MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Controversial Law Professor's Comments on Affirmative Action Get Her Banned From Teaching First-Year Classes

For months, Penn Law has resisted calls to punish Amy Wax for her public comments on race. Yesterday, they caved.

Wikimedia CommonsWikimedia CommonsA professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School whose outspoken views on race and culture have drawn intense criticism from students and colleagues will no longer be allowed to teach a mandatory class for first-year law students, Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger announced yesterday.

The ban is the latest escalation of a months-long feud between the law school and conservative professor Amy Wax.

The tensions began last August, when Wax co-authored an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer which touted the superiority of the "bourgeois cultural hegemony" that Wax and her co-author, Larry Alexander, said reigned in America before the 1960s.

In the portion of the piece which drew the most outrage, Wax and Alexander said:

All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all.

The op-ed set off an extended series of responsive op-eds, petitions, and open letters between Wax, her colleagues, and various other Penn-affiliated groups. Five of Wax's colleagues criticized her piece in an op-ed in Penn's student paper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, and 33 signed an open letter "categorically reject[ing]" her claims. Wax fired back in the student paper, and later, in The Wall Street Journal, which prompted yet another response from a critical colleague. Heather Mac Donald jumped in. You get the picture.

One of the critics' repeated demands was to remove Wax from teaching civil procedure, a mandatory first-year course in which students are assigned randomly to year-long "sections" taught by different professors. Black students, they said, should not be forced to be taught by a professor who allegedly thought them inferior. The Penn Law chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild, a progressive legal organization, said that Wax's comments were "an explicit and implicit endorsement of white supremacy," and asserted that "her bigoted views inevitably seep into her words and actions in the classroom and in private conversations with students."

Throughout all this, Ruger publicly declined to discipline or denounce Wax, citing the law school's commitments to open expression. Wax alleged in her Wall Street Journal op-ed that Ruger had privately asked her to take a leave of absence, however, which Ruger denied.

This month, however, a new front in the controversy opened when a group of Penn Law alumni published a new petition drawing attention to remarks Wax made on a September 2017 episode of "The Glenn Show," a video series on the website Bloggingheads.tv hosted by Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury. In her hour-long talk with Loury, Wax discussed the controversy around her op-ed and her opposition to race-based affirmative action, which Loury, who is black, also fiercely opposes.

In the course of that discussion, Wax discussed her belief in the so-called "mismatch hypothesis" of affirmative education in higher education, which holds that racial preferences harm minority students by placing them in high-stakes elite academic environments for which they have not been adequately prepared.

"Here's a very inconvenient fact, Glenn," Wax said, "I don't think I've ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the [Penn Law School] class and rarely, rarely in the top half… I can think of one or two students who've graduated in the top half of my required first year course. Well, what are we supposed to do about that? You're really putting in front of this person a real uphill battle, and if they were better matched, it might be a better environment for them. That's the mismatch hypothesis, of course."

The petition again called for Wax to be prohibited from teaching civil procedure. This time, Ruger complied.

In an email sent to Penn Law students, the text of which was obtained by the Daily Pennsylvanian, Ruger said the decision was based not on the substance of Wax's comments, but on her disclosure of student rankings and grades in violation of law school policy. "As a scholar, [Wax] is free to advocate her views, no matter how dramatically those views diverge from our institutional ethos and our considered practices. As a teacher, however, she is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential."

He also asserted, though, that Wax's claims about black Penn Law students' performance were false, and could have a negative effect on black students in her classes. "In light of Professor Wax's statements, black students assigned to her class in their first week at Penn Law may reasonably wonder whether their professor has already come to a conclusion about their presence, performance, and potential for success in law school and thereafter," he said.

Ruger took care, however, to portray his decision as merely an administrative judgment call, not a punishment: As dean it is my responsibility to allocate faculty teaching resources in the best interest of students and of the Law School." he said. "This curricular decision entails no sanction or diminution of Professor Wax's status on the faculty, which remains secure. Normally, this decision would be private, but because Professor Wax made these inaccurate public statements, and students and alumni raised their concerns publicly, sharing it with our community is important."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties watchdog group for students and faculty at public colleges and private schools which guarantee expressive rights, isn't so sure. "We're monitoring the situation," says Samantha Harris, FIRE's vice president of policy research, "both to make sure that Penn is not punishing a professor for speaking on a matter of public concern, and also to make sure that there's no double-standard being applied by the University with regard to what Penn professors can and can't say without facing some sort of official retribution."

For his part, Loury didn't buy Ruger's explanation. In an email, he called Ruger's justifications "clearly a tendentious stretch...intended to discredit [Wax] and to justify his reprehensible actions."

Disclosure: I attended Penn 2013-2016 and interned at FIRE in 2015.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Teaching first-year courses is awful though, so it's not clear that this is a bad thing for Wax.

  • John||

    And the camps provide hard work, fresh air, and a healthy lifestyle.

  • Sevo||

    And freedom, if you work.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Arbeit macht frei?

  • Sevo||

    Jahwohl.

  • Rhywun||

    the decision was based not on the substance of Wax's comments, but on her disclosure of student rankings and grades in violation of law school policy

    LOL, nice cover. Translation: "we've got her now!"

  • silver.||

    Getting her away from impressionable 18 year old children is a public service, so why did they even bother to wait this long? Somebody should've just whacked her with a bike lock and put her in a coma.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    More like 22 and up, being that it's first year law students. But impressionable they remain, apparently.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    One would hope so .

  • Cloudbuster||

    0. Disregard if that was sarcasm.
    1. 18-year-olds aren't children.
    2. Neither are 22+ law students
    3. Are you really saying adult students should be shielded from controversial ideas? If they are not ready to deal with that, they are certainly incapable of being lawyers.
    4. Can you demonstrate that anything she said is wrong?

  • vek||

    As far as number 4, I didn't see a single thing she was wrong about. This is all prog derp, and destroy everything that makes society function for kicks at work here!

  • BYODB||

    Which I'm wondering if the reason they chose to smack down the professor over that revelation because they were actually telling the truth and black students at their university don't do so well after all.

    Notably I don't necessarily buy into any of their so-called 'mismatch' hypothesis, but there is probably some truth in the fact that racial quotas aren't going to work out the way their proponents think. And I make no mistake, affirmative action is the very soul of racial quotas.

    Just because people think these racial quotas in particular are 'good' has no bearing on the situation in my view, since every time racial quotas are tried for any reason it's always because people think it's a 'good' idea.

  • ||

    What is there other than the mismatched hypothesis, you are scattering a small population amongst a larger area than it could cover if going by the book in terms of admission grades. Put any random white guy who learns at the 15th percentile in a class where the cut off is the 5th, and he'll have the same probability of failing. It's a mismatch regardless of race.

  • BYODB||

    Mostly it's because I don't care about any potential for a 'mismatch', racial quotas are wrong for a whole host of more compelling reasons to me.

  • cc2||

    This is exactly why I did not take my white ass to Harvard: if I got in I would have flunked.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Wrong, state flagship engineering programs offer very valuable degrees while state flagship liberal arts programs offer a few Phi Beta Kappa entry into a t14 law school which then results in a very valuable degree. So mismatch gets minorities into the flagship but then they get shuffled into a liberal arts program and don't graduate PBK.

  • Careless||

    Well, either she disclosed student grades so they could punish her for it, or she was lying and didn't, in which case they had no grounds to do so.

  • John||

    She did not disclose student grades. Saying I have never seen a black person in the top ten percent discloses no one's grades. God damn, why is that so hard to grasp?

  • Careless||

    Because it would be saying that anyone who was in her class did not attain a certain percentile. Why Is it so hard for you to grasp that?

  • John||

    Because that is not disclosing their grades. The fact that you can deduce something about people's grades doesn't make it a disclosure. If it did, saying virtually anything about her class would be a disclosure. Allowing people on law review without having to write would violate the policy,. It is just fucking absurd. And it is not what the policy means. Why is that so fucking hard? Are you that dense or that fucking dishonest?

  • John||

    And they publish the names of the top quarter of the class at graduation. It is on your diploma you fucking moron. God damn I hate willful stupidity.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    That's exactly what I first thought about her "disclosure" as the college willingly discloses these stats ánd similar ones publicly and routinely.

    Now the specific stat she alludes to, if true, the college would not publicly disclose it. However, it would certainly allow others to see that information for various studies and research as well as independent audits to confirm policy goals. I mean, how else do they figure out that all their great intentions are working if they don't consistently track this information themselves?

    Additionally, believe with just name and class ranking, the required demographic information can be pulled from a ton of other sources to come to this information.

    Even with that though, the individual Professor would not have access to this information and I don't read her comments as providing statistical proof, I read them, as I think she intended, as anecdotal evidence that she's personally seen.

    Either way, agreed this doesn't rise to the level of disclosing any internal information. But if anything needs an excuse, It's a witch hunt.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I know Obama's law school GPA.

  • SunkCost||

    Magna Cum Laude.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    There's some controversy about whether they are permitted to publish that information, since technically it violates FERPA. I was once in charge of these policies at my former place of employment, and we wrestled with that. Eventually we decided to make 'honors and academic awards' a permissible item of disclosable data ('directory information').

    But I seriously doubt that Harvard's Privacy Officer would count what she did as violating FERPA. I certainly wouldn't. Of course, that just says this is SJW bullshit, which should come as no surprise to anyone reading this blog.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I also know some college basketball players' GPAs...the colleges announce when they are put on academic probation.

  • JWatts||

    "Because it would be saying that anyone who was in her class did not attain a certain percentile. Why Is it so hard for you to grasp that?"

    If she had said, that she had seen a lot of gifted black students graduate in the top 10%, it's extremely doubtful she would have been reassigned.

  • Cloudbuster||

    It is almost certainly true.

  • vek||

    The mismatch hypothesis is correct for at least a few reasons.

    1. The entire point of affirmative action is essentially to throw people in who don't actually qualify. So they instantly aren't up to snuff by definition, or else it would just be merit based entry! They want that black window dressing so they don't look racist. If you put sub par whites in based on being poor or something with the same test scores they would fail just as bad.

    2. Whether it is environment or genetic, blacks always score far lower on all forms of intelligence tests. They do well on certain subsets, better than whites even, but on most sections the do far worse. Average IQ is about 15 points lower than whites, and 20-22 or so points lower than Asians... About 27 points lower than Jews who always score the highest! That's a BIG gap, and is why there are so few blacks in super high IQ dependent professions.

    Even if it is all environmental (which all evidence says it is not), they still have lower IQs. IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence, but it is the best one ever developed, and is VERY good at predicting outcomes. So naturally blacks should be expected to perform poorly in high level educational situations... Which they do. Her admitting it out loud is her biggest heresy.

  • martinc||

    well stated vek.

  • FlameCCT||

    It is more cultural/social environment with a lot of the influence coming from parent(s) during the formative years regardless of race. I also note that she talks about this occurring in all races yet the racist Progressives only focus on one race, the one that does enter high level educations on merit. One can easily see that regardless of the race, one usually does well if one's entry is based on merit not placement.

  • swood1000||

    Whether it is environment or genetic, blacks always score far lower on all forms of intelligence tests.

    This does not necessarily reflect a racial or biological difference. Read Thomas Sowell on the history of the Irish and Jews in this country. These groups both scored well below normal in intelligence tests when they first immigrated. The Irish in particular also showed profound social pathology making them very poor employees. But both groups made tremendous gains, including scoring much higher on intelligence tests than before, under circumstances that can't be accounted for genetically. For example, during the period of this change the Jews had very little intermarriage outside the faith.

  • vek||

    "It is more cultural/social environment with a lot of the influence coming from parent(s) during the formative years regardless of race"

    I don't want to sound like a pompous dick or anything, but you are simply wrong. If you'd ever objectively looked at the research you would know this. Unfortunately modern science and statistics says there are quantifiable differences. Even mainstream science admits it is genetic on the individual level, but denies it at the group level... As if any group could conceivably be different than the sum of all the individuals, where they admit IQ is heritable! It's clearly illogical.

    Basically you're believing in a lie propagated by the progressive, ultra egalitarian left. The same people who say that there are no differences between men and women, which most here realize is obviously false. The same ones who even sometimes pretend that there are no inherent differences between any given two individuals!

    You rightly see through the lies there, but miss it on the race issue because you don't WANT to accept it because it calls into question your world view. Well I didn't either, but it is true. I got over it. It doesn't have to lead to evil outcomes, which is why I'm okay with accepting race realism.

    Google the facts if you really want to know reality for what it is. It is an interesting topic, and knowing the truth doesn't have to make you a bad person.

  • vek||

    Most of the best quality data doesn't start until the 70/80s, but since then it has piled on like crazy. The Irish/Jew argument thing is interesting, and always used as a gotcha, but no longer really applicable. The intelligence tests in those days weren't nearly as accurate as they are now at measuring G, and were more loaded on acquired knowledge. The Flynn effect being at different stages in different areas, that plenty of interbreeding DID happen, and admitted environmental variables basically cover the gap that remains.

    NOBODY says it is ALL genetic. However the full range of genetic influences from all reputable sources is somewhere between 40-80%, depending on the study in question. Most cluster between 60-70%, so that is the likely figure. This leaves 30-40% being environmental. No small part, but not anywhere close to enough to close the gap between some races.

    Also, blacks in the USA already have the highest IQs of any Africans in the world! IQs are faaar lower in Africa, which means most of the positive environmental factors are already accounted for in the African America scores here, and the gap that remains is probably mostly genetic.

    Blacks actually closed some of the gap with whites in the middle half of the 20th century, then the gap stopped closing around the 80s/90s. Even the Flynn effect seems to have stalled in most industrialized nations. In other words in the USA both groups have hit our genetic wall, so to speak.

  • vek||

    If it's all environmental, explain why starving children in Asia have higher IQ scores than blacks in America and Europe! You can't explain it, other than genetics.

    Frankly it is foolish to believe that up to 200K years of divergent evolution between some modern humans and others would have no effect on intelligence. Some groups in Africa split off from other Africans about 200K years ago, whites/Asians in turn split off from one of those groups of Africans 50-75K years ago. Caucasoids/Asians are 200K years separated from some Africans, but only 50-75K from others. You know how long it took modern humans and Neanderthals to diverge into fully separate species from our common ancestor? About 300K years. So to assume ZERO differences on this time scale is pure fantasy.

    It's not fun to accept that some groups will be perpetually less high achieving, but I think reality shows this to be pretty obvious. The fact that data backs it up seals the deal. Intelligence is just intelligence. It helps A LOT in being successful, but culture DOES matter too. If we accept the truth and try to help the situation via means that will actually work, this will create the best outcome for blacks, whites, and everybody else.

    Imagine you had 2 kids. One is a genius level 160 IQ, one is 85 IQ.

    Would it be good advice to encourage the genius to stop education after high school and pursue a career as a carpenter? Obviously not!

  • vek||

    Likewise, it would be bad advice to tell the 85 IQ kid to shoot for making it into MIT so he can become a rocket scientist.

    HOWEVER if you reversed the advice, it would in fact be the best possible advice you could give either of them.

    This is the problem with how we've been "dealing with" the blacks in America. We're trying to make a plan for them to succeed on the assumption they can do the exact same things as white... But on AVERAGE they can't. High IQ blacks can and should become rocket scientists, but there will never be as many of them as there are Jewish, Asian, and white rocket scientists.

    A more realistic approach would be to encourage the good middle class social things like this chick talks about. It worked great for blacks in the 1950s! And also to encourage skilled tradesman type jobs, and other vocational type employment. These jobs often pay great, and you don't need to be a genius to do them. The exact same advice should be given to less bright white folks. The leftist lie that everyone is the same, and everybody should shoot for some advanced college degree is simply a lie. It cannot work, because a huge chunk of all population groups don't have the brains for it.

    We don't have to be cruel, or evil, or commit mass expulsions or genocide... But we DO need to accept the reality, and try to deal with the issues in a way that actually has a possibility to succeed.

  • Karen24||

    Your argument is that black people are genetically stupid. These days, sadly, that is likely to be somewhat persuasive.

    As for IQ tests and genetics, what gene or genes produce what proteins that produce 'intelligence?' All those studies say — ALL of them — is that people with certain skin colors do poorly on tests administered in classrooms. If genetics really is the significant point, someone should have found a gene that directs the production of a protein that affects structures in the human nervous system differently in all black people from the way it works in all white people. Until you have that, all you have is pernicious bigotry.

  • vek||

    Karen24: You clearly haven't looked into any of the research, as with almost everybody who denies the genetic component.

    We don't know all the genes that make people tall... But we know it is hereditary because of statistical methods that prove it is. Essentially the same is true for intelligence.

    BUT YOU'RE IN LUCK! Just several months ago a team identified the first 56 genes that effect intelligence! Science is an AMAZING thing. What about when they have 500 identified genes, or 1000, and they find them in differing degrees between races?

    Look, it's not a polite topic. But the science is getting ever more irrefutable. It will HAVE to be accepted sooner or later. All the arguments about tests not meaning anything are bullshit. If an IQ test can predict life outcomes better than the socioeconomic status of your parents, it's a useful measure. If it can predict if you can do high level math, it is a useful measure. Etc.

    You people need to get over your delusions. NOBODY believed everybody was exactly the same until a couple decades ago. We're living in a brief period where we have been denying reality because of leftist propaganda. That period will end someday. We don't have to be mean. Intelligence overlaps a lot between races, but there are different averages. Deal with it.

  • swood1000||

    vek:

    Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve acknowledge that the same races have shown profound IQ differences between two generations. They say:

    "The national averages have in fact changed by amounts that are comparable to the fifteen or so IQ points separating blacks and whites in America. To put it another way, on the average, whites today differ from whites, say, two generations ago as much as whites today differ from blacks today. Given their size and speed, the shifts in time necessarily have been due more to changes in the environment than to changes in the genes."

    So if race A differs from race B in IQ, and two generations of race A differ from each other by the same amount, why do you reject the argument that these IQ differences are accounted for by environmental factors?

    This leaves 30-40% being environmental. No small part, but not anywhere close to enough to close the gap between some races.

    How does this follow? Are you saying that a factor accounting for 30-40% can't explain a difference of 15%?

  • vek||

    No, it can't.

    We have BOTH increased with the Flynn effect, but we essentially kept our lead. They closed like 2-4 points over half a century+, but the gap has not shrunk at all for decades now. This still points to genetic causes really, otherwise they should have closed more.

    30-40% versus 15% gap would imply IF somebody white had 100% negative influences, and a black had 100% positive, or something to that effect, then theoretically they could overtake us... But you don't understand how the bell curve works. It drops off very sharply at either end, so a 15 point gain means you need to close a bigger gap than it seems. The higher up you go, the harder it is still. This is why there are so few blacks with say 140 IQs. I don't have time to try to explain in detail.

    Plus the reality is that EVERYBODY has mixed influences, so realistically the averages won't change much due to the semi randomness of it all.

    But the truth is in the USA we're almost all topped out. The studies have shown diet really only helps at a basic level. Once you get over starvation, it doesn't do much. Same with all other factors. Once you're beyond extreme deprivation it doesn't do much for IQ. So most blacks in the US are probably running close to maxed out on positive environmental factors as is, as are whites.

  • vek||

    The Flynn effect seems to have completely stopped in both blacks and whites in the USA and other developed countries. In other words, we've reached our "genetic potential" so to speak. And now that we're both more or less topped out by environmental effects, we're still considerably ahead, Asians even moreso, and Jews even moreso.

    Basically anybody in a "good" environment saw big gains during the last 100 or so years. But now that we're topped out, this more or less means that only people in crap countries will see gains, as they still are deprived to the point where it is holding back mental development. For instance the insanely low IQs found in Africa will probably rise a lot as their situation improves. Presumably up to around 85 like they are in the USA. India and SE Asia as well will see strong gains.

    There's more that could be said on this, but if you're really interested you should google the topic and read more on your own.

  • vek||

    And I'll throw you two more bones since you've clearly not researched it a lot.

    Scientists have already done all the environmental studies to try to disprove the genetic theory. Every single one has simply reinforced it! Everything from socioeconomic status, parental involvement, twin studies, etc. All. Been. Done. They all just proved that genetics is the primary component. Even trying their PC hardest to come up with 1000 caveats to explain away the difference, they can't cover more than a small part of the gap with environment.

    Finally, how would you explain why half starving children, with less formal education, in 3rd world countries in Asia outscore middle class American blacks? They have every negative environmental factor possible, yet still score considerably better. How could this be if it was primarily environmental???

    Just take the red pill man. It explains so much about the observable world it's crazy. You've bought a lie. It doesn't mean blacks aren't human, and don't deserve basic respect, but it does explain a the differences in outcomes between groups.

  • swood1000||

    We have BOTH increased with the Flynn effect, but we essentially kept our lead. They closed like 2-4 points over half a century+ , but the gap has not shrunk at all for decades now.

    Herrnstein and Murray report a 15 point change over two generations, and they treat this as real gains in IQ that are attributable to environmental factors. So they, at least, believe that differences in environment can be responsible for the amount of difference that separates black and white scores today.

    The Flynn effect seems to have completely stopped in both blacks and whites in the USA and other developed countries. In other words, we've reached our "genetic potential" so to speak.

    That's not what this study reports.

  • swood1000||

    vek:

    but we essentially kept our lead. They closed like 2-4 points over half a century+, but the gap has not shrunk at all for decades now.

    This study shows that the United States black/white IQ score difference in 1978 was 18.5 points and that by 2012 the difference was reduced to 11.1 points. The study predicts that by the year 2060 the gap will decrease to 6.5 points (optimistic model) or 6.7 points (pessimistic model).

    Where do your figures come from? It's almost as if you're simply making them up.

  • swood1000||

    Flynn himself, discussing the 14 point IQ increase in the United State between 1932 and 1948 said:

    Recent research indicates that IQ gains over the last two generations must be due to environmental progress rather than to improved genes (Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975, pp. 306-307). …

    The period in question shows the radical malleability of IQ during a time of normal environmental change; other times and other trends cannot erase that fact."
  • vek||

    Look, I don't have the time to try to go through every single argument about IQ scores... Trait differences between races and men/women is one of my many hobby interests I have spent probably hundreds of hours reading about, and hundreds more on semi related things like human evolution etc. But this convo is like trying to discuss economics with somebody who has only ever read WaPo for all their economic facts! It's not worth the time or effort. But I will throw out a few more things here because I have some time.

    Re: Flynn. Personally I am of the mind that the Flynn Effect is a combo of real increases, and improved brain "exercise" for modern students. We use our brains differently than in the past in daily life, and I think this contributes to being better test takers. This is a pretty common theory. But it is undeniable that nutrition etc. also seems to have positive effects, which are likely to be "real" increases. Hence it's reasonably some of both.

    The first link is saying the Flynn effect is still carrying on as strong as ever. I didn't read the whole page there, but did read a good chunk. I left it up and will finish because it seems interesting. However I have seen other information to the contrary. Perhaps those guys are right, and it is still going on. They themselves mentioned it HAS stopped in some times and places by their own admission, they're just contending those are anomalies and it carries on elsewhere/at other times. Going in stops and fits perhaps?

  • vek||

    Any which way it doesn't actually matter one way or another, so I don't really care. Presumably someday we will peak out, because every species is genetically limited. I do not believe a combo of brain exercise and having unlimited cheap carbs is going to make the average kid Einstein smart in 150 years or whatever! So if we haven't hit the wall yet, we will sooner or later.

    Yes, the b/w score increases have gone up such that blacks show test scores comparable to whites from several generations ago. As I said, I think Flynn is a combo of real and improved test taking... But let us assume it is all real. That still means that whites have "something" that has kept us rather consistently ahead of blacks. Ditto for everybody else, since blacks are the lowest scoring group. I would argue that something is genetic aptitude, since that's what other science points to. So even if we're all improving, those with genetic aptitude seem to stay ahead.

    As for the gaps closing I said as much myself! This is an observed effect. Again I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but will. That particular study IS NOT using actual IQ test data. They are extrapolating from other types of tests. This can matter, as true G measuring usually produces different results than knowledge based tests, which one can be taught to do better on more easily.

  • vek||

    Some tests convert to G measuring better than others, I don't know for the NAEP, which is what they used. They just happened to norm things to 100 as a pseudo IQ, as is done with IQ, and then talk about actual IQ test in other instances, which confuses things. Totally different things though if you want to be technical.

    Any which way, EVERY SINGLE TEST EVER produces slightly varied results. Duh. But there are aggregates you can come up with. In some of the more recent black IQ data they have about an 87 IQ, others it is still around 85. No real IQ test I'm aware of has shown blacks at 90 on average as in that paper, and certainly not aggregate scores from multiple tests to eliminate variance. White Americans are usually between 99-101. These are commonly known averages from across many tests, they're just numbers I have seen over and over. Older scores for blacks from the 60s IIRC showed gaps of 17-18 or so. So it has closed, but not a ton, and probably nil or close to it since the 80s.

    That link itself says that the scores stopped closing in the 80s/90s. Look at Table 1. The gap is LARGER in 2008 than in 1988! Hispanic scores have the same flattening out too. Asians have actually increased their lead!

    I didn't read it all, maybe they explain something else later. But if it is still closing at all, it is not as rapidly as in the past.

  • vek||

    So let me circle back around to the big picture.

    I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE GENETIC. Do you understand me??? I don't. I would feel sooooooooo much better about the future if the evidence didn't point there. But it does. Statistical models show it must be mostly genetic, plus logical deduction, and the insane amounts of correlation all seal the deal WHEN COMBINED.

    People who deny it have to come up with 1000 situation by situation preposterous theories, which still never manage to completely explain it away, to try to deny one simple solution that is already the most scientifically sound explanation based on the data. Cherry picking bad data, or stuff that falls way outside the norm and ignoring everything else is bullshit. But that's been the egalitarians method, and they've still failed. They do the same stuff with economics data that we libertarians all rightly call out as obvious bullshit.

    Occam's Razor dude. The fact that it's not a warm, fluffy, utopian answer does not mean it isn't true.

    Again I ask you to explain to me why starving Asians in third world shitholes do better on all forms of intelligence testing than blacks. How can NORTH KOREA have a 106 IQ if we're all exactly the same? They have horrible conditions on all fronts there. What about Vietnam? Thailand? Cambodia? India? These are all lower than NK, but higher than African nations. How is this possible if it's not genetic?

    ANSWER THE QUESTION LOGICALLY. Can't do it.

  • vek||

    Why did Taiwan and South Korea outscore many white nations, even when they were third world toilets? Shouldn't they have been as low as Africa when they were poor??? Vietnam now should have a 70 something IQ like lots of countries in Africa right? Makes sense with the environmental hypothesis!

    How is it possible that blacks, in every single country they are found in the world over, ALWAYS score worse than any other group. Including other poor groups.

    Why do Hispanics score higher in the US, and elsewhere? Why do Hispanics make more money? Why do Hispanics commit less crime? We're supposed to be just as racist against them right? Hispanics show up not speaking the language, yet somehow outscore and out earn blacks day one in the USA. They score lower than whites on everything too, but they outdo blacks easily.

    HOW, if it's not genetic?

    Explain it. For that matter, why is the most European by DNA (90% or so) country in South America, Argentina, also the one with the highest IQ scores? How's that work? It's just like, Guatemalans somehow making their mestizo people have an inferiority complex so they do bad on the same tests in the same language?

    Why do mixed race black people in the USA tend to score almost EXACTLY in between the black and white averages? Why, it's almost as if being half and half made them plop right there in the middle! Fancy that! Crazy idea.

  • vek||

    Why does the average IQ in a nation correlate better than basically any other metric to the average income in that nation? Weird how Asian countries industrialized in a matter of a few decades after throwing out communism... Yet even non communist African countries can't seem to ever get their shit together. The most successful countries in Africa, South Africa and Rhodesia, are literally crumbling (almost all whites left Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and more than half have left SA) even though 1st world level infrastructure was handed to them on a silver platter. Doesn't make sense to an environmentalist, does it? Hmmm.

    How is it possible that individual inheritability is considered a 100% fact by mainstream science... Yet they at the same time deny any possibility of group differences? Isn't a group, however defined, merely a large number of individuals whose IQ is unquestioningly inheritable??? If 1 million people all have an IQ that their kids will inherit, then that groups statistical average IQ can be calculated, and mainstream science SAYS their kids will inherit it. It's such double think it is unbelievable!

    I could go on literally for 1000 other factoids that clearly point out how strong the genetic hypothesis is in terms of logically arrived at correlation. But I don't have the time. The fact is every conceivable study has been done. Socioeconomic, adoption, twins, you name it.

  • vek||

    Ultra egalitarians have done EVERYTHING they could think of to solidly disprove the genetic component. They ALL failed. At best they explained away half or so, but typically only 30-40%. That is reasonably environmental IMO.

    This means the rest of the difference is genetic.

    You talk about the gap being smaller than the environmental factors, but clearly don't get how the bell curve works, and don't realize that even a 6-7 point gap in a population leads to MASSIVE disparities at the statistical level. See Hispanic outcomes for what your 2060 blacks might be like if that paper is correct. SHORT VERSION: Still not nearly as successful as whites or Asians.

    You ALSO missed that in order for us to be overtaken by blacks, whites would have to have consistently WORSE environmental factors than blacks. Otherwise the ADMITTED by mainstream science genetic factor would overwhelm the somehow superior black positive environmental factors. If we have even identical environmental factors, we will always score higher.

    If you bother to respond, I demand you answer this question:

    Do you believe men and women have zero biological differences in our mental traits? Or do we differ in some ways?

  • vek||

    Most on Reason are sane enough to see through the leftist lie on that issue... Yet for some reason they cannot logically look at the exact same type of data on ethnicity. I don't get it. The left uses the exact same set of tactics to bury both topics. They show there's overlap between the groups (no duh!), and then conclude that means there's no difference at all! Which is utter bullshit. They claim it's just society imposing on women that makes them prefer having jobs involving people versus things... Even though studies show otherwise. I could go on for days on this one too.

    It's the EXACT SAME LIE, just on ethnicity instead of sex. It's a tough pill to swallow, but libertarians tend to be especially smart folks. I really hope more people get rid of the leftist indoctrination and accept reality for what it is. They already discovered the first 56 genes related to intelligence. It's only a matter of time before that 56 turns into 500, and then 1000, then you'll know your babies IQ before they're born.... This issue cannot be lied about forever.

    I sincerely implore you to do some serious study on the issue. Anyone who has a functional brain cannot come away believing the lies after putting in a fair amount of effort on the subject. Again, Occam's Razor man. It's either this one unpleasant fact that's backed by tons of data, ooor it's 1000 nonsensical half proven theories to explain the same facts. Which one is more plausible?

  • swood1000||

    vek:

    I don't deny the genetic link to intelligence. You, however, seem more than willing to deny the environmental factor. You admit that there was an increase in IQ of 15 points for an entire population that was attributable to environmental factors. Yet you deny that any part of a 15 point difference between two subgroups in the population could be due to environmental factors. We can't point to the environmental factors that were responsible for the 15 point increase but you are positive that those or other environmental factors can have nothing to do with a 15 point difference between subgroups. Something about that strikes me as being fueled by an almost religious fervor. You just have faith. Let me take one thing that you wrote and replace 'blacks' with 'Irish and Jews.'

    You ALSO missed that in order for us to be overtaken by Irish and Jews, whites would have to have consistently WORSE environmental factors than Irish and Jews. Otherwise the ADMITTED by mainstream science genetic factor would overwhelm the somehow superior Irish and Jews positive environmental factors. If we have even identical environmental factors, we will always score higher.

    But somehow they caught up, and in the case of the Jews according to some accounts, surpassed.

  • swood1000||

    Do you believe men and women have zero biological differences in our mental traits? Or do we differ in some ways?

    No, men and women have significant differences in their mental traits. Vive la différence.

  • swood1000||

    Do you agree with this assessment by the American Psychological Association?

    African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.
  • vek||

    Well I'm glad you can accept men and women aren't the same! But if you can accept that incredibly EVIL fact, why is it so hard to accept different sub groups of humans have differences too? All non Africans are separated from Africans by a minimum of 50,000 years, and up to 200,000 years (as per a new DNA study done in Africa) of divergent evolution. Why would it not be reasonable to assume some differences popped up in that time? They surely have physically (You do know Africans have physically smaller brains than all non Africans too right?), yet somehow all that evolution in radically different environments DIDN'T affect cognitive ability at all? On that basis alone it's a silly assumption. Stack on all the facts and it's downright unlikely, if not nearly impossible.

    In broad strokes, I think environment is not the cause because I have read a lot on the subject. It is not faith, but knowledge. Almost all evidence points to the overwhelming majority of the effect being genetic. It's the same reason I would argue raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs, even if some leftist economist cooks up a paper that says otherwise. I know too much to have my opinion changed by some small, flawed, argument to the contrary, that has already been addressed elsewhere.

    However, I NEVER said I thought it was all genetic. I also agree that the gap has closed somewhat. Did I not already say this?

  • vek||

    The problem is that environmental factors have been shown to be minimal, and tend to shrink to being even smaller as soon as basic needs are met. We all meet them.

    So a gap as large as between blacks and whites in a 1st world country is, IMO, and in the view of many people far smarter than me, not likely to be fully closed. AKA they'll always trail behind by some degree.

    Might it close a bit more? Sure, possibly. But the evidence for this is scant. Some papers have showed it as ZERO since the 80s, those guys you found show minimal as well. If it settled at 10 points, it's still a huge difference. Even 6-7 is on a societal scale. Again see average results of whites vs Hispanics. Blacks also seem to have a smaller observed standard deviant, which limits the numbers at the extreme tails as well, which is where most of the ultra successful come from.

    We DO know a lot of factors that affect scores. Basically according to most research, in the 1st world we're BOTH already receiving the positive environmental factors that have actually shown to lead to gains, and the gap remains large. Mostly it's not starving, having horrible diseases, or massive physical trauma. This is why NK has some of the highest scores in the world, despite being a hell hole. If you want to get OCD, we don't necessarily know that the factors that alter individual scores are the EXACT same ones responsible for Flynn. But if there are any real G gains there, they probably overlap somewhat, if not completely.

  • vek||

    I already addressed the Irish/Jew thing previously. There's not a lot more to say there.

    As I also said earlier, I believe Flynn is a combo of almost universal achievement in the 1st world of the basic things that do seem to show positive effects, and us exercising our brains more for test taking. I don't think real G has gone up as much as indicated by the scores. Maybe it's 1/2, maybe it's 1/4, OR maybe it's 3/4, but a lot of people think it's somewhat illusory.

    Even if unknown factors are making real G increases, to make your idea work you have to assume whites will either receive fewer of the positive factors in the future to close the gap... Which makes no sense. If anything we'll probably receive more since we're at the top of the economics pyramid. Otherwise you're just assuming the gap will close just because...? Because you want it to?

    If real G increases have happened, an analogy might help. Take a genetic starting basis, and say that's the engine size. Whites have a high displacement 454 CI V8, blacks have a 350 CI V8 (Can you tell I like Chevy's?). If you slap a super charger (Flynn effect/positive environmental factors) on the 350, it may make as much power as the stock 454... But if you slap a super charger on the 454, it's still going to come out ahead. We're both getting super charged by Flynn, so why would that gap completely go away?

  • vek||

    As far as in Africa, those people have a HUGE gain to be made, because they do NOT have these factors yet. I think people who quote the dismally low scores there as the gospel are totally fucking retarded. I think blacks in the USA/Europe show a reasonable top end benchmark for African IQ scores. In fact it's probably a bit high if anything, because the average African American is 20-25% non African in DNA mostly European. But it's ballpark.

    Again, if it's environmental how do you explain starving children in Asia, WHO DO NOT have the positive factors blacks have here, scoring better? If a literal half starving Vietnamese kid outscores middle class blacks in the USA, I just can't put much faith in environment somehow closing that gap! It's logically ridiculous.

    It's no one thing for me. It's ALL of it combined. You can argue that logical correlations with obvious mechanisms that would make them work are not valid science... Which is technically true. But let's get real here. With the sheer number of correlations, when you also throw in the "real" science that also mostly points to a genetic origin... You're arguing against the obvious conclusion, simply because YOU want to have faith that there isn't a biological difference, because it would suck if it were true.

    I'm not the one basing my ideas on faith. I'm going with where the preponderance of evidence is pointing, much of which it seems you have never looked at.

  • vek||

    I really don't get why so many people who are otherwise intelligent and logical can't accept the truth. I have, and I still don't want to gas all the blacks! Or even kick them all out of the country! I can only think of 2 policies off the top of my head that I think should be adjusted. We should eliminate affirmative action, as it is not going to achieve what leftists think it will. And we should adjust immigration policy to AT LEAST only allowing merit based immigration, including from white/Asian countries.

    Black/Arab/Latino immigrants of high IQ would have children that reverted to the group mean, but I think we could survive this. We cannot survive as a 1st world country with unlimited immigration from these places. If Europe and the USA stay on this current trend, we will no longer be the most prosperous countries on earth. Those will be in Asia... Which might happen anyway, but we'd still be close at least! Or maybe we would stay on top because Europeans and Jews have more instances of high geniuses, whereas Asians cluster closer to their higher norm.

    Look at the problems low IQ whites and minorities are in the USA today already... Then imagine 30 years from now when even fewer jobs exist that low IQ people can do. It's a catastrophic future in the works if our average IQ drops like a rock as our needs for higher IQs skyrockets.

  • vek||

    Not to mention the inevitable racial strife as high IQ whites and Asians are humming along doing great, and somehow all the minority groups are suffering immensely.

    Other than the above, remember that this was the standard belief even just a few decades ago... Hell, it still is outside Europe and the Anglosphere! In China they openly talk up the fact that Asians are the smartest, with not a hint of remorse. The world that mostly accepted this point of view is the world that ended Jim Crow, passed the Civil Rights Act, etc. because most people are decent. I don't want to oppress blacks or put them in chains again. Neither does almost anybody else.

    Things don't have to be horrible if we accept reality for what it is. In fact it could be an improvement, because we could actually try to tailor helping out minority groups in ways they can actually achieve. Blacks will NEVER be proportionally represented at NASA, Google, etc. But they could all make decent money working as mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, police, etc.

    Also look what I just saw: https://tinyurl.com/yauuefyj

    The truth won't stay suppressed for long...

  • swood1000||

    Again, if it's environmental how do you explain starving children in Asia, WHO DO NOT have the positive factors blacks have here, scoring better?

    Why didn't you respond to my question about the APA article? It reports that the cause of the differential between blacks and whites is not known, and also that it is a mystery how environmental factors produced the Flynn effect. Yet you seem quite confident in saying that the relevant environmental factors do not account for it in the case of Asian children. This is where you have difficulty hiding your faith-based approach. The article also says "There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation." This is the same conclusion reached by Charles Murray in The Bell Curve:

    "If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate."

  • swood1000||

    Whites have a high displacement 454 CI V8, blacks have a 350 CI V8

    Why do you use an example showing whites with 30% greater capacity whereas Earl Hunt estimates that the difference in brain size would account for less than 1/10 of the IQ gap?

    The Irish/Jew argument thing is interesting, and always used as a gotcha, but no longer really applicable. The intelligence tests in those days weren't nearly as accurate as they are now at measuring G, and were more loaded on acquired knowledge.

    Carl Brigham, a leading expert in mental tests, wrote in A Study of American Intelligence that Jews scored sufficiently low on mental tests to justify a claim that the test results "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent." You're saying that the IQ tests in the early 1900s were not valid?

  • vek||

    Just circled back around to this, I'm sure you'll probably not see this but...

    Look, in academia today you are literally going to have your career ruined if you said racial differences in IQ are largely genetic. So, surprise surprise, almost nobody will come out and say it. But the DATA that exists, and a few scientists willing to be honest, will concede it is probably the majority of the gap.

    That you're quoting PC scientists towing the line is basically irrelevant. I've read through a ton of this data, and where it points is clear to anyone who can think logically. Real scientists have too, and many of them come to the same conclusion.

    You are willfully choosing to ONLY look at the arguments put forward by one camp in this debate. Why is that? The other side has much compelling evidence, far more than the ones who deny genetic input being a major factor.

    Some economists of the left wing persuasion make obviously false statements all the time. Why should this even more charged issue be any different? It's not. Some people have an agenda that goes beyond facts and reality. Even those that hold these beliefs will mostly not say it out loud.

    Again I NEVER said it is 100% genetic. You're building a strawman. I think there are both influences, as Murray himself says. But as to which is more important, most data points to genetics. Those that say otherwise are either ignorant, or lying.

  • vek||

    The fact is you're ignoring the obvious conclusion because it is painful for you. Go look at a map of the world with IQ scores. Funny how it perfectly matches up with old stereotypes (Europeans explorers DID NOT think the Chinese were uncivilized, and in fact had much praise for some Asian countries), the level of civilization historically built, scientific achievement, the economic output today, the success in academia, etc etc etc. Then look at how immigrants from higher IQ places in a SINGLE generation catch up to and surpass whites in our own countries. Yet other groups fall flat on their face in EVERY country they're in in the world. I could go on for days with this sort of thing.

    Kinda all makes sense in the context of IQ determined largely by genetics. The world makes NO sense if you ignore this concept, and perfect sense when you accept it.

    Anyone who can properly think, without letting feelz and propaganda cloud their judgment, should come to the logical conclusion that IQ is real. And IQ varies, as one should expect from the theory of evolution, by different breeding populations. These very roughly align with what is called "race." In reality it's far more localized than that. Different Asians and different Europeans have fairly wide gaps too. Different dog breeds have different levels of intelligence... Why would humans be any different?

  • vek||

    I don't have time to keep repeating myself, and I don't have time to list off every single friggin' fact to dispute your incorrect thinking. So I will simply close with this. Here is a link to an article by a black man who has come to accept the facts. If even many black people are coming to accept reality, perhaps you can too. It's not as horrible a thing to accept as many seem to think. We don't have to genocide anybody! Perhaps you can actually research the other side of the argument that ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THE DATA OBJECTIVELY too.

    https://www.amren.com/features/2017/ 01/young-black-man-became-race-realist/

    And a bonus article that came up in my search for the one above that mentions a few reasons, and has links, as to why the current PC theory is so preposterous on its face.

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/why-race-realism -makes-more-sense-than-magic-dirt-theory/

    And a mixed race black, white, and Asian guy who writes about heritability in general. He is a strong hereditarian who believes most traits are genetic. There's a LOT of evidence for this, although I think he goes too strong on some subjects

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/

  • swood1000||

    Thanks for the links. Very interesting.

    Look, in academia today you are literally going to have your career ruined if you said racial differences in IQ are largely genetic. So, surprise surprise, almost nobody will come out and say it.

    Couldn't agree more. Your point is entirely valid. The APA seems to want to maintain a modern, liberal and progressive political stance. I almost didn't cite them for that reason.

    You are willfully choosing to ONLY look at the arguments put forward by one camp in this debate. Why is that?

    No, those are the only ones I cite to you, but they are not the only ones I look at. My position is more agnostic than anything else. What I am objecting to is your absolutist stance that the data are all in, any reasonable person must agree that the issue is settled, and that "Those that say otherwise are either ignorant or lying." As I see it, we really do not know the true impact of various environmental and cultural factors.

  • swood1000||

    As for some of the causes of the differences between cultures see this article and this one by black economist Thomas Sowell. One of the problems in Africa, for example, was the scarcity of navigable rivers. He points out that no great civilization has developed in isolation.

    I am as irritated as you are by people who insist that the solution for the problems of the black subculture in the country lies entirely with the whites and that to suggest otherwise is victim blaming. But I do think that changes in IQ in various populations over time, attributable only to environment, cannot be dismissed so facilely.

  • swood1000||

    The young-black-man-became-race-realist illustrated well some of the issues of the black sub-culture in the U.S. that hold people back. In this, I support the view of Amy Wax, who was so bitterly denounced for this article, as well as for her comments about the destructive effects of "mismatch" in college and law school.

    I am in the middle of reading the autobiography of Thomas Sowell, who describes first-hand the pernicious effects he observed when colleges accepted students who couldn't keep up with the others. (Sowell himself received two D's and two F's his first semester at Harvard but went on to graduate Magna Cum Laude. He just needed that cold water in the face to realize what was going to be required of him in order to succeed.)

    Sowell says that a good part of the problem with the black students was that they just didn't work hard enough. They would show up in the library late, spend too much time socializing, and leave early. When he was teaching at Cornell and one black student complained that the grades of the Jews were twice as good as theirs he replied that this was surprising since they worked three times as hard. Issues of culture and environment hold people back intellectually and it seems to me that their impact on IQ is yet to be fully determined.

  • swood1000||

    See this article by black Columbia University professor John McWhorter in which he says that with respect to the question of race and IQ, "The data are not all in…"

    So that's how I hope the issue of race and IQ works. But I cannot allow myself to fall into the sadly common pattern in which people's insistence that something is true is founded as much on their wanting it to be true as on actual evidence. My hunches and predilections do not qualify as conduits to truth. I can responsibly claim neither on my gut sense nor on what I have seen of the research that it has been proven that there is no genetically based racial gap in IQ.

    But he sees no value in the discussion. What is the point? Even if it were shown that the IQ gap is genetic, what should society do differently? What is there to the discussion beyond making some people feel superior?

  • DarrenM||

    If we wish really really hard and deny that any such problem exists, then it isn't a problem and anyone who says so is racist. It hurts those who get thrown into environments where they are less likely to succeed, but no one really cares about that anyway.

  • StackOfCoins||

    That was my takeaway as well. They wanted desperate to placate students, and they needed a reason. Apparently this was the best they could do.

  • Teddy Pump||

    I'm betting that provision on not revealing student rankings is truly meant to protect individual students (as it should be) & not ethnic or racial groups!

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Here's a very inconvenient fact, Glenn," Wax said, "I don't think I've ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the [Penn Law School] class and rarely, rarely in the top half… I can think of one or two students who've graduated in the top half of my required first year course. Well, what are we supposed to do about that? You're really putting in front of this person a real uphill battle, and if they were better matched, it might be a better environment for them. That's the mismatch hypothesis, of course

    This was so stupid to say. I am sorry, there is no way around that this was retarded to say. Maybe it is true, but it is not something a teacher should ever say in public.

  • vek||

    Why? It's not POLITICALLY CORRECT to say it nowadays, in a world where half the country ignores basic facts of biology...

    But the thing is it SHOULD BE acceptable to speak the truth. ALWAYS. Women have different mental attributes than men. This is a scientific fact. We consistently score differently on different types of tests. So do different races/ethnicities.

    Ignoring these fundamental facts about reality is causing more problems than it is solving. Blacks have a 15 point IQ gap with whites. That means there are far fewer of them in the high IQ range. In a sane world that would mean we should be promoting them doing things that people with moderate to slightly above average IQs can do, as this would offer the best outcomes in the real world.

    Trying to force someone of barely average intelligence to go to law school is usually just going to result in somebody dropping out of law school, or barely passing, and being a shitty lawyer. If they'd gone to study something a little more in their range, it would be doable for them, and a better match with their skill level.

    This ultra egalitarianism against all facts shit has got to stop. It's a lie.

  • Trainer||

    You don't need a high IQ to succeed in law school. Succeeding in law school doesn't make you great lawyer and being at the bottom of your class doesn't make you a crappy lawyer. It just means you've succeeded or not as a student.

  • vek||

    "You don't need a high IQ to succeed in law school. Succeeding in law school doesn't make you great lawyer and being at the bottom of your class doesn't make you a crappy lawyer. It just means you've succeeded or not as a student."

    WRONG. Sure, somebody with an 85 IQ MAY be able to muddle through law school if they have the best work ethic in the world, and perhaps a natural gift for oratory if they want to do actual jury based court cases or something... But back in the real world, they will, ON AVERAGE, be a piss poor lawyer.

    You're buying into leftist bullshit that nobody has a natural aptitude for anything. THIS IS A LIE. People do, and it matters. If somebody's passion in life is something they're not naturally inclined towards, fine, maybe they should try. But if they're just looking to do something that will make them okay money that they can not hate doing, pushing a slow person to become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer is a horrible idea.

    Google Professions By IQ and look at the stuff that pulls up. There is a range for anything, but there is a floor on many professions. That's just reality. Live in reality dude!

  • Trainer||

    What? My Cousin Vinny isn't reality? Actually, I'm buying into what I saw when my husband went to law school and all the people that I know who have gone to law school which I would generally call reality. Most of the people were of average or slightly above average intelligence. Some were definitely below. Yes, they had a good work ethic but they also played the Law School Game very well.

    That doesn't mean a lot of smart people become lawyers or that brilliant people fill the halls of Harvard or Yale law schools. But on the whole, an average law school attracts pretty average people and they go on to become decent lawyers. Below average law schools like Texas Southern often graduate below average intelligence people.

  • vek||

    And that's still reinforcing my point. If you'd actually googled IQ by profession you'd have seen many "fancy" professions dip down to right around average, some even a few points below. But you don't typically see people with 75 IQs in med school for a reason.

    Work ethic REALLY does count in the world. I 100% believe you when you say you know some below average intelligence lawyers... I've dealt with some in my line of work ;) But it's a rarity, and they mostly probably only hacked it because of other good qualities that offset that disadvantage.

    None the less, they're probably, on average, not as good as lawyers with 150 IQs. People seem to have a real problem with the idea of an AVERAGE. There are exceptions to rules, but averages convey powerful information too.

    You can predict somebody's adult income based on their childhood IQ score with something like 70-80% accuracy. I forget off the top of my head, but it's something like that. That is NOT a meaningless stat.

  • Karen24||

    Very true. Plenty of quite stupid people are good at taking tests in law school.

  • Trainer||

    A good memory (which some below average people have) and a good study group will get you pretty far even if you're not too bright in an average or below average law school.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. I know someone like that. Good memory and hard worker. Not a very good critical thinker and someone gullible, though.

  • FlameCCT||

    IMHO it is the forcing that is most egregious, setting up people for failure.

  • NicholasStix||

    "In a sane world that would mean we should be promoting them doing things that people with moderate to slightly above average IQs can do, as this would offer the best outcomes in the real world."

    Non sequitur alert! It would have been much more accurate, had you said, "we should be promoting them doing things that people with below average IQs can do..."

  • vek||

    Well, I was trying to be nice!!! "Moderate" means "below average" in nice people speak!

    And in all fairness, a good chunk of blacks overlap with the slightly below average, to barely above average, whites/Asians. It's only once you get into the higher rungs that there are almost no blacks. So basically a good chunk of blacks (maybe half or so) can do anything that the normal blue collar/low end of white collar white folks can do. Mechanics, plumbers, sales, McDonald's manager, etc are all totally doable in theory.

    The real issue to deal with is the other half of blacks that are not even smart enough to do half of that stuff. We just don't need that many burger flippers or whatever in the country...

  • swood1000||

    Why? It's not POLITICALLY CORRECT to say it nowadays, in a world where half the country ignores basic facts of biology...

    But the thing is it SHOULD BE acceptable to speak the truth

    Because she opened herself to charges that she had breached confidentiality, for which one cannot claim truth as a justification.

  • dr ricardo||

    Please give your reasons why:

    "This was so stupid to say. I am sorry, there is no way around that this was retarded to say"

  • swood1000||

    This was so stupid to say. I am sorry, there is no way around that this was retarded to say. Maybe it is true, but it is not something a teacher should ever say in public.

    It was ill-advised to refer specifically to the law students at Penn. That opened her up to a charge that she was divulging confidential information. She should have just talked about laws students generally that she has had contact with in her career. She could have made her point without going right up to the hornet's nest and giving it a good shake. On the other hand, I get the impression that she likes controversy.

  • tommyguns2||

    Only because it allows an opponent to marginalize her. if it's true, and I'm willing to bet that U Penn will not release any racial data to debunk it because the data is likely not too good.

    The mismatch thing is a BIG deal. Getting into Bolt Hall or Stanford law doesn't mean jack squat if you flunk out after 1 year and your confidence is so wiped out that you don't bother transferring to a mid-tier school that would be a better fit. Those good lawyers are lost to society, and are lost to their community as role models, etc.

    I saw it in my law school. A number of students were in over their head. They would have done just fine in another school environment. Instead, they struggled and they knew it. They aren't stupid. So instead of getting a law degree from a mid tier school and getting a job with a firm and having a career as a lawyer (maybe not at some fancy pants firm, but a nice career still), they are drop out and are bitter, and the easy out is to blame it on racism, etc.

    But the law schools don't give a sh*t about the minority students. Affirmative action lets the administration feel good about themselves, and that's the whole point. Whether it's actually helping the intended community is not really the focus. Otherwise the great disparity in drop out rates in both undergraduate schools and graduate schools would be of grave concern to them. But it's not.

  • Karen24||

    According to her dean, it is not true.

  • generalisimo14||

    A smart lawyer should be able to find 1 disclosure of student info and then demonstrate unfair treatment empirically.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Y'all don't start commenting until i finish making some popcorn.

  • Red Tony||

    Put some gummy bears in there and make room on the couch.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Reese's Pieces you plebian.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Cut a hole in the bottom of the bucket and hand me my Snuggie.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Is it true that Alex Trimboli once got a handjob from Hugh at the movies?

    100%

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What percentage of comments in this thread are gonna end up being John? What about percentage of words?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    58 and 92.

  • Sevo||

    42, since it's the answer to anything.
    Oh, and 1066 since it's the answer to any history question.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I thought 1492 was the answer to any history question.

  • John||

    There is no evidence that she is lying when she talked about the lack of success of black students at Penn Law. If she is mistaken, then the school should provide the numbers that show how she is. Even if she is mistaken, she never claimed complete knowledge. She is speaking of her experience. So, it is an honest mistake if it is a mistake all.

    What makes Wax "controversial" and causes the left to want to see her career ruined is that she spoke a truth that they don't like. There is nothing racist about pointing out the truth. If it is the case that black students are not fairing well at Penn Law, then lying about it isn't going to change it or help the situation.

    In the end, Wax is "controversial" because she said that working hard and having middle class values is how someone gets ahead and that black students are not doing well at Penn Law and would likely be better off attending schools where they would have a better chance at excelling. Those two statements are only "controversial" because leftism is a totalitarian ideology and being such insists that everyone be forced to repeat whatever lie the party demands.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is nothing that the left hates more than the truth.

  • John||

    One of the better observations Orwell ever made was that totalitarian states force people to tell lies not because they want them to believe the lies. No, they want people to know that they are being forced to tell a lie because forcing someone to repeat something they know is a lie is a way of humiliating and controlling them. The more outrageous the lie, the more humiliating it is to tell it and the more control the state gets by forcing people to do so. That is all that is going on here.

  • I can't even||

    She said something blindingly obvious.

    That it is controversial, disturbs students, and gets the attention of school administration is a good indication of how far down the Orwellian hole we have fallen.

  • John||

    Yes it is.

  • I can't even||

    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

    "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

    - George Orwell

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Orwell is a quote machine, so damn prescient.

    God he must have suffered in his life.

  • vek||

    Right? I need to read more of his stuff other than 1984. I've only ever read 1984, and I think one essay or something a long time ago. But he was quite a brilliant chap.

  • SunkCost||

    "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" - shows that he was pretty skeptical of capitalism as well.

  • NicholasStix||

    You sure that was Orwell, and not Theodore Dalrymple?

  • Ecoli||

    Amen, brother!

  • Finrod||

    Precisely. The Community-Based Reality can't tolerate WrongFacts.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Those two statements are only "controversial" because

    Why do you keep putting controversial in scare quotes?

  • ||

    Because the controversy surrounding them is not justifiable. Sure, her positions might be debatable. But her ability to teach and also hold those positions is not legitimately debatable.

  • John||

    Because of what MP said. These statements might be controversial in the strict sense but they do not merit being so.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    So the definition of the word controversial, giving rise to or likely to give rise to public disagreement, is irrelevant because you agree with what she said.

    *eyeroll*

  • ||

    It's simply a refusal to legitimize the perception that the comments are controversial.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    People disagree with the comments, therefore they're controversial. There's nothing wrong with a writer calling them controversial, because they are. So the scare quotes are unnecessary.

  • BYODB||

    Huh, so that's all it takes? Turns out the world being round is controversial after all.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Turns out the world being round is controversial after all.

    If you accept the definition of the word, then yes. That definition comes from the Oxford English Dictionary, so if you find it controversial then maybe you could write them a letter.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not arguing against the definition, I'm saying that your complaint about John using scare quotes is simply wrong since it's illustrating John's opinion. If you're going to be anal about usage, at least get it right.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    If you're going to be anal about usage, at least get it right.

    What's funny is that if he had posted the same comment without the scare quotes, it would still properly express his opinion. The use of the scare quotes helped his comment in no way whatsoever.

    For example: I think the world being round being controversial is idiotic, but my opinion doesn't make it not controversial.

  • BYODB||

    Come now, without the scare quotes it wouldn't be a John comment. it expresses his utter disdain.

    Zeb properly notes below that under your expansive ideal of 'controversial' it becomes a word without functional meaning, but by all means continue that debate below.

  • vek||

    Yeah! I like scare quotes damn it!

  • John||

    I don't think she is controversial or to the extent she is, it is utterly unwarranted. The quotation marks are my way of saying she should not be controversial even if she is. I don't know what else to tell you.

  • Zeb||

    I mean, yeah, that's sort of the definition of "controversial". But there has to be more to it than that. Otherwise absolutely everything is controversial and the word has no usefulness.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Whaddayagonnado? As people like so frequently like to say, words mean things.

  • Zeb||

    But some of those meanings are normative.

  • John||

    Sure they do. And they also have implications. And the implication of saying someone is controversial is that there is some valid reason for their being so. You can call anything controversial. By virtue of even one person disagreeing with it or them, they are strictly speaking controversial to some degree. But for the word to have any meaning, it has to imply some validity to those who are objecting. There are tons of people who claim the earth is flat. Does that make the contention that the earth is round "controversial"? By your definition it does.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    But for the word to have any meaning, it has to imply some validity to those who are objecting.

    Let's stick to this particular case. What you're now saying is that the people who disagree with the position, the ones making it controversial, don't have a valid point. In saying that, you're making a value judgment that is totally subjective. Is it possible for you to think for one second that the people on the other side of the issue don't think you have a valid point? Does the fact that there are two sides on this issue and both sides think the other is just factually wrong still not make it controversial? Or are you going to insist that any position you agree with can't possibly be controversial?

  • John||

    What makes something controversial is it being questionable. There are lots of I have that are controversial. Any position about an issue that hasn't been settled or isn't obvious is controversial. Some positions are, however, obvious and above controversy. And the fact that some people still deny them, doesn't make them controversial. In this case, this women told the truth or at least her observations of it. That should not make her controversial. And saying it does is no different than saying the proposition that the earth is round is controversial.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Your last statement is simply a straw man. The prior statements are probably an accurate summary of John's intent, and reading the comments, I think John has a lot of people who agree with him. Based on what I read in the article, I agree with him, though I reserve judgement on the off chance there might be more to the story.

    Crucifying someone for having a non-approved message in a University setting is about as ridiculous as it gets. Either Universities are there to expand one's horizons or they are trade schools, and only the former purpose can demand the kind of tuition they seem to be demanding and the kind of credibility they think they are due.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I think John has a lot of people who agree with him. Based on what I read in the article, I agree with him, though I reserve judgement on the off chance there might be more to the story.

    The only thing I disagree with John on is his use of scare quotes. I'm mostly with the opinion he and many others here have put forth.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I would proffer the argument that scare quotes are needed here, becaue I believe, by definition any objective fact cannot be controversial.

    Facts can be painful, troubling, exciting, mundane, and any of a myriad of other things, but they cannot, by definition, be controversial.

    Say there were some large contingent of flat-earthers. They may strongly disagree with any science program showing the earth as it is in reality.

    And in my hypothetical and this case in reality, I would say no matter how strong or vocal the disagreement, it cannot be controversial.

  • FlameCCT||

    Damifino!

    In the words of the great philosopher, Forrest Gump:
    Progressive is as Progressive does!

  • Zeb||

    There is nothing racist about pointing out the truth. If it is the case that black students are not fairing well at Penn Law, then lying about it isn't going to change it or help the situation.

    It's just fucking nuts. People just assume that making an observation about how things are somehow means you are endorsing the situation.

  • Finrod||

    People love to shoot the messenger, it seems.

  • cc2||

    They would rather black students fail than allow the truth to be told.

  • vek||

    Yup! They've done this quite a number of times actually. Did you know that womens self reported happiness levels have been going down over the last few decades, almost PERFECTLY in lock step with how feminist the culture has become? It seems most women don't like having to pretend to be sub par men, but the left keeps telling them they have to... Even though it is making them miserable.

    Incidentally, male happiness levels have stayed about the same. I guess as long as we can get the milk without buying the cow we're happy. Grandma was right!

  • fafalone||

    Don't worry, I'm sure progressives will eventually figure out that since weighted admissions aren't enough to guarantee equality of outcome, they have to add weighted grades/GPA too. Then all will be right with the world.

  • vek||

    Except the REAL WORLD OUTCOMES, which will never become equal. It must suck to be a delusional leftist, thinking you can fix unfixable problems.

  • FlameCCT||

    The truth exposes the Progressives setting up people to fail.

  • tommyguns2||

    "In the end, Wax is "controversial" because she said that working hard and having middle class values is how someone gets ahead and that black students are not doing well at Penn Law and would likely be better off attending schools where they would have a better chance at excelling. Those two statements are only "controversial" because leftism is a totalitarian ideology and being such insists that everyone be forced to repeat whatever lie the party demands."

    ^^^^I agree with every word here!!

  • Just Say'n||

    No 'to be sures'? No false equivalencies? No haphazard labeling of the victim as a 'white supremacist' based upon a single Vox article?

    Listen, Alec, I know you're an intern, but you really got to give us something to criticize here. This article is too good to take issue with. You made Robbie cry.

  • John||

    I am sure he is going to get a stern talking to over this.

  • Rhywun||

    Seriously. How am I supposed to take him seriously from now on if I can't be sure he holds the right opinions??

  • vek||

    Uh oh! He's probably a secret Alt-Right infiltrator! Coming to co-opt and destroy the Cosmotarian wing of the libertarian movement from within!!!

    Good luck Alec, I'm rootin' for ya! ;)

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    The Penn Law chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild, a progressive legal organization, said that Wax's comments were "an explicit and implicit endorsement of white supremacy,"

    Explicit AND implicit endorsement. That must make it super double bad.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Literally.

  • Sevo||

    Virtually, too.

  • Juice||

    How did she explicitly endorse white supremacy anyway? She explicitly claimed that a certain culture is superior, but she never made any claims about the race of any person adopting that culture.

  • cc2||

    It endorses white supremacy because the Left believes that blacks are incapable of achieving western culture.

  • vek||

    1. They're probably right about that...

    2. If they're wrong, blacks, and all the whites who have bought into leftist BS, would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better off if they went back to more traditional moral norms. They are simply better for having a functional society.

  • CE||

    Sounds like Penn has been showing exemplary restraint. Most other schools would not have been so forgiving. And she shouldn't be talking about anyone's grades or class rank.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Generalizations about the perceived inferiority of black students -- especially if incongruent with the record -- reflect poorly on this professor in two ways. She apparently believes it, and flouted sound judgment by broadcasting it.

  • John||

    They are not inconsistent with the record. If blacks are not doing well at Penn, and it appears they are not, she has a duty as a professor to point that out. If she is wrong, then the school should say so. But since the school hasn't said so or provided any evidence she is beyond "this can't be true", then she must be correct.

    Moreover, if there were a lot of black students who had finished at or near the top of their class, why are they not standing up and calling her out?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They are not inconsistent with the record. If blacks are not doing well at Penn, and it appears they are not

    Is this perception on anything other than the casual observations of a professor whose judgment is lacking and whose motivations seem suspect?

    Declaring that black students don't belong at Penn may make this professor a hero in the eyes of the backward, bigoted, socially maladjusted, right-wing goobers who frequent this site and inhabit society's fringe, but it is ample disqualification for anyone who wishes to teach at a top law school in two respects: She believe it, and she is goofy enough to broadcast it.

  • John||

    It is the perception of someone who has taught there for years. Law schools are very small places and the professors all know who the top students are. Moreover, if what she were saying were untrue, it would be easily disproven. The fact that it hasn't been and the school haven't produced hard numbers about how well or not well black students do and there haven't been black graduates to step forward to contradict her claim by their class standing shows that it is true.

    If what she was saying were not true, Penn could easily respond by saying "10% of the top half of the last four graduating classes were black" or whatever the statistic is. It could do so consistent with privacy laws and doing so would not only prove her wrong but tout the achievement of its black students. It has not done that because the statistics are exactly what this woman says they are. It is really that simple.

    I know you are backward and not very bright, but I think you have lost this argument badly enough that you ought to move along and troll somewhere else.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The fact that it hasn't been and the school haven't produced hard numbers about how well or not well black students do and there haven't been black graduates to step forward to contradict her claim by their class standing shows that it is true.

    It is difficult to argue with that argument unless one has been educated.

  • John||

    it is easy for you to argue against it, but you can't seem to come up with an argument to refute it. if the evidence was there, Penn would produce it. They have the data and have every reason to produce it if it contradicts her.

    This is known as deductive logic. it is a higher mental function that apparently is unfamiliar to you. Anyone reading this with an IQ above 100 understands the argument. If you cannot, well life sucks if you are stupid I guess.

  • BYODB||

    I will say one thing, and that's if Penn reprimanded this Professor for breaking policy it seems unlikely the school would break policy to disprove their claim. The burden of proof should be on the Professor since they are the one making the claim, not on the school to defend against a claim without evidence.

  • John||

    I will say one thing, and that's if Penn reprimanded this Professor for breaking policy it seems unlikely the school would break policy to disprove their claim.

    It would not break policy to give the racial breakdown of its graduating classes. Schools do this all of the time. The policy is that you can't say this person's grades. There is no policy against giving general information about the makeup of graduating classes. Schools do this all of the time.

    Moreover, even if it were the policy, what kind of policy is it that says "we can't talk about the relative success or failure of our minority students"? Really? So if the minority students were getting screwed and all failing, Penn couldn't talk about that or do anything to solve the problem?

  • BYODB||

    I figured my burden of proof argument was more persuasive, so I'm assuming that's why you ignored it.

  • tommyguns2||

    The professor made statements about the students in her class, so she was speaking from first hand knowledge. I'm not sure what she has to do to carry her burden of proof there. If it's not true the university knows it. The school wouldn't have to give out actual numbers, it could simply state that they looked at her class results over the past 5 years, and she is incorrect. Unfortunately that opens a can of worms because now people want to see the data. The school would be happy to publish that data if it showed strong minority results. I'm not going to hold my breath.

    The other statement she made was about graduating in the top half of the class. It's my understanding that the school publishes the names of the top 25%of the class, so they could easily take count of these publicly disclosed information to debunk her. I don't think anyone has. How can the school get their panties in a bunch of about releasing student information when they disclose the actual names of the top 25% each year??

  • ||

    They need those government diversity cheques, they don't give two shits about their academic outcomes.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You genuinely can't understand why Penn has declined to wade into a statistics-flinging contest with a disaffected professor concerning the academic performance of the black students she has disparaged?

    You also seem unable to understand why her comments were objectionable.

    Good luck with trying to operate in mainstream American society, let alone at the level of a leading mainstream law school. Maybe stick to militia meetings, white nationalist meetings, and local Republican committee meetings?

  • John||

    You genuinely can't understand why Penn has declined to wade into a statistics-flinging contest with a disaffected professor concerning the academic performance of the black students she has disparaged?

    I completely understand why the didn't do that. They didn't because the statistics confirmed what she claimed. If they did, they would have no reason not to have done that. And you can provide no reason why they wouldn't have other than well they wouldn't.

    You are not fooling anyone here. You are just dumb as a post. Can you feed yourself?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You must be a great birther. Also a huge Benghazi enthusiast and Trump supporter.

  • vek||

    Look Rev., it's a statistical fact from numbers that have been released that black student perform worse than white and asian students in basically every type of program at basically every school in the nation, including college. It is known. Why would we expect it to be different at Penn?

    This is because there is a 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites, and a 20 or so point IQ gap between blacks and asians. Maybe it's environmental, maybe it's genetic... Either way it doesn't matter. Their IQs are lower, and they perform less well. That's the end of the story. it's not PC, and it's not how I would like it to be in a perfect world, but there it is. Go google "race and iq" and start digging in. One of my favorite bloggers on the subject is a mixed black, white, and asian guy who completely accepts the reality that IQ varies by ethnicity. Why can't you?

  • jdmichels||

    You can always tell when a prog has lost an argument. Trump, Benghazi, birther....
    Don't forget Nazi and racist.

    You lost this round.

  • tommyguns2||

    "statistics-flinging contest"

    I like the way this is characterized. Don't let the actual data interfere with the school's social agenda.

    Are we actually helping these students? I "feel" like we are. Good, no more thinking about this, and let's move on to another important thing that will make me feel good about myself.

    I actually care about minority achievement. And putting these minority students into top tier schools when the aren't at that level is not good for the student or the school. It's only "good" for giving some social justice warriors warm fuzzies about themselves. Maybe that's enough for them.

  • vek||

    Yup. It's sick. A lot of these students would probably do pretty decent studying at a state college, or perhaps a less demanding major. The idea that everybody has the some potential has become pathological. You actually create the best outcomes by REALISTICALLY figuring out what somebody's potential is, and going along a path that fits that potential.

    You don't suggest somebody with Down Syndrome tries to become a doctor. They will fail. But you could suggest they learn how to sweep a floor, or even paint houses. That would create the best real world outcome possible.

    My dad had a Down Syndrome employee in one of the places where he was a manager when he was real young. He said he was the BEST damn employee in the place out of hundreds. He showed up on time every day, didn't screw around at work, tried really hard, and did awesome at his simple job. He provided for himself, which is more than plenty of normal people can say! But if he'd tried to get a college degree, it would have been preposterous.

  • Juice||

    They are not inconsistent with the record. If blacks are not doing well at Penn, and it appears they are not, she has a duty as a professor to point that out.

    Why single out students because of their color? Surely there are plenty of other races, including whites, in that bottom half of the class.

  • John||

    Because none of the black students are doing well. If the place were full on racist and blacks were getting fucked in their grades would it be racist of her to point out that no black person is ever allowed to be in the top part of the class? By your thinking, it would be.

    If blacks as a group are doing poorly something is wrong. But you would rather just let them fail than risk being called a racist for pointing out the problem.

  • ||

    Must've missed the part where she ever used the world "inferiority" or even implied that there was race based inferiority.

    Oh wait, I didn't miss it, because it never existed.

    Keep up the good work propping up those narratives, Rev.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm so stupid, I unblocked his thread and responded to him. Duh, greasonable exists for a good reason. I shouldn't second-guess myself.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    She'll be the right-wing darling for a time, but will end up at the same point along the societal fringe as those who will see her the hero.

    I disagree with your interpretation of her comments -- or, likely more accurate, with your public position on the interpretation of her comments. I figure you understood her meaning, and liked it.

  • John||

    Your ilk's ability to ruin her, if you can, doesn't make what she said any less true. The fact that all you can do is brag about what you think is her fate is further evidence that she is right. If she were wrong, you would be able to explain why instead of pointing to the mob and how happy you are about it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Decent people don't espouse 'white is best.' Sensible people don't mutter about how the blacks can't compete and do not belong at a top law school.

    She is punching her own ticket, perhaps intentionally. Maybe, if she antagonizes her current employer enough to invoke Penn's 'freedom of association,' she will have positioned herself for a nice spot at Ave Maria, or Regent, or Liberty.

  • BYODB||


    Decent people don't espouse 'white is best.'

    Again, though, where did she say that? She's empirically correct concerning cultures, although it's possible (since I have no idea who she is) that there's evidence for her racism but it's not quoted in this article.

    Follow up question, is being 'against' a culture the same as being 'against' a race? We're constantly told that sex and gender are separate, so I'm curious if race and culture are the same.

  • Zeb||

    Race and culture are not correlated. Sex and gender are almost completely so.

    I'm sure you know this and weren't seriously asking those questions.

    The people trying to conflate race and culture are absolutely the worst. There is absolutely no reason blacks or anyone can't participate in middle-class burgeois culture, or whatever you want to call it. Many do. Demonizing that culture, which culture is the best way for historically crapped on minorities to gain material equality, is just hurting minority people and ensuring that shit won't get better. God, I hate identity politics.

  • BYODB||


    Race and culture are not correlated. Sex and gender are almost completely so.

    Agreed, I was merely making the point that the type of person who's probably willing to go along with the 'sex and gender' argument somehow miss the race and culture difference which is frankly pretty god damn amazing.

    I entirely agree with your post, I don't see anything there to disagree with myself.

  • cc2||

    I have friends from Malaysia, Philippines, Iran, Bangladesh, India who came here in college and have totally adapted to US middle class culture. They are perfectly able to navigate the world of work, taxes, DMV, buying a house. Yet the left is claiming that US minorities are incapable of doing this. Sorry, wrong.

  • Juice||

    It was her mistake to bring up "working class whites" and "inner city blacks" and "anti assimilation hispanics" in the first place. She should have never put it in those terms. Her case would have been much stronger if she had simply espoused the benefits of her preferred culture and left it at that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    She didn't refer to culture. She said blacks performed poorly at Penn Law.

    Carry on, bigots.

  • Mark22||

    She didn't refer to culture. She said blacks performed poorly at Penn Law.

    And she is likely right, because Penn lowers its admission standards for blacks. If Penn lowered its admission standards for whites, then it would be whites who would be performing poorly. Only a racist like you would think that that observation is an observation about blacks rather than about Penn admissions.

  • John||

    She didn't espouse white is best. She said Penn was lowering their standards in an effort to attract more black students and the black students were suffering for it. That is not espousing white is best.

    Decent people don't patronize black people and pretend that they can't be told the truth about what is happening. You are a disgusting racist. You are by far the most racist person I have ever encountered. People in the rural South have more enlightened views about race than you do.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.14.18 @ 2:56PM|#
    "Decent people don't espouse 'white is best.'"

    BEAT that strawman, you imbecile!

  • vek||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.14.18 @ 2:56PM|#
    "Decent people don't espouse 'white is best.'"

    Actually Rev. empirically minded people would espouse "jews are best" since they consistently have the highest IQ scores at 109-112!

    Followed by East Asians with the Silver Medal at about 105-107.

    And coming in with the Bronze Medal, white people at between 94-104 depending on the particular nation in question.

    But that's just intelligence, and there are other valuable attributes too. Brains aren't everything... They'll just help you out the most in the 21st century.

  • Mark22||

    But that's just intelligence, and there are other valuable attributes too.

    Like decency, morality, tolerance, all of which Kirkland lacks.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Actually, Vek, empirically minded people would espouse "whites are best" since one does not create a new race by adopting a faith--which is what Judaism is.

    The IQ scoring of Jews was separated out for the sole purpose of moving whites down the IQ ladder because of the annoyance about them being at the top of that ladder--and so much else.

    'Decent' people espouse 'white are racist oppressive monsters' for the same reasons.

  • Mark22||

    Decent people don't espouse 'white is best.'

    She didn't espouse that. What she espoused is that post-Enlightenment bourgeois European culture is best, and by any reasonable objective standard it is. Plenty of non-whites have adopted that culture and prospered.

    Sensible people don't mutter about how the blacks can't compete and do not belong at a top law school.

    She isn't talking about "the blacks", she is talking about "the blacks that her law school admits". That particular population can't compete because her law school engages in racial discrimination and lowers the standards for blacks. If the law school lowered its standards for whites, then whites couldn't compete.

  • tommyguns2||

    "She is punching her own ticket, perhaps intentionally. Maybe, if she antagonizes her current employer enough to invoke Penn's 'freedom of association,' she will have positioned herself for a nice spot at Ave Maria, or Regent, or Liberty."

    Don't be silly, she brings valuable diversity to Penn Law School, and we all know that diversity is a compelling interest at such institutions. I'm sure they're all celebrating her diversity right now as we speak!

  • vek||

    "Like decency, morality, tolerance, all of which Kirkland lacks."

    Yup! Some of the best people I've ever known were not too sharp, but they were good and hard working folks who live right. I don't think badly of non smart people who do things right, but one also needs to accept there are limitations on the things they can do with their lives... But it doesn't mean they have to be outright failures! My buddy, who probably has an 80ish IQ or so if I had to guess, makes bank doing high skill trade work.

    "Actually, Vek, empirically minded people would espouse "whites are best" since one does not create a new race by adopting a faith--which is what Judaism is.

    The IQ scoring of Jews was separated out for the sole purpose of moving whites down the IQ ladder because of the annoyance about them being at the top of that ladder--and so much else."

    Well, I suppose! It depends on your definition of "white." Jews and Europeans are both Caucasoids. But so are Indians and Arabs, and most wouldn't consider them white. Some people consider Semites of all stripes to be not white too, even though they're often fairly pale skinned. I don't much care either way myself!

    Even if Jews were considered white, they're such a small percentage of the population they'd barely bump the average. So Asians would probably still be on top as far as major ethnic groups. As a mostly white guy, I'm okay with that.

  • Rhywun||

    The surest way to make sure a problem never goes away to be prohibit anyone from talking about it. Do you really think the professor is pointing these things out to show how superior she is, as opposed to, oh I don't know, out of genuine concern for students' well-being? Really?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I sense she was flashing gang signals and trying to persuade people to adopt her political positions rather than expressing genuine concern for black students' well-being.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    As opposed to calling them bitter clingers.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    You know who hears dog-whistles?

    Dogs.

    You know who hears racist dog-whistles?

    Racists.

    Carry on, bigot.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    No more phone calls, Mr. Violent Sociopath is our winner of the "Rev is a Racist" contest. Your prize is dinner for two with Shaun King, aka "Talcum X".

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'll just keep shoving my preferences down right-wing throats, occasionally doing it sideways just for the sport of it, the way America has been ramming it to conservatives' low-grade aspirations for at least a half-century.

    Open wide, goobers. You still don't seem to have accepted everything already shoved down there -- from environmentalism and race relations to treatment of gays and abortion, and dozens more -- yet.

    Carry on, guys.

  • vek||

    It'll all be fun and games until the civil war starts and the left realizes that fat, ugly, blue haired lesbians don't exactly make the best soldiers. LOL

  • Mark22||

    I'll just keep shoving my preferences down right-wing throats

    You just keep demonstrating the ignorance, intolerance, and vile beliefs of leftists. Keep up the good work.

  • Mark22||

    Open wide, goobers. You still don't seem to have accepted everything already shoved down there -- from environmentalism and race relations to treatment of gays and abortion, and dozens more -- yet.

    You mean like when Hillary and many other Democrats opposed gay marriage? You mean when Democrats implemented racial segregation? Or when Democrats created an epidemic of single motherhood and instilled an anger into black teenagers that condemns them to a life of poverty and resentment? Or when Democrats hand out trillions to their corporate cronies in the name of "environmentalism", while condemning Americans to an early death due to pollution? That's the nice political party you hang out with.

  • Mark22||

    Generalizations about the perceived inferiority of black students -- especially if incongruent with the record -- reflect poorly on this professor in two ways.

    The population of black students at top universities is, on average, worse than the population of Asian or white students because those universities lower their admission standards in the name of diversity. That is a consequence of racism, specifically, racist admission procedures by the universitiy.

  • John||

    She didn't talk about anyone's grades or class work. The fact that you shouldn't say "Joe Blow got a B" does not mean you can't talk about class performance at all. If it is true that black students are not doing well at Penn, then that is a problem. But how is that problem ever supposed to be dealt with if no one can talk about it?

    Suppose she had said, "Penn is so racist and the professors so biased against black students, I have never seen a black student finish in the top half of their class". And let's say that it is true and otherwise hardworking and successful black students were getting screwed over by their professors for being black. Would you want her punished for "talking about someone's grades or class rank"? By your logic here you would.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It must puzzle you that Penn sees things differently, and is a top-ten law school. I not only accept those points but also find them to be related.

    This professor punched her own ticket. She's lucky she doesn't teach at a conservative-controlled school; she'd have been excommunicated by now.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You make a lot of arguments from authority.

  • StackOfCoins||

    The proggie modus operandi: when in doubt, double-down.

  • John||

    Penn can't provide any evidence for their statement. Moreover, if she were wrong, the existence of top graduating black law students would be both obvious and undeniable. Penn is telling the lie you want to believe. Good for them and you. But that doesn't make it any less of a lie.

  • Just Say'n||

    I too blindly accept the dogmatic position of our betters. Who are we to question, especially in a learning environment. That is not what indoctrination is about, right, comrade?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You are free to reject America's strongest schools and choose, instead, one of the hundreds of third-rate, censorship-ridden, nonsense-teaching, conservative-controlled goober factories.

    Have fun. And, on behalf of those who will get to compete economically with you, thank you!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You thank me every april 15th when i refill your checking account.

  • Red Tony||

    And this is why I gave Kirkland my vote yesterday. (I refuse to refer to him as "The Rev" because The Rev was actually a pretty good drummer. May he rest in peace.)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I could have used your vote against that hack Ted Kramer. Since then I do not recall needing it.

    Thanks anyway.

  • Rhywun||

    I'd say if Penn is the beneficiary of any public dough - and of course every college is - the sort of statistics the professor called out would absolutely be public knowledge, just like it is at any public school.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    How did someone with judgment this poor become a law professor at Penn?

    Affirmative action for conservatives?

  • Eidde||

    Interestingly, you're not trying to refute the substance of what she said, simply denouncing her decision to say it.

    And you've just hit the tip of the iceberg of this scandal. Look at all the prestigious law journals that were duped (probably by the Koch Brothers) into publishing this unqualified professor's work: The William and Mary Law Review, Family Law Quarterly, etc. Shameful!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    She said black students don't belong at Penn, that white conduct is superior conduct, and that everyone should march to a particular white drummer.

    Not sure which is more surprising -- that someone would believe this stuff, or that someone would be dumb enough to spout it into a microphone.

  • Eidde||

    Doesn't it outrage you that this white supremacist wasn't punished?

    The dean says "This curricular decision entails no sanction or diminution of Professor Wax's status on the faculty, which remains secure."

    How can the law school get away with this? They have a professor who (according to your expert paraphrase of the prof's work) believes that white conduct is superior conduct and the blacks don't belong in the law school - yet you persist in defending this law school despite its covering for racists.

    Are you a racist yourself?

  • ||

    She said black students don't belong at Penn, that white conduct is superior conduct, and that everyone should march to a particular white drummer.

    Did she?

    Or are you maybe intentionally misunderstanding what she said?

  • Violent Sociopath||

    She said black students don't belong at Penn, that white conduct is superior conduct, and that everyone should march to a particular white drummer.

    NARRATOR: She said none of these things.

  • Juice||

    She said black students don't belong at Penn

    She said Penn shouldn't have affirmative action. Maybe to you that sounds the same, but it's not.

    that white conduct is superior conduct

    You would interpret it that way only if you believe that middle class bourgeois culture can only be practiced by whites or that it constitutes "white conduct."

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You guys must be sorely peeved and perplexed by how you are treated outside militia meetings, Asperger's support groups, and Klan or Trump rallies.

  • vek||

    Hey Rev. It's not her fault that the "white culture" in America produced the most successful people in the history of the world.

    Funny thing is, I know black people who totally live like white folks from the 1950s. I do business with one of them. He has a pretty damn nice life. A wonderful wife, they go to church every week on Sundays, a beautiful home on acreage in the suburbs of Atlanta, horses, amazing children and grandchildren who all kept their noses clean, plenty of money in the bank, etc.

    SOMEHOW living like a white family from the 1950s did this brotha pretty damn good. So why be a hater? If it works, IT WORKS. And the social model of 1950s America worked VERY WELL for producing happy and successful people.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Funny thing is, I know black people who totally live like white folks from the 1950s.

    They forbid blacks to attend integrated public schools?

    They lynch innocent 14-year-old black children?

    They fight to prevent blacks from using water fountains, restaurants, and baseball fields?

    They shove superstition down the throats of schoolchildren?

    They strive to incarcerate homosexuals?

    They object to admission of females to graduate schools?

    In precisely which part of 2018 Alabama or Mississippi do these black friends of yours reside?

    Thanks.

  • vek||

    Ugh.

    You do realize you can accept GOOD THINGS from a time period, and NOT bring back bad things right?

    Getting and staying married is a good thing. Holding down a decent paying job is a good thing. Etc etc etc.

    Getting married or holding a job has LITERALLY nothing to do with lynching people. They're completely separate. God you're fucking stupid.

  • tommyguns2||

    "She said black students don't belong at Penn, that white conduct is superior conduct, and that everyone should march to a particular white drummer."

    She absolutely did NOT say that. This statement is a willful false statement. If you have to resort to misrepresentation, you must not feel confident in your position. You shouldn't because it pretty weak. But no problem, just a few snide comments should strengthen your position... or at least make you feel good about yourself.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Nick Gillespie of hot takes

  • Billy Bones||

    Looking at the comments you have made here on this article, I find a lot of criticism and claims of racism from you about Ms. Wax. What I find absurd is that I have not seen a single derogatory remark from you about Mr. Loury, who is a black professor, for not only agreeing with Ms. Wax but also for denouncing her punishment. At least now we have a sense of who is the true racist, Rev.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    "Democrats and liberals are the real racists" probably works great at Stormfront, but precipitates derision just about everywhere else.

  • vek||

    Well is the black guy who agrees with the "racist" white lady a racist as well? Or is he just some stupid, ignorant, Uncle Tom nigger to be ignored to you enlightened leftists??? Is it possible that he simply sees things you refuse to accept?

  • Ronnie Schreiber||

    Since you're so impressed with "America's strongest schools," Professor Wax got her Bacherlor of Science from Yale, her medical degree from Harvard Medical School, and her Juris Doctor from Columbia.

    How many other Jewish academics have you slandered?

  • Eidde||

    So the dean says that disclosing, in general terms, information about the grades of black students violates university policy...except for the dean himself, who can give his own version of what black students' grades are like and that doesn't violate university policy.

    And this professor, while she violated university policy, isn't being punished, she's just being administratively-decisioned based on her unfitness to teach black students.

    Got it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    She is (has made herself) unfit to teach black students. Do you not comprehend this? Do you also wonder why you find yourself on the fringes of society?

  • ||

    I absolutely don't comprehend this. Because discussing race base statistics is not remotely the same as advocating for race base results.

  • John||

    Yes, Black students can't be taught by people who treat them like human beings and tell them the truth about their performance. Black students can only be taught by patronizing white supremacist liberals who will never tell them the truth about their performance or consider them worthy of being treated like white students.

    There, I fixed it for you. What would these poor black people do without superior white people like you to look out for them?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They would rely on right-wing bigots to look out for them?

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your lousy educations, bigoted souls, childish gullibility, and stale thinking can carry someone, anyway.

  • Eidde||

    And don't forget that the law school shares our bigoted souls, etc., because the dean (whose truthfulness I presume you would not criticize) says the prof isn't being punished nor her faculty status endangered.

    Despite her being racist against both black and white students!

  • John||

    They would rely on right-wing bigots to look out for them?

    Yeah because they could never look out for themselves. It never occurs to you that they could do that. Nope, you think it is up to the white man to do that and better you than some bigot.

    Let no one ever say that white supremacy is dead. It lives.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are the only two categories you recognize bigot or patronizer?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I also recognize modern, properly educated, decent, tolerant, reason-based Americans, those who embrace progress and have moved beyond the stale thinking that persists among a dwindling band of conservatives.

  • Eidde||

    But where can you go for a proper education? Not Penn Law, where they are covering for a racist professor and refusing to reveal the data which refutes her racist ideas.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Penn is among our nation's strongest educational institutions, in large part because it rejects the censorship and teaching of nonsense that marks conservative-controlled campuses.

    This aggravates right-wingers, who nip incessantly at their betters' ankles while wondering why all of the schools they control are third-tier losers.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    I also recognize modern, properly educated, decent, tolerant, reason-based Americans

    Given that you apparently count yourself among that group, your ability to recognize such individuals is demonstrably quite poor.

  • Sevo||

    "I also recognize modern, properly educated, decent, tolerant, reason-based Americans, those who embrace progress and have moved beyond the stale thinking that persists among a dwindling band of conservatives."

    Stupid AND smug! Wonderful combination.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And a lot of arguments from popularity.

  • Eidde||

    And she's also unfit to teach *white* students, check this out:

    "...the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites"

    How can working-class whites possibly be comfortable in the class of a racist like her?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Her judgment is demonstrated to be suspect in several directions.

  • Eidde||

    Yet you insist in covering for the law school, which specifically says it isn't disciplining her and that her status on the faculty isn't affected.

    Are you a racist?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Discipline would be one way to address poor conduct or judgment.

    Taking lesser steps to insulate others from the consequences of poor conduct or judgment would be another way.

    I am not a racist. To the contrary, I openly deplore racists. This bothers some racists, in part because bigots have, over the course of my lifetime, switched to not wanting to be known or described as bigots. This change in bigots' preference is among the great improvements in American society in recent decades. What was open, casual, and common racism has become a more defensive posture, at least in public, where bigots have come to prefer hiding behind terms such as "traditional values" and "colorblind."

  • Eidde||

    "Discipline would be one way to address poor conduct or judgment."

    It seems to be the *only* way to address a professor who is guilty of racism against black students and working-class white students, to the extent she is unqualified to teach them civil procedure.

    Yet the dean (an authoritative, accurate source if ever there was one) says: "This curricular decision entails no sanction or diminution of Professor Wax's status on the faculty, which remains secure."

    How can they *not* impose "discipline" on such an egregious racist. Unless they're racists themselves.

    "I am not a racist."

    Then why are you defending that nest of racists, Penn Law?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Crawl back to Regent, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, Grove City, Liberty, or whichever right-wing school you prefer. Your level of argument will probably win awards in that environment.

  • Zeb||

    No, you are racist. You think that working hard, getting your life together and being well socialized is "white behavior".

  • BYODB||

    Of course, if that's white behavior how does one explain the Irish?

    *ducks a thrown chair*

  • vek||

    ZING

    So this show Hell On Wheels, a western from AMC about building the railroads, had this super racist Irish character. In one scene he's telling a black character how the Irish were the niggers of the British isles, and how glad he is to have somebody beneath him finally. Even since seeing that scene I can't help but think of the Irish as being the niggers of the British isles. Sometimes this includes me imagining gingers with little green leprechaun hats on wearing baggy pants and brandishing gold plated 45s. LOL

  • Kivlor||

    No, Eddie, that's not anti-white sentimentality, it is white people appropriating black culture. The whole opposition to single parent households and antisocial behavior is further proof that this woman truly hates the negro.

  • Juice||

    These are law professors, Eidde. They don't do logic.

  • colorblindkid||

    "All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all."

    That is a spectacular paragraph. It is an incredibly liberal position. The fact that this is controversial is absolutely fucking insane, and is legitimately far more terrifying than anything Trump has done.

  • Rhywun||

    Pointing out white-cracker culture is white supremecist. Or something.

  • John||

    The worst thing about that is all of the smug, virtue signaling white liberals attacking this woman know what she said is true and that living by middle-class values is how one gets ahead. Yet, they are happy to tell the lie that all cultures are equal even though doing condemns the very people they claim to care about to poverty and failure. Could there be anything sicker? I am not sure the worst slaveholding racist would say something to the effect of "how dare we tell those black people they shouldn't do self-destructive things, that is who they are". Yet, that is exactly what these allegedly enlightened liberals are doing.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The worst thing about that is all of the smug, virtue signaling white liberals attacking this woman know what she said is true and that living by middle-class values is how one gets ahead.

    I believe her to be a right-winger who is trying to provoke controversy because her side is losing the debate and she figures she'll throw a few figurative bombs to stir the pot. She doesn't like the idea of America becoming less white, in several respects. She is virtue signalling, too, aiming at the audience of stale-thinking Republicans who can't abide modern America.

  • John||

    You are a racist idiot who thinks that minorities are incapable of having the same values you are and view them as animals to be cared for like they are in a zoo. It is disgusting and immoral. No amount of rationalizing and name calling on your part makes your views any less hideous.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Carry on, bigots. Shouldn't you be suppressing some black votes somewhere, or lathering up some anti-gay sentiment, or building a wall against brown people, or yelling at some women outside a clinic, or performing some other service for the right-wing cause in America?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Carry on, bigots. Shouldn't you be suppressing some black votes somewhere, or lathering up some anti-gay sentiment, or building a wall against brown people, or yelling at some women outside a clinic, or performing some other service for the right-wing cause in America?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, it's a very interesting question. This has been a lot of Charles Murray's recent work, of this role of culture, the increasing divide between the cultures of the successful and less successful and what can be done about it.

    I think this is considered a very scary idea, but it definitely deserves more discussion. Because rebuttals I have seen to it I don't believe have been often well thought out, and are mostly knee-jerk. Which is a shit way to have an argument.

  • John||

    It is only a scary idea if you are racist who thinks that race causes culture rather than is associated with it. Culture is associated with race because people of the same race tend to grow up in the same culture. But correlation doesn't equal causality. Morality and ethics are independent of race. So saying that there is such a thing as objectively better morality and ethics is not racist since a person of any race can adopt good morals and ethics. It is only "racist" if you believe that race determines your destiny and people of some races are effectively incapable of adopting good morality and ethics by virtue of their race. And believing that is to be as racist as one can be.

  • ||

    Culture is associated with race because people of the same race tend to grow up in the same culture.

    It's amazing to me how difficult it is for people (liberals?) to disassociate race from culture. Only the true racists/supremacists claim a genetic pre-disposition towards a particular culture. Almost everyone else approaching the culture question thoughtfully is able to see the difference.

  • John||

    Progs are white supremacists. It is just a modern coat of paint on the old "white man's burden" bullshit.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Whites gave us socialism and communism, or at least made them popular in the modern age. They are the foundation of progressivism, so can we get an acknowledgment that progressives are white supremacists finally?

  • John||

    They are.

  • Rhywun||

    Difficulty? I'm pretty sure they do it on purpose. There's a troll on this very thread doing exactly that.

  • vek||

    Here's the thing, I think that raw intelligence influences the culture to a degree, and also what percentage of the population can reasonably adhere to certain aspects of a culture. IQ correlates with basically every good behavior you can think of, low IQ everything bad.

    Dumb people naturally do dumb things. In America in 1900 culture constrained the fuck out of dumb behavior via vicious social shaming. This forced people on the margins to behave better than they would naturally. Black and lower class white marriage rates used to be pretty awesome. Once the cultural shaming was removed, they both went to shit and have degenerated ever since.

    The evidence for racial IQ gaps is 100% proven. So then the question becomes, what percentage of a certain group "naturally" makes good decisions versus bad. With whites/asians most do fine. With blacks it is less so. So they are likely naturally inclined towards more bad behavior.

    THAT SAID, with a strong enough culture enforcing things, as in the past, I think even badly inclined groups can be whipped into shape. Blacks in the 1950s were doing pretty okay too compared to today.

  • Number 2||

    Is what Wax is saying any diffferent from what sociologist Max Weber said over a century ago about ascetic Protestant middle class values being a critical factor in the growth of modern capitalist economies? That's now "racist?"

    Hell, Weber was German. You can't even accuse him of being a John C. Calhoun disciple.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "In light of Professor Wax's statements, black students assigned to her class in their first week at Penn Law may reasonably wonder whether their professor has already come to a conclusion about their presence, performance, and potential for success in law school and thereafter,"

    That is a legitimate concern I could see from people. Imagine if she had said something about men performing at increasingly lower rates. How Women graduate at higher rates, then men at almost all levels of schooling. And that this trends indicates something about how masculinity does not mesh with the modern world.

    On a high level that statement is true, even if it glosses over many other details of men versus women and the degrees they pursue, etc, etc. But if she had said that would it be fair for me to be concerned about her being biased against me in her classes?

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you really think anyone would get into trouble for the statement in your example, Sarwark?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm not asking that. I'm asking do you think people might be worried about their teacher if they were known for these comments. Do you think people here would be upset by them?

    Also, haven't heard the Sarwark one for a bit. Good to see it back.

  • Eidde||

    Sarwark sounds like a Star Trek character.

  • BYODB||

    I think the only way people would be worried about it is if they believe themselves to be in a category or culture that isn't meshing with the modern world I.E. they agree with her, but want to 'correct' for it.

    I mean, at face value her statements aren't just correct on a 'high level' but they're correct in a very literal sense. In your example, you would need to take a "anti-"acting white" rap culture inner-city black" and put them in one of the most prestigious law's schools in America which is notably the plot of at least a few comedies.

    That said, the full quote does strike me as an implied statement given that there is a missing caveat for only one group, and it's not the 'White' people or Hispanics. (Whatever 'white' means, since it's ludicrously broad as a category of various completely disparate cultures.)

    "Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites"

    "the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks"

    "the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants"

    I'm not going so far as to say this is 'implied racism' but it's at least a little interesting. Overall, though, I tend to agree that not all cultures value things like freedom or natural rights. That shouldn't be even a little bit controversial.

  • Rhywun||

    So prove her wrong! That is the proper response, rather than condemning her for wrongthink. If she didn't hold any preconceptions at all, she wouldn't be human. This whole thing is just New Soviet Man all over again in another guise.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, and I don't know if that's the correct way to handle it anyway. How does one deal with bias in classes? I had a teacher in university who I really liked, I ended up doing research with them, great person. They did not like my friend, and there was always a feeling in the class that they had it out for them a little.

    How does one deal with this type of bias? This is at it's core the question I think I'm asking. Is what is the proper way to deal with bias, of which we all have some? I don't really know.

  • Rhywun||

    Ignore it. Refute it. I dunno, whatever works for you. But yes, everybody is biased about something. Pretending they aren't leads to situations like what's going on here which is petty revenge rather than any sort of intelligent conversation.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Agreed, this is one the big issues of not having this discussion. I think I mention above how this is one of Murray's major topics lately, and that often the refutations come from a place of pure knee-jerk rather than actual discussion. Hiding our heads away and considering topics taboo is not a way to deal with problems.

    This is similar to my ranting the other day about choosing cleaner methods of execution that don't upset the viewers over more efficient ones that may torture the one being killed less. We want answers that make us feel good, not answers that confront and deal with an issue.

  • John||

    If it is the case that black students are not doing well there, then Penn should be honest about that and examine why. This woman says that it is because they are admitting black students who are not prepared to compete at Penn. That seems to be a pretty reasonable explanation. If that is not the reason, then what is the reason? Are Penn professors really racist and somehow penalizing black students in ways that they are not white students? If so, how? That seems pretty unlikely to me.

    The truth is they lower the standards so that they can admit more black students. And because of that, the black students who are admitted are not as prepared as the white students and don't do as well. I don't see how saying that is racist. If they suddenly decided that they needed to admit more white students from rural Texas and admitted a bunch of less qualified white students to do that, would it be a surprise that those students didn't do well? Would pointing that out make one biased against whites from Texas?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If it is the case that black students are not doing well there, then Penn should be honest about that and examine why. This woman says that it is because they are admitting black students who are not prepared to compete at Penn. That seems to be a pretty reasonable explanation. If that is not the reason, then what is the reason?

    I don't know, and I agree that not having the conversation because it makes us feel bad is not a solution. I think a lot of it has to do with a lot of modern progressivism rejecting morality, and instead saying only statistics matter. It's like how I see a lot of people argue against Eugenics by saying the science is wrong, and that it doesn't work. The fucking problem with eugenics is that it's a horrendous evil from a moral perspective. But many don't want to talk morality, and so they have to twist themselves into knots as to why their various meddlings don't work precisely as they plan.

    I would agree it does not sound particularly racist if it's true, and it does often seem to be true, it would be great for Penn to clarify that but they won't. That's not the question I asked though, it was do the students have some reason to fear bias from their teacher based on those comments. If you had a teacher who was failing all the students from Texas, even if the failings were justified, would texans be justified in being concerned about that professor? What can be done about these cases?

  • John||

    That raises an interesting point. You would be concerned about the teachers being biased in your hypothetical if you had been lied to and assumed all of the students from Texas were just as qualified as everyone else. What other conclusion could you make?

    And that points out the further harm of never discussing this issue truthfully. It causes the black students who don't do well to assume it was because of racism. I don't see how that is good for them or anyone. Ironically, it also gives cover to any actual racist professors. Right now, they admit lesser qualified black students, lie about that fact, and then watch those black students not do well and lie about that too. If a professor were to totally screw over black students who really did do well, who would notice? Everyone expects black students to do poorly and lies about it happening when ti does.

    Amazing how lying always has unintended consequences that usually are the opposite of what the lie is intended to accomplish.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We have precisely that state of affairs on campuses today.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    In your example there is a world of difference between "men are stupid and unworthy of education" and "the following behaviors are highly correlated with both being male and reduced educational success". Much of the controversy comes from making the first interpretation regardless of what is actually said rather than being even the slightest bit charitable in interpretation.

    Behaviors can be changed and there can be a logical explanation for their impact on education so there are components in your etc. etc to be debated. A broad denunciation of something as racist or sexist or whatever can't be discussed because there are no terms beyond the guilt of the denounced.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This article seems formatted incorrectly. The stream of outrage tweets didn't make it into the article.

  • EveryOtherUsernameWasTake||

    So the professor makes a broad claim (of unknown veracity) that black students rarely graduate near the top of the class. The dean then forbids her from teaching first-year students "based not on the substance of Wax's comments, but on her disclosure of student rankings and grades in violation of law school policy."

    I have no particular fondness for this professor, who seems like she's more interested in stirring the pot and burnishing her alt-right credentials than anything else, but the dean's reasoning for his decision is about as transparent a fig leaf as I've ever seen:

    1. Can anyone point to single student whose grade in any class was disclosed?

    2. Even if such a broad claim could charitably be called a "grade disclosure," if the claims were false, as the dean maintains, then how exactly did she disclose anyone's grades? If a professor says that John Doe got a B+ in Civil Procedure, and he actually got an A, then the professor arguably might have defamed him, but she certainly didn't disclose his grade.

    3. Does the dean even recognize the irony inherent in disciplining the professor for making a broad claim about black students' grades, while in the same breath making a broad claim about black students' grades by saying her claim was "false"?

    I'm not unsympathetic to the dean. He's in a tough spot here. But one would hope that even a 1L at Penn could spot such a transparently specious justification for this decision.

  • Eidde||

    "If a professor says that John Doe got a B+ in Civil Procedure, and he actually got an A, then the professor arguably might have defamed him, but she certainly didn't disclose his grade."

    So a guy in Moscow runs around the streets shouting "Putin is an idiot!" and he's arrested for revealing state secrets.

  • John||

    Like I said above, if what she said wasn't true, Penn could refute her claim in any number of ways. If there were a significant number of black students who graduated at the top of their class, I doubt they would have a problem lending Penn a hand refuting what this woman said. Moreover, Penn is free to release a racial breakdown of the top half or quarter of its graduating classes over the last however many years they chose. Doing that would not violate anyone's privacy or disclose anyone's personal performance. So if it were the case that a significant percentage of black students had finished high in their class, Penn could easily show that and refute this woman's claim.

    So why didn't they do this? If what this woman said was false, they could easily humiliate her with the actual data and with actual people. And yet he doesn't do that. Why? Out of kindness?

    What she said was true and the Dean was lying when he claimed it wasn't. The Dean is only in a tough spot insofar as he views his own job as more important than the need for integrity and to tell the truth even when doing so is hard.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If it were demonstrated that her expressed perception about black performance at Penn Law was wrong, you would love her all the more.

    White nationalists, traditional values advocates, and those who pine for "good old days" that never existed need to stick together, no matter what, right?

  • StackOfCoins||

    Fuck off troll.

  • Eidde||

    So not only is Penn Law covering for this racist professor, by not disciplining her, it's concealing the vital data which refute her racist claims.

    Yet you insist on defending this racist clinger law school.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Penn is among America's best law schools. Perhaps that is why this professor seems so disaffected. She might be happier among stale-thinking goobers.

  • John||

    But you admit they are covering for a racist professor and refusing to disprove her racist claims. That is exactly what you are saying. They have the data to show that her racist slander is untrue but choose not to release it. If you don't like the implications of that position, don't take it.

    Christ, you are a fucking rube. Did you drop out of the second grade?

  • StackOfCoins||

    They don't have the data. If anything, their internal data proves what she says. This should be obvious to anyone who read that tortured rebuttal by the dean.

    As a teacher, however, she is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential."

    He also asserted, though, that Wax's claims about black Penn Law students' performance were false

    So either she did reveal a truth about averages, or she didn't. It can't be both, as the Dean is struggling to assert here.

  • BYODB||

    I read it the same way coins. They really can't have it both ways, so I have to assume the professor was probably telling the truth. Not because Penn didn't rebut her argument with data (I wouldn't expect them to do so at all), but because of their statement and actions.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A responsible school would and should be disinclined to joust statistically and publicly with the disaffected, attention-seeking, loose right-wing cannon rattling about its decks.

    Rather than whimper about the perceived faults of our strongest schools, conservatives could apply their ostensible principles and address a perceived market failure by creating strong conservative schools. Fun and profit! Unless . . .

    Unless there is something about modern conservatism that is fundamentally incompatible with operation of strong educational institutions.

    Maybe it's the superstition? Or the inescapable temptation among conservatives to impose censorship, suppress academic freedom, teach nonsense, reject science, engage in self-defeating discrimination, and the like whenever they obtain control of a campus? Maybe something else?

    In any event, our strongest schools are operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream. Our conservative schools inhabit the lower rankings. This seems important.

  • John||

    A responsible school would and should be disinclined to joust statistically and publicly with the disaffected, attention-seeking, loose right-wing cannon rattling about its decks.

    If what she said wasn't true, the school is letting down its black alumni by not refuting it. If it is true, the school is letting down its black students by refusing to admit the problem. Your view of a responsible school seems to consist of lying to make stupid white people like yourself feel good.

    You seem to have a very low IQ and poor reasoning skills but make up for it by having a horrible white supremacy complext.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.14.18 @ 3:10PM|#
    "She might be happier among stale-thinking goobers."

    As opposed to censorial, lefty shits?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The most ardent censors in academia control conservative campuses. You should know this.

  • John||

    Sorry but we can't argue with the voices in your head. So stop lying Reverend.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Put your Trump hat on, stare at a mirror for a few minutes. Maybe it will make you feel better in a world that rejects your ideology.

  • vek||

    "If it were demonstrated that her expressed perception about black performance at Penn Law was wrong, you would love her all the more."

    Rev. I have never found an instance where one needed to make up the severe degree of black failure on any subject when one is talking about things at the statistical level.* So I doubt she needed to make anything up here!

    *Well, maybe playing sports and bass... But nobody even TRIES to claim blacks aren't boss as fuck at those things because it'd be patently ridiculous!

  • EveryOtherUsernameWasTake||

    Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't - that was quite beside the point in my comment - but it wouldn't be as simple as releasing the actual data to prove her wrong. The dean clearly wanted to get Amy Wax away from mandatory first-year classes while maintaining the illusion that it was due to a "policy violation" rather than her assertions, and he can't very well do that if he contemporaneously releases the ACTUAL data. As is, I think it's problematic for him even to say her claim is false, as that isn't much different from what Wax herself said. A difference in degree, perhaps, but not in kind.

    So I wouldn't be so quick to assume what the data do or don't show on the basis of his non-disclosure. Yes, the dean could have released the data (assuming they exist), but then his cover for disciplining the professor is gone. His first priority was clearly to get her away from mandatory 1L classes, ideally without doing too much violence to the notion of academic freedom, and he couldn't very well be seen picking a speck out of her eye while ignoring the log sticking out of his own.

    More broadly, he's trying to balance the traditional (if sometimes illusory) university commitment to academic freedom with the fact that his left-leaning students - which is to say, most of them - are probably up in arms. That's why I think he's in a tough position.

  • John||

    He is in a tough spot because he has students who demand to be lied to. Sorry but I can't have any sympathy for someone who doesn't have the courage to tell the truth whatever it is. And yes, such statistics exist. Universities are maniacs about tracking their students. And if Penn had something to brag about for its black students doing well, they would be doing it.

    Moreover, those statistics have to exist because the school couldn't defend a racial or sexual discrimination suit without them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And if Penn had something to brag about for its black students doing well, they would be doing it.

    Why? To please the bigoted and backward? To spend one second more than necessary on Prof. Wax, who appears to be a thoroughly objectionable, disaffected colleague? Because it would persuade any backward, bigoted right-wingers of their error of their discredited ways?

  • Kivlor||

    I doubt the veracity is really that unknown. Realistically, we know that at 4th, 8th and 12 grades, blacks underperform compared to their white classmates.

    What would be a major surprise is if a demographic that always does much worse than the majority of the population magically started producing top students because law school.

  • Tony||

    There are lots of things wrong with her opinion, but college is about being exposed to lots of wrong opinions.

  • MarkLastname||

    You must've spent a lot of time in college then.

    More seriously, what's wrong about her opinion? Do you dispute the relative underperformance of Black students?

  • Tony||

    John is so aroused by this "black people are inferior" talk it's almost vulgar.

  • Jerryskids||

    Nothing proves the existence of white privilege more clearly than this cracker-ass white bitch getting fired for suggesting that bougie middle-class middle-American white bread values might have some value.

  • Jerryskids||

    Although it might be interesting to ask her students what exactly they're doing in college if not engaged in the hard work of getting an education, the delayed gratification of investing in their futures - i.e. the very damn thing the prof is telling them is a good thing to do.

  • Eidde||

    And there's nothing racist at all in suggesting that traditional middle-class values of work and deferred gratification are white values which nonwhites don't share.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Ah, but she didn't say anything of the sort.

    "the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks"

    Note that she did not say all blacks. We're talking about a percentage (I hope it's a minority) of blacks. Anecdotal evidence suggests she is right about this.

  • Eidde||

    I'm not criticizing the prof (though I don't know if her stats are accurate) I've been doing a bit of sarcasm about the readiness with which some folks translate traditional middle-class values into "white" values.

    The "acting white" thing, based on my limited exposure to it, is a reaction to bright black students doing well and inspiring envy among fellow students. White students have traditionally had their own peculiar ways of expressing such envy, and it wasn't very pretty. Envious black students likewise don't present a pretty sight, as they try to dismiss the fact that they're not doing as well as other black students. "It must be because we're just being authentically black and those other black students are ashamed of their race!"

    These reactions from youth, though disgraceful, are at least understandable, but the adults who encourage such thinking are doing a bad thing.

  • Juice||

    And there's nothing racist at all in suggesting that traditional middle-class values of work and deferred gratification are white values which nonwhites don't share.

    Um, yeah, it's definitely racist to say that "values of work and deferred gratification are white values which nonwhites don't share."

  • John||

    It is racist to say that they are white values that nonwhites can't share. That is racist. But saying nonwhites don't adopt such values in numbers large enough to ensure their success in society is not a racist statement. It is a factual statement. It may be false but it isn't racist because it doesn't say nonwhite are inferior to whites. It merely points out the rate at which they adopt these values.

    If it is true that non whites do not adopt these values in very high numbers, then that is a real problem and something that society needs to be honest about and try to solve.

  • Echospinner||

    The "mismatch" is certainly real. There are very qualified minority applicants for the post grad professional slots just not enough of them. So they get snapped up right away with promises of scholarships. Then as you go down the line good students get slots in highest tiered schools, decent students get in somewhere until you have a subset who should not be there at all.

    Many need to compete with better qualified students for the same grade when they would have been just fine at a different school.

    In law or medicine it does not matter much where you went or what was your class rank at the end of the day. You need to pass the same bar or medical exam as anyone. That is how the schools justify a system of race discrimination on admission.

  • John||

    This is really insidious when it comes to law schools. Top law schools provide their students virtually no preparation for the bar. Their attitude is that they are not trade schools. Their jobs as they see it is to promote academic scholarship. They figure their students are bright enough to pass the bar on their own. And since the bar really isn't that difficult and you can take prep courses for it, they are generally right. Lower tier law schools, though sadly less so than they once did, see themselves as trade schools and provide their students with a lot of preparation for the bar. And since they have some really top students but a lot of not so top students, this is a good thing. Well, when you admit the not so top students to the top schools, you are not doing them any favors. All you are doing is setting them up to fail the bar. Indeed, the bar passage rate among minority law students is shockingly low even among graduates of the top schools.

    They are letting these students into these schools, saddling them with crushing student loan debt in many cases and then setting them up to fail the bar and be unable to have a career in law or much prospect of paying those loans off. But anyone who questions this and says that affirmative action in college admissions harms the people it is supposed to help in most cases is called a racist.

  • BYODB||


    This is really insidious when it comes to law schools. Top law schools provide their students virtually no preparation for the bar. Their attitude is that they are not trade schools.


    This explains why there are 'law professors' who apparently can't practice law. I wondered about that.

  • John||

    Most law professors went to top law schools and then clerked for an appellate judge for a year. Some worked as associates in big firms but many do not. And most have no idea how to practice law. it is more of a priesthood.

  • Hank Phillips||

    They can run for office. Half the looter politicians in DC are law school suckers unable to land honest jobs. Fortunately for them the population is 6 times what it was when P.T. Barnum calculated vital statistics. Today there is a sucker born every ten seconds, each one eager for the bait on that hook.

  • Juice||

    Their attitude is that they are not trade schools.

    Except they're exactly that.

  • John||

    Yes they are. And the top schools rip their students off and waste their time.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Maybe you've identified a great opportunity, John, for public service and profit. Build a better law school.

    Or maybe you're just a disaffected right-wing crank who couldn't improve on Penn if your life depended upon it.

    I'm betting on the latter.

  • brec||

    "I don't think I've ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the [Penn Law School] class and rarely, rarely in the top half… I can think of one or two students who've graduated [sic] in the top half of my required first year course. ..."

    These comments have no substance without quantitative information. I don't think a law professor's extemporaneous statistical conclusion is trustworthy.

  • John||

    They have lots of substance. She has taught there for years. Her observations are meaningful. They are not, however, dispositive. But just because an observation is anecdotal and not dispositive does not mean it is untrue or without substance. The school has the statistics that would be dispositive of this issue. If those statistics disprove her claim, they should release them and do so. The fact that they have not done that is dispositive evidence that the statistics confirm her claim.

  • Tony||

    If what you're saying is racist you should probably do better than personal observation.

  • StackOfCoins||

    The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life for the academically inclined.

    For the rest of us, we have our own experiences. And much like the first time a child grabs a hot object and burns his hand, such personal, transformative experience is more valuable than all the scholarly academia on the subject.

  • Tony||

    See the problem is that people will often react differently to a black person and a white person doing exactly the same thing (not to mention law enforcement), so your experience counts for fuckall when the whole problem is bias itself.

  • BYODB||

    Or, shorter Tony, the solution to bias is more bias.

    Genius.

  • vek||

    Fortunately there are tons of statistics and studies to back it all up! I can buy blacks getting screwed on weed charges because of bias... But I don't think the 50% of national murders committed by blacks can be attributed to that. Their community is fucked. There are many reasons, but the black community is basically a giant dumpster fire, with a few notable exceptions that get their shit together.

  • John||

    If what you are saying is true, it is not racist you miserable idiot. Black students at Penn law are doing badly and you don't think anyone should say anything. Go fuck yourself you racist piece of garbage.

  • Tony||

    Lol. But if the racists are right, what they say is both racist and true.

    It's hard enough for a guy with actual research to get away with making racist claims. So just speaking off the cuff with anecdotes--I don't know what you'd expect.

  • John||

    If black students are not doing well, we do them no favors refusing to admit it. Only someone who hated them and wanted to see them continue to do poorly could believe otherwise.

  • MarkLastname||

    So you wouldn't respond well if someone said black people are better at basketball around you?

    Black students on average don't do as well as white or Asian students. Saying so isn't racist. It's just factual. If you don't like it, go shout at the sky I guess.

  • sarcasmic||

    The statistics are racist.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Not only that, but the races are themselves statistical!

  • sarcasmic||

    Everyone is exactly the same. Come on. There are no differences between race or culture. Everyone is the same. If you disagree then you are racist.

  • StackOfCoins||

    We all have the same gooey center, so I believe it.

  • colorblindkid||

    She literally says that this shit is a problem in white communities too. She explicitly says that rural white people are guilty of the same stuff. How is this racist? How is it racist to point out the cultural shortcomings in all cultures?

    All we hear about from intellectuals is the bullshit collectivist talking points about the "culture of white supremacy", "culture of toxic masculinity", "patriarchal culture", and "gun culture". How is what she's suggesting any different? It is not. Fuck this people.

    Our universities are doomed, and these law students are going to be our judges, politicians, and attorney generals in another few decades, so they are a much more serious threat than the basement-dwelling neo-Nazis that supposedly threaten the foundations of America.

  • Finrod||

    Of course they're the real threat. They keep whining about mythical Nazis so you don't notice their jackboots.

  • UVaGrad||

    Wax claimed to know the final grades of individual students in her class. This means one of two things.

    Penn, like every other reputable law school, has blind grading to ensure that professors aren't judging exam responses based on their own feelings about a student (e.g., giving a bad grade to that annoying guy who always raises his hand to ask stupid questions). When a student turns in his final exam, it doesn't have his name. It has "Student #156" or whatever on it. The professor grades Student #156 and provides that grade to the registrar, who maintains the list matching student numbers to student names. The registrar then tells the student he got a B+ or whatever. The professor does not know the student's grade by name unless the student later divulges that information to the professor--say, in a request for a letter of recommendation.

    So Wax claims to know of only "one or two" black students who have graduated in the top half of her first-year course. Not "one or two who have told me they finished in the top half," but "one or two," period. Either:

    (1) Wax is violating blind grading rules by connecting grades to individual students, or
    (2) She's not, and she's just making stuff up about her students' performance.

    Is this an excuse to finally punish her somehow? Yes. But if she hadn't given them the rope, they couldn't hang her.

  • John||

    Law schools have blind grading of individual courses. That, however, does not mean that who is at the top and bottom of the class is a secret. Being in the top quarter or ten percent of you class gets you access to all kinds of things like academic clubs and not having to write onto law review and so forth. Moreover, if you are in the top quarter, ten or five percent of your class, it says so right on your diploma. It is called cum laude, magna cum laude, and summa cum laude.

    Any professor at a law school has a very good idea of who is and is not at the top of each class.

    Try again.

  • Eidde||

    That sounds quite logical, though I expect that if she'd really committed some violation the administration would love the chance to go after her - instead of proclaiming that she's not being disciplined.

    One possibility is that "we don't want to create a right-wing martyr even though she did something bad."

    Another possibility is that these grades actually are somehow available, because the dean also claims access to them.

  • Eidde||

    Like John said, once the prof has given the grade blindly, there has to be some way of identifying the top performers because of the benefits they get for being top performers. It's only while the prof is considering what grade to award that they're shielded from knowing who they're grading.

  • John||

    The grades for individual classes are not available. They are done blind. But students' overall performance and class rank is much less secret, as I explain above. Moreover, professors can tell who their best students are. Law school classes are very interactive and used to at least always follow the Socratic method.

    Law school is like going to summer camp only they don't let you go home. Everyone knows everyone else. And everyone, students and professors alike know who the top students are. Anyone who claims this women doesn't know what she speaks is either full of shit or lying.

  • UVaGrad||

    Of course everyone knows who the top students are. Wax isn't claiming that only one or two black students have had the highest grade in her Civ Pro class. She's claiming that only one or two have ever finished *in the top half*. The great undifferentiated middle on the curve? No one knows where those people stand in the class. So she's either in violation of blind grading rules by connecting students' names to grades, or she's making it up.

  • John||

    And that is her observation. Maybe it isn't true. If it were not, Penn Law could easily and thoroughly refute it. Indeed, if it were not true, you would think that three or more black graduates who were in the top half would have stepped forward by now to disprove her. If I were a black graduate of Penn Law and were in the top half of my class, I would be calling a newspaper or the school right now saying "hey I graduated in the top half". Yet, this doesn't seem to have occurred.

    So she is likely not making it up. And knowing who the top students are is not connecting students names to grades. And saying generally what the make up of the classes are without giving names isn't doing it either.

    I get it you don't like that this woman said a truth that shall not be uttered. But tough shit. Sometimes life is like that. Again, denying realty does not ever change it or help things.

  • UVaGrad||

    "Knowing who the top students are in this course" is not the same thing as "knowing whether specific students finished in the top half of this course." The former is common knowledge in the law school setting; the latter is not.

    For all I know, she's telling the truth. That has nothing to do with whether she violated blind grading rules.

  • UVaGrad||

    gah. Should be "nothing do do with the propriety of violating blind grading rules."

  • John||

    The blind grading rules apply to individual classes not to overall class rank. The blind grading rules exist so professors don't know who wrote the exams they are reading. They are not there to keep you from knowing who made law review.

    So she didn't violate the policy. Beyond that, if what she is saying is true and it violated the policy, that just makes the policy stupid. Black students are floundering at Penn Law but no one can talk about it or try to deal with the problem because it is against policy. Yeah, that really makes the school look good and she look bad.

    If this is not true, the school owes it to its black graduates to refute it. If it is, the school owes it to its black students to acknowledge its truthfulness and examine the problem and try to find ways to solve it. The school is screwing its black alumni and students by doing this much more than they are screwing her.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Are you trying to say that there are no identifying tells in a person's speech and writing habits that might just possibly identify them out of a group?

  • sarcasmic||

    Thomas Sowell has been saying this for decades. Black bastard is racist as fuck.

  • colorblindkid||

    "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" is pretty spot on.

  • Number 2||

    "Black students, they said, should not be forced to be taught by a professor who allegedly thought them inferior."

    How about that? For years, opponents of affirmative action, a/k/a "diversity," warned that racial and gender preferences would harm the very people it was supposed to help by causing others to stereotype them as being less qualified persons who were admitted to competitive schools only because special places had been set aside for them. Proponents of affirmative action scoffed.

    Can't say they weren't warned.

  • Hank Phillips||

    How does someone get a professorship at a law school when they can't write any better than that?

  • John||

    She didn't write it. She said it in an off the cuff interview you fucking half wit.

  • Eidde||

    To be fair, good writing isn't exactly encouraged in academia, even legal academia, at least good writing as normies understand it.

  • ||

    I can think of one or two students who've graduated in the top half of my required first year course. Well, what are we supposed to do about that? You're really putting in front of this person a real uphill battle, and if they were better matched, it might be a better environment for them

    The real problem with this state boils down to the word "them" I know this statement was made off the cuff and is not part of a written piece, so it deserves to be given a be more flexibility. The key is that the race baiters like the Rev see any reference to a collective as an explicitly racialized observation. However, even if statistically black bodied students perform predominantly in the bottom 50%, one still has to be careful about then saying that "they" should consider alternative choice. Because the reality is that anyone in the bottom 50% should consider alternative choices.

    In the end, it's because as a society we continue to be looking at everything through a racialized lens. It distorts all conversations.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why would ranking below 50% at a top law school inclines consideration of "an alternative choice?"

    Should someone who expects to be in the middle fifth of the class at a Harvard or Penn choose a job at the light bulb factory or the coal mine instead of heading toward Boston or Philadelphia?

    That sounds silly. Mostly because it is silly.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Maybe the solution could be a free year of preparatory classes, funded by their endowment fund, and have it recommended, but not required for those who fall into certain risk categories?

    Though that would be a direct admission of where the problem lies.

    Either way, my point is you're assuming racist intentions because you're assuming a racist solution, even though none of that can be implied from what she is actually said. This says more about you and your worldview and lack of imagination for alternative solutions, then it will ever say about her.

    And whether you like it or not, working in a career position in a factory or a coal mine, is a hell of a lot better life than being completely unemployed and unemployable in the only skill set you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to attain.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You send your children to the coal mines and factories, with no time or money wasted on college, let alone some fancypants top-tier liberal school. All of my children have at least one graduate degree, so I'll arrange for my grandchildren to obtain plenty of graduate degrees.

    This should work out great.

  • Finrod||

    Sure they do, fucking progtarded troll. You lie and hallucinate about everything else.

  • Tony||

    We never seem to get around to the important question. If *certain* cultures are inherently unsuited to modern society or are inferior because of the genetic makeup of their members, what do you do about it? You don't pick the neighborhood you grow up in or your genes, so moral condemnation hardly seems fair, even if it did accomplish anything.

    It also undermines the libertarian promise of capitalism. These communities can't be expected to compete, so they'll be a permanent underclass. Why are people stuck on complaining about that instead of coming up with solutions? Someone tell me, what is the final solution?

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Someone tell me, what is the final solution?

    This thing that socialists tried to accomplish but thankfully failed at?

  • Tony||

    It wasn't a total success but I'd hardly call it a failure. Give them some credit for the work they managed to accomplish, jeez.

  • Sedona Vortex Hunter||

    true, six million was a good start I suppose

  • StackOfCoins||

    I don't have a solution. I can see where the problem is coming from, but I couldn't tell you how to fix it. I could suggest all sorts of liberty-curtailing madness that might, in time, lead to less of the same problem. But no one can save these people except themselves. Perhaps the solution is to pull all the government support and let them figure it out themselves. Propping them up for decades hasn't fixed anything.

  • Tony||

    But if they're inherently inferior they won't be able to save themselves. That's why it's not fair to merely lecture at them and hope for the best.

    Think of society as a school. We don't throw the special ed kids into the general population expecting them to excel, and we certainly don't single them out for harsher treatment for their own good. We give them taxpayer-funded help is what we do. Or do you think we should do something else?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Is a culture an "inherent" property of someone? I think it's nurture, not nature.

  • BYODB||

    If culture was inherent Tony would be a bible thumping Republican, so it's amusing to watch him make such a ludicrous argument.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I'm categorically opposed to subsidizing the existence of people that can't provide for themselves with taxpayer money. So, naturally, I don't think we should be subsidizing the existence of people that WON'T provide for themselves, either. Whether or not they can is a question I cannot answer.

  • Tony||

    Pure social Darwinism is at least an ethos.

  • Eidde||

    Tony, you've penned an excellent response to the alt-right commenters in your head, now why not share those insights with actual alt-righters on one of their sites?

    On this site, and on this plane of reality, the discussion has been about the values making for success, and how the more you adopt these values - regardless of your race - the more successful you'll be.

  • Tony||

    Because those people are immune to rational thought and there is plenty of dog whistling and actual whistling going on right here, but thanks for your concern.

  • Eidde||

    Aren't dog-whistles audible only to racists?

    Well, if you said you heard them I'll believe you.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps euphemism is the better word.

  • Eidde||

    As for communities with anti-success attitudes, I know of no convincing evidence that this was a genetic thing, in many cases these attitudes got worse fairly recently, the likelihood is it has more to the spread of bad ideas than to the spread of bad genes.

    And the antidote to bad ideas is good ones.

    For "solutions," parents and educators with high expectations seem to do better than many other proposed remedies. Especially if "parents" means Mom and Dad together.

  • Tony||

    How do you force moms and dads to stay together?

    What goes unrealized is how much simpler the alternate worldview makes this problem, both in terms of logical consistency and policy proposals that aren't lame, useless moral hectoring.

    Most people here acknowledge that being black is in and of itself a greater risk with respect to interaction with law enforcement. Maybe it's such a huge disparity that cop racism and structural racism that allows for it is a major contributing factor in poorer black outcomes. People who go to prison have a harder go at life than those who don't.

    And we can even usually get behind some of the solutions, as found in the joint libertarian-liberal effort on criminal justice reform.

    You can apply this logic to many other contexts, but it will require you as seeing the communities in question as, indeed, victims of society rather than themselves. I don't know why that's such a leap.

  • StackOfCoins||

    The most important reform that would have the biggest impact would be to stop sending people to prison for non-violent crimes. I'm totally for that. Prison is an absurdly amoral industry at this point, which has suffered the worst sort of mission creep. Keeping undesirables out of the populace is not the point. It's to keep actually dangerous people out of the populace.

  • Tony||

    In my humble opinion there's probably nothing more useful for libertarians to do than to get with major-party allies on this issue (even some Republicans are on board these days).

  • StackOfCoins||

    I agree, but not if it means trading some values for some reform.

  • Tony||

    Getting anything done when you share the earth with other humans requires compromise.

    Or you can join the Bernie left and do nothing but sit back and complain.

  • StackOfCoins||

    It's not compromise though. It's holding a class of people hostage. Using them as ransom to extract concessions from another party.

    There are many, many reasons to stop sending non-violent people to prison. None of them requires we trade an ounce of liberty for it.

  • Tony||

    By giving up liberty you mean like an extra $5 in taxes you'd have to pay? I dunno, I'd be willing to sacrifice that liberty so that millions of unjustly incarcerated humans could gain a much more significant amount.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Tony, it doesn't cost anything to let people out of a cell. That you think the government needs some more of my cash to free people speaks volumes about your agenda, however. This is not about reparations: it's about letting humans who haven't harmed anyone go free.

  • Zeb||

    You don't force anyone to stay together. But you could stop incentivizing not staying together.

  • Tony||

    Single-parent households is a symptom not a cause. Think about it that way.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes, a symptom of the welfare state.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    If *certain* cultures are inherently unsuited to modern society or are inferior because of the genetic makeup of their members, what do you do about it?

    I think you know the answer to that.

    I think you can also answer the question about libertarianism. Just because an outcome is desirable doesn't mean that libertarians should support the government forcing it upon people. Even if we're to follow Wax to the conclusion of her argument (that multiculturalism is bad), that doesn't mean that libertarians should advocate for government to pass laws to prevent multiculturalism.

  • John||

    if it is the case that adhering to certain cultural mores dooms you to failure, and it certainly is, that doesn't mean that the government should force people to abide by those mores. Whether you want to be a success or not or what you even consider a success is up to you. Who am I to say that you should go forth and be a hard working middle class person if you don't want to? And it sure as hell isn't the government's responsibility or within its power to force you.

    That being said, the fact that I can't force you to do something doesn't mean I can't point out the truth or am prohibited from explaining the likely consequences of your actions. What people like Tony want is to force everyone to repeat the lie that all cultures produce equal results and there is no need to adopt certain sets of values and morals if you want to achieve certain results. Well, fuck that. And you can say fuck that without endorsing a government program to correct the nonhackers.

  • Tony||

    So what makes black people more prone to adopting poor morals?

  • John||

    I don't think they are. Race doesn't cause culture or morality. Race is associated with culture because people of the same culture are often of the same race. But that is a correlation, not a causation. There is nothing preventing black or white people or anyone else from being moral if they choose to.

  • Tony||

    But they must be given the disparate social outcomes that you attribute to morality.

  • John||

    No they are not. Tony I have long known you were a racist who viewed black people as less than human and in need of guidance by progressive white people. I am not. And you are not going to convince me otherwise. So, go post on Storm front or something.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I blame the rap music.

  • sarcasmic||

    I blame the rap music.

    They don't have gangsta rap in Europe, and blacks in Europe don't have the same issues as they do here in the states.

    Correlation or causation?

  • StackOfCoins||

    I'm gonna go with door #2.

    Is it outlandish to assume that young boys without fathers in their lives will seek out a father-figure elsewhere? Is it ridiculous to assume that those ersatz father's musings will influence the boy and shape his values as a man?

    I was raised in a household that listened to The Beatles and western art music; what rubes refer to as "classical". My first instinct upon seeing the cops is to not point a gun at them.

  • BYODB||


    I was raised in a household that listened to The Beatles and western art music; what rubes refer to as "classical".

    Same, but through life experience (mostly being insanely and devastatingly poor for a number of years in my 20's) I too have grown to loathe the police.

    It's an economic issue in a nation where our police forces have legalized bribery. Consider that even a standard speeding or parking ticket, if you can't pay the bribe (I mean fine!), you are put in jail.

    That doesn't make you 'trust' the police, so this is one issue where I totally understand where the black community is coming from. I may not understand the extent, but I do understand some of the cause.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Same, but through life experience (mostly being insanely and devastatingly poor for a number of years in my 20's) I too have grown to loathe the police.
    I spent a good portion of my teens enduring poverty as well. My distrust of the police is not born of personal experience; it's the pages of this magazine that have opened my eyes to their gross amorality.

    I can sympathize with blacks who share my distrust. For them it's undoubtedly more personal. They've probably seen their neighbors and families dragged away by thugs. But violence merely reinforces the belief that blacks are violent, and so cops must use maximum force when dealing with a black person. CIVIL disobedience is always more powerful a negotiating tool than violent confrontation, and has produced real results.

  • ||

    Do you actually believe that's a legitimate question? Or do you actually believe that Professor Wax holds that belief?

  • Tony||

    I'm talking to John actually.

  • ||

    *certain* cultures are inherently unsuited to modern society

    I think it's a bit better to look at it as certain traits dominant in specific cultural collectives and not necessarily paint the culture on a whole as in conflict.

    That being said, I'm not sure that a conversation about "what steps to take" in regards to issues around culture or race is particularly productive. One should be able to discuss a conflict of visions (blatantly stolen phrase) without believing that one needs to "Do Something" to change one or the other.

  • BYODB||


    ...or are inferior because of the genetic makeup of their members...

    Good thing no one is saying that here then, I suppose, but you just had to pretend like that was being said since you're frankly not intelligent enough to have a conversation about the actual point.

    And, again, 'culture' is not 'race' by any measure.

  • Tony||

    Sure it isn't.

  • StackOfCoins||

    We'll never get anywhere if you keep insinuating that observing a correlation between race and culture is racist in of itself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony doesn't do well with distinctions. Like the difference between culture and race. If you are critical of a culture, than to Tony you are racist against whatever race makes up that culture.

  • Tony||

    What does it even mean to be critical of a culture? Damn those Lombardians with their preference for butter over olive oil!

  • BYODB||

    Something like pointing out that Muslim cultures are by-and-large barbaric and believe in things like throwing homosexuals off rooftops might be an example. Notably, 'Muslim' isn't a race yet somehow dumbasses like you pretend it is even while you bitch about Catholics and Protestants.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not a fan of Muslim barbarism? Next time you have a few minutes, research some of the torture devices devised and used by Christians against heretics, or gays, or anyone else the Christians figured needed a good lesson in godliness. Remarkably depraved items such as the Heretic's Fork, the Judas Cradle, the Pear of Anguish, the Breast Ripper, the Strappado, the Skull Crusher, the Prayer Stool, the Virgin Mary, and a dozen others.

    Then maybe ask yourself why anyone would wish to be a Christian, remembering that priests blessed the instruments of torture before they were employed.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not really sure what your point is? Import Christians from the dark ages into present day America?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Recognize that superstition is superstition, and that 'my fairy tale can beat up all of the other fairy tales' is the thinking of children of all ages.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Heretic's Fork, the Judas Cradle, the Pear of Anguish, the Breast Ripper, the Strappado
    EXCELLENT band and/or sex toy names. Bravo.

  • Tony||

    Muslims aren't trying to take my basic human rights away, Christians are. If Muslims ever took over and started implementing ultraconservative laws, I'd object to that.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Muslims aren't trying to take my basic human rights away, Christians are.

    Show me the Christian suicide bombers and I'll consider your argument.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you believe fairy tales are true, StackofCoins? All of them, or just some of them?

  • Finrod||

    You just believe in Team Blue's fairy tales, fucking progtarded troll.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    So why did Barack Obama reject Islam in favor of Christianity?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Nobody's perfect.

  • ||

    It's the dog whistle perspective. The belief that under every surface statement is the real motivation. And denying the real motivation makes one a liar.

  • Tony||

    I didn't make "culture" into a euphemism for race, racist right-wingers did who want to put forth their racist arguments and hope normal people don't notice the racism.

  • BYODB||

    Of course, we all know what they say about correlation.

    According to Tony, each nation has the same worldview, government, and ethos throughout all of history because of genetics. It's why Europe is still ruled by monarchs and why the Japanese Emperor is such as hardass.

    Wait...gee it's almost like even a passing knowledge of history reveals the lie. You can make an argument in that vein, I won't say you can't, but you'd need to cherry pick so hard that your fingers would bleed.

    If you edit his quote to remove the clearly retarded portion you're left with this:

    If *certain* cultures...are inherently unsuited to modern society what do you do about it?

    The obvious answer? Restrict immigration from those societies until they organically evolve or bomb themselves out of existence. Gee whiz, something he opposes. I'm shocked.

  • Tony||

    I specifically want to know what you do about black Americans. Can't kick 'em out. And you refuse the most obvious policy proposals out of loyalty to a stupid ideology. All I really want is some honesty. Pure social Darwinism, or something less passive?

  • ||

    You treat everyone as an individual and you don't construct policies that require that one evaluate cultural/racial identities.

  • Tony||

    Fingers in the ears?

  • BYODB||

    So your assumption appears to be that black Americans are significantly differently culturally from white Americans. By all means, elaborate. I would suggest 'do nothing', obviously, because there is nothing to do.

  • BYODB||

    And no, I don't think Tony is actually trying to make the genetic argument he's trying to pin it on people that don't hold that opinion because the real arguments are simply beyond his understanding. His own racism, though, that's something he can understand and project onto others in place of understanding.

  • Tony||

    If you read carefully I think you'll find that the argument actually is that there is no way to make your positions unracist at their core.

    If culture is the problem, you have to explain what it is about blacks that makes them practice a "bad" culture on average more than whites.

    Noticing that blacks have been the victims of centuries of social malpractice and that might cause the poorer outcomes doesn't require anyone to reject their ideology.

    Or does it, and is that why you can't just acknowledge the obvious?

  • BYODB||

    If you read carefully, you'd realize you're constructing a strawman out of bits of things that no one has actually said other than yourself.

    As usual, you fail to understand that there isn't really any government solution to cultural issues. To believe that there is would be amusingly socially conservative of you, but you've never really understood how illiberal you really are at your core. It's honestly pretty sad to watch people like you claim to be a liberal.

  • Tony||

    I'll try asking again:

    Fact: black Americans have on average poorer social outcomes than white Americans.

    This is being attributed to an inferior culture with respect to compatibility with mainstream modern society.

    So what makes blacks more prone to having such a culture? It's a simple question really.

  • BYODB||

    Define 'poorer social outcomes' since that's as vague of a 'fact' as you're likely to find.

  • BYODB||

    And, not to belabor the obvious point, but the Professor did not say 'black culture' yet you continually pretend that she did. Riddle me this, is an anti-white black person superior to an anti-black white person culturally?

  • Tony||

    Maybe if white people with power did more to help get black communities out of their rut, there wouldn't be such an anti-white sentiment.

    I am forced to agree that any anti-intellectual rhetoric that gains traction in any community is not going to do that community any favors, whether it's black urban culture or the Republican voting base.

  • BYODB||


    Maybe if white people with power did more to help get black communities out of their rut, there wouldn't be such an anti-white sentiment.

    Because it's so woke to note that black communities can't do anything for themselves without the helping hand of whitey, right? Boy, I can think of more than a few people that would love to punch you in the dick for that bit of racism. Malcolm X was talking about you specifically, it would seem.

  • Tony||

    Calling me a racist is no way to get me to stop calling your arguments inherently racist.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not calling you a racist, Malcolm X did but I suspect you've never had cause to read anything he ever wrote or said. It might challenge your precious little world view that paints everyone but you and your tribe as racists. Ah, irony.

  • Tony||

    What makes you think I subscribe to Malcom X's methods?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.14.18 @ 5:33PM|#
    "Calling me a racist is no way to get me to stop calling your arguments inherently racist."

    I'm calling you racist, racist:
    "Fact: black Americans have on average poorer social outcomes than white Americans."
    Fuck off; you have very limited mental skills and should leave this to the adults, racist.

  • MarkLastname||

    So bigotry is understandable as long as it's directed against a race of people you blame for not solving your problems.

    Lessons from Tony. It's a shame those rich Jews didn't do more to get those Russians out of their rut; if they had they wouldn't have been forced to go on those programs.

  • Tony||

    I thought that was a given in both the professor's thesis as well as any such discussion. Less education, more crime, whatever.

  • BYODB||


    I thought that was a given in both the professor's thesis as well as any such discussion.

    Oh, so you didn't read it but you do reveal hidden assumptions in your own logic set. Whoops.

  • ||

    Fact: black Americans have on average poorer social outcomes than white Americans.

    Possibly. And so what? Once you've decided to developed statistics based on skin color, you're already looking for racism where it may or may not exist.

    And even if you really truly care to determine what makes such an difference at the average exist, the answer is certainly far more complicated than skin color. Even attempts to attribute it to "culture" need to wrestle with how culture originates/propagates/persists, which has far more to do with geographic and income demographics (or really, what neighborhood you were born and raised in and its traditions) than it does with skin color.

  • BYODB||


    Even attempts to attribute it to "culture" need to wrestle with how culture originates/propagates/persists, which has far more to do with geographic and income demographics (or really, what neighborhood you were born and raised in and its traditions) than it does with skin color.

    +1 Marshall Mathers

  • Hank Phillips||

    Capitalism is what Marxists covetously call slaveholding mercantilism. Libertarian candidates offer to systematically vote against the initiation of force if elected. This is unlike the mercantilist chattel slavery communists offer as the only alternative to their own brand of involuntary servitude. That fact alone makes every vote cast for a libertarian candidate an "election" as the founding fathers used the word. It is true that even savvy folks like Ayn Rand were gradually seduced and conditioned into using their enemy's terms--calling looters "liberals," for instance. That is U.S. prohibitionist jargon copied from German National Socialism. Buckminster Fuller coined "energy slaves" as the wattage-equivalent free humans can access to do useful work. Since this is anathema to both chattel and totalitarian slavery--as mutually dependent on each other as Siamese twins--all proponents of altruistic parasitism unite against electric power generation. That they invent other stories as pretext is tribute to Heinlein's wisdom in identifying altruism and self deception as the root of all evil.

  • Murgatroyd||

    There is a culture of people who believe in the inherent superiority of their genetic make-up. They believe in the supremacy of their culture and celebrate it with songs, ceremonies, and mythical stories about their origin and place in the world. They use their own phases and language to express their shared interests and values. They guard membership to their culture with oaths and loyalty tests, and pass down a shared heritage to their children. We call them white supremacists.

    Tony, is this a culture that is inherently unsuited to modern society? Of course it is, and we rightly scorn them and exclude them from the broader culture. It is not inherently illiberal to assume that sub-cultures can perpetuate traits and behaviors which are unsuitable for the success of individuals. Drug culture? Appalachian culture? Christian evangelical culture? Amish culture? Homeless culture?

  • Murgatroyd||

    I disagree with the professor that broader "black culture" is inherently unsuited for success in modern society, but I can certainly see that some sub-cultures within black culture are failing. However, none of this matters from a libertarian standpoint. Libertarians don't expect any moral condemnation of failing cultures, or even moral approval of successful cultures. Culture is always in flux and people are free to join or abandon cultures as they wish, and certainly do all of the time. Whether a culture of people succeeds or fails is not a libertarian concern, provided that the government treats all cultures equally from a legal standpoint. That some people may always be poor or unsuccessful because of their culture does not require any necessitate action by the government.

  • ||

    I disagree with the professor that broader "black culture" is inherently unsuited for success in modern society

    Note that she never said that either. The cultural boundary she drew was more discrete and nuanced than "black culture".

  • Sevo||

    "There is a culture of people who believe in the inherent superiority of their genetic make-up. They believe in the supremacy of their culture and celebrate it with songs, ceremonies, and mythical stories about their origin and place in the world. They use their own phases and language to express their shared interests and values. They guard membership to their culture with oaths and loyalty tests, and pass down a shared heritage to their children. We call them white supremacists."

    We also call them Hispanic superiority groups, Black superiority groups, Asian superiority groups, Amish, Tibetans,...
    Do I need to go on?

  • MarkLastname||

    Nazis believed in Darwinism, ergo Darwinism bad. Nazis used toilet paper, ergo we all must use left hand instead!

    Tony logic.

  • Juice||

    If *certain* cultures are inherently unsuited to modern society or are inferior because of the genetic makeup of their members, what do you do about it?

    Can you explain how someone's genes determine their culture?

  • John||

    They don't. Genes might determine your intelligence but that isn't a racial issue. There are dumb white people too. I think there is an issue of how do we ensure that modern society doesn't become so technical that anyone with a low IQ can't function or be productive in it. But that is not a racial question.

  • BYODB||

    We don't really understand intelligence itself in terms of genetics since two brilliant people can have idiot children and the other way around, so you know if someone is making a genetic argument along these lines that they're making it up or citing someone who made it up.

    It's also why citing the movie 'idiocracy' is itself kind of stupid.

  • John||

    I totally agree.

  • vek||

    This is a lie. You've clearly never studied the subject. IQ, the best rough gauge ever invented for being intelligent, along with most other traits, are highly heritable. It's not 100%, which is why you see variation. But tall people ON AVERAGE have taller kids. Smart people ON AVERAGE have smarter kids. This is NOT contested by mainstream science.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    It also undermines the libertarian promise of capitalism. These communities can't be expected to compete, so they'll be a permanent underclass.

    Capitalism doesn't guarantee positive outcomes to people who refuse to abandon failing culture.

    Why are people stuck on complaining about that instead of coming up with solutions? Someone tell me, what is the final solution?

    I don't pretend to have "the final solution." It's a complicated problem. However, I think it would be helpful if white liberals would preach the cultural mores that they practice, instead of shitting all over those mores while reserving all public judgment of demonstrably dysfunctional cultures.

  • Tony||

    What makes black people too dumb to figure this out?

  • BYODB||

    Your logical fallacy here is circular reasoning.

  • Tony||

    This problem sits at the core of all these arguments. Even an individualistic approach that pretends that these aren't collective problems have to contend with the statistics. If people don't want to answer the question, why are they taking positions that necessitate asking it?

  • Sevo||

    "This problem sits at the core of all these arguments. Even an individualistic approach that pretends that these aren't collective problems have to contend with the statistics."
    "Contend with"? WIH does that mean?

    "If people don't want to answer the question, why are they taking positions that necessitate asking it?"
    Uh, yeah, and purple saves rain in something.
    Did you hit the bottle early?
    You're (again) missing the point:
    She wants to select for those who will succeed; she OPPOSES the use of statistics (racial quotas) to fill the classes.
    But, then, it's no surprise this has to be explained to you; you're not real bright.

  • Tony||

    How is 5:22 pm early?

  • Violent Sociopath||

    I didn't say a single word about black people. Dysfunctional culture transcends racial and ethnic categories.

    Why do people who live in dysfunctional cultures continue to make self-destructive choices? I don't know. As I said, it's a complicated problem. But having our cultural tastemakers persist in making excuses for, and enabling, those self-destructive choices certainly isn't helping matters.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I don't pretend to have "the final solution." It's a complicated problem. However, I think it would be helpful if white liberals would preach the cultural mores that they practice, instead of shitting all over those mores while reserving all public judgment of demonstrably dysfunctional cultures.

    Spot-fucking-on.

  • MarkLastname||

    Idiot, culture is not determined by genetics; the claim that some cultures are better than other, quite the opposite, is emphasizing non-genetic factors in making a good society.

    Which culture is better, western or Saudi Arabian? Go ahead, answer.

    Omg you racist bigot!!!

  • vek||

    "If *certain* cultures are inherently unsuited to modern society or are inferior because of the genetic makeup of their members, what do you do about it?"

    There are a lot of things Tony. Step one is admitting the truth. Some groups consistently have lower IQs. Some blame environment, but the evidence mostly points towards genetics. If it's environment, how come Asian children growing up half starving to death have higher IQs than blacks in America with far better environments? Not to mention 1000 other bits that refute the environmental hypothesis as being the main cause. Genetics is between 50-80% in most studies done.

    But going with the premise. I would say we should encourage them to do things that are within their control. The black community used to have more successful marriages. That should be encouraged to come back. It helps A LOT.

    We could stop encouraging victim based ideology. The truth is most blacks could do fine in the USA if they tried. They may not be as smart, but neither are dumb white people, who do a lot better. The culture DOES matter.

  • vek||

    We should encourage them to go into skilled trades if a larger percentage are not smart enough to become programmers or doctors.

    We should eliminate affirmative action because it will never work. Let the smart blacks rise as high as they can, just like we do with everybody else, but no special treatment.

    We could adjust immigration policy where we're not letting in more problematic people. Asian immigrants are pretty successful you know!

    We could also stop blaming white people for something we're not doing. Black income correlates EXACTLY the same in terms of IQ as it does with whites at the same IQ levels. They're not being held back.

    I could go on forever. We don't have to be cruel, or evil, but we can never give the help that is actually needed if we pretend they can and should be identical to whites. That's simply not the case according to the research, or personal experience. There are plenty of smart blacks, but the AVERAGE is what makes the difference in outcomes.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's interesting to see people calling for academic freedom of expression in this case, but many of the same people were calling for the head of the professor down the street at Drexel who said something controversial on the other side of the aisle. Either academic freedom exists or it doesn't.

  • Eidde||

    Could you refresh my memory?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The one whose Christmas wish was "white genocide", but who explained that he was mocking the alt-righters who used the term in opposition to multiculturalism. His statement was to advocate for promoting multiculturalism. Here we have a professor who is apparently doing the opposite (criticizing multiculturalism) but who is getting a lot of support for her academic freedom to hold these controversial views.

    My view is that neither professor should be admonished for expressing their controversial views, especially when those views have a direct relationship to their field of study. It's not like it was a chemistry professor complaining about black people. It was very clear commentary by two professors as part of their professional areas.

    The difference is that Drexel supported their professor despite massive public outrage, and Penn caved in and punished theirs. Two universities that practically share a campus but obviously have very different points of view.

  • Eidde||

    "The difference is that Drexel supported their professor despite massive public outrage, and Penn caved in and punished theirs."

    Even though the white students might be uncomfortable with a prof who joked about their group being genocided?

    I guess whites can tolerate discomfort better? /sarc

  • John||

    If you can't see the difference between pointing out the fact that black students at PennLaw are not doing well and calling for racial genocide, I don't know what to tell you. This is not an issue of academic freedom. This is an issue of whether someone can be punished for telling the truth or having an honest if mistaken opinion based on their own experience. Saying that someone should not is not to say that advocating genocide is permitted in the name of academic freedom. There still are lines of decency. And even though those lines are hard to define sometimes, understanding why advocating mass murder would be beyond them is not hard.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    He didn't call for racial genocide. That's a strawman. His intent eventually became obvious to everyone who was ignorant of the common definition of "white genocide".

    Around the same time, there were people who didn't know what Trump meant by "drain the swamp". They actually thought it was an anti-environmental sentiment, and criticized him for it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed."

    It was all in good fun. How could you possibly misunderstand that? I mean, that's clearly right up there with A Modest Proposal.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Who would honestly believe that he was using the phrase "White genocide" in a way that isn't used by anyone else? Everybody who was paying attention at the time knew exactly what "white genocide" referred to. And if you were confused by what it meant, all you had to do is listen to his public explanation of his intent of the tweet, which was very clear.

    Some people just want to believe things that don't exist so they can be outraged. Have fun with that.

  • MasterThief||

    Also worth noting is that at Penn the controversy was criticism of certain cultural attitudes and how they are incompatible with modern society. I can definitely see that her phrasing made it easy for people to cry "racism" due to certain trigger words.
    Drexel is a wholly different matter. While "white genocide" is overhyped by alt-righters, it remains true that the push for "multiculturalism" really amounts to wanting white people pushed out of the culture and society. It is a broad push and a proponent of multiculturalism calling for white genocide should be viewed as the aggressive stance it is.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It is a broad push and a proponent of multiculturalism calling for white genocide should be viewed as the aggressive stance it is.

    How is being a proponent for multiculturalism "aggressive" while being an opponent of it not aggressive? This double standard is what I think is the problem.

  • MasterThief||

    Look at the rhetoric of those pushing it. The declared goal is to remove whites and men from power and majority. I didn't say that being an opponent of multiculturalism means the person can't be aggressive. The alt-right certainly is an example of aggressive opposition. My reason for declaring that people in favor of multiculturalism and globalism as being aggressive is because they are the aggressors right now. They are the ones aggressively attempting to change the culture and law in their favor. Also worth noting is that in your quote of me you ignored the "calling for white genocide" portion. I'd say that is an aggressive position.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I ignored it because it's a strawman. He VERY clearly elaborated on what he meant by his 140 character tweet, and it's completely consistent with what the common use definition of the term "white genocide" is. It's a huge reach to assume that he was actually advocating for the mass extermination of people. And if he was, I guess he isn't anymore, since he came out against it almost immediately.

    But yeah, if he was asserting that mass murder is a good idea, then that's obviously aggressive too.

  • VinniUSMC||

    but because Professor Wax made these inaccurate public statements

    But are they inaccurate statements? Or just controversial statements? Is there evidence for either side of this?

  • sarcasmic||

    If the statements were accurate then the statistics are racist.

  • Al Sappwood||

    The administration has apparently said that some black students have graduated in the top quarter.

    It's not entirely clear how Prof. Waxman's statement violates the nondisclosure policy but the administration's does not.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    In 2002 most American blacks didn't consider Obama an African American so maybe descendants of African immigrants have graduated in the top 25%...but they have a different culture than African Americans.

  • John C. Randolph||

    So, she's being targeted for having a keen grasp of the obvious?

    -jcr

  • cc2||

    So the critics think the lifestyle of plains indians is compatible with modern life? Hilarious. The Left want to conflate culture and race. They insist that minorities can't change and that race and culture are linked. What they make of blacks who live in the suburbs and take their kids to piano lessons, I can't guess (actually I will guess that they call these people "uncle toms"). They seem to think that gangsta rap culture is equally as good as white culture, though of course they try to teach their children the lessons that lead to success and would be horrified if their own kids shot up a bodega.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I bet they had superior diets to modern white culture.

  • JeremyR||

    What, you've missed that whole noble savage thing the left pushes? Like how the American Indians were peaceful and happy and never fought wars until the White Man came?

    Heck, especially around daylight savings time, they always trot out that quote by an Indian being puzzled by the whole concept as being super wise and profound.

  • Tony||

    I don't think the noble savage concept is a product of "the left." It's a rather ancient Romantic notion that may have sprung from reactions to the atrocities experienced by European "civilized" people. It is an essentially conservative concept, that civilization corrupts otherwise naturally morally pure humans.

    That being said, they were the victims of history's greatest genocide, so maybe give them a break?

  • Eidde||

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, arch-conservative.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the conservative starting point is that we're all horribly flawed but Tony rarely gets something right.

  • MarkLastname||

    The concept of the noble savage didn't originate with the Jews.

  • Azathoth!!||


    That being said, they were the victims of history's greatest genocide, so maybe give them a break?

    Except they weren't.

    They were the victims of a plague. No one was trying to exterminate them. Enslave them, sure, oppress them--absolutely. But wipe out down to the last individual deliberately?--nope.

    The only people who've been the victims of anything like that are the Jews.

  • vek||

    Kinda. I agree on Natives here totally. But others besides the Jews have had genocide commit on their asses! Perhaps people were just looking to MOSTLY wipe them out, not 100%... But Hitler didn't intend to kill every single Jew either, until perhaps later in the war. There's actually no hard proof Hitler even knew anything about the mass exterminations, although I would assume he did, and that he gave the go ahead. Himmler was the one running that show though. They only turned to actual mass exterminations when it was clear the war was lost. Before that they were fine with keeping them in ghettos or labor camps.

    In fact the Nazis tried them damnedest to just get them all to leave, but nobody would take them. They literally even offered to BUY Madagascar for the Jews and GIVE them their own country! FACT, but you don't hear it much in the history books. Mass murder was a last ditch effort on Himmler's part more or less.

  • ||

    So then why are they beating up on Charles Murray, who didn't even say that--but it is what they're saying he is saying?

  • JeremyR||

    Well, this idea is heresy to the left, that race doesn't matter, culture does.

    She's lucky she got off this easy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    When was an ostensibly libertarian site overrun by intolerant, disaffected right-wingers?

  • Eidde||

    Around the same time purple elephants began wandering around your room, that is, the time you stopped taking your meds.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Don't feed the troll. It may be cathartic, but it's ultimately ineffective.

  • Eidde||

    Eh, I'll say what I please to whom I please, limited only by whether I get bored by this guy.

  • StackOfCoins||

    It was merely advice, not proscription.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's the SJWs who are the newcomers at Reason.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Controversial Law Professor"

    The Narrative marches on.

    If you're conservative, you're Controversial, not a victim of a Leftist ideological purge.

  • Ecoli||

    "All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all."

    This statement might cause controversy, but it is irrefutable. Those who make it their life's goal to silence speaking truth to power are deplorable.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There's a Louis CK routine where he talks about if we stopped punishing child kidnappers so harshly, more of them would be returned home alive instead of killed. He ends his routine with "I don't know what to DO with that information, I'm just saying it's a fact."

    My point is that sometimes the problem rests with the solution implied by the statement, not the statement itself. Yes, maybe Wax's statement is irrefutable, what what do we DO with that information? I know what I'm inferring from it, and I don't particularly like where it's going.

  • swood1000||

    Some errors I've seen being consistently made regarding Amy Wax's "bourgeois norms" article.

    She said "Among those who currently follow the old precepts, regardless of their level of education or affluence, the homicide rate is tiny, opioid addiction is rare, and poverty rates are low," and people claim that she didn't offer any proof for this. But does it need to be proven that, overall, a lower homicide rate would be expected given that one of the norms is "eschew crime," opioid addiction would be lower because of the norm "eschew substance abuse," and poverty would be lower because of "get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness"?

    She said that because of the loss of certain bourgeois norms of the 40s and 50s, people's lives are worse. Some people insist that this can be refuted by showing that there are some norms from the 40s and 50s that we are better off without.

    Furthermore, if you have two cultures, one of which has lower homicide, addiction and poverty rates, other things being equal the one with the lower rates of pathology is a superior culture in terms of quality of life experienced. Is this a controversial statement? Is there an implication here that the members of one culture are not entitled to be treated as equals?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    She's just a standard-issue right-winger who pines for the "good old days" when gays knew their place, women knew their place, blacks knew their place, etc. Her sweet spot appears to be just before Brown vs. Board of Education.

  • Sevo||

    "She's just a standard-issue right-winger who pines for the "good old days" when gays knew their place, women knew their place, blacks knew their place, etc. Her sweet spot appears to be just before Brown vs. Board of Education."

    Asshole is just a standard lefty twit who longs for the good old days of the USSR when the gov't ran everything and Ukrainians knew their place.

  • Flinch||

    You may be on to something regarding the "Rev.", Sevo...

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    So she is like the original Progressives that promoted assimilation to WASP values in order to improve the lives of drunken Catholic immigrants that beat their wives and children??

  • ||

    "drunken Catholic immigrants" also known as Irish, Paul "Urban Voter" Ryan.

  • swood1000||

    So she is like the original Progressives that promoted assimilation to WASP values in order to improve the lives of drunken Catholic immigrants that beat their wives and children??

    Do you think there was no cultural pathology among the early Irish immigrants, and that there was no cause for a change in behavior? Or are you saying that it is sometimes accurate to observe that a particular culture would do well to adopt a different set of values?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    The Progressives promoted assimilation and they employed some fairly heavy handed tactics to force assimilation like greatly reducing immigration levels and of course Prohibition. The Great Depression and WW2 also greatly expedited assimilation for better or worse and then BOOM—the greatest middle class in human history comes into existence post WW2.

  • swood1000||

    The Progressives promoted assimilation and they employed some fairly heavy handed tactics to force assimilation like greatly reducing immigration levels and of course Prohibition.

    Progressives of the early 20th century also supported eugenics. Times change. Their current angle is class struggle, where much of their power comes from the underclass. This gives them an incentive to add to the underclass, keep people from leaving the underclass, and keep the underclass dependent.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Progressives now actually practice eugenics...Some Progressives of the early 20th century merely discussed eugenics because the science was new and developing. One of three most important Progressives actually opposed the teaching of evolution in the Scopes Trial. Progressives were Christians which motivated much of their movement but now Progressives are anti-Christian and pro-Muslim.

  • swood1000||

    Progressives now actually practice eugenics

    Well, if you're referring to such things as staunch and defiant advocacy of abortion when the fetus has Down Syndrome or some other genetic peculiarity, I don't think it could be denied.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    As a troll, you get a D+ grading on a curve.

    You need to at least try to come up with something different for each thread instead of cutting and pasting the same crap in each one.

  • swood1000||

    Consider these specific norms:

    Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

    Does anybody dispute that a culture that observes these norms will be superior in terms of productivity and of quality of life over one that does not, other things being equal?

  • Lawman45||

    As soon as I saw the name Arthur Kirkland (on this page which I don't visit often), I knew exactly what he was going to say. It doesn't matter the subject or occasion, everyone he disagrees with is a "standard-issue right-winger" who can NEVER be correct.

    Well, Arthur, you are a standard-issue left-winger who always believes, often incorrectly, he is "right".

  • ||

    "Starvation in the East, Soviet rationing? Bah, let them eat Drożdzówka"

  • ||

    "Starvation in the East, Soviet rationing? Bah, let them eat Drożdzówka"

  • Sevo||

    BTW:
    "Disclosure: [...] interned at FIRE in 2015."
    Good on ya; they need a look come the end of the year .

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    and her opposition to race-based affirmative action, which Loury, who is black, also fiercely opposes.

    All people's opinions are equal, but some people's opinions are more equal.

  • Lawman45||

    During my 40 years as a full time law school Professor at a mid-tier school, I saw many students bloom because they were not in the all out competitive atmosphere of a top ten law school. I graduated in the top ten at a top ten school but I was always impressed that our students actually made lifelong friends in law school. Wow.

    The "mismatch hypothesis" is a fact not a theory. Just as wooden dowels come in various diameters, so do people. A round dowel may fit in one round hole better than the next.

    I am so glad that I only spent a single year trying to become a mediocre engineer. And that THEY told me to look for a new career.

  • Sevo||

    I appreciate your sentiment, but question this:
    "I saw many students bloom because they were not in the all out competitive atmosphere of a top ten law school."
    I have no idea how you could possibly defend that comment.

  • ||

    Look at sports, it is not only the players in the top 10 teams that grow. Sure they may never be a Yankee but damn if they aren't a great Blue Jay or Met.
    The point of the school is to start out at x and come out of it a much more knowledgeable and rounded human than when you started, if you don't go to a top 10 school, sure you won't be in a top 10 law firm in the nation, but you won't be borrowing money from the parents for a ramen noodles dinner.

  • Flinch||

    Refer to "mid tier", Sevo. Those are students who are bright and capable, but would be crushed in a top tier system. Some people get up to speed at a different rate than others, but they can and do get up to speed, occasionally going farther while taking longer to get there. That's just how people are, regardless of profession.

  • swood1000||

    "I saw many students bloom because they were not in the all out competitive atmosphere of a top ten law school." I have no idea how you could possibly defend that comment.

    For example, take a person whose grades and SAT put him in the top ten percent nationally, but the bottom ten percent at MIT. If he goes to MIT he has trouble keeping up with the other students in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) classes and so switches to a liberal arts major or perhaps drops out. However, if he had gone to State U., which is less rigorous academically, he would have been near the top of the class and would have prospered in STEM. Something similar is said to happen in law schools and it's not difficult to see why.

    What difficulty do you have with this?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Try regional state university. Flagships like UT-Austin and Florida and GATech have extremely rigorous engineering programs.

  • MarkLastname||

    I wonder if Tony and Arthur Kirkland are the same person. Of course, if they are, would either one of them know it?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    If so, it implies the ability to have wildly different styles. I tend not to think so. They hate different things.

  • Flinch||

    I appreciate the link to actual source material, as it shows some honesty and decency. It looks to me like the professor is following the original idea that birthed the legal profession [as we largely know it today] in England a long time ago, speaking to a question: what kind of society do we want to live in? That is the purpose of law at the end of the day. On balance, it seems her remarks speak against mindless political correctness that have taken on a sharpness resembling a variant of fascism at too many universities, in that accusations rarely are backed up with real argument. It also seems she is working to prevent her students from becoming snowflakes, and that's a good thing: California has drained the nations supply of thorazine to record low levels in the wake of the last election.
    Good work professor, and shame on the spineless at the university that can't handle actual diversity of thought presented respectfully with real arguments - knowing many would disagree.

  • swood1000||

    I think that part of what's going on here is that Amy Wax enjoys controversy. She has a kind of in-your-face attitude and enjoys provoking the left. Of course a statement espousing the mismatch theory can be and often is interpreted as racist, as is a statement that a certain set of cultural norms makes for a superior culture, and she seems to have adopted the attitude that no matter how carefully she expresses herself she is going to be accused of racism, so she charges forward heedless of how a different phrasing could reduce the misunderstanding.

  • ||

    "rephrasing" does not work, probably the most clear and succinct at getting complex ideas across via media is Jordan Peterson. No matter how carefully, precisely, and thoughtfully he expressed the concept, the "in-your-face attitude" of the sjw's will do whatever they possibly can to "need clarification" or to completely misunderstand it in order to push their narrative.
    Why should Amy apologize for not even approaching the sordid actions of sjw's when they have scared administrations into inaction and excusing their actions?

  • swood1000||

    Why should Amy apologize for not even approaching the sordid actions of sjw's when they have scared administrations into inaction and excusing their actions?

    I didn't say she should apologize. My point is that she should try to avoid language that makes it easy for her opponents to misrepresent her argument to the general public.

  • NicholasStix||

    "The Penn Law chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild, a progressive legal organization, said that Wax's comments were 'an explicit and implicit endorsement of white supremacy,' and asserted that 'her bigoted views inevitably seep into her words and actions in the classroom and in private conversations with students.'"

    The National Lawyers' Guild has been a Communist front for its entire, 80-year existence. Communists' standard position today is genocidal racism.

  • RonBPalmer||

    The inherent problem here is one of government control over speech. Regardless of whether the school is private or public, the government requires restrictive licensing of attorneys and excludes all non licensed people. The government imposes educational requirements and further certification of schools that teach would be attorneys. To be an attorney, you have to attend a school that has "voluntarily" submitted to the government restrictions. This creates a government controlled funnel for all would be attorneys and implicates the state action doctrine as applied to this university.

    Here, a university that can lawfully be classified a state actor, has punished this professor and limited the availability of knowledge to the students based the content of the professor's speech. The university need not worry too much though, few attorneys educated in this funnel are capable of making these connections or of applying difficult legal logic. Most simply parrot.

  • swood1000||

    Here, a university that can lawfully be classified a state actor

    Can you point me to a case holding that the imposition of educational licensing requirements, the certification of schools, and the submission by those schools to government restrictions, renders those schools state actors, or anything remotely similar to that?

    My plumber is subject to state educational licensing requirements, was required to be certified, and does submit to government restrictions. If he screws up can I sue the state?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Homeschooled lawyers tend to reject the propriety of citation to authority.

  • Echospinner||

    If you are defending me in a lawsuit. If you are the ortho surgeon talking with me about hip surgery. I could care less about your race, sex, religion or any of that.

    Now we talk.

  • ||

    Well, as a Plains Indian, fully cognizant of my ancestral culture, and, a licensed electrical engineer, I'd better hang up my PE and my 30 yrs as an electrical utility engineer and go back to buffalo hunting. Anyone know where I can find a used pony and bow and arrow, tee-pee?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    You should make an electric bow and arrow and revolutionize buffalo hunting!

  • Deplorable Victor||

    They will do anything to silence conservatives who speak the truth. These "education" institutions should be shut down,and if it takes violence to do it that is justified.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online