Waxing Philosophical
From a Q&A at the American Philosophical Society
In October, the American Philosophical Society invited me to Philadelphia for an event about Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative hosted by Peter Dougherty. The first half of the event features me answering questions about the book from Peter, and the second half features questions from the audience. If you’ve read the book or taken in any of the related content I’ve posted here over the last eight months or so, you have a sense of what the book is about. (It makes a great holiday gift, by the way.) But I wanted to focus on a couple audience questions, because they speak to issues broader than the book. You can watch the whole video above, and the questions under discussion start here.
Two questioners ask about my conversations with Amy Wax over the years. We were in Philadelphia, after all, very close to the University of Pennsylvania, where Amy is on the law school faculty. I might have expected she would come up. Two questioners ask about Amy’s appearances on my show, and they seem perplexed. Why would I repeatedly invite a figure who is, in their view, so toxic, so prejudiced, so wrong?
I don’t think Amy Wax is wrong about everything, though I do disagree with quite a bit of what she says. But as I say to the questioner, in some sense her “wrongness” is precisely why I do keep having her on. Whatever Penn says about the reasons behind its sanctioning of Wax, it’s unthinkable to me that they would take such punitive measures against an analogous figure from the left. I do think that, whatever else she’s accused of, she is being punished for her political views.
If Amy Wax is as “wrong” as she’s made out to be, then tell me why. Make a case that’s better than hers. If she’s as backward as she’s made out to be, it shouldn’t be hard. As I say in response to the questioners, she’s allowed to be wrong. If Penn is trying to shut her up, I’m going to give her space to talk (occasionally). We debate each other here, and the audience can decide whose evidence is stronger and who makes the more persuasive argument.
Apparently my willingness to talk to Amy drives some people up a wall. Good. It’s important to encounter ideas that vex you, and interrogating those ideas is a healthy thing. I understand my own ideas a little better after working them out in a sparring match—that’s the only way to truly test them. Removing “wrong” ideas from the ring only weakens “right” ideas. Without exercise, they’ll atrophy. And if they can’t win the fight, maybe those ideas weren’t so right after all.
This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
QUESTIONER 1: Hi. Thank you. I would not describe myself as a black conservative. I probably would describe myself as a black liberal. But I have a feeling that you and I would agree about 99 percent of the things that there are in the world to agree or disagree about. So I don't think there's some huge, [unbridgeable] divide between people who are more conservative and black or more liberal and black.
But there's one aspect of your recent affiliations I'd love you to share some thoughts about, because I'm very puzzled by this. You're here in Philadelphia, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School is up the street. And there's a professor at our law school—I'm on the faculty there as well—called Amy Wax. She often appears on your podcast with you. She has said some of the most demeaning and outrageous things about people of all different backgrounds and colors. And I'm wondering, what is it about her that you find interesting, compelling, important that has led her to be invited to your podcast so many times.
I'm just very curious. Thank you.
GLENN LOURY: I don't know about how many, but yes, she's appeared on the podcast over the last five, six years, more than once. And she appeared most recently ... oh, five times? You counted? She appeared most recently in the wake of her sanction by the authorities at the University of Pennsylvania for conduct unbecoming of a member of their faculty, as they phrase it.
Now, I think you would have to acknowledge that when she has appeared and has given voice to some of her controversial opinions, I've pushed back. I haven't agreed with her, I haven't endorsed her views. I've argued with her. But it's a free speech point for me. She gets to have noxious opinions, and the best response to her noxious opinions are arguments, not cancellation or condemnation for having those opinions. They are refutations of those arguments.
I thought and think that she's been railroaded at the University of Pennsylvania for basically having views that people regard to be unpopular. I think the we could go into the particulars and the details. She's a racial realist. That is to say, she thinks that there are deep differences on average between racial population groups relevant to accounting for disparities in the achievements of the members of these racial groups. I take issue with her on that, but she's not the only person who thinks that. Thinking those erroneous and disturbing thoughts should not be a crime.
I call her “my friend, Amy Wax,” and it's a bit of an ironic framework, because I don't know her very well at all. We're not actually friends. But I know that's going to drive a listener, perhaps you, crazy to hear her befriended by this African American, given the noxious views that she holds. And perhaps there's a certain amount of irony in it.
That's what I intend. I intend to push her into your face to a certain degree, on behalf of the principle that she gets to be wrong. It's a university. It should be an open discourse here. We can't preclude people from participation in it because we disagree with them That's my response to you
QUESTIONER 1: Very briefly. Just for your benefit and the benefit of others in the room who may have similar concerns, it wasn't for her beliefs that she was sanctioned by the university. Because indeed, many Penn professors have had noxious beliefs over the years. I've been the vice provost for faculty at Penn, and I can tell you lots and lots of people say horrible things. It's for her conduct. She has actually hurt people and violated university rules, not just vague concepts and principles of academic freedom, intellectual inquiry.
We can talk later, but I just wanted to make sure it's not about the beliefs, it's about the conduct. And I understand as an outsider, you're not privy to the conduct.
Okay. She disputes that, but okay.
QUESTIONER 2: Thank you. It's great to hear from you and this great conversation. I guess I would just ask, though, you said this was a matter of free speech. Does that mean she deserves to be on your show five times? Does that mean of all the voices that you say she represents, that she gets the legitimacy of being in your company like that?
And I guess that goes to the heart of the question I actually had for you, which is this question about identity politics. I'm making an inference, and I apologize if I'm wrong. But the inference I'm making is that identity politics is a kind of an imminence within those communities from which it springs, rather than sometimes it being imposed by those reactionary forces you just mentioned. Amy Wax feels like one of those reactionary forces you mentioned. And I feel like free speech as a principle is something that is vindicated when the right needs to be vindicated. But it doesn't mean that her status or her presence on an Ivy league faculty grants her more freedom in a way, which it sounds like what she's getting.
I know there's a question in there.
This is the Nazis marching in Skokie, and the ACLU saying they get to march. This is the burning of the flag during wartime, and somebody's saying they get to burn it.
QUESTIONER 2: She's created an atmosphere where it's impossible for African American law students to succeed. I don't think it's the same thing.
I think that can be argued. And don't make me defend Amy Wax, here. I'm not responsible for Amy Wax. Five times over however many years, whatever. But I would appreciate it if you would attend to the actual conversations that I've had with her, not the caricature of her, this demonic thing. What were the contents of those conversations?
Oh, but I am in Philadelphia. I just figured it out. Penn is probably a stone's throw from here in one direction or another. I just figured it out. I should have come prepared.
Glenn, I initially thought that you were distancing yourself from Amy Wax, and for all I know, you were. I thought it was a low and cheap shot by Jefferson to defame Amy Wax ex parte. Shame on Jefferson Law School. However, you recovered and Amy Wax came out 'just fine'.
I am a caucasion mirror image of Glenn Loury, and share him views but from a white cultural perspective. Of course, Glenn is brilliant and famnous and I'm not.
Let me tell a story about a law school Dean that he shared with me over twenty years ago. It is a pre Amy Wax story. At least as we've heard it. The dean was at the University of San Diego. He was recounting that years before when he was a member of the California bar committee that made up the law school exam. He, and others, were mystified that minorities overall did poorly on the bar exam. They considered that it was their way of thinking. More concrete than analytical. That could be explained by cultural or racial realism factors. No matter. The point was what to do. Their idea was to put an interpretive section on the exam. Here’s a memo from your supervising attorney. Now figure out how to respond (concretely). That was implemented. But, the cohort did worse than before. So, like Wax, how do you talk about that puzzle? Can it be fixed? Now, twenty some years later, and I don't know the answer, has that difference changed? How should we talk about it in our rear view mirrors and what we see today. Congrats to Glenn for opening up this discussion with Wax. Let's find some answers to how we think about difficult issues.