Amy's argument reminds me of those European countries where governments take great efforts to preserve their culture - Italy, France, Quebec (not a country but still). The consequence of this is you get an ossified state and people seeking dynamism move elsewhere (to America). Glenn addressed this, but I don't think strongly enough. I don't see how you enact Amy's philosophy without destroying America. She talks about Victorian England and the "slow, cautious change" England allowed during that era. The end of that era pretty much marks the start of England's decline as a world power and global cultural influence.
I largely agree with her position on the importance of cultural norms and the threat to those norms from people not already inculcated in those norms. To your point Glenn, about her apparent neglect of the large contribution from black culture to American culture.
I would say that her key point is about the cultural norms that make some level of multiculturalism possible, the norms that underlie tolerance and respect for free speech and other viewpoints. And those norms are (I think) largely from the English Enlightenment. Those are the norms that she is concerned about. Would America be vastly poorer if we lost the contribution from black culture? Of course. But could we survive? I think so. But if we loose the cultural norm of tolerance, I'm worried it's GAME OVER.
I think (for all it's mocked) the so-called "Protestant" work ethic (as so ably demonstrated by many recent non-White, non-Protestant immigrants...) is an important piece of American culture well worth preserving. I think a stable man/woman marriage is an important aspect (and of course there's a line to be walked between "support for the norm" while remaining tolerant for those who do not follow it).
I agree, I don't want to literally go back to the 1950s. And we can't. But are there admirable aspects of that culture, aspects worth preserving, aspects currently threatened? I think the answer to that is yes.
Finally, whatever else you might think of her views, any institution (particularly a university that absolutely requires free exchange of thought to function) should defend her ability to express those views.
In the old days of Boston - the police were the night watch - the watch and ward - the keeper of the lights and safety of the streets in the night. Glenn, continues that tradition. Being the night watchman can be lonely and dangerous, but the call to duty can’t be ignored. Thanks for stepping up and keeping the lights on.
She frankly seems like a sloppy thinker, putting forth a litany of strawmans, ecological fallacies, and category errors when it comes to advancing her Western chauvinism. This sloppiness comes out in her inability to home in on a point, bouncing back and forth between grievances. Perhaps she is a first rate legal mind, but this conversation left me unimpressed—not serious ideas for the challenges facing our series and country. The giveaway is lending credence to a notion of “noticing” for forming ideas about race and racial conflict. “Noticing” won’t do, certainly not for convincing an economist, I would hope.
"Noticing" that decades of earnest state and institutional support to bring certain minority groups into the annals of the elite and higher education have come up with hot air and resulted in a culture of resentment is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the other side
I don’t think either of them grasp much what the broader conversation around porn and the other non-sex sex that is out there, a rapidly growing and changing industry.
I would call the male sex drive, in economic terms, an inelastic demand. People used to get married at 15 or die young from disease and war. Now sexual relationships are difficult or impossible to come by for huge swaths of the population, who can expect to live long, lonely, sexually unsatisfying lives. Porn fills a void. Is it the ideal solution? No. But it’s the best alternative for the people that are using it. Men and women (bearing in mind that both of them use this) stop watching porn because their sex drive is satisfied for the time being, or because they’re bored, or because they’re busy. Anyone that is experiencing sexual activity as “degrading” including in the context of masturbation, has other issues.
Given the increasingly hostile and disconnected environments and likely rapid technological developments in the world of AI and sex bots, I think it’s reasonable to expect people to continue to move away from actual relationships and towards virtual solutions that at best satisfy only one component of a relationship. Do I think it’s good? No. But show me a realistic alternative.
Claudine Gay is “gone”? She makes close to a million dollars teaching at the most prestigious institution in the world, does she not? Where can I sign up for that kind of cancellation?
This wild inversion of American values, where it's claimed that protesting and working to overturn the values of the founders is somehow the ultimate expression of their values, is so deeply rooted in our culture and meaning making classes that I don't know how to extricate it without some kind of huge cultural change where people turn off their TVs and start reading books again. Thanks for hosting this conversation Glenn, worthwhile as always.
I love Amy Wax. I will fight for her right to speak, but her position on immigration and culture needs to be challenged. She should read Bryan Caplan’s book: Open Borders. She should also read C. Bradley Thompson’s book: America’s Revolutionary Mind.
America already has many different cultures living within the broader society: Amish, Hasidic Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Mormons, and many others. They go their own way in terms of their beliefs and practices, but never violate others’ ways.
If I’m understanding your point correctly, you believe that our founding principles (liberty) belong to a dominant cultural group. If that’s your thesis, I disagree. That wasn’t the case in the America of 1776, although it grew out of the ideas of the Enlightenment in the main, but has been competing against other philosophical ideas that developed out Europe almost at the same time and made their way to America: Kant’s, Hegel’s, Marx’s, Dewey’s. These new cultural groups are larger in size and fueled the Progressive Movement. Unfortunately, this may serve to prove your point (but not as I think you intended). Immigrants on average do not come to America to continue being (fill in nationality here). The come here to be Americans. Sadly what that now means has been corrupted by the “dominant” group.
But I think that's exactly her point: America is fairly unique in that we have many different cultures living within the broader society. Who else does this? And why do we have that broader society? What cultural values and institutions allow those groups to co-exists? As Americans, we've had that "cultural infrastructure" for so long that we take it for granted. Not every culture has that infrastructure, not every culture values that infrastructure. And if "the group" that has that infrastructure stops being the dominant group in America, we could loose that cultural infrastructure of tolerance.
Another controversial conversation with Amy Wax. Episodes with her are never boring. I will add this one to my Amy and Glenn collection on my iPod. This is number 10, and follows a series of talks, which started all the way back in April of 2012 on Bloggingheadz.tv.
She rambles sometimes, but she is very much like the unfiltered mother or grandmother with a lot of wisdom. She says things in public that many people say behind closed doors. And that's why she's a problem for people in power.
I have come to see the smears against the Anglo world and its accomplishments as akin to the blood libels that Jews and other ethnic minorities suffered over the millennia at the hands of Christian & Muslim majorities. Dara Horn explains it better than anyone. It's about creating a permission structure to confiscate property and privilege so as to shift power and resources from one group to the other.
That this dynamic has had a negative impact on our universities is not sufficient to make them change course: - U Penn Law School is much more interested in making minority students happy than promoting the things Amy wants. That's where the money, prestige and good PR resides. There is no benefit for them to admit their minority admissions can't cut it. But they stand to benefit greatly from looking the other way.
What I have not heard is anyone, and this includes Amy who I know personally, quantify the degradation of standards. Will it impact our GDP in a serious way? Drive talented people out of the country? Exactly what is it that we lose if we place diversity above excellence. And do we have space and room to do that without loss of productivity. From my perspective, these are things voters should know. For example, I am someone who generally supported affirmative action as a concept. But I was always curious about the tipping point - at what point does diversity harm productivity to the extent that I would change my mind about it?
It's challenging keeping Amy Wax on point. Your summarizations of what she was saying were very helpful. She's like me in that she's a holistic thinker and therefore it may take her quite a while to get back to the point she's trying to make. Has she ever been on with John before?
Thank goodness that Glenn has the courage to continue to invite Amy Wax on his show after Penn has sanctioned her. Many on the Left and Right claim to value free speech, but Loury and Wax do the truly difficult thing: they show how freedom of speech is practiced.
Shame on you Glenn Loury, I quote him: "My God Amy! No wonder they call you a racist". Who the hell do you think you are calling her a racist? You offend me. I agree with Amy Wax, as do countless millions of Anglo-Christian Americans and people around the world. The reason the U.S. is in decline is because brilliant economists like Glen Loury, vacillate and flounder when it comes down to unfettered free speech. The 'Omars' are misguided and the 'wheels come off society' when leaders Glenn Loury are intellecually OBTUSE and STUNTED in their sensitivities about free speech. Glenn your culture deserves the stupidity of "shizzle by nizzle".
I wasn't calling her "racist." I was saying, "If you talk like that, small wonder people will call you 'racist'." It was an invitation to her to refute that charge...
I stand corrected. I admit that in review of your overall interview with Amy, my outrage in her defence was a little too strident. Prof. Wax is clear headed and makes excellent sense. Her overall point is that life is not anthropomotphically fair. In retrospect, I should have praised you for facilitating a platform for her to defend herself. I apologise for my own OBTUSENESS.
Amy Wax is for free speech as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. Free speech can include unpleasant speech and even hate speech, provided always that the speech does not breach the criminal law. Nobody is obliged to listen to free speech. The University of Pennsylvania law school is a bloody disgrace for punishing Amy Wax for her free speech.
Amy's argument reminds me of those European countries where governments take great efforts to preserve their culture - Italy, France, Quebec (not a country but still). The consequence of this is you get an ossified state and people seeking dynamism move elsewhere (to America). Glenn addressed this, but I don't think strongly enough. I don't see how you enact Amy's philosophy without destroying America. She talks about Victorian England and the "slow, cautious change" England allowed during that era. The end of that era pretty much marks the start of England's decline as a world power and global cultural influence.
I largely agree with her position on the importance of cultural norms and the threat to those norms from people not already inculcated in those norms. To your point Glenn, about her apparent neglect of the large contribution from black culture to American culture.
I would say that her key point is about the cultural norms that make some level of multiculturalism possible, the norms that underlie tolerance and respect for free speech and other viewpoints. And those norms are (I think) largely from the English Enlightenment. Those are the norms that she is concerned about. Would America be vastly poorer if we lost the contribution from black culture? Of course. But could we survive? I think so. But if we loose the cultural norm of tolerance, I'm worried it's GAME OVER.
I think (for all it's mocked) the so-called "Protestant" work ethic (as so ably demonstrated by many recent non-White, non-Protestant immigrants...) is an important piece of American culture well worth preserving. I think a stable man/woman marriage is an important aspect (and of course there's a line to be walked between "support for the norm" while remaining tolerant for those who do not follow it).
I agree, I don't want to literally go back to the 1950s. And we can't. But are there admirable aspects of that culture, aspects worth preserving, aspects currently threatened? I think the answer to that is yes.
Finally, whatever else you might think of her views, any institution (particularly a university that absolutely requires free exchange of thought to function) should defend her ability to express those views.
The “Little Caitlyn” protagonist and the “living in the 50s while talking” the 60s are so on point
In the old days of Boston - the police were the night watch - the watch and ward - the keeper of the lights and safety of the streets in the night. Glenn, continues that tradition. Being the night watchman can be lonely and dangerous, but the call to duty can’t be ignored. Thanks for stepping up and keeping the lights on.
Integrity, integrity, integrity. Glenn continue to stand strong as an intellectual and a man - an American Man!
She frankly seems like a sloppy thinker, putting forth a litany of strawmans, ecological fallacies, and category errors when it comes to advancing her Western chauvinism. This sloppiness comes out in her inability to home in on a point, bouncing back and forth between grievances. Perhaps she is a first rate legal mind, but this conversation left me unimpressed—not serious ideas for the challenges facing our series and country. The giveaway is lending credence to a notion of “noticing” for forming ideas about race and racial conflict. “Noticing” won’t do, certainly not for convincing an economist, I would hope.
"Noticing" that decades of earnest state and institutional support to bring certain minority groups into the annals of the elite and higher education have come up with hot air and resulted in a culture of resentment is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the other side
I don’t think either of them grasp much what the broader conversation around porn and the other non-sex sex that is out there, a rapidly growing and changing industry.
I would call the male sex drive, in economic terms, an inelastic demand. People used to get married at 15 or die young from disease and war. Now sexual relationships are difficult or impossible to come by for huge swaths of the population, who can expect to live long, lonely, sexually unsatisfying lives. Porn fills a void. Is it the ideal solution? No. But it’s the best alternative for the people that are using it. Men and women (bearing in mind that both of them use this) stop watching porn because their sex drive is satisfied for the time being, or because they’re bored, or because they’re busy. Anyone that is experiencing sexual activity as “degrading” including in the context of masturbation, has other issues.
Given the increasingly hostile and disconnected environments and likely rapid technological developments in the world of AI and sex bots, I think it’s reasonable to expect people to continue to move away from actual relationships and towards virtual solutions that at best satisfy only one component of a relationship. Do I think it’s good? No. But show me a realistic alternative.
Claudine Gay is “gone”? She makes close to a million dollars teaching at the most prestigious institution in the world, does she not? Where can I sign up for that kind of cancellation?
And this is after she’s proved to have committed misconduct at a level that should make her unemployable in any academic capacity.
This wild inversion of American values, where it's claimed that protesting and working to overturn the values of the founders is somehow the ultimate expression of their values, is so deeply rooted in our culture and meaning making classes that I don't know how to extricate it without some kind of huge cultural change where people turn off their TVs and start reading books again. Thanks for hosting this conversation Glenn, worthwhile as always.
I love Amy Wax. I will fight for her right to speak, but her position on immigration and culture needs to be challenged. She should read Bryan Caplan’s book: Open Borders. She should also read C. Bradley Thompson’s book: America’s Revolutionary Mind.
America already has many different cultures living within the broader society: Amish, Hasidic Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Mormons, and many others. They go their own way in terms of their beliefs and practices, but never violate others’ ways.
If I’m understanding your point correctly, you believe that our founding principles (liberty) belong to a dominant cultural group. If that’s your thesis, I disagree. That wasn’t the case in the America of 1776, although it grew out of the ideas of the Enlightenment in the main, but has been competing against other philosophical ideas that developed out Europe almost at the same time and made their way to America: Kant’s, Hegel’s, Marx’s, Dewey’s. These new cultural groups are larger in size and fueled the Progressive Movement. Unfortunately, this may serve to prove your point (but not as I think you intended). Immigrants on average do not come to America to continue being (fill in nationality here). The come here to be Americans. Sadly what that now means has been corrupted by the “dominant” group.
But I think that's exactly her point: America is fairly unique in that we have many different cultures living within the broader society. Who else does this? And why do we have that broader society? What cultural values and institutions allow those groups to co-exists? As Americans, we've had that "cultural infrastructure" for so long that we take it for granted. Not every culture has that infrastructure, not every culture values that infrastructure. And if "the group" that has that infrastructure stops being the dominant group in America, we could loose that cultural infrastructure of tolerance.
Another controversial conversation with Amy Wax. Episodes with her are never boring. I will add this one to my Amy and Glenn collection on my iPod. This is number 10, and follows a series of talks, which started all the way back in April of 2012 on Bloggingheadz.tv.
She rambles sometimes, but she is very much like the unfiltered mother or grandmother with a lot of wisdom. She says things in public that many people say behind closed doors. And that's why she's a problem for people in power.
Feel free to agree or disagree.
BTW, it's https://bloggingheads.tv/
Thanks!!
I have come to see the smears against the Anglo world and its accomplishments as akin to the blood libels that Jews and other ethnic minorities suffered over the millennia at the hands of Christian & Muslim majorities. Dara Horn explains it better than anyone. It's about creating a permission structure to confiscate property and privilege so as to shift power and resources from one group to the other.
That this dynamic has had a negative impact on our universities is not sufficient to make them change course: - U Penn Law School is much more interested in making minority students happy than promoting the things Amy wants. That's where the money, prestige and good PR resides. There is no benefit for them to admit their minority admissions can't cut it. But they stand to benefit greatly from looking the other way.
What I have not heard is anyone, and this includes Amy who I know personally, quantify the degradation of standards. Will it impact our GDP in a serious way? Drive talented people out of the country? Exactly what is it that we lose if we place diversity above excellence. And do we have space and room to do that without loss of productivity. From my perspective, these are things voters should know. For example, I am someone who generally supported affirmative action as a concept. But I was always curious about the tipping point - at what point does diversity harm productivity to the extent that I would change my mind about it?
It's challenging keeping Amy Wax on point. Your summarizations of what she was saying were very helpful. She's like me in that she's a holistic thinker and therefore it may take her quite a while to get back to the point she's trying to make. Has she ever been on with John before?
Thank goodness that Glenn has the courage to continue to invite Amy Wax on his show after Penn has sanctioned her. Many on the Left and Right claim to value free speech, but Loury and Wax do the truly difficult thing: they show how freedom of speech is practiced.
Shame on you Glenn Loury, I quote him: "My God Amy! No wonder they call you a racist". Who the hell do you think you are calling her a racist? You offend me. I agree with Amy Wax, as do countless millions of Anglo-Christian Americans and people around the world. The reason the U.S. is in decline is because brilliant economists like Glen Loury, vacillate and flounder when it comes down to unfettered free speech. The 'Omars' are misguided and the 'wheels come off society' when leaders Glenn Loury are intellecually OBTUSE and STUNTED in their sensitivities about free speech. Glenn your culture deserves the stupidity of "shizzle by nizzle".
I wasn't calling her "racist." I was saying, "If you talk like that, small wonder people will call you 'racist'." It was an invitation to her to refute that charge...
I stand corrected. I admit that in review of your overall interview with Amy, my outrage in her defence was a little too strident. Prof. Wax is clear headed and makes excellent sense. Her overall point is that life is not anthropomotphically fair. In retrospect, I should have praised you for facilitating a platform for her to defend herself. I apologise for my own OBTUSENESS.
Amy Wax is for free speech as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. Free speech can include unpleasant speech and even hate speech, provided always that the speech does not breach the criminal law. Nobody is obliged to listen to free speech. The University of Pennsylvania law school is a bloody disgrace for punishing Amy Wax for her free speech.