Main Edition
US
FR
September 25, 2024 - 4:00pm
If this week’s one-year suspension of law professor Amy Wax for “incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic actions and statements” teaches us anything, it’s the pervasiveness of the moral double standard defining elite spaces today.
Surely, the remarks attributed to Wax over the years are unprofessional, offensive, derogatory and so unbecoming of a tenured Ivy League law professor that even her defenders acknowledge she pushes the outer limits of tolerance. But over the past decade, scores of academics, journalists and nonprofit leaders have lost their jobs and ruined their reputations over much less serious accusations than those lodged against Wax, an outspoken conservative refusenik at the University of Pennsylvania.
According to allegations and news reports over the years, Wax has publicly stated that “our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites”, that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites”, that “gay couples are not fit to raise children”, and that “women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men.” Heady stuff indeed, but Wax insists she is merely telling the truth that woke elites refuse to acknowledge. Her defenders agree: they say that academic freedom is designed to protect controversial speech, and that the principle of free speech trumps the social justice imperative to create non-threatening, inoffensive, comfortable spaces for the intersectional identity demographic.
Students have been trying to get the incendiary professor ousted ever since Wax co-authored a 2017 opinion piece arguing that “all cultures are not equal”, in which, according to the New York Times, she blamed some working-class whites, inner-city black people and Hispanic immigrants for dysfunctional values.
As troubling as Wax’s comments are, her statements are in the same league as numerous declarations in Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling DEI tutorial, White Fragility, the 2018 book that is found on every academic and corporate antiracist reading list. White Fragility collapses the distinction between “white” and “white supremacy”, offering such sweeping claims as “Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identity as white people”, and “the white collective fundamentally hates blackness.” In DiAngelo’s telling, white people are socially programmed for domination, control, power and racial self-dealing.
Some DEI trainers have advocated for “abolishing whiteness” and counselled white people to “be less white”, a form of moral instruction that DEI advocates insist is not personal or prejudicial. DiAngelo’s casual anti-whiteness is on par with boilerplate DEI language about white culture being rooted in entitlement, privilege and other demeaning stereotypes catalogued in various DEI documents.
Most importantly, though, for all her lapses in tactfulness, Wax is not prone to eliminationist rhetoric, which makes her unlike some radical professors who have been caught on video advocating for shooting or exterminating white people, or characterising whiteness as “a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility”. This often happens with the full protection of their academic employer defending the inviolable principles of free speech.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIDK. Sounds like whataboutism to me. I know nothing about this Wax character so I can’t comment on her beliefs, but defending her because progressive loons say even crappier things is not a strong argument IMO.
Maybe, but I think the thing is that controversial statements such as she’s made ought to be the beginning of a conversation, and from the to-and-fro of open debate something that is close to actionable truth emerge. Without free speech this can’t happen. As far as I’m concerned the likes of Robin D’Angelo can say whatever she wants, and it can be contradicted. Likewise the other side of the fence. Free speech is for everyone, or you don’t have it at all For malicious and literally harmful speech there are libel laws. Academics commenting on general matters within the sphere of Social Studies ought to be able to say what they want, and have it confirmed, derided, mocked or cheered by their peers, fans, detractors and most important of all students.
And it does rather look, as the article suggests, that there is a double standard whereby people with the ‘right’ kinds of opinions can say things that are obviously racist, and people like Ms Wax can’t make claims that are construed as racist notwithstanding the fact that she may have evidence to support them.
Agreed.
Let’s face it; she’s not adding anything worthwhile to anyone’s education with this sort of rhetoric. Not very professional.
She does.
She is telling the truths which woke left wants left unspoken because they undermine their world view.
Surely this though:
she blamed some working-class whites, inner-city black people and Hispanic immigrants for dysfunctional values.
Contradicts this:
“our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites”, that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites”, that “gay couples are not fit to raise children”, and that “women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men.
If she is blaming working class white people and their dysfunctional values (alongside hispanics and black people) surely she can’t then say more ‘whites and fewer non whites’ would be better?
I would be able to take her more seriously if she didn’t have statements that contradict each other.
She sounds like she has many issues.
Also if women are less knowledgeable than men in general how does she know that black men don’t on average have a higher cognitive ability than white women? In which case surely white and black men would be better at running things together, without women interfering?
Also she is rude. There is nothing wrong with being slightly dysfunctional.
The way to defeat woke is not to be the mirror image / photographic negative but to expose how extreme, hypocritical and downright wrong they are by showing that we are the sane ones, who can present coherent arguments, without being offensive to minorities or those who disagree with us.
I disagree. I think that in the long run the only way to defeat the woke is by instigating a counter long march through the institutions, culminating in the deprival of their housing, livelihoods, internet access, and all the benefits of citizenship. That is how we deal with these racist misogynist paedophile apologists.
Doesn’t work. Otherwise it would have been defeated already.
The Woke control the means of information production. They tell people who is an “expert” and who is an extremist. They share your vocabulary but not your dictionary. Until normal people understand how progressive platitudes in the information they digest work they won’t be persuaded by anything. Woke concepts about race, tolerance, rights and etc contain double meanings. They use words like resiliance, self-improvement, Democracy, Justice and are talking about something completely different from your dictionary understanding.
You make an important point about the left’s Gramscian torturing of language, so that it no longer means what the actual words employed define. For e.g. pharmaceutical and surgical mutilation being redefined as ‘gender affirming care’. We even allow the left to call themselves progressives, when most of their ideas and world view are deeply regressive.
Basically, usual approach of Communists.
Since most woke parasites are cultural Marxists, what fo you expect?
But is truth offensive?
Just look at Amy Wax statements about black people IQ, fewer non-whites making for better, more cohesive society etc.
To solve problems you need to diagnose them correctly.
Problem is woke don’t like diagnosis based on facts and data which contradicts their moronic views about society.
The only “troubling” thing about Amy Wax’s comments is that our ‘opinion forming’ chattering classes are now collectively in the grip of a clutch of pseudo-values so absurd that – only a few years ago – they would have seemed like they must have been just kidding. ‘Gay couples are not fit to raise children’?…. well only a couple of decades ago – before the absurd deification of all kinds sexual dysphoria – 90% of decent people (including probably homosexuals themselves) would have said that was just common sense. And she’s also come up against her group-thinking witless colleagues for calling out their absurd – and phoney – racism-through-the-looking-glass, white-intelligentsia guilt-trip-by-proxy syndrome. Poor Amy Wax. Well she gets my vote. Oh how diversity does narrow minds. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Amy Wax said ‘I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class and rarely, rarely, in the top half. I can think of one or two students … in my required first-year course.”’
Ted Ruger of Pennsylvania explicitly stated that Wax’s claims were false.
He declared that “black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law”.
He emphasized that it was “imperative” for him as dean to state that Wax’s claims were false.
In response to Wax’s comments, Ruger barred her from teaching required first-year courses.
As it happens, U of Penn. publish the names of honors students
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/12596-2023-honors-and-distinction
And pictures of each student are available online, so it is easy to check that Wax was telling it like it is.
But if you were a top-flight black law student would you pick a university where Wax teaches, or somewhere else? Depends how contrarian you are, of course, but also how much you can be bothered with her on a weekly basis.
So the black students admitted to U. of Penn. are not very good, but get in anyway?
Perhaps this tells us something about affirmative action.
We in the UK are still wondering how the staggeringly ignorant David Lammy (our Foreign Sec) graduated from Harvard Law. Example: during an infamous general knowledge quiz he said that Henry VII followed Henry VIII. There were many more like this (eg his answer to the question, in what county is Red Leicester cheese made?) – the whole quiz is on youtube.
I liked that he thought Marie Curie’s surnane was Antoinette. But who knows what he studied at Harvard.
‘“on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites”,’
After John Hopkins cut affirmative action following a Supreme Court ruling,Black admissions fell from 13% of the student body to 5.7%
We can’t conclude from this that over half of all Black medical students are affirmative action placements, as this is only one medical university.
For the love of God, stop capitalising “black”.
That would be a sound argument if you hadn’t capitalised White below.
Its either black and white or Black and White surely.
God loves all people.
Why do you think it would be any different in other medical schools?
All this affirmative action does is to make people skeptical of any black person in senior position.
Just look at David “brainbox” Lamy, Dianne “comprehensive is no good for my son” Abbott and Sharon “what is retail?” White of John Lewis.
Plus all the black MPs in Labour Party.
So real talent (I met a few in uk) is tarred with the same brush.
It’s Johns Hopkins. At least know the name of the institution you are quoting.
A teacher should be able to hold and expound any view/opinion. But if it is suspected that those views stand in the way of his/her duty of fairness towards all students, then his/her position as a teacher becomes untenable.
Up to a point:
A teacher/individual/employee should be able to hold and express any opinion they like.
An examiner/employer/official should not act on prejudice, with respect to results/earnings/legal treatment. If there is a conflict between their opinion and acting without prejudice, then they have a duty and responsibility to put their opinion aside, at least while at work.
A principal that most people learn when they go from only being in charge of themselves to having responsibility for others – ie. employer/manager/parent.
“on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites”
*on average, blacks have lower cognitive ability than Whites
*on average this commenter displays low cognitive ability.
‘working-class whites, inner-city black people and Hispanic immigrants for dysfunctional values’
Working class white. Guilty as charged. She is right. I find my dysfunctional values and habits are an excellent argument against white supremacy though.
‘Some DEI trainers have advocated for “abolishing whiteness” and counselled white people to “be less white”, a form of moral instruction that DEI advocates insist is not personal or prejudicial’
Sounds like some American bullsh*t. What. I think my brain might commit suicide if I read some of the literature they give to these dei trainers. How on earth can you be ‘less white’? There are no words.
‘As troubling as Wax’s comments are’
Allow me, the author of the article, to distance myself from this lunatic. I’m not sure if I’m brave enough to entirely defend her right to free speech.
‘Her defenders agree: they say that academic freedom is designed to protect controversial speech, and that the principle of free speech trumps the social justice imperative to create non-threatening, inoffensive, comfortable spaces for the intersectional identity demographic.’
Life can be threatening, offensive and uncomfortable. People that think they can change that are not wise.
‘ offensive, insensitive, dehumanising language’
I do that too. Good for her. I bet cyber force hate her too.
I think the point is: she is there to teach law, not to spout her opinions, regardless of what they. When I was in college, many moons ago, my professors taught their subject matter. I can’t remember any of them adding their opinions all the time. I was there to learn, not to listen to opinions.
Fair enough, as far as I can tell, in American universities at the moment, there is an enormous amount of nonsense being spouted on both sides. This lady has contradicted herself by saying white working class people are dysfunctional, then saying that she thinks more white people would be better. So as far as I’m concerned she is a bit of a nutter and I wonder how she got the job in the first place.
I don’t know what you do in American universities right now, but it sounds like ours aren’t much better. Going to learn, rather than listen to a persons contradictary opinions though sounds good.
Hypocrisy and irrationality are alive and well in academe.
It took me a while – I had to threaten to sue the hospital for racism – but I managed to get their birth certificate description of my skin colour changed. It says my preferred colour now, as of course it should. And I’ll sue anyone who says that it is what it is instead of what it isn’t!
Assuming you are joking – How many DEI documents will you use to sue. How many are there. How crazy is this sh*t.
I am a different color in winter than in summer. What color am I to claim on official forms?
Murawski suggests that DiAngelo and her fellow travellers are significantly worse than Wax (“Wax is not prone to eliminationist rhetoric”) but statements like:
“radical professors who have been caught on video advocating for shooting or exterminating white people”
and
“Wax has publicly stated that “our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites””
are equivalent since they both advocate ethnic cleansing, although Wax (as quoted in this article) is less clear on the means by which this would be achieved.
No, first, Wax’s view was not state as a course of action, just a cultural observation. And as a course of action, it could be accomplished by increasing immigration from Europe (and Australia and New Zealand) and curtailing immigration from the “global South”.
Go and see Am I Racist?, it’s the antidote to all the woke, progressive BS we’ve had to put up with for the past couple of decades. Plus it’s funny and you’ll laugh out loud at the idiot DiAngelo making an utter fool of herself without any assistance from anyone.
I’m surprised the author of this article doesn’t even mention the movie, which is quite telling.
In fact, the disciplining of Wax is a sad day for my alma mater. Universities should have a Voltairian “Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire,” commitment to free speech, and should meet objectionable ideas with reasoned objections in a public forum, not by curtailing faculty members duties to satisfy mewling student mobs.
Of course, the need to meet them with reasoned objections is difficult when what is being objected to is the observation of unpopular facts, rather than ideas that could be disputed. So censorship it is, academic freedom (which predates “the Enlightenment”) and “Enlightenment” values be damned.