回复 1楼horseinsky的帖子 According to an article published by Inside Higher Ed on July 19, 2022, the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (Penn Law) has started a process that could lead to Amy Wax’s termination. Amy Wax is the polarizing law professor who courted scandal with incendiary and racist remarks and writings about Black, Asian, Latino, Jewish, and gay people and seemed to relish the resulting controversies. Despite the repeated calls for her removal from her tenured position, and the criticisms of her actions—including by university leaders—that followed each controversy, Wax remained in the position and seemed firmly protected by free speech and academic freedom rights. On June 23, 2022, Theodore W. Ruger, Dean of Penn Law, wrote a 12-page letter to Vivian L. Gadsden, Chair, Faculty Senate, and requested the convening of a Hearing Board to review whether Professor Amy Wax’s conduct constitutes a major infraction of University Standards under the Faculty Handbook. Faculty Handbook Section II.E.16, Procedure Governing Sanctions Taken Against Members of the Faculty. According to the letter, Dean Ruger is initiating this disciplinary action because "for several years and in multiple instances Wax has shown a callous and flagrant disregard for our University community—including students, faculty, and staff—who have been repeatedly subjected to Wax’s intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic actions and statements. Wax’s conduct inflicts harm on them and the institution and undermines the University’s core values. Wax has made these statements in the classroom and on campus, in other academic settings, and in public forums in which she was identified as a University of Pennsylvania professor. Her statements are antithetical to the University’s mission to foster a diverse and inclusive community and have led students and faculty to reasonably believe they will be subjected to discriminatory animus if they come into contact with her. That eminently reasonable concern has led students to conclude that they cannot take Wax’s classes and faculty to call her presence demoralizing and disruptive. Moreover, in public discussions about Law students’ academic performance, Wax has disseminated false information about segments of the University community. She has exploited access to students’ confidential grade information and mischaracterized Law School policies in ostensible support of derogatory and inaccurate statements made about the characteristics, attitudes, and abilities of her students. As a result of Wax’s derogatory and misleading statements, students who have taken her classes have expressed anxiety that they will be accused of being at the bottom of their class since the number of minority students in her classes is finite and easily identifiable. Her conduct threatens to cause a chilling effect on students who have chosen to forego enrollment in her classes due to a concern they will be treated more harshly and unfairly relative to their white peers. In addition, her conduct is antithetical to the University’s core mission to attract a diverse student body to an inclusive educational environment. Finally, Wax’s decision in 2021 to invite a renowned white supremacist, Jared Taylor, to be the featured guest speaker in a regular meeting of her Law School course, and to have Taylor as her guest at a lunch with her students who were expected to attend, crosses the line of what is acceptable in a University environment where principles of non-discrimination apply. Although faculty members have broad discretion in their teaching and academic pursuits, Taylor’s explicit racism, hate-speech, and white supremacy contravenes the University’s express policies and mission, and his white supremacist ideology has been associated closely with those perpetrating violence towards minorities in this country and others. In both promoting this ideology herself, bestowing an honorific guest lecturer role on Taylor, and importing his views into our curriculum, Wax has caused profound harm to our students and faculty, and her escalating pattern of behavior raises risks of increased harm and escalating damage going forward." In January 2022, she wrote, “I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Her dean responded by calling Wax’s remarks “anti-intellectual” and “racist,” asserting that her “xenophobic and white supremacist views … are diametrically opposed to the policies and ethos of this institution.” A major sanction, according to Penn’s Faculty Handbook, can be “termination; suspension; reduction in academic base salary; [or] zero salary increases stipulated in advance for a period of four or more years.”
她的言论不只是反亚裔，歧视黑人，歧视hispanics, 歧视女人（自己还是个女的），歧视同性恋，歧视跨族婚姻，推崇犹太人 学校保护的是学术言论自由，她这么明目张胆的种族性别歧视仇恨言论根本不应该在保护范围之内。Upenn还没有开除她（现在只是调查）说明学校内部有不少和她思想一致但隐藏不发声的。要在Berkley, 早就被踢出去了。 She told a Black student, “who asked whether Wax agreed with panelist John Derbyshire’s statements that Black people are inherently inferior to white people, that ‘you can have two plants that grow under the same conditions, and one will just grow higher than the other.’” She told another Black student “that she had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action.’” Wax told a student that Black students don’t perform as well as white students because they are less well prepared and that they are less well prepared because of affirmative action. She said in a class “that Mexican men are more likely to assault women and remarking such a stereotype was accurate in the same way as ‘Germans are punctual.’” She said in a class that “gay couples are not fit to raise children.” She said “after a series of students with foreign-sounding names introduced themselves that one student was ‘finally, an American’ adding, ‘it’s a good thing, trust me.’” Under “faculty must evaluate each student’s true merit,” Ruger listed the following: “Stating, based on misleading citation of other sources, that ‘women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men,’ women are ‘less intellectual than men’ and there is ‘some evidence’ for the proposition that ‘men and women differ in cognitive ability.’” Stating that Black people have “different average IQs” than non-Black people, could “not be evenly distributed through all occupations,” and that such a phenomenon would not be “due to racism.” Stating “some of them shouldn’t” go to college in reference to Black students who attend Penn Law and its peer law schools. Stating that Asians have an “indifference to liberty,” lack “thoughtful and audacious individualism” and that “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Stating that immigrants with “Brown faces, Asian faces … feel anger, envy, and shame,” and expressing her disbelief that they would criticize the United States when “on some level, their country is a shithole.” Stating that “there were some very smart Jews” among her past students but that Ashkenazi Jews are “diluting [their] brand like crazy because [they are] intermarrying.” And here are the examples he gave of Wax violating the principle that “faculty must show respect for others, including faculty”: She told a Black faculty colleague that it is “rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators.” While serving a panel with a gay faculty member, she said that “no one should have to live in a dorm room with a gay roommate and, separately, that same-sex relationships are self-centered, selfish and not focused on family or community.” She referred to faculty colleagues who have criticized her as “anti–role models” in a talk to law students.
她的言论不只是反亚裔，歧视黑人，歧视hispanics, 歧视女人（自己还是个女的），歧视同性恋，歧视跨族婚姻，推崇犹太人 学校保护的是学术言论自由，她这么明目张胆的种族性别歧视仇恨言论根本不应该在保护范围之内。Upenn还没有开除她（现在只是调查）说明学校内部有不少和她思想一致但隐藏不发声的。要在Berkley, 早就被踢出去了。 She told a Black student, “who asked whether Wax agreed with panelist John Derbyshire’s statements that Black people are inherently inferior to white people, that ‘you can have two plants that grow under the same conditions, and one will just grow higher than the other.’” She told another Black student “that she had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action.’” Wax told a student that Black students don’t perform as well as white students because they are less well prepared and that they are less well prepared because of affirmative action. She said in a class “that Mexican men are more likely to assault women and remarking such a stereotype was accurate in the same way as ‘Germans are punctual.’” She said in a class that “gay couples are not fit to raise children.” She said “after a series of students with foreign-sounding names introduced themselves that one student was ‘finally, an American’ adding, ‘it’s a good thing, trust me.’” Under “faculty must evaluate each student’s true merit,” Ruger listed the following: “Stating, based on misleading citation of other sources, that ‘women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men,’ women are ‘less intellectual than men’ and there is ‘some evidence’ for the proposition that ‘men and women differ in cognitive ability.’” Stating that Black people have “different average IQs” than non-Black people, could “not be evenly distributed through all occupations,” and that such a phenomenon would not be “due to racism.” Stating “some of them shouldn’t” go to college in reference to Black students who attend Penn Law and its peer law schools. Stating that Asians have an “indifference to liberty,” lack “thoughtful and audacious individualism” and that “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Stating that immigrants with “Brown faces, Asian faces … feel anger, envy, and shame,” and expressing her disbelief that they would criticize the United States when “on some level, their country is a shithole.” Stating that “there were some very smart Jews” among her past students but that Ashkenazi Jews are “diluting [their] brand like crazy because [they are] intermarrying.” And here are the examples he gave of Wax violating the principle that “faculty must show respect for others, including faculty”: She told a Black faculty colleague that it is “rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators.” While serving a panel with a gay faculty member, she said that “no one should have to live in a dorm room with a gay roommate and, separately, that same-sex relationships are self-centered, selfish and not focused on family or community.” She referred to faculty colleagues who have criticized her as “anti–role models” in a talk to law students.
她的言论不只是反亚裔，歧视黑人，歧视hispanics, 歧视女人（自己还是个女的），歧视同性恋，歧视跨族婚姻，推崇犹太人 学校保护的是学术言论自由，她这么明目张胆的种族性别歧视仇恨言论根本不应该在保护范围之内。Upenn还没有开除她（现在只是调查）说明学校内部有不少和她思想一致但隐藏不发声的。要在Berkley, 早就被踢出去了。 She told a Black student, “who asked whether Wax agreed with panelist John Derbyshire’s statements that Black people are inherently inferior to white people, that ‘you can have two plants that grow under the same conditions, and one will just grow higher than the other.’” She told another Black student “that she had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action.’” Wax told a student that Black students don’t perform as well as white students because they are less well prepared and that they are less well prepared because of affirmative action. She said in a class “that Mexican men are more likely to assault women and remarking such a stereotype was accurate in the same way as ‘Germans are punctual.’” She said in a class that “gay couples are not fit to raise children.” She said “after a series of students with foreign-sounding names introduced themselves that one student was ‘finally, an American’ adding, ‘it’s a good thing, trust me.’” Under “faculty must evaluate each student’s true merit,” Ruger listed the following: “Stating, based on misleading citation of other sources, that ‘women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men,’ women are ‘less intellectual than men’ and there is ‘some evidence’ for the proposition that ‘men and women differ in cognitive ability.’” Stating that Black people have “different average IQs” than non-Black people, could “not be evenly distributed through all occupations,” and that such a phenomenon would not be “due to racism.” Stating “some of them shouldn’t” go to college in reference to Black students who attend Penn Law and its peer law schools. Stating that Asians have an “indifference to liberty,” lack “thoughtful and audacious individualism” and that “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Stating that immigrants with “Brown faces, Asian faces … feel anger, envy, and shame,” and expressing her disbelief that they would criticize the United States when “on some level, their country is a shithole.” Stating that “there were some very smart Jews” among her past students but that Ashkenazi Jews are “diluting [their] brand like crazy because [they are] intermarrying.” And here are the examples he gave of Wax violating the principle that “faculty must show respect for others, including faculty”: She told a Black faculty colleague that it is “rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators.” While serving a panel with a gay faculty member, she said that “no one should have to live in a dorm room with a gay roommate and, separately, that same-sex relationships are self-centered, selfish and not focused on family or community.” She referred to faculty colleagues who have criticized her as “anti–role models” in a talk to law students.
Stating that “there were some very smart Jews” among her past students but that Ashkenazi Jews are “diluting [their] brand like crazy because [they are] intermarrying.” Wow 这不就是当初纳粹对犹太人那一套理论的翻版么
“Stating that Asians have an “indifference to liberty,” lack “thoughtful and audacious individualism” and that “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” 呵呵，很多人对她这句话的反应不是正好印证了她前半句的正确了么？ 人家都说了“美国要少一些asian”这么过分的话了，结果这么久都还没有“audacious individual”站出来扇她耳光或者当面抗议。最多就是只能网上骂骂而已（包括我在内）。还有很多人成天争论各种国内比美国好还成天要海龟，显然indifference to liberty这个评价也是很精准啊
“Stating that Asians have an “indifference to liberty,” lack “thoughtful and audacious individualism” and that “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” 呵呵，很多人对她这句话的反应不是正好印证了她前半句的正确了么？ 人家都说了“美国要少一些asian”这么过分的话了，结果这么久都还没有“audacious individual”站出来扇她耳光或者当面抗议。最多就是只能网上骂骂而已（包括我在内）。还有很多人成天争论各种国内比美国好还成天要海龟，显然indifference to liberty这个评价也是很精准啊 CornerStone 发表于 2022-07-22 09:49
According to an article published by Inside Higher Ed on July 19, 2022, the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (Penn Law) has started a process that could lead to Amy Wax’s termination. Amy Wax is the polarizing law professor who courted scandal with incendiary and racist remarks and writings about Black, Asian, Latino, Jewish, and gay people and seemed to relish the resulting controversies. Despite the repeated calls for her removal from her tenured position, and the criticisms of her actions—including by university leaders—that followed each controversy, Wax remained in the position and seemed firmly protected by free speech and academic freedom rights.
On June 23, 2022, Theodore W. Ruger, Dean of Penn Law, wrote a 12-page letter to Vivian L. Gadsden, Chair, Faculty Senate, and requested the convening of a Hearing Board to review whether Professor Amy Wax’s conduct constitutes a major infraction of University Standards under the Faculty Handbook. Faculty Handbook Section II.E.16, Procedure Governing Sanctions Taken Against Members of the Faculty.
According to the letter, Dean Ruger is initiating this disciplinary action because "for several years and in multiple instances Wax has shown a callous and flagrant disregard for our University community—including students, faculty, and staff—who have been repeatedly subjected to Wax’s intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic actions and statements. Wax’s conduct inflicts harm on them and the institution and undermines the University’s core values. Wax has made these statements in the classroom and on campus, in other academic settings, and in public forums in which she was identified as a University of Pennsylvania professor. Her statements are antithetical to the University’s mission to foster a diverse and inclusive community and have led students and faculty to reasonably believe they will be subjected to discriminatory animus if they come into contact with her. That eminently reasonable concern has led students to conclude that they cannot take Wax’s classes and faculty to call her presence demoralizing and disruptive.
Moreover, in public discussions about Law students’ academic performance, Wax has disseminated false information about segments of the University community. She has exploited access to students’ confidential grade information and mischaracterized Law School policies in ostensible support of derogatory and inaccurate statements made about the characteristics, attitudes, and abilities of her students. As a result of Wax’s derogatory and misleading statements, students who have taken her classes have expressed anxiety that they will be accused of being at the bottom of their class since the number of minority students in her classes is finite and easily identifiable. Her conduct threatens to cause a chilling effect on students who have chosen to forego enrollment in her classes due to a concern they will be treated more harshly and unfairly relative to their white peers. In addition, her conduct is antithetical to the University’s core mission to attract a diverse student body to an inclusive educational environment.
Finally, Wax’s decision in 2021 to invite a renowned white supremacist, Jared Taylor, to be the featured guest speaker in a regular meeting of her Law School course, and to have Taylor as her guest at a lunch with her students who were expected to attend, crosses the line of what is acceptable in a University environment where principles of non-discrimination apply. Although faculty members have broad discretion in their teaching and academic pursuits, Taylor’s explicit racism, hate-speech, and white supremacy contravenes the University’s express policies and mission, and his white supremacist ideology has been associated closely with those perpetrating violence towards minorities in this country and others. In both promoting this ideology herself, bestowing an honorific guest lecturer role on Taylor, and importing his views into our curriculum, Wax has caused profound harm to our students and faculty, and her escalating pattern of behavior raises risks of increased harm and escalating damage going forward."
In January 2022, she wrote, “I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Her dean responded by calling Wax’s remarks “anti-intellectual” and “racist,” asserting that her “xenophobic and white supremacist views … are diametrically opposed to the policies and ethos of this institution.”
A major sanction, according to Penn’s Faculty Handbook, can be “termination; suspension; reduction in academic base salary; [or] zero salary increases stipulated in advance for a period of four or more years.”
“I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.”
求链接来学习！
有谁知道捐款撤回来留言会保留嘛
学校保护的是学术言论自由，她这么明目张胆的种族性别歧视仇恨言论根本不应该在保护范围之内。Upenn还没有开除她（现在只是调查）说明学校内部有不少和她思想一致但隐藏不发声的。要在Berkley, 早就被踢出去了。
She told a Black student, “who asked whether Wax agreed with panelist John Derbyshire’s statements that Black people are inherently inferior to white people, that ‘you can have two plants that grow under the same conditions, and one will just grow higher than the other.’” She told another Black student “that she had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action.’” Wax told a student that Black students don’t perform as well as white students because they are less well prepared and that they are less well prepared because of affirmative action. She said in a class “that Mexican men are more likely to assault women and remarking such a stereotype was accurate in the same way as ‘Germans are punctual.’” She said in a class that “gay couples are not fit to raise children.” She said “after a series of students with foreign-sounding names introduced themselves that one student was ‘finally, an American’ adding, ‘it’s a good thing, trust me.’” Under “faculty must evaluate each student’s true merit,” Ruger listed the following: “Stating, based on misleading citation of other sources, that ‘women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men,’ women are ‘less intellectual than men’ and there is ‘some evidence’ for the proposition that ‘men and women differ in cognitive ability.’” Stating that Black people have “different average IQs” than non-Black people, could “not be evenly distributed through all occupations,” and that such a phenomenon would not be “due to racism.” Stating “some of them shouldn’t” go to college in reference to Black students who attend Penn Law and its peer law schools. Stating that Asians have an “indifference to liberty,” lack “thoughtful and audacious individualism” and that “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Stating that immigrants with “Brown faces, Asian faces … feel anger, envy, and shame,” and expressing her disbelief that they would criticize the United States when “on some level, their country is a shithole.” Stating that “there were some very smart Jews” among her past students but that Ashkenazi Jews are “diluting [their] brand like crazy because [they are] intermarrying.” And here are the examples he gave of Wax violating the principle that “faculty must show respect for others, including faculty”: She told a Black faculty colleague that it is “rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators.” While serving a panel with a gay faculty member, she said that “no one should have to live in a dorm room with a gay roommate and, separately, that same-sex relationships are self-centered, selfish and not focused on family or community.” She referred to faculty colleagues who have criticized her as “anti–role models” in a talk to law students.
Truth hurts. 人家都快70了，还怕fire？她说的也是明显的事实吧
你觉得她说得对，为什么还不赶快滚？
滚？想得太美了。人家说的是没有亚裔美国会更好，美国亚裔就跟二战前德国的犹太人一样，就差没明说亚裔该去集中营毒气室了。你觉得你有啥特别之处可以成为她开恩豁免的另类？
此人对亚裔的评价是：无视自由，做事循规蹈矩缺乏个性，美国不需要这么多此类性格的移民。
此人对黑人的评价是：黑人靠优先照顾进入藤校，究其原因是不够资格不是歧视。电梯里见到黑人害怕属于正常反应。
女性智商水平- 很多统计数据证实了男性variance 高，傻叉多，极聪明的也多，而女性整体来说趋向平均值，傻叉少，极聪明的也少。
她其它的观点也挺有意思，很多是从统计数据角度来说的，有些带着她自己的偏见和局限性，有些我不同意，可以一笑了之，也可以反驳。人家一辈子都是这么说话的，现在被赶尽杀绝是美国言论自由倒退的表现。以后大家互吹互捧没人敢批评了。
这种明目张胆说什么美国会better off without 某某族裔的言论自由没有了更好。。。很是诧异竟然还会有亚裔给她站位的。。。人家是怎么看你的自己心中不清楚么？或者还真是自信心满满以为自己就会被人另眼相看？
是啊，没事弄个mass shooting杀几十个孩子，杀个老婆孩子的白男最信仰自由，最有个性了和创造力了。
你看看
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2022/01/professor-amy-wax-faculty-review-racist-remarks
涉及种族宗教性别差异的在公开场合说的话具有煽动性也有诱导性，如果不是很准确的真理，都不能随便说。
统计数据有样本偏差， self selection， 内生因素等各种影响，只能参考，不是硬科学 （比如说男女智商的研究）。
言论自由不等于不分场合什么都可以说。希特勒一开始不也是通过公开说犹太人是德国经济问题的元凶，言论自由啊，结果就是挑起德国民众对犹太人的仇恨。
不让说并不会让这些对亚裔有看法的人消失，反而以后听不到别人真正的想法。黑名贵闹完了所有人对黑人感官好了吗？没有，只是不敢说了。犹太教堂至今动不动被人mass shooting, 但也几乎看不到别人当面说滚出美国之类的话。
文化差异，刻板印象，移民占了本地人资源有利益冲突，等等问题，有人提出来就可以对话来解决。我没看到一个亚裔写公开信怼她，只看到满版让她闭嘴，这种不解决问题只解决说话的人的做法我反对。
没有人要解决说话的人---谁说要杀了她？但她说的话与教书育人的教授职位不相符，所以开除她很合适。 按你的逻辑犹太人为什么总被人记恨？是不是天性阴险狡诈爱使坏？自己是不是应该切实反思改进？？？最好滚出美国
如果FOX采访我，让我也上同一个节目，我也会说我们的观点。问题是人根本不给你这机会啊。
你这么知道没人写公开信，网上信息那么多，没有好的渠道，写了很快就沉了。 抗议人多了，学校为啥拖了那么久才开始调查？还提出来就可以对话解决，怎么这么幼稚。
你看不到亚裔在舆论机会上的劣势吗？不知道争取正当权益，倒是这么听老妖婆的话。
那位层主她口含白鸡吧， 认为自己就算不是荣誉白人也算白人他/妈，已经脱离华人群体， 你们这种华人应该滚蛋， 逻辑上没毛病吧 可惜这种人在家里被人边缘化，还只能跑到中文论坛抱团取暖，骂中为乐， 所谓融合，迟早融合到后院土里
为了美国更美好，你自己先离开啊
+1
靠
我去。。。。。这也太赤裸裸了。这样的人居然还留在位置上面这么久？！
是啊，部分人的言语比这个教授更让人大开眼界呢。
这贴里的反思党实在是过于奇葩，值得建立一个研究团队研究下到底是怎么长的…
是嫁了白男被PUA得变态了？
同意！
靠你妈逼
对对对， 对种族主义畜生来说，让谁滚谁就该滚 不圆润一点立即滚，就更加证明劣等种族必须滚
说实话，我很少看到下贱到你这个地步的人，开眼了
支持Fire她
我猜因为这是law professor 要把流程走得滴水不漏 所以花时间 不然学校哪怕terminate 她 将来也要赔钱
她打擦边球，一直走academic freedom的棋，这个是gray area，又是acadmia最爱吹捧的，法考题们最爱捍卫的东西，所以一直还是有人从这个角度支持她。
frankly speaking, 我觉得还是言论自由范畴。如果她的话客观上不正确，她的话就激不起任何波澜，只会给人她是rascist的感觉而敬而远之。只要她在给亚裔打分评奖上是和其他的族裔是一致的，我就觉得没有任何问题。
我同意，不同意保留意见就是了，只要选她课的人她一碗水端平就好。
你猜如果在工作场所说“I think the United States is better off with fewer Black people” 会不会马上被fire？
你看她对学生说的话，怎么可能呢？
给那些支持她的言论的人：觉得她对所有人的极端评价都基于统计，那么她对亚洲人的评价最有危险性，对其他族群都只是comment, 对亚洲人直接多加了一个call for action ，危险性更直接，可能导致对亚洲人带来极端暴力，雇佣歧视等等。
事实上是，即便大部分亚洲人循规蹈矩是真，对美国的贡献是巨大的，社会需要勤勤恳恳工作的螺丝钉。说对美国无用这部分完全不是基于统计，让亚洲人离开美国更不是，纯粹个人偏执。
不评论她的观点部分。 她不敢把call for action 用在黑人身上。所以那些自恨党，看明白了吗。
“农民工很脏，所以应该赶出北上广” “大陆人没素质，所以要限制来香港” “穷人智商不高，所以没必要让他们上学”
前半部分你可以说是观点，后半部分不是，这种类似言论在任何有言论自由的正常社会都不能容忍。
哦，看了下，貌似她也歧视黑人，只不过没有说少了黑人美国会更好这样的话
忒嚣张了，这样的人居然还处于学校高位
看不惯她的人很多 都在慢慢积累她的黑材料。 Dean 的任务是把黑材料整理到一起有理有据搞掉她
不需要这么多亚裔移民，call for action，这是明显的事实？这跟对人嚷嚷Go back to China类似，文化人说得委婉一点而已。 Racist还要大声说出来，以为她掌握了真理和正义，被fire很好。
是啊，Racist应该滚出地球，去一个只有ta那个族裔肤色的纯种星球。
你自己看不到，就说没有。同时上升到同意她的言论。也是挺’个性‘的嘛。你不会随便搜一下？ https://www.ocanational.org/press-releases/asian-american-groups-say-university-of-pennsylvanias-failure-to-fire-racist-law-professor-amy-wax-is-simply-unacceptable https://nextshark.com/amy-wax-held-accountable/
有些人自己就是缩头乌龟，所以老妖婆一说，当然认同，所以马上就认下来了呗。