October 28, 2024 • 41 mins
Is academic freedom a shield for hate speech, or should educators be held accountable for perpetuating racism? Karen & Brittany confront the provocative actions of Professor Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania, whose racially insensitive remarks have sparked controversy.
As we dissect her advocacy for "cultural distance nationalism" and the alarming public disclosure of student grades by race, we tackle the profound implications of such biases within academia. A law professor's influential role should never amplify harmful ideologies, and this episode stresses the urgent need for vigilance and accountability in educational settings.
CONTINUING EDUCATION
- Penn Finally Sanctions and Suspends ‘Racist’ Law Professor Amy Wax
- Final Determination of Complaint Against Professor Amy Wax
- Stop Defending Amy Wax
Stay With Us
- Watch and Subscribe to The E Word on YouTube.
- Follow Karen on LinkedIn and learn more at Colossal Work.
- Follow Brittany on LinkedIn and learn more at BND Consulting Group.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Karen McFarlane (00:01):
Hey.
Brittany S. Hale (00:01):
Brittany.
Karen McFarlane (00:02):
Hi Karen, how are you?
I'm good we're back for anotherepisode of the.
Brittany S. Hale (00:08):
E-Word.
It's my favorite time of theweek.
Karen McFarlane (00:14):
Well, we have something, I guess what's the
word?
I was thinking of juicy, but Ijust don't think it's a juice.
I don't think it's juicy, Ijust think it's just absurd.
Brittany S. Hale (00:32):
Another topic that popped up.
Karen McFarlane (00:33):
Yeah, let's not .
Brittany S. Hale (00:34):
Let's not use juicy, because the person we're
speaking about is quite thirsty,quite well, the person we're
talking about is professor.
Karen McFarlane (00:42):
I hate to put that name in front of her name,
professor Amy Wax from theUniversity of Pennsylvania.
She's a law professor.
She made some remarks over thecourse and a group of students
actually complained about herbecause some of these remarks
(01:03):
were quite flagrantly racist,misogynistic, all the words we
could think of.
This is what happened, and shehas finally, finally, been
sanctioned and suspended becauseof her remarks both in the
(01:25):
classroom and some outside ofthe classroom.
Two questions for you.
Brittany S. Hale (01:30):
First was she a tenured professor.
Karen McFarlane (01:33):
Yes.
Brittany S. Hale (01:41):
Okay, and so for those listening or holds
barred, right, um, that you, youare of a space in your career
where you are able to work as aprofessor.
Your contract is not up yearafter year after year, um, and
(02:04):
the disciplinary proceedings fora tenured professor, it's
really kind of a, would you say,it's kind of like a trust
system, right?
We trust that you've done yourjob well enough such that you
can escape scrutiny.
Karen McFarlane (02:20):
Right.
It also gives you, I think,just freedom, in a way, freedom
of speech without retribution.
In many ways Right, becauseacademics are supposed to
challenge, I guess, the statusquo and they need some space to
do that in order to enlightenstudents and think differently.
When that power is, you know,used irresponsibly, it can have
(02:48):
some detrimental effects whenyou are a tenured professor,
because you can't just be firedjust like that and to that end
she right like she was suspendedand she's getting half for a
year and getting half pay for ayear and I think she's also not
allowed to collect anyadditional summer pay.
But some of these remarks thatshe made are just really
horrible and in any otherenvironment I think would
(03:12):
probably get you fired, okay.
Brittany S. Hale (03:15):
So this leads to my second question, which is
I know you alluded to some ofthese statements, but can you
give us a little bit more detail?
What has this professor said?
Yeah, so okay.
Karen McFarlane (03:33):
So one of the statements she has said is I
don't think I've ever seen aBlack student graduate in the
top quarter of the class andrarely, rarely, in the top half
of the class.
Now you might think that ifthat's a statement of fact,
maybe that's a statement of fact, although she went on to
publicize grades by raceexternally, which is against
(03:59):
school policy.
But she has also said Mexicanmen are across everyone,
everyone.
Can you know Exactly, exactly,receive this?
Yay, it's just well, you knowwhat.
She's, including all othergroups right, in an earlier
(04:54):
interview in 2019, hold on, letme find it really quick because
I just lost it.
But she said we are okay.
She was speaking in an interviewafter the National Conservatism
Conference in Washington DC andshe was promoting this idea of
(05:14):
quote, cultural distance,nationalism or the belief that,
quote we are better off if ourcountry is dominated numerically
, demographically, politicallyat least, in fact, if not
formally, by people from thefirst world, from the West, than
by people from countries thathad failed to advance.
(05:34):
Let us be candid Europe and thefirst world, to which the
United States belongs, remainmostly white for now, and the
third world, although mixed,contains a lot of non-white
people Embracing culturaldistance.
Cultural distance, nationalism,means, in effect, taking the
(05:55):
position that our country willbe better off with more whites
and fewer non-whites.
Brittany S. Hale (06:03):
Interesting.
Okay, so many questions here.
Karen McFarlane (06:12):
Lots of.
I just want to and I also justwant to reiterate for the people
she's a law school professor,so it feels like there's
additional undertones when youhave that kind of position.
Brittany S. Hale (06:25):
Correct, because the position of a law
school professor, especially alot of, I would say, capital
that comes with that position,right.
(06:55):
So our internal biases willallow us to make certain
shortcuts.
We hear pen Great, we hear lawprofessor, we think highly
qualified, right, and so wehopscotch over certain
(07:22):
checkpoints that would allow forus to question what she's
saying, the ideas that she'sespousing.
This idea of culturaldistancing, you know, is
analogous to social distancing,right?
That's what immediately came tomy head and makes us think
(07:42):
about safety to my head andmakes us think about safety.
Words mean things and a lawprofessor knows that better than
anyone.
So this idea of culturaldistancing, instead of this
melting pot that the UnitedStates is known for in the sense
of freedom and being welcomingand being this, this cultural
(08:05):
melting pot, we see that maybeit's, you know, maybe a cultural
bag salad, but all of the allof the accoutrement that makes
the salad more interesting, letthat, let that settle at the
bottom and let's have, you know,my particular preference or her
(08:26):
particular preference at thetop.
And so it's not culturaldistancing so much as it is a
cultural stratification designedto reinforce white nationalism,
racism.
And for those who say that, youknow many of us think of racism
(08:50):
as kind of this one-to-oneinterpersonal preference,
prejudice, dislike, hatred, butwe're really talking about
racism.
We're talking about thesesystemic plays, right?
And we see this happeningbecause for her to publish
(09:12):
grades by race.
Now my question is well, is shegrading them blindly and then
saying, oh okay, this person.
Or is she saying, well, karenis the black girl.
So I'm going to look at herexam through a particular lens.
(09:33):
Right, she's already shown usthat she does not believe that
somebody who is anything otherthan her particular preference,
that somebody who is anythingother than her particular
preference, right, white,heterosexual, or, you know,
(09:59):
european, of European origin asthe person who is superior.
Karen McFarlane (10:05):
So these are all of these insidious ways that
we can create systems toreinforce inequity Right.
And what is even more insidiousis that she's teaching young
people Correct News that,especially at a time when
they're formulating their ownperspectives Right, and in a
profession that in some waysdepending on which way you go
(10:26):
codifies these beliefs, has thepower to codify these beliefs
into the American legal systemRight.
So it actually has this dom,potentially has this domino
effect that in many ways goesunseen if unchecked.
(10:47):
Correct.
Brittany S. Hale (10:49):
Because how many students right?
So I would also like to knowhow many students complained.
And this is a moment where I amactually feeling this.
I'm having like a very visceralphysical reaction to this,
because I went to law school andin a class of 200, there were
(11:14):
12 students who identified asBlack American students.
Students, and in our sections,in our constitutional law
courses that everyone isrequired to take in your first
year, you go through the courtcases that discuss affirmative
action and that is youropportunity to have everyone
(11:38):
kind of look at you andpresuppose that you are not
there for anything other thanchecking a box, filling a quota.
Karen McFarlane (11:48):
Well, one student that had that was a
double Ivy League leader, thatshe only achieved that because
of affirmative action.
Brittany S. Hale (11:59):
This is that moment, right.
This is that fear that so manystudents of color in law school
face, because you already know.
You already know to anticipatethe prejudice Right, and you
(12:26):
already know that you have todefend your place.
Though you've been admittedlike anyone else, though you're
sitting in the same classroom,there's a supposition, there's
already a bias in favor of thebelief that you are undeserving,
regardless of the fact of yourmerit-based performance and all
of the other things.
Most people who get into lawschool are exceptional people,
period, and so to create anenvironment that is hostile to
(12:50):
them, or to and to reinforcethis again, even though I don't
think she was teachingconstitutional law, it
reinforces any particular biasesand, like you said, these are
young people, so are you.
Is she truly creating anenvironment where all types of
(13:16):
thought is being challenged?
Because my question to her isokay, well, what does
advancement look like?
What about the other countriesthat are part of the first world
, that are not in Europe?
Then, what do you?
You know, how do we?
What do we do with?
Karen McFarlane (13:34):
that she sort of has an answer for that too.
So oh great you kind of broughtup.
You know well, she talked abouthow these third world countries
are basically mostly non-whitepeople are basically aren't
smart enough, essentially, toadvance their culture.
She has a specific call out forAsian-Americans, so I, given her
(13:55):
history, we're going to make anassumption that she falls into
this whole, you know, modelminority myth Right.
And so she basically said in apodcast in 2021 with Brown
University economist Glenn Lurie.
She said Asian immigration tothe United States is quote
problematic due to the danger ofthe dominance of the Asian
(14:16):
elite in this country.
Basically, she's going on tosay as long as most Asians
support Democrats and help toadvance their positions, I think
the United States is better offwith fewer Asians and less
Asian immigration.
Brittany S. Hale (14:34):
So this is all artifice to support her
political leanings, and I guessso.
The question then is what roledoes that have in the classroom,
right?
How can we prepare students tounderstand and recognize the
biases that they may bepresented with so you can filter
(14:57):
again Biases?
Have it's a screening test,right?
Much like you have to?
So, for those of you who are onsocial media, and from a
marketing perspective, I wouldassume, when a celebrity is
endorsing a particular productusing their social media, they
have to acknowledge that it's anad knowledge so that you as a
(15:29):
consumer can understand thatthis person's been compensated
to talk about this product in afavorable way and they allow for
you to determine that.
Similarly, how can we create aspace where her political
leanings students can understandthat and contextualize it and
go forward and say, okay, iswhat this professor saying
(15:56):
reflecting actual facts, or isthis person?
Is this person really kind ofpresenting me with an argument
in favor of one whitenationalism to white nationalist
conservatism and probablyfascist right, like how, how can
we do that?
(16:17):
And then my question to Penn isis that what you want to be
known for?
Karen McFarlane (16:28):
Right?
Well, that's a big question,but I'll go.
So I'm going to answer onequestion you asked earlier.
Brittany S. Hale (16:36):
I've asked you a bunch.
Karen McFarlane (16:37):
Thank you so much for tolerating I don't have
all the answers to them, butyou know, just just cause I have
an answer to one of them.
I don't know how many answersto them, but just because I have
an answer to one of them, Idon't know how many students
officially complained in thevery beginning.
What Penn did was they hired,basically, a dean from
(16:58):
Northwestern Law School to runthe investigation.
Okay, 26 alumni.
They interviewed 26 alumni aspart of the complaint, but guess
what?
Amy Wax refused to participate.
So, which I find superinteresting, because if you, if
you stand on your beliefs right,then you participate in this
(17:20):
and you can say that it was partof you know correct pursuits
and challenging.
You know students to thinkdifferently, or whatever the
language you want to use.
Right, but she refused toparticipate.
So we actually don't know whather mindset was.
We can just make you knowinferences around it, but one of
the things that I like what yousaid is that you know you want
(17:43):
students to be able tounderstand where the professor
stands Right, so that they can,you know, make judgments for
themselves based on the contentthey're being delivered.
However, I think the next stepon that is like, what is their
power in that situation?
Right?
So, you understand that yourprofessor leans in a particular
(18:07):
direction and it's not yourdirection.
Is this professor?
Inviting debate, which is whatthey're supposed to do, is, in
my view, not necessarily takesides, particularly in law,
right, Particularly in law, andyou can correct me on that right
.
But you know, not take sides,but invite people to understand
(18:29):
what both sides are and thencome to their own determination,
right.
But if you have someone who isacting in this manner and making
such controversial and justdefamatory statements, is it a
safe place for you to stand upand say, hey, I think that's
racist and I don't like it?
(18:49):
And what is the retribution, ifanything, you may get when you
do something like that?
So I'm also mortified for thestudents who felt differently,
no matter how they identify,obviously, particularly for the
(19:10):
people of color, when she's madefor the black people, sorry,
when she's making thosestatements about them.
Or the Mexican people in herclass, potentially those
horrible statements about them.
How do you?
Brittany S. Hale (19:22):
as a young Mexican man at an Ivy League
institution.
Contextualize Right.
Karen McFarlane (19:30):
And you've, you know you're there, because
hopefully you know you're therebecause, like you said, it's
very hard to get into law school.
It's a special set of studentsthat can actually do that.
So you've made it this far andyou've probably, you know,
traversed a lot of barriers toget there.
And then you step into thisclassroom and you hear, you're
(19:52):
just, it just hits you, you'regutted, you're gutted.
Brittany S. Hale (19:55):
And why do you do that?
So let's talk about a lawschool classroom, right, most
classrooms are.
You conduct a process calledthe Socratic method, which is it
is not didactic in the way thata lot of undergraduate classes
are, right.
The professor comes in, theypresent you with information,
(20:18):
you write down the information.
It's up to you to ingest it andperhaps regurgitate it when
there's a final midterm, etcetera.
In law school first, they'rerarely anything other than the
final, so you may not have anunderstanding of the way that
you've dealt with the materialuntil the end of the class.
(20:41):
Surprise.
But with the Socratic method,the professor comes in, you are
typically reading and you'retasked with briefing court
opinions right, what's happenedbefore?
And the professor will usuallyask a series of questions what
happened in this case?
(21:02):
What were the facts, what's theissue, what are the two parties
litigating and, ultimately,what did the court decide?
Extract critical thought,engaging people with differing
opinions with the ultimate goalof creating a safe space for
(21:30):
elevated discussion.
There is a critique now thatmany people will say people are
oversensitive, right, and youcan't have a discussion anymore.
Back in the day you could saysomething without offending
someone, and so on and so forthand I think there is a space to
(21:55):
again have critical discussion.
I don't think that highereducation is a space where
everyone has to agree, correct.
And I also don't think thathigher education is the space
for professors in powerfulpositions or for really anyone
(22:20):
to espouse hateful speech.
Right, because we, she knowsbetter than anyone to espouse
hateful speech.
Right, because we, she knowsbetter than anyone, right?
The First Amendment does notprotect all speech, does not
protect hate speech, does notprotect incitement.
So my question is let's use theSocratic method.
(22:43):
What happens if there is aMexican-American male in the
classroom?
When she said you know,mexican-american men are known
to offend, they are, you know,they have higher rates of
assaulting.
She's assaulting people orassaulting women, did she say?
Karen McFarlane (23:03):
Keep going, I'll tell you.
Brittany S. Hale (23:05):
Yeah.
So my question is is she saidthat with a lot of things that
she's done so.
Sad, but what if anotherstudent taking assaulting women,
say, another student, woman orman right now refuses to engage
(23:25):
with that student for fear oftheir own physical safety?
Or they attack thisMexican-American student because
they believe that he is proneto violence?
Right, that statement that shemade in a position of authority
is incitement.
That is not protected speech.
Karen McFarlane (23:49):
I agree with you.
Brittany S. Hale (23:50):
I just I don't .
And I'm glad they conducted theinvestigation, I'm glad that it
seems that they were thorough.
And then my the fact that sherefused to participate to your
point.
What's the problem?
Do you not want to be heldaccountable for the statements
that you're making?
Is that the problem, do you?
Karen McFarlane (24:12):
not want to take responsibility.
You should be.
You're part of the group thatyou are elevating.
And so you should stand proudwith that group and defend or
maybe you don't feel like youneed to defend, but you're in
this inquiry defend your beliefs, but instead you chose not to
participate, for whatever reason.
Brittany S. Hale (24:33):
Or to add context, she said well, listen,
there was this study conductedby the US Justice Department,
and what came out of that studyis X versus personal animus.
Karen McFarlane (24:49):
This reminds me .
It's not law school, it wasactually, um, in middle school.
Um, it wasn't my son, but itwas, uh, a student it was like.
And she was in a class and theteacher was talking about some
(25:15):
literature and decided to usethe N word because it was
illustrative of the work thatthey were talking about, and she
chose to use that word over andover again in the classroom.
In that classroom was just oneBlack student, female student,
(25:40):
and this was her choice.
Okay, this was her choice to doso.
It was very upsetting for thatstudent and she left the
classroom distraught that herteacher would use this word,
regardless of the literature,right, and again, use it over
(26:01):
and over and over again, right,and other students actually came
to her and asked her if she wasOK, which actually validated
how she was feeling and that shewas not alone, even though
those students were not, werewhite students actually, they
knew it was wrong.
They knew it was wrong.
She told her mom the reason why,I know, is her mom called me
(26:23):
for advice or whatever and I waslike you need to share that
experience that that wasn't theright move to make because, for
whatever reason, she made thischoice.
Ultimately, it came out that shedidn't think anything was wrong
with it because it was in theliterature, right, and although,
(26:46):
and when pointed, when it waspointed out that there's other
ways, right, same point, correct.
Well, you know, creating thisanimus between you and the
student and other students andmaking her feel uncomfortable,
she actually doubled down on heroriginal rationale and then
(27:09):
eventually, I think she had tomake a switch and apologize to
some degree, but I don't think Idon't.
I don't know that.
I'm going to be honest with you.
I don't know if she meant thatapology or not, or whatever the
case may be, but there's asensitivity that you do need to
have.
I mean, I also recall and thisis not as deep as that, but you
(27:30):
know, I went to school a long,long time ago, right, and
history class was particularlydifficult for me because I was
always maybe one Black person inthe room or whatever.
And talking about slavery andthings of that nature in such a
cavalier, nonchalant way,without regard for how I might
(27:55):
feel about that, right, was thenorm back then.
But as we move towards, youknow, modern days, then that
starts to change.
I also remember with my own son.
He was in fourth grade and theywere doing a project on the
underground railroad and hewasn't really participating.
I came to find out in the waythat the teacher wanted, and he
(28:21):
told me he was working on anassignment, and he told me that
he wasn't comfortable asking herany questions because when he
did, she shut him down.
And so I actually wrote her avery detailed note and said to
her hey, I mean it's very long,but basically was like hey, I
(28:42):
understand that you're notengaging him in the way he needs
to be engaged, understand thatyou're not engaging him in the
way he needs to be engaged.
Keep in mind that you'retalking about a very difficult
time in our history that isparticularly sensitive to a
Black person, and the contentthat you are covering right now
(29:03):
basically says that when boysturn 10, they are put in the
fields, and my son is 10.
So I don't know how you'reteaching this class, but I need
you to emphasize the bravery andthe resilience that comes with
(29:23):
our history.
And I kind of went into a lotCorrect that comes with our
history.
And I kind of went into a lotCorrect, and she came back and
she said I never thought of itthat way, which was interesting
and fascinating, right, like shenever thought about flipping
the narrative Correct At all, itwas just one of victimization
and hostility and of course allthose things were there.
(29:46):
But then how does we never shenever wanted to talk about or
never thought about talkingabout sorry, you know how they,
how our people, transgressed allof that?
And so I'm just giving thesepersonal examples because I
think it really harkens back tothe sensitivity that educators
(30:06):
need to have when talking aboutsensitive subjects.
It is not saying that youshouldn't talk about sensitive
subjects.
It is just saying that you needto do so with empathy, right,
and understanding of theindividuals that you are talking
about, correct, and create safespaces for discourse and
disagreement, right, but knowingthat no one is being singled
(30:28):
out or attacked in those moments.
Brittany S. Hale (30:31):
And this is why it is so critical for
educational institutions toapportion a part of the budget
to upskilling and teaching theireducators.
In the example you just gave,it seems that that was not her
(30:52):
intent.
The impact was such that shecreated an unsafe environment
for your son.
She didn't intend to do it, butthat's what happened.
Had she had the requisiteinstruction, had she been
(31:13):
challenged herself to re-engagewith the material that she's
probably taught countless times,countless times, and spin it on
its head.
Right, be innovative, be andalso know your audience.
Think about this Using theother E word right, empathy.
(31:37):
How would you feel if you wereone of your students hearing
this?
Are there other stories thathave been told?
And for listeners who arethinking, oh well, well, that's
just how things were back then,you know, my response to that is
we would never have anyprogress if the way things were
being done was just the statusquo.
(31:57):
There have always beenabolitionists.
There have always Challengingwhat was normal.
Right, the disruptors, if youwill.
Right.
Karen McFarlane (32:15):
There's never been accountability for why that
was needed Exactly.
It is still glorified today.
Like you watch any period pieceand I love a period piece,
don't get me wrong, right.
You watch any period piece andI love a period piece, don't get
me wrong, right.
But when you you watch these,these, these movies or these
(32:37):
episodics and they talk aboutyou know, you know the 18th,
16th or 17th century and all theviolence that occurred, it is
glorified in the name ofprogress, right, and that
progress hurt a lot of differentgroups, even before we get into
some of the things that Americais known for, right, that came
(32:57):
from a long line of history ofviolence and ravaging and all of
those things.
And so when you fail toacknowledge why you need all of
these things, why we need tohave these conversations, why it
has been detrimental forcenturies, then it's hard to fix
or understand why anythingneeds to be fixed, right.
Brittany S. Hale (33:23):
And goes back to the question of what does
advancement mean?
What does that look like?
Why are we glorifying,glorifying colonialism over
diplomacy, all right, and notseeing that as an opportunity?
Could we have gone about thisanother way?
Yeah, what is trade?
And we're starting to see thatnow.
(33:44):
Right, we are having to rethinkthe way that we're engaging
with markets.
And that's the.
You know, these pastoralretellings of the good old days,
right, these rolling greenhills and these stately mansions
and all of that.
And no, asked, well, who builtthat?
(34:05):
Who's cutting the lawn?
yeah, you know I can barelyright um and and, additionally,
confronting that with the truth.
Right, these people were not umcash rich.
Right, their assets requiredand relied on the ownership of
(34:29):
other human beings.
Without that, you had verylittle.
Karen McFarlane (34:36):
Thank you.
I was having this debate with afriend of mine actually
yesterday.
We were talking a little bitabout reparations, right, which
is a hot topic, and we were like, okay, let's not talk about, if
it happened, distribution.
That's a whole rabbit hole,sure.
But you know, it was likenailing down the accountability
(34:58):
piece, like America justacknowledging that this publicly
, this happened and that youknow this publicly, this
happened, and that you knowAmerica was built on the backs
of free labor, mostly fromAfrican-Americans, africans, et
cetera, right.
And I was saying to her, canyou?
Because then we kind of wentinto a little bit of the money
(35:23):
part, I was like, can youimagine, and I wish some, I'm
not an economist, but I wish Iwere in this situation.
Brittany S. Hale (35:26):
But here's my idea not an economist, but I
wish I were in this situation.
But here's my idea, right?
If you are listening, drop someresources for us.
Karen McFarlane (35:31):
Drop some resources.
Do this calculation, which is,if you took some of these big
companies, like if you tookGoogle from its inception and
took away all the salaries freelabor right From its inception
where would it be today versuswhere it is?
Well, where would it be versuswhere it is today by paying
(35:52):
salaries, right?
Like if you just looked at someof these companies across the
board, even the ones from wayback then I know a couple of
studies have been done aroundthat how have they benefited and
who has been hurt by that?
Then you'll understand thevalue of free labor.
You can just look in your ownlife and if you get something
for free, you don't have to payfor it.
You have more money in yourpocket.
This is exponentially different.
(36:13):
People get caught up in the howmuch and who's it going to go
to.
But that acknowledgement isreally important that because of
these horrific systems, itallowed certain people to
advance.
Amy Wax, right.
Because you're talking aboutthird world countries having to
(36:35):
advance.
Well, why is that?
You raped and pillaged theseother countries in order to
advance your own and are stilldoing so.
You know and refuse to giveback.
And I think about fast fashion,right.
Brittany S. Hale (36:53):
We see fast fashion companies now where you
can buy I don't know a coat.
It's fall now right For 20bucks and you say this is a
great deal.
And you don't see the invisiblelabor that's exploited.
You don't see the environmentalcosts that come with fast
(37:16):
fashion, right?
You don't see the beaches whereit, you know, comes up and
compromises people's access tothings like clean water and all
of these things.
And so it's not that difficultto understand because we live
with it every day.
I think the key coming out ofthis is re-examining power,
(37:45):
re-amining what we would, justwhat we have been taught.
You know the spaces in whichwe're taught and the
responsibility of thoseinstitutions that they have to
us, to students, to the parentswho are paying for it For a
(38:10):
ridiculous amount of money.
Correct, you're not paying foryour child to be harassed.
Karen McFarlane (38:16):
Exactly, exactly.
I mean that point right thereis just insane.
You know the thousands uponthousands of dollars in tuition
that each child is paying tosome degree, right Like, and you
go into a hostile environment.
No, you know, and that's whyyou also see this trend of
(38:39):
students, or you know youngpeople rejecting college for a
lot of different reasons, butthis doesn't help the whole
entire situation.
I mean, it's University of Penn, for example, so it has a
longstanding reputation andbrand, and so you know, more
than likely we'll power through.
But these smaller institutionsneed to be very wary of who's on
staff and what their responseis and how they're going to
(39:04):
approach academic freedom forprofessors and students right.
It's a huge responsibility toeducate the next generation and
you have to be really careful,particularly in this environment
, because more than aninvestigation will happen.
Somebody will understand theirtrue power and exercise it, and
(39:27):
it just takes one right whenthey realize what they can do.
It's true, so they're on notice.
Brittany S. Hale (39:36):
And we will be watching.
Karen McFarlane (39:38):
We will definitely be watching.
So kudos to University of Pennfor taking action.
We may not like the end resultbecause she will be back,
probably teaching again, buthopefully she's on notice for
what she can and cannot do andstudents understand that they
can raise up and raise acomplaint and something will
(40:01):
happen eventually, eventually,because it's so beautiful, it
was great to also have yourperspective today as a former
law school student.
Brittany S. Hale (40:15):
I know I was like, oh, let me just open up
these boxes that I'vecompartmentalized in my brain
and bring it back.
I'm glad it came back.
And I just want to reiteratelike you said, as a very special
person that can go to lawschool, and so you're too kind.
Karen McFarlane (40:33):
You're too kind .
All right, brittany, we'll waitfor the next.
We'll talk again.
Yes, all right.
Why is it taking so long tostop?
Hey.
Brittany S. Hale (00:01):
Brittany.
Karen McFarlane (00:02):
Hi Karen, how are you?
I'm good we're back for anotherepisode of the.
Brittany S. Hale (00:08):
E-Word.
It's my favorite time of theweek.
Karen McFarlane (00:14):
Well, we have something, I guess what's the
word?
I was thinking of juicy, but Ijust don't think it's a juice.
I don't think it's juicy, Ijust think it's just absurd.
Brittany S. Hale (00:32):
Another topic that popped up.
Karen McFarlane (00:33):
Yeah, let's not .
Brittany S. Hale (00:34):
Let's not use juicy, because the person we're
speaking about is quite thirsty,quite well, the person we're
talking about is professor.
Karen McFarlane (00:42):
I hate to put that name in front of her name,
professor Amy Wax from theUniversity of Pennsylvania.
She's a law professor.
She made some remarks over thecourse and a group of students
actually complained about herbecause some of these remarks
(01:03):
were quite flagrantly racist,misogynistic, all the words we
could think of.
This is what happened, and shehas finally, finally, been
sanctioned and suspended becauseof her remarks both in the
(01:25):
classroom and some outside ofthe classroom.
Two questions for you.
Brittany S. Hale (01:30):
First was she a tenured professor.
Karen McFarlane (01:33):
Yes.
Brittany S. Hale (01:41):
Okay, and so for those listening or holds
barred, right, um, that you, youare of a space in your career
where you are able to work as aprofessor.
Your contract is not up yearafter year after year, um, and
(02:04):
the disciplinary proceedings fora tenured professor, it's
really kind of a, would you say,it's kind of like a trust
system, right?
We trust that you've done yourjob well enough such that you
can escape scrutiny.
Karen McFarlane (02:20):
Right.
It also gives you, I think,just freedom, in a way, freedom
of speech without retribution.
In many ways Right, becauseacademics are supposed to
challenge, I guess, the statusquo and they need some space to
do that in order to enlightenstudents and think differently.
When that power is, you know,used irresponsibly, it can have
(02:48):
some detrimental effects whenyou are a tenured professor,
because you can't just be firedjust like that and to that end
she right like she was suspendedand she's getting half for a
year and getting half pay for ayear and I think she's also not
allowed to collect anyadditional summer pay.
But some of these remarks thatshe made are just really
horrible and in any otherenvironment I think would
(03:12):
probably get you fired, okay.
Brittany S. Hale (03:15):
So this leads to my second question, which is
I know you alluded to some ofthese statements, but can you
give us a little bit more detail?
What has this professor said?
Yeah, so okay.
Karen McFarlane (03:33):
So one of the statements she has said is I
don't think I've ever seen aBlack student graduate in the
top quarter of the class andrarely, rarely, in the top half
of the class.
Now you might think that ifthat's a statement of fact,
maybe that's a statement of fact, although she went on to
publicize grades by raceexternally, which is against
(03:59):
school policy.
But she has also said Mexicanmen are across everyone,
everyone.
Can you know Exactly, exactly,receive this?
Yay, it's just well, you knowwhat.
She's, including all othergroups right, in an earlier
(04:54):
interview in 2019, hold on, letme find it really quick because
I just lost it.
But she said we are okay.
She was speaking in an interviewafter the National Conservatism
Conference in Washington DC andshe was promoting this idea of
(05:14):
quote, cultural distance,nationalism or the belief that,
quote we are better off if ourcountry is dominated numerically
, demographically, politicallyat least, in fact, if not
formally, by people from thefirst world, from the West, than
by people from countries thathad failed to advance.
(05:34):
Let us be candid Europe and thefirst world, to which the
United States belongs, remainmostly white for now, and the
third world, although mixed,contains a lot of non-white
people Embracing culturaldistance.
Cultural distance, nationalism,means, in effect, taking the
(05:55):
position that our country willbe better off with more whites
and fewer non-whites.
Brittany S. Hale (06:03):
Interesting.
Okay, so many questions here.
Karen McFarlane (06:12):
Lots of.
I just want to and I also justwant to reiterate for the people
she's a law school professor,so it feels like there's
additional undertones when youhave that kind of position.
Brittany S. Hale (06:25):
Correct, because the position of a law
school professor, especially alot of, I would say, capital
that comes with that position,right.
(06:55):
So our internal biases willallow us to make certain
shortcuts.
We hear pen Great, we hear lawprofessor, we think highly
qualified, right, and so wehopscotch over certain
(07:22):
checkpoints that would allow forus to question what she's
saying, the ideas that she'sespousing.
This idea of culturaldistancing, you know, is
analogous to social distancing,right?
That's what immediately came tomy head and makes us think
(07:42):
about safety to my head andmakes us think about safety.
Words mean things and a lawprofessor knows that better than
anyone.
So this idea of culturaldistancing, instead of this
melting pot that the UnitedStates is known for in the sense
of freedom and being welcomingand being this, this cultural
(08:05):
melting pot, we see that maybeit's, you know, maybe a cultural
bag salad, but all of the allof the accoutrement that makes
the salad more interesting, letthat, let that settle at the
bottom and let's have, you know,my particular preference or her
(08:26):
particular preference at thetop.
And so it's not culturaldistancing so much as it is a
cultural stratification designedto reinforce white nationalism,
racism.
And for those who say that, youknow many of us think of racism
(08:50):
as kind of this one-to-oneinterpersonal preference,
prejudice, dislike, hatred, butwe're really talking about
racism.
We're talking about thesesystemic plays, right?
And we see this happeningbecause for her to publish
(09:12):
grades by race.
Now my question is well, is shegrading them blindly and then
saying, oh okay, this person.
Or is she saying, well, karenis the black girl.
So I'm going to look at herexam through a particular lens.
(09:33):
Right, she's already shown usthat she does not believe that
somebody who is anything otherthan her particular preference,
that somebody who is anythingother than her particular
preference, right, white,heterosexual, or, you know,
(09:59):
european, of European origin asthe person who is superior.
Karen McFarlane (10:05):
So these are all of these insidious ways that
we can create systems toreinforce inequity Right.
And what is even more insidiousis that she's teaching young
people Correct News that,especially at a time when
they're formulating their ownperspectives Right, and in a
profession that in some waysdepending on which way you go
(10:26):
codifies these beliefs, has thepower to codify these beliefs
into the American legal systemRight.
So it actually has this dom,potentially has this domino
effect that in many ways goesunseen if unchecked.
(10:47):
Correct.
Brittany S. Hale (10:49):
Because how many students right?
So I would also like to knowhow many students complained.
And this is a moment where I amactually feeling this.
I'm having like a very visceralphysical reaction to this,
because I went to law school andin a class of 200, there were
(11:14):
12 students who identified asBlack American students.
Students, and in our sections,in our constitutional law
courses that everyone isrequired to take in your first
year, you go through the courtcases that discuss affirmative
action and that is youropportunity to have everyone
(11:38):
kind of look at you andpresuppose that you are not
there for anything other thanchecking a box, filling a quota.
Karen McFarlane (11:48):
Well, one student that had that was a
double Ivy League leader, thatshe only achieved that because
of affirmative action.
Brittany S. Hale (11:59):
This is that moment, right.
This is that fear that so manystudents of color in law school
face, because you already know.
You already know to anticipatethe prejudice Right, and you
(12:26):
already know that you have todefend your place.
Though you've been admittedlike anyone else, though you're
sitting in the same classroom,there's a supposition, there's
already a bias in favor of thebelief that you are undeserving,
regardless of the fact of yourmerit-based performance and all
of the other things.
Most people who get into lawschool are exceptional people,
period, and so to create anenvironment that is hostile to
(12:50):
them, or to and to reinforcethis again, even though I don't
think she was teachingconstitutional law, it
reinforces any particular biasesand, like you said, these are
young people, so are you.
Is she truly creating anenvironment where all types of
(13:16):
thought is being challenged?
Because my question to her isokay, well, what does
advancement look like?
What about the other countriesthat are part of the first world
, that are not in Europe?
Then, what do you?
You know, how do we?
What do we do with?
Karen McFarlane (13:34):
that she sort of has an answer for that too.
So oh great you kind of broughtup.
You know well, she talked abouthow these third world countries
are basically mostly non-whitepeople are basically aren't
smart enough, essentially, toadvance their culture.
She has a specific call out forAsian-Americans, so I, given her
(13:55):
history, we're going to make anassumption that she falls into
this whole, you know, modelminority myth Right.
And so she basically said in apodcast in 2021 with Brown
University economist Glenn Lurie.
She said Asian immigration tothe United States is quote
problematic due to the danger ofthe dominance of the Asian
(14:16):
elite in this country.
Basically, she's going on tosay as long as most Asians
support Democrats and help toadvance their positions, I think
the United States is better offwith fewer Asians and less
Asian immigration.
Brittany S. Hale (14:34):
So this is all artifice to support her
political leanings, and I guessso.
The question then is what roledoes that have in the classroom,
right?
How can we prepare students tounderstand and recognize the
biases that they may bepresented with so you can filter
(14:57):
again Biases?
Have it's a screening test,right?
Much like you have to?
So, for those of you who are onsocial media, and from a
marketing perspective, I wouldassume, when a celebrity is
endorsing a particular productusing their social media, they
have to acknowledge that it's anad knowledge so that you as a
(15:29):
consumer can understand thatthis person's been compensated
to talk about this product in afavorable way and they allow for
you to determine that.
Similarly, how can we create aspace where her political
leanings students can understandthat and contextualize it and
go forward and say, okay, iswhat this professor saying
(15:56):
reflecting actual facts, or isthis person?
Is this person really kind ofpresenting me with an argument
in favor of one whitenationalism to white nationalist
conservatism and probablyfascist right, like how, how can
we do that?
(16:17):
And then my question to Penn isis that what you want to be
known for?
Karen McFarlane (16:28):
Right?
Well, that's a big question,but I'll go.
So I'm going to answer onequestion you asked earlier.
Brittany S. Hale (16:36):
I've asked you a bunch.
Karen McFarlane (16:37):
Thank you so much for tolerating I don't have
all the answers to them, butyou know, just just cause I have
an answer to one of them.
I don't know how many answersto them, but just because I have
an answer to one of them, Idon't know how many students
officially complained in thevery beginning.
What Penn did was they hired,basically, a dean from
(16:58):
Northwestern Law School to runthe investigation.
Okay, 26 alumni.
They interviewed 26 alumni aspart of the complaint, but guess
what?
Amy Wax refused to participate.
So, which I find superinteresting, because if you, if
you stand on your beliefs right,then you participate in this
(17:20):
and you can say that it was partof you know correct pursuits
and challenging.
You know students to thinkdifferently, or whatever the
language you want to use.
Right, but she refused toparticipate.
So we actually don't know whather mindset was.
We can just make you knowinferences around it, but one of
the things that I like what yousaid is that you know you want
(17:43):
students to be able tounderstand where the professor
stands Right, so that they can,you know, make judgments for
themselves based on the contentthey're being delivered.
However, I think the next stepon that is like, what is their
power in that situation?
Right?
So, you understand that yourprofessor leans in a particular
(18:07):
direction and it's not yourdirection.
Is this professor?
Inviting debate, which is whatthey're supposed to do, is, in
my view, not necessarily takesides, particularly in law,
right, Particularly in law, andyou can correct me on that right
.
But you know, not take sides,but invite people to understand
(18:29):
what both sides are and thencome to their own determination,
right.
But if you have someone who isacting in this manner and making
such controversial and justdefamatory statements, is it a
safe place for you to stand upand say, hey, I think that's
racist and I don't like it?
(18:49):
And what is the retribution, ifanything, you may get when you
do something like that?
So I'm also mortified for thestudents who felt differently,
no matter how they identify,obviously, particularly for the
(19:10):
people of color, when she's madefor the black people, sorry,
when she's making thosestatements about them.
Or the Mexican people in herclass, potentially those
horrible statements about them.
How do you?
Brittany S. Hale (19:22):
as a young Mexican man at an Ivy League
institution.
Contextualize Right.
Karen McFarlane (19:30):
And you've, you know you're there, because
hopefully you know you're therebecause, like you said, it's
very hard to get into law school.
It's a special set of studentsthat can actually do that.
So you've made it this far andyou've probably, you know,
traversed a lot of barriers toget there.
And then you step into thisclassroom and you hear, you're
(19:52):
just, it just hits you, you'regutted, you're gutted.
Brittany S. Hale (19:55):
And why do you do that?
So let's talk about a lawschool classroom, right, most
classrooms are.
You conduct a process calledthe Socratic method, which is it
is not didactic in the way thata lot of undergraduate classes
are, right.
The professor comes in, theypresent you with information,
(20:18):
you write down the information.
It's up to you to ingest it andperhaps regurgitate it when
there's a final midterm, etcetera.
In law school first, they'rerarely anything other than the
final, so you may not have anunderstanding of the way that
you've dealt with the materialuntil the end of the class.
(20:41):
Surprise.
But with the Socratic method,the professor comes in, you are
typically reading and you'retasked with briefing court
opinions right, what's happenedbefore?
And the professor will usuallyask a series of questions what
happened in this case?
(21:02):
What were the facts, what's theissue, what are the two parties
litigating and, ultimately,what did the court decide?
Extract critical thought,engaging people with differing
opinions with the ultimate goalof creating a safe space for
(21:30):
elevated discussion.
There is a critique now thatmany people will say people are
oversensitive, right, and youcan't have a discussion anymore.
Back in the day you could saysomething without offending
someone, and so on and so forthand I think there is a space to
(21:55):
again have critical discussion.
I don't think that highereducation is a space where
everyone has to agree, correct.
And I also don't think thathigher education is the space
for professors in powerfulpositions or for really anyone
(22:20):
to espouse hateful speech.
Right, because we, she knowsbetter than anyone to espouse
hateful speech.
Right, because we, she knowsbetter than anyone, right?
The First Amendment does notprotect all speech, does not
protect hate speech, does notprotect incitement.
So my question is let's use theSocratic method.
(22:43):
What happens if there is aMexican-American male in the
classroom?
When she said you know,mexican-american men are known
to offend, they are, you know,they have higher rates of
assaulting.
She's assaulting people orassaulting women, did she say?
Karen McFarlane (23:03):
Keep going, I'll tell you.
Brittany S. Hale (23:05):
Yeah.
So my question is is she saidthat with a lot of things that
she's done so.
Sad, but what if anotherstudent taking assaulting women,
say, another student, woman orman right now refuses to engage
(23:25):
with that student for fear oftheir own physical safety?
Or they attack thisMexican-American student because
they believe that he is proneto violence?
Right, that statement that shemade in a position of authority
is incitement.
That is not protected speech.
Karen McFarlane (23:49):
I agree with you.
Brittany S. Hale (23:50):
I just I don't .
And I'm glad they conducted theinvestigation, I'm glad that it
seems that they were thorough.
And then my the fact that sherefused to participate to your
point.
What's the problem?
Do you not want to be heldaccountable for the statements
that you're making?
Is that the problem, do you?
Karen McFarlane (24:12):
not want to take responsibility.
You should be.
You're part of the group thatyou are elevating.
And so you should stand proudwith that group and defend or
maybe you don't feel like youneed to defend, but you're in
this inquiry defend your beliefs, but instead you chose not to
participate, for whatever reason.
Brittany S. Hale (24:33):
Or to add context, she said well, listen,
there was this study conductedby the US Justice Department,
and what came out of that studyis X versus personal animus.
Karen McFarlane (24:49):
This reminds me .
It's not law school, it wasactually, um, in middle school.
Um, it wasn't my son, but itwas, uh, a student it was like.
And she was in a class and theteacher was talking about some
(25:15):
literature and decided to usethe N word because it was
illustrative of the work thatthey were talking about, and she
chose to use that word over andover again in the classroom.
In that classroom was just oneBlack student, female student,
(25:40):
and this was her choice.
Okay, this was her choice to doso.
It was very upsetting for thatstudent and she left the
classroom distraught that herteacher would use this word,
regardless of the literature,right, and again, use it over
(26:01):
and over and over again, right,and other students actually came
to her and asked her if she wasOK, which actually validated
how she was feeling and that shewas not alone, even though
those students were not, werewhite students actually, they
knew it was wrong.
They knew it was wrong.
She told her mom the reason why,I know, is her mom called me
(26:23):
for advice or whatever and I waslike you need to share that
experience that that wasn't theright move to make because, for
whatever reason, she made thischoice.
Ultimately, it came out that shedidn't think anything was wrong
with it because it was in theliterature, right, and although,
(26:46):
and when pointed, when it waspointed out that there's other
ways, right, same point, correct.
Well, you know, creating thisanimus between you and the
student and other students andmaking her feel uncomfortable,
she actually doubled down on heroriginal rationale and then
(27:09):
eventually, I think she had tomake a switch and apologize to
some degree, but I don't think Idon't.
I don't know that.
I'm going to be honest with you.
I don't know if she meant thatapology or not, or whatever the
case may be, but there's asensitivity that you do need to
have.
I mean, I also recall and thisis not as deep as that, but you
(27:30):
know, I went to school a long,long time ago, right, and
history class was particularlydifficult for me because I was
always maybe one Black person inthe room or whatever.
And talking about slavery andthings of that nature in such a
cavalier, nonchalant way,without regard for how I might
(27:55):
feel about that, right, was thenorm back then.
But as we move towards, youknow, modern days, then that
starts to change.
I also remember with my own son.
He was in fourth grade and theywere doing a project on the
underground railroad and hewasn't really participating.
I came to find out in the waythat the teacher wanted, and he
(28:21):
told me he was working on anassignment, and he told me that
he wasn't comfortable asking herany questions because when he
did, she shut him down.
And so I actually wrote her avery detailed note and said to
her hey, I mean it's very long,but basically was like hey, I
(28:42):
understand that you're notengaging him in the way he needs
to be engaged, understand thatyou're not engaging him in the
way he needs to be engaged.
Keep in mind that you'retalking about a very difficult
time in our history that isparticularly sensitive to a
Black person, and the contentthat you are covering right now
(29:03):
basically says that when boysturn 10, they are put in the
fields, and my son is 10.
So I don't know how you'reteaching this class, but I need
you to emphasize the bravery andthe resilience that comes with
(29:23):
our history.
And I kind of went into a lotCorrect that comes with our
history.
And I kind of went into a lotCorrect, and she came back and
she said I never thought of itthat way, which was interesting
and fascinating, right, like shenever thought about flipping
the narrative Correct At all, itwas just one of victimization
and hostility and of course allthose things were there.
(29:46):
But then how does we never shenever wanted to talk about or
never thought about talkingabout sorry, you know how they,
how our people, transgressed allof that?
And so I'm just giving thesepersonal examples because I
think it really harkens back tothe sensitivity that educators
(30:06):
need to have when talking aboutsensitive subjects.
It is not saying that youshouldn't talk about sensitive
subjects.
It is just saying that you needto do so with empathy, right,
and understanding of theindividuals that you are talking
about, correct, and create safespaces for discourse and
disagreement, right, but knowingthat no one is being singled
(30:28):
out or attacked in those moments.
Brittany S. Hale (30:31):
And this is why it is so critical for
educational institutions toapportion a part of the budget
to upskilling and teaching theireducators.
In the example you just gave,it seems that that was not her
(30:52):
intent.
The impact was such that shecreated an unsafe environment
for your son.
She didn't intend to do it, butthat's what happened.
Had she had the requisiteinstruction, had she been
(31:13):
challenged herself to re-engagewith the material that she's
probably taught countless times,countless times, and spin it on
its head.
Right, be innovative, be andalso know your audience.
Think about this Using theother E word right, empathy.
(31:37):
How would you feel if you wereone of your students hearing
this?
Are there other stories thathave been told?
And for listeners who arethinking, oh well, well, that's
just how things were back then,you know, my response to that is
we would never have anyprogress if the way things were
being done was just the statusquo.
(31:57):
There have always beenabolitionists.
There have always Challengingwhat was normal.
Right, the disruptors, if youwill.
Right.
Karen McFarlane (32:15):
There's never been accountability for why that
was needed Exactly.
It is still glorified today.
Like you watch any period pieceand I love a period piece,
don't get me wrong, right.
You watch any period piece andI love a period piece, don't get
me wrong, right.
But when you you watch these,these, these movies or these
(32:37):
episodics and they talk aboutyou know, you know the 18th,
16th or 17th century and all theviolence that occurred, it is
glorified in the name ofprogress, right, and that
progress hurt a lot of differentgroups, even before we get into
some of the things that Americais known for, right, that came
(32:57):
from a long line of history ofviolence and ravaging and all of
those things.
And so when you fail toacknowledge why you need all of
these things, why we need tohave these conversations, why it
has been detrimental forcenturies, then it's hard to fix
or understand why anythingneeds to be fixed, right.
Brittany S. Hale (33:23):
And goes back to the question of what does
advancement mean?
What does that look like?
Why are we glorifying,glorifying colonialism over
diplomacy, all right, and notseeing that as an opportunity?
Could we have gone about thisanother way?
Yeah, what is trade?
And we're starting to see thatnow.
(33:44):
Right, we are having to rethinkthe way that we're engaging
with markets.
And that's the.
You know, these pastoralretellings of the good old days,
right, these rolling greenhills and these stately mansions
and all of that.
And no, asked, well, who builtthat?
(34:05):
Who's cutting the lawn?
yeah, you know I can barelyright um and and, additionally,
confronting that with the truth.
Right, these people were not umcash rich.
Right, their assets requiredand relied on the ownership of
(34:29):
other human beings.
Without that, you had verylittle.
Karen McFarlane (34:36):
Thank you.
I was having this debate with afriend of mine actually
yesterday.
We were talking a little bitabout reparations, right, which
is a hot topic, and we were like, okay, let's not talk about, if
it happened, distribution.
That's a whole rabbit hole,sure.
But you know, it was likenailing down the accountability
(34:58):
piece, like America justacknowledging that this publicly
, this happened and that youknow this publicly, this
happened, and that you knowAmerica was built on the backs
of free labor, mostly fromAfrican-Americans, africans, et
cetera, right.
And I was saying to her, canyou?
Because then we kind of wentinto a little bit of the money
(35:23):
part, I was like, can youimagine, and I wish some, I'm
not an economist, but I wish Iwere in this situation.
Brittany S. Hale (35:26):
But here's my idea not an economist, but I
wish I were in this situation.
But here's my idea, right?
If you are listening, drop someresources for us.
Karen McFarlane (35:31):
Drop some resources.
Do this calculation, which is,if you took some of these big
companies, like if you tookGoogle from its inception and
took away all the salaries freelabor right From its inception
where would it be today versuswhere it is?
Well, where would it be versuswhere it is today by paying
(35:52):
salaries, right?
Like if you just looked at someof these companies across the
board, even the ones from wayback then I know a couple of
studies have been done aroundthat how have they benefited and
who has been hurt by that?
Then you'll understand thevalue of free labor.
You can just look in your ownlife and if you get something
for free, you don't have to payfor it.
You have more money in yourpocket.
This is exponentially different.
(36:13):
People get caught up in the howmuch and who's it going to go
to.
But that acknowledgement isreally important that because of
these horrific systems, itallowed certain people to
advance.
Amy Wax, right.
Because you're talking aboutthird world countries having to
(36:35):
advance.
Well, why is that?
You raped and pillaged theseother countries in order to
advance your own and are stilldoing so.
You know and refuse to giveback.
And I think about fast fashion,right.
Brittany S. Hale (36:53):
We see fast fashion companies now where you
can buy I don't know a coat.
It's fall now right For 20bucks and you say this is a
great deal.
And you don't see the invisiblelabor that's exploited.
You don't see the environmentalcosts that come with fast
(37:16):
fashion, right?
You don't see the beaches whereit, you know, comes up and
compromises people's access tothings like clean water and all
of these things.
And so it's not that difficultto understand because we live
with it every day.
I think the key coming out ofthis is re-examining power,
(37:45):
re-amining what we would, justwhat we have been taught.
You know the spaces in whichwe're taught and the
responsibility of thoseinstitutions that they have to
us, to students, to the parentswho are paying for it For a
(38:10):
ridiculous amount of money.
Correct, you're not paying foryour child to be harassed.
Karen McFarlane (38:16):
Exactly, exactly.
I mean that point right thereis just insane.
You know the thousands uponthousands of dollars in tuition
that each child is paying tosome degree, right Like, and you
go into a hostile environment.
No, you know, and that's whyyou also see this trend of
(38:39):
students, or you know youngpeople rejecting college for a
lot of different reasons, butthis doesn't help the whole
entire situation.
I mean, it's University of Penn, for example, so it has a
longstanding reputation andbrand, and so you know, more
than likely we'll power through.
But these smaller institutionsneed to be very wary of who's on
staff and what their responseis and how they're going to
(39:04):
approach academic freedom forprofessors and students right.
It's a huge responsibility toeducate the next generation and
you have to be really careful,particularly in this environment
, because more than aninvestigation will happen.
Somebody will understand theirtrue power and exercise it, and
(39:27):
it just takes one right whenthey realize what they can do.
It's true, so they're on notice.
Brittany S. Hale (39:36):
And we will be watching.
Karen McFarlane (39:38):
We will definitely be watching.
So kudos to University of Pennfor taking action.
We may not like the end resultbecause she will be back,
probably teaching again, buthopefully she's on notice for
what she can and cannot do andstudents understand that they
can raise up and raise acomplaint and something will
(40:01):
happen eventually, eventually,because it's so beautiful, it
was great to also have yourperspective today as a former
law school student.
Brittany S. Hale (40:15):
I know I was like, oh, let me just open up
these boxes that I'vecompartmentalized in my brain
and bring it back.
I'm glad it came back.
And I just want to reiteratelike you said, as a very special
person that can go to lawschool, and so you're too kind.
Karen McFarlane (40:33):
You're too kind .
All right, brittany, we'll waitfor the next.
We'll talk again.
Yes, all right.
Why is it taking so long tostop?
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.