Some of you are going to love this and some of you are going to hate it: Amy Wax is back on The Glenn Show. Amy is easily one of my most controversial guests, and it’s easy to see why. She speaks her mind, she doesn’t try to sugarcoat her views, and she refuses to back down. For years now, Amy’s home institution, Penn Law, has been trying to shut her up and keep her out of the classroom. If they had their way, they’d likely void her tenure agreement and fire her. In my view, Amy has neither done nor said anything that falls outside the bounds of protected speech and the tenets of academic freedom. That a school charged with training our future lawyers, judges, and legal scholars would take these extreme measures should chill you to the bone, no matter how you feel about her views.
The pointed question Glenn asks about separating the empirical assessment of people’s abilities from the value of having them succeed in certain ways is an important one.
Particularly in medicine, the claim that the race of a doctor matching the race of the patient produces higher quality care is one that I see commonly circulated (though as far as I know, the studies don’t correct for confounders and there is no actual evidence that supports this conclusion). However, on a broader level, I think it is entirely plausible that there are a variety of benefits, not all of them easily measured, to diversity, even in the reductive DEI sense. I wish there were more black doctors.
However, even acknowledging that there might be differences in ability, or having a paradigm in which different considerations regarding workforce diversity are weighed against each other, suggests that the value of diversity is not infinite, and that absolute proportional representation of every group of people in every facet of life might not be worth the tradeoffs, and even that very left-leaning position is completely at odds with what is permissible to say in a DEI regime.
With regards to medical careers and standardized testing, I think it’s important to point out some non-obvious facts.
The US Medical Licensing exam was designed to be used in precisely the way described here: as a threshold. If you pass the test, you’re eligible to get a medical license. If you don’t you aren’t (pending possible retakes). That’s it. The test is now used to evaluate candidates for residency and fellowship training in medical specialties. That is not what it is designed for. People train in specific specialties, and the test is in general medicine. It is not clear that acing a test in general medicine makes you suited to be the best eye surgeon, or the best psychiatrist. The test is also administered by a national entity, which can and does put ideologically loaded questions in there. I’m not at liberty to discuss any specific questions that I might have had, but again I would not say that this test is necessarily a great standard.
What would be better? In my opinion, tests for specific specialties (i.e. the standardized test to get into neurology should focus on things that a neurologist needs to know), and in some cases tests which measured things like hand-eye coordination for the surgical specialties might be appropriate as well as knowledge tests.
I read Wax’s review of Murray’s book, (via link). For me, it was preaching to the choir. I have a suggestion for both Wax and Murray. Replace “cognitive ability” with “cognitive function”. Ability no matter which preceding adjective is attached- sounds like innate.
I suspect that parental presence of both father and mother effect child’s cognitive development. Childhood presence of mother and father may activate corresponding analysis at the level of micro-decision, (small but frequent decisions that humans make daily). There is a big difference in decision-making between [a person who unconsciously involves both parents] and [ a person who unconsciously involves less than both parents]. Children of two-parent households see in their parents templates for adult male and adult female. Children may modify these templates significantly in adulthood. But, children of one-parent households only have a template for one adult sex.
1) It's awful what Penn is doing to Wax. (Now, if she'd only sided with Hamas....)
2) I like Glenn's point about: Are we OK with the percentage being whatever it is, or do we want (for some social) reason to force a change?
a) this will require a double standard
b) (Glenn's concern) even blacks who met the higher bar will always be looked down on.
c) How much will society suffer because the standards are lowered? How dangerous is it to have dumber pilots, or engineers who aren't as good at designing airplanes that don't fall off? There is a real price in economic inefficiency to be paid.
Still, if we had some sense of the numbers we might well decide the price was worth it.
My real problem with the affirmative action group (who want to force a change to the percentage) is that if they really cared, they'd address root causes. Which might be some combination of:
a) Genetic. Making no claims. Just saying "Do we know enough to take this off the table?"
b) Economic. Rich vs poor matters.
c) Culture. Are smart blacks attacked for "acting white"?
d) Single parent families. This is obviously huge, and the fact that "no one" on the left will even talk about it makes me doubt their sincerity.
(I'd focus on single parent families. Fix this, and see how much problem remains...)
(As an aside, when it comes to sex-based differences, there's clearly preferences as well that would need to be considered -- even if male and female have identical innate intelligence, males have clear statistical preferences for some activities, females for other activities. Are genetic-based preferences that correlate with race possible?)
You're taking this way too seriously. Of course there are high & low IQ's in every racial group as are athletic ability or a musical ear, which is why racial realism as discussed is a ridiculous argument as per my original comment.
Sorry, dyslexic. Even if there is some genetic component to IQ or is established Pre-K, it is still the nurturing of the potential. I was being facetious as the race realists and anti-racists put so much stock in color.
I am a professor at a major business school and hate to admit that over forty years of teaching the number of A’s I have given to Blacks can be counted on the fingers of one hand, maybe two. That is a simple fact. Do what you may with that statistic.
I find this whole idea of "racial realism" ridiculous. On the full spectrum of color, from the darkest African blacks to the lightest Scandinavian whites, why AP Asians, Near East Asians & Jews on the left tail IQ wise and not the Norse? IT'S NURTURE. I mean if a Finn marries a Congolese would their children be only at the mean of the curve?
This may not be the best place to do this. (Actually, it might be the ideal place.)
A question for all Black subscribers to Glenn Loury: Do YOU believe in "race realism" as understood by the Jared Taylor's and Amy Wax's of the world? Do you believe that you/we as a people or a category are inherently handicapped intellectually and thereby *incapable* of achieving what others have achieved or can achieve?
And if you DON'T, why not? What's stopping you from getting on the Wax/Taylor train? After all, there's all this data that "proves" we can't do but so much, right?
I suspect that NONE of us believe this. I know I don't. Not even a smidgen. Partly because of the endless barrage of insincere arguments that hail from White nationalist sympathizers like Amy Wax. But that's just me.
Evidently, even Thomas Sowell is sick of this s***:
Count me as one who loves another discussion with Amy Wax on Glenn's show. Although her last appearance set me back a good bit of money donating to her "Go Fund Me" page.
I agree totally with Glenn that the persecution of Amy Wax is outrageous. Wax is correct to insist on merit in the selection process by which we choose who to train and educate for the skills modern society needs. What I think she is less clear about is her view of the relationship of natural intelligence and culture, in particular the culture of work and family life. No amount of raw, natural intelligence will do much good for a child growing up without a safe stable economically secure home life, without books, without a rich verbal interaction with loving, caring, rule-setting independent adults, and especially without a responsible father available. Simply dismantling the self-defeating policies of affirmative action and DEI propaganda at the level of high school and college, while absolutely necessary to fully benefit from existing talent, will not address the prior catastrophe of the cultural dysfunctions of the poor and especially poor blacks.
If University of Pennsylvania will allow me - I wish to append the Professor Wax hearing document as follows:
Section III: Major sanctions.
A requirement to note in her public appearances that Wax does not wear white after Labor Day.
Section IV: Recommendations
a. Professional Development.
I recommended that Wax be required to memorize and recite the Koran in entirety in Arabic.
b. Future Participation at Penn.
I recommend that her classes be attended by fashion-police. I volunteer, pick me. I promise to enforce the highest standards of fashion etiquette for students and professor.
I believe the key to this debate is something Glenn mentioned as a “side note.” Schools interpret test scores differently depending on the applicant’s background.
Liberals believe the test score gap reflects environment (poverty, racism) and therefore, disadvantaged individuals with lower scores have unrealized potential. They don’t view affirmative action as admitting people who are less capable.
The race realists believe you can’t close the gap through higher education, either because IQ is genetic or because it’s too late to intervene. Lower passing rates on things like medical boards and the bar seem to support the race realist position, but liberals would say the same environmental factors affect those outcomes, and they aren’t the true measure of someone’s potential in the profession.
Amy Wax talks as if liberals think, “Black people aren’t as capable, but it’s important to have 12% in every field anyway.” Liberals believe the double standard corrects for environmental factors and gives you the result you would have without racism.
Personally, I believe the disparities are due to environment, not genetics, but interventions should target younger children. Both to close the achievement gap and to cultivate interest in different professions, so that there can be a more diverse pipeline. Then use the same standard for everyone in higher ed.
(1): Wax allegedly violated professional standards by allegedly presenting topics in reckless disregard of scholarly standards and presenting misleading and partial information. Previous sentence summarizes every DEI program nationwide. Citing 2024 Penn discipline of Wax as precedent; every DEI program in nation must either correct such violation as relating to DEI program or be abolished asap.
(2): Wax allegedly made discriminating and disrespectful statements to specific targeted groups. Previous sentence applies to every DEI program nationwide. Citing 2024 Penn Discipline of Wax as precedent; every DEI program in nation must cease race discrimination or be abolished asap. You can quote me.
Well Mr Loury would we expect anything less from you? No…So, Amy, thanks for all your work and strength of character to stay in the mix. You are necessary! Are there other category of quotients included in your work besides IQ…for example AQ (Athletic)?
The pointed question Glenn asks about separating the empirical assessment of people’s abilities from the value of having them succeed in certain ways is an important one.
Particularly in medicine, the claim that the race of a doctor matching the race of the patient produces higher quality care is one that I see commonly circulated (though as far as I know, the studies don’t correct for confounders and there is no actual evidence that supports this conclusion). However, on a broader level, I think it is entirely plausible that there are a variety of benefits, not all of them easily measured, to diversity, even in the reductive DEI sense. I wish there were more black doctors.
However, even acknowledging that there might be differences in ability, or having a paradigm in which different considerations regarding workforce diversity are weighed against each other, suggests that the value of diversity is not infinite, and that absolute proportional representation of every group of people in every facet of life might not be worth the tradeoffs, and even that very left-leaning position is completely at odds with what is permissible to say in a DEI regime.
With regards to medical careers and standardized testing, I think it’s important to point out some non-obvious facts.
The US Medical Licensing exam was designed to be used in precisely the way described here: as a threshold. If you pass the test, you’re eligible to get a medical license. If you don’t you aren’t (pending possible retakes). That’s it. The test is now used to evaluate candidates for residency and fellowship training in medical specialties. That is not what it is designed for. People train in specific specialties, and the test is in general medicine. It is not clear that acing a test in general medicine makes you suited to be the best eye surgeon, or the best psychiatrist. The test is also administered by a national entity, which can and does put ideologically loaded questions in there. I’m not at liberty to discuss any specific questions that I might have had, but again I would not say that this test is necessarily a great standard.
What would be better? In my opinion, tests for specific specialties (i.e. the standardized test to get into neurology should focus on things that a neurologist needs to know), and in some cases tests which measured things like hand-eye coordination for the surgical specialties might be appropriate as well as knowledge tests.
I read Wax’s review of Murray’s book, (via link). For me, it was preaching to the choir. I have a suggestion for both Wax and Murray. Replace “cognitive ability” with “cognitive function”. Ability no matter which preceding adjective is attached- sounds like innate.
I suspect that parental presence of both father and mother effect child’s cognitive development. Childhood presence of mother and father may activate corresponding analysis at the level of micro-decision, (small but frequent decisions that humans make daily). There is a big difference in decision-making between [a person who unconsciously involves both parents] and [ a person who unconsciously involves less than both parents]. Children of two-parent households see in their parents templates for adult male and adult female. Children may modify these templates significantly in adulthood. But, children of one-parent households only have a template for one adult sex.
Just a vibe. I find the tenor of dialogue going on here has changed. Fewer commentators and a less broadly discursive, exploratory tone.
Really interesting!
1) It's awful what Penn is doing to Wax. (Now, if she'd only sided with Hamas....)
2) I like Glenn's point about: Are we OK with the percentage being whatever it is, or do we want (for some social) reason to force a change?
a) this will require a double standard
b) (Glenn's concern) even blacks who met the higher bar will always be looked down on.
c) How much will society suffer because the standards are lowered? How dangerous is it to have dumber pilots, or engineers who aren't as good at designing airplanes that don't fall off? There is a real price in economic inefficiency to be paid.
Still, if we had some sense of the numbers we might well decide the price was worth it.
My real problem with the affirmative action group (who want to force a change to the percentage) is that if they really cared, they'd address root causes. Which might be some combination of:
a) Genetic. Making no claims. Just saying "Do we know enough to take this off the table?"
b) Economic. Rich vs poor matters.
c) Culture. Are smart blacks attacked for "acting white"?
d) Single parent families. This is obviously huge, and the fact that "no one" on the left will even talk about it makes me doubt their sincerity.
(I'd focus on single parent families. Fix this, and see how much problem remains...)
(As an aside, when it comes to sex-based differences, there's clearly preferences as well that would need to be considered -- even if male and female have identical innate intelligence, males have clear statistical preferences for some activities, females for other activities. Are genetic-based preferences that correlate with race possible?)
You're taking this way too seriously. Of course there are high & low IQ's in every racial group as are athletic ability or a musical ear, which is why racial realism as discussed is a ridiculous argument as per my original comment.
Sorry, dyslexic. Even if there is some genetic component to IQ or is established Pre-K, it is still the nurturing of the potential. I was being facetious as the race realists and anti-racists put so much stock in color.
I am a professor at a major business school and hate to admit that over forty years of teaching the number of A’s I have given to Blacks can be counted on the fingers of one hand, maybe two. That is a simple fact. Do what you may with that statistic.
I find this whole idea of "racial realism" ridiculous. On the full spectrum of color, from the darkest African blacks to the lightest Scandinavian whites, why AP Asians, Near East Asians & Jews on the left tail IQ wise and not the Norse? IT'S NURTURE. I mean if a Finn marries a Congolese would their children be only at the mean of the curve?
This may not be the best place to do this. (Actually, it might be the ideal place.)
A question for all Black subscribers to Glenn Loury: Do YOU believe in "race realism" as understood by the Jared Taylor's and Amy Wax's of the world? Do you believe that you/we as a people or a category are inherently handicapped intellectually and thereby *incapable* of achieving what others have achieved or can achieve?
And if you DON'T, why not? What's stopping you from getting on the Wax/Taylor train? After all, there's all this data that "proves" we can't do but so much, right?
I suspect that NONE of us believe this. I know I don't. Not even a smidgen. Partly because of the endless barrage of insincere arguments that hail from White nationalist sympathizers like Amy Wax. But that's just me.
Evidently, even Thomas Sowell is sick of this s***:
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/spock-versus-the-social-justice-warriors/
At any rate, if you wanna speak your piece, please chime in.
Count me as one who loves another discussion with Amy Wax on Glenn's show. Although her last appearance set me back a good bit of money donating to her "Go Fund Me" page.
I agree totally with Glenn that the persecution of Amy Wax is outrageous. Wax is correct to insist on merit in the selection process by which we choose who to train and educate for the skills modern society needs. What I think she is less clear about is her view of the relationship of natural intelligence and culture, in particular the culture of work and family life. No amount of raw, natural intelligence will do much good for a child growing up without a safe stable economically secure home life, without books, without a rich verbal interaction with loving, caring, rule-setting independent adults, and especially without a responsible father available. Simply dismantling the self-defeating policies of affirmative action and DEI propaganda at the level of high school and college, while absolutely necessary to fully benefit from existing talent, will not address the prior catastrophe of the cultural dysfunctions of the poor and especially poor blacks.
If University of Pennsylvania will allow me - I wish to append the Professor Wax hearing document as follows:
Section III: Major sanctions.
A requirement to note in her public appearances that Wax does not wear white after Labor Day.
Section IV: Recommendations
a. Professional Development.
I recommended that Wax be required to memorize and recite the Koran in entirety in Arabic.
b. Future Participation at Penn.
I recommend that her classes be attended by fashion-police. I volunteer, pick me. I promise to enforce the highest standards of fashion etiquette for students and professor.
I believe the key to this debate is something Glenn mentioned as a “side note.” Schools interpret test scores differently depending on the applicant’s background.
Liberals believe the test score gap reflects environment (poverty, racism) and therefore, disadvantaged individuals with lower scores have unrealized potential. They don’t view affirmative action as admitting people who are less capable.
The race realists believe you can’t close the gap through higher education, either because IQ is genetic or because it’s too late to intervene. Lower passing rates on things like medical boards and the bar seem to support the race realist position, but liberals would say the same environmental factors affect those outcomes, and they aren’t the true measure of someone’s potential in the profession.
Amy Wax talks as if liberals think, “Black people aren’t as capable, but it’s important to have 12% in every field anyway.” Liberals believe the double standard corrects for environmental factors and gives you the result you would have without racism.
Personally, I believe the disparities are due to environment, not genetics, but interventions should target younger children. Both to close the achievement gap and to cultivate interest in different professions, so that there can be a more diverse pipeline. Then use the same standard for everyone in higher ed.
In response to Professor Wax Hearing document;
Section II: Summary.
(1): Wax allegedly violated professional standards by allegedly presenting topics in reckless disregard of scholarly standards and presenting misleading and partial information. Previous sentence summarizes every DEI program nationwide. Citing 2024 Penn discipline of Wax as precedent; every DEI program in nation must either correct such violation as relating to DEI program or be abolished asap.
(2): Wax allegedly made discriminating and disrespectful statements to specific targeted groups. Previous sentence applies to every DEI program nationwide. Citing 2024 Penn Discipline of Wax as precedent; every DEI program in nation must cease race discrimination or be abolished asap. You can quote me.
Well Mr Loury would we expect anything less from you? No…So, Amy, thanks for all your work and strength of character to stay in the mix. You are necessary! Are there other category of quotients included in your work besides IQ…for example AQ (Athletic)?