New at Reason

David Weigel | August 31, 2006

Cathy Young delves into the politics of college reading assignments, proving once and for all that there's nothing politics can't worm its way into.

Comments

|8.31.06 @ 1:56PM|#

If I were drafting a reading list for students, it would contain the most controversial books I could find. It would go from Das Kapital to Mein Kampf, from Hospers to Lenin, the Bible, the Kama Sutra, the Koran, Plato's Republic, Marcuse, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, etc. It would include pornography and Shakespeare and anything else which would shake up a student's mind.

Reading only what you agree with weakens your mind and your understanding of WHY you hold your beliefs.

|8.31.06 @ 2:07PM|#

Boy, the intermittent rewards from the server sure make my posting behavior more persistent...

Buckley claimed that Savage�s recommendation of the book made him �fearful and uneasy about being a gay man on this campus.�
Poor widdle foofy! Poor widdle *special rights* foofy.
Crap like that is why people are getting sick of homos and their supposed "rights."

Was the attack on Savage a simple question of suppressing unpopular speech and trampling on religious liberty,
Obviously it was exactly that.
or was his behavior in some way inappropriate?
Only a liberal could wonder if recomending a book to adults is ever "inappropriate."

As one commenter astutely pointed out, while most people would �agree that we have the right to punish others (at least socially) for racist or anti-Semitic comments,�

So it's "astute" to imagine that one has the right to punish people for expressing their opinions?

the problem is that there is no consensus today on whether �being gay is morally the equivalent of being Jewish.�

The problem is that there's no morality at all to being Jewish or being homosexual or being white or being black or being an illegal alien from outer space.

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to finish the article after reading those very creepy, and very liberal (=silly and narrow-minded du jour) sentiments.

|8.31.06 @ 3:41PM|#

Mr.F.Le.Mur,

Yeah talk about reinforcing the stereotype of the excitable fairy. "He ask me to read this book and it made me uncomfortable." It really is beyond parody.

They are going to get rid of evangelicals and believing Christians by making it illegal to be one. This case is just a continuation of the direction "hate speech" and harassment laws have been going for years. Christianity is pretty explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality. If you make it harassment and illegal to condemn homosexuality you have effectively made being a devout Christian as we know it illegal. Of course Muslims, being a designated victim group will be exempt from these laws and still be free to refer to homosexuals as pigs and conduct theological debates on the proper means of execution of homosexuals.

thoreau|8.31.06 @ 3:43PM|#

I want some more context on what this librarian did. There's a big difference between a gentle "Well, keep in mind that there are a lot of polarizing books out there with other viewpoints as well, take a look at some of these and you'll see my point" and a rude "Hey, look, I can recommend even worse books!" It's all in presentation.

Am I saying that he should be raked over the coals? No. But I am saying that until I know more about how he presented himself, it's hard to say whether it was a polite reminder that polarizing doesn't necessarily mean good, or an attempt to show just how rude he could be.

There is a recent trend of campus conservative activists (not to be confused with students and faculty who happen to be conservatives) deciding to go out of their way to piss people off.

I have the deepest sympathy for the victims of PC run amok. I have little sympathy for people who go out of their way to be jerks. Until I know more, it's hard to say whether this dispatch from the culture wars is an ominous example of campus censorship or a run of the mill example of somebody getting in trouble for deliberately antagonizing his colleagues.

|8.31.06 @ 5:31PM|#

If the description is accurate, and he first asked for moderation before launching his own conservative salvo, then this is a most hilarious example of liberal panties getting all twisted.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

|8.31.06 @ 6:11PM|#

Aresen: well said

the Bible is also very explicit on not judging others, John.

that never seems to stop all those "good" Christians, though.

I didn't have much sympathy for the complaints of the homosexuals in the article until I read F. LeMur's post.

um, one DOES have the right to socially punish people for expressing their opinions, if you disagree. you can ostracize them. you can disassociate from them.

"The problem is that there's no morality at all to being Jewish or being homosexual or being white or being black or being an illegal alien from outer space."

and gay people believe that there's no morality at all to being gay. that's the reason for that comparison. others diagree. some also think all Jews are evil.

|8.31.06 @ 6:20PM|#

Yeah talk about reinforcing the stereotype of the excitable fairy.
Heh - I hadn't thought of that. The homos I've known weren't like that; their psychological problems were more subtle and serious than excitability: drug addiction, repeated arrests for violence, etc., i.e. the well-documented cohorts of homosexuality.
It's funny to check out what the various university health centers say about homosexual's "special health needs" - they have to beat around the bush (so to speak) about it.

Maybe the excitable fairy could get together with the Harvard zebra-fish feminist who got the vapours from hearing Summers talk about sexual differences and form a Club For Victims Who Like to Suppress 'n' Harass Non-Victims.

If you make it harassment and illegal to condemn homosexuality you have effectively made being a devout Christian as we know it illegal.
I'm guessing that those Evil White Men who wrote the Constitution made the 1st Amendment the FIRST amendment for good reasons.

Of course Muslims, being a designated victim group will be exempt from these laws and still be free to refer to homosexuals as pigs and conduct theological debates on the proper means of execution of homosexuals.
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.

...or somebody getting in trouble for deliberately antagonizing his colleagues.

Get real. If someone can get in trouble for recommending books someone else doesn't like, regardless of his motivations, it already IS censorship run amuck.

|8.31.06 @ 6:44PM|#

So, Mr. LeMur, just out of curiosity, which of the following is your favored policy towards the gays:

a)rehabilitation
b)incarceration
c)deportation
e)execution
f)all of the above

|8.31.06 @ 9:28PM|#

as much as it irks me to defend flemur...

First of all, E. Steven, I didn't see him say anything about policy. He mentioned that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental health problems (dings against flemur for not citing sources. Extra bonus points if he can maybe figure out that these problems probably aren't inherent in being gay, but might be an effect of stigmitization).

Secondly, if you're going to write a smart-ass multiple-choice post, you might not want to leave out the "d" next time in your options.

|9.1.06 @ 10:45AM|#

I rarely engage in playing the Tough Guy On The Internets role, however:

I would take great pleasure in giving Mr. F. Le Mur an all-expenses-paid ass-kicking.