purposes for the furthering of his kingdom. And that's a view I think that theologically is just not true. No nation today, has that status of being God's select nation. Now, I think there are certain things about America that are exceptional, but none of them are theological, in the sense that they took over w- that the US has taken over for what Old Testament Israel was in God's plan of salvation.
Sean McDowell: I totally agree with your point, and this is what went through my mind, is how do we define Christian nationalism? Sometimes I get the impression it's almost used as a way to marginalize people who are conservatives from the left, to give them a name that sounds bad and lump people and say, "Well, that's just a Christian nationalist." And I've seen that happen. Often ask people, go, "Well, tell me what you mean by Christian nationalism," and they're not often able to define it, even though they've given that name. So what do we mean by Christian nationalism? For example, the project that Stephen Wolfe has in his book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, is very much political. It very much has a political component to it. But the amount of people that believe that and follow that and accept that, I think is a minority in what is often called the woke right. Even that is different from what you're talking about, which there's kind of a blurring between promises to Israel and promises to America, and then others who just are conservative theologically, and in any way bring theological beliefs into their political program, are called Christian nationalists. There's so much debate about this, 'cause we don't know even what it means. So I'd encourage him to do a little deep dive on what is meant... What does he mean by Christian nationalism? I've had some debates on YouTube. It's helpful. I've had a few people from different sides come on, make a case for it, a critique of it. I did a review of the book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, so, and others have as well. But I like hearing both sides, and it helps me kind of, really understand that. Last thing I would say is, when I talk with people from other countries who's visit the American church, sometimes they're able to say, "You know what? There's a little bit of an unhealthy blending here of what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be an American." It's sometimes people outside of our context that have at least made observations for me to be aware of it and think about it and see things I might not see. So that's one small thing, he could potentially do. Good stuff, Scott.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Anything you want to add to that?
Scott Rae: Well, I think, you know, you point out, you know, Paul Miller has done a really good job, of critiquing the Christian nationalist movement. So any books, articles that he has done, I think would be super helpful for this listener.
Sean McDowell: And by the way, I hosted a friendly debate with Paul Miller and R.R. Reno. Reno leans more into nationalism, Paul Miller against it. Two brilliant scholars, probably two or three years ago. That was a very clarifying conversation for me about how concerning Christian nationalism is, what it is, and where some of the divide is at. So his book is great, but, I was able to meet him and host, a conversation between the two of them, which is pretty cool. All right, Scott, looking forward to next week. As always, my friend, good stuff.
Scott Rae: Hear, hear.
Sean McDowell: This has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. As I said earlier, we've got master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more, and we are growing and expanding. Would love to have you come on board. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and if you haven't yet and you enjoy our podcast, please consider giving us a rating. I'm serious, every rating really helps us grow in the analytics to train more people to think biblically. In fact, Scott, we need to think about a way to get some AI ratings. Kidding. I'm kidding. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: We definitely won't do that here on the podcast.
Scott Rae: No. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: We appreciate you listening, and, we'll see you Tuesday, when we have a fascinating conversation we had with our very own Dr. Fred Sanders on why we are Protestants. You're gonna enjoy that one. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
