Penn Law Professor Removed From First-Year Classes After Controversial Statements

downloadThere is a major controversy unfolding at Penn Law School.  Professor Amy Wax has been removed from first-year courses after making controversial comments about the performance of black students at the school.  Regardless of the merits of Wax’s comments, the action raises serious questions over academic freedom and free speech.  We have been discussing controversies over academics being punished for controversial views including two recent cases involving the use of the “n-word” in classes on offensive speech at DePaul and Princeton.

The controversy centers on a video titled “The Downside to Social Uplift” by Brown University professor Glenn Loury.  Loury’s video shows an interview with Wax from last September stating, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class and rarely, rarely in the top half. I can think of one or two students who’ve graduated in the top half of my required first-year courses.”

Wax defended her comments and told the Daily Pennsylvanian that “student performance is a matter of fact, not opinion. It is what it is.”  The school has denied the factual assertions.

After an outcry from critics, University of Pennsylvania School of Law Dean Theodore Ruger announced that Wax would be barred from the first year.

“In light of Professor Wax’s statements, black students assigned to her class in their first week at Penn  Law may reasonably wonder whether their professor has already come to a conclusion about their presence, performance, and potential for success in law school and thereafter. They may legitimately question whether the inaccurate and belittling statements she has made may adversely affect their learning environment and career prospects. These students may also reasonably feel an additional and unwarranted burden to perform well, so that their performance not be used or misused by their professor in public discourse about racial inequality in academic success. More broadly, this dynamic may negatively affect the classroom experience for all students regardless of race or background.

After consulting faculty, alumni/ae, Overseers, and University officials, I have decided that Professor Wax will continue to teach elective courses in her areas of expertise, but that are outside of the mandatory first-year curriculum. This curricular decision entails no sanction or diminution of Professor Wax’s status on the faculty, which remains secure. Normally, this decision would be private, but because Professor Wax made these inaccurate public statements, and students and alumni raised their concerns publicly, sharing it with our community is important.”

The question again is not the merits but the protections afforded to free speech and academic freedom.  Wax’s comments did not suggest that she would actively engage in discrimination and indeed referred to social causes for underperformance.  Moreover, most first-year courses are graded anonymously.
We have been discussing how faculty around the country are supporting the abandonment of free speech principles to bar speakers and speech with which they disagree. The most extreme form of this rejection of classical liberal values is the antifa movement.  We have seen faculty physically attack speakers or destroy messages that they oppose.  We have also seen faculty physically attacked and intimidated.  In some of these incidents, other faculty have supported students in shutting down speakers or fellow academics (here and here).
The decision to remove Wax is one that should be addressed by the entire faculty in determining the standards that apply for such actions.  If this is a content-based standard, the school should be clear about that standard and how it will be applied evenly.  Otherwise, there is a chilling effect on academic speech that could prompt any group to allege discomfort or disagreement with an academic.

76 thoughts on “Penn Law Professor Removed From First-Year Classes After Controversial Statements”

  1. The bottom line is that “free speech” is no longer “free.” There is, indeed, a price to be paid, especially if you are not speaking about something meeting with the approval of the Leftist agenda. Notably, U of P claims that Professor Wax’s statements were “inaccurate,” but utterly fails to provide a scintilla of fact contradicting her statements. Professor Wax’s statements at issue were purported to be “facts,” not opinions. Facts are facts. So what are the “real” facts, if Professor Wax’s facts were inaccurate. U of P is silent. So U of P is lying by omission. U of P should fess up or shut up.

  2. Some of those so called Black students are light skinned and thus half white or a third White. So blame the lame side of the aisle. Send the teacher to Liberia.

  3. The other side of the coin is: 1. she wasn’t forbidden from making similar comments in the future or censured for the comments she did make; 2. she did not suffer any adverse consequences in terms of tenure, compensation, demotion, or anything else employment-related; 3. if her presence could be upsetting to certain students and a distraction from learning material for the required courses she teaches, then the prudent thing to do is what the University did, and that is to have her teach electives only. That way, students wouldn’t have to be in her class for required course work. No one punished her for the contents of her speech. Regardless of whether what she said is true or untrue, if her speech was offensive to some, then avoiding confrontation and risk that some students might believe they are targeted for unequal treatment is best for all concerned. It is foreseeable that her comments could be deemed offensive to some. She used poor judgment. She is there to teach students admitted to the school certain required and elective courses. She is entitled to her opinions and is entitled to express them, but can she realistically expect some people not to be offended by what she said?

    1. She most certainly did suffer adverse consequences by them removing her from teaching first year courses to protect students, as if they were babies, from something someone thought she said was offensive. It’s a law school. If students get offended so easily…instead of thinking/debating/challenging, you know, as universities should be all about, then they have no business being there. They should don their Pull-ups and go to their safe spaces.

    2. You said, “She used poor judgment. []She is entitled to her opinions and is entitled to express them, but can she realistically expect some people not to be offended by what she said?”

      Sooo, what kind of people get offended by true statements???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  4. “Affirmative Action Privilege” is unconstitutional.

    Generational welfare is unconstitutional.

    Congress has merely the power to tax for “general Welfare” not individual welfare.

    America is incoherent and hysterical as a result of the eminently unconstitutional “Reconstruction

    Amendments” and the 19th.

    The American Founders established a restricted-vote republic not a one man one vote democracy because

    one man, one vote democracy is self-destructive.

    The first group restricted from voting must be parasitic public workers paid from taxes collected from the

    wealth creators.
    _____

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

  5. There’s also the question of legacy admissions where rich parents pay an enormous amt in donations to secure a spot for their rich, but not very bright, child. Jared Kusher is exhibit A. But it’s a rare professor who will rock that boat.

    1. You got that right. T rump went to Fordham but was able to tranfer to Penn with a donation. He donated so his kids could go. Yada yada y ada. Da rich kids kid richer but don’t give a poor kid a break. That is Turley’s T rumpers way.

    2. Actually the rich/dumb legacy admissions help democratize education. The “enormous amt in donations” their parents pay create spaces and resources that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

      1. If the donations go into the endowment, very little of it will actually be spent on education or for the students. The donations are tax deductible for the giver. There are no taxes on the interest, dividends and gains received by the university from the billion dollar endowment. The endowment competes in the marketplace for investments like real estate and stocks, driving up their prices. So, the taxpayer and country loses while the fund managers get rich.

    3. Obama’s eldest daughter is Exhibit B. Except he didn’t have to make a donation because his daughter would be admitted anyway because she’s black. And I’m sure they were impressed by her personal essay of having struggled to overcome discrimination and poverty, lol.

  6. Inaccurate and “belittling” statements like Wax’s could be made moot by the simple expedient of publishing the grade results. The final grade data could be sliced and diced in whatever way desired. Student anonymity would be largely preserved. Then we could all see which of the various contentious remarks has the greatest resemblance to reality.

    1. In the “episode 45” video below, about 37 minutes in, Wax discusses how when the topic came up, she wanted to see a spreadsheet of grades broken down by race to see if something was wrong.

      Also in the “episode 45” video of Wax, below, one of the hosts went to Penn Law School. The one in the upper left corner, Noam Dworman. He says he was a typical liberal until he found how out law review worked. The qualifying papers were put in on the basis of number codes. After the initial grading, he found out the papers were sent to the office to look up the codes and add the race to them, and the blacks had points added. The injustice of that is what started changing his liberal mind.

      Wax also made a great comment, that “affirmative action is less about helping blacks, then helping the vanity of whites.’ Something to that effect.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    1. Thanks for this video Squeeky and telling us the 37-minute mark for otherwise I wouldn’t have had the time to listen to the entire thing and missed what one of the others said. I just posted before listening and I couldn’t remember that it was Malcolm Gladwell’s book David and Goliath that mentioned this exact problem.

      Those that like to call others racist ought to read David and Goliath, especially that section that discusses those given special privileges and fail. To cause the failure of another due to one’s own “white vanity” as Amy puts it, is as bad or worse than the more traditional racism.

  7. I have the feeling that Professor Wax is right on the nose and the Law School cannot refute her. The best they can do is give her cushy classes (electives) where she will get students who want to be there. 😉 I think she fell upward.

  8. “Wax defended her comments and told the Daily Pennsylvanian that “student performance is a matter of fact, not opinion. It is what it is.” The school has denied the factual assertions.”

    If the school denies her stated facts, then prove it. Release the rankings based on race.

    Personally, I find it more just to judge someone as an individual rather than by race, but it seems the university is going in another direction. This is the problem with Affirmative Action and its downstream offshoots. When you lower the bar because you do not like the skin color of the student body, then you get people who do not belong there. They have difficulty graduating and do not perform well. That took the spot of someone who had earned that position based on merit.

    Without Affirmative Action, then you would know with certainty that every single black student earned his or her right to be there, and would do just as well as anyone else.

    Wax is not the first professor to state the obvious. My own professors lamented to me that they had to teach two different undergraduate classes: one to those who earned their way in, and those who weren’t supposed to be there and would flunk out shortly.

    Sometimes the facts are not pretty. Or we don’t like the emotions they evoke. Or sometimes people can make ugly interpretations of those facts.

    Personally, I think that rather than lowering the bar, we should raise up the education of all public schools so that all graduates have a decent foundation. Then, if you want to improve the prospects and education of black students, the foremost action to take is to tackle the problem of unwed mothers. Black or white, the surest way to ruin your own and your children’s future is to have a child out of wedlock with a deadbeat Dad who runs out on you. Sometimes divorce happens. And that’s traumatic and has its own repercussions. But it can be unavoidable sometimes. At least the father is required to contribute financially to his offspring and his ex. Not so with the unwed mother to a deadbeat. She and her children are abandoned to starve in the hedgerows, while he lets Government take care of his mess. Government makes a poor spouse and a poor father. You can’t legislate away this intense cultural pressure to have kids on purpose without waiting to get married. We’ve all been to health class. We all know how babies are made. Condoms are free. Now birth control is, too (which is probably why we are seeing skyrocketing STDs). It’s not like everyone involved didn’t know how this worked. But we can educate teenagers on what their life will look like if they wait to get married and create a stable family, compared with if they rush out and have kids without any support. I would pour money into gripping PSAs and school programs that will really bring this home. These kids deserve to have a good life, but how are they going to understand how they stand in their own way when they see this self destructive behavior modeled everywhere they look?

    I know I’m a broken record on this, but its so frustrating. Unwed motherhood is rising in all racial groups, but it is absolutely devastating like nuclear war to the African American community. Since they do not understand that this is the single highest risk factor for having a child who grows up in poverty, joins a gang, commits crime, goes to jail, and/or gets murdered, then they actually believe the victim profiteers who tell them it’s all the white guy’s fault. Sure, a piano of fate may fall on you sometimes, but that’s no reason to merrily hack away at the rope holding it up. The community has the ability to turn its fate around now. Today. This is a crisis. Firmly abandoning this trend of unwed motherhood, and instilling a uniform cultural emphasis on succeeding in school would have an immediate effect on the very next generation of black children, who would be offended at the thought of lowering any bar for them.

    1. That said, to be fair, the university should investigate her grading of black students to allay any fears of bias.

      1. How are you going to investigate it? One, the papers are anonymous. Two, if black students are not really good performers, then how can you tell if her grade is race-based, or performance based?

        Now, if the paper reads, in answer to a Contract Question,

        “Yo, this whole contract thing be a distraction from the plan of the man to keep down all us brothers and sisters out here! Like the power company who my momma put the bill in my name because her credit was stank, and then they sue me, who be a minor at the time! But how I defend it widout my momma being identity thefted by the popo??? Huh, I aks you that??? Shizizzle, but white folks they use contracts to contract trap us people of color and community!!!”

        Then, they has this UCC Merchant stuff when they know already none of us black folks be merchants to start with! No, that is them yellow Korean gooks who overcharges us everything is and Jews like what Lewis Fairacan be warning us about! They is merchants, and a law that doen’t cover us of color is not a true constitutional law at all!!!” Black Lives Matter!!!”

        Then,you still have the initial problem, is a low mark a racial thing, or a performance thing?

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    2. Karen S.—Wow! I am impressed with what you wrote! Excellent enumeration and analysis of some important issues!

    3. Good job, Karen. You have articulated the problem, and offered practical solutions. Perhaps the “gripping PSAs and school programs” would make them feel bad about themselves, and so that’s why they’re not done?

    4. Karen,
      With what you said in mind, here’s a rap video that illustrates the problem you speak of. I’m told it’s supposed to be satire, but it seems all too real to me.

  9. Blacks, regardless of the few success stories, are starting from the way back. Through affirmative action and other boosts they get into academic environments, such as this law school, where they are at a disadvantage compared with the other students who are proportionately better equipped. The adjustments made by affirmative action and other boosts come with these flaws: The Black students that make it in more than likely did not have as beneficial a K-12 experience as the rest of the class. The Black students that make it in probably had an upbringing that was less balanced than the rest of the class. ETC. There are always exceptions, however, in general a Black student is less advantaged than a White, Asian, or visiting student. With few exceptions, the Black student was not nurtured to the same degree as the other students, programed, or promised success.

    Having said that, affirmative action and the other boosts are absolutely necessary but will continue to fall short without the other end of the experience, K-12. Affirmative action provides roll models and hopefully parenting more balanced and supportive. Alone it will only go so far and provide a target for the closet racists that can pull statistics out from where the sun and intelligence don’t shine. The answers are as complex as the issues but it all starts as early as possible. Regardless of how many unwed, welfare, user mothers there are, if the child gets an opportunity then the chances of repeating the cycle is reduced. A boost as early on as possible and some help getting into college is the only way out of this revolving door.

    A close friend of mine has two sisters who both became doctors. They qualified for med school by being in the top 95%. They openly and freely state that there were many more better qualified to be doctor candidates in the 85% to 95% who didn’t make it. Anyone who has had anything to do with doctors knows that being super smart is not always the answer. Being inquisitive, dogged, committed, caring, etc counts for more.

    So, keep affirmative action and boost as many Blacks through the professions and intercede as early as possible in the education, hopes, and desires of Black children. Every Black child that gets an opportunity early on and makes it professionally is one less perpetuating the cycle.

    Now lets hear some statistics from the closet racists.

    1. “There are always exceptions, however, in general a Black student is less advantaged than a White, Asian, or visiting student.” Actually, in general, immigrant Asians who arrive in extreme poverty still enforce a ruthless pressure on their children to take advantage of the education opportunities in America. They sure did not suffer privation and sacrifice in order for their kids to smoke weed and play video games on their couch.

      “With few exceptions, the Black student was not nurtured to the same degree as the other students, programed, or promised success.” I agree, because there are cultural differences in approaches to education. The cultural approach towards education in Silicon Valley, for example, would be vastly difference than its emphasis on the children of Compton. That is true regardless if the residents of Silicon Valley were Indian, Caucasian, African, or Asian. They expect their kids to succeed.

      There is a saying that if you want to succeed, surround yourself with friends who are motivated to succeed, too. Don’t be the highest achiever in the group, or you will be brought down. If you are the only college student among your circle of friends, who are all unemployed, pot smokers, and are at a loss as to why you bother, then their malaise will gradually infiltrate your own motivation. But if you hang out with high achievers, the peer pressure in your group will be to excel.

      Black kids suffer from this lack when they grow up in crime infested neighborhoods with a bunch of peers going nowhere.

    2. “They openly and freely state that there were many more better qualified to be doctor candidates in the 85% to 95% who didn’t make it. Anyone who has had anything to do with doctors knows that being super smart is not always the answer. Being inquisitive, dogged, committed, caring, etc counts for more.” I agree that intelligence is only part of the equation for success. There are also key components of grit, determination, perseverance, resilience, and the ability to think critically. You have to be able to get knocked down and get up again.

      Melanin is not an indicator of success, nor should it be a consideration for med school.

      If you doctor admitted, the moment before he cut into your skull for brain surgery, that there were far more qualified candidates than he to get into med school, but he was admitted, and then passed, because they wanted diversity, would you feel confident or a jot concerned? But if he said that he was in the top 95% of his class, and he won out over all the other 95% students because he showed an ability to think on his feet and react appropriately and calmly under pressure, you’d feel far more confident.

      I don’t care what color my doctor is. I just want to know he or she is the best person for the job.

    3. Nurture vs nature is a difficult issue to untangle. Though not a minority, I went to a rural high school. When I got to college (which of itself was a surprising event), I found the going much harder than I expected: My peers always seemed to know things I had never heard of. When you don’t know what you don’t know, you are a definite disadvantage. I imagine that for many minority students, not only do they not know what they don’t know, but their relatives and even school teachers probably don’t know what they don’t know, either. Whether we realize it or not, we always stand on the shoulders of others.

      1. Jay

        Your comments mirror mine, or at least are similar. I was a horrible student, a Navy brat who went to six different elementary schools and had, ‘leaving’ down pat. Nothing mattered because we were soon leaving. That set my disposition. I made it out of Junior High School with As and Bs because they scared me about ending up in prison. I would have gone to a juvenile institution if it weren’t for my folks and luck. It took me two years to get out of the 12th grade because I just didn’t give a sh*t. When, at the age of 22 I woke up and went to University, my mind exploded. I BS’d my way into English Honor Classes and sat around a seminar table with private school products from elite schools throughout Canada. I started with a C- and ended with an A-, all the while regretting the way I wasted my K-12. Comments and reflections by these extremely well educated and appreciative students had me devouring books into the early hours. This was a different time in Canada, the 70s when University was practically free and the doors were open if you could convince them. It is nature and nurture but most nature can be overcome with nurture.

        James Clark was a high school drop out and a difficult sort until he joined the Navy and was recognized for his talents. He started four billion dollar IPOs. There are many examples of success from difficult beginnings.

        However, for a Black person it is not a case of one issue holding one back. The US created this conundrum over hundreds of years and is still perpetuating the argument that they did it to themselves, and are continuing to be their own worst enemy. This is the most insidious sort of racism. It comes with an endless supply of statistics. 70+/- % unwed mothers is the cause or is it the environment that created this? The only true facts are that this problem was created for Blacks, for every one who does not repeat the cycle the problem is closer to being solved, and it must start with the child as early as possible. The resources are there. It will take many, many generations. But blaming Blacks because they haven’t sorted themselves out over the past fifty to sixty years coming out of centuries of oppression, is racism, the easy way to turn one’s back.

        1. It comes with an endless supply of statistics. 70+/- % unwed mothers is the cause or is it the environment that created this?

          Which, your remark is a total bullsh*t distraction, because the rate was not in the 70% range from the days of slavery on. Not. Even. Close. This b*st*rd rate starting shooting up around the time of The Great Society, when Liberals and Democrats started providing financial incentives to black whores to have b*st*rd children:

          https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2010/10/maritaldecline.jpg

          Sooo, was it the “environment” that created the problem??? Damn Straight! The “environment” created by White Liberal Democrats!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. The point being that a White man who has kids with 3 different women but, marries and divorces the women is a great dad (Trump Sr.)? Or, a White dad of 5 kids, spending so much time on international travel (or, however it was spent) that his wife divorces him is also great (Trump Jr.)?

            1. You Ding-a-ling! Is Vanessa Trump, or the others, supporting their kids on 30 hours a week at Church’s Fried Chicken at $8.00 an hour??? And bringing home random thugz to have sex with to pay for the hair weave??? Or, letting their 12 year old daughters also sexually serve the dude? Or kicking their kids out at about age 14 to fend for themselves??? On housing vouchers and food stamps?

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            2. Linda, what is it about you that makes you unable to recognize what is involved in raising children and becoming good neighbors and productive citizens?

    4. “Now lets hear some statistics from the closet racists.”

      Are you the racist you are looking for Issac?

      Your “white vanity” harms many of those that you say you are trying to help, but it seems the only one you are trying to help is yourself.

      1. We’re all trying to help ourselves Allan. I’m voicing my opinion which helps me. The ‘facts’ of the matter are there to be chosen to be seen, depending on one’s perception. Of course some Blacks are their own worst enemies. However, to call being able to perceive the situation historically beyond the past fifty to sixty years ‘white vanity’ illustrates a facet in you that is equally distasteful. WTF is ‘white vanity’ anyway? Your distasteful facet is going after me instead of what I wrote. Counter point for point, without pulling up statistics. Statistics can argue equally in any direction one chooses. Statistics serve the racist most of all. Hitler had endless statistics. The interesting thing about statistics is that selectively they serve the worst of humanity; and if you want you can make them up. We have a President that invents statistics and then boasts of it. We have a President that is proud of dealing with foreign leaders, arguing points using made up figures and then laughing it off as a strength of some sort. The only statistic is history as seen from an objective and as inclusive a perspective as possible. Call me vain.

        1. The phrase “white vanity” came from the professor in the video and I think it adequately describes many people. To me, it means that you think you are better than others and therefore should be the one to make decisions for them and give them gifts paid by everyone else including the people getting the gifts. You want to be looked at as a compassionate person despite the harm you cause. It is the plantation elistist mentality that seems to surround us.

          There is nothing wrong with helping other people. What is wrong is the way you perceive it should be done.

  10. “The school has denied the factual assertions.”

    But the school has provided no facts.

    I bet the school would rush to confabulate confirmatory “facts” if a black professor made similar comments about white students. That’s just the way it works these days.

    It doesn’t bother me. I just sit back and count my money.

  11. How dare Amy Wax tell the truth about poor Black academic performance! Didn’t she get the memo??? We are supposed to pretend that American Blacks are just a wonderful group of people, except where White Privilege and Institutionalized Racism and Mass Incarceration have caused them to commit over half the crime in the country, and trash their own neighborhoods! And all that 77% illegitimate birth rate doesn’t have any bad effects! Oh no, because all that poverty allows the Democrats to buy their votes with welfare benefits. And, the Democratic Base gets to virtue signal out the wazoo, and pretend they are Freedom Riders.

    If anybody starts noticing that Black Girl Magic is pretty well screwing up the whole darn black race in America, then who knows when such a curious person might turn their attention to the whole Baby Daddy Culture, and how that screws up Blacks. And that could hurt the Democrats! And we don’t want to do that, do we???

    No, no, it is far better to keep pretending that there’s nothing to see here. Move along.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS: I am in the process of listening to this, and dang, if she hasn’t already gone to the Patrick Moynihan report less than 9 minutes in!

    1. Listened to the first 16 minutes and she is making way to much sense. She needs to be removed.

      1. I have listened to two of her videos now, and she agrees with me on a lot of points, particularly the pessimism and the fact that blacks are going to have to start fixing themselves. That it is no longer possible for a “cure” to come in from above.

        Which, I think John Ridley said that over 20 years ago in his controversial article for Esquire:

        https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a162/esq1206blackessay-108/

        But, since then, things have only gotten worse.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  12. While I completely agree with Prof. Turley’s free speech views, this incident causes me to question whether the law school actually collects and maintains data on the performance of its students by race, ethnicity, socio-economic groupings, etc. If so, why does it collect such data? Especially with regard to the color of a person’s skin, of what use are the data?

  13. I think the merits of her speech might be a factor. Wouldn’t the school be justified in taking action against her for poor scholarship if her claim was demonstrably false? I’m confused by the school’s ambiguous move of taking moderate action against her but it makes me suspect what she said was at least half-true.

  14. “After consulting faculty, alumni/ae, Overseers,…” An institution with “Overseers” is not someplace I’d pick to go to school if I was black anyway.

  15. Amongst other things, and I don’t know if this is applicable in law school, but it sounds like a grade inflation scheme, we don’t want first years to have anything less than A averages, it makes recruiting hard, it makes fundraising hard.

  16. She could have said the same thing about students who come from poverty, or students whose parents and grandparents were generationally oppressed or students with inherited learning disorders who come from wealthy privileged backgrounds. It’s just stupid to characterize people by the shade of their skin just because skin shade is easy to see. Naturally it’s going to take a few generations to enhance a genetic pool after centuries of members of that pool being slaughtered if they were especially courageous or learned to read or had leadership qualities.

    1. Students are “characterized by the shade of their skin” when considered for admission to law school, and at least at my law school, only blacks and Hispanics were eligible for the “Academic Support Program,” three years of tutoring, mentoring, test taking skills and general hand-holding. Sons and daughters of professional blacks were carried through law school with tutors and mentors, but no poor or working class whites or Asians allowed. We were expected to succeed or fail on our own merits. Blacks are “characterized (benefitted) by the shade of their skin” in the application process and throughout their three years of law school, so do you seriously think anyone isn’t making note of their performance vis-a-vis other groups?

    2. “Naturally it’s going to take a few generations to enhance a genetic pool after centuries of members of that pool being slaughtered if they were especially courageous or learned to read or had leadership qualities.”

      Chris, are you saying that the black people of today are inferior due to their DNA? That is what it sounds like and standing alone would be considered racist unless proven correct, but even then it would be called racist.

      I can’t believe the essential DNA is that much different between the races and if there is a slight difference between races I believe whatever difference that is, is outweighed by one’s environment.

      1. Chris Bacon, you never responded to what sounded like you “are you saying that the black people of today are inferior due to their DNA”. I wonder, forgetting all the tangential stuff if Enigma would like to comment on your statement.

  17. Another effort by the left to deny facts.

    Worse, it is a successful effort to intimidate individuals to hide the truth.

    The lefties must feel proud; da-n the consequences, da-n the hurt to individuals.

    1. What is your solution to the systematic oppression of minorities in the U.S.? Or, is it just a myth? For every white person who gets screwed, it is happening to countless others. Are you afraid of a level playing surface?

      1. The possibility of a level playing field is what conservatives oppose. They are desperately trying to hold on to their entitlement.

Comments are closed.