2 ms·
You are a little disingenuous - no one would be complaining if someone on the law faculty wrote a counter opinion piece. What's happening isn't an expression of
by WillPostForFood 9y ago
You are a little disingenuous - no one would be complaining if someone on the law faculty wrote a counter opinion piece. What's happening isn't an expression of disagreement, which would be fine, but an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV. Her critics made no "moral argument" they simply condemn her.
http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law-faculty http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law-fa...
- anigbrowl 9y agoFirst, I am absolutely sure that someone would complain no matter what the response. Second, the letter which you linked to is very clearly an expression of disagreement. In what way is it 'an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV'? It explicitly acknowledges both her civil rights and the security of her academic tenure, and explicitly rejects her claims rather than demanding she be fired or refrain from public expression of her views. Third, they absolutely make a moral argument: We believe the ideal of equal opportunity to succeed in education is best achieved by a combination of academic freedom, open debate and a commitment by all participants to respect one another without bias or stereotype. To our students, we say the following: If your experience at Penn Law falls substantially short of this ideal, something has gone wrong, and we want to know about it. I still fail to see why people who disagree with someone on a political issue should be required to express their disagreement in a particular form. It looks to me as if these academics consider Wax's arguments so specious as to be unworthy of discussion. Why should they feel obliged to respond in a forum or format of their opponents' choosing?