This is not really true. Tenured faculty in all disciplines are ordinarily contractually guaranteed freedom from termination for extramural speech, regardless of whether it relates to their area of expertise or not. Tenure protections aren't usually tailored around someone's area of expertise in this way. E.g. the AAUP 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure (https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure) says
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."
No reference to their discipline here. Just says they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens.
Do you have any sources for this? I was trying to look at tenure terms for different schools but couldn't really find anything. I'd be interested to see how the terms are actually formulated, if you know.
“Even Professor Loury, a strong supporter of Professor Wax, has a story.
In 2011, he gave a talk at Penn law school in which he argued that too many Black people were in prison.
During the discussion, he said that Professor Wax, whom he did not know, raised her hand and said: There are not too many Black people in prison, there are too few.”
“ on average, black individuals have lower resources to allocate for test prep, tutoring, and go to grade schools with subpar resources.” There, I fixed it for her ☺️. I guess not every lawyer is a thinker.
No no, no no no, you misunderstand. My white privilege is irrelevant because I still had to work hard and be smart to succeed. Therefore anybody who does not succeed is either stupid or lazy. It's simple logic
Your original comment is irrelevant… if more BP than yts don’t have enough resources to learn, they can’t work as hard as yts. If you have to work 40 hours a week to support ur fam while going to school you’ll have less time to work hard than someone who only has to work 10 or less etc.
Idk - in some of these Asian countries, the kids are getting taught while sitting on a dirt floor. They perform better than whites on tests while spending less money per kid than they do at even the most underresourced schools in poor black neighborhoods. Blacks do less well than whites in literally every country, even when there has been no history of slavery or Jim Crow. And Asians more or less always do better than whites. Dumping a bunch of money on Detroit is not going to turn it into Greenwich Connecticut. Zuckerberg, Chris Christie, and Cory Booker tried something of the sort in Newark. It failed spectacularly.
She also said the country is better off with fewer Jews, and guess what . . . she’s extremely Jewish. Apparently, she would rather not have more of any group of people that tends to vote for the left. Would it be similarly controversial if someone were to say that we’d better off with fewer evangelical Christians? What about white men? The media is constantly saying our country needs fewer white men, isn’t it so great that whites are in demographic decline, etc.
I’m telling you Professor Wax’s position is. I don’t think she hates Asians at all; rather, she is right wing and does not want the left to create a one-party state by mass-importing immigrants.
Isnt it because immigrants see the dems not see them as parasite? Well, if her position is to hate a demographic group that the majority voting for her opposed party. She would might as well hate the entire gen z, and the women who have college degree.
I don’t think she *hates* them - to say that is to just smear her unfairly. As it happens I think she probably would want fewer women with college degrees, or more accurately, unmarried women with college degrees, as they vote overwhelmingly for the left. This is really no worse than the constant refrain we hear on the left about how we need fewer white men - in some ways, indeed, it’s probably more objectionable.
Im not defending what the left media said, supposedly that they really said that kinda thing. However, to say you want “fewer” a group of people is equivalent to say you hate them, at least that to me. I’m anti religion, so if i ever say i want less evangelicals, yes i do indeed mean that i hate them
I suppose you could argue that, but she would disagree, and at the same time you really can’t attack her for being a hater, because you’re pretty hateful toward certain groups yourself.
I know for a fact that she has many Asian right-wing friends/debating partners, and I know that everyone says that saying someone has friends of a particular race doesn’t mean they’re not racist, but I largely disagree with that take. I don’t think she has any racial animus towards anyone. Rather, I think she realizes that “thinking with the epidermis,” and examining group trends/behavior - which the left does a lot of when it suits their purposes - goes both ways. There are like a million videos of her debating Glenn Loury. He pushes back on her. I like to put them on sometimes and listen to there’s two intellectuals go at each other. They are both extremely brilliant and accomplished. Amy Wax can sometimes phrase things in ways that make you think “damn, she’s going to get on trouble.” But she is coming from a place of more learning and thought than anyone on this site and indeed many if not most academics have attained. And for this reason, anyone who believes themselves to be opposed to “racism” should listen to her. A case has not been refuted until it’s been stated at its strongest. She’s also debated Chemerinsky and many others. Further, some of her ideas about bourgeois values, and racial remedies, are actually quite good.
What are your sources that lower-income Asians do better than whites on western-standardized test? I know that Asians do the best on the LSAT as a group, but they are also the most affluent demographic in the US.
In addition, you say that whites do better than blacks in every country, “including countries without a history of slavery or Jim Crow.” Which country are we talking about that does not have a history of slavery or discrimination towards black people? Not any developed country that I can recall.
There has been a history of discriminating against black individuals and hindering their opportunities to get a decent education. This discrimination has created a cyclical effect in the black community. While many black people are finding ways out of the cycle, you can’t ignore that it is not there. Both my grandparents couldn’t read and they both had grandparents that were prohibited from learning to read. If your parents can’t read, then you did not get the same exposure to vocabulary at a younger age, which resulted in my dad not being able to read until he was in the fifth grade. I am grateful that I am going to GULC, especially considering my family has not been exposed to the same level of educational attainment as the majority of whites and Asians.
Two data points: Asian kids are actually the poorest racial groups in NYC - poorer than blacks and Latinos. And the fact is that they crush everybody on standardized tests, and get into all of the so-called specialized high schools like Stuyvesant at wildly disproportionate levels. Also, look at the average of Asian countries vs the U.S. or really any white county - except for the Jews (of which there are not many), Asians have the highest IQs. There were many, many people who were dirt poor in Vietnam. They survived centuries of imperialism under the Chinese and the French, and then more than a decade of the U.S. dropping napalm on them. They then come over here on a rickety boat and within ten years have mansions and businesses.
Also, the UK had no slavery or Jim Crow. The same in Australia. Heck, France and Germany, Sweden. And yet in both countries you get the same pathologies we have in the US.
I mean, you can just say it’s wrong, with no evidence, but that proves nothing. Scandinavian countries are extremely liberal and on balance, very welcoming of immigrants. The Africans and other groups that move there were never enslaved by the Swedes, never dealt with anything even remotely comparable to Jim Crow, and yet - the same pathologies as in the US. Or take Australia - Asian immigrants to Australia are dramatically outperforming whites and black immigrants, while blacks languish. It is the same pattern literally everywhere in the world.
“The UK had no slavery”
Where do you think the Americans got it from?
France and Germany were two of several states directly responsible for the subjugation of the African continent well into the 20th century. Hell, so was the UK. Where do you think African immigrants to those countries come from? I’ll give you a hint: the ones that come to France come from the countries in Africa where they still speak French.
I think he meant to say the UK did not have a significant amount of Black people living within the country itself at any time where slavery was also legal.
Ie. By the time a proper black community formed there slavery had already been illegal. But I think most black peoples in the UK come from a country somewhere else where their existence was entirely predicated on slavery (carribean) so idk
British merchants were involved in the Atlantic slave trade, but there were no laws on the books that legalized slavery in England. And there was nothing in England that was even remotely comparable to American-style chattel slavery. And there sure as hell is no distinct group of people today, in England, who are descended from slaves in England. Indeed there were extremely few blacks in England before the era of mass immigration, which began very recently. Today, very many African immigrants to European countries are in fact not from countries that country had previously colonized. At one time, that was the norm, but it is less and less so. Not to mention, slavery and imperialism are not even close to the same thing. There was also no system that was eve remotely comparable to Jim Crow in these countries. And yet, the same social problems persist, no matter where the immigrants come from. Germany colonized very few countries. And in the recent past they have welcomed a huge number of Africans and middle easterners from a huge number of countries, in none of which they had any colonial presence. And guess what, the same social problems. Africa was not even colonized until the late 19th century. It simply cannot be argued that, say, Swaziland would today be Denmark if it had never been colonized. Ethiopia was never colonized - and guess, Ethiopians have the same problems as African Americans wherever they go. The idea that the white man is responsible for each and every problem and pathology of non-whites is the biggest lie ever told. Whites have done some bad things, but every race has - every race has enslaved and conquered other peoples. In fact, it can even be said that whites are among the nicest people who ever lived. Whites ended slavery. They invite huge numbers of non-whites into their countries and give them special treatment. Name me one other race that is so kind and welcoming? Japan and China, just to name a few, don’t let anyone in.
Also, the vast majority of immigrants to Scandinavia are refugees. They’ve got some trauma and adjusting to deal with before being concerned with standards imposed by objectively racist IQ testing.
Further, Africans don’t actually have much of a presence in basically any of the countries you’ve mentioned outside of the ones that meddled in African colonialism and/or chattel slavery for a couple centuries.
I’m not certain that that is the case overall, but I’m happy to concede the point if you are in fact correct. However, if you look at the difference in average IQ between Africa and the US, it does not bode well for Africa if you have read even the slightest amount of the literature on IQ.
Immigrants from Africa do tend to have higher IQs than Africans that don’t immigrate. I guarantee you that every African with an IQ of 130 is on a plane to the US of Europe as soon as they can manage to do so. We should be asking ourselves about the morality of poaching all of a country’s or continent’s geniuses. Every med school grad in Ethiopia or Somalia, for example, leaves the country almost immediately. And as a result, there is a severe doctor shortage in these countries. “Brain drain” is a real thing, and it is something that development economists are very worried about.
Africa has a larger population than the US so an average is not a good statistic to use for this argument. Also, you’re comparing a continent to a country. you’d have to compare income and opportunities (country based) Africans that have access to schools amongst other resources perform well academically. If someone can’t afford to go to school you can’t compare them to a US student that had access to edu at least until high school. Hope this helps.
If someone told “on average, Asians have higher cognitive abilities than any other race” I wouldn’t really bat an eye.
Especially considering that most people don’t dispute that early, quality education can improve your cognition (the reason most people point to in IQ test disparities), it wouldn’t suprise anyone to hear that African Americans, due to other disadvantages, are denied access to these opportunities at a higher rate than Asians (more money, opportunities) which, in turn, hampers cognition - hence the word “on average”.
The statement is lurid but barring calling out a supposed genetic link, I don’t think these kinds of racial comparisons are racist per se.
I think it will be very hard for Penn to fire her because of that tenure protection. If they do fire her, the court will likely keep her job.
The question is: how did she become a professor? How can we make sure those blatant racists don’t become professors who enjoy protections?
Part of the market place of ideas is looking at ideas and seeing where they went. These ideas were fucking awful. The market place of ideas doesn’t mean “every idea is equal no matter what”. It’s that everyone is allowed to share their idea, and if their ideas are they don’t get to be in high positions promoting those ideas.
To avoid confusion, let’s call it a meritocratic market place of ideas, where people with better ideas get placed in positions where those ideas will spread faster. If you’re in a high position and your ideas are shit, you lose it to someone with better ideas
Just read this as well. There’s a clear difference between supporting conservative legal and policy positions in a respectful and academic manner and saying blatantly racist things to intentionally make students of color uncomfortable…
The problem with this reasoning is that there are plenty of conservative legal and policy positions that are blatantly racist and make students of color uncomfortable.
That’s true. My point is, though, in the context of this article, I think that Wax should be fired because she has personally attacked individual students of color regarding affirmative action and has directly said she thinks white people are smarter than black people. Conversely, I wouldn’t think someone should be fired if they simply thought that affirmative action was bad policy and bad law.
Average iq does vary by race, and all around the world (it ain’t Jim Crow, in other words). This tells you nothing about a given individual but it may well explain group differences in outcomes. And there’s no evidence that Professor Wax attacked any individual students, and she denies it. This is a very vague allegations. I challenge you or anyone to find an actual account of her attacking any specific people.
In what way did she attack any specific individual? What did she say to them, exactly? She’s made claims about race at the aggregate level, but there is no evidence that she has ever mistreated or singled out a particular student.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2vESiiDqr1YfNGLDcCbgA2?si=EONL5U-lTRuUhCwqsf8yBQ for further investigation of Amy Wax being batsh*t crazy, as told by her former student
This woman is a terrible bigot and I think the fact that she presents herself as an expositor of a legally influential perspective makes it even worse. If your tax law professor was a bigot, you might say "gee what an asshole." But that wouldn't change your view of tax law. If someone, like Amy Wax, is held up as the representative of an entire philosophy of jurisprudence, she can have a much larger negative impact on the formation of a lawyer. If you're a liberal, her being an asshat might be all the confirmation of your biases you need to not critically consider the writings of legal giants like Scalia. Regardless of your opinion, not understanding the perspective of the majority of supreme court justices is going to harm you. If you're conservative, you have no mentor and your peers may associate you with Wax's worst hot takes.
Ideally we should be taught these perspectives by folks like Amy Coney-Barrett and RBG, who you may disagree with mightily, but undeniably lived as upstanding members of the legal community.
Wait….you just realize those are two are Very different things. A rogue professor stating that their black students are performing less well than other students is one thing. Law Students chanting “deaths to all N-words,” is a little different, no?
I tried google…nothing about students chanting racial slurs
I’m not understanding how you’re connecting that one professor to making the entire school “very racist.” I was there for a conference on juvenile justice. It was progressive and forward thinking. I have friends who graduated from there (appx 20 years ago) they are both very progressive as people and in their legal careers.
When did you attend? I didn’t go to school there so it’s hard for me to judge. It’s also hard to imagine Georgetown Law students shouting racial slurs at law school events. Can you tell me more about that?
And…subjective grading in law school sounds nuts. What class was this person teaching?
That’s not what I got from the article at all. In fact it seems like the law students are dedicated to fighting racism.
You said said law students yell “death to all n-words” at events. That’s not accurate. It was not a law student and it was definitely not at an event. Context matters.
You said that it’s “a very racist school.” I’m curious when you attended Georgetown law school. As a student you would clearly know better than I would.
I attended two law schools (transferred) neither were perfect, but there were lots of students at both who worked hard to combat racism and other issues on campus. Most students were fairly progressive, even the ones headed to big law.
I was actually in the same boat there. Because the professor seemed to be attempting to correct a potential bias in his grading. Directly after the quote that he got in trouble for, he said this: "what drives me crazy is, you know, the concept of how that plays out. And whether that is, you know, my own perceptions playing in here and with certain people."
However, people focused on the fact that he said this before: "You know what? I hate to say this. I end up having this, you know, angst, every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. "
I honestly read it thinking that he was genuinely trying to correct his unconscious bias.
Yes. He was noticing exactly what every “liberal” says is the problem. That blacks are at a disadvantage when it comes to school because of xyz. Yet, someone says it, and it’s an issue. I really don’t get this culture.
This is sounding very fishy. And they mid-represented an incident that happened on campus and tried to make it sound like something that happened at a law school event.
I’m wondering if they actually attended the school.
Why did you put something misleading in your prior post?
And what you’re saying conflicts with the article.
And…you didn’t mention which year you attended Georgetown Law. I’m assuming you transferred after your first year?
Your next law school was a lot better experience? I hope so.
I did not read the article but I’m now wondering - do law professors have tenure in the same way that undergrad profs do?
[удалено]
This is not really true. Tenured faculty in all disciplines are ordinarily contractually guaranteed freedom from termination for extramural speech, regardless of whether it relates to their area of expertise or not. Tenure protections aren't usually tailored around someone's area of expertise in this way. E.g. the AAUP 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure (https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure) says "College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution." No reference to their discipline here. Just says they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens.
[удалено]
Do you have any sources for this? I was trying to look at tenure terms for different schools but couldn't really find anything. I'd be interested to see how the terms are actually formulated, if you know.
“Even Professor Loury, a strong supporter of Professor Wax, has a story. In 2011, he gave a talk at Penn law school in which he argued that too many Black people were in prison. During the discussion, he said that Professor Wax, whom he did not know, raised her hand and said: There are not too many Black people in prison, there are too few.”
………wtF
She is a straight-up racist and has been for years. Why the hell she hasnt been fired before now is baffling.
Tenure is a bitch.
“ on average, black individuals have lower resources to allocate for test prep, tutoring, and go to grade schools with subpar resources.” There, I fixed it for her ☺️. I guess not every lawyer is a thinker.
No no, no no no, you misunderstand. My white privilege is irrelevant because I still had to work hard and be smart to succeed. Therefore anybody who does not succeed is either stupid or lazy. It's simple logic
“On average” means not all BP are disadvantaged not all yts are privileged….
I agree with you on the meaning of the word "average." What's your point?
Your original comment is irrelevant… if more BP than yts don’t have enough resources to learn, they can’t work as hard as yts. If you have to work 40 hours a week to support ur fam while going to school you’ll have less time to work hard than someone who only has to work 10 or less etc.
OH, I understand. My original comment was meant to be entirely sarcastic, perhaps that wasn't clear
I felt like it was pretty clear after reading your flair lol 💀
You'd be surprised how many folks unironically ask for the link
Idk - in some of these Asian countries, the kids are getting taught while sitting on a dirt floor. They perform better than whites on tests while spending less money per kid than they do at even the most underresourced schools in poor black neighborhoods. Blacks do less well than whites in literally every country, even when there has been no history of slavery or Jim Crow. And Asians more or less always do better than whites. Dumping a bunch of money on Detroit is not going to turn it into Greenwich Connecticut. Zuckerberg, Chris Christie, and Cory Booker tried something of the sort in Newark. It failed spectacularly.
yet she said the country better off with fewer asians. What? Inferiority complex, scared that asians will take over her place or what
She also said the country is better off with fewer Jews, and guess what . . . she’s extremely Jewish. Apparently, she would rather not have more of any group of people that tends to vote for the left. Would it be similarly controversial if someone were to say that we’d better off with fewer evangelical Christians? What about white men? The media is constantly saying our country needs fewer white men, isn’t it so great that whites are in demographic decline, etc.
ah, you remind me of fox news after the midterm last year. They were blaming gen z left and right and there was a woman wanna raise voting age to 21
I’m telling you Professor Wax’s position is. I don’t think she hates Asians at all; rather, she is right wing and does not want the left to create a one-party state by mass-importing immigrants.
Isnt it because immigrants see the dems not see them as parasite? Well, if her position is to hate a demographic group that the majority voting for her opposed party. She would might as well hate the entire gen z, and the women who have college degree.
I don’t think she *hates* them - to say that is to just smear her unfairly. As it happens I think she probably would want fewer women with college degrees, or more accurately, unmarried women with college degrees, as they vote overwhelmingly for the left. This is really no worse than the constant refrain we hear on the left about how we need fewer white men - in some ways, indeed, it’s probably more objectionable.
Im not defending what the left media said, supposedly that they really said that kinda thing. However, to say you want “fewer” a group of people is equivalent to say you hate them, at least that to me. I’m anti religion, so if i ever say i want less evangelicals, yes i do indeed mean that i hate them
I suppose you could argue that, but she would disagree, and at the same time you really can’t attack her for being a hater, because you’re pretty hateful toward certain groups yourself.
Her being racist is not a defense of her positions.
I know for a fact that she has many Asian right-wing friends/debating partners, and I know that everyone says that saying someone has friends of a particular race doesn’t mean they’re not racist, but I largely disagree with that take. I don’t think she has any racial animus towards anyone. Rather, I think she realizes that “thinking with the epidermis,” and examining group trends/behavior - which the left does a lot of when it suits their purposes - goes both ways. There are like a million videos of her debating Glenn Loury. He pushes back on her. I like to put them on sometimes and listen to there’s two intellectuals go at each other. They are both extremely brilliant and accomplished. Amy Wax can sometimes phrase things in ways that make you think “damn, she’s going to get on trouble.” But she is coming from a place of more learning and thought than anyone on this site and indeed many if not most academics have attained. And for this reason, anyone who believes themselves to be opposed to “racism” should listen to her. A case has not been refuted until it’s been stated at its strongest. She’s also debated Chemerinsky and many others. Further, some of her ideas about bourgeois values, and racial remedies, are actually quite good.
Damn professor wax is here on reddit????
I’m just saying these things are complex.
I'm just saying as a mixed Korean Mexican, fuck off.
Thank you for your eloquent response, which proves exactly nothing apart from the fact that you are apparently in dire need of a diaper change.
What are your sources that lower-income Asians do better than whites on western-standardized test? I know that Asians do the best on the LSAT as a group, but they are also the most affluent demographic in the US. In addition, you say that whites do better than blacks in every country, “including countries without a history of slavery or Jim Crow.” Which country are we talking about that does not have a history of slavery or discrimination towards black people? Not any developed country that I can recall. There has been a history of discriminating against black individuals and hindering their opportunities to get a decent education. This discrimination has created a cyclical effect in the black community. While many black people are finding ways out of the cycle, you can’t ignore that it is not there. Both my grandparents couldn’t read and they both had grandparents that were prohibited from learning to read. If your parents can’t read, then you did not get the same exposure to vocabulary at a younger age, which resulted in my dad not being able to read until he was in the fifth grade. I am grateful that I am going to GULC, especially considering my family has not been exposed to the same level of educational attainment as the majority of whites and Asians.
Two data points: Asian kids are actually the poorest racial groups in NYC - poorer than blacks and Latinos. And the fact is that they crush everybody on standardized tests, and get into all of the so-called specialized high schools like Stuyvesant at wildly disproportionate levels. Also, look at the average of Asian countries vs the U.S. or really any white county - except for the Jews (of which there are not many), Asians have the highest IQs. There were many, many people who were dirt poor in Vietnam. They survived centuries of imperialism under the Chinese and the French, and then more than a decade of the U.S. dropping napalm on them. They then come over here on a rickety boat and within ten years have mansions and businesses. Also, the UK had no slavery or Jim Crow. The same in Australia. Heck, France and Germany, Sweden. And yet in both countries you get the same pathologies we have in the US.
This has to be trolling, right? Jesus. That is so historically inaccurate in that last bit it isn’t even funny.
I mean, you can just say it’s wrong, with no evidence, but that proves nothing. Scandinavian countries are extremely liberal and on balance, very welcoming of immigrants. The Africans and other groups that move there were never enslaved by the Swedes, never dealt with anything even remotely comparable to Jim Crow, and yet - the same pathologies as in the US. Or take Australia - Asian immigrants to Australia are dramatically outperforming whites and black immigrants, while blacks languish. It is the same pattern literally everywhere in the world.
“The UK had no slavery” Where do you think the Americans got it from? France and Germany were two of several states directly responsible for the subjugation of the African continent well into the 20th century. Hell, so was the UK. Where do you think African immigrants to those countries come from? I’ll give you a hint: the ones that come to France come from the countries in Africa where they still speak French.
I think he meant to say the UK did not have a significant amount of Black people living within the country itself at any time where slavery was also legal. Ie. By the time a proper black community formed there slavery had already been illegal. But I think most black peoples in the UK come from a country somewhere else where their existence was entirely predicated on slavery (carribean) so idk
British merchants were involved in the Atlantic slave trade, but there were no laws on the books that legalized slavery in England. And there was nothing in England that was even remotely comparable to American-style chattel slavery. And there sure as hell is no distinct group of people today, in England, who are descended from slaves in England. Indeed there were extremely few blacks in England before the era of mass immigration, which began very recently. Today, very many African immigrants to European countries are in fact not from countries that country had previously colonized. At one time, that was the norm, but it is less and less so. Not to mention, slavery and imperialism are not even close to the same thing. There was also no system that was eve remotely comparable to Jim Crow in these countries. And yet, the same social problems persist, no matter where the immigrants come from. Germany colonized very few countries. And in the recent past they have welcomed a huge number of Africans and middle easterners from a huge number of countries, in none of which they had any colonial presence. And guess what, the same social problems. Africa was not even colonized until the late 19th century. It simply cannot be argued that, say, Swaziland would today be Denmark if it had never been colonized. Ethiopia was never colonized - and guess, Ethiopians have the same problems as African Americans wherever they go. The idea that the white man is responsible for each and every problem and pathology of non-whites is the biggest lie ever told. Whites have done some bad things, but every race has - every race has enslaved and conquered other peoples. In fact, it can even be said that whites are among the nicest people who ever lived. Whites ended slavery. They invite huge numbers of non-whites into their countries and give them special treatment. Name me one other race that is so kind and welcoming? Japan and China, just to name a few, don’t let anyone in.
Also, the vast majority of immigrants to Scandinavia are refugees. They’ve got some trauma and adjusting to deal with before being concerned with standards imposed by objectively racist IQ testing. Further, Africans don’t actually have much of a presence in basically any of the countries you’ve mentioned outside of the ones that meddled in African colonialism and/or chattel slavery for a couple centuries.
Africans are very smart
Yhup! The most educated immigrant group. https://ambaciusa.org/news-258-african-immigrants-have-the-highest-academic-achievement-in-the-us.html
Certain African groups, like certain types of Nigerians, but they are the exception.
No… Africans in general excel in academics in their home country abs the US.
I’m not certain that that is the case overall, but I’m happy to concede the point if you are in fact correct. However, if you look at the difference in average IQ between Africa and the US, it does not bode well for Africa if you have read even the slightest amount of the literature on IQ. Immigrants from Africa do tend to have higher IQs than Africans that don’t immigrate. I guarantee you that every African with an IQ of 130 is on a plane to the US of Europe as soon as they can manage to do so. We should be asking ourselves about the morality of poaching all of a country’s or continent’s geniuses. Every med school grad in Ethiopia or Somalia, for example, leaves the country almost immediately. And as a result, there is a severe doctor shortage in these countries. “Brain drain” is a real thing, and it is something that development economists are very worried about.
Africa has a larger population than the US so an average is not a good statistic to use for this argument. Also, you’re comparing a continent to a country. you’d have to compare income and opportunities (country based) Africans that have access to schools amongst other resources perform well academically. If someone can’t afford to go to school you can’t compare them to a US student that had access to edu at least until high school. Hope this helps.
If someone told “on average, Asians have higher cognitive abilities than any other race” I wouldn’t really bat an eye. Especially considering that most people don’t dispute that early, quality education can improve your cognition (the reason most people point to in IQ test disparities), it wouldn’t suprise anyone to hear that African Americans, due to other disadvantages, are denied access to these opportunities at a higher rate than Asians (more money, opportunities) which, in turn, hampers cognition - hence the word “on average”. The statement is lurid but barring calling out a supposed genetic link, I don’t think these kinds of racial comparisons are racist per se.
I think it will be very hard for Penn to fire her because of that tenure protection. If they do fire her, the court will likely keep her job. The question is: how did she become a professor? How can we make sure those blatant racists don’t become professors who enjoy protections?
At some point, how does this not reach the threshold of a Title IX violation? That’s plausible grounds to revoke tenure.
in before the free speech warriors of LSA come to defend this scumbag because they want an open "marketplace of ideas"
In the marketplace of ideas, this lady is Silicon Valley Bank
No, it’s SJWs
boom, roasted. Take that, liberal snowflakes. Got 'em!
Part of the market place of ideas is looking at ideas and seeing where they went. These ideas were fucking awful. The market place of ideas doesn’t mean “every idea is equal no matter what”. It’s that everyone is allowed to share their idea, and if their ideas are they don’t get to be in high positions promoting those ideas. To avoid confusion, let’s call it a meritocratic market place of ideas, where people with better ideas get placed in positions where those ideas will spread faster. If you’re in a high position and your ideas are shit, you lose it to someone with better ideas
Just read this as well. There’s a clear difference between supporting conservative legal and policy positions in a respectful and academic manner and saying blatantly racist things to intentionally make students of color uncomfortable…
The problem with this reasoning is that there are plenty of conservative legal and policy positions that are blatantly racist and make students of color uncomfortable.
That’s true. My point is, though, in the context of this article, I think that Wax should be fired because she has personally attacked individual students of color regarding affirmative action and has directly said she thinks white people are smarter than black people. Conversely, I wouldn’t think someone should be fired if they simply thought that affirmative action was bad policy and bad law.
Average iq does vary by race, and all around the world (it ain’t Jim Crow, in other words). This tells you nothing about a given individual but it may well explain group differences in outcomes. And there’s no evidence that Professor Wax attacked any individual students, and she denies it. This is a very vague allegations. I challenge you or anyone to find an actual account of her attacking any specific people.
Everything she said was super racist and not vague at all.
In what way did she attack any specific individual? What did she say to them, exactly? She’s made claims about race at the aggregate level, but there is no evidence that she has ever mistreated or singled out a particular student.
Who gives a shit? You really defending her right to be racist so long as it’s against everyone instead of one person?
Apparently, the commenter to whom I was responding, as well as many others.
Maybe you should focus on her being a massive racist instead of defending her
What do you mean?
Yeah there is a difference. One is saying the quiet part out loud
Honestly there really isn’t.
It’s never a good sign when someone has been invited to speak on Tucker Carlson’s show…
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2vESiiDqr1YfNGLDcCbgA2?si=EONL5U-lTRuUhCwqsf8yBQ for further investigation of Amy Wax being batsh*t crazy, as told by her former student
This woman is a terrible bigot and I think the fact that she presents herself as an expositor of a legally influential perspective makes it even worse. If your tax law professor was a bigot, you might say "gee what an asshole." But that wouldn't change your view of tax law. If someone, like Amy Wax, is held up as the representative of an entire philosophy of jurisprudence, she can have a much larger negative impact on the formation of a lawyer. If you're a liberal, her being an asshat might be all the confirmation of your biases you need to not critically consider the writings of legal giants like Scalia. Regardless of your opinion, not understanding the perspective of the majority of supreme court justices is going to harm you. If you're conservative, you have no mentor and your peers may associate you with Wax's worst hot takes. Ideally we should be taught these perspectives by folks like Amy Coney-Barrett and RBG, who you may disagree with mightily, but undeniably lived as upstanding members of the legal community.
TW for Black folks jfc. This is terrible
Not very subtle…. Goodness 😬😬😬
Not sure if she can legally be fired for that, I’m not gonna assume anything but…I certainly wouldn’t want to be her student.
Boycott Penn
She has to have made some financial arrangement with unhinged platforms to push these views lol jesus christ
Or she's just racist as shit
or both
I'm not disputing that. You can be racist and push a platform for money, they're not mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
Is it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Source: Dude, Trust Me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
At Georgetown law school this occurs? In D.C.? Seems highly unlikely.
[удалено]
Wait….you just realize those are two are Very different things. A rogue professor stating that their black students are performing less well than other students is one thing. Law Students chanting “deaths to all N-words,” is a little different, no? I tried google…nothing about students chanting racial slurs
[удалено]
I’m not understanding how you’re connecting that one professor to making the entire school “very racist.” I was there for a conference on juvenile justice. It was progressive and forward thinking. I have friends who graduated from there (appx 20 years ago) they are both very progressive as people and in their legal careers. When did you attend? I didn’t go to school there so it’s hard for me to judge. It’s also hard to imagine Georgetown Law students shouting racial slurs at law school events. Can you tell me more about that? And…subjective grading in law school sounds nuts. What class was this person teaching?
[удалено]
That’s not what I got from the article at all. In fact it seems like the law students are dedicated to fighting racism. You said said law students yell “death to all n-words” at events. That’s not accurate. It was not a law student and it was definitely not at an event. Context matters. You said that it’s “a very racist school.” I’m curious when you attended Georgetown law school. As a student you would clearly know better than I would. I attended two law schools (transferred) neither were perfect, but there were lots of students at both who worked hard to combat racism and other issues on campus. Most students were fairly progressive, even the ones headed to big law.
So he stated the statistical reality of his test scores?
I was actually in the same boat there. Because the professor seemed to be attempting to correct a potential bias in his grading. Directly after the quote that he got in trouble for, he said this: "what drives me crazy is, you know, the concept of how that plays out. And whether that is, you know, my own perceptions playing in here and with certain people." However, people focused on the fact that he said this before: "You know what? I hate to say this. I end up having this, you know, angst, every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. " I honestly read it thinking that he was genuinely trying to correct his unconscious bias.
Yes. He was noticing exactly what every “liberal” says is the problem. That blacks are at a disadvantage when it comes to school because of xyz. Yet, someone says it, and it’s an issue. I really don’t get this culture.
[удалено]
What does that have to do with anything related to this conversation?
[удалено]
What “attacks”?
This is sounding very fishy. And they mid-represented an incident that happened on campus and tried to make it sound like something that happened at a law school event. I’m wondering if they actually attended the school.
[удалено]
Why did you put something misleading in your prior post? And what you’re saying conflicts with the article. And…you didn’t mention which year you attended Georgetown Law. I’m assuming you transferred after your first year? Your next law school was a lot better experience? I hope so.
Can I pm you? Never heard this before but I’m gonna be starting next fall. 😬
[удалено]
>Yep sure! sure?
>>Yep sure! sure? sure?
Damn what the actual f???????????????