Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 235 posts

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#161

Post by WillPostForFood »

padseeker wrote: post #91
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Already you lost me. There are plenty of single parents out of wedlock children in very white states like West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. How is rap culture or black people responsible for the actions of white people in these areas? Where did the author said it is? They said there are "single-parent, antisocial habits" that are prevalent among some working-class whites" AND an "anti-“acting white” rap culture of inne…

Show me hard proof of "anti-assimilation" ideas, not one obscure student group in California. I want real evidence. This whole passage reeks of a manufactured justification for racism.

Prop 58 was an anti-assimilation idea: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-elec...

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#162

Post by Veelox »

kelnos wrote: post #156
Veelox wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An aside, I grew up in a small Midwest town. There was one black family in town. One of the sons was in the grade above me in school and people would joke that he wasn't really "black". This was because he had been raise in a small Midwest town and had small-town values and habits. He and his family were an accepted part of the community because they had the same values. If a member of the Bloods had moved in town, t…

You're assuming that "inner-city black values" is a thing, and that black people living in inner cities all have the same values. That's the part that's racist.

My sister taught in Memphis for 3 years. The kids she taught were of raise significantly differently than we were raised.

I will grant you that not all black people living in the inner city have the same values but I think it is factually incorrect to say that low income African Americans living in the inner-city do not have a common culture and common values.

My phrasing might be racist, if that is the case, can you point out how to express the same idea in a more neutral way so that I don't make the same mistake in the future?

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#163

Post by stinkytaco »

ianbicking wrote: post #79

From the article: "Of course we are always free to dispute each other; Wax’s colleagues could certainly have written essays or a collective essay debating her claims and pointing out flaws in her reasoning, but when is it morally and professionally appropriate to issue a collective public condemnation of a colleague? "I think such collective actions are only appropriate when colleagues have clearly and flagrantly vio…

> Why is a collective response inappropriate here?

I think that the default should be to allow a discourse that is wide ranging and open, and to only censure in cases that are truly extreme (such as incitement). Institutional censure carries with it a huge weight, and potentially the ability to silence opinions. Though I strongly disagree with this person, I must also try to imagine a situation where the roles are reversed, where I am in the minority and having my opinion censured. I believe that to live in a society that is truly free, it guarantees you will come into contact with opinions and beliefs that you find repugnant. It troubles me that the left has so aggressively mobilized against speech, not just disagreeing with it, but demanding that it be institutionally silenced.

That said, this school (being a private institution) and these professors (being individuals entitled to their own opinions) are also within their rights. Free speech does not free you from criticism for your views.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#164

Post by apoverton »

icebraining wrote: post #119
kareemsabri wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called moral relativism. It does't get you very far, because it is a belief system with no values, and therefore nothing to aim at. There are some tools for objectively judging morality aka "good and bad". One is the principle of universality. So an outcome is moral if you can reasonably state that you would be equally happy to be on either side of the table. Slavery generally fails this test, since most peopl…

There's nothing objective about picking and applying an arbitrary principle, though. Also, it's not true that a moral relativist must have no values. One can have values while believing they are not objective, but closer to preferences held very strongly.

I think your last sentence gets at what I was trying to get across

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#165

Post by WillPostForFood »

anigbrowl wrote: post #107

Of course we are always free to dispute each other; Wax’s colleagues could certainly have written essays or a collective essay debating her claims and pointing out flaws in her reasoning, but when is it morally and professionally appropriate to issue a collective public condemnation of a colleague? Whenever the signatories of such a communication agree upon the idea, surely? Political agency only exists to the degree…

You are a little disingenuous - no one would be complaining if someone on the law faculty wrote a counter opinion piece. What's happening isn't an expression of disagreement, which would be fine, but an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV. Her critics made no "moral argument" they simply condemn her.

http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law-fa...

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#166

Post by erulabs »

Edmond wrote: post #155
erulabs wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree completely, but it should be pointed out that she, before mentioning inner city blacks, also mentioned: > Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites Its a bit silly to split that along racial terms (both Wax and the offendees)... There are plenty of single-parent antisocial working-class blacks as well. In my mind the real conflation is the difference between an…

Small nitpick: While Jazz is mostly an African American creation and most of it's most successful practitioners are black, most Jazz aficionados will bristle at lumping Jazz with hiphop... it would be like lumping Beethoven with Ozzy Osborne, doesn't compute....I am a big hiphop fan and a lover of jazz but they are different.

Well, of course they are, but your first sentence is all I was after. Jazz and hiphop share the fact that they were authored, in majority, by african-americans and the songs in both genres, in majority, tell tales of poverty and hope.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#167

Post by saalweachter »

baddox wrote: post #39
gras wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this at all controversial? The American Jewish minority of 6% of the population owns 25% of American wealth. They've done well. Are the downvotes about attributing it to their values? What else? Their skill at (((accidental))) eugenics? The selection pressure put on them by other groups? Other theory: KGB or Mossad votebots that want to suppress discussions about Jews not only being victims.

I'm not saying it's controversial, but I'd rather see strong evidence that just make assumptions based on general cultural stereotypes like "Jewish people work hard" or weak evidence like "they own a disproportionate amount of wealth."

Eh, it's a little bit controversial. As nearly as I can tell the 25% figure comes from Stormfront, and I've been unable to find any independent source for it; the triple parenthesis are a bit of a tip off. It is probably a corruption of a claim that 25% of US billionaires were Jewish, which is a radically different claim.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#168

Post by overgard »

s17n wrote: post #72
wsxcde wrote: post #46

Let's not get bogged down by the all cultures are not equal strawman. That is not at all the key point here. Amy Wax/OP's argument is problematic because it conflates very different things using a subtly disingenuous argument. She starts off by saying something completely uncontroversial: kids from stable marriages do well in school. But she then plays on the audiences implicit biases to imply -- but not explicitly a…

The question that the article raises is, should the Amy Wax face professional repercussions for making a racist argument? I think that as a law professor, the answer is yes - she should be held accountable for incompetence in op-ed writing in the same way that a scientist should be held accountable for incompetence in conducting an experiment. If she were a math professor or something, I would say that she had the ri…

The idea that she made a "racist argument" is a HUGE leap. She argued that marriage is important. You might agree or disagree, but ruining somones career because they have social views you disagree with is just gross.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#169

Post by wmf »

Veelox wrote: post #133

I have not read Amy Wax's original letter but my understand is that she made the claim that people in the lower social-economic classes have been rejecting the "Bourgeois" culture. She then went on to say that this rejection has and will have negative affects on those groups. Would someone be willing to point out how that claim is offensive? Or is it how she made the claim that is the issue?

Some people translate "bourgeois culture" as "white culture" and thus interpret her conclusion as "if you don't act white your kids will be doomed". That's offensive to people who believe that diversity and multiculturalism are superior.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#170

Post by kelnos »

Veelox wrote: post #162
kelnos wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that "inner-city black values" is a thing, and that black people living in inner cities all have the same values. That's the part that's racist.

My sister taught in Memphis for 3 years. The kids she taught were of raise significantly differently than we were raised. I will grant you that not all black people living in the inner city have the same values but I think it is factually incorrect to say that low income African Americans living in the inner-city do not have a common culture and common values. My phrasing might be racist, if that is the case, can you…

I'm not sure how to answer that, because I still don't believe what you're saying is correct. Living and teaching in Memphis for three years certainly gives one more perspective than not doing so, but a school-district-sized parcel of Memphis likely doesn't even speak for Memphis as a whole, let alone all US cities.

I do expect that all low-income black people living in cities share some values, but that can be applied to any group. I wouldn't claim that low-income white people living in cities all have the same culture, either, despite the fact that they almost certainly share at least some of the same values.

Look, I'm not trying to say you're an evil racist. You just have biases (unconscious and conscious), just like all of us do. I just worry when people try to label a group of people so narrowly and homogeneously when there's more to it than that.

Post reply on HN