UPenn Tries to Have it Both Ways With Professor Amy Wax

I’m generally wary of restricting what college professors can talk about or punishing unpopular opinions that they express. I actually want them to “trigger” the hell of of their students, and if they don’t make them uncomfortable, they probably aren’t very good at their jobs. But, there are some obvious exceptions to that guideline. Expressing clearly idiotic opinions or ideas that are totally unsupported by scientific evidence is not the job of a college professor. There should still be some leeway for that if it occurs outside of a classroom or academic setting, or if it is unrelated to their areas of instruction, but it’s generally a sign that they aren’t mentally fit for a life of the mind.

An Ivy League law professor who believes not only in the supremacy of Anglo-Protestant culture but also that this should inform our immigration policies is definitely testing my laissez-faire disposition toward controversial opinions.

Amy Wax, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, is the academic who perhaps best represents the ideology of the Trump Administration’s immigration restrictionists. Wax, who began her professional life as a neurologist, and who served in the Solicitor General’s office in the late eighties and early nineties, has become known in recent years for her belief in the superiority of “Anglo-Protestant culture.” In 2017, Wax said, in an interview, “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.” The dean of Penn Law School, Theodore Ruger, said that Wax had spoken “disparagingly and inaccurately” and had been barred from teaching core-curriculum classes.

I confess that I don’t agree with the punishment involved here. I guess the idea is that no student should be compelled to take one of Professor Wax’s classes, so she can’t teach anything that is required for a law degree. However, she’s acceptable for anyone who elects to take her classes. That’s a half-ass solution, and I think Penn should take a stand on one side or the other of this debate rather than trying to straddle the middle.

Now, her recent statements have earned a rebuke as well as administrative action:

Last month, in a speech at the National Conservatism Conference, in Washington, D.C., Wax promoted the idea of “cultural-distance nationalism,” or the belief that “we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally, by people from the first world, from the West, than by people from countries that had failed to advance.” She went on, “Let us be candid. Europe and the first world, to which the United States belongs, remain mostly white, for now; and the third world, although mixed, contains a lot of non-white people. Embracing cultural distance, cultural-distance nationalism, means, in effect, taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” In response to her remarks, Ruger issued a statement, saying that Wax’s views “are repugnant to the core values and institutional practices” of both the law school and the university.

What’s hard to understand is why Penn would continue to employ someone whose ideas are “repugnant to the core values” of the institution. If they want to maintain a wide berth for professors to express unconventional and controversial opinions (which I generally support) then they should defend their position and allow her to teach the same courses she has been teaching. If, on the other hand, they think she’s gone too far then they should explain that she’s not an acceptable instructor and terminate her.

When journalist Isaac Chotiner interviewed her, he found her opinions somewhat less than scientific.

During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, Wax expounded on her beliefs that people of Western origin are more scrupulous, empirical, and orderly than people of non-Western origin, and that women are less intellectual than men. She described these views as the outcome of rigorous and realistic thinking, while offering evidence that ranged from two studies by a eugenicist to personal anecdotes, several of which concerned her conviction that white people litter less than people of color.

The politically incorrect aspect of her position is probably what will cause her the most difficulty, and possibly her job. But it’s the lack of empirical scruples that is most disqualifying for her as a professor. This is not the kind of intellectual rigor expected of an academic, Ivy League or otherwise.  For that reason alone, I wouldn’t retain her for non-core curriculum courses.

White supremacy is a particularly unattractive strain of thought with an extraordinarily violent history.  Violence inspired by the movement is on the rise in our country as we speak. But it’s not unusual for people to think that their religion or culture is correct or superior to others. Studying and debating the strengths and weaknesses of various belief systems can be a proper academic exercise if it is done with care and also with the awareness that you must always ask for whom something is good or superior. Anglo-Protestant culture has made some striking contributions to mankind, but has also had some truly disastrous consequences for the people and cultures it has subsumed.

Our immigration policies should not be based on race or country of origin or religion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a debate about what the parameters of immigration and citizenship should be going forward. To do that, we need people to make their arguments on something other than their opinion of who litters the most. Hopefully, Penn will ultimately agree that Professor Wax doesn’t merit a seat at the table, in the national debate or in their classrooms.