"One Question" with Eboo Patel

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: How do we build thriving, cohesive communities in a world defined by the movement of people? This conversation explores what pluralism looks like in practice—at the city level, in local institutions, and in this political moment—and what the builder framework demands of civic leaders, universities, researchers, and communities alike.

Hi, everyone. This is One Question, a podcast brought to you by Stanford University’s Institute for Advancing Just Societies, where we explore big questions about what it takes for us to live together in a world where diversity is a fact of life. My name is Tomás Jiménez, and I’m the faculty director of IAJS, which drives solutions-focused research and partnerships for racial and ethnic justice.

Today, we’re joined by Eboo Patel—a civic leader, speaker, and author who advances the idea that diversity is a treasure and cooperation across our differences is key to everyone’s thriving. He is also the founder and president of Interfaith America. Thank you for being here, Eboo.

EBOO PATEL: Great to be with you, Tomás. Thank you for having me.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: It’s great to have you. We have a guiding question for today—one that hangs over the whole conversation: How do we build thriving, cohesive communities in a world defined by constant movement of people that produces the diversity—and what you call pluralism—that we interact with in everyday life?

But I want to start with your book, We Need to Build. In many ways, it helped shape this Institute. I don’t know that I’ve ever told you this, but when Brian Lowery—one of the founding co-directors—and I were designing it, I was reading widely about frameworks for thinking about diversity and democracy, and your book was a real spark. The “builder” metaphor is one I’ve used often to describe what we try to do—solutions-focused research. For those who haven’t read it, can you walk us through that framework?

EBOO PATEL: My first job out of college was at an alternative school for young people who had dropped out or been kicked out of high school—largely Puerto Rican, Mexican American, and African American students on the northwest side of Chicago. They would come for six months and then take the GED. I was 20 years old, with no experience, essentially a “hair on fire” critic of the education system who wanted to help.

On the first day, each teacher introduced themselves and shared a bit of their educational philosophy. I gave a whole speech—Freire, critiques of the system, the “banking model” of education—and I was very proud of myself. Then a student named Angel Perez came up to me. He told me this was his third time in the program, that if he didn’t pass the GED this time he couldn’t take it again, and that he had just had a son. If he passed, he’d make a dollar more an hour. Then he asked, “Can you help me pass?”

That was the moment I realized I had no idea how to do that. I knew how to critique systems. I didn’t know how to teach him. That realization stuck with me.

In most professions—nonprofits, education, social work—you’re paid to help people do something concrete. Help someone get housing, recover, pass a test. That’s a completely different skill set than critiquing systems. So the real question becomes: Are you able to do what you’re supposed to do, or are you best at telling others what they’re doing wrong?

Critique matters—we need critics. But you cannot have 100 critics for every builder. And I think our social change ecosystem has gotten out of balance.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: Say more about that. In what ways has it gotten out of balance?

EBOO PATEL: Over the last 15 years, we’ve had more arsonists than architects. In center-left civic institutions—places like Stanford—we’ve let the culture shift toward critique rather than building. Critics are important, but what we’ve seen isn’t controlled critique—it’s been widespread demolition. And when that happens, builders get shouted down.

If we don’t have a theory of what went wrong in order to rebuild institutions, then people who want to destroy them will supply that theory—and act on it.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: What does the builder framework look like in practice?

EBOO PATEL: It starts with a simple challenge: Why don’t you solve the problem instead of telling others what they’re doing wrong?

I had that moment at Stanford in 1998. I stood up at a conference and criticized everything—said it was boring, not action-oriented, not engaging young people. Afterward, a woman came up to me and said, “You should build that.”

That stuck with me. Was I actually capable of building something—or just criticizing? That moment led to what I’ve spent the last 25-plus years doing.

Another example is the Inner-City Muslim Action Network in Chicago. It’s in a food desert. So they built a grocery store. That’s a civic institution. And that’s the shift—from talking about systems to building institutions. Systems feel abstract—you can complain about them endlessly. But institutions—you can actually build those.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: How do we balance that with the reality that there are systemic problems? How do we address immediate needs while still acknowledging the bigger picture?

EBOO PATEL: Both matter. Systems exist. But we still have agency. And especially for those of us in positions of privilege or influence, we have responsibility.

If you’re in an elite institution, you’ve signed up for civic responsibility. People should expect things from you. Angel Perez expected me to help him pass the GED. That’s the standard—not whether you’re better than the critic, but whether you’re fulfilling your purpose.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: If the “city is burning,” what do we rebuild—and where do we start?

EBOO PATEL: One of the best examples is Hull-House in Chicago, led by Jane Addams. During a period of massive migration, they chose to treat newcomers not as strangers but as contributors. They created a place where people could gather, share culture, and build relationships—through kitchens, childcare, education, and community space.

That’s pluralism in action. And those local efforts eventually became systems. So building institutions isn’t just plugging holes—it’s how systems evolve.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: Where do you see that kind of pluralism today?

EBOO PATEL: All over. Youth sports leagues, hospitals, community organizations—these are spaces where people from different backgrounds cooperate every day.

Pluralism has three dimensions: political, civic, and cultural. And in the U.S., you see it constantly, especially in culture, music, and food. The real question is: why don’t we highlight this more? Why aren’t we asking how to scale what’s already working?

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: What’s one big question that’s capturing your curiosity right now?

EBOO PATEL: When will diversity work get back on track? It lost its way—it became divisive and ineffective. But the core idea—respecting identities, building relationships, cooperating across differences—that’s essential.

It’s the American project: e pluribus unum. The question is whether we can reclaim that and rebuild it in a better way.

TOMÁS JIMÉNEZ: That’s a great place to end. Eboo Patel, thank you so much for this conversation.

EBOO PATEL: Thank you, Tomás.

OUTRO: One Question is brought to you by the Institute for Advancing Just Societies and produced by Ethography, with producers Georgia Limcaoco and Nikolas Liepins, and music by Caleb Liu.