MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Prof Who Faced Down Title IX Inquisition Unmasks Money-Making Scheme for Lawyers, Bureaucrats

Criticizing Title IX violates Title IX

CerseiHBOIn February, Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis denounced the sexual paranoia taking hold at American college campuses. Soon after, she learned that her essay on the subject had triggered protests, petitions, and even formal Title IX complaints from students who disagreed with her.

Now Kipnis has penned a second essay for The Chronicle Review detailing the formal review process she underwent as a result of those complaints—which, again, were filed because students objected to the content of a tenured professor’s speech and asserted that federal anti-harassment laws entitled them to protection from opinions that bothered them.

When I previously wrote about Kipnis, I referred to the Title IX process as akin to the Spanish Inquisition. In her latest, revelatory essay, Kipnis uses the same metaphor: “My Title IX Inquisition.”

While the details of the investigation will be familiar to anyone who has read stories about university sexual assault adjudications, what’s striking about the Kipnis case is that the “incident” was an essay, not an actual confrontation of any sort.

Kipnis was informed that the charges existed—not what they were—via email. Norwthwestern’s Title IX coordinator explained that the university would hire an outside law firm to investigate the complaints. Kipnis was not entitled to a lawyer—though she could bring a silent “support person”—and wouldn’t be notified of the actual charges until she sat down with the investigators: either in person or via Skype. The investigators, who worked out of state, would be flown in to deal with her.

Kipnis was not permitted to record her conversation with the investigators, so her recollection of the charges is based on notes she took during her meeting with them:

… my essay included two paragraphs about a then-ongoing situation on my campus involving a professor who was himself the subject of two sexual-harassment investigations involving two students. This professor subsequently sued university officials and one of the students for defamation, among other things. The charges had occasioned a flurry of back-and-forth lawsuits, all part of the public record, which had been my source for the two paragraphs. My point in citing this legal morass was that students’ expanding sense of vulnerability, and new campus policies that fostered it, was actually impeding their educations as well as their chances of faring well in postcollegiate life, where a certain amount of resilience is required of us all.

Both complainants were graduate students. One turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the essay. She was bringing charges on behalf of the university community as well as on behalf of two students I’d mentioned — not by name — because the essay had a "chilling effect" on students’ ability to report sexual misconduct. I’d also made deliberate mistakes, she charged (a few small errors that hadn’t been caught in fact-checking were later corrected by the editors), and had violated the nonretaliation provision of the faculty handbook.

The other complainant was someone I’d mentioned fleetingly (again, not by name) in connection with the professor’s lawsuits. She charged that mentioning her was retaliatory and created a hostile environment (though I’d said nothing disparaging), and that I’d omitted information I should have included about her. This seemed paradoxical — should I have written more? And is what I didn’t write really the business of Title IX? She also charged that something I’d tweeted to someone else regarding the essay had actually referred to her. (It hadn’t.)

These charges are preposterous. If the “chilling effect” charge was valid, this would essentially mean that criticizing Title IX violates Title IX. And the retaliation charge clearly stretches the definition of retaliation beyond all recognition. Again, if talking publicly about Title IX cases violates Title IX because it amounts to de facto retaliation against whomever the case concerns, the result would be that all discussion of Title IX is illegal—one side or the other could always claim retaliation.

Kipnis has not yet been informed of the investigators’ findings, even though they have now exceeded their stated deadline. The complaints should be dismissed on the grounds that they are both frivolous and a pernicious threat to academic freedom. But even if that’s exactly what happens, merely entertaining the notion that such complaints could be merited is a grave danger. The real “chilling effect” here is the one encouraging university faculty never to express ideas that might get them in trouble—that might get them hauled before the Title IX inquisition. Indeed, Kipnis notes in her essay that she believes men would have an even more difficult time standing up to Title IX scrutiny, and would have greater incentive to keep their mouths shut during important discussions relating to gender, sexuality, and the law.

But that’s just the charges; the review process itself is every bit as absurd. Kipnis had no right to a lawyer, was expected to answer questions about the charges at the same meeting in which she learned of them, and dealt with a preponderance of evidence standard. And even though Kipnis was expected to keep the charges confidential, a graduate student wrote an article about them for The Huffington Post. The lawyers told Kipnis that she was entitled to file a Title IX complaint alleging retaliation against this student.

Indeed, a cycle of retaliatory charges seems to be what keeps this farce going. Just look what happened to Kipnis’s “support person”:

As of this writing, I have yet to hear the verdict on my case, though it’s well past the 60-day time frame. In the meantime, new Title IX complaints have been filed against the faculty-support person who accompanied me to the session with the investigators. As a member of the Faculty Senate, whose bylaws include the protection of academic freedom — and believing the process he’d witnessed was a clear violation of academic freedom — he’d spoken in general terms about the situation at a senate meeting. Shortly thereafter, as the attorneys investigating my case informed me by phone, retaliation complaints were filed against him for speaking publicly about the matter (even though the complaints against me had already been revealed in the graduate student’s article), and he could no longer act as my support person. Another team of lawyers from the same firm has been appointed to conduct a new investigation.

This anecdote, I think, reveals the men behind the curtain: it’s the lawyers and bureaucrats. The Title IX inquisition must be a cash-cow for the people tasked with handling such broad and outlandish claims. Northwestern flew a team of a lawyers out to meet with Kipnis; these men would have interviewed anyone she deemed relevant to her case. Their colleagues would have initiated retaliation investigations against anyone she accused (this calls to mind recent Game of Thrones episodes, in which characters levelling accusations against each other merely manage to get absolutely everyone, accusers and accused, confined to dungeon cells). Is it any wonder that tuition prices are skyrocketing so that universities can continue to pay all these Title IX lawyers, bureaucrats, and coordinators?

I wonder how many of the students who initiate reckless, Orwellian investigations are also apt to complain that American higher education is becoming unaffordable.

(I reached out to Kipnis and Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro. Neither responded immediately. I will update this post if I hear back.)

Photo Credit: HBO

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.

  • Seamus||

    If the “chilling effect” charge was valid, this would essentially mean that criticizing Title IX violates Title IX.

    What makes you think it doesn't?

  • Drake||

    First rule of Title IX?

  • mr lizard||

    Who do these assholes think they are? MLB umps?

  • Drake||

    How is Title IX not a campaign issue? Or at least a lawsuit working it's way towards the Supreme Court?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Kultur Warz!

  • ||

    1) Because they have to finish having the student loan debacle first
    2) Because universities have aggressively settled. Much like the tobacco companies a generation ago.

  • John Thacker||

    In NC the legislature passed a law saying that all students at public universities have the right to a lawyer at these farcical hearings. Only state to do so, AFAIK.

  • Invisible Finger||

    To be fair, there's no reason to enact a law to duplicate another law unless your prosecutor makes your state a laughingstock.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Because Democrats are scared shitless of the insane SJW cult they created as much as professors are, and Republicans can only benefit by letting the retarded left destroy the far left?

    If they refuse to address Title IX, eventually universities are going to find it too legally risky to even keep non-STEM departments, and since all the Identity Studies departments are contributing factors, they'll be the first to go. Fewer liberal arts majors means rightward shift.

  • MJBinAL||

    Eliminating non-STEM programs would be too much to hope for.

    Most of those degree programs are BS lacking in any academic rigor, prepare students with no real world skills, and contribute nothing to anyone other than the scam artists that promote and teach them.

    At least the STEM students will have taken something of more value than Gender Studies, will have some logical thinking background, and have some marketable skills.

    I would bemoan the loss of History, but they don't teach "History"anymore, but rather "Past Fiction to support stupid ideas already tried and failed". Psychology and Sociology were never really sciences in the first place, but rather mostly warped versions of philosophy. And these are the best of the lot.

    Gender Studies, Women's Studies and an endless host of similar, not only useless but destructive degree programs would save money to eliminate and likely improve the lives of those who would not be conned into taking them.

  • R C Dean||

    the university would hire an outside law firm to investigate the complaints. Kipnis was not entitled to a lawyer

    Sorry, but if one side gets a lawyer, everybody gets a lawyer.

    Kipnis was not permitted to record her conversation with the investigators,

    Did the investigators record it? What kind of investigation doesn't record conversations with the target of the investigation?

    though she could bring a silent “support person”

    Like, say, a court reporter?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Kipnis was not permitted to record her conversation with the investigators...

    Or else what?

  • ||

    Yeah, so much of this is blowhard blustering that anyone not pissing themselves to keep their job at Northwestern University would piss all over.

    My employer calling a meeting and telling me they would bring council and I couldn't would ensure that I would have council and that my attendance at said meeting may or may not be expected.

  • Almanian!||

    I got the vibe that some people don't seem to understand that not everyone has the time, inclination, constitution and/or money to hire a lawyer and challenge their employer or anyone else, for that matter.

    Which is precisely a large part of the problem with bullshit cases like this.

    "I'm filing Title IX charges". "Jesus fucking CHRIST I don't need the hassle" *capitulate*

    Not everyone wants to be a potential martyr. Or destroyer of teh Victimarchy.

  • MichaelL||

    Martyrs like pain management doctors who lose their license while trying to practice good, scientifically sound, medicine? Some things are worth more than money, or a job! Feeling you are right matters to some people, more than others. But, it is hell being poor!

    Then again, some people have, only, one talent and cannot survive such a debacle. Too bad, this martyrdom is only in the eye of the beholder.

  • ||

    She may not have pushed back as hard as you or I would have, but she certainly pushed back harder than most of what you read. I was impressed she got them to concede she wouldn't be answering any questions until she had time to consider the charges.

  • ||

    I was impressed she got them to concede she wouldn't be answering any questions until she had time to consider the charges.

    With all the 'Huh????' surrounding it, makes it hard to tell/understand but it seems like she's trying to make and drink kool-aid with poisoned well water.

    Like she's fighting back just enough to not get fired from the job that they're doing their damnedest to kick her out of(????).

  • Princess Trigger||

    I noticed that. I know professors can be naive and shielded from the harsh world, but really? She agreed to all that?

    You bring a lawyer - I bring a lawyer.
    You bring two lawyers - I bring two lawyers and a camera.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    You bring three lawyers, I bring three lawyers, a camera, and an axe.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    He draws a knife, you draw a gun. He sends one of your lawyers to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

  • Almanian!||

    "Just like a wop to bring a knife to a gunfight..."

  • Marty Comanche||

    Then I draw a dinosaur stomping on your lawyers and eating school administrators. Ha! Now that's intimidation and harassment!

  • mr lizard||

    And STEVE SMITH

  • perlhaqr||

    OK, that might be a bit much...

  • Animal||

    In character as Red Green?

  • ||

    FBI until recently?

  • ||

    Did the investigators record it? What kind of investigation doesn't record conversations with the target of the investigation?

    They did not, and they also did not have a transcriptionist. They mindblowingly expected her to sign a statement based on "notes" one of the lawyers took during the hearing.

    Like, say, a court reporter?

    It had to be someone who worked at Northwestern.

  • R C Dean||

    Notice: You can't bring a lawyer or record the meeting.

    Me, at start of meeting: Good morning, gentlebeings. This is my lawyer, Mr. McPitbull. We'll be recording this meeting.

    Them: But, you were told you couldn't have a lawyer or record the meeting!

    Me: Yes, I was told that. Shall we begin?

    Them: This meeting is cancelled! We'll just have to reschedule it.

    Me: Fine by me. McPitbull, how does your schedule look?

    Them: We won't have any meeting if he is going to be there!

    Me: So you're cancelling the investigation?

    Etc.

  • ||

    If this investigation isn't important enough to you for lawyers to be involved, here's a letter from my lawyer demanding you cease and desist any further proceedings as they constitute harassment.

  • Invisible Finger||

    They won't cancel. They're reschedule until you get tired of paying your lawyer to come to meetings that never get started.

  • Ted S.||

    It had to be someone who worked at Northwestern.

    One of the law professors, then.

  • Paul.||

    "What kind of investigation doesn't record conversations with the target of the investigation?"

    Stalin doesn't have to record Jack or shit, and Jack left town.

  • Slammer||

    It's retaliations all the way down.

  • B.P.||

    It's also "chilling effects" all the way down -- reporting on the chilling effect of the current sex panic on campus created a chilling effect on the ability to report sexual misconduct, apparently.

    I hope all of these fucking toddlers stay cloistered at universities and away from the general public.

  • Princess Trigger||

    Another money incentive - if the University should, in any way, dissent from the vigorous investigation of any Title IX complaint, the bureaucrats in the Education Dept. in DC can, just sort of, slow down the flow of federal dollars to the institution.

    Fucking up the cash flow of major corporation - they will burn witches for breakfast for that.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Our future leaders. These pathetic,vindictive little shits are going to end up in the EEOC, the NLRB, and every petty government apparatus that can wreak havoc on businesses.

    To those who say that they are the minority, just remember that it only takes a few in positions of power, particularly unaccountable ones, to destroy lives and careers. These are the kind of people who are attracted to such positions while the rest of us wouldn't even consider that type of work.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    ^^this is why stories like this matter. These folks will be in charge someday

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No shit. This is what the PC of the 90s--which was relatively benign and rooted in 60s/70s Boomer ideals of egalitarianism--has morphed into: a neo-McCarthyite culture that's hell-bent on the utter elimination of anything that they deem "wrong."

    If the Boomers and Gen-Xer's who first latched on to 90s PC are now happily destroying the lives and businesses of private citizens for crimethink, how tyrannical are these progressive Millennial college students going to turn out to be once they gain any real power beyond their boomerang lifestyle at home? These are exactly the type that migrate to social positions where they can exercise authority without much in the way of constraint outside of someone violently retaliating.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The '90s PC was never benign. This was always what it really was. I just hope that technologies and social movements in the future can disrupt the authority structures these people take over, and frustrate them to death.

  • Paul.||

    Either that or technologies and social movements will be used to bolster their behavior.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The '90s PC was never benign. This was always what it really was.

    I don't disagree at the functional level, but in terms of ruining someone's life it was nearly this strong. Campus PC was largely limited to the classroom and the coffeehouse. 90s liberals would likely be amazed, for various reasons of course, that non-progressive viewpoints could be shouted down and suppressed with the tacit support of campus authorities, and that students would actually create "safe spaces" appealing to their most infantile sensibilities to avoid hearing viewpoints they disagreed with.

    Either that or technologies and social movements will be used to bolster their behavior.

    This is a lot more likely. Look how Twitter and Instagram have essentially become mob-enabling devices.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Their colleagues would have initiated retaliation investigations against anyone she accused (this calls to mind recent Game of Thrones episodes, in which characters levelling accusations against each other merely manage to get absolutely everyone, accusers and accused, confined to dungeon cells).

    Close, but it's really more akin to Cersei (the professors and university administrators) arming the Faith Militant (bored, dumb left-wing college students) to take out one enemy (EVUL WHITE STRAIGHT MALE CHRISSSSSTIANNN REPUKES) and not expecting that the force they created would find a reason to turn on them, too, once they got a taste of that power that comes with destroying people's lives.

  • Raston Bot||

    I'd laugh but some of her work sounds hot...

    Kipnis, Laura (2010). How To Become a Scandal: Adventures in Bad Behavior

    Kipnis, Laura (2006). The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability. Pantheon.

    Kipnis, Laura (1996). Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America. Grove (Duke paperback, 1999).

    She is the writer-director-producer of Ecstasy Unlimited: The Interpenetrations of Sex and Capital (1985).

  • Almanian!||

    I'll be in my bunk...

  • Invisible Finger||

    Is this Jason Kipnis's mom? Asking for Epi.

  • ||

    Does it really matter? Isn't she somebody's mom? Oh wait...maybe not.

  • DWC||

    I used to always wonder how so many people fell under the spell of the madness that engulfed, for examples, Mao era China and Pol Pot era Cambodia. But I now I realize there is something latent in human beings that make them vulnerable to that kind of thought control. I don't doubt that without the fairly weak and tenuous constraints that have been built into our system in the US, we would likely have fallen into exactly the same traps and the march into insanity would have been led by those in academia.

  • Invisible Finger||

    there is something latent in human beings that make them vulnerable to that kind of thought control

    It's called wanting to be fashionable.

    Academia, Government, and Corporations all waste shit tons of money on fads. Puts a lot of money in a lot of pockets.

  • ||

    A bunch of her books are available on Amazon, both hard copy & Kindle. You know, if you want to throw some support her way...

  • ||

    (I just bought 3 of 'em, not just to support her, but because they sound awesome from the summaries)

  • Charles Easterly||

    Win/win.

  • Almanian!||

    I'M IN MY BUNK ALREADY, THANK YOU

  • ||

    One of the reasons the grievance crowd/SJWs/perpetually outraged have been able to flourish so, even as they fly in the face of common sense and seemingly reality itself, is that they are useful. They are useful for perpetuating KULTUR WAR. They are useful in further lowering societal standards of personal responsibility. They are useful in making people paranoid about each other.

    Basically, they are useful in a bunch of ways that serve politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, and other parasites (those groups all have plenty of overlap too) quite well. They like what these people do. Which is why you see the government constantly seeming to back them up, whether it's Title IX or Net Neutrality or whatever.

    It's like a weird perverted version of "Baptists and bootleggers", except it's "whiners and parasites". It isn't good.

  • Loki||

    Basically they're useful idiots.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If I were EVER told that I had to answer questions without a lawyer, I would turn up with a lawyer, a recording device, and an injunction of some kind. I'd need the lawyer to tell me what kind, but if possible, it would be against punishing me withoit due process of law or be held in contempt of court and jailed.

    These petty educational admin types (grade school AND college) need to be reminded that their stupid policies are NOT law, and they law supercedes them.

    And the more of this crap. Read, the more I am inclined to think that that reminding needs to be done with a large hammer.

  • Raston Bot||

    an injunction... against punishing me without due process of law

    You could walk into the meeting with the 5A printed on your shirt.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I would prefer to walk in with a self-inking stamp, for their highbrow forheads.

  • GILMORE||

    Repeal Title IX

  • Idle Hands||

    "chilling effect"? Sounds like somebody needs a hug and a cuddlebuddy.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Sounds like a sexual abuse trigger.

  • ||

    Is cuddlebuddy some kind of dirty euphemism I'm unaware of?

  • buybuydandavis||

    and if it is will someone please make me aware of it?

  • R C Dean||

    I wonder, when they do Title IX investigations of law professors, do the they tell them they can't have a lawyer?

    "OK, I get it. I can't bring a lawyer to the meeting. Since I am a lawyer, does that mean I can't come?"

  • Invisible Finger||

    No, they can come but they have to pretend they aren't lawyers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It also means that you cannot use a lawyer to answer on your behalf.

  • R C Dean||

    It also means that you cannot use a lawyer to answer on your behalf.

    Since I am a lawyer, does this mean I can't answer on my own behalf?

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's an interesting question.

    I suppose the answer is that you're compelled to answer on your own behalf, but once you do, you'll be subject to sanctions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In all seriousness, it seems to suggest that you can't take the Fifth.

    I mean, the Fifth Amendment doesn't say that taking the Fifth means that you can't contest the prosecution's case in court. It implies that someone else is going to represent you in court.

    So, if they tell me I can't have a lawyer represent me, then haven't they also told me, effectively, that I can't decline to testify?

  • Princess Trigger||

    Why would need 5th amendment protection? This isn't court of law. This isn't prosecution.
    We're just hashing out a little complaint (that can destroy your professional, financial and personal life).
    Why do you have to be so contrarian?
    You're not a libertarian are you?
    ...
    Confess your sins!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I know you're being facetious, but there are people making those exact arguments, I'm sure.

    And they're wrong for a number of reasons. Among them, this is all being done within the confines of federal law.

    The purpose of this proceeding was to find out if the accused had broken federal law as it pertains to Title IX.

  • Paul.||

    No, they send Bo in to represent you. That way, you're devoid of any lawyerly advice and experience.

  • R C Dean||

    What if you bring someone who pretends to be a lawyer, but really isn't?

    Asking for a Bo friend .

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If I understand it, impersonating a lawyer is a misdemeanor in most states; whereas, unlicensed practice of law is a felony in many states.

    Has it ever given legal advice on these fora?

  • ||

    What if you bring someone who pretends to be a lawyer, but really isn't?

    For Title IX disputes in the legal dept. I expect this to be the standard. If you can't afford one, someone who is not a lawyer will be appointed to you.

    Hopefully, we get a few good PPV Title IX jello wrestling matches before more loopholes are added.

  • Almanian!||

    ...and, if they're in CA, everyone needs to wear goggles.

    OH! I may have misinterpreted "come" in this context...

  • ||

    Yeah, what I don't get here is, since she could bring anyone who worked for the university, why she didn't just bring a law professor.

  • ||

    "I wonder, when they do Title IX investigations of law professors...?

    Is there such a case? Since these investigations are bullying of the worst kind, and since every bully I ever knew was a coward to the bone, I am guessing they avoid law profs.

  • Andrew S.||

    This anecdote, I think, reveals the men behind the curtain

    "Men"? What about the womyn behind the curtain? Or the intersex? Or those who don't conform to society's restrictive binary gender roles? I'M FILING A TITLE IX COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU, REASON!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Kipnis was not entitled to a lawyer—though she could bring a silent “support person”—and wouldn’t be notified of the actual charges until she sat down with the investigators: either in person or via Skype."

    Somebody please take this shit to the Supreme Court.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It's as if Kafka's 'Trial' is being used as a guidebook instead of a warning.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And to think, the AAUP was founded exactly 100 years ago to defend a professor who argued that the Japanese and Chinese who arrived in San Francisco should be shot before they arrived on shore.

  • Idle Hands||

    Can you imagine how terrible our test scores would be than if he had succeeded?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You want to know the punchline? In 1940, this professor became the national chairman of the ACLU.

  • Idle Hands||

    Well it's been well established that asshole are the people who tend to lose their liberties first. So it makes a degree of sense.

  • Invisible Finger||

    And nothing's changed other than the baseless criteria of who should be shot.

  • R C Dean||

    Sorry, just flashed back to both of the times I was put under oath and gave testimony.

    Neither went well.

    The first one, I was being asked to testify about some work I had done for a client. I said, sure, once you show me the written waiver from my client.

    Them: "Oh, they said it would be fine."

    Me: "That's nice. Where's the written waiver."

    Them: "We don't have one."

    Me. "Then I'm not talking until you do."

    Two hours later, a waiver was faxed in.

    The second, in an actual courtroom, ended like this:

    Him: "Are you calling me unethical and dishonest?"

    Me: "No, I'm calling your client unethical and dishonest."

    Judge: "I think that's enough, gentlemen."

  • Paul.||

    Rc, did you put the SYSTEM on trial?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Now I would like to know what you said that made the lawyer think you were calling him unethical and dishonest.

  • RAHeinlein||

    Makes me want to watch "And Justice For All" this weekend...

  • GILMORE||

    Question for the rabble =

    Do you think Reason magazine should actually take an editorial stand calling for the repeal of Title
    IX?

    is there any reason they *shouldn't*?

    (the only one that occurs to me is the inflammatory way it would be used against potential republican presidential candidates, where they'd be forced to answer 'whether or not' they were pro-repeal, and thus could be described as "Anti-Woman" for the remainder of the campaign)

  • Almanian!||

    Yes.

    Next question.....

    Almanian for President - 2016
    I Probably Won't Make It Any Worse

    I call my political party the Party Hearty Party. Feel free to join me - there are no dues and no admission requirements. Our gathering signal: "CANNONBALL! Right back atcha!"

  • Paul.||

    "Almanian for President - 2016
    I Probably Won't Make It Any Worse"

    Funny, that seemed to be the attitude of all the Reason staffers and ex commenters who voted for Obama in '08

  • AceDroman||

    Andrew WK for VP? You've got my vote.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why so milquetoast? Reason should call for the repeal of the whole Higher Education Act of '65.

  • GILMORE||

    Title IX is narrow and doesn't have the kind of massive entrenched interest that "federal money in education" has in general.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Has Title IX done anything good for women? I don't even mean in the "has the good outweighed the bad" because it's pretty clear it hasn't. It seems like every story about Title IX is about this kind of nonsense and shutting down men's programs.

    So- has Title IX done anything good for women, ever? Serious question.

  • ||

    Depends on if you wanted to play women's collegiate sports.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    But (and this is an honest question), has Title IX actually helped in that area?

    For the record I think men and women should be able to participate in collegiate sports equally, but there should not be a requirement that the number of men and women participating in college sports be equal.

  • ||

    Well, there are definitely more women's sports teams, and more women and girls participating in high school and collegiate sports.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I agree with that. And it's a good thing. Not to sound like a broken record, but is Title IX responsible? I mean, Stossel (alert FdA) always whips out that chart of worker safety since OSHA that makes it look like OSHA has prevented accidents, but really the trendline has stayed the same. I don't know, I could be wrong.

    Regardless, it seems like Title IX's usefulness has passed.

  • GILMORE||

    See the links in my post below.

    The story that sources some of the data tries to spin the results as "Title IX = Good, but not enough"

    The point was that title IX has not really been "the source" of growth in women's college sports - that was a naturally evolving trend regardless.

    The impact its had on college sports in general via the way it imposes an arbitrary "equality" regardless of supply or demand has been fairly pernicious.

    its been frequently noted that the net # of college athletic sports available has been *reduced* by Title IX.

    the response to the criticism of title IX is to blame NCAA scholarship restrictions which have had equal impact on eliminating minor sports.

    The "solution" that no one talks about is "why not just get rid of Title IX" now.

    Women make up the majority of college students. I don't see why we still need Title IX to ensure "equity" when they're already the dominant customers.

  • Invisible Finger||

    And it's a good thing.

    No, it's a further waste of taxpayer money. School sports is a stupid idea, nothing but a goddamned jobs program, further subsidizing already-overpaid and over-protected government employees.

  • R C Dean||

    Cart/horse problem, it seems to me.

  • GILMORE||

    "Hey Nikki!|2015/05/29 15:09:44|#5332120

    Depends on if you wanted to play women's collegiate sports."

    I've seen a variety of data on women's participation rates in NCAA athletics

    There has been a lot of growth, certainly - though how much is attributable to Title IX specifically is debatable.

    MoJo breaks down some of the contradictions in the piece behind that chart

    one point being that participation growth in women's HS athletics grew even faster, sans any particular legal incentives, and that uptake of the opportunities provided by Title IX in sports have been modest at best. More schools have had to *shutter* athletic departments overall because they were unable to find enough women to 'balance out' the men's programs.

    The story about whether Title IX actually delivered the goods for Women's Sports is extremely debateable. Particularly considering the costs its had on men's sports and the consequent legal sexism bullshit that has come along with it (a la this story)

  • Paul.||

    Funny how Title IX was primarily billed as being about that back when it was passed, yet all we hear about it now is this Robby Suave he said-she said stuff.

  • lap83||

    I doubt it has been good for women, but it might not be the best hill to die on.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Agreed, I wouldn't campaign against it if I were a politician.

  • GILMORE||

    some writers for this magazine probably don't want to die on that hill either.

  • Paul.||

    People keep using that phrase. What hill SHOULD we die on?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Breed's Hill?

  • GILMORE||

    "What hill SHOULD we die on?"

    This one

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Any hill were we can paint our faces blue and white, and swing claymores while shouting,"Freedom!"

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Calvary?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think you can be absolutely against women being discriminated against in college and still be against Title IX for various reasons.

    I don't think Reason should take a stand on anything, though. Different writers disagree on various subjects, and if anybody wants to defend Title IX from some freedom maximizing perspective, then they should do so.

    I have a hard time understanding how a rule that's been used to crush freedom in so many ways would be defensible from a freedom maximizing perspective, but just on principle, we should assume such an argument is out there.

    And why should Reason set themselves up to be pilloried by the feminists as being anti-woman, when they don't have to take a stance against Title IX completely--they can just highlight this disgraceful abuse and that disgraceful abuse?

  • ||

    I have a hard time understanding how a rule that's been used to crush freedom in so many ways would be defensible from a freedom maximizing perspective, but just on principle, we should assume such an argument is out there.

    Horseshit.

    As a libertarian (remember?), there are guaranteed rights already on the books and, while there may be a situation where removing the need to discriminate by sex (gender?) in education *could* be socially beneficial, that's no justification for penning it into law for all perpetuity. Having demonstrable evidence that there is significant harm caused by penning it into law is grounds enough for it's repeal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I said I couldn't imagine what that argument could be, but if we're not allowing for the possibility of people who might disagree with us on this issue--even if we don't understand what their argument might be right now--then we're no better than the people who implementing Title IX.

    No, no, no, anybody that's against Title IX is a misogynist. We're gonna denounce that out of one side of our mouths, and then say that anybody that anybody that doesn't want to get rid of it entirely--for whatever reason--isn't really a libertarian out of the other?

    Not me.

    I don't understand how any libertarian can be in favor of Title IX given the way it's being implemented, but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong about that. Other libertarians' ideas shouldn't be limited to only what you can I understand now--hell, I've learned a lot over the years around here on issues that I thought were clear as all get out before, but changed my mind on given other libertarians who--surprise!, surprise!--disagreed with me.

  • GILMORE||

    " if anybody wants to defend Title IX from some freedom maximizing perspective, then they should do so"

    I agree.

    Instead the habit has been to avoid a serious discussion of whether it should go/stay or be amended. The very fact that - as noted by Robby - "talking about Title IX is a violation of Title IX" is a sign of just how big a problem the thing is.

  • ||

    I don't understand how any libertarian can be in favor of Title IX socialism given the way it's being implemented, but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong about that.

    I'm not shouting them into silence, I'm suggesting, as a citizen (rather than legislator or judge), the law be off the books.

    They may have a better idea. It's not Title IX. Repeal IX, implement the other idea, if *necessary* (even then sunsetting would definitely be a good idea).

    I'm not claiming Title IX to be the litmus test of the one true libertarianism, I'm saying that supporting Title IX in letter or in principle, especially given its current implementation, is a distinctly non-libertarian on principle.

    The law is, IMO, distinctly guaranteeing female buggy drivers equal access to Taxi medallions. Not only is the collegiate education system slowly melting down, women are better socially positioned than they were when the law was enacted. At this point it is, pretty clearly, being (ab)used to guarantee everyone a right not to be offended.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If somebody wants to argue that socialists should voluntarily pool whatever resources they own together and hold them in common, then I think they should be perfectly free to do that. And as long as participation is only and exclusively voluntary, then I suppose that's a libertarian argument.

    It's not a libertarian argument I support, but it's a libertarian argument nonetheless.

    Now let's contrast that with the argument that anybody that disagrees with me on Title IX isn't a real libertarian and, therefore, Reason should take an official position on Title IX.

    One argument is saying that anything that can be defended from a position of maximizing freedom is libertarian, and the other is saying that anyone that disagrees with me on Issue X isn't a real libertarian.

    Meanwhile, the feminists are claiming that reasonable people can't disagree on Title IX. We shouldn't claim they're wrong about that, and then turn around and claim that real libertarians can't disagree about Title IX. You want to argue for Title IX from a libertarian perspective? I'll dare you, but I won't say it's unpossible.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Man, I hope not. Let Gawkerite retards alienate as many people as possible, while creating an atmosphere of repression so the resentment and disdain silently builds up everywhere. When something finally snaps, they'll be completely taken by surprise and the scale of reprisal will be horrifying enough for the history books. I'm thinking, involuntary resettlement on Mars.

  • JWW||

    God no. Don't send them to Mars. Mars should be for us. Leave them behind on this hellhole.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Thr essay is interesting but note her whining about college becoming more corporate--if only we could be more academically pure, this wouldn't be a problem! The fact that she is blind to her academic clique being key originators of this latest round of PC is amusing.

  • GILMORE||

    ". Is it any wonder that tuition prices are skyrocketing so that universities can continue to pay all these Title IX lawyers, bureaucrats, and coordinators?"

    'Well obviously that's why Government needs to help pay for college Education!'
    /what most people actually think

    No one in the general public or the media seems to ever grasp the vicious cycle of higher regulation, high compliance costs, and then higher prices, then demands for Government subsidy, which results in greater regulation.... etc.

  • Almanian!||

    ^^ THIS IS JUST WHAT THE KOCH BROTHERS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!!

    *carries mattress to faculty meeting*

  • Pulseguy||

    They all get it, when they themselves get knee-capped somehow by a bureaucrat somewhere.

    But, they don't extrapolate that to all people everywhere being hobbled by bureaucrats in a 1000 ways.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Welcome. An agent of the Ministry of Truth will be with you shortly. He'll be asking you some questions. Please sign this confession while you wait.

  • Paul.||

    Kipnis was informed that the charges existed—not what they were—via email. Norwthwestern’s Title IX coordinator explained that the university would hire an outside law firm to investigate the complaints. Kipnis was not entitled to a lawyer—though she could bring a silent “support person”—and wouldn’t be notified of the actual charges until she sat down with the investigators: either in person or via Skype.

    Are we still dithering on whether college campuses are bastions of leftist thought and process?

  • ||

    She is a leftist who assuredly cheered on others as they were getting harassed with lawsuits like this from similar leftists, and now she's getting a taste of her own medicine.

    Of course I want to defend her for the absurdity that goes on in cases like this, but I have a hard time not feeling like she deserves some of this. If you teach kids to act like spoiled whining ingrates don't be surprised when they turn on you.

  • ||

    Maybe she'll learn some empathy through all this.

  • ||

    Reading her article I get the impression that she is realizing that this isn't the type of feminism she was meaning to promote when she became tenured, but I don't sense that she realizes she is as big a part of the problem as the little shits who went after her.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Paul.||

    Trotsky was murdered by Stalin, no?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, as the link is from infowars.com, I'll have to say "no". Trotsky was murdered by an agent of the Zionist Freemason Illuminati Lizard People.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And just whom do you think Stalin answered to.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Are you sure she wasn't joking?

    The quote is from her essay where she says the university is persecuting professors who are romantically involved with students:

    "For the record, I strongly believe that bona fide harassers should be chemically castrated, stripped of their property, and hung up by their thumbs in the nearest public square. Let no one think I’m soft on harassment. But I also believe that the myths and fantasies about power perpetuated in these new codes are leaving our students disabled when it comes to the ordinary interpersonal tangles and erotic confusions that pretty much everyone has to deal with at some point in life, because that’s simply part of the human condition."

    We may, in fact, have found the elusive feminist with a sense of humor.

  • buybuydandavis||

    What? putting a quote in full context? that's not allowed

  • Pulseguy||

    I think she's joking, but if a male made a joke like that....you know what would happen.

  • Loki||

    NO ONE EXPECTS THE TITLE IX INQUISITION!

    Our main weapon is fear, fear and surprise.
    Our 2 main weapons are fear and surprise, and bureaucratic inefficiency.
    Our 3 main weapons are fear, surprise, bureaucratic inefficiency, and a fanatical devotion to modern feminist dogma.
    Our 4 main weapons are... I'll come in a again...

  • MacDaddy81||

    +1 Comfy Chair

  • ||

    Them - "You have no right to a lawyer."

    Me - "I don't need you to tell me what my rights are. You will be hearing from my lawyer."

    *walks out, leaves door open*

  • ||

    ^This^

    Regardless of any law, a gentlemen's agreement says I do and if it doesn't then we lack an agreement as gentlemen don't we?

  • GILMORE||

    "This anecdote, I think, reveals the men behind the curtain"

    Uhm, clarity please!? "CIS-HET men"

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thought Hillary was behind the curtain?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Perhaps he meant beef curtains.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I particularly like the "hostile environment" whine. I have part of some extremely hostile work environments; if you can't carry your wight, I will ride you like a rented donkey. Don't like it? Get your your shit handled, or GTFO.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "if you can't carry your wight"

    To be fair, the barrow wights generally don't like to be carried, they'll try to eat your soul. So cut your staff some slack!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    *been* part

  • Invisible Finger||

    This is the one time you're NOT justified in not using the nested comments.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Abigail Williams is alive and well. Maybe we should stop making kids read The Crucible in high school. 1984 too. They are evidently not taking away the correct lessons.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Making kids read1984 is the irony that no one ever learns.

  • freedomlover||

    Brave New World

  • ||

    At some point Title IX is going to be used in an attempt to address the appalling disparity in the representation of men and women in undergraduate and graduate programs. That should be fun.

    Who am I kidding, that is easily explained by male incompetence. The disparity in pay by gender, the fact that LeBron James makes more than Brittney Griner, can only be explained by rampant sexism and patriarchyness.

  • freedomlover||

    Demand and supply. Maybe we should start teaching the basics.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But that’s just the charges; the review process itself is every bit as absurd. Kipnis had no right to a lawyer, was expected to answer questions about the charges at the same meeting in which she learned of them, and dealt with a preponderance of evidence standard.

    Northwestern is a private university. How is this any different from any other private employee? If I published an article that resulted in my employer getting targeted by protests, they probably wouldn't even bother investigating, they'd just can me for being inconvenient.

  • Michael Price||

    If the universities wanted to be treated like a "private" employer (despite depending entirely on government funds) then they should agree to totally scrap tenure and stop pretending "academic freedom" is a good thing.

  • JWW||

    The best part about this is how she assumes being tenured will save her job. I look forward to the article she writes after they can her ass.

    These old leftists always assume that the troops they prepared to show no mercy to evil right wingers will eventually show mercy to them.

  • jcalton||

    "Northwestern flew a team of a lawyers out to meet with Kipnis; these men..."

    Did anybody else notice this was sexist? Not even sexist necessarily, just 100% likely to be an inaccurate characterization.
    They weren't engineers.

  • julenochoa||

    You should see the anti-free speech nonsense that the philosophy profession is making of this: http://dailynous.com/2015/05/3.....-going-on/

  • Michael Price||

    You're allowed a "silent" support person. I'm willing to bet campus policy says that if there's a deaf person involved in any way they're allowed to have a sign language interpreter. So get a deaf lawyer, an interpreter and have the lawyer sign to the interpreter, who translates to you. Depending on what the definition of "silent" was that should pass muster.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • "One sane voice fighting tons of nonsense."

  • Subscribe