TED draws a progressive crowd, so I expected that my talk might upset a handful of people. And indeed, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a handful of scowling faces. But the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. The audience applauded; some people even stood up. Throughout the meals and in hallways, people approached me to say they loved it, and those who disagreed with it offered smart and thoughtful criticisms.

But the day after my talk, I heard from Chris Anderson, the head of TED. He told me that a group called “Black@TED”—which TED’s website describes as an “Employee Resource Group that exists to provide a safe space for TED staff who identify as Black”—was “upset” by my talk. Over email, Chris asked if I’d be willing to speak with them privately.

I agreed to speak with them on principle, that principle being that you should always speak with your critics because they may expose crucial blind spots in your worldview. No sooner did I agree to speak with them than Chris told me that Black@TED actually was not willing to speak to me. I never learned why. I hoped that this strange about-face was the end of the drama. But it was only the beginning.

[Coleman Hughes spoke in favor of color blindness rather than racial determinism as a public policy, *on invitation* from TED. The reception from the audience at the time was overwhelmingly positive, and yet Hughes says that TED attempted several times to either dilute his message or put it off entirely. When they did finally publish it as originally agreed at Hughes’ insistence, they apparently neglected to promote it as they do their other TED talks. Hughes argues, effectively IMO, that this is evidence of radical institutional capture at TED. I’d also argue that it demonstrates a lack of intestinal fortitude by its leadership and a complete betrayal of its professed mission, which usually accompanies institutional capture. Read it all. — Ed]