WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
Last Sunday, I started getting messages about the valedictorian at Hoggard High School, whose graduation speech included a seemingly clear reference to an antisemitic quote from disgraced rapper Kanye West.
In front of his classmates, the community, and media, Kyler Hosek had concluded his speech, which touted the boons of AI, with the line, “As my biggest inspiration once said, ‘Every human being has something of value that they bring to the table.’”
Later during the graduation ceremony, fellow student Sara Rudeseal grabbed a microphone and identified the origin of the quote: West’s 2022 appearance on Infowars, the deranged far-right conspiracy theory site created by Alex Jones, where he said, “Every human being has something of value that they bring to the table, especially Hitler.” (It was part of West’s rampant and widely condemned antisemitic behavior at the time, from which he has recently attempted to distance himself, citing mental health issues and an alleged brain injury.)
Rudeseal’s mic was cut off before she could finish, and she was temporarily denied her diploma, though she told WHQR she received it later.
Within days, the story was everywhere, from local news to the NY Post — and why not? This was apparently a perfect Rorschach for the culture wars; with the right framing and context, you could see what you wanted to see in terms of antisemitism, cancel culture, censorship, and student activism.
A simple question
This alleged ambiguity centered around Hosek’s plausible deniability. He would later tell the press, including us, “I reject antisemitism and hatred in all forms,” and asked that people “extend the same grace and understanding to me that I would want to show to others.”
In the comment section, many rushed to Hosek’s defense, claiming that the quote — as he used it, not as West had originally spoken it — expressed an admirable sentiment. One WHQR reader suggested Hosek was a ‘Dead Head,’ and that his speech could have been a reference to The Grateful Dead’s Bob Weir, who said in a 1991 interview, “Everybody has something to bring to the table.”
The problem was that while Hosek could have been paraphrasing Weir, he was quoting West, nearly verbatim (minor difference: Hosek said ‘bring,’ West said ‘brought’). If he was simply commenting on the universality of human worth, why was it basically in West’s exact words? Further, why did Hosek specifically attribute the quote to his “biggest inspiration,” without saying who that was? Surely, as valedictorian, a smart young man, he understood how attribution works.
Some also took issue with this line in Hosek’s speech, arguing that it was playing footsie with eugenics: “In the age of rapidly advancing AI, however, no longer will it take perfected upbringings, strong genetic predispositions, or improbable luck to make great contributions to society.”
In fact, that line caught Rudeseal’s attention and prompted her to Google the provenance of the closing quote. We heard from a few readers who felt that this line inferred that, in the past, “strong genetic predispositions” had been what allowed people to make “great contributions to society.”
And, I admit, I felt the same way once I listened closely. But I thought this called for Hanlon’s Razor: if we were assuming intention, we ought to assume negligence or incompetence instead of malice. Perhaps this was, fittingly, the product of AI-assisted writing, or maybe Hosek just needed a second pair of eyes to say, ‘hey, is this what you meant to say?’
(It’s worth noting that the school reviewed Hosek’s speech and permitted him to deliver it. We’ve been told an earlier version mentioned West by name, but the district hasn’t turned over anything in response to our public records request. There are definitely lingering questions about how Hosek’s speech got approved, a story for another time.)
But, in any case, the apparent West quote was harder to dismiss. Could we have been wrong about it? However improbable, it was possible. And, since we were preparing to do lasting reputational damage to a young adult, we held our article until Wednesday afternoon — we wanted a comment from Hosek.
To be clear, we didn’t just want the boilerplate statement he sent to all the media outlets. We wanted him to answer the following question: “Did you have knowledge that this was from Kanye West — and that the full quote from West had, 'especially, Hitler,' right after the line you shared with the public?”
Hosek never responded. So we published.
Now, I don’t know Hosek, and I have no special knowledge about his personality or beliefs. But if he was a Dead Head quoting Bob Weir, or if he was a Kanye West fan but had, somehow, only heard a sanitized version of that quote, or if he was quoting someone else entirely, however improbable that might be — and I think it is wildly improbable — you would expect he would say so.
We asked him a simple question. He wouldn’t answer it.
Some will continue to insist Hosek did nothing wrong. But his silence, I suspect, will convince many that he knew what he was doing.
I wish more outlets had put the question to him, and printed his lack of response. I think it would have made it harder for readers to throw up their hands and say ‘who knows!’ — a disturbing trend that’s only getting worse, especially with issues more serious than a local high school graduation speech.
Dog whistles and black pills
It’s hard not to see this story in the context of the media’s fatigue, failures, and frustrations when it comes to calling out dog whistles.
The obvious tonic for dog whistles is — or, at least, was — simply demanding a public explanation. For example: “When you say ‘states’ rights,’ or ‘law and order,’ what exactly do you mean?”
A few generations ago, a politician or public figure refusing to clarify their remarks would have been tantamount to admitting guilt, at least for the public. And certainly, a headline like, ‘Mayor so-and-so ducks calls to explain controversial comments’ would start to spell the end of the political road. (It certainly wouldn’t have the press attorneys feeling queasy.)
Today, the dog whistle is having a moment. As always, what makes the dog whistle effective — both for communicating with the intended audience and for trolling everyone else — is the plausible deniability. But now, the Fourth Estate is weakened, from within and without, and doesn’t push as hard to cut through the artificial fog of uncertainty.
A public figure can simply say, ‘that’s not what I meant,’ or just refuse to directly address their own comments, and the ambiguity puts the press on the back foot. President Trump is the reigning champion of this, but he’s far from alone. And more generally, a politically polarized press means elected officials can often go to friendly media outlets where they won’t face tough questions about what they’ve said (in some cases, because of this, they don’t need dog whistles at all).
Add to this the increasing use (or even just threat) of lawfare, which has put the traditional free speech protections of the press under fire, and given journalists pause — especially local journalists. The New York Times can financially weather a frivolous defamation lawsuit long enough to countersue for legal costs. A local paper, or public media outlet, might not. When someone is dogwhistling, we have to think longer and harder about how strong our case is before we connect the dots and decode the language as bigoted.
This has, from my perspective, pushed media outlets to fall back on reporting the controversy, giving quotes from both sides. But, as when public figures lie, often those outlets stop short of pointing out countervailing evidence themselves, instead relying on third parties. (I'll note, I'm not saying outlets should go for sensationalist headlines like, 'Senator so-and-so lies' or 'Council member so-and-so is sexist'; they can just present the case in the article, and trust that readers will, well, read.)
The reporting ends up sounding like this line from the school district's equivocal statement, which one imagines was effectively neutered by both student privacy laws and fear of litigious parents: "While the district did not identify any connection [to antisemitism] during the review process, we understand that some members of our community perceived the language differently."
So, it's a difficult time for accountability journalism. But there’s another problem, wrapped up in this story, less political and more cultural, even existential: a growing numbness to people saying reprehensible things.
There are an increasing number of outlets and shows that platform Holocaust deniers, eugenicsists, conspiracist bigotry, and other kinds of deranging bullshit. Info Wars is now, in a delightful bit of turnabout, owned by The Onion, but there are many more, some fringe but others inching closer to the mainstream, if not already setting up camp there.
There’s also the extremely dark online sense of humor that uses some of the worst things you could imagine as punch lines — not because they’re clever, or punny, but simply because they are horrible. It can be artless, cruel, and reductionist, where people will simply say or allude to racial epithets, the Holocaust, 9/11, sexual assault, and so on.
There’s a case to be made for at least understanding this kind of humor (I did my doctoral thesis on dark comedy, after all). You could see it as a reaction to hopelessness, to the barrage of negativity on social media, a learned defense mechanism against our modern condition. In short, it’s ugly, but it reflects the ugliness in the world. It’s not a new type of humor (we once would have called it ‘gallows humor,’ or ‘trench humor,’ or even ‘line cook humor’), but the reach and potential anonymity of social media have given it new life.
Often, this type of humor starts as irony. ‘It’s just a joke.’ It could, defensibly, be a lampoon of people who act that way, or the fact that bigotry exists, but it’s distinct from the person telling the joke. At first, it’s often punching up, like all good comedy. Then the jokes become simply saying a racist or sexist thing, a violation of social norms. You’re not supposed to say awful things, but it’s funny that you can, in fact, say them. After a while, the face grows to fit the mask. After a while, it’s not clear if you’re joking. You’re just throwing punches; it doesn’t matter if it’s up or down, left or right. It doesn’t matter who you hit, who you hurt.
Up in the ivory tower, when I was an academic, we used to call this the ‘irony of irony.’ It's a kind of nihilism, not caring whether you’re joking or not, because you just don’t care. You may have heard it called black-pilled, a grim riff on The Matrix’s choice between the blue pill’s blissful ignorance and the red pill’s painfully aware call to action — the black pill means you know what’s going on, but you’ve given up hope on changing it. (And yes, I’m aware that if you’re under 35, that definition will feel very cringe.)
I can’t psychopathologize Hosek. I don’t know if, for example, he was listening to clips of Tucker Carlson’s chipper interviews with Darryl Cooper and Nick Fuentes, or if he’s into abrasive online humor. It’s totally possible he has no idea who those people are. Maybe he prefers The Marx Brothers.
But it is difficult to see this story without these black clouds, and black pills, in the background. I don't say that to exculpate Hosek, but to perhaps understand the environment he's in.
So, did Hosek really intend to convey his support for Hitler, Nazism, and the project of genocide? It’s possible. But I don't think that’s the case. I might be whistlin’ Dixie, but I hope not, for his sake. At the same time, the more plausible explanation, that this was his idea of a joke, is not particularly reassuring.
That’s a dark note to end on. So let me try to strike a note of cautious optimism.
Young people — especially young men like Hosek — say and do dumb things. They make bad jokes. They make bad decisions. I certainly did. Their youth doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable — they absolutely should, and hopefully this week's reporting demonstrated that — but it means there’s time to course-correct. My hope is that this week’s media coverage also gives Hosek pause and doesn’t push him further away from empathy and self-reflection. Because that path leads nowhere good.
