03 February 2022

The Woke Mob Comes for Professors Amy Wax and Kathleen Stock

Stephen Kershnar

A Tale of Two Professors

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

January 23, 2022

 

            In two cases, administrators and academics are trying to silence high profile professors.  

Recently, the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s dean, Ted Ruger, announced that he will try to sanction law professor Amy Wax. In a 2017 Philadelphia Inquirer article, Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander said that the country is paying a price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture. They argued that since the 1950s, the decline of bourgeois values - such as hard work, marriage, respect for authority, and self-discipline - contributed to societal problems such as opioid abuse, half of all children being born to single mothers, male labor force participation rates down to Great-Depression-era levels, and many college students lacking basic skills.

In a 2017 interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian, Wax argued that not all cultures equally prepare people to be productive in an advanced economy. She said, "everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans" because of their superior norms. Wax added that she did not believe in the superiority of one race over another but was describing the situation in various countries and cultures. Again, with the exception of a few East Asian nations, no adult seriously doubts this claim. By the millions, people vote with their feet in favor of Wax’s claims.

In 2021 on Glenn Loury’s website, Wax wrote “As long as most Asians support Democrats and help to advance their positions, I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Wax argued that Asians are ungrateful for the advantages of living in the US. This can be seen, she claimed, because they vote disproportionately for the “pernicious" Democratic Party. She further noted that this voting pattern is "mystifying" because the Democratic Party pushes equal outcomes despite well-known group differences. Regardless of whether one agrees, the claims are plausible.    

In a 2017 interview with Loury, Wax said regarding affirmative action: "Take Penn Law School, or some top 10 law school... Here's a very inconvenient fact ... I don't think I've ever seen a Black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half ... I can think of one or two students who scored in the top half in my required first year course.” This claim surprises no one who is familiar with elite law schools. Penn is ranked 6th.

In 2017, a petition to fire Amy Wax was started. Today it has 76,000 signatures. 33 of her Penn Law colleagues denounced her Philadelphia Inquirer  and Daily Pennsylvanian statements. Ruger later banned her from teaching required first-year courses.

In England, Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex recently resigned. She  argued that people cannot change their sex. She also argued that many trans women are males – consider, for example, ones with penises who are sexually attracted to females – and, as a result, they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in an unrestricted way. She said ad nauseum that she thinks trans people should live free from fear of violence, harassment, or discrimination, but that her claims about identity are distinct from the need to protect these rights.  

When Stock was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, philosophers from the most elite universities – for example, Cambridge, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale – and others denounced Stock. The professors said, “We are dismayed that the British government has chosen to honour her for this harmful rhetoric.”

Stock’s resignation followed her having been told by police to stay away from her campus for safety reasons. Students at her university, put up posters and graffiti demanding that she be fired. The Sussex branch of the University and College Union called for an investigation into transphobia. An ironic fact is that Stock is a left-wing lesbian and sex-nonconforming woman. Some of the elite philosophers who denounced her used to be her friends and allies. The revolution always eats its own.

Were Wax or Stock to teach at a public American university, the Constitution would make it illegal for the schools to sanction them. Their speech and writing were not pursuant to their official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Even if their speech and writings were pursuant to their official duties, and it was not, their speech is still protected because it would easily pass the Pickering test. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Specifically, their speech is a matter of public concern and their interest in commenting on matters of public concern outweigh the state’s interest of the State regarding the public services it provides.

Note two things. First, regarding Wax, no one seriously doubts that the country would be better off with bourgeois values or that – with the exception of a few East Asian countries - Western culture is better.    

Second, regarding Stock, it is hard to dispute that biologically, trans women are not women. Whether trans women are gender-women – that is, women according to cultural norms – depends on what we do and should think a woman is. At the very least, it is worth discussing Stock’s careful-and-technical arguments. There are additional reasons to be wary of radically revising our view of gender. Consider athletics, gender-transition contagion, and the percentage of people who change their minds about transitioning.  

The mean-spirited bullying of Wax and Stock is not unique. Professors from Colorado, Cornell, Oxford, Princeton, Rutgers, etc. have been blackballed, publicly denounced, or pressured to retract articles. The elite schools matter because they have an enormous influence on the country’s commanding heights. Consider, for example, Big Tech, government, Hollywood, mainstream media, and Wall Street. What the elites believe will flow down to culture, law, and the rest of academia. This abuse will continue until alumni cut off donations, boards of trustee fire disgraceful administrators (for example, Penn’s Ruger), and federal and state governments defund these institutions.

 

4 comments:

Scatter Brain said...

"There are additional reasons to be wary of radically revising our view of gender. Consider athletics, gender-transition contagion, and the percentage of people who change their minds about transitioning."

Confirmation bias maybe? The article cites the individuals who pose these arguments, but then finds no reprieve to actually consider these things, besides stating them as issues? Is trans identity development research out of your wheel house or what? there is some clear data on these things - especially the concept of "changing their minds about transitioning" actually known in the scientific community as desisting. Just be honest that the article is a totally personal piece and that you don't care about gender-affirming issues. to continue the "bullying" or rather, strong disagreement and conflict, you know not of what you speak.

As someone who was nearly expelled from Fredonia for their use of free speech, I support your ability to further talk on these subjects and even keep your job. But your incredulousness and inauthenticity is... disturbing.

jenny hen said...

Hi Stephen.

The problem here is that you could have said "what about a 19 year old virgin? with little sex education?".

A 19 year old doesn't "understand sex" in the same way a "pro" person understands it, for the same reason a person who's never played football and doesn't do some research on it doesn't really understand football. Yet they'd be allowed to try out to play in the dangerous sport at 16, or even at 19.

A lack of knowledge is considered why they cant consent, and yet people assume it is perfectly acceptable for two people, who are underage and both lack knowledge, to "do the deed" in spite of the supposed harm it causes them to do that deed while being underage. This is a clear violation of the concept that any sex activity for a person below age of consent is wrong and is immoral, if you say it is moral when in context with another partner of similar age.

So what this argument is really about is "similar age vs different age". It cant be about consent, because two 15 year olds would be legally incapable. It cant be about mental capacity, because two 15 year olds are still incapable. And it can't be about the supposed harm caused, because we resist punishing two 15 year olds for a case of 'mutual sex abuse".

Im giving you some help to flesh out your concepts. I tried your work email but it told me invalid error occurred.

Other things to consider:

many states make it legal for underage 12 year olds to get abortions without parent knowledge or consent, and do not inform, despite the fact that if a person in a psychological counseling session said they were having sex with a 12 year old, the police would be called. In the abortion instance, she is provably a victim of rape, according to popular belief and the law, yet they will not call the police.

We have movies and TV shows that exploit underage teen sexuality, sometimes gratuitously. Netflix is rife with them such as Sex Education. Yet it is not seen as immoral to have shows that feature adults playing underage teens engaging in sex acts.

Clearly no one cares that two teens who are underage, and lack the critical knowledge component of "really understanding", engage in sex. Many people who condemn someone over 18 having sex with someone under 18 also roundly support two people under 18 having sex with each other.

The issue is a motte and bailey, which really centers around "power differential".

They hate the power differential of POTENTIAL harm, and have collapsed the potential into "it always causes harm".

If a man has sex with a 15 year old who lies and says they're 18 on a dating app, has the 15 year old been harmed?

if a 15 year old has sex with the entire football team in high school, have they been harmed? if they have not been harmed by taking an entire train on the football team, just because they're the similar age, whence comes the harm when that same 15 year old, who is now very sexually experienced and "knows" what they're doing, decides to have sex with a 60 year old?

This issue is irrational, but it is built off Feminism's 100 year push against male sexuality, since age of consent rising from 12 to 18 was an advancement by women to protect females from predatory male behavior, as they only wanted age of consent for females and even sought to punish 15 year olds males using this law for underage females having sex with them.

Historically, juries would jury nullify and refuse to convict because the sentiment was that she knew what she was doing and she might be sexually experienced. This is why feminists demanded an end to "character referencing" in trials, by looking into women's past.

jenny hen said...

The concept "she was asking for it" (this will become a clear comparison in a moment) akin to rape, is feminism trying to convert the argument "she was dressing sexually provocative so she wanted sex, so she probably had sex with this man but lied and claimed it was rape" INTO the argument "the judge is saying she deserved to be raped", is meant to again provide a cudgel against males.

By using this false framing, they get people to side against judges asking "what was she wearing" by claiming they're trying to validate her being raped, rather than the true reason of gathering "circumstantial evidence that points to the idea that maybe she wanted sex and she is lying about being raped".

The underlying issue behind rape is that it is indistinguishable from sex. If a woman asked a random man on the street at 1am for sex, and he did it, she could claim rape later and get a rape kit done, and he'd have no legal defense. He doesn't know her, he can't prove she consented, etc.

He has to prove his innocence, rather than the state proving his guilt. This ties nicely into age of consent law, because it assumes the older individual (and sometimes even the younger one where its illegal for two underage to have sex) has harmed the person de-facto by the act. No evidence is needed that there was any abuse, coercion, or other rape or sexual assault behavior. All that is required is the touching occurred.

There's another netflix show I just remembered. Its about an underage high school girl hitting on and having sex acts with a teacher, something about "my obsession". they never complete the act but they get undressed and kiss and fondle. All of which are crimes.

These shows point to the concept that we all seem to agree teens are sexually active and even desire sex, yet an adult having sex with someone who desired and wanted to act on it would be an act of abuse and rape. This same thing would not be true if the recipient of the advances from the underage minor was 17 or younger. This doesn't make sense.

I agree with your assessment but you're using LOGIC against 100 years of indoctrination, and moral outrage by emotion.

July said...

This ungrateful Asian immigrant supports the good professor's right to voice unpopular thoughts. May want to plan an exit strategy when the pitchfork mob comes for you. Live to annoy another day.