Republican Lawmaker Threatens University of Wisconsin for Teaching About Gay Sex

'Offensive material'

|

Gay couple
Aronbrand / Dreamstime

Here's a rather predictable story of government-induced campus censorship: A Wisconsin state senator issued a veiled funding threat against the University of Wisconsin because a sociology instructor included an essay about gay sex in the course materials.

"Since students at UW-Madison are required to read this offensive material it is only appropriate that as leaders of the system you also read this offensive essay and respond with your thoughts on its educational value," said state Sen. Steve Nass, a Republican and vice chairman of the senate's higher education committee, in a recent statement to university regents. "Does it represent the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea? Is this what the people of Wisconsin should expect when paying taxes and tuition to support the UW System?"

The object of Nass's wrath is an article assigned by Jason Nolen, a lecturer in the sociology department. The article apparently discusses racial discrimination in gay hookups. It isn't identified in the Associated Press story about the controversy, but a reliable source—the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Adam Steinbaugh—tells me he thinks he found it here.

It seems entirely appropriate for students to read that article for Nolen's class, which is titled "Problems of American Racial and Ethnic Minorities." Students aren't babies. They can handle sexual content.

Nass, however, implied that he might block funding to the university because of the article. His threats violate the university's academic autonomy, damage the culture of free inquiry and expression so essential to a healthy campus, and suggest an anti-gay bias (which, I mean, come on: it's 2016, we even have a gay Hikaru Sulu now!).

Unsurprisingly, FIRE is not happy about Nass's threats. Nor should they be.

"This kind of accusatory meddling from an elected official–with ominous threats against the university's budget thrown in–cuts to the core of academic freedom, for which the University of Wisconsin is a national model," Peter Bonilla, director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, told Reason. "The academic enterprise becomes unsustainable when legislators act in the belief that their categorical declarations of what is "offensive" trump the judgment and expertise of university faculty."

Advertisement

NEXT: The Rise of Algocracy - Algorithmic Government: New at Reason

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How will closeted republicans learn about gay sex if they’re not taught?

    1. It’s hard to keep up with the new rules…”gay-bashing” is bad unless you’re calling a Republican a closeted gay person, in which case it’s just “exposing hypocrisy”?

      1. At U. of Wisconsin, it’s gay-badgering.

        1. That was awesome. And totally gay

      2. He didn’t say there’s anything wrong with being gay. The implication is that the gay R’s are hypocrites and pussies for remaining closeted.

        1. You have to wonder why someone so obsessed with gay sex and gay culture would worry about that meaning that he was gay himself.

          1. What does that mean, tentacle fetishist?

            1. You are a fag. Duh.

              1. I really don’t swing that way, but I would have no need to fear coming out if I *did* have same-sex attraction.

                At least, I’d have nothing to fear on the right of the sociopolitical spectrum.

                On the left, any same-sex attracted person who is conservative or says that acting on his or her impulses would be wrong, is a social pest to be eradicated.

                1. Have a lot of experience with gay people and their political discussions?

        2. The implication is that the gay R’s are hypocrites and pussies

          Word choice, dude.

      3. I’m merely saying the good senator should come out and embrace his true self.

        1. Really?

          When a conservative is caught being a hypocrite, his/her hypocrisy generally hurts himself and/or his family – adultery, soliciting sex in bathroom stalls, gambling, drugs, abortion…

          When a prog is caught being a hypocrite, he’s usually benefitting…the hypocrisy often involves making a profit or helping his family in unapproved ways (sending the kids to private school, for example).

          1. Almost as if the things “progs” are accused of aren’t actually bad.

            1. But its hypocritical because the progs are trying to stop other people from doing things that aren’t bad.

              Which, it seems to me, is worse.

              1. What I meant was progressives don’t actually argue against making money or sending kids to private schools.

                1. Oh yes they do. They don’t argue about if their kids should be allowed to, just everyone else’s. With that crowd it is always about making sure that the privilidges they want for themselves are not available to the hoi pilot.

                2. Yes they do. the funniest thing about progs is that half of them have no idea they are Marxists. The other half are psychotic Marxists.

                  1. It would make things easier on you if that were true, huh?

                    1. That’s it?

                    2. Tony,
                      Offer me a counter to my argument about Marxist leftists please.

                    3. Most progressives are not Marxists. There you go.

                3. What I meant was progressives don’t actually argue against making money or sending kids to private schools.

                  Yes they fucking do. All. The. Damn. Time.

                  Could you be a worse liar?

                  1. Okay, don’t mean to be annoying, but citation needed.

                    If you find a progressive who argues that people shouldn’t be allowed to make money or send kids to private schools, I’ll be happy to disagree.

                    1. OK Tony. Citation:
                      The prog in chief does not want gun makers or the energy industry to make money. His dipshit wife does not want cheezit to make money. The mayor of new york does not want coke or pepsi to make money, etc…
                      Thanks for proving my point that progs don’t know they are Marxists. You are a marxists and you don’t know it. I’m sure of it.

                      I have never met a willful, useful idiot before. Nice to meet you.

                    2. So if someone is against dumping toxic waste, that means the person doesn’t want the business producing the toxic waste to exist and is therefore a Marxist? Do you think perhaps your definition of Marxist is a bit broad?

      4. Don’t be a dick. That’s the new rule. And the old rule.

  2. “Since the firm-buttocked students at UW-Madison are dommed into reading this deliciously offensive material it is only appropriate that as the strapping leaders of the system you also read this luscious, florid, turgid essay and respond with your late-night naughty-thoughts on its educational, of excuse me, value,” said the rugged and shirtless state Sen. Steve Nass, who goes by Manhole37 on Grindr.

    1. because manholes are 37″ across, it’s a Dept. of Public Works reference, sheesh.

    2. dommed

      Get the gimp!

    3. Oh, my! [fans self]

  3. I couldn’t bear to read the whole thing, but it seems kind of light on intellectual content.

    Even if you’re totally into banging random dudes you meet over the Internet, I don’t see the *academic* value of this article.

    1. Don’t attend UW-M, then.

      1. Nor do I see the academic value of the feds subsidizing it, dorkus.

        1. You should bring it up at your next Dept of Education board meeting.

            1. Two straight guys on a moped. That’s how gay.

              1. It’s not technically spooning if you’re on a motorbike. Or so I’ve been told.

                1. I honest think that two guys having sex is less gay than those same two guys on a moped together.

        2. So what? It’s one reading assignment for one course. Should professors have to run their syllabus by a federal committee for every course to make sure every reading assignment has officially approved academic value? I doubt the federal subsidies are higher because of this reading assignment.

    2. Nor the class, really.

  4. I have no problem with the gay sex part. I have a problem with everything else about the whole “raist hookup” theory going around amongst gays. Not being physically attracted to black people is not racist. I’m not attracted to women. Does that make me sexist? People have preferences. The worst part is, if you are attracted to black people more than others, you are only doing so because of racism and you think they’re exotic and objectify them. If you aren’t attracted to black people you are the KKK. Of course this would be part of the reading curriculum. Grindr has plenty of people saying “no whites” and “no Asians” as well as “No blacks”. They also now call gay people homophobic for wanting “no femmes”. If I wanted to date a skinny effeminate bitch, I would just date a woman.
    Also, the not wanting to hook up with strangers could have to do with the fact that in some cities up to half of the black gay population is HIV poz. Of course, there’s a Poz section of Grindr as well. I’ve seen some people recently saying it’s bad to not want to hook up with somebody with HIV, though.

    1. VERY good post (and points), cbk.

    2. So that’s what you call color-blind!

    3. I like black women. Also, asian and white. Indian girls are hot, and so are latinas. I’m totally racist, and sexist.

      1. There’s an Indian woman in my office that is pretty hot. She sits nearby too so some days can be difficult.

        1. You should try to curry her favor.

          1. If I was a little younger and we weren’t both married and I was in her league and I didn’t really like my job, then maybe.

          2. *sankaree nigaahen*

    4. It is racial discrimination though.

      I suppose the question is whether people are somehow socially conditioned to be less attracted to people of certain races. But honestly, who the fuck cares? Who you are attracted to is about as personal and nobody else’s business as you can get.

    5. Discrimination in hooking up is a worthy thing to study, but nobody’s gonna force you to have sex with someone you don’t want to. That would be rape.

      1. Give it time. The ridiculousness meter in this country is still on phase 2

      2. Discrimination in hooking up business is a worthy thing to study, but nobody’s gonna force you to have sex with bake a cake for someone you don’t want to. That would be rape.

  5. Is this what the people of Wisconsin should expect when paying taxes and tuition to support the UW System?

    Um…

    So much wrong with that question I don’t know where to start.

    1. Why? That’s the whole problem with taking money from peaceful and productive people and tossing it willy-nilly where ever. It’s the underlying issue of collectivism. People are bashing Nass because of his beliefs. Privatize the whole process, no tax dollars, no gatekeepers of what it allowed or not allowed.

      SOMEONE has to decide what the stolen money should be used for, SOMEBODY’S value system has to be in play. It’s the whole problem with taking from one person and giving to another – the whole function of value systems are truncated on one side and subsidized on the other.

      Personally, I don’t care about the particular article or what is trying to be taught, but I don’t want to be FORCED into having to even think about it. It’s hard to be properly disinterested in what others do when 1/3rd of my labor (that portion of taxes stolen from me beyond reasonable co-operative services) is taken. It’s not somehow “laundered” – somebody else’s value is in control of the value I have produced.

    2. +many FdA.

      His threats violate the university’s academic autonomy. If you simply quit taking other people’s money- you can be as autonmous as you please…

  6. The article apparently discusses racial discrimination in gay hookups.

    The should cut funding because of the race obsession.

  7. The class is apparently called “Problems of American Racial and Ethnic Minorities.”

    Apparently, one of these problems is that white people who seek sexual hookups online sometimes don’t want to hook up with black people.

    All the other problems of racial and ethnic minorities have been solved, then?

    1. yes. next question.

    2. Some sexual preferences are more equal than others.

    3. Was the gay sex article the only reading assignment for the course? If not, you really have no point.

  8. I’d be interested in learning how this guy found out about this article …

    1. He only got directions there so he would know how to get away from there.

      1. +1 Public park

    2. I’m in the class and I have no idea. There are only about 20 students and I can’t think of one who would have given it to him. A Fall 2015 copy of the syllabus is on the sociology department’s website (and it includes the reading mentioned in this article), but it appears as if Nass found out about the article through the summer class.

  9. The Wisconsin Idea would be just an okay name for a band.

    1. An EP title at best.

      1. Sounds like the title for a Die Kreuzen/Tar Babies split ep. Only 2500 were printed, and they were sold on the Summer tour 1985.

        1. Did you get one of the red vinyl ones?

          1. No. Black vinyl. And no sticker either. 🙁

            1. Dude.

          2. Rumor has it there’s a glow-in-the-dark one.

  10. I’d repair his jeans.

  11. I wonder if Robby has ever heard the phrase, “No taxation without representation”.

    It isn’t really that horrifying to think that taxpayers might get a say in how their money is spent by way of elected representatives.

    If someone’s arguing–in the name of libertarianism–that elected representatives shouldn’t interfere with the way bureaucrats run things, well, yeah, I guess that’s pretty horrifying to me, personally, anyway.

    P.S. It’s hard to explain to libertarians coming from stage right that gay sex doesn’t trump every other consideration for cosmolibertarians, Robby, if you write articles that seem to suggest that keeping gay sex free from criticism is more important than fundamental concepts like democracy and “no taxation without representation”.

    Are there any other tax payer funded issues our representatives shouldn’t weigh in on, or is teaching gay sex the only one?

    1. I don’t think the state legislature should be getting involved with individual classes or course materials of an individual class. Perhaps we shouldn’t have state funded universities at all, but we do, and I rather have those universities free from the whims of the legislature.

      1. “Perhaps we shouldn’t have state funded universities at all, but we do, and I rather have those universities free from the whims of the legislature.”

        Okay, so taxation without representation is . . . ideal for you?

        That’s great.

        Still, for most Americans, paying for something means you get a say. If you don’t want other people to have a say, then you keep it private–you don’t take taxpayer money.

        If you take taxpayer money, you’re subject to oversight by lawmakers. That’s a big part of what people are talking about when they talk about democracy.

        1. I pay for all of this shit and I get absolutely no say. Tyranny of the majority is no better than any other kind.

        2. I’m not a big fan of funding without any kind of oversight or accountability, myself.

          1. No, but there is a lot of ground between no kind of oversight or accountability and scrutinizing every assigned reading for every course. I think that oversight of a state university belongs somewhere firmly in the middle.

            1. To whatever extent we have problems with spending in this country, it is not because lawmakers spend too much time scrutinizing how taxpayer money is spent.

              The idea that we would start complaining about lawmakers scrutinizing how money is spent just because what they’re scrutinizing is about gay sex is ridiculous.

              That being said, if you want to go there, why should religious conservatives be forced to pay for things that violate their religious convictions?

              There’s certainly no need to go there. The fact is that a representative questioning how taxpayer money is spent out of concern for the opinions of the taxpayers he represents is an excellent example of a legislator doing his job–whether I agree with his conclusions in this one case or not.

              I don’t oppose democracy when it’s correctly applied just because I disagree with the conclusions of any particular legislator, and yet if you read the article, that seems to be the problem here–as if lawmakers infringing on the rights of bureaucrats by way of the budget process were somehow an outrage.

              From a libertarians perspective, it’s a ridiculous article. If we could be there when Sullum read it for the first time, I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that he literally facepalmed.

              1. You think Doherty could write an article like this?

    2. “no taxation without representation”

      I’d like to take this opportunity to once again point out that the DC license plates explicitly state “taxation without representation”.

    3. Legislators make policy; bureaucrats carry it out with the understanding that legislators are not the experts. The policy for universities should obviously be that their curricula remain free from meddling by ideologues in government. I would think that’s the nonnegotiable starting place. You can be against any state funding of universities, but it isn’t the case that the only alternative is state funded universities with government dictating curricula.

      1. Well, he was on the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee. You want to bet that when it’s controlled by the left/Dems, they have all sorts of good “ideas” of what the curricula should contain? That if there’s some aspect they don’t like they’ll come down like a ton of bricks?

        It’s like the House Un-American Activities Committee. No one was shitting their pants when they were going after fascists when FDR was in power.

        A key moment for the “just think what this means when the OTHER side is in power” problem of mission creep.

        In short, if the this same committee was nipping and tucking something “objectionable” from the right, you’d probably be nodding in approval, or at least silent.

        1. I’m pretty big on unfettered academic freedom actually.

          1. And so if a Grand Wizard taught economics and had people read articles that blacks are inferior for his class, you’d be cool as a cucumber? If a left leaning committee was calling for his dismissal, you’d be fighting for his academic freedom?

            1. First I’d like to know how such a person managed to attain a professorship.

      2. Legislators make policy; bureaucrats carry it out with the understanding that legislators are not the experts. The policy for universities should obviously be that their curricula remain free from meddling by ideologues in government.

        Obviously, bureaucrats are never ideologues bent on conforming society to their views. They’re just disinterested, all-knowing philosopher kings who should be allowed to do whatever they want with other people’s money.

        1. Presumably they are human beings. But they exist for the same reason a CEO of a widget company doesn’t run the widget polisher.

          1. Why does a CEO not run the widget polisher?

            You are ignorant of the concept of for profit businesses and why they function properly. You are ignorant of the concept of bureaucracies and why they cannot function properly.

            1. The profit motive is the principle tenant of the prosperity of man. The profit motive provides for employment, price discovery, creative destruction, innovation, allocation of capital towards the best return (thus more innovation and employment), and wealth creation which provides further capital allocation. Then the cycle repeats with more participants and yes, income inequality is a consequence because the innovators and stronger minds saw avenue to create their wealth. There was no extortion, no exploitation, and no theft. They created their wealth by wise allocation of capital; whether borrowed or inherited. Someone created the capital out of wealth creation under this very process.
              Bureaucracies and government exist through theft and they strive on graft and corruption. Smart people know that government always leads to corruption and abuse of power .

              1. So the CEO must be an expert in every single facet of the running of his company? That’s the only analogue I was making–good legislatures largely do not micromanage bureaucracies, and for good reason, and for the same reason good CEOs don’t micromanage their businesses. Governments hire people with the relevant skills to enact the will of the bosses just the same.

                And it’s approaching quitting time on a Friday. Kindly do not inflict a headache on me with a bullshit Randian lecture.

                1. Yep. Enjoy your Jack Johnson derp with a totty for me.

  12. . “Does it represent the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea? Is this what the people of Wisconsin should expect when paying taxes and tuition to support the UW System?”

    “Indoctrinate those kids the way I want them indoctrinated, dang it.”

  13. I tend to agree with FIRE, the legislature should but out, but when did Gay become a Race/Ethnicity?

    1. Gay is more important than race or ethnicity.

      Gay is more important than everything.

      1. Nope, not any more. Radical Muslims terrorists now officially supersede the Gay Mafia (see Orlando).

    2. When it became a protected class under the equal protection clause. That is when.

    3. Who said it was? The article was apparently about the role race and ethnicity plays in choices of gay sex partners.

      1. So it only plays a role in gay sex partners? It’s only important to racial and ethnic minorities when it comes to gay sex?

        Does U. of M. lack a Sexuality and Human Sexual Behavior, Gender Studies, etc. class/department/curriculum? Are social workers graduating from U. of M., as part of their professional position or function, having trouble getting their racial and ethnic clients into homosexual relationships/activities?

        1. I don’t think that this article was the entire reading list for the course.

  14. Gay Sulu exists, and gay Takei is not really happy about it.

  15. He is a legislator. He holds the power of the purse. He can do that. And if he can get enough of his buddies to agree with him, he can cut off the funds. I think it is a fair question to ask why the taxpayers of Wisconsin are paying for gay sex lessons.

    And the university has no autonomy. It is a state entity. It does the whatever the taxpayers through their representatives tell it to do, within the confines of the Constitution. I sometimes wonder if Scott isn’t a mole sent out by some crazy SOCON organization with the mission of discrediting the entire gay movement. Could you do more to confirm the stereotype of the shallow sex obsessed gay than to bitch and moan about someone complaining about a gay sex article? If that has become a significant and noteworthy problem for the gay community, then the gay community has officially run out of problems.

    1. “He is a legislator. He holds the power of the purse. He can do that.”

      I knew this whole democracy thing was homophobic somehow.

      First it gave us Brexit and now this!

      Yeah, this is just Robby being Robby.

      Robby is shocked–SHOCKED!!!–at the menace that is representative democracy.

      1. It is Robby. I assumed it was Scott since he does the gay sex beat.

        My mistake.

        1. Robby and ENB seem to think that if the point they’re making is in some way libertarian, then we’re all supposed to be okay with the article and the way it’s written. Either that or they think we’re dumb.

          Reading their pieces is like seeing what Salon would be like if Salon kept their same horseshit standards and the writers just wrote from a libertarian perspective instead.

          I know this is the way they do things everywhere else on the web, and I’m sure Robby and ENB are mystified by our objections. For instance, Robby probably thinks I’m anti-gay marriage or something–which, you know, I’m not.

          But Gillespie, Welch, Cavanaugh, Walker, Bailey, Sullum, Howley, KMW, Sanchez, Balko, et. al., as much as I’ve disagreed with them on one issue or another, I never questioned their standards. Sometimes they’re wrong, but their standards, in addition to their positions and excellent writing, is what’s made this place great for 13 years. Maybe we’ve been spoiled by them.

          1. How is it not the libertarian position to be against government officials threatening academic freedom??

            1. How is it the libertarian position that the government should spend money without any say in what its actually used for?

              1. It does have a say, and what it should say to universities is “do academic stuff freely.” Like it says to the FBI “do investigations without our influence.” WTF is hard about this?

            2. Libertarians are against the initiation of Force. Not “well, Force has already been used, but I won’t initiate anymore, so if something bad is happening with the stolen property, I won’t have any interest at all, because ‘freedom'”. The whole point is to NOT take one person’s property and give to another. But we do, and that creates interests where the was none before. If someone takes my money and gives it to you, and you go out and buy a bunch of heroin, then both he and I now have an interest whereas there was none before.

              In short, collectivists want people to work, make stuff of value, and they want to take it and you’re supposed to shut the fuck up.

              Again, the lesson embedded here is no collectivized education. All problems are solved. Of course, being leftist, education ONLY happens when government is the Godhead. It’s the part you can’t shift your thinking from.

              1. Are you sure you’re not setting up a worst-case scenario as the only possible scenario in order to bolster your underlying argument against public funding of things?

                It is perfectly true that government officials can dictate what universities do or can corrupt criminal investigations. They can build bridges that go nowhere. Having a government isn’t sufficient. Government has to do things well. If you’re in a place where it unduly interferes with academia, you’re not in a free country.

                Are all our problems solved by privatizing law enforcement? There are aspects of it that must be free of meddling by legislators in order for it to function correctly.

          2. Or maybe they aren’t writing for the H&R commentariat.

            1. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

              I’d hate to think non-libertarians might read this and think we’re against elected representatives weighing in on budget matters.

        2. You could say that Scott got buttfucked by Rico.

      2. To be fair, Libertarians/libertarians are regularly shocked when representative democracy makes decisions they don’t like.

        1. When libertarians are shocked by democracy making decisions we don’t like, it’s about people subjecting our rights to a popularity test–as if that we’re appropriate.

          It’s not about legislators asking pesky questions about how taxpayer money is being spent. That’s their job.

          That’s one of the few things they’re actually supposed to do.

    2. Libertarians, always the first to demand that because something is taxpayer-funded, it must be micromanaged with an iron fist.

      1. So I’m sure you’d be just as sanguine if a professor had students read a pro-KKK article in class at State U?

        Of course not, you’d be a bucket of tears.

        You have no problem with collectivism when the drift is going your way. If it went against your value system, you’d be as vocal as can be.

        1. You assume too much. If we can’t have both state-funded schools and academic freedom, that would suck, but we obviously can as long as we keep asshole politicians from forgetting what academic freedom means.

      2. We know it will be micro-managed by government idiots so we really don’t care about the performance of the task. We know it will fail and thus don’t believe in tax payer funded anything.

        Roads, enforcement of contract law and private property law, and a small military for common domestic defense and non-interventionalist.

        That’s it. Outsource everything else to the private sector.

        If you are going to criticize, pick up a book first.

        1. But we have tons of state schools and many of them produce great research and students without government meddling.

          It’s just odd that libertarians are always first in line to declare that anything receiving government funds is subject and should be subject to totalitarian control.

      3. “Libertarians, always the first to demand that because something is taxpayer-funded, it must be micromanaged with an iron fist.”

        Classic Tony.

        When you insist that the people have a right to weigh in on who their money is spent by way of democracy, that’s an “iron fist”.

        Meanwhile, he’s defending bureaucrats for being unaccountable–as if that’s democracy, I guess?

        It’s obviously just because the bureaucrats are on his side on this one issue. He’d take the other side, as he has a hundred times before, if the bureaucrats were trying to squelch material about gay sex–and an elected representative were championing it.

        Tony has demonstrated himself a buffoon repeatedly that way.

        Tell us again how Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus because a majority of voters said she didn’t, Tony. Isn’t that what you still believe? That our rights don’t exist unless a majority of voters say so?

        There are appropriate places for democracy, Tony. One of them is representatives weighing in on things their constituents don’t want to pay for. Deal with it.

        1. When you insist that people don’t have a right to pool their money to maintain civilization, that makes you an anarchist.

          Bureaucrats shouldn’t be unaccountable, but what use is it if a yokel congressman lawyer from Kentucky starts telling NASA how to build rockets?

          Your infantile inability to understand the difference between rights that are and rights that should be is not my problem.

          1. “When you insist that people don’t have a right to pool their money to maintain civilization, that makes you an anarchist.”

            What are you talking about?

            Can’t you tell the difference between people willingly pooling their money and taxpayers being forced to cough up cash under threat of criminal prosecution?

            “Bureaucrats shouldn’t be unaccountable, but what use is it if a yokel congressman lawyer from Kentucky starts telling NASA how to build rockets?”

            Did you ever take a high school civics class?

            In representative democracies, bureaucrats are supervised by elected representatives.

            You saying that bureaucrats should be accountable but not accountable to elected representatives is ignorant, stupid, and ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense.

            “Your infantile inability to understand the difference between rights that are and rights that should be is not my problem.

            Right, you maintain that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus–because that was the law enacted by democratically elected representatives at the time–and now you want to say that democracy is so unimportant that our democratically elected representatives shouldn’t weigh in on how taxpayer money is spent.

            Your principles on any particular issue depend on which way the headlines blow. That’s who you are. That’s what you do.

            1. Can’t you tell the difference between people willingly pooling their money and taxpayers being forced to cough up cash under threat of criminal prosecution?

              Yeah, the first scenario has free riders and the second doesn’t.

              You saying that bureaucrats should be accountable but not accountable to elected representatives is ignorant, stupid, and ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense.

              Didn’t say that. My point is a wise legislature will know to appoint experts in bureaucracies. Like any other organization, they will delegate. I’m trying to explain how letting NASA’s experts do their type of work is the same kind of scenario as letting universities do their type of work, which inherently depends on academic freedom.

              Rosa Parks blah blah blah

              When you start saying that certain rights (all rights?) are immutable parts of the universe, that Rosa Parks did have a right that the government explicitly denied her, where does it end? Aren’t they all just totally unevidenced claims? Why can’t I say I have a natural right to own everything in the world? I consulted the universe and discovered it to be so!

              1. Just for the record, Tony doesn’t believe Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus–and I’m not kidding.

                He also doesn’t believe Jews had a right to their lives during the holocaust–because the government at the time didn’t recognize that right.

                I’m not making this up. This is what Tony has argued here year after year. It’s his only consistent point.

                In addition to believing that our rights only exist if they’re popular, Tony doesn’t think democratically elected representatives should weigh in on how taxpayer money is spent–because gay sex is like rocket science?

                When I say Tony is a buffoon, it isn’t really name calling. It’s a conclusion drawn from empirical observation.

    3. It’s an article for a sociology class about a certain kind of social interaction. Seems like the right kind of material for a sociology class.

      You are absolutely right that the legislature has the power to cut the funds, and that is as it should be.

      I would imagine that there is something in the University’s charter about academic freedom. Of course, the legislature can also change that. But I think it merits careful consideration before doing anything like that. I’d be very hesitant to opening the door to that kind of micromanagement of state universities by the legislature. This could just as well be liberal legislators trying to shut down a professor who argues for gun rights or against feminist orthodoxy. There is a lot of potential for a slippery slope here.

      1. Yes, and there is no rule that says legislatures can’t enable free inquiry at universities by adopting a policy of leaving them alone.

        Of course they could shut it down. They could repeal the First Amendment and shut it down at private universities too, in theory. The goal is not to do that.

        1. Of course they could shut it down. They could repeal the First Amendment and shut it down at private universities too, in theory. The goal is not to do that.

          And of course no one here is proposing that, so why you said it, I have no idea.

          1. A lot of people are arguing that if a university gets public money that means its curriculum has no choice but to be subject to the whims of ideologues in state legislatures. I’m saying there is a choice same as with everything else.

  16. David Weigel explains Republican Lawmaker headlines

    As the national electoral plight of Democrats increases, so does the incidence of stories about obscure state Republican lawmakers.

    Congratulations Robbie, you’ve been called a disingenuous Democrat-partisan hack by…Dave Weigel.

        1. Huh, when you agree with Weigel…

    1. Some Republican in Wisconsin doesn’t want the taxpayers to subsidize gay sex articles. Oh noes!!

      1. First they came for the gay sex articles… Since you’re John and the world’s biggest tribal hypocrite, I am 100% certain you’d be singing a different tune if it were liberal lawmakers coming after religion classes.

        1. And you wouldn’t be put out if a professor was being “rascist”?

          Again, Nass sits on a Committee. As its chair, he sets the tone for how it will oversee the UW system. If Dems controlled, and they were hot and bothered about a racist professor and her syllabus, you’d not be saying a thing about intervention.

          1. Some liberals might do as you say, but I wouldn’t. Liberals tend to stick their noses in school business only when teachers are trying to violate the First Amendment. So, they are consistent in favoring the liberal principles that inform academic freedom.

            1. What a fucking lie. Lefty students have tried and succeeded in ousting professors who teach “problematic” material.

              I can’t help but suspect your “love” for academic freedom would vanish if public universities suddenly became bastions of libertarian thinking.

              1. They would only become so if some kind of totalitarian ideological force took control. I really think what mostly goes on in universities is people learning about specific things from experts.

                What you’re talking about are anecdotes peddled by such ideologues who don’t like it when people learn to think for themselves. It should go without saying that anti-intellectual ideological movements might not have a terribly comfortable home in universities.

    2. Robbie, ENB, and Weigel all have that . . . special something.

      I read articles by Welch over the last couple of days blasting various media outlets for their standards, and it makes me wonder if he’s been reading Robbie and ENB lately.

      Hey Welch and Gillespie! These two are shitting all over the house you built.

      Can you imagine a painfully honest guy like Sullum reading this shit?

  17. Uh, Robby? Does Scott know you are all up in his business?

    Stick to rape, Hairdo.

    1. They took the issue to the Jacket and he decided gay trump college and it belonged to Scott. Robby is not happy about it but Scott gave him a hug and they worked it out.

      1. gay trump college

        Trump-U II : Scamdelously Fabulous

    2. I thought rape was ENBs baileywick? Or no, off-campus sex and rape is ENBs baileywick, the campus circulars are Robby’s. Carry on.

    3. Oh Scott knows alright. Scott knows exactly how far up in his business Robby is.

  18. Looks like from that picture they need to be taught about muffin tops.

    ka

    BOOM

    You just got foe’d.

  19. I suspect that in Madison, gay butt sex is probably considered a core component of the university mission.

  20. It is becoming obvious that everything that is being bandied about as news is clearly distractionary to keep our minds off of the impending economic collapse.

    If this happened, this guy and everyone else knows that is a career ender so obviously Washington picks fall guys once a week to get people concerned over trivial stupid crap like this and not about what the power brokers are doing to concentrate their hold.

    Cabinet meeting: “We had three shootings last week. OK. We need some gay outrage then on Tuesday and we’ll hit Global warming the third Thursday of the month. It’s been a while since the last minimum wage strike. How about Wednesday two weeks and then we role out some dead poor people pics and Zika on Fridays. Good? Who’s buying the hookers tonight?”

  21. when sexual preference reinforces dominant systems of power in an unquestioning way, that’s when it becomes problematic.”

    Michael J Faris, co-author of the essay “Fucking with Fucking Online: Advocating for Indiscriminate Promiscuity,” believes that sexual oppression too often is unexamined.
    .
    ..it’s within our power to change how we frame our desires, and even to change our desires to create more inclusive screwing. By challenging ourselves and others we can expand our desires. So go out there and be indiscriminately promiscuous.

    I think whomever said, “The left wants to control your wallet, and the right want to control what you do in the bedroom” might need to revisit that concept.

    basically = “any individual preference is racist and discriminatory – your individual desires are not politically acceptable”

    I’m at least glad Robby has let us know that this topic is “appropriate”. I wouldn’t have known what to think.

    Anyone who won’t suck a black dick *right now* is obviously racist and homophobic.

    1. What is sexual oppression exactly? Are they using fire hoses on people that want to have sex?

      1. What is sexual oppression exactly?

        “Not fucking fatties”, from what i can tell.

        Its a bunch of whiny gays who are pissed that Grindr allows people to “screen” by race, age, proclivities, etc. YOURE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE IN MYTHICAL PROGGY LA-LA-LAND

        1. Sometimes I discriminate on which sandwich to order. I feel horrible about it.

          F*cking choices.

          1. Sometimes I discriminate on which sandwich to order.

            You’ve probably never even had hummus and cottage cheese sandwich on plain white bread with kale and cilantro! You fucking tastist!

            1. That actually sounds pretty good. With enough salt and garlic.

    2. basically = “any individual preference is racist and discriminatory – your individual desires are not politically acceptable”

      They’ve been doing the same thing with music for years. And I believe our fair reporter, Jesse Walker has posted on the subject.

    3. I read the sexual oppression part to imply a positive duty to sexhave people regardless of whether you are into them or not.

      1. Does this mean that I have to have gay sex? I really don’t want to.

  22. it’s 2016, we even have a gay Hikaru Sulu now!

    The more appropriate link was this one (as noted above)

    Since coming out publicly in 2005, actor George Takei has been an outspoken LGBT activist.
    That makes it somewhat surprising that he’s not on board with the fact that character he made famous on the “Star Trek” series will reportedly be portrayed as gay in the new movie.

    Takei — who originated the character in the original TV series which ran from 1966 to 1969 — said that while he’s “delighted that there’s a gay character” that’s not how the show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, envisioned Lt. Hikaru Sulu.
    “Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought,” Takei told The Hollywood Reporter. “I think it’s really unfortunate.

    Dear White Hetero Progs = Gaying and Racializing pop-fiction characters doesn’t make you less homophobic or racist or any more interesting. Its pandering to minorities and insulting to creators. Go out and make new, gay/racial/trans/whatever characters and stop trying to Xwash media.

    1. None of these reboot crapfests has anything to do with Gene Roddenberry’s vision.

    2. If they add anymore letters to the LGBTQZ thing, I might just start getting annoyed by it.

      1. LGBQWERTY

      2. Try being bullied your entire childhood, expelled from your family, then being subject to de facto second-class citizen status for your entire adulthood. Some gay people inform me that that’s annoying as well.

        1. Can you make that into an acronym please?

          1. Would hate to put you out.

    3. Plus we can’t have gay people in space. It is potentially destructive to moral.

  23. …”Problems of American Racial and Ethnic Minorities.” Students aren’t babies.

    I’d wager that class teaches just that – students are babies, along with everyone else, and they need the firm hand of the state to guide them. I could be wrong, of course, but it’s Madison, so probably not.

    (a raging lefty douchebag I knew moved to Madison because Cambridge, MA was insufficiently progtarded for him)

    1. (a raging lefty douchebag I knew moved to Madison because Cambridge, MA was insufficiently progtarded for him)

      Well, that’s a good thing IMO

      free-association ftw. Let them have their bubbles.

      1. oh, I was happy to see him go, it just boggles the mind that the People’s Republic of Cambridge was insufficiently left-leaning for him.

  24. Speaking of the insanity of SJWs….

    Student Op-Ed: The Word ‘Step’ Is Insulting To Those Who Can’t Walk

    …To avoid offending transponders, Mahmoud proposes the alternative phrases “Riots not diets”…

    1. Autocorrect fail: that should be “transgenders.”

    2. The Word ‘Step’ Is Insulting

      +1 Nate Dogg.

    3. “Jessica Mahmoud enjoys smashing the patriarchy, questioning the gender binary, and making new friends,”

      SWIPE LEFT.

    4. Here’s my post at this individual’s blog… I’ll copy it here because I know it won’t last long. :o)

      I just read your recent piece “On Inclusive Language”

      It didn’t seem very inclusive to me… Your numerous usage of “person”, or “people” seems to deny the very existence of the “otherkin” community.

      Further, you speak of “Partner”, Significant other”, and “Lover”. All seem very non-inclusive to me. If I am in a consensual Dominant/Submissive relationship, it is _not_ a “partnership” by any literal definition. Likewise “Significant other”- Why would you accept calling my “f*ckbuddy” relationship by such a Judeo-Christian patriarchal inspired term? Xe’s not significant, that individual is just who I f*cked last night, and had breakfast with today. And, I don’t even want to unpack all the problematics introduced by using the term “lover” which ignores thousands of years of realtionships not founded on the idea of “romantic love”.

      I also note that you used LGBTQ+— as though the intersex, asexual, pan-gender, and other communities are not worthy of mentioning.

      Finally, while declaring that using the word “step” was unacceptable, you said The idea of this is to try and get people who don’t normally talk-, which is an insult beyond belief. Just as there are individuals not able to “step”, there are many more not able to “talk”. They can “communicate”, but just not by “talking”.

      1. Props to the author- she replied!

        Hi Scott, thank you for your constructive criticism on my piece. While I understand the erasure of otherkin individuals in using people, the word people is just the way we refer to society and if I used otherkin, it would probably be difficult for readers to understand. In terms of my advice to use people instead of assuming a binary gender, otherkin would not be an option because that would just be an assumption. So, yes, while people or person is leaving out otherkin, using that would be an assumption and those words are more inclusive than a specific otherkin (or gender) identity. Regarding your second point, if you have a specific name for your relationship that is not one of those words, I am not trying to discredit that. Those words were simply suggestions of inclusion instead of assuming the words boyfriend/girlfriend and binary terms. I used LGBTQ+, where the plus “+” is to include those other identities that are part of this community. However, oftentimes, the word queer, or “Q” is considered an umbrella term without even saying “+”. Finally, I never said the word step was unacceptable. I was simply suggesting that the words move and movement are more inclusive for those who are unable to step. I hope this clear up any misunderstandings. This piece was to educate, not to assert my opinion on language or what words I feel are right and wrong. It was to make suggestions are more inclusive language.

        1. Should I reply? lol

  25. Students aren’t babies. They can handle sexual content.

    Then what’s all this I’ve been hearing about micro-aggressions and safe spaces , if they’re so adult and shit?

    1. It’s not like Title IX effectively renders it hazardous for male students to even consider being in the presence of females while sex is occurring or even they’re just cognitively impaired, right?

  26. “This kind of accusatory meddling from an elected official–with ominous threats against the university’s budget thrown in–cuts to the core of academic freedom, for which the University of Wisconsin is a national model,”

    Hell yeah, FIRE says my alma mater is good on academic freedom issues!!

  27. I am a student in this class. I can confirm that the article linked was indeed the one we had to read.

    I agree with the senator that the class shouldn’t be funded – it was essentially an overview of statistical racial inequalities in all aspects of life with the implication that historical actions and racism are the complete cause. It was rather anti-Republican as well – the only two examples of “good thesis statements” for our essay assignments were a critique of Bill O’Reilly and a critique of Antonin Scalia. There was also an assumption throughout the course that a statistical inequality implies injustice and therefore must be resolved through government. The only reason I took it is because the course satisfies the “ethnic studies” requirement that all students need for graduation. I disagree with this requirement and don’t believe the course I took is worth taxpayer dollars (and as a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, I really don’t support public funding for any course).

    Nass’ reasoning is not that great though. I have no issues reading about gays nor some of the graphic details included in the articles. It seems like his entire argument is about the “offensiveness” of content. That doesn’t really matter. What matters is that public money and institutional requirements are supporting a course and even a department that would not exist at the scale it does under market-based education.

    Feel free to ask me anything.

    1. The only reason I took it is because the course satisfies the “ethnic studies” requirement that all students need for graduation.

      Holy Shit! Thanks for that tidbit.

      So, “Cannot graduate from U. of M. without being required to read this essay.” would be a pretty accurate statement? As in, to get my degree in Mathematics, I *have* to learn about gay sex discrimination?

      If so, I’d say the fucking with University Curricula has already been done and the legislature is just bring back some sanity/balance.

      1. So, “Cannot graduate from U. of M. without being required to read this essay.” would be a pretty accurate statement?

        Probably not, but he can answer – my experience w/ sideline curriculum requirements is that there were normally a handful of electives that satisfy the course recs. – either in full, or partial. Usually there’s one or two “good ones” that everyone wants to get in to, and then a bunch of really shitty other ones which everyone despises. If you’re unlucky enough to have a class-slot conflict, you end up in the crap ones.

      2. There are other courses that satisfy the requirement, but Sociology 134 (this one) is one of the most common courses students use to satisfy it. Those students would need to read it, along with numerous other leftist articles. Another one that jumps out at me was a piece that argued the criminal justice system of today was essentially designed to oppress black people and make them an underclass.

        Another course that would satisfy the requirement is Anthropology 104, which from what I’m heard, is largely a liberal indoctrination course. Apparently, if you’re unsure of an exam question, the answer is always to blame white men and capitalism.

        I think an accurate statement would be “If I want to get any degree whatsoever at UW-Madison, I need to take some sort of “social justice” course”. There is even a nursing student (likely in his 30’s) taking this course for a requirement, and he isn’t even close to being an undergraduate.

        1. I can see how that would be frustrating for an ideological conservative or libertarian… but it is UW-Madison. There are plenty of state and private schools, say in the South, that don’t require any “social justice” courses and that expose students to a relatively conservative faculty bent.

          1. Or we could just have someone on the committee at the Senate get rid of those courses, because – after all, it’s the state of Wisconsin as whole that funds it. Which is easier overall? We’ve only had these SJW mandate courses for about 25 years. Just lift them out, problem solved and no one needs to move out of state for their education.

            1. Because that’s the only controversial course requirement in existence? Why did I have to study a foreign language? What if I never intended to go to France?

              Seems like what’s deemed controversial is whatever asshole Republican politicians get butthurt about. And conservatism in this country being the politics of white Christian supremacy, it’s not surprising that they don’t want kids learning about social justice.

          2. All schools have to do social justice bullshit now. You really need to do some reading dude.

    2. The only reason I took it is because the course satisfies the “ethnic studies” requirement that all students need for graduation.

      Separate from anything in the class-content by itself …

      (*i don’t think there’s necessarily wrong with a class which happens to have an extreme political bias or otherwise absurd subject matter – nor is there anything wrong with *mocking* a class which is rooted in political bias or is composed of absurd subject matter)

      ….the idea of making these sorts of “ethnic studies”-things a requirement for graduation seems to be the more significant problem. If the state-school determines that its something they really want to mandate, there’s certainly a better way to go about that same goal other than to simply force people into these ideosyncratic-electives which probably appeal to only a tiny-few.

      that said – you can always choose a different school. Presumably people know the requirements before they choose where to go. I personally chose to not attend a few “higher-end” schools in the NE because of both concerns about the academic bent, and the fact that their requirements were going to distract from what i was focused on, curriculum wise.

      I had a course in school where i disagreed vehemently with the prof’s POV; &i wrote a term paper excoriating every aspect of it. I got an A.

      Q = Was that sort of ‘respectful disagreement’ tolerated in this particular course?

      1. I never tested the boundaries too much. I usually phrased statements from a third-person perspective or as questions. Something like “When does a statistical racial inequality become something that is inherently morally wrong that must be resolved politically”? When I made other comments, the lecturer (a graduate student) would largely just let the other students respond. He didn’t seem like he was actively trying to censor anyone.

        I could see why people would be reluctant to speak though. It was clear throughout the course that Republicans were “wrong”. We spent a few hours learning why voter ID is some racist plan by Republicans to disenfranchise minorities that vote democratic. Maybe that’s true, but the best case for voter ID – the principle that only eligible citizens should vote, period – was ignored. Also watched videos that were somewhat mocking of Republicans.

        I haven’t tried to take an alternative view in a paper. The grading is outsourced, and I’m just putting on my liberal SJW hat and writing to get a good grade.

        1. Have you ever given thought to the notion that a university is where your deepest beliefs are supposed to be challenged? I mean, if you come out of college believing just what you did when you came in, either you were extremely precocious and were wasting your time, or the college did a bad job.

          1. Have you ever given thought to the notion that a university is where your deepest beliefs are supposed to be challenged?

            Who’s beliefs? Certainly not those of your average leftist. And libertarian/conservative beliefs are not so much challenged as they are ridiculed relentlessly. The university today does not seek to challenge beliefs as it does to conform students to leftwing orthodoxy.

            1. *Whose

            2. There are a lot of people on this thread saying things that sound very much like they came directly from your asses. Did someone try to indoctrinate you at a university? It’s possible I was lucky enough to go to the rare school where it wasn’t a priority to shove politics down students’ throats.

              How am I not supposed to chalk this up to typical conservative victimhood whining? Why are conservatives so bad at taking over universities and indoctrinating students? It’s not because they’re against proselytizing. Lemme guess, beyond the evil liberal professors and the evil liberal school admins there’s the evil liberal government goons puppetmastering the conspiracy.

              1. Perhaps when your guzzling the group think, it’s hard for you to see the indoctrination. As the government is your religion, and all it does is good and you agree with it, then it’s all sensible.

                As I said before upthread, I sat on the student Senate at UW-Whitewater in 1988 when this shit came down the pike. There was no questioning the purity of making kids take these courses. There was NO CHOICE. You had to take it to graduate. Want to be an accountant? Had to take the SJW course. No choice.

                And to you it’s “whining”. You’re an establishment hack, and it’s trending your way, so of course you don’t see a problem.

                That’s the problem. And ultimately why it’s a waste of time talking to you. You can’t talk someone out of their religion.

                1. Just because you worship the market doesn’t mean I worship the government. The entire problem with you people and all other ideologues is black/white thinking. I’m for a mixed economy, to be tweaked as necessary.

                  Maybe social justice issues deserve to be part of a core curriculum. I happen to believe that race disparities are at the heart of nearly every issue in American political history. Some people happen to believe that algebra contributes to a well-rounded education as well. It’s all kind of subjective.

              2. Yes Tony. There has been a concerted program of indoctrination in the united states public school system that is the product of government planning. and it continues into college
                example:
                1. We were all taught the FDR and the new deal was the greatest thing that ever happened to the world. Never mind its absolutely Keynesian doctrine and absolute destruction of wealth from private property owners. never mind that FDR was a Marxist of epic standards and SS is a debacle.
                2. I was taught in college econ that Keynes was the only economist basically and that Keynesianism was a doctrine of sorts. There was no discussion or alternative even mentioned. It was taught to us without counter point just like ACM was drummed into us.

                You really really need to do some reading dude.

                1. Since your assertions (e.g., the nearly century-old SS program is a “debacle”) are total horseshit, perhaps it’s the case that your conception of a good curriculum is the one that is too informed by ideology.

          2. Where in theses schools are a progressive’s deepest beliefs challenged?

            This challenging only seems to go in one direction.

            1. Because being open-minded and having a well-rounded education tends to make one a progressive. I would consider any course in which a professor spends a lot of time ranting about politics and scolding students for having the wrong politics to be a bad course with a bad professor, but I never experienced such a thing personally.

              1. You are hilarious Tony. Are you real or a just a really funny guy?

          3. I have, but for me, the purpose of education is to acquire the skills and knowledge that I need for my future career goals. That would mean I would only take courses in math, economics, finance, and actuarial science (and perhaps a few others). The only way to do that these days seems to be alongside numerous other “liberal studies” classes in pursuit of a four-year, 120 credit Bachelor’s degree.

            I agree with the other commenters that the idea challenging does not go “both ways”. If that’s a goal people have, it’s not currently being achieved.

    3. 1) We had the same type of class requirements implemented at UW-Whitewater when I attended in the late 80’s. I was in the Student Senate when we had a vote to endorse, or not, the implementation. I was one of the few who voted nay to endorse. I got glares from the blacks. I could take it, I already was a Klansman, complete with robes in my dorm closet, after I didn’t OK money from the SUFAC (university fees) for new choir robes the Black Student Union just two years after they’d just purchased some. Deny money for a new mixing board for the radio station – oh well. Deny money for the BSU – I was Jim Bob Hitler.

      2) In short, this is really a broader issue. It’s not just one article that the problem, it simply is the handle to grapple on for the whole issue of what “education” involves today and the direction it is Forced to go. It’s the one that can be sold on the street when the narrative has to be short and sweet. Get Stosh and Stella worked up over the issue is the M.O. Discussions about the efficacy of collectivist education will be received like a turd in a punch bowl by EVERYBODY, but point at an icky article about gay stuff, and the right voter base will listen. Would this article even exist, or this thread if it were otherwise?

    4. Feel free to ask me anything.

      Oh, you poor, innocent lad…dangle that bleeding finger in the Pyrhana tank, why don’t you.

      1. “Where is your Grindr profile?”

    5. “What matters is that public money and institutional requirements are supporting a course and even a department that would not exist at the scale it does under market-based education.”

      I don’t believe that’s true.

      Courses like this exist at private, well-funded universities like Harvard–do they not?

      Northwestern is private, and they offer courses like this.

      http://www.gendersexuality.northwestern.edu/

  28. *DRINKS!*

    repeatedly.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.