Someone on the forums linked the rebuttal to this author in a different thread. Thanks to whoever that was.
The author of this piece makes a case that American values of the 1950s & 1960s led to a more stable and productive country.
She goes on to claim that the undoing starts in the 1960s and is aided by such things as welfare.
Such honest dialogue was met by anger by the left. As you can imagine the author, a college professor, was labeled a racist among other things.
Either we want to have a conversation about ways to improve society or we just want to shout down any view that is contrary to our own.
The author of this piece makes a case that American values of the 1950s & 1960s led to a more stable and productive country.
[FONT="]Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.[/FONT]
She goes on to claim that the undoing starts in the 1960s and is aided by such things as welfare.
[FONT="]The loss of bourgeois habits seriously impeded the progress of disadvantaged groups. That trend also accelerated the destructive consequences of the growing welfare state, which, by taking over financial support of families, reduced the need for two parents. A strong pro-marriage norm might have blunted this effect. Instead, the number of single parents grew astronomically, producing children more prone to academic failure, addiction, idleness, crime, and poverty.[/FONT]
Such honest dialogue was met by anger by the left. As you can imagine the author, a college professor, was labeled a racist among other things.
Nearly half the professors at the University of Pennsylvania law school have published an open letter condemning their colleague Amy Wax for her by now (in)famous op-ed on bourgeois values.
Do the authors rebut these arguments? Do they offer counterevidence? No. Apparently the thesis of Wax’s op-ed is so patently beyond the pale that it is enough for the signatories to assert: “We categorically reject Wax’s claims.” In the absence of any attempt at refutation, that is simply a case of virtue signaling.
Either we want to have a conversation about ways to improve society or we just want to shout down any view that is contrary to our own.