Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax Forum

Discuss the latest legal news and law firm gossip with fellow attorneys.
Post Reply
Malibulaw16

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:13 pm

Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by Malibulaw16 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:07 pm

Hey everyone. I just came across this Newsweek article regarding Penn law professor Amy Wax. Apparently she had spoken at a conference referencing how "America would be better off with first world Country immigrants rather than those who come from non white countries.

Not sure if anyone has ever had her in the classroom or any more input on this ongoing issue. Just this week, on orientation day students protested in front of potential new and incoming students with their families. Will be interesting to see how the University responds as the Dean of law Ted Ruger characterized Wax's remarks as a "bigoted theory of white cultural and ethnic supremacy" at best and at worst "racist." Linking the article below.

https://www.newsweek.com/penn-law-amy-w ... ng-1465014

gekko

New
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:49 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by gekko » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:12 am

I know this is an old thread but just wanted to recommend her appearances on Brown U Economist Glen Loury's Blogginghead's show. She goes over very specifically in non-soundbite chunks what her thoughts are. It's straight out of Charles Murray's Bell Curve and she references Murray's current book. She accepts differences in observed IQ scores of racial groups may be a better explanation for differences in outcomes than social bias. This is certainly a controversial topic but I think it's reasonable to allow Wax who was a Harvard trained physician and neurologist prior to becoming an attorney to make her case based on evidence regardless of how unpopular. Once done, anyone can certainly critique away on the merits.

User avatar
Dcc617

Gold
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by Dcc617 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:09 am

gekko wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:12 am
I know this is an old thread but just wanted to recommend her appearances on Brown U Economist Glen Loury's Blogginghead's show. She goes over very specifically in non-soundbite chunks what her thoughts are. It's straight out of Charles Murray's Bell Curve and she references Murray's current book. She accepts differences in observed IQ scores of racial groups may be a better explanation for differences in outcomes than social bias. This is certainly a controversial topic but I think it's reasonable to allow Wax who was a Harvard trained physician and neurologist prior to becoming an attorney to make her case based on evidence regardless of how unpopular. Once done, anyone can certainly critique away on the merits.
Her case that minorities are genetically inferior to whites? Seriously?

gekko

New
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:49 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by gekko » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:01 am

I don't want to speak for someone else. I would simply recommend that you listen to her make her case, which certainly contains certain conclusions that would differ from my own. A premise that she relies on is that there are observed differences in measured IQ among various groups. Some argue that this is due to environmental aspects including nutrition, others argue that there are more genetic factors such as assortative mating. For whatever reason, they are there in all broad tests of IQ since WWI, with many groups trending upward for various reasons. (This is why average is periodically normalized to 100.) She (and others such as Murray) believe that these differences may explain certain differences in social outcomes rather than assigning all differences in outcomes to bias.

User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 8007
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:33 am

gekko wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:01 am
I don't want to speak for someone else. I would simply recommend that you listen to her make her case, which certainly contains certain conclusions that would differ from my own. A premise that she relies on is that there are observed differences in measured IQ among various groups. Some argue that this is due to environmental aspects including nutrition, others argue that there are more genetic factors such as assortative mating. For whatever reason, they are there in all broad tests of IQ since WWI, with many groups trending upward for various reasons. (This is why average is periodically normalized to 100.) She (and others such as Murray) believe that these differences may explain certain differences in social outcomes rather than assigning all differences in outcomes to bias.
Do they happen to explain that the IQ test was never meant to be used in this manner? Inquiring minds want to know what this new generation of racists think!

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


nixy

Gold
Posts: 4445
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by nixy » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:11 am

gekko wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:01 am
I don't want to speak for someone else. I would simply recommend that you listen to her make her case, which certainly contains certain conclusions that would differ from my own. A premise that she relies on is that there are observed differences in measured IQ among various groups. Some argue that this is due to environmental aspects including nutrition, others argue that there are more genetic factors such as assortative mating. For whatever reason, they are there in all broad tests of IQ since WWI, with many groups trending upward for various reasons. (This is why average is periodically normalized to 100.) She (and others such as Murray) believe that these differences may explain certain differences in social outcomes rather than assigning all differences in outcomes to bias.
I mean, many people believe many bullshit things.

gekko

New
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:49 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by gekko » Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:03 pm

I don't recall if this is an area she addressed or not but the history of IQ tests and other intelligence tests (SAT, for example) are actually to combat the bias of a class system. The US military began administering IQ tests early on to determine appropriate candidates for military roles around a century ago. The initial goal of the SAT was to combat class bias inherent in education. For example, you had an objective way to prove cognitive ability and could go to a high end university even if your father did not.

The implications for race are fairly simple and need not involve the R word. If there are observed differences, this would give us a reason to at least ask for an alternate explanation to social bias for all differences in outcomes. For example, if it is noted that group x performs at lower rates than group y in an academic program, one could initial say the reason is bias of some kind. Someone else might say, "Well, let's normalize the data to see if members of that group perform similarly to others with the same incoming test scores (GRE, SAT, LSAT, etc.) and see if those numbers differ. If they're similar, the argument for a solution addressing social bias is lessened.

User avatar
Dcc617

Gold
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by Dcc617 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:16 pm

To be clear, you're saying that the idea of whether some races are just smarter than others is a topic worthy of discussion.

Not to mention all of the gaping holes in your knowledge re the history of the IQ test, your unwarranted assumption that it measures something of value, and your flipping of cause and effect (or ignoring that social outcomes and IQ test are both explained by a confounding variable, which is white supremacy and wealth inequality, which also breaks down on racial lines).

It's bad that you revitalized this topic to just ask questions about whether white people (the very idea of which is socially constructed to maintain the social order) are smarter than other races and so it's okay for them to have more.

Your weasel language and "I'm just saying read about it" approach shows bad faith.

gekko

New
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:49 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by gekko » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:13 pm

It is certainly worth discussion, for one very simple reason. The alternative is to assign all differences in outcomes to social bias. While bias is a possibility for differences in outcomes, it is not the only potential reason, nor should anyone be able to apply this is the case without opening debate to potential alternatives.

I would object to the phrase "just smarter" and replace it with "currently exhibit different scores on tests intended in whole or in part to measure cognitive ability." (ACT, SAT, GRE, LSAT, etc.) There's quite a bit of debate over "general intelligence" vs intelligence in various areas. This is certainly a valid area of debate related to your claim that it may not "measure something of value." Psychologies certainly differ on the prominence of general intelligence vs field specific intelligence. They also disagree on how much is attributable to other factors such as environment or even nutrition/sleep/external stress prior to testing.

The LSAC site has posted a section in "trends regarding race and ethnicity" on the LSAT that says:

"Average LSAT scores were highest for Caucasian and Asian/Pacific Islander test takers. African American test takers and Puerto Rican test takers had the lowest mean LSAT scores."

I think a reasonable response to this is not simply to say, "aha, that means there is bias." but to say, "What does it mean?" Bias? Innate differences in ability on that particular test? If so, why?

So what if the differences in this area are "real" rather than skewed result of social bias? This doesn't lead down a single path. Daniel Markovitz at Yale Law (who was also on Loury's show) has written the "Meritocracy Trap" that addresses achievement of diversity independent of greater competency beyond the points of diminishing returns where quite a bit of competition occurs in many fields today. I'm not saying I'm going down that path personally, just that I don't want anyone silenced. I have substantial disagreements with Wax (and Markovitz and Loury and basically anyone not myself) but want a full discussion rather than people in a circular firing squad trying to be the first to call each other racists.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


nixy

Gold
Posts: 4445
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by nixy » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:15 pm

What does not wanting to read her stuff or watch her talk about it have to do with silencing her? Last I checked, no one has silenced her. Just because I think her stuff is worthless doesn't mean I'm silencing her.

ksm6969

Bronze
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:28 am

Re: Penn Law Professor: Amy Wax

Post by ksm6969 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:11 pm

Has anybody thought about getting the measuring tapes out and measuring skull sizes? Seems like that should give us a definitive answer either way.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Legal News/Law Firm Gossip”