I submit this because I see no substantive difference between this, and book or teaching bans (such as the widely publicized CRT bans and don't say gay bills). Both seek to censor a topic. Yet this provokes hardly any outrage, or even attention. Why?
Because most people who claim to be against the principle of censorship are really only against viewpoints they agree with being censored. In particular, they're usually not just indifferent but happy when viewpoints they oppose are censored.
Wax presumably knew something more than we do of the student’s qualifications in making the statement. But even if she didn’t, how can her assertion that a black student with two Ivy League schools on her resume is likely to have benefited from affirmative action be taken as an insult in a culture that openly defends the positive good and undeniable need for affirmative action to achieve desired levels of minority representation? It is widely known that black students on average have lower GPAs and standardized test scores than whites and Asians, and that their performance relative to other groups remains comparatively low through the college years. How is it an unmentionable transgression for Wax to allude to a set of facts no one who knows the data disputes?
This is where the article lost me. The position stated above is disingenuous. The writer apparently doesn’t understand that something can be true and stated in an insulting or inappropriate way or stated in a demeaning way. Telling a student that they are a double Ivy due to external programs and not talent is inappropriate even if it is true. You don’t demean your students or attempt to tear them down in this way. A person lacking a sufficient amount of tact ought not be a teacher.
Saying inappropriate things to a student and being punished for it is not on par with banning books or banning teaching of certain concepts. This is obvious.
Expulsion seems like a high price to pay for being tactless. And isn't what she said exactly equivalent to what is being preached en masse under the umbrella of "privilege", only aimed at a different group?
Telling a white male student, You are only a double Ivy because of privilege is just as bad as telling a black student they are a double Ivy because of affirmative action.
Saying, “the statistics show that black double Ivy’s occur mostly due to affirmative action” is not objectionable if it’s true. Saying, “What do the statistics say about the background of black double Ivy’s?” is OK even if it’s not true that affirmative action is the reason because inquiring about causality is a good thing. Telling a student, “you are here only because of affirmative action” is never ok because it demeans the individual on a personal level.
7 comments
[ 13.1 ms ] story [ 358 ms ] threadWax presumably knew something more than we do of the student’s qualifications in making the statement. But even if she didn’t, how can her assertion that a black student with two Ivy League schools on her resume is likely to have benefited from affirmative action be taken as an insult in a culture that openly defends the positive good and undeniable need for affirmative action to achieve desired levels of minority representation? It is widely known that black students on average have lower GPAs and standardized test scores than whites and Asians, and that their performance relative to other groups remains comparatively low through the college years. How is it an unmentionable transgression for Wax to allude to a set of facts no one who knows the data disputes?
This is where the article lost me. The position stated above is disingenuous. The writer apparently doesn’t understand that something can be true and stated in an insulting or inappropriate way or stated in a demeaning way. Telling a student that they are a double Ivy due to external programs and not talent is inappropriate even if it is true. You don’t demean your students or attempt to tear them down in this way. A person lacking a sufficient amount of tact ought not be a teacher.
Saying inappropriate things to a student and being punished for it is not on par with banning books or banning teaching of certain concepts. This is obvious.
Saying, “the statistics show that black double Ivy’s occur mostly due to affirmative action” is not objectionable if it’s true. Saying, “What do the statistics say about the background of black double Ivy’s?” is OK even if it’s not true that affirmative action is the reason because inquiring about causality is a good thing. Telling a student, “you are here only because of affirmative action” is never ok because it demeans the individual on a personal level.
Agreed. But saying things like that doesn't get people fired.
I really hoped this quote alone makes any further comment unnecessary.