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.
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?
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.
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?