Amy Wax on Academia

[Nicholas]

Prof. Wax gives a helpful notion about restrictions on speech, a notion that will be ignored probably.

 

[PureX]

Nic, this thing is an hour long. And I don't have that kind of time to waste looking for your point. Could you please just tell us what it is that she is saying, here, that resonates with you?

 

[Nicholas]

Nic, this thing is an hour long. And I don't have that kind of time to waste looking for your point. Could you please just tell us what it is that she is saying, here, that resonates with you?

Most everything she says is valuable. Here is the Daily Signal's abstract of the part about a speech code I could support. But as I wrote in OP - not likely it will be implemented.

No one can be heard to say, ‘I’m offended.’ They all have permission to be offended. But they just can’t express it.

No one is allowed to accuse anyone else, in the classroom or out, dead or alive, of being racist, sexist, xenophobic, white supremist, or any other derisive, identity-based label. No slurs or name-calling. These don’t enlighten, educate, or edify. They add nothing. Give us an argument. Tell us why the other person is wrong.

No one can complain to administrators—those officious thought police—about anything said in class.

Finally, both the government and private donors need to rethink the lavish financial support for higher education, and especially for elite and selective institutions, which serve only a teeny-tiny portion of our population and which in many ways, I’m afraid, have become an anti-Western and anti-American liability.

How can we get the rich to see that supporting elite universities today might not be the wisest and more fruitful uses of their hard-earned money? What we need is a list of alternative causes and alternative institutions and goals for their money that help ordinary, average, unspecial people who have been unduly neglected by our elites and our increasingly walled off from them.

 

[YmirGF]

Nic, this thing is an hour long. And I don't have that kind of time to waste looking for your point. Could you please just tell us what it is that she is saying, here, that resonates with you?

Sadly, the subject matter is so dense that you can't really break it down too much without morphing it into something else. The main speaker begins at about 3:50 The first genuine controversial comment comes at 6:09 or so and it isn't even particularly incendiary although that fact didn't stop the onslaught of negative vitriol. It's a great example of the insanity that is coming out of the humanities these days.

AT 16:44 I can say that it is well worth watching. She is very articulate.

 

[PureX]

Most everything she says is valuable. Here is the Daily Signal's abstract of the part about a speech code I could support. But as I wrote in OP - not likely it will be implemented.

Are those suggestions you sited, or complaints? I need some sort of context for those 'observations'.

 

[Nicholas]

Are those suggestions you sited, or complaints? I need some sort of context for those 'observations'.

Her suggestions - whether she was serious or sarcastic, I am not sure. If you want controversy, go to 12:30 & the next few minutes.

 

[Revoltingest]

==== Advisory ====
This thread is in a Conservative Only forum.