Amy Wax Defends Bourgeois Norms

2017-11-12 · Guest: Amy Wax (Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania) · 52:06

Filed under: Free speech and civil liberties · Ideas

Decline of bourgeois values and academic freedom

In this episode, Bob Zadek interviews University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax about her controversial op-ed, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” They discuss the specific cultural habits she advocates for—such as marriage, work ethic, and sobriety—and the intense backlash she received from the academic community for suggesting that all cultures are not equally conducive to success in a modern society.

Topics: Bourgeois values, academic freedom, cultural norms, University of Pennsylvania, Larry Alexander, social capital Speakers: Bob Zadek (Host), Amy Wax (Guest)

---

The Decline of Bourgeois Values [00:07]

Bob Zadek: You’re listening to the Bob Zadek Show, a full hour of libertarian discussion with the smartest guests on radio. Live, spontaneous, and thoughtful. It’s the show of ideas, not attitude. And your calls are welcome at 424-BOB-SHOW. Now, your host, Bob Zadek.

And good morning to all my friends out there. Welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the only live libertarian talk radio show on the air all weekend, and the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in California. Thanks so much for listening this Sunday morning.

On this day in history—somewhat of a sad day, a marker day—Ellis Island, which has welcomed so many of our ancestors, closed its doors. It was the first step on American soil for about 80% of the immigrants who came to this country during roughly the periods from the early 1880s until the middle of the—the early part of the 20th century. Ellis Island Museum is a wonderful place to visit. You cannot walk away without being emotionally affected by all the good—all the good that has come from our open borders policy. So long, Ellis Island. Thanks for providing such great service to our country and for providing us with the ancestors and the successors to so many wonderful Americans.

This morning I’d like to welcome Professor Amy Wax to the show. Ms. Wax is a professor of law at Penn—University of Pennsylvania Law School. She is a tenured professor. She is well-regarded. She has written extensively in her areas of expertise. She served on the staff of the Solicitor General of the United States—quite an experienced legal career.

Ms. Wax, several months ago, wrote an op-ed piece, which one would think was stating the obvious. She commented on her views on the decline in what was called in her piece “bourgeois values”—more about that in a moment. And she bemoaned the fact that due to the change in cultural norms in our country, there was a decline in the outputs from the younger generations and students. That piece, which Ms. Wax will explain in detail, caused quite an uproar. And I wanted to spend this hour with Ms. Wax discussing two crucial issues to libertarians specifically, and most importantly, to all Americans.

The two issues which I’ll ask Ms. Wax to expand upon are, number one, the degree to which the academic establishment reacted negatively to a tenured law professor expressing her opinion with a colleague in an op-ed piece in a mainstream media publication; and of equal importance, the issues that drove Ms. Wax to write the piece. So, Ms. Wax, welcome to the show this morning. Thanks so much for giving us an hour of your time.

Amy Wax: Well, thank you for having me.

Bob Zadek: Now, what was—when you wrote the piece, what was the title of the piece, and what were the very simple premises that you offered to the reading public in the op-ed piece you wrote with Professor Alexander?

Amy Wax: Well, I think the piece was called something like “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture,” or some such. It was really Larry Alexander’s idea initially. He showed it to me in a different form and asked me if I liked it and wanted to work on it with him. And I agreed to do that. It was over the summer, and we had talked about some of these issues before—he and I—because we’re friends, longstanding friends and colleagues.

And I changed some things, and we were trying to make it more universal. I think there’s this tendency to focus on the upper-middle class if you’re upper-middle class yourself. So I said, “Really, these are—this is a cultural script or set of behaviors and precepts that can help anyone, regardless of their background, their level of education or affluence.” So we tried to incorporate that idea. But then it was published in the Philly Inquirer on August 9th. I have some connections with some of the op-ed editors there. They’ve asked me to write before, so we placed it there. And the rest is history.

Bob Zadek: And what was the premise—the premises of your article? The main point and thrust of your article were pretty straightforward, were they not? Explain to our listeners who probably have not read the piece—it being published locally, although it got a lot of attention after it was published. What was the core premise you were presenting in the piece?

Amy Wax: Well, we sort of took off from this list of these precepts called “bourgeois values.” And we didn’t really have to call it that. We could have called it something else—sort of the script or the habits of the productive burgher class that leads to their business success, their affluence, their role as stalwarts of the community.

And so what do these values consist of? Well, there’s a whole list—a long list—but the ones that we highlighted for modern purposes, anyway, were a certain amount of familial and sexual restraint—to get married before you have children; a work ethic—to work steadily and hard and go the extra mile in their work; and of course, to not be idle, to participate in the workforce; to obey the law—that’s the value of rectitude; to show due respect for authority; to be patriotic and ready to serve your country. Those were really—to stay sober. Sobriety, of course, is very important to high functioning and an orderly existence. And there were others we could have mentioned—probably should have mentioned thrift, not spending money that you don’t have. There’s a whole list of them.

And so we sort of put forward this cultural script, and then we suggested that at least some of the problems that we experience today in our society are the product of abandoning the script or the weakening of the script, certainly in selective quarters of our society—that this is no longer held up as a kind of uniform ideal of how people ought to behave. In some ways, it’s denigrated and sneered at. As a result, people do depart from the script more and more, and that creates trouble.

And the second part of the op-ed, I think, is maybe the part that’s especially obnoxious to some people, as far as I can tell, is that we talk about how all cultures are not equal, but the script seems to be conducive to success, at least in our modern Western technological societies—that people who stick more or less to it tend to do better. And this, you know, is regardless of your level of intelligence or education, or whether you have an elite job or not, or whether you’re suited to such. It really is important and valuable up and down the social scale.

And we compared some other cultures which we thought were not as well suited to it. And then finally, we looked back to the 1950s when the bourgeois cultural script was more uniformly believed in. There was more sort of consistent fealty to it—at least lip service was paid to it. Obviously, people sometimes deviated from it—that’s inevitable—but there was a mainstream belief in it that we think is lacking now. So those were sort of the main points that we made in what was really quite a short piece—an 850-word piece in our op-ed.

Bob Zadek: And when you recite these values identified in your piece as bourgeois values, I have to believe that almost anybody reading the piece or listening to this show would kind of scratch their heads and say, “Well, of course those values produce better outcomes as you participate in society.” It’s almost above question that those values will serve one well.

And so one would think you would have, other than maybe quiet nodding of agreement among readers who read it and listeners who may have heard you espouse those views—the reaction was immediate and extreme. And I couldn’t help but wonder when I read your piece—I happened to have noticed your piece and then saw the immediate and forceful negative reaction to it—I was beside myself. I was puzzled. I had to ask myself: what was going on that when Ms. Wax, with Larry Alexander, writes a piece that so clearly stated what I considered to be the obvious, that it was negatively reacted to by both the media and within your own community at the law school and the larger academic community around the country? What was the nature of their reaction? What was a questioning in a piece that so clearly stated the obvious? What was the source of this negative reaction?

Amy Wax: Well, let me just say first of all that I got a tremendous amount of mail from ordinary people in the real world that was overwhelmingly positive, really. Very little [negative]. But, you know, you’re kind of asking the wrong person because I have to tell you, one of the outcomes of this whole debacle is that I just regard many of the people within academia as Martians.

In this segment of the interview, Professor Amy Wax and Bob Zadek discuss the intense academic and social backlash following her public defense of traditional “bourgeois” values. Wax describes the mindset of her critics as a dogmatic ideology that rejects the influence of cultural norms on social outcomes, preferring instead to attribute all disparities to external systemic factors. She highlights the irony she perceives in colleagues who personally adhere to traditional lifestyles while publicly condemning the values that underpin them.

Bob Zadek addresses the specific criticism Wax received for her references to the mid-20th century. He notes that her observations about the social cohesion of that era were often misinterpreted by critics as an endorsement of past injustices, such as segregation and sexism. They explore the difficulty of discussing the positive aspects of Western cultural legacy without being accused of supporting its historical failures. The conversation concludes with a critique of “utopian” thinking and an argument for a more nuanced understanding of history—one that can appreciate the benefits of certain cultural practices while simultaneously repudiating the era’s systemic flaws.

Would you like a summary of the next segment of this discussion?

Bob Zadek: Wax has written an op-ed piece praising and yearning for a more healthy return to bourgeois values, which she describes in her piece, and has experienced an overwhelmingly—uh, a somewhat negative but strong reaction from the political left as a result of her piece. I’ll be back speaking to Ms. Wax in about 30 seconds. Please stay tuned. Wait till you hear about the reaction by Ms. Wax’s own faculty to her piece. It’s a scary story. Please stay tuned back in 30 seconds.

The Backlash at Penn Law [25:15]Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, the only live libertarian talk radio show on the air all weekend. Thanks so very much for spending an hour with me this morning and with my conversation with Professor Amy Wax. Professor Wax is a law professor at Penn Law School, has written several books, and most recently an op-ed piece in The Philadelphia Inquirer, looking nostalgically back at the loss of bourgeois values, which she identifies in her piece as the obvious: hard work, two-parent families, staying sober, showing up for work every day—basically the values that, to borrow a phrase that has gotten some negative press, the values that perhaps contributed to making America great. No political implications from my borrowing that phrase.

And as a result of that op-ed piece written last summer with another law professor, Larry Alexander, Ms. Wax experienced a swift and sure negative reaction within her own faculty. Ms. Wax is a tenured professor at Penn Law School and beyond. Now, there was an immediate reaction by members of your own faculty, whether or not in a very public way.

Amy Wax: Speech, but then we have to tolerate even toxic speech, the implication being that our op-ed was toxic, and saying, “I myself am committed to the idea that no one culture is better than another,” which I thought was rather going out on the limb there. And it was unprecedented for him to really write such a piece. When other faculty members speak or write or publish things, the dean doesn’t come out and have to feel like he has to give some kind of answer to it.

But it didn’t disturb me that much that he did it. It was a bit annoying. Another group of five of my colleagues wrote a substantive piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, in which they explained why praising the ’50s was bad history—argument along the lines of the one I already have taken on, that there was nothing good about the ’50s, it was irredeemable, anything that good came out of it was on the backs of blacks and minorities and women—that argument that I think has strange implications. But it was substantive. So I didn’t really mind because they were trying to take on my argument.

But what happened next I think was deeply disturbing, which was that, at the instigation of one of my colleagues who tried to put it together, there was a condemnatory letter, the so-called DP or Daily Pennsylvanian open letter that, essentially without giving any argument or justification or taking on the substance of the op-ed, said, “We condemn Amy Wax’s statements,” including some statements they put together, a pastiche in the piece of statements from the op-ed, and then a statement I had made the next day in an interview in which I stated the fact that people who—migrants want to come to Western countries, that there are superior attributes to the West that cause this behavior, and condemned it outright and then categorically rejected all of my views.

And then in a further paragraph, invited the students to report stereotyping or bias that they experienced at the law school. Didn’t name me specifically as the source of that stereotyping or bias, but the implication was clear that they were linking me to the potential or the danger for stereotyping and bias. So it was a kind of a weaselly little letter. It was just an outright condemnation. It was signed by 33 of my colleagues, which is about half of my colleagues on the faculty. And just so the audience—it was interesting, which was very negative in the comments section of the newspaper, the school newspaper where it was published, there was a lot of sneering at these 33 for not behaving in a very lawyerly fashion, not providing reasons or justification for what they were doing.

Bob Zadek: Now we have been talking about all of the heat generated from your rather short op-ed piece. And I’d like to read, for the benefit of our listeners, a short paragraph which I think was the heart of the op-ed piece, just to demonstrate—so the audience can compare what you wrote as compared with the profoundly strong, angry reaction to it. So here is a controversial paragraph that engendered all of this reaction. Ms. Wax suggested the following: that as to the suggested, recommended cultural script, “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.”

That’s it. It’s what caused 33 members of the law school faculty to write an angry rebuttal to an op-ed piece. It cannot be rationally explained. There’s something strange going on in academia if that paragraph I just read to our listeners created so much negative reaction. And for any reader to read into this, and Ms. Wax, you used the word “bias,” that your colleagues were suggesting that students should be ever alert for any further evidence of bias on your part. How could any syllable in what I just read reflect any kind of a bias? And a bias towards what, other than a bias towards really good stuff?

Amy Wax: Well, I think part of the problem here is that the degree to which people exemplify these values in their day-to-day life varies with class and with race. I mean, that’s a fact. Now, why does it? I think because people vary in the degree to which they follow the script, both for external reasons and also for cultural reasons. But for example, to recommend getting married before having children and trying to stay married, the fact is that the people who do that most successfully are upper-middle-class whites and Asians. Now, I don’t personally see anything wrong with that. That is just observing social reality and reporting on it. But a lot of people don’t like it. So, I think that that could be extrapolated as somehow racist. To denigrate single-parent families is often depicted as racist because single-parent families overwhelmingly dominate in the black community, for example. Now I’m just explaining, I’m trying to explain the reaction. I’m not the one who reacted. So once again, the people who are reacting are the ones that you should be asking. But people do find ways of objecting to what would appear to be common sense.

Bob Zadek: And therefore, those who objected to your piece would therefore, I would assume, be questioning your conclusion that these values are positive values that young people ought to aspire to achieve. How could anybody question whether or not these values would produce outcomes that are positive in society? Now, you are not saying people should aspire to any of these values. You’re not denigrating choices people make not to follow these values. You’re simply stating the obvious: that if you follow these values, the bourgeois outcomes—the stable family, success in business, success in private life—are more likely to be achieved.

If you don’t aspire to have those ends, then of course suggest or adopt any cultural norms you wish. You are not advocating that everybody must be compelled to follow these values. You are simply pointing a cause and effect: that if these values are more likely to result in a certain outcome, and if you don’t despise the outcome, well then the values aren’t so important to you. So there’s no criticism of other cultural norms. You are simply saying, “Adopt whatever cultural norms you want, but don’t expect a different outcome as a result.”## The Social Costs of Failing the Script [37:21]Bob Zadek: Is that a fair statement? We are pointing out an instrumental relationship between adopting certain habits and practices and good outcomes.

Amy Wax: We absolutely are, and does it have a normative spin in that we’re recommending this—not even going so far as to maybe judge people as worse or less moral, but rather recommending that people do follow the script? Well, yeah, there is a bit of that, in part because when people fail, and when they fall short of their aspirations, and when they fall into poverty, or can’t take care of their children, or don’t work, they do become dependent on the rest of us. The fact is, that does involve imposing costs and burdens on other people. So, to the extent there is a normative spin here, it is because the consequences of failing to follow the script—getting involved in drugs, not working, being irresponsible in matters of family—is that other people are burdened.

Bob Zadek: We have a caller, Professor Wax—Jacob in San Jose. Welcome to the show this morning. And what’s on your mind?

Jacob: Yes, Professor Wax, you raised many good points, but don’t you find it curious that the way things are actually going in the higher educational world, that the legal trend is to make criticism of Israel a crime on campus, perhaps even a felony to criticize Israel? The so-called anti-Semitism, legal protections for that kind of thought—prison. Why do we have to have that kind of trend in academia?

Amy Wax: Well, I don’t approve of that. I do not approve of making unlawful—outlawing—certain kinds of criticism. I think that’s completely totalitarian and antithetical to our way of life. But I think it is part of a larger phenomenon which actually is being spearheaded and championed by—once again, the progressive left, of defining certain kinds of opinions as “hate speech,” as harmful to—as attacks on the individuals who are being criticized.

Now, usually it’s minorities or blacks who are using that weapon to silence others, but then again, Jews have taken a leaf from their book and said, “Well, if we can’t criticize blacks, then you can’t criticize Jews,” and it’s all hate speech, and all of it should be outlawed. Now, I think just going down that path in any way is a very bad idea. I don’t approve of it and I don’t endorse it, and I would like to see it reversed. But on the other hand, it is the way that academia is going right now.

Bob Zadek: Jacob, thanks for your call this morning. We appreciate your call.## The Heckler’s Veto and Campus Orthodoxy [42:15]Bob Zadek: Professor Wax, you have commented about something which is called in society the “heckler’s veto”: the ability of a loud, somewhat often obnoxious, disruptive minority to control the conversation on campus. Isn’t there a bit, or maybe a bunch, of that going on on college campuses in general? And I doubt that it’s more so at Penn than anywhere else, but because of the political tilt of tenured professors in colleges across the country, this heckler’s veto problem has been suppressing free speech.

And free speech—but for the hard work of organizations such as FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an organization that I heartily support—organizations like that, free speech is really on the decline on college campuses, so that I dare say you might not have been so comfortable in writing your piece if you didn’t have the protection of tenure. But if you were vulnerable in any way and simply an adjunct or a visiting professor without tenure, you wouldn’t feel anywhere near so comfortable about simply expressing an opinion in public.

Amy Wax: Well, I think I do have tenure, and tenure is this rare and precious protection that the academy does accord to certain people. A minority of people who operate within the academy have tenure. That means we can’t be fired and can’t be overtly penalized for our opinions. However, there are all sorts of informal social pressures that are brought to bear on us, of course, including being ostracized by your colleagues and treated badly by your colleagues—but of course, that’s nothing compared to losing your job.

I think at the current atmosphere on campus, there is definitely a reluctance to express views that don’t accord with the progressive dogma, especially on hot-button issues. There’s a lot more leeway for disagreement on less charged issues, although more and more issues are becoming politically charged. And I think the reason for that reluctance is—it’s quite understandable and justifiable.

What happens if you say the wrong thing is that one will be called all sorts of nefarious, evil names by other people—certain accusations such as racism, sexism, hatred, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment will be hurled your way, and once those attributions are attached, it’s very hard to shake them and one becomes an enemy of the people, a pariah, an outcast. These are serious, nefarious allegations.

So it’s the name-calling and the vituperation that maintains the social control that is the essence, the core of the heckler’s veto—that is the veto that shuts down speech. And I think one of the things that’s going on—well, there’s several things. First of all, people feel entirely free to call other people names like that rather than meet their arguments on the merits. Because meeting arguments on the merits is hard work. A lot of students have never been equipped to do it by their teachers. A part of this is just the decline in the quality of, and rigor of education, which I think has been just dramatic. So that goes hand-in-hand with it.

Second is the veto power—the absolute, unquestioned power that we have given to victim groups and grievance groups, historical and self-appointed—has just fueled this. I think we really need to push back against this kind of name-calling on the part of minorities and self-appointed victims. But that isn’t going to happen. The trend is in the opposite direction. Nobody really dares to do that. I dare to do it because I have tenure and I’m pretty bold about these things, but I certainly understand why other people don’t want to.

And so the bottom line is we have, in effect, a ferociously enforced orthodoxy on campus. And even though lip service is paid to free speech over and over again in the abstract, on the ground and in actuality, it doesn’t really exist. It doesn’t really exist because students and professors are afraid to express unorthodox views. Occasionally, people, speakers—will be allowed to appear, although usually it requires a sort of police lockdown to get them to speak. But the actual members of the academy are quite cowed.

Bob Zadek: I’d like to ask Ms. Wax what she sees for the future: getting worse, staying the same, or—hopefully she will tell us—getting better.## The Future of Free Speech on Campus [49:10]Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. My conversation this morning is with Professor Amy Wax of Penn Law School. Ms. Wax, we have a few seconds to go. Give us a look into the future. Is free speech getting better on college campuses, worse, or staying the same? Is there grounds for hope or despair?

Amy Wax: Well, I think the picture is mixed. I think in the wake of these episodes and the torrent of criticism for how the campus has reacted, and also wonderful organizations like FIRE, which is superb, and Heterodox Academy, which is a group of academics that are pledged to open inquiry and academic values—that is, I think there’s more freedom to do that.

But on the other hand, I am pessimistic because of the element of conformity, the pervasive element of conformity of thought that prevails on campus, which has an outsized influence on young people, on the opinions that they hear, on their habit of open inquiry, of considering arguments on both sides of the question. They really don’t even have the knowledge and the understanding; they don’t have the exposure and the familiarity with dissenting points of view that would allow them to assess and evaluate and think about any kind of dissident approach to some of the big issues of the day. So they’re exposed to something of a monolith in their education.

Bob Zadek: Well, sorry, we lost Amy for a second. I wish to thank Professor Wax for giving us an hour of her time this morning. I’ll be back next Sunday for another hour of libertarian thought. Ideas, never attitude. Please tune in next week, same time. I’ll be back next Sunday. Thanks so much for listening. Have a great rest of the weekend.

Show prep notes

Bob’s own preparation for this episode.

Amy Wax - Defending Bourgeois Norms, 11/12

(424) BOB-SHOW // (424) 262-7469

Notes:

Planning call on Saturday, 10:30pm PT, ****

Amy Wax - Defending Bourgeois Norms, 11/12

Notes:

Links

Related Shows:

This Day in History

Amy Wax’s Explosive Op-Ed

Related Articles by Wax

Criticism of Wax

Papers on Traditional Values:

Audio & Video

Trump ObamaCare Libertarian Minute

This is Bob Zadek, with the ever popular Libertarian Minute. You’re invited to share your thoughts on today’s show on the Bob Zadek Show Facebook page, by email to or tweet to @rzadek. I’ll try to reply to all thoughtful comments. A podcast of the show is available on iTunes, Stitcher or Soundcloud – subscribe, or stream shows on BobZadek.com. That’s Bob Z-A-D-E-K.com. And now, here’s the libertarian minute:

I’ve been thinking lately about Trump Removing the Obamacare Subsidies to Insurers

Let’s go through it step by step:

1. Congress passes a statute - without any GOP votes - defining precisely what the health insurance policies must contain.

2. The ObamaCare policies would be far too expensive for a purchaser to afford; (remember that policy prices are reviewed by states)

3. ObamaCare gives subsidies to ** the “poor” ** so they can afford it – possibly…

4. The insurance policies, with the government-imposed pricing, would bankrupt the insurers;

5. To protect insurers (and his so-called legacy) Obama gives insurance companies an illegal subsidy; Congress could have written this into the law, but then it wouldn’t have passed;

6. Finally, Trump refuses to go along with the illegal subsidy to the insurers.

What’s the conclusion the media would have us draw?

That Trump has “sabotaged” Obamacare.

Kinda doesn’t make sense.

This has been the libertarian minute with me, Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek show. Learn more about libertarian ideas, share your thoughts, and get the podcast of my weekly show at BobZadek.com.

Notes:

Amy Wax Defends Bourgeois Norms

As a professor, it takes courage to stand up for your values when you are being publicly condemned by your fellow faculty, the dean of your law school, student groups, and a media mob. This is what Penn law professor Amy Wax has done in the wake of her explosive op-ed, “Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture,” (Philadelphia Enquirer, Aug. 9, 2017). In the piece, Wax and her co-author Larry Alexander presented some uncontroversial facts about the relationship between stable, two-parent homes and positive outcomes for children. They also reprimanded an upper class that has ceased to preach the importance of traditional values, and lamented the effect this is having on the poor. Some of Wax’s colleagues responded with alternative theories of why poverty is entrenched, but the overwhelming message of an open letter – signed by 33 Penn professors – was that Wax had committed an intellectual crime deserving of censure and public shaming. The debate over Wax’s praise for “bourgeois values” goes deeper than her arguments for a return to norms of hard work and personal responsibility. At stake is the freedom to contradict the new academic groupthink, which equates any identification of legitimate advantages with an apology for unfair privilege. If the students demanding that Wax be demoted get their way, then professors everywhere will feel the “chill” on voicing their own unpopular opinions. Wax joins Bob for the full hour this Sunday to describe the anatomy of a campus intimidation campaign, and explain why she continues to speak her mind. Call in with your questions, to (424) BOB-SHOW.

>> Tune in to the Answer: SF Bay Area: 860AM // Sacramento: 1380AM // Seattle: 1590AM

>> Stream Online

>> Call in: (424) BOB-SHOW

Listen LIVE - 8-9 AM PACIFIC, on 860 AM - The Answer, or Streaming LIVE online

Links

• Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture, By Amy Wax and Larry Alexander, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 9, 2017

• Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century (Hoover Institution Press/Rowman & Littlefield, 2009)

• In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values | HeterodoxAcademy.org, By Jonathan Haidt, Sept. 2, 2017

Related Shows:

• A Teacher’s Brave Stand Against Her Union – Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell — June 19, 2016

• Zimmerman Trial – It Is Not About Race — July 21, 2013

• Freedom *From* Speech? The New Face of Censorship –– Nov. 2, 2014

BIO - Penn Law Faculty: Amy Wax, expert on Civil Procedure, Social Welfare Law and Policy, Law and Economics, Family Law

• Amy Wax’s work addresses issues in social welfare law and policy as well as the relationship of the family, the workplace, and labor markets. By bringing to bear her training in biomedical sciences and appellate practice as well as her interest in economic analysis, Wax has developed a uniquely insightful approach to problems in her areas of expertise.

• Wax has published widely in law journals, addressing liberal theory and welfare work requirements as well as the economics of federal disability laws.

• Current works in progress include articles on same-sex marriage, disparate impact theory and group demographics, rational choice and family structure, and the law and neuroscience of deprivation.

• Her most recent book is Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century (Hoover Institution Press/Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).

• As an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Wax argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court.

FIND HER WORK AT:

American Conservative, Commentary Magazine, National Review.

This Day in History

1954 - Ellis Island closes

“On this day in 1954, Ellis Island, the gateway to America, shuts it doors after processing more than 12 million immigrants since opening in 1892. Today, an estimated 40 percent of all Americans can trace their roots through Ellis Island, located in New York Harbor off the New Jersey coast and named for merchant Samuel Ellis, who owned the land in the 1770s.

On January 2, 1892, 15-year-old Annie Moore, from Ireland, became the first person to pass through the newly opened Ellis Island, which President Benjamin Harrison designated as America’s first federal immigration center in 1890. Before that time, the processing of immigrants had been handled by individual states.

Not all immigrants who sailed into New York had to go through Ellis Island. First- and second-class passengers submitted to a brief shipboard inspection and then disembarked at the piers in New York or New Jersey, where they passed through customs. People in third class, though, were transported to Ellis Island, where they underwent medical and legal inspections to ensure they didn’t have a contagious disease or some condition that would make them a burden to the government. Only two percent of all immigrants were denied entrance into the U.S.

Immigration to Ellis Island peaked between 1892 and 1924, during which time the 3.3-acre island was enlarged with landfill (by the 1930s it reached its current 27.5-acre size) and additional buildings were constructed to handle the massive influx of immigrants. During the busiest year of operation, 1907, over 1 million people were processed at Ellis Island.

With America’s entrance into World War I, immigration declined and Ellis Island was used as a detention center for suspected enemies. Following the war, Congress passed quota laws and the Immigration Act of 1924, which sharply reduced the number of newcomers allowed into the country and also enabled immigrants to be processed at U.S. consulates abroad. After 1924, Ellis Island switched from a processing center to serving other purposes, such as a detention and deportation center for illegal immigrants, a hospital for wounded soldiers during World War II and a Coast Guard training center. In November 1954, the last detainee, a Norwegian merchant seaman, was released and Ellis Island officially closed.

Beginning in 1984, Ellis Island underwent a $160 million renovation, the largest historic restoration project in U.S. history. In September 1990, the Ellis Island Immigration Museum opened to the public and today is visited by almost 2 million people each year.”

Amy Wax’s Explosive Op-Ed

Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture

By Amy Wax and Larry Alexander, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 9, 2017

Includes VIDEO - Federalist Society of Penn Law, Oct. 11, 2017

The Dean of the Law School repudiated Wax’s “noxious opinions.” The law school distanced themselves from her, noting that her opinions do not represent the law school. Wax says, “Of course they don’t represent the law school.”

The op ed begins pointing out the numerous markers of societal decline (opioid abuse, single parenthood, uneducated college graduates). She is not so much pinning the blame on the uneducated or poor (i.e., “victim blaming”), but on the upper class which no longer stands up for the norms that have made them successful and prosperous: