Here is the argument that is used against me. Everything they are objecting to about me has to do with things I’ve said. That’s called speech. They have relabelled it behavior. It has been reconfigured into a kind of psychological bugaboo that if you upset special and minority
students especially and make them feel hurt and unsafe and offended then essentially tenure doesn’t protect that. Tenure doesn’t protect professors from being penalized for “harming” students. Notice all the tricks that go into that. Well of course speech is behavior.
Amy Wax saying "Given the realities of different rates of crime, different average IQs, people have to accept without apology that Blacks are not going to be evenly distributed throughout all occupations."
No informed person disagrees with this, right? (If you do, why?)
I disagree. Firing Amy Wax would put the hypocrisy in neon lights (bad for Penn) or constitute an explicit statement that Penn restricts speech (also bad for Penn). They have to ignore Wax for awhile.
When you talk to ppl in their living rooms or kitchens or in ordinary conversation they are saying a lot of the things I've been saying or at least they're concerned about them, they're willing to listen to them and entertain them. That's the real world.
I've tried to broaden the views that ppl are exposed to bc they are part and parcel of our conversations out side of academia. Academia has a stylized narrative that is so narrow and grey.
If you read the NYT, which requires you to suspend all disbelief, you see them accusing the Right of ressentiment which is so rich. They're the champions of this kind of thinking. It's ok if it comes from the left. If it comes from the Right, it's a culture war.
What’s going on in the University now is a wholesale assault on fairness and justice in the name of special ppl who get special privileges and special dispensation. The number of lies you have to tell, the stuff you can’t notice to push that through just keeps expanding.
@ggreenwald "We're being replaced. I'm not sure that's such a great thing." Well, they're racists and white supremacists. So it's this idea that if the wrong person says it, then it's bad.
@ggreenwald If Democrats say, "Isn't it wonderful we're going to be a majority Minority nation in fifteen years. That's progress! That's great! Whites will be in the minority. That's something to be proud of and celebrated." But if a white person says,
children raised by their joint biological, married parents. These speculations await the results of empirical investigation.
Traditionalism, Pluralism, and Same-Sex Marriage 2007
Traditional forms and practices are often difficult to justify on social scientific grounds. There is some modest support for traditionalist wariness towards same-sex marriage. That wariness is grounded in the very concerns with same-sex families as an environment for rearing
children that the New Jersey Supreme Court set aside in Lewis v. Harris. What we know about the relationship between family form and child well-being suggests that children raised in same-sex families—which, by definition, are "blended"—might not do as well in the long run as