This week, one of the most controversial TGS guests of all time returns: Penn Law professor Amy Wax. She’s currently in a dire predicament. Her job is on the line. Whatever you think of Amy’s positions, there are issues at play in her case that have implications for people of all political persuasions, and
Dr. Loury: I really appreciate your pushing Dr. Wax on the Jared Taylor issue.
I would just add two more things:
1.) Dr. Wax complained about being labeled a white supremacist as if the notion came from no where. It should not be a chiddush (novel idea) that inviting a world famous white supremacist to speak to your class would lead people to at least suspect something fishy - especially when you (Wax) refuse to denounce his white supremacism. Dr. Wax keeps playing dumb with this as if Taylor is only labeled a white supremacist by the left. It is well known that EVERYONE in the know is aware of Taylor's white supremacism. Even anti woke personalities like Ben Shapiro and Dr. Carol Swain know what Taylor's views on race are.
2.) Dr. Wax said she only brought on Taylor as a learning experience for her class. I can see that. I'm curious if she invited any noted black supremacist to her class so they could have a learning experience from that perspective too.
Great show, I really enjoyed the conversation. It lived up to it's hype. 😉
Very good conversation, enjoyed it. Though you both hit all around what I think is a very important part of these issues. Education is about learning and growing, well if you do not know both sides of a topic how are you supposed to form an educated opinion?
Having speakers of both sides of an issue, or at minimum speaking about both sides should be standard practice at all schools.
If you really want to change someone thoughts you have to understand them.
Prof Wax's gofundme links to a 0714 Daily Pennsylvanian article which mentions broad generalizations she made on Tucker Carlson's show such as American Blacks feel resentment at "Western peoples’ outsized achievements”. I appreciate that Glenn made a point of saying that he doesn't agree with Prof. Wax about everything, but I am wondering why some offensive public statements she has made, which are not backed by scholarship, were not discussed on the podcast.
I think you have been far too generous towards Amy Wax. When it comes to ‘these issues’ I generally give people the benefit of the doubt but she offends me. There’s some underlying psychological/social ‘defect’ with her that clouds her ability to be objective. She SHOULD be fired.
Thank you Glenn. I appreciate your being brave enough to have Ms. Wax on. I agreed with your various summations throughout the conversation wholeheartedly.
I have a very old friend who is a double Penn alum and currently teaches in the law school. He and I have corresponded about this matter. He claims that his Wax is a racist, white supremacist, homophobe, and the whole usual list and that her outspoken views somehow taint the university and interfere with its mission. She is tainting it’s brand.
My response to him was, so what if she is all of those things? (I don’t think she is a racist, by the way, but I don’t know her personally.)
The whole point of a university is to listen to a broad range of views. You read scholars with whom you disagree. You read Nietzsche. You read Marx. You gain insight. I suspect that I would be offended by many college professors these days (although I sure as heck would not be “harmed.”) Penn granted her tenure, and now they don’t like the deal. If white nationalism comes into vogue in academia two or three decades from now, Are we going to fire The current crop of professors?
I do think that Wax likes to hear herself talk a bit too much, and I wish she would listen a bit more, but I wish the same thing about my wife. I’m not going to fire her.
Interesting to read/hear about Glenn's interactions with students who take criticism of affirmative action personally. What might a psychologist say of those students - that the truth is a bit uncomfortable, that the problems hit too close to home, that some of them question which students truly belong on campus? Because those things, too, are part of this program. How can they not be? When immutable characteristics are used for decision-making, it's quite natural for there to be both resistance and questioning.
I once heard Walter Williams say that he was grateful to have been educated in a time before left-wing white people embraced him and other blacks as their pets and mascots. It meant that he had earned his way onto campus and received marks that reflected his work. In other words, he got there the old-fashioned way.
Glenn - I am more of a reader than a listener, but I was very impressed with the last two episodes. Your description of your anger at being called out in public by your son in law and the exchange you had w Amy Wax rang true. We all could learn a lot about free speech listening to your discussion w Wax.
To date, the first 2:05 of this vid is the best reasoning for why heterodoxy is crucial in our universities. A sense of humor always helps get an important point across. Mind you, this is seven yrs ago and the censorship has only gotten more entrenched.
Everyone has covered the familiar ground so let me say this: Here we have a classic example of how a cancel campaign has turned Wax into a martyr, thus giving her the high ground. She has plenty of quack ideas from whatever she was trying to say about the nuance of Jared Taylor to whatever she was trying to say about conformist Asian immigrants. Glenn, John, and many subscribers here have taken those ideas on. But it appears this task lies either beyond or beneath the university. They must wage such a pathetic campaign against her that it completely shifts all focus away from the substance of her positions. I consider this profoundly ironic and also a lose/lose for all of us.
Full disclosure. I know Amy a bit and attended a dinner party that she was at, and I got an earful of her Waxism's first-hand. I have also communicated with her via email on occasion. I hope she wins her battle with the law school
I think a simple way to look at this is in the following way. Various things that Amy has said over the years have created a PR problem for the law school. Since there is no exception to the tenure rule for creating a PR problem, the university has to find another way to dismiss her. Their position is, why do we need to continue employing someone who is bad for our business? I am not sure I know how that gets reconciled by the court because it is a conflict between 1A and the rights of a business.
I haven't followed this story thoroughly. How has the Penn law school actually been hurt? How many students have they lost? How many have refused to start? Are her courses required or elective? Does she still teach courses, advise students? How many donors/alumnae have they lost? How much money? How many former students of hers have not been able to get jobs? Jobs with prestigious firms because they took her courses?
I don't agree with her stance on Asians, but that's free speech.
This is my second experience listening to Prof Wax on TGS, and I admire how she jumps into the ring for a fight, 100%. Every note and tone rang clear in her arguments; Penn would be so unwise to edge her out with 1,000 cuts and I hope they grow the wisdom to change course. I especially loved hearing that her friends and neighbor group include small business owners on the frontlines, she makes great noise.
I think the solution lies in focusing on the individual. The identity demands on the left are the opposite side of the coin from Charles Murray’s theses. And yes, I read Facing Reality. I just don’t know what purpose is served by continuing to talk about it. Failing to judge blacks by the same standards as whites and Asians is racist. Those arguing for failing to do so obviously view blacks as intellectually inferior. What other explanation is there?
I was so annoyed with her last appearance on here I can't bring myself to listen to this. Is it worth it? Should I bite the bullet and give her another shot? I normally find accusations of racism with these kinds of guests spurious and bad faith, but I actually found her to be quite racist. What does everyone else think?
My 3rd and final comment. Advice to everyone: Within your boundary of physical safety and financial survival- do not keep thoughts hidden in your brain. Tell your friends and colleagues in-person that their thinking is illogical and their behavior abnormal. Don’t stop until they block you or signal a separation command. On a personal level- brutally harsh words from honest people have jolted me into self-correction at times. It’s simple economics, I don’t buy things that cost too much. Our delusional peers need to know their behavior has a cost which is their reduced credibility evidenced by your honesty.
Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."
While unreservedly supporting Prof. Wax's right to speech and deploring the witch-hunt against her, I must quibble with several things she asserts without skepticism. At one point in this video, she seemed to imply that Jared Taylor's race-realist views (which are also hers, apparently) were "the truth". Did I mishear her? I mean, it's one thing to say that race-realism is a legitimate point-of-view that ought to be debated, and another to state that it should be accepted as fact by right-thinking people. Same goes for her opinion on Asian- (and Indian-) Americans. She (and the likes of Taylor) are projecting particular characteristics on to entire communities from cherry-picked examples. How is it possible to even think of truth and falsity in this area, when it's clearly like social science and not nuclear physics?
I'm an Asian (Indian-American woman) and I want to let you know Prof Wax echoes my sentiments totally when it comes to Indians educated in the US. Indians go to college in our ultra-liberal American universities and become radicalized. Also, Indians, while never admitting it, do have an unconscious belief in White superiority (a remnant of our colonial past) and therefore, do their utmost to fit in and assume the same values that make them accepted by the mainstream. This is important to them. Soon after college, they go on to join tech companies in Silicon Valley, where their indoctrination gets completed. You will never see people more condescending, arrogant, know-it-all and unwilling to listen to any other point of view than the "well-educated" prosperous, elite, Silicon Valley Indian, especially women. The term 'limousine liberal' might have been created just for them, for it describes perfectly how these sanctimonious SJWs are actually totally disconnected from ground reality, while believing themselves to be champions for equity.
Although a large number of Indian immigrant men here in the US are still active in promoting Modi and Hindutva for India, which often translates into them supporting Trump here in the US.
Very true. I find there are 2 groups. The ones who came here on student visas in the '80's and '90's (and who left India at a time when it was a third world country, so they are inclined to believe that white culture is superior) and then there are those who came on HiB visas during and post Y2K who come from small towns in India, and are more grounded, pragmatic people with conventional values of hard work, religion, meritocracy, etc. The second type are the Modi-Trump lovers.
Many 60s, 70s, 80s foreign born Indian American immigrants are also anti woke.
The majority of all Indian Americans are probably anti woke.
Woke = 2nd and 3rd generation US born very high academically and socio-economically performing young female Indian Americans. They tend to be far more anti Indian, Indian loathing, Indian despising (their families, their elders, Indian Americans, Indians in India, Indian civilization/culture) than anti American. They tend to have deep self hatred and deep self guilt.
There are hardly any 2nd or 3rd generation Indian Americans. The UK has many but not the US.
In my experience, the gen z Hindu Indian American girl has very little connection to her ancestral language, culture, or caste. They identify as a generic "South Asian" or even just "brown". It is this dis-orientation that leads them to identify with the broader "BIPOC" woke coalition.
Many 2nd and 3rd generation identify as Indian Americans and the woke ones generally deeply despise India, Indians, their families, ancestors, Indian civilization, Indian culture. They have deep "catholic guilt" and self loathing without being catholics.
Often they say "brown" . . . code switching at astronomical rates.
You are entitled to your opinion, and no doubt that's drawn from your personal experiences. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the broader point, because my experience differ from yours. I'm Indian (not Indian-American), though I spent a decade studying and working in the States, so I have some idea of how Indians in that country think and behave, even though I moved back to India several years ago. I think your point about "unconscious belief in White superiority" is nonsense. As for getting radicalized in liberal American universities, no doubt many do, but they are almost exclusively in the humanities, whereas the vast majority of Indians going to the States are in STEM.
I think a minority of Indians in the US are SJW types, though more perhaps publicly espouse such views because that's what is expected in the social milieu they inhabit (academia, tech industry). But even if we assume that most of them are true believers of the woke religion, is that anywhere near a good reason to say that Indians should be prevented from immigrating to the country? The woke religion is, after all, something that a sizeable chunk of non-Indian Americans subscribe to. Once you start applying such filters, the natural culmination is that nobody must be allowed to immigrate because they subscribe to some ideology that is offensive to some subgroup of Americans (like the one Amy Wax belongs to in this instance.)
1.Let me first say that my statements are generalizations but based on a large number of observations due to my place of residence (Bay Area) as well as my profession (professor at a public university) so I may be considered to have some authority in making my claim.
2. You claim Indians' subconscious belief in all things White is nonsense. How do you then account for (a) Indians prizing fair skin (just look at the matrimonial columns of any paper in India to see how fair skin is considered desirable in a life partner, and the number of skin creams on the Indian market promising fairness! This did not exist prior to Colonization, do remember Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva, and many goddesses are gorgeously, uncompromisingly Jet-Black! So this is a recent post-colonial phenomenon. (b) why do Indians prize a knowledge of English much more than one of Sanskrit (which is way older, and which is where the words of many of the later European languages originated) or their native tongues, even though there is scientific evidence that bilingual people are less prone to neural diseases? European children in the US know their French, their Armenian, their Russian, but not Indian kids! However, after Sanskrit was found to be the best language for coding, it suddenly gained popularity in Indian circles! Because it now had "White" validation! (c) why do Indians disdain native medicine practices as quackery, but the instant ashwagandha, moringa, turmeric, etc become popular with Whites, Indians get on the "natural" bandwagon too though these herbs have been around in India for centuries! We have even begun to deliberately mispronounce it "tumeric" as many Whites do, though we know better, because we crave to "fit in"! (d) Why did Mathematician Professor Ramanujam suddenly shoot to fame after a White guy made a movie about him, when he was almost unrecognized among Indians until then? We are suddenly proud of his achievements, but it took a White man to bring it home to us. (e)When the daughter of a famous Indian singer married a Black man, her concerts were canceled, yes truly! (and these are the same Indians who will go abroad, turn leftist and purport to fight for black rights!) Yet when Priyanka Chopra married Jonas, all of India was thrilled! (f) We wear western attire with pride, and deride our white native cotton, even though it is best suited for the tropics, being both breathable and sun-resistant. (g) we will pay more to use a western brand of consumer-good even if the Indian version has a good track record (h) a "foreigner" in India only merits attention if he is White, and people will follow him with their eyes as he walks down an Indian street, whereas a Chinese or an African are beneath notice! You know this happens!
I can quote tons more examples, but you get the drift.
3. You repudiate the idea that STEM majors don't easily become liberal. The majority of non-liberal Indians are in fact the ones who haven't gone to college here and are not employed in tech or academia, such as 7-11 owners, motel owners, restaurateurs, small business owners and the like. I've lived in the heart of Silicon Valley for 23 years, among super-achievers in STEM, as well as teach Math at a university, so I have some legitimacy in making my claim, As a proof, you can access the recent Twitter employee video from Project Veritas (when Musk was about to make his offer to buy the company), where the Indian employee states that he leaned slightly right politically due to republicans increasing H!B quotas for Indians (he was an H1B visa holder) but that after joining Twitter, he was forced to assume extreme liberal values in order to fit in. This young man believed he was on a date (with the lady from Veritas, though of course he didn't know it at the time) and there was no reason for him to fake his answer. Do watch the vid.
4. Therefore, there is some validity to Wax's wish that fewer Asians migrate, because we are present in very large numbers, thus ending up with a population that is brainwashed (easily) into leaning far left, and therefore in a position to influence national policies. Remember, this is not an organic "choice", though it might seem that way, as people imagine they have the choice to chose political affiliation, but when you are constantly exposed to hearing one view only, especially from people like professors and employers who hold a lot of power over you, you naturally want to play it safe and go with the flow, and it only flows left. A case of Hobson's choice really.
What else is one to assume when these really bright people who fled the socialist regime in India to seek better opportunities in the US, and succeeded spectacularly by taking maximum advantage of America's free markets and capitalistic policies, then suddenly turn to socialistic ideas as a blueprint for successful company policy? What caused this radical shift in outlook?
This is wrong. It's a well-studied topic, and the preference is a lot older than the colonial era. What you are asserting is more of a modern Orientalist myth.
"why do Indians prize a knowledge of English much more than one of Sanskrit"
I find it hard to measure the degree to which people prize one language relative to another, but where I come from, Sanskrit has always been and continues to be revered. English is treated as being useful, even vital, to be a part of the modern world and make a proper living (and it's not just Indians who think this.)
"Why did Mathematician Professor Ramanujam suddenly shoot to fame after a White guy made a movie about him, when he was almost unrecognized among Indians until then?"
Not sure which part of India your ancestry hails from, but this would be a ludicrous statement to make in my neck of the woods at least. Ramanujan and his achievements are universal knowledge, and he inspired multiple generations of people, at least in southern India, to get proficient in math. Nobody needed the recent Hollywood movie to discover him. And I didn't really like the movie, which completely messes up his life story and that of his mentor (Hardy). If you are really interested, read Ramanujan's biography by Robert Kanigel. The movie is supposed to be based off of that book, but doesn't even contain 10% of its contents.
"What caused this radical shift in outlook?"
I think I mentioned in my earlier comment that I don't believe there is any such shift at all. There are of course some prominent socialist idiots holding political office (like Kshama Sawant and Pramila Jaypal) but speaking personally, I don't know a single Indian (whether living in India or in the States) who actually believes in socialist ideology. People who immmigrated earlier could immediately see the difference between America's free market system and the sclerotic Indian one (the difference, though it still exists, has reduced a bit now) and believe me, they are grateful for it. To the extent younger Indian Americans are socialist, my guess is they are representative of the upper middle class of American society they inhabit. You'll need to compare them against upper middle class white Americans to be fair, not the entire population of white Americans.
Would you agree that Bay Area Indian Americans are far more woke outwardly presenting than Indian Americans who don't live in the Bay Area?
"You'll need to compare them against upper middle class white Americans to be fair, not the entire population of white Americans." Agree with this. Indian Americans in the Bay Area are less woke than caucasians in the Bay Area.
With respect to India . . . the vast majority of Indians in India are anti woke. However there are many young woke and socialist affluent academic topper Indian females in greater Calcutta and in Kerala. To a lesser degree metro Delhi.
1. Please provide proof of your assertion that " What you are asserting is more of a modern Orientalist myth." I maintain that it was only after repeated invasions and colonization that fixation with fair skin became desirable.
2. Language - I grew up in India and know the desperate extent to which parents insist, even today, on "Convent-English" schools for their kids.
3. Ramanujam became famous in the desi children community here ONLY after the movie came on netflix, before which no kid here had heard of him because parents hadn't bothered telling them. Likewise in India, one hears of him in a desultory manner, but apart from that, there was no real pride until the movie was made. Whether you like the movie or not is immaterial. I hail from the same town as did Ramanujam, and believe me, there is not even a statue commemorating him there. It was only after the movie that the Indian govt put out a stamp in his honor.
4. You don't know a single Indian with socialist ideology? You haven't lived in Silicon Valley, my friend! Almost every single techie here is a hard-core lefty spouting SJW garbage. And it's not younger Indians who are socialist as you think, it is mostly the 40-60 year olds (especially females)who came here during the Y2K and subsequent dotcom boom who are suspect. The younger ones are generally conservative deep down, but fake liberalism to blend in, and eventually the fakeness becomes the real persona if they live here long enough. You can see it in the 'defund the police' movements organized by Indian activists here, and most Indians rejected the No on Prop 29, the vote to lift the ban on affirmative action, Thank God for the Chinese and Russian community here. The bill squeaked through purely due to their efforts. Watch Vijaya Gadde's address to Twitter employees for more proof on how "educated" Indians go berserk when their liberal values are thwarted (the Musk episode, for instance).
GS, Indian Americans who don't live in the Bay Area are far less woke than Bay Area Indian Americans.
Everything you say about young 2nd and 3rd generation very high academically and socio-economically performing young Indian American females is right on.
Few who don't live in the greater Bay Area appear to understand the Bay Area.
My observation is that a lot of publicly very woke presenting Indian Americans in private completely code switch and appear to believe the opposite of what they say in public.
Why do you think so many Indian Americans are so fake?
I think you heard Amy Wax, "wrong." She explicitly stated that she was not certain what Taylor's views "really were." Allegations of "racism" often are not defined clearly. The measurable incidence of race membership that are not equal -- does not necessarily prove racism. As Thomas Sowell notes, there may be many reasons that explain differences. Consider the many examples of race-disparities in sports. Differences exist, but that is not a proof of systemic racism.
Agreed - was just reacting and responding to the direct quote of Taylor’s. There is no equivocation in his statements. That’s fine. I have no problem accepting his right to articulate those views, however illogical and repugnant they are to me.
I understand your assessment of Taylor's views seem "illogical and repugnant." However, I do not share your views. It is always easy to jump to conclusions and to casually smear another's point of view by taking material out of context, or by using an ad hominem label. It is not clear to me that Professor Wax is a white nationalist, as much as your confirmation bias wants her to accept that identity. Your request for her to accept your characterization as a white nationalist is both unfair and inaccurate. I will stand corrected if you can provide adequate evidence for your characterization. If you cannot, then you should apologize to her.
For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a white nationalist. It's somewhat unfortunate that people who seem to embrace that ideology have to adamantly deny it as though they were being labelled lepers. But alas such is the intolerant society we live in these days where dissenters are shamed.
As I stated below, I find Amy's claims that she's not really sure what Jared Taylor believes in to be highly implausible. In the spirit of being cordial on a public forum and given that Amy is a good friend of Glenn's, I'll refrain from using more colorful language to express my skepticism. I don't claim to be an expert on Taylor but having hung around American Renaissance back in the day and having also read some of his written work, I don't believe Jared Taylor's views on race are particularly subtle. The quote at the end of his 2005 article on Hurricane Katrina bluntly articulates one of the core tenets of his race realism, that in his opinion Blacks are incapable of sustaining civilization.
"To be sure, the story of Hurricane Katrina does have a moral for anyone not deliberately blind. The races are different. Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left to their own devices, Western Civilization - any kind of civilization - disappears. And in a crisis, it disappears overnight."
Do I know for a fact that this is also what Amy Wax truly believes in deep down? I guess I'll reference a quote of Amy's when she and Glenn were discussing racial differences where Amy claimed to the effect that although she couldn't definitively say what the underlying causes of these differences were, if she had to bet money she would bet on there being some sort of biological component to observed racial differences in academic achievement, etc.
To be perfectly fair I'm actually in the same camp. Since I believe that more likely than not at least some part of the observed differences among groups has a biological component, if offered even money odds I would also have to accept that bet. Similarly, if I were offered even money odds I would almost certainly bet that deep down what Amy truly believes in is reflected in the Jared Taylor quote above.
I say all of this neither to condemn nor to condone, since as we've established freedom of expression is independent of all of that. What I do strongly believe in though is people standing behind what they say and owning what they really believe in, rather than engaging in handwaving or obfuscation. I think that's a fair price to demand for enlightened individuals collectively agreeing that all ideas no matter how controversial merit debate and argumentation rather than outright banishment.
So no, I can't definitively say what Amy Wax truly believes in deep down, but I don't think it's unreasonable to make certain inferences. I don't want to come across as flippant, but I'm reminded of that saying that if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then... Well I think you know how that one ends.
Yan, I appreciate that you don't think there's anything wrong with being called a white nationalist, but there are many contemporaries who become outraged when they are referenced by no less than an INCORRECT pronoun. Thus, I am unclear whether Professor Wax would willingly adopt the “white nationalist” identity, though I doubt it. To assume she would, is as presumptuous (and incorrect ?) as a reader who wonders why you do not admit your sympathy with Xi’s denial of freedom in Hong Kong or your participation in “The Libs of TikTok.”
Yan wrote sentence #1 --> "if I were offered even money odds I would almost certainly bet that deep down what Amy truly believes in is reflected in the Jared Taylor quote above "
……. Yan then cleverly adds a subtle disclaimer (about HIS perceptions of Amy's thoughts ) in the following sentence -->
….Yan Sentence 2. " I say all of this neither to condemn nor to condone, since as we've established, freedom of expression is independent of all of that"
----------------------------------
Yan, thank you for sharing your belief about what "deep down what Amy truly believes" about Jared Taylor. Don't misunderstand. I write “all of this neither to condemn nor to condone, since as we've established, freedom of expression is independent," but “deep down what [you] truly believe” is reflected by “The Libs of TikTok."
A few comments ago you complained about ad hominem attacks and just now you do the same to Yan because of some of his prior comments in other threads and some groups to which he belongs (I assume that's what you're referencing)? Or was that just you doing a parody of a hypocrite.
Agreed - her political like equivocation on Taylor was not becoming of what she purports to be. Statements like I dont know what he thinks are as blessedly ignorant and naive as her descriptions of her students and administration. She should own up to her white nationalist views and be honest with herself, Glenn and his listeners. Clearly she deserves to be protected, and the rampant illiberalism on the campus fought and defeated. The best way to fight views like hers and her guest speakers is to verbal combat and argumentation. Her views on race and immigration are easily dealt with by facts and her professed logic.
GREAT SHOW!!!
Dr. Loury: I really appreciate your pushing Dr. Wax on the Jared Taylor issue.
I would just add two more things:
1.) Dr. Wax complained about being labeled a white supremacist as if the notion came from no where. It should not be a chiddush (novel idea) that inviting a world famous white supremacist to speak to your class would lead people to at least suspect something fishy - especially when you (Wax) refuse to denounce his white supremacism. Dr. Wax keeps playing dumb with this as if Taylor is only labeled a white supremacist by the left. It is well known that EVERYONE in the know is aware of Taylor's white supremacism. Even anti woke personalities like Ben Shapiro and Dr. Carol Swain know what Taylor's views on race are.
2.) Dr. Wax said she only brought on Taylor as a learning experience for her class. I can see that. I'm curious if she invited any noted black supremacist to her class so they could have a learning experience from that perspective too.
Great show, I really enjoyed the conversation. It lived up to it's hype. 😉
- Michoel Stern
Very good conversation, enjoyed it. Though you both hit all around what I think is a very important part of these issues. Education is about learning and growing, well if you do not know both sides of a topic how are you supposed to form an educated opinion?
Having speakers of both sides of an issue, or at minimum speaking about both sides should be standard practice at all schools.
If you really want to change someone thoughts you have to understand them.
Prof Wax's gofundme links to a 0714 Daily Pennsylvanian article which mentions broad generalizations she made on Tucker Carlson's show such as American Blacks feel resentment at "Western peoples’ outsized achievements”. I appreciate that Glenn made a point of saying that he doesn't agree with Prof. Wax about everything, but I am wondering why some offensive public statements she has made, which are not backed by scholarship, were not discussed on the podcast.
I think you have been far too generous towards Amy Wax. When it comes to ‘these issues’ I generally give people the benefit of the doubt but she offends me. There’s some underlying psychological/social ‘defect’ with her that clouds her ability to be objective. She SHOULD be fired.
Thank you Glenn. I appreciate your being brave enough to have Ms. Wax on. I agreed with your various summations throughout the conversation wholeheartedly.
I have a very old friend who is a double Penn alum and currently teaches in the law school. He and I have corresponded about this matter. He claims that his Wax is a racist, white supremacist, homophobe, and the whole usual list and that her outspoken views somehow taint the university and interfere with its mission. She is tainting it’s brand.
My response to him was, so what if she is all of those things? (I don’t think she is a racist, by the way, but I don’t know her personally.)
The whole point of a university is to listen to a broad range of views. You read scholars with whom you disagree. You read Nietzsche. You read Marx. You gain insight. I suspect that I would be offended by many college professors these days (although I sure as heck would not be “harmed.”) Penn granted her tenure, and now they don’t like the deal. If white nationalism comes into vogue in academia two or three decades from now, Are we going to fire The current crop of professors?
I do think that Wax likes to hear herself talk a bit too much, and I wish she would listen a bit more, but I wish the same thing about my wife. I’m not going to fire her.
Interesting to read/hear about Glenn's interactions with students who take criticism of affirmative action personally. What might a psychologist say of those students - that the truth is a bit uncomfortable, that the problems hit too close to home, that some of them question which students truly belong on campus? Because those things, too, are part of this program. How can they not be? When immutable characteristics are used for decision-making, it's quite natural for there to be both resistance and questioning.
I once heard Walter Williams say that he was grateful to have been educated in a time before left-wing white people embraced him and other blacks as their pets and mascots. It meant that he had earned his way onto campus and received marks that reflected his work. In other words, he got there the old-fashioned way.
Glenn - I am more of a reader than a listener, but I was very impressed with the last two episodes. Your description of your anger at being called out in public by your son in law and the exchange you had w Amy Wax rang true. We all could learn a lot about free speech listening to your discussion w Wax.
https://youtu.be/ipwMa5uT5es
To date, the first 2:05 of this vid is the best reasoning for why heterodoxy is crucial in our universities. A sense of humor always helps get an important point across. Mind you, this is seven yrs ago and the censorship has only gotten more entrenched.
Everyone has covered the familiar ground so let me say this: Here we have a classic example of how a cancel campaign has turned Wax into a martyr, thus giving her the high ground. She has plenty of quack ideas from whatever she was trying to say about the nuance of Jared Taylor to whatever she was trying to say about conformist Asian immigrants. Glenn, John, and many subscribers here have taken those ideas on. But it appears this task lies either beyond or beneath the university. They must wage such a pathetic campaign against her that it completely shifts all focus away from the substance of her positions. I consider this profoundly ironic and also a lose/lose for all of us.
Full disclosure. I know Amy a bit and attended a dinner party that she was at, and I got an earful of her Waxism's first-hand. I have also communicated with her via email on occasion. I hope she wins her battle with the law school
I think a simple way to look at this is in the following way. Various things that Amy has said over the years have created a PR problem for the law school. Since there is no exception to the tenure rule for creating a PR problem, the university has to find another way to dismiss her. Their position is, why do we need to continue employing someone who is bad for our business? I am not sure I know how that gets reconciled by the court because it is a conflict between 1A and the rights of a business.
I haven't followed this story thoroughly. How has the Penn law school actually been hurt? How many students have they lost? How many have refused to start? Are her courses required or elective? Does she still teach courses, advise students? How many donors/alumnae have they lost? How much money? How many former students of hers have not been able to get jobs? Jobs with prestigious firms because they took her courses?
I don't agree with her stance on Asians, but that's free speech.
This is my second experience listening to Prof Wax on TGS, and I admire how she jumps into the ring for a fight, 100%. Every note and tone rang clear in her arguments; Penn would be so unwise to edge her out with 1,000 cuts and I hope they grow the wisdom to change course. I especially loved hearing that her friends and neighbor group include small business owners on the frontlines, she makes great noise.
I think the solution lies in focusing on the individual. The identity demands on the left are the opposite side of the coin from Charles Murray’s theses. And yes, I read Facing Reality. I just don’t know what purpose is served by continuing to talk about it. Failing to judge blacks by the same standards as whites and Asians is racist. Those arguing for failing to do so obviously view blacks as intellectually inferior. What other explanation is there?
I was so annoyed with her last appearance on here I can't bring myself to listen to this. Is it worth it? Should I bite the bullet and give her another shot? I normally find accusations of racism with these kinds of guests spurious and bad faith, but I actually found her to be quite racist. What does everyone else think?
My 3rd and final comment. Advice to everyone: Within your boundary of physical safety and financial survival- do not keep thoughts hidden in your brain. Tell your friends and colleagues in-person that their thinking is illogical and their behavior abnormal. Don’t stop until they block you or signal a separation command. On a personal level- brutally harsh words from honest people have jolted me into self-correction at times. It’s simple economics, I don’t buy things that cost too much. Our delusional peers need to know their behavior has a cost which is their reduced credibility evidenced by your honesty.
Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."
While unreservedly supporting Prof. Wax's right to speech and deploring the witch-hunt against her, I must quibble with several things she asserts without skepticism. At one point in this video, she seemed to imply that Jared Taylor's race-realist views (which are also hers, apparently) were "the truth". Did I mishear her? I mean, it's one thing to say that race-realism is a legitimate point-of-view that ought to be debated, and another to state that it should be accepted as fact by right-thinking people. Same goes for her opinion on Asian- (and Indian-) Americans. She (and the likes of Taylor) are projecting particular characteristics on to entire communities from cherry-picked examples. How is it possible to even think of truth and falsity in this area, when it's clearly like social science and not nuclear physics?
I'm an Asian (Indian-American woman) and I want to let you know Prof Wax echoes my sentiments totally when it comes to Indians educated in the US. Indians go to college in our ultra-liberal American universities and become radicalized. Also, Indians, while never admitting it, do have an unconscious belief in White superiority (a remnant of our colonial past) and therefore, do their utmost to fit in and assume the same values that make them accepted by the mainstream. This is important to them. Soon after college, they go on to join tech companies in Silicon Valley, where their indoctrination gets completed. You will never see people more condescending, arrogant, know-it-all and unwilling to listen to any other point of view than the "well-educated" prosperous, elite, Silicon Valley Indian, especially women. The term 'limousine liberal' might have been created just for them, for it describes perfectly how these sanctimonious SJWs are actually totally disconnected from ground reality, while believing themselves to be champions for equity.
Although a large number of Indian immigrant men here in the US are still active in promoting Modi and Hindutva for India, which often translates into them supporting Trump here in the US.
Do you see a difference between Pakistanis and Indians with respect to wokeness?
What are your observations or thoughts about Christians who are Indian subcontinent origin?
Very true. I find there are 2 groups. The ones who came here on student visas in the '80's and '90's (and who left India at a time when it was a third world country, so they are inclined to believe that white culture is superior) and then there are those who came on HiB visas during and post Y2K who come from small towns in India, and are more grounded, pragmatic people with conventional values of hard work, religion, meritocracy, etc. The second type are the Modi-Trump lovers.
Many 60s, 70s, 80s foreign born Indian American immigrants are also anti woke.
The majority of all Indian Americans are probably anti woke.
Woke = 2nd and 3rd generation US born very high academically and socio-economically performing young female Indian Americans. They tend to be far more anti Indian, Indian loathing, Indian despising (their families, their elders, Indian Americans, Indians in India, Indian civilization/culture) than anti American. They tend to have deep self hatred and deep self guilt.
There are hardly any 2nd or 3rd generation Indian Americans. The UK has many but not the US.
In my experience, the gen z Hindu Indian American girl has very little connection to her ancestral language, culture, or caste. They identify as a generic "South Asian" or even just "brown". It is this dis-orientation that leads them to identify with the broader "BIPOC" woke coalition.
Many 2nd and 3rd generation identify as Indian Americans and the woke ones generally deeply despise India, Indians, their families, ancestors, Indian civilization, Indian culture. They have deep "catholic guilt" and self loathing without being catholics.
Often they say "brown" . . . code switching at astronomical rates.
You are entitled to your opinion, and no doubt that's drawn from your personal experiences. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the broader point, because my experience differ from yours. I'm Indian (not Indian-American), though I spent a decade studying and working in the States, so I have some idea of how Indians in that country think and behave, even though I moved back to India several years ago. I think your point about "unconscious belief in White superiority" is nonsense. As for getting radicalized in liberal American universities, no doubt many do, but they are almost exclusively in the humanities, whereas the vast majority of Indians going to the States are in STEM.
I think a minority of Indians in the US are SJW types, though more perhaps publicly espouse such views because that's what is expected in the social milieu they inhabit (academia, tech industry). But even if we assume that most of them are true believers of the woke religion, is that anywhere near a good reason to say that Indians should be prevented from immigrating to the country? The woke religion is, after all, something that a sizeable chunk of non-Indian Americans subscribe to. Once you start applying such filters, the natural culmination is that nobody must be allowed to immigrate because they subscribe to some ideology that is offensive to some subgroup of Americans (like the one Amy Wax belongs to in this instance.)
1.Let me first say that my statements are generalizations but based on a large number of observations due to my place of residence (Bay Area) as well as my profession (professor at a public university) so I may be considered to have some authority in making my claim.
2. You claim Indians' subconscious belief in all things White is nonsense. How do you then account for (a) Indians prizing fair skin (just look at the matrimonial columns of any paper in India to see how fair skin is considered desirable in a life partner, and the number of skin creams on the Indian market promising fairness! This did not exist prior to Colonization, do remember Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva, and many goddesses are gorgeously, uncompromisingly Jet-Black! So this is a recent post-colonial phenomenon. (b) why do Indians prize a knowledge of English much more than one of Sanskrit (which is way older, and which is where the words of many of the later European languages originated) or their native tongues, even though there is scientific evidence that bilingual people are less prone to neural diseases? European children in the US know their French, their Armenian, their Russian, but not Indian kids! However, after Sanskrit was found to be the best language for coding, it suddenly gained popularity in Indian circles! Because it now had "White" validation! (c) why do Indians disdain native medicine practices as quackery, but the instant ashwagandha, moringa, turmeric, etc become popular with Whites, Indians get on the "natural" bandwagon too though these herbs have been around in India for centuries! We have even begun to deliberately mispronounce it "tumeric" as many Whites do, though we know better, because we crave to "fit in"! (d) Why did Mathematician Professor Ramanujam suddenly shoot to fame after a White guy made a movie about him, when he was almost unrecognized among Indians until then? We are suddenly proud of his achievements, but it took a White man to bring it home to us. (e)When the daughter of a famous Indian singer married a Black man, her concerts were canceled, yes truly! (and these are the same Indians who will go abroad, turn leftist and purport to fight for black rights!) Yet when Priyanka Chopra married Jonas, all of India was thrilled! (f) We wear western attire with pride, and deride our white native cotton, even though it is best suited for the tropics, being both breathable and sun-resistant. (g) we will pay more to use a western brand of consumer-good even if the Indian version has a good track record (h) a "foreigner" in India only merits attention if he is White, and people will follow him with their eyes as he walks down an Indian street, whereas a Chinese or an African are beneath notice! You know this happens!
I can quote tons more examples, but you get the drift.
3. You repudiate the idea that STEM majors don't easily become liberal. The majority of non-liberal Indians are in fact the ones who haven't gone to college here and are not employed in tech or academia, such as 7-11 owners, motel owners, restaurateurs, small business owners and the like. I've lived in the heart of Silicon Valley for 23 years, among super-achievers in STEM, as well as teach Math at a university, so I have some legitimacy in making my claim, As a proof, you can access the recent Twitter employee video from Project Veritas (when Musk was about to make his offer to buy the company), where the Indian employee states that he leaned slightly right politically due to republicans increasing H!B quotas for Indians (he was an H1B visa holder) but that after joining Twitter, he was forced to assume extreme liberal values in order to fit in. This young man believed he was on a date (with the lady from Veritas, though of course he didn't know it at the time) and there was no reason for him to fake his answer. Do watch the vid.
4. Therefore, there is some validity to Wax's wish that fewer Asians migrate, because we are present in very large numbers, thus ending up with a population that is brainwashed (easily) into leaning far left, and therefore in a position to influence national policies. Remember, this is not an organic "choice", though it might seem that way, as people imagine they have the choice to chose political affiliation, but when you are constantly exposed to hearing one view only, especially from people like professors and employers who hold a lot of power over you, you naturally want to play it safe and go with the flow, and it only flows left. A case of Hobson's choice really.
What else is one to assume when these really bright people who fled the socialist regime in India to seek better opportunities in the US, and succeeded spectacularly by taking maximum advantage of America's free markets and capitalistic policies, then suddenly turn to socialistic ideas as a blueprint for successful company policy? What caused this radical shift in outlook?
"This did not exist prior to Colonization".
This is wrong. It's a well-studied topic, and the preference is a lot older than the colonial era. What you are asserting is more of a modern Orientalist myth.
"why do Indians prize a knowledge of English much more than one of Sanskrit"
I find it hard to measure the degree to which people prize one language relative to another, but where I come from, Sanskrit has always been and continues to be revered. English is treated as being useful, even vital, to be a part of the modern world and make a proper living (and it's not just Indians who think this.)
"Why did Mathematician Professor Ramanujam suddenly shoot to fame after a White guy made a movie about him, when he was almost unrecognized among Indians until then?"
Not sure which part of India your ancestry hails from, but this would be a ludicrous statement to make in my neck of the woods at least. Ramanujan and his achievements are universal knowledge, and he inspired multiple generations of people, at least in southern India, to get proficient in math. Nobody needed the recent Hollywood movie to discover him. And I didn't really like the movie, which completely messes up his life story and that of his mentor (Hardy). If you are really interested, read Ramanujan's biography by Robert Kanigel. The movie is supposed to be based off of that book, but doesn't even contain 10% of its contents.
"What caused this radical shift in outlook?"
I think I mentioned in my earlier comment that I don't believe there is any such shift at all. There are of course some prominent socialist idiots holding political office (like Kshama Sawant and Pramila Jaypal) but speaking personally, I don't know a single Indian (whether living in India or in the States) who actually believes in socialist ideology. People who immmigrated earlier could immediately see the difference between America's free market system and the sclerotic Indian one (the difference, though it still exists, has reduced a bit now) and believe me, they are grateful for it. To the extent younger Indian Americans are socialist, my guess is they are representative of the upper middle class of American society they inhabit. You'll need to compare them against upper middle class white Americans to be fair, not the entire population of white Americans.
Agree with you.
Would you agree that Bay Area Indian Americans are far more woke outwardly presenting than Indian Americans who don't live in the Bay Area?
"You'll need to compare them against upper middle class white Americans to be fair, not the entire population of white Americans." Agree with this. Indian Americans in the Bay Area are less woke than caucasians in the Bay Area.
With respect to India . . . the vast majority of Indians in India are anti woke. However there are many young woke and socialist affluent academic topper Indian females in greater Calcutta and in Kerala. To a lesser degree metro Delhi.
1. Please provide proof of your assertion that " What you are asserting is more of a modern Orientalist myth." I maintain that it was only after repeated invasions and colonization that fixation with fair skin became desirable.
2. Language - I grew up in India and know the desperate extent to which parents insist, even today, on "Convent-English" schools for their kids.
3. Ramanujam became famous in the desi children community here ONLY after the movie came on netflix, before which no kid here had heard of him because parents hadn't bothered telling them. Likewise in India, one hears of him in a desultory manner, but apart from that, there was no real pride until the movie was made. Whether you like the movie or not is immaterial. I hail from the same town as did Ramanujam, and believe me, there is not even a statue commemorating him there. It was only after the movie that the Indian govt put out a stamp in his honor.
4. You don't know a single Indian with socialist ideology? You haven't lived in Silicon Valley, my friend! Almost every single techie here is a hard-core lefty spouting SJW garbage. And it's not younger Indians who are socialist as you think, it is mostly the 40-60 year olds (especially females)who came here during the Y2K and subsequent dotcom boom who are suspect. The younger ones are generally conservative deep down, but fake liberalism to blend in, and eventually the fakeness becomes the real persona if they live here long enough. You can see it in the 'defund the police' movements organized by Indian activists here, and most Indians rejected the No on Prop 29, the vote to lift the ban on affirmative action, Thank God for the Chinese and Russian community here. The bill squeaked through purely due to their efforts. Watch Vijaya Gadde's address to Twitter employees for more proof on how "educated" Indians go berserk when their liberal values are thwarted (the Musk episode, for instance).
GS, Indian Americans who don't live in the Bay Area are far less woke than Bay Area Indian Americans.
Everything you say about young 2nd and 3rd generation very high academically and socio-economically performing young Indian American females is right on.
Few who don't live in the greater Bay Area appear to understand the Bay Area.
My observation is that a lot of publicly very woke presenting Indian Americans in private completely code switch and appear to believe the opposite of what they say in public.
Why do you think so many Indian Americans are so fake?
Excellent response - thank u
I think you heard Amy Wax, "wrong." She explicitly stated that she was not certain what Taylor's views "really were." Allegations of "racism" often are not defined clearly. The measurable incidence of race membership that are not equal -- does not necessarily prove racism. As Thomas Sowell notes, there may be many reasons that explain differences. Consider the many examples of race-disparities in sports. Differences exist, but that is not a proof of systemic racism.
“Differences exist, but that is not a proof of systemic racism.” Well said.
If Madison is your home, please confirm.
Agreed - was just reacting and responding to the direct quote of Taylor’s. There is no equivocation in his statements. That’s fine. I have no problem accepting his right to articulate those views, however illogical and repugnant they are to me.
I understand your assessment of Taylor's views seem "illogical and repugnant." However, I do not share your views. It is always easy to jump to conclusions and to casually smear another's point of view by taking material out of context, or by using an ad hominem label. It is not clear to me that Professor Wax is a white nationalist, as much as your confirmation bias wants her to accept that identity. Your request for her to accept your characterization as a white nationalist is both unfair and inaccurate. I will stand corrected if you can provide adequate evidence for your characterization. If you cannot, then you should apologize to her.
For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a white nationalist. It's somewhat unfortunate that people who seem to embrace that ideology have to adamantly deny it as though they were being labelled lepers. But alas such is the intolerant society we live in these days where dissenters are shamed.
As I stated below, I find Amy's claims that she's not really sure what Jared Taylor believes in to be highly implausible. In the spirit of being cordial on a public forum and given that Amy is a good friend of Glenn's, I'll refrain from using more colorful language to express my skepticism. I don't claim to be an expert on Taylor but having hung around American Renaissance back in the day and having also read some of his written work, I don't believe Jared Taylor's views on race are particularly subtle. The quote at the end of his 2005 article on Hurricane Katrina bluntly articulates one of the core tenets of his race realism, that in his opinion Blacks are incapable of sustaining civilization.
"To be sure, the story of Hurricane Katrina does have a moral for anyone not deliberately blind. The races are different. Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left to their own devices, Western Civilization - any kind of civilization - disappears. And in a crisis, it disappears overnight."
Do I know for a fact that this is also what Amy Wax truly believes in deep down? I guess I'll reference a quote of Amy's when she and Glenn were discussing racial differences where Amy claimed to the effect that although she couldn't definitively say what the underlying causes of these differences were, if she had to bet money she would bet on there being some sort of biological component to observed racial differences in academic achievement, etc.
To be perfectly fair I'm actually in the same camp. Since I believe that more likely than not at least some part of the observed differences among groups has a biological component, if offered even money odds I would also have to accept that bet. Similarly, if I were offered even money odds I would almost certainly bet that deep down what Amy truly believes in is reflected in the Jared Taylor quote above.
I say all of this neither to condemn nor to condone, since as we've established freedom of expression is independent of all of that. What I do strongly believe in though is people standing behind what they say and owning what they really believe in, rather than engaging in handwaving or obfuscation. I think that's a fair price to demand for enlightened individuals collectively agreeing that all ideas no matter how controversial merit debate and argumentation rather than outright banishment.
So no, I can't definitively say what Amy Wax truly believes in deep down, but I don't think it's unreasonable to make certain inferences. I don't want to come across as flippant, but I'm reminded of that saying that if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then... Well I think you know how that one ends.
Yan, I appreciate that you don't think there's anything wrong with being called a white nationalist, but there are many contemporaries who become outraged when they are referenced by no less than an INCORRECT pronoun. Thus, I am unclear whether Professor Wax would willingly adopt the “white nationalist” identity, though I doubt it. To assume she would, is as presumptuous (and incorrect ?) as a reader who wonders why you do not admit your sympathy with Xi’s denial of freedom in Hong Kong or your participation in “The Libs of TikTok.”
Yan wrote sentence #1 --> "if I were offered even money odds I would almost certainly bet that deep down what Amy truly believes in is reflected in the Jared Taylor quote above "
……. Yan then cleverly adds a subtle disclaimer (about HIS perceptions of Amy's thoughts ) in the following sentence -->
….Yan Sentence 2. " I say all of this neither to condemn nor to condone, since as we've established, freedom of expression is independent of all of that"
----------------------------------
Yan, thank you for sharing your belief about what "deep down what Amy truly believes" about Jared Taylor. Don't misunderstand. I write “all of this neither to condemn nor to condone, since as we've established, freedom of expression is independent," but “deep down what [you] truly believe” is reflected by “The Libs of TikTok."
I think you misunderstood Yan.
A few comments ago you complained about ad hominem attacks and just now you do the same to Yan because of some of his prior comments in other threads and some groups to which he belongs (I assume that's what you're referencing)? Or was that just you doing a parody of a hypocrite.
Agreed - her political like equivocation on Taylor was not becoming of what she purports to be. Statements like I dont know what he thinks are as blessedly ignorant and naive as her descriptions of her students and administration. She should own up to her white nationalist views and be honest with herself, Glenn and his listeners. Clearly she deserves to be protected, and the rampant illiberalism on the campus fought and defeated. The best way to fight views like hers and her guest speakers is to verbal combat and argumentation. Her views on race and immigration are easily dealt with by facts and her professed logic.