By Anon
The University of Pennsylvania has a long history of providing a platform for racist and harmful ideologies. For example, research published at Penn has been involved in experiments done on prisoners and the creation of racial profiling law enforcement algorithms. Clearly the University has no qualms with advancing technology that has a tangible negative impact. However, the harm caused by more abstract discussion is no less poignant. In 2019, Penn Law professor Amy Wax published a paper called “Debating Immigration Restriction: The Case for Low and Slow.” In it she discusses the current stalemate in political discourse regarding immigration. Wax’s argument is based on the central claim that “Reconciling differences on immigration will require first and foremost acknowledging the importance and centrality of national sovereignty as an aspect of global governance with longstanding pedigree and worldwide acceptance” (845). For Wax, national sovereignty and restricting people’s freedom of movement — a relatively new notion in human history — is of principal importance in determining immigration policy; the notion of human rights being centered is ridiculed. She goes on to make arguments about the Anglo-European nature of American culture and that “natives” are unhappy when notions of white privilege and white supremacy are introduced, demonstrating that for Wax, the United States of America is white America. This is unabashed white supremacy.
Wax claims, “Immigration from non-Western countries should thus be kept at a minimum so as not to compromise the dominance of groups that are closer to our cultural heritage and more effective at transmitting it.…After all, if immigrants’ native cultures are equally worthy or even better than ours, and if our European traditions are chiefly destructive and exploitative, one might ask why immigrants ever leave the places where their own cultures hold sway to take up residence in our own” (853, 856). These statements not only demonstrate a total lack of understanding on why immigrants leave their countries of origin, but also clearly demonstrate a notion of cultural and racial hierarchy. “European values are superior” functions as a euphemism for “white people are superior.” Later, on an academic panel, Wax dropped any ambiguities by stating, “our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”
While academic freedom is vital to a democratic society, Penn also has a responsibility to its students, the Philadelphia community and world at large to reject harmful rhetoric and dangerous ideology regardless of it is formulated in terms of accepted academic discourse or the vitriol of self-proclaimed neo-nazis. In fact, the platform of an Ivy League University continues to normalize and give credence to such theories while creating an unsafe learning environment for Penn students.
In 2017, following her unfounded claim that “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of [Penn Law’s] class,” law students of color successfully organized to bar her from teaching mandatory first-year classes. However, she is still a tenured faculty member. Law students have been fighting for her removal for years — one petition garnered over 65,000 signatures — in the course of a broader campaign to transform the law school into an alienating, exclusive environment into an inclusive space that empowers all students to thrive.
Amy Wax is not the exception; in 2019 Penn hired Jonathon Anomaly as the associate director of the Philosophy, Politics and Economics Department. In 2018, Anomoly published a paper titled “Defending Eugenics,” in which he lays out a paternalistic argument for genetic education and contraception, only in the service of transhumanism, rather than femme-liberation. The notion that there are “traits we value” and others we don’t indicates an assumption that there is a “we” at all. That some majority or even a consensus could determine which genetic material should be allowed to continue to the next generation. In theory, the argument is dangerous, but in practice it becomes violent. One must only look at the history of ethnic cleansing, which includes controlling reproduction, that has accompanied race science theorization. While Anomaly makes clear to say that he does not advocate for eugenics based on a racial category or, in most cases, coercion by the state, the notions of racial essentialism, and desirable and undesirable genetic traits are known precursors to fascist violence.
As with the Thomas Homan case (see: Thomas Homan article), Penn defends its relationship with Wax and Anomaly in the name of freedom of thought and the notion of dispassionate academic objectivity, as if academia can separate itself from the realities of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism and colonialism that fuel it. While complex philosophical and political discussion is necessary, there is no need to give such racist ideologies the platform of a university. The notion of a “marketplace of ideas” where good ones will out compete bad ones only works if institutions like Penn are willing to play their part, act according to their stated principles and reject harmful ideas. Sadly, these professors are only the most poignant examples of white supremacy and patriarchy in broader white-washed departments. BIPOC students’ well-being is not prioritized at Penn, as they are forced to engage with variations of Wax and Anomaly on a daily basis.
Penn Disorientation Guide 