Are they different than LGBs? It does seem like a different situation, in that there is no “treatment” required for LGBs. And the treatment seems to be extreme, and in the long run, perhaps not helpful, or it makes things worse.
And no, it’s not “bigoted” or “phobic” to ask the question.
[Thursday-morning update]
[Bumped]
There are no innocent depictions of Muhammad. The concept itself is out of bounds. That is fine for Muslims. But non-Muslims are under no obligation to acquiesce. McDonald is right that one ought not needlessly belittle or be wantonly cruel. But this notion of fair play, when coupled with knowledge of the consequences should one violate it, easily becomes a justification for an exaggerated cautiousness and wariness. It metamorphoses into a conviction that it is better to be safe than sorry, that even if offense isn’t intended one must refrain from saying something lest offense be taken, and those offended react badly.
That is, they may try to kill you because the very act of speaking on the subject is insulting. Not the content or substance of the speech, nor its tenor, but the existence of the words themselves. “[N]obody worries about upsetting a droid.” And quite rightly. But what about all the Wookiees out there?
The dread that “Here be Wookiees” underpins the Argument from Provocation. It is palpable in three of the most egregious responses to the attack on the Geller event, all of which essentially hold her responsible for the assassins’ failed gambit to kill her.
It’s long, but worth the read.
The worst thing about this piece is this:
Americans are fat because we eat large portions, and because we eat foods that are high in sugar and fat. Americans are fat because we eat large portions, and because we eat foods that are high in sugar and fat. Perhaps it’s time for the surgeon general to put scary warning labels on sugary and fatty foods.
That is a profoundly ignorant statement, nutrition wise. People don’t get fat from eating fat
The current student-teacher dynamic has been shaped by a large confluence of factors, and perhaps the most important of these is the manner in which cultural studies and social justice writers have comported themselves in popular media. I have a great deal of respect for both of these fields, but their manifestations online, their desire to democratize complex fields of study by making them as digestible as a TGIF sitcom, has led to adoption of a totalizing, simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice. The simplicity and absolutism of this conception has combined with the precarity of academic jobs to create higher ed’s current climate of fear, a heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity in which safety and comfort have become the ends and the means of the college experience.
Does anyone really imagine that such an environment is conducive to actual education?
[Update a few minutes later]
Campus justice: punished until proven innocent:
But I’ll let Leiter argue with Weinberg about the case itself, because I want to take issue with this passage: “As I noted earlier, the Title IX investigation yielded no finding of retaliation against Kipnis. One can only imagine how disappointed she will be with this. It turns out that the process she had been demonizing—which of course may have its flaws—pretty much worked, from her point of view.”
I think this is deeply wrong, and for all that, it is not an uncommon sentiment. You often hear this sort of argument when people complain about the byzantine procedures that colleges use to adjudicate charges of a racial or sexual nature, or when they argue that we should always presumptively believe any rape accusation: “Well, if they didn’t do that, the system will figure it out eventually, so what’s the big deal?”
This ignores the fact that the process itself can become the punishment. Sexual assault, racial harassment and similar crimes are serious charges, that should be treated seriously. This makes being charged with such an offense a very big deal for the accused. The judicial process is time consuming, often confusing, and scary. The accused may need to pay for legal advice, even though they often aren’t allowed to take counsel into the system with them. Then there’s the worry of knowing that however crazy the charge sounds to you, the campus judicial process may have very different ideas.
It’s becoming Kafkaesqe.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Another campus-rape case falls apart. At this point, it’s appropriate to ask if there are any of these high-profile cases that aren’t false accusations and fraud.
Is the solution massive civil disobedience?
I think it will come to that in California, for sure. The new water rules are asinine and intrusive.
Coming to California soon?
…was sauce for Laura Kipnis’s gander:
It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Kipnis, though. One wonders where she’s been for the past two decades when kangaroo courts were set up at institutions of higher education all over the country.
Has she been rushing to defend all the men convicted by campus courts of sexual assault with no lawyers present?
Kipnis learned (much to her surprise) that, as she wrote, “any Title IX charge that’s filed has to be investigated, which effectively empowers anyone on campus to individually decide, and expand, what Title IX covers. Anyone with a grudge, a political agenda, or a desire for attention can quite easily leverage the system.”
No kidding. And Title IX is only the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with a political agenda and an ax to grind can get professors reprimanded, students kicked off campus and commencement speakers disinvited.
Did self-described feminist Kipnis rush to the defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Condoleezza Rice when they were told they couldn’t come to Brandeis and Rutgers? (In an essay for Slate, Kipnis referred to Condi as President George W. Bush’s “Stepford Wife.”)
Has she been defending Christina Hoff Sommers when the students at Georgetown and Oberlin tried to prevent her from giving a visiting lecture and then demanding “safe spaces” to be protected from her harsh words?
Somehow, one suspects not.
[Update a few minutes later]
“I pity the fool, for not opening her eyes and seeing what little fascist enclaves universities have become thanks to progressive intolerance and lack of ideological ‘diversity.’ Other than that, as a court of equity would say, Kipnis has “dirty hands,” and her involvement in the progressive cabal diminishes her entitlement to relief.”
…from my neighbor, Kurt Schlichter:
Remember my exceedingly hot wife? You should, because your romantic relationship should be the cornerstone of your life and you want to get it right. Now, in a world of creepy feminists and whiny femboys, you need to understand that biology still trumps stupid social fads. Women want men. Not girly men. Not boys. Not manchildren. Men.
This is true of liberal women too, whether they admit it or not, but you don’t want one of them – well, at least for more than a few hours. Which reminds me – have an alias and use it.
The point is to avoid liberal women. If you see a chick hauling around a mattress, keep moving no matter how open to experimentation you hear she is. Do not become the lead in some daddy issue-plagued hysteric’s personal psychodrama.
You want a conservative woman. Ignore the liberal deniers – science proves that right wing women are hotter and sexier. Hey, conservatives don’t tend to have large families because they’re prudes. With liberal girls, a romantic interlude means a lot of sobbing about patriarchy, plus the vibe gets spoiled when you have to constantly stop to notarize affirmative consent forms.
There’s a lot of pressure on you young men to be passive and, frankly, wussy. Reject it. Call the girl. Don’t freaking text – texting is for the weak. Call her, like a man, and tell her what you want: “Hey, I want to take you out to [Quality Place] Friday. I want to pick you up at 7. You in?”
It’s about life in general, though, not just love life.
…is rarer than red:
On Thursday, Virginia Governor and Democratic candidate for president Terry McAuliffe issued a Task Force report on campus sexual assault organized by the state’s Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring. This 107-page report was perhaps most notable for what it did not include. It did not once mention the phrase “false accusations.” It appears being framed does not concern Virginia policymakers. Perhaps for that reason, this report, which discussed how Virginia colleges need to respond to sexual assault allegations didn’t mention the highest-profile rape allegation on a Virginia campus in recent years. Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, or the false accuser “Jackie” were, it seems, not relevant to a discussion about campus rape claims in Virginia.
If you wanted to destroy academia, it would be harder to come up with better plans than these people have.
[Update a while later]
“We literally can’t afford to let the Title IX inquisition continue.”
…are too fragile to read:
My advice to potential faculty hires — or student applicants — at Northwestern: Go somewhere else. As law professor Jonathan Adler notes in The Washington Post, Northwestern threw academic freedom “under the bus.”
The good news is that Kipnis’ experience has generated a national wave of outrage. Even feminist website Jezebel wrote: “As feminist student activists fight to expand their circle of vulnerability in collegiate life, Title IX has gone from a law designed to protect college students from sexual misconduct and discrimination to a means by which professors are put on trial for their tweets.”
In New York magazine, Jonathan Chait observed: “I highly doubt that the inquiry against Kipnis will result in any important formal sanction. … But the slim possibility of actual administrative punishment is not the problem her story reveals. The problem is that a major body of progressive campus thought believes her publication of a dissenting column merits punishment.”
And at Reason,Robby Soave pointed out that bureaucrats whose power comes from an outrageously expansive reading of Title IX have expanded that interpretation to include a claim that “criticizing Title IX violates Title IX.”
Yes, Congress should have very public hearings about this. But they almost certainly won’t.