The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Controversial Researcher Driven from Campus at Old Dominion University
The Academic Freedom Alliance called on Old Dominion to protect professor from threats
Professor Allyn Walker was a sociologist at Old Dominion University. Walker's research included "minor attracted individuals," which was the topic of Walker's new book recently published by a well-respected university press. When Walker's research came to public attention, it generated immediate controversy, including threats against Walker and the campus and calls for Walker's immediate termination. The university initially defended its commitment to academic freedom, but soon placed Walker on administrative leave. Walker has now resigned from the faculty.
Cathy Young has recently called "the Allyn Walker story is a test case for both progressives and conservatives," and she's right. Old Dominion seems to have failed its test.
When Walker was suspended, the Academic Freedom Alliance warned Old Dominion University that it was caving under pressure and sending a chilling message to every member of the faculty who might be engaged in controversial research. Unfortunately, the university continued down that path and allowed the mob to drive a professor from the campus. Although the Walker case has now been resolved with the professor's departure from campus, the issues raised by the controversy remain all too relevant.
The AFA has now released publicly the letter that it sent to the administration of ODU. As always, the AFA is not concerned with the substance or merits of a professor's work or ideas but with the principle that universities should be places that tolerate controversial ideas and that allow free inquiry and debate, not public opinion or political pressure, to separate error from truth. Universities should not allow threats and intimidation to short-circuit that process of critical inquiry and should not allow ideas to be suppressed and scholars defenestrated simply because they are perceived to be heretical or even dangerous.
From the letter:
It cannot be consistent with academic freedom for a university to cave in to hostile reaction on and off campus to a professor's scholarly work. The fact that students or members of the public might be offended or disturbed by a professor's research agenda, arguments or terminology is no basis for sanctioning the professor. The fact that they might express their outrage by making threats to the professor or to the campus only heightens the responsibility of the university to ensure that the professor is capable of continuing to perform their academic duties unmolested. For a university to validate such a "heckler's veto" by suspending rather than protecting the faculty member will only encourage such campaigns of threats and intimidation. There are far more appropriate steps for a university to take in response to credible threats of violence or disruption that would be compatible with rather than contrary to academic freedom and the university has a responsibility to take such steps.
. . .
There is no doubt that the questions being examined by Professor Walker are important ones. Academia should be a place where such difficult questions can be boldly and honestly investigated. If a scholar's analysis is mistaken, then it should be rebutted or ignored. But the scholar should not be driven from campus for daring to ask such difficult questions or for reaching the wrong or unpopular answers.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Does the alliance have any teeth? Boycott? Accreditation? Recognition of reciprocal courtesy? Anything?
Please, stop fucking around with your dumbass letters. I cannot take your stupid and worthless lawyer games anymore. Try mandamusing the IRS Non-Profit Office to de-exempt the university and to force to pay taxes, ending charitable donations.
See some real results, even if the mandamus is dismissed with prejudice on first pleading.
Mayor McNut opines.
Hi, Queenie. You are a denier of the chromosomal expression in every human cell of your body. You have no credibility.
Lol, are you serious? It's aggrieved culture war bullshit from people on the losing side. Even disregarding the merits, the whole point is that they have no power and thats why they are writing these impotent letters.
Losing side? You are being misled by the lying media. Come 2025, all you woke people are going to camp.
They do not (have any teeth). It is a pretty futile gesture, and make no mistake, it is merely a gesture. You think Whittington will ever lay it on the line for his principles? LOL.
I'm super glad that this guy's "research" is no longer being supported by the university (or any other one, hopefully). Hoping this leads to a wave of firings of professors who want to classify pedophiles as minor attracted persons in the wacky, completely unfounded belief that doing so will make pedophiles less likely to offend. Find them, fire them. We should never stop stigmatizing and "deligitimizing" pedophiles.
Sexual preference is an involuntary personal feature.
Even if true, so what?
"Preference" is not "action". Be that action looking at picture, talking about it, taking pictures, or screwing.
If you're an adult human, as opposed to an animal, then it's you who decides what to do with your preferences, and you who's responsible for what you do.
If you throw that out, then you've completely nuked any justification for libertarianism
"Preference" is not "action".
Who said it was?
If you're an adult human, as opposed to an animal, then it's you who decides what to do with your preferences, and you who's responsible for what you do.
If you throw that out, then you've completely nuked any justification for libertarianism
As much as I dislike euphemisms that attempt to soft-soap something in order to make it more palatable, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with replacing "pedophile" with "minor-attracted person".
Pedophile is a m-a-p who acts on it.
Pedophile is a m-a-p who acts on it.
That is completely false. A "pedophile" is, by definition, anyone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, whether or not they act on that attraction.
Making up your own meanings for an already well-defined word is no better than making up a euphemism as a replacement for it.
"That is completely false. A "pedophile" is, by definition, anyone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children,"
And not all minors are prepubescent. the MAP(minor attracted persons) is an umbrella term not a euphemism.
the MAP(minor attracted persons) is an umbrella term not a euphemism.
It is if it's being used as a replacement for a more accurate term in furtherance of an agenda of some sort (even a laudable agenda). The fact that it's less accurate than the term it's being used to replace isn't a point in its favor.
I don't necessarily discount the notion that using a new term is at least partially motivated for reasons other than clarity. But if the author is indeed talking about the attraction to not just pre-pubescent children but all minors, then MAP is more accurate than pedophile.
Maybe there is a term already existence that covers the attraction to all minors but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Google it. Then share that with the pigs.
I don't necessarily discount the notion that using a new term is at least partially motivated for reasons other than clarity. But if the author is indeed talking about the attraction to not just pre-pubescent children but all minors, then MAP is more accurate than pedophile.
Except that, as I've already pointed out multiple times...and provided a link to the video...the author has stated that the reasons for using "MAP" in place of terms like "pedophile" (which is the one he explicitly and specifically cited) are:
1) Because that's what many members of that set prefer, and
2) It is less stigmatizing
In other words...it's being used as a euphemism.
I agree. Preference is not action, and requires none. That is why homosexuals should stop butt banging. By their selfish butt banging, they killed 20 million people from AIDS. No pedophile has caused as much damage as the vicious, selfish homosexuals.
Pedophiles are those who abuse children. Professor Walker was studying those who are sexually attracted to children but have *not* acted on that predilection. I can't tell whether you are deliberately trying to confuse the two or honestly fail to recognize that distinction. Or maybe you seriously think that people deserve moral opprobrium for things they have no control over?
A good and well made point.
"Pedophiles are those who abuse children."
No.
"paedophile (noun)
a person who is sexually attracted to children."
A paedophile who abuses kids is a "criminal".
OK, then: "pedophiles" are "person[s] who [are] sexually attracted to children. In other worlds, they are literally the same thing as "minor-attracted persons." They are *not* the same thing as child molesters.
If Walker chooses to use the term "minor-attracted persons" rather than "pedophile," and if the terms literally cover the same people, then I can only presume that "they" (to use "their" preferred pronoun) are doing so in order to avoid the negative connotations of the latter term. That makes a kind of sense, to the extent that scientific researchers wish to avoid moral judgments about involuntary mental states. But if that's the reason for the choice of terms, it's ultimately a futile effort, because of how the euphemistic treadmill works.
As Greg said:
"Calling them "minor attracted people" is political propaganda designed to make them look better.
"Oh, but we can't call them pedophiles, because that would stigmatize them!"
That's the point. They should be stigmatized, because what they feel is wrong."
"They should be stigmatized"
In *academic studies* of them?
They should be stigmatized, because what they feel is wrong.
Sorry, Bob...that comment was stupid when Greg J said it, and it isn't any less stupid when you quote it.
Once you start relaxing a sexual stigma, the urge gets completely normalized in time. Best to hold the line at the start.
That's not at all the point though. The point is that you and Greg are treating the urge and acting on that urge as though they were the same thing, which is not only wrong in a moral sense, it is counter-productive if your goal is to reduce the number of children who fall victim to those who act on those urges.
"treating the urge and acting on that urge as though they were the same thing"
I don't believe any significant percentage who have the "urge" don't act on it, either in person or by looking at child porn.
I don't believe any significant percentage who have the "urge" don't act on it, either in person or by looking at child porn.
What you choose to believe, sans any convincing evidence to support that belief, is not relevant. It also does not change the fact that having an urge is not the same as acting on it, no matte how much you want to pretend that it is.
We study tons of loathsome stuff without 'relaxing the stigma.'
I'm not too concerned this is a slippery slope.
That would explain the boner in your pants while you write out your response
"OK, then: "pedophiles" are "person[s] who [are] sexually attracted to children. "
No, Pedophiles are persons who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Note: median age for onset of puberty in the US is 9.
There are separate terms for persons attracted to pubescent children and persons attracted to post-pubescent children.
Minor attracted persons is a useful umbrella term covering all three without assigning it any euphemistic quality.
Minor attracted persons is a useful umbrella term covering all three without assigning it any euphemistic quality.
I think part of the problem is that Walker himself tends to focus on the word "pedophile" when describing what it is he wants MAP to act as a replacement for (see this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Bax5uQEVs), and does not make it clear that he's using it as a more broadly applicable term. It also doesn't help that he cites as his first justification for it's use being "that's what some members of that group want to be called".
He also makes it clear that his purpose for using the term is NOT as a convenient "umbrella". He specifically cites its less icky-sounding nature as a reason to use it...which very much makes that usage a euphemism.
Bob said it first, but I'll repeat:
A pedophile is someone who's sexually attracted to children.
Calling them "minor attracted people" is political propaganda designed to make them look better.
"Oh, but we can't call them pedophiles, because that would stigmatize them!"
That's the point. They should be stigmatized, because what they feel is wrong.
And reminding them every day, in every way, that it is wrong is how you keep down the number of them who act on it.
You are willing to at least pretend to believe that keeping them from acting on their desires is a good thing, right?
I don't think people should be stigmatized based on what they feel, because no one can help what they feel. Actions, yes; that's different. But unless there's some evidence that feelings are under one's volitional control, it strikes me as unjust to punish people because "what they feel is wrong."
"I don't think people should be stigmatized based on what they feel, because no one can help what they feel."
Should people who prefer not to dine with, or share swimming pools with, members of other races be stigmatized?
Not if they don't act on it or prosthelytize it? This is a pretty easy point about thought crimes.
This topic is such a perfect litmus test to see who actually believes in any of this "liberty" stuff we all claim to care about, and who just happens to be frustrated at the particular flavor of witch scheduled to be burned on any given day
They should be stigmatized, because what they feel is wrong.
I'm all on board with stigmatizing...and throwing under the jail...those who act on such urges. But penalizing people for simply having such urges when they keep those urges in check and don't act on them is beyond idiotic.
I actually agree. And to go further and penalize someone for studying people who have such urges who don't use moralizing terms about the subjects seems bad too.
nope a child molester is a person who abuses children
No. Pedophile means those who are sexually attracted to children, whether or not they act on those attractions. The euphemism "minor-attracted-person" is supposed to be less pejorative but the meaning is identical.
Those who actually abuse children are called precisely that - child abusers.
The euphemism "minor-attracted-person" is supposed to be less pejorative but the meaning is identical.
Not quite. "pre-pubescent-minor-attracted" would be though.
What makes this different from, say, Kinsey’s “research” into sodomists and perverts? Should he have been kicked out of Indiana University as many wanted him to be?
I guess this question makes sense if you actually think sodomy is wrong
Kinsey's research violated standard research ethics. That is all that should have been required to fire him. Whereas, professor Walker appears to be following ethical research practices and the issue is that people would prefer it if the professor would violate them.
Off base. Minor attracted persons are not pedophiles. By removing the stigma they seek treatment and join support groups. I have written about this a couple of times ( https://croak.us/3c8btJq ). Dr. Walker was targeted principally because he is transgender.
Minor attracted persons are not pedophiles.
That's a pretty bizarre claim given that the term is being proposed as a replacement for "pedophile".
This isn't accurate.
"Minor Attracted Persons" is being proposed as a *refinement* of "pedophile" to more accurately distinguish between someone who doesn't act upon their desires and someone who does. Walker wishes to continue using "pedophile" for those that act upon their desire.
IANAL, but I also don't think "act upon their desires" necessarily requires commission of a crime as there are many legal ways they might act without going so far as to commit rape. So, as was suggested above by another poster, "criminal" isn't a useful term if there are legal actions one might take. In studying something like pedophilia with an eye towards prevention, even legal actions could be problematic as they might eventually lead someone to commit a crime.
I also don't think "act upon their desires" necessarily requires commission of a crime
It absolutely does not. Particularly when it comes to animated pornography or simply oogling child models in magazines.
This isn't accurate.
It most certainly is.
"Minor Attracted Persons" is being proposed as a *refinement* of "pedophile" to more accurately distinguish between someone who doesn't act upon their desires and someone who does.
It's not a "refinement" of anything, nor is it "more accurate" than "pedophile". In fact it is LESS accurate. The word "pedophile" refers to the set of individuals who are sexually attracted not to "minors" in general, but to pre-pubescent children in particular. That set includes both those who act on that attraction as well as those who do not act on it, so while there may be some practical treatment utility in opting for a euphemism to be applied to those who do not act on those urges, it is neither a refinement nor more accurate than the clinically correct "pedophile".
Walker wishes to continue using "pedophile" for those that act upon their desire.
Do you have a source for that? And if so, Walker is attempting to alter the meaning of the word.
IANAL, but I also don't think "act upon their desires" necessarily requires commission of a crime as there are many legal ways they might act without going so far as to commit rape.
Any meaningful interpretations of "act upon" WRT sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children involves criminal behavior, including those that fall well short of actual rape...which is why the distinction between "having" and "acting on" is so significant.
And by "meaningful interpretation" I'm referring to interpretations pertinent to the need to prevent pedophiles from engaging in behaviors that victimize children, either directly or by supporting the victimizing activities of others (like those who produce child pornography).
The point of his research is that not all, and maybe not even most, pedophiles ever actually offend in the first place.
Lots of people have sexual attractions that they never act on.
Stigmatizing labels, and opinions like yours, that are predicated on an almost certainly false notion that all pedophiles will offend because they can't help themselves only makes it harder for people who have such attractions to seek treatment
There is also the issue that as a psychiatric diagnosis/term, pedophile does not cover all minor attracted persons.
The term pedophile properly only refers to people with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Attractions to pubescent(in process) and post-pubescent children are each covered by a separate term/diagnosis.
But the general public like you seems to be incapable of distinguishing between a sexual attraction to 8 year olds and a sexual attraction to post-pubescent 16 year olds (legally able to consent in many states).
Bingo.
And the flip side of this is that most adults who are convicted of sexual crimes against minors don't have any particular, let alone pathological, sexual attraction to minors.
If you want to prevent child abuse. The best way to do so is to approach the subject from a logical cool headed evidence based perspective. Yes, sometimes that also means considering things that challenge your fundamental notions.
The RARA BURN THE MUTHAF&*(ER DOWN approach might make you feel good but probably leads to more abuse and destruction. For adults AND children.
its doing good vs feeling good.
"Walker has now resigned from the faculty."
Good.
As Cathy Young said, a test case for conservatives. Congratulations on failing it, Bob.
No, I passed it.
Which conservative test did you pass? Your virtue signalling, or that conservatives are interested in silencing research into icky topics?
"icky"
Immoral and dangerous you mean.
No Bob, you failed.
Lots of things are immoral and dangerous. They don't become less immoral or less dangerous merely because you refuse to look at them. On the contrary, actually turning around and addressing the issue based on hard data and facts is the only way you'll ever reduce the real harm.
This thread makes me sad, because I have to disagree with Bob while simultaneously agreeing with QA. One or the other by itself is fine. Together...
What did you expect, Dilan. Bob is very predictable in his envy of academics.
Frankly the unthinking hysteria around this subject is unfortunately a rare example of near universal bipartisanship. Its a rare person that dares to even look like they're considering at any pathway for reducing child abuse besides ample virtue signaling and upping punitiveness no matter ineffective and how superior the alternate methods might be.
Rare alignment with Amos.
Because?
Bob's scared if people don't stop just flat hating people that are attracted to children he'll give in to his urges
Jaypd's afraid that if people keep on hating pedophiles, Jaypd will never get to abuse children the way he so wants to.
Did I get that right, Jaypd? That is what you're dishonestly saying about Bob, right?
And since we all know that sinners project, it's clearly the case that you are actually doing what you accuse Bob of doing
You don't hate "people that are attracted to children"
Weird.
Not at all. Only if they act on it with a live individual.
Only if they act on it with an actual child under the age of consent*.
Age related role play with a consenting adult ought to be a legally and morally acceptable outlet.
*Age of consent varies by state and is split 3 ways 16(18 states), 17(6 states), 18(states). This is for unrestricted consent Some states allow consent at younger ages if certain restrictions are met (such as limits on the age difference).
Age of Consent in the United States
You’re probably on a watch list for looking that up.
You don't hate "people that are attracted to children"
Weird.
Why would you hate someone for having an urge, especially if they never act on that urge?
They all act on the urge, sooner or later.
They all act on the urge, sooner or later.
Which immoral urges do you indulge, Bob? Or are you going to try to tell us that you're so angel-like that you're immune to even impure thoughts?
That is a bold and sweeping statement. Now prove it.
Note, by the way, that you are celebrating the suppression of all research into that very question.
Because normalizing child abuse is wrong.
And that's what calling pedophiles "minor attracted people" is all about
In order to prevent child abuse, we must stigmatize research into preventing child abuse. Got it.
"As always, the AFA is not concerned with the substance or merits of a professor's work or ideas but with the principle that universities should be places that tolerate controversial ideas and that allow free inquiry and debate, not public opinion or political pressure, to separate error from truth. "
What a fucking joke.
Walker's research included "minor attracted individuals," which was the topic of Walker's new book recently published by a well-respected university press.
1: Walker's research was on pedophiles
2: He calls them "minor attracted individuals" because he's pushing a pro-pedophilia position
3: Whatever university press published his pro-pedophilia writings has outed itself as not being worthy of respect
4: When you have to lie about what you're doing, then what you're doing clearly is unjustifiable.
By calling them "minor attracted individuals" rather than pedophiles, Walker has established that what he's doign is political propaganda, not science.
Screw him
he's pushing a pro-pedophilia position
Cite?
Regardless, it's simply ignorant to believe that the best way to understand adult attraction to pre-pubescent individuals is to ignore it.
1: No, as a psychiatric term (which is how it would be used in academic research, the term pedophile only refers to persons with an attraction to prepubescent children. Sexual attractions to pubescent (as in in process) and post-pubescent children are separate terms. A person attracted to 15-18 year olds is not a pedophile.
2: His research covers people attracted to older, pubesecent and postpubescent minors. By the way, in 18 states 16 year olds (still minors) are legally able to consent to sex without restriction. He uses "minor attracted persons" not just for avoiding the stigma, but also as an umbrella term that respects the actual psychiatric definition of pedophile and the related terms covering attraction to older minors.
His research covers people attracted to older, pubesecent and postpubescent minors.
That makes a big difference. I searched but was unable to find any more detailed information on the nature of the research. Do you have a link to something like that? If what you're saying is correct, then it makes even less sense to propose the term as a replacement for "pedophile", as it would not be one. If the goal were to correct those who are incorrectly referring to those attracted to older children as "pedophiles" then using the already-existing terms ("hebephile" and "ephebophile") would be the way to go, as "minor-attracted" actually encompasses all three.
"Do you have a link to something like that?"
I'm going to turn that around.
"If what you're saying is correct, then it makes even less sense to propose the term as a replacement for "pedophile""
Do you have something that clearly quotes the professor in question saying this in his own words?
What I've seen elsewhere (no cite handy) is that he proposed "minor attracted persons" as BOTH an umbrella term and for being stigma free reference to those who haven't acted on their attractions, but he never specifically called it a replacement for "pedophile".
"Do you have a link to something like that?"
I'm going to turn that around.
What? There's nothing to "turn around" there. I said that I have been "unable to find any more detailed information on the nature of the research", and asked if you had a link to some, given your apparent familiarity with it. How exactly did you manage to interpret that as something that could be "turned around"?
"If what you're saying is correct, then it makes even less sense to propose the term as a replacement for "pedophile""
Do you have something that clearly quotes the professor in question saying this in his own words?
Saying what in his own words? That it doesn't make sense to propose "minor-attracted person" as a replacement for "pedophile"? Of course I don't, because that would be pretty close to being the polar opposite of the things that he apparently has said. Your response makes little to no sense.
but he never specifically called it a replacement for "pedophile"
He actually did in the video interview I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Bax5uQEVs
Who writes these? What a choice of words:
"The fact that they might express their outrage by making threats to the professor or to the campus only heightens the responsibility of the university to ensure that the professor is capable of continuing to perform their academic duties UNMOLESTED"
What makes Professor Walker’s research different from that of people like Alfred Kinsey, who got similar catcalls for labeling “sodomists” and “perverts” with less stigmatizing names?
Further, what if Professor Walker is right and it’s simply normal for a percentage of the population, otherwise perfectly capable of functioning in society, to be attracted to minors? The fact that an idea is highly inconvenient doesn’t make it false.
Kinsey's research violated ethical standards. There's no evidence presented that Walker's has.
We define individuals as minors even while they are sexually mature. We allow minors to have sex (Romeo and Juliet laws), have children, and even marry in some states. We sexualize teenage women in our media. (see: Brooke Shields in "Endless Love" and "Blue Lagoon" among a long list of similar examples.) I think it's hard to argue that having a sexual attraction to a sexually mature teenager isn't common.
We appear to be on the path of forcing pregnant teenagers to bring their pregnancies to term, too.
It’s common enough that many urban high schools have a daycare program for students’ kids.
The difference is the ability to give informed consent when the attraction is normalized and then acted on, which is the end goal here.
Look at the demands related to both gays and trans issues. "It's normal" quickly turns into demands of acceptance of the behavior. This is fine when the people involved can be expected to understand what's going on but a little much to expect that from a 5 year old.
"It's normal" quickly turns into demands of acceptance of the behavior.
So you don't understand the difference between thoughts and behaviors?
Now go suck a female dick and see if you can understand you're not dealing with honest people in the left and MAP advocates. Just as gender vs sex morphed into there are no differences based on biology, I don't see your distinction between thought and behavior holding once the thought is considered normal.
Now go suck a female dick and see if you can understand you're not dealing with honest people in the left and MAP advocates.
What are you...12 years old?
I don't see your distinction between thought and behavior holding once the thought is considered normal.
Then you're an idiot. It's perfectly normal for married men and women to fantasize about having sex with people who are not their spouses. Does that mean that any married person who has such fantasies/thoughts is guilty of infidelity? Let us know how much luck you have convincing a divorce lawyer and/or a court that there is no real distinction between thought and deed.
Jewish game. Use the veil of 'academia' to subvert an enlightened society. Jewish tactics so obvious. No wonder the Romans expelled jews from Rome before Christ was even born.
Jewish insanity.
Hi, Pavel. Happy Hanukah, The Festival of Lights.
Pavel is my favorite commenter. I just can't bring myself to mute him.
For years I’ve argued that courts should be neutral on moral matters and should not assume that either traditional or current positions are inherently objectively true. This has often appeared to put me on the side of traditionalists against judicial efforts to consititionalize contemporary mores.
But not necessarily. The traditionalists might be wrong and sometimes are. If we can’t investigate and discuss things, we can’t investigate and find out.
The flip side of insisting that traditionalists aren’t acting out of animosity when adhering to time-tested ways of organizing society is to also insist that reformers aren’t acting out of animosity when they investigate and challenge traditional norms.
The marketplace of ideas has to remain open for business.
This. I share the opinion of everyone else here about people who abuse children, but the idea that some subjects are off the table for research and discussion is about as un-American an idea as I can imagine. If his research is BS, then attack it as BS. If his research turns out to be right (which I doubt, but which cannot be ruled out), then banning it will have done much harm.
The flip side of saying that the people and the legislatures should decide the important stuff is that there has to be a wide range of debate to enable the people and the legislatures make informed decisions.
Democracy tends to be more conservative than autocracy or aristocracy, because you have to persuade a wider segment of the population in order to make any changes. That makes change a lot harder. You need to spend years in 1-1 discussions. You may need to try it out in a few ststes and see if it works before the rest will buy it. You can’t just persuade 9 people in robes to go your way and have them order it.
But the flip side of that is repect for the rights that the Constitution really does commit to the courts. And freedom of speech is perhaps the most essential. Without freedom of speech, democratic change becomes impossible. And freedom of speech means that you have to be willing to consider uncomfortable ideas. Just because an idea annoys you, or most people, doesn’t mean it should be suppressed.
Well, OK, even though I certainly agree that academics should be allowed to study controversial topics and not be canceled by the mob, there still needs to be a way to legitimately complain about it. 1A isn't a trump card (sorry), it's simply permission to speak -- but ALL sides.
So if someone creepily calls child molesters "minor attracted persons", I should be able to criticize them. Even if they are employed by a University.
Straw man. Who's arguing for stifling criticism?
AFA, every time they write one of these
Because somehow criticism = sanctioning? Oh please. Show me exactly how AFA says one can't criticize an academic.
Because anytime an academic is criticized they write one of these letters...
So if someone creepily calls child molesters "minor attracted persons"
Has it occurred to you to maybe take a moment or two to learn what the words being used here actually mean before rushing to comment?
Chaste "minor attracted persons" probably don't exist.
Many priests, who have strong institutional restraints on acting on sexual urges, often acted on them with minors. There is no reason that a person without such restraints is going to refrain. So Dave is accurate in practice.
Chaste "minor attracted persons" probably don't exist.
And you know this...how? Is it your assertion that human beings are inherently incapable of allowing their sense of morality to override their base urges? If so, which of your primitive urges do you indulge in regardless of their immorality?
We've removed every other sexual inhibition in this society but this one is different somehow. This inhibition will never be normalized.
Your continued tap-dancing in avoidance of anything even remotely resembling an actual response to what you're being asked is both dishonest and cowardly, and I see no reason to take you seriously on this issue or any other similar to it.
Oh dear, you won't take me seriously. Oh dear, so tragic for me.
No, that's not tragic at all. The fact that you're so pig-headedly resistant to reason and lack the honesty and/or courage to address substantive questions in an exchange is though.
Then go and advocate for these people with others not me.
Then go and advocate for these people with others not me.
I'm not advocating for anyone, and your assertion that I am just cements my observation about your lack of honesty, among other things.
So I have two thoughts on this...
" the principle that universities should be places that tolerate controversial ideas and that allow free inquiry and debate"
This issue here is that at no point does anyone ever say "why" we need this. From an outsider's perspective, it appears that parents are being asked to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year to send their kids to an institution where an employee is running a PR campaign to soften the image of grown ass men who like to beat off while thinking about 12 year olds. Why one earth would a parent want to subsidize that or entrust their child to someone who thinks that is ok?
My other issue is, why does anyone care what happens to Walker? He (she? not sure and didn't see it addressed in the article) decided on this topic and one of two things are true (or at least very likely so):
A) Walker knew when he waded into this cesspool that it was likely to blow up in his face and decided damn with the consequences. If you are willing to blow up your career for your passions, belief, desires, etc., then it is on you and you should not expect sympathy when things goes up in flames.
B) Walker is to stupid to realize that it could blow up on him, at which point he should be fired, not for the paper, but for just being to dumb to work at a university.
Tip: If you are a professor and don't want controversy that could potentially end your career, then there are a few topics that you should avoid: The mental inferiority of the negro, the merits of female circumcision, homosexuality is a fetish, trans as a mental disorder, the superiority of the Herrenmenschen, etc. Do yourself a favor and publish a money wasting, but benign, paper on something like an in depth study of deer-mouse boners... nobody gets fired over a deer-mouse boner.
So you're opposed to research aimed at preventing pedophiles from acting on their impulses so as to reduce the number of children who end up as their victims?
Not at all. I AM opposed to removing the stigma behind pedophilia or in subsidizing the income of someone who wants to do so.
I would much rather fund research into how we can reduce child molestation by convincing pedophiles to put large bore weaponry into their own mouths and pulling the trigger until all urges stop... that would be research worth paying for!
If you stigmatize people who act on immoral desires and you also stigmatize the people who want to act on them but successfully resist, you've eliminated the persuasive impact of stigma and, worse still, likely driven those who successfully resist into the shadows where accessing resources to help them continue resisting is more difficult. Further, as you also stigmatize research into helping them resist (as you do here), you reduce the resources available to people seeking help.
Professor Walker goes into detail as to why they chose a different term for pedophiles who successfully resist their urges. You appear to have not read that in your rush to moral outrage.
"...immoral desires..."
To be clear, this is NOT just an immoral desire, it is an EVIL desire. Wanting to sleep with your wife's sister is an immoral desire. Wanting to have an affair with your student is an immoral desire. Wanting to engage in sexual contact with prepubescent children is a psychiatric disorder and an evil desire.
"...likely driven those who successfully resist into the shadows..."
Where did you get that idea? Nobody is suggesting forcing them to confess and then making them wear the scarlet letter. Unless you actually act on the desire (e.g. caught looking at kiddy porn), why would anyone else know? (Sounds like something South Park would do... Everyone coming out of the pedophilia closet.)
"...where accessing resources to help them continue resisting is more difficult."
What resources would those be exactly? This is a psychiatric disorder and should be treated by a psychiatrist who specialized in psychiatric sexual disorders... shadows or no shadows isn't going to make that more or less accessible.
I read why Walker choose a different term, I just don't agree. And there is no moral outrage, as I am not in that state and do not have kids at that school... I quite literally do not have a cock in this fight.
<blockquote<To be clear, this is NOT just an immoral desire, it is an EVIL desire. Wanting to sleep with your wife's sister is an immoral desire. Wanting to have an affair with your student is an immoral desire. Wanting to engage in sexual contact with prepubescent children is a psychiatric disorder and an evil desire.
Uh, those are all evil desires. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, the first principle of the natural law (i.e., the moral law that all humans can derive using natural reason) is that ""good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." (Sleeping with your wife's sister, having an affair with your student, or wanting to do either (see Matt. 5:27-28) are all evil. And immoral. But I repeat myself.) Or do you think that "evil" means "really, REALLY immoral"?
I should clarify: Everything immoral is a *moral* evil. But not everything evil is immoral. That's because there are evils that aren't moral evils. The Black Death was evil, but it wasn't immoral, because it wasn't a voluntary choice.
I will give you that. Immoral vs. evil in religious context vs. the vernacular I was aiming for are not the same and I should have been more clear. My goal was to illustrate they are not the moral equivalent to society (you are right... "REALLY immoral"). Take, for example: One one hand you have a man who lays with another man's wife. On the other you have a man who skins a prostitute because he thinks that her tattoo would look really nice as a lamp shade. Moral absolutism, and your god, may see those two things are the moral equivalent, but society most certainly does not.
Play this game: Say you have a wife and 7 year old daughter. You and the family are visiting your bother, his wife, and their 7 year ol daughter for the holiday weekend. While there, you get a call from work and they need you log into the system real quick, but you did think to bring your laptop. You get on your bother's and while there, you run across his journal. While the right thing to do may be to close it and move on, you snoop...
In it you find details about how he would like to sleep with you wife. How he fantasies about your wife while he is sleeping with his wife. How he masturbates to photos your wife of her in a bikini during your last family vacation. How he loves when you stay overnight so that he can look at her ass in her sleepwear. That kind of thing... no actions taken, no rifling though her laundry hamper, no secret spying or cameras; noting but fantasy.
Think about how you would react... would you confront him? Would you tell your wife knowing that she may not want to come around and that it could hurt the ability of the cousins to get to know each other? Would you just keep it to yourself knowing that even though it is creepy and weird, it is just fantasy?
Now... what if the journal entry was your 7 year old daughter instead of your wife? If he was fantasizing about in inserting himself into her tight virginal holes while sleeping with his wife? If he was masturbating to beach bikini photos of you daughter you posted from your family vacation? If he loves it when you come to visit because your daughter wears skirts and at her age has not fully learned modesty and he is aroused when she end up flashing her undergarments at him while she is playing with his daughter? He has not acted on anything, not tried to get her alone, spy on her, or take any sort of secretive photos. Pure fantasy.
Morality aside, do you think those are the equivalent? Would you handle them the same? Would you chalk that up to "it is only fantasy" or "an impure thought"? Personally, with the first situation I would be creeped out, but would likely ignore knowing this IF he ever acted on it, my wife would handle it better than I ever could. The second scenario; however, I would not ignore it, under no circumstances would my daughter ever be in the same building as him, my wife, his wife, and our parents would be made fully aware, and any semblance of family would be over.
I do not get how people can think a man who sees their sister-in-law bend over and thinks "nice ass, I would tap that" is the moral equivalent to a man who sees his prepubescent niece bend over and thinks "nice ass, I would tap that" is the same. That completely baffles me.
I AM opposed to removing the stigma behind pedophilia
Tell us what you think the word "pedophilia" means in clear, unambiguous terms.
I would much rather fund research into how we can reduce child molestation by convincing pedophiles to put large bore weaponry into their own mouths and pulling the trigger until all urges stop... that would be research worth paying for!
So people who have base animal urges that they themselves find morally repugnant, and who refrain from acting on those urges because of that repugnance should commit suicide?
You have almost certainly had urges to do immoral/criminal things in your life. Are you going to suck-start a shotgun because of them?
"Tell us what you think the word "pedophilia" means in clear, unambiguous terms."
Not sure what makes you think I am not aware of the meaning, or if you are simply to lazy to google it yourself, but here you go:
A psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. (- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)
"So people who have base animal urges that they themselves find morally repugnant, and who refrain from acting on those urges because of that repugnance should commit suicide?"
No, and I am sorry if that is the way it came off. I am for DESTIMATIZING the idea of suicide by adults who are sexual attracted to prepubescent children. We as a society should whole heatedly support the idea of it by people whose urges are morally repugnant to themselves. Hell, we could even consider hotlines and everything.
"You have almost certainly had urges to do immoral/criminal things in your life. Are you going to suck-start a shotgun because of them?"
Ohhhh, I see the problem now - YOU don't know the definition of pedophile. This isn't about having a stray thought, an immoral urge, or that you beat off to a porn star on the wrong side of "barely legal" - it is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. There is a vast chasm between say, wanting to kill your wife after she cheated on you and wanting to find a random co-ed so that your can skin her to make a lamp shade. One is a common and understandable fantasy and the other is fucking evil. If you don't see the difference...
Not sure what makes you think I am not aware of the meaning
Primarily the fact that have...and continue to...speak of it as though it describes and action taken rather than an involuntary condition. Your description of such a condition (rather than an action taken in response to ) as being "evil" makes it clear that your though processes are thoroughly jumbled. Your suggestion that people who have such conditions should kill themselves, even if they manage to refrain from caving in to those urges, makes your application of the term "evil" to others deeply hypocritical.
What? I have been clear that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. If you require the "thoughts" of molesting prepubescent children in order to achieve sexual release, that would be pedophilia. If you molest a prepubescent child, you are a monster, but may or may not be a pedophile. I never even made the claim that the majority of child molestation is committed by pedophiles. I simply stated that the thoughts of a pedophile are of an evil nature; at no point in a humans lifecycle is a "normal" person ever sexually attracted to prepubescent children. I also never claimed that a pedophile who never acts on the urges is an evil person.
Their is no hypocrisy and I am not sure you really understand what that means. If a person is having pervasive thoughts "that they themselves find morally repugnant", I am perfectly ok with them committed suicide; however, there seems to be a bad stigma attached to that term. So lets try "deciding to exit their human vessels" (- Heaven's Gate). If a person with a sexual psychiatric disorder is morally repulsed by their own desires toward prepubescent children and decides to exit their human vessel, why the hell would I be at all upset about that? I personally do not find the act of purposely exiting your human vessel to be at all morally iffy or a reprehensible thought. While you may think the opinion to be amoral, their is no hypocrisy.
Encouraging people to commit suicide certainly qualifies as immoral (or evil, if you think there is a difference).
Maybe, although now you are treading into philosophy.
Is committing suicide immoral? Maybe, maybe not.
What about terminal end of life options such as assisted death and physician-hastened death? You ok with that? Is it immoral to offer end-of-life literature to a Hospice patient with a painful and terminal disease? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't have a morality issue with offering a person who has urges which are morally repugnant to themselves a permanent solution to their issue. You might.
But look at the assumption you're making: that there is a distinct population of pathological pedophiles who are significantly responsible for the incidence of child molestation.
We don't know enough to affirm any part of this.
It appears that the majority of adults who commit sexual crimes against minors are not "pedophiles" in the sense of having a pathological attraction to children. Instead they are seemingly "normal" sexually. They don't have collections of child pornography, don't invest energy in "grooming victims," and in short don't fit the stereoptypical profile of the child-molesting pedophile. As a DOJ manual puts it:
"Not all individuals who sexually assault children are pedophiles. Pedophilia consists of a sexual preference for children that may or may not lead to child sexual abuse (e.g., viewing child pornography), whereas child sexual abuse involves sexual contact with a child that may or may not be due to pedophilia."
https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-3-sex-offender-typologies
It's probably important to note, by the way, that a significant proportion of total sexual molestation of minors, probably about a third is committed by other minors. Of the rest, a significant proportion, about half, is committed by family members. So if our goal is to protect children from sexual victimization, adult strangers aren't the leading cause.
On the other hand, there are actual pedophiles, but it appears not all of them and perhaps not even most of them actually commit sexual crimes against minors.
Many people's repertoire of sexual fantasy and even attraction involves criminal or otherwise destructive behavior such as rape, abduction, and violence. I think it is probably common sense that a man who finds depictions of rape arousing or may ideate about committing rape is not necessarily going to commit rape. Likewise a man who fantasizes about carrying on a sexual affair with his neighbor or co-worker is not necessarily going to commit adultery. For that matter, a man who wonders what it might be like to have sex with another man, perhaps even fantasizes about it or includes homosexual content in his pornographic habits is not necessarily going to have a homosexual liaison.
If we are concerned about reducing child molestation then it would make sense to leran more about child molestation including the extent to which it is linked to pedophilia. It would also make sense to study "chaste pedophiles."
I completely agree with you, but I am not why any of that goes against what I said. My point wasn't that all pedophiles are child molesters, or even that they are the primary offenders. My issue was that pedophilia should not be destigmatized.
If your sexual fantasy is to violently rape, or if you have an urge to gut the neighbors cat and rub its viscera all over your body, if when you see a pretty girl you think “One side of me says, I'd like to talk to her, date her. The other side of me says, I wonder what her head would look like on a stick?” (- ed kemper), or if you want to fuck a child, you are having evil thoughts. Whether you act on them or not, they are still evil thoughts and if they become known you should be treated like a leper of yore and declared unclean and vile... NOT destigmatized.
I have zero issue with the child molestation being studied in an effort to reduce cases of it. (Although, if you are correct and the pedophile child molester is really a unicorn, then studying chaste pedophiles to reduce the molestation rates would be a lot like studying Ed Gein to reduce murder rates...)
I think for the purposes of the professor's studies, minor attracted person covers more ground than just the pre-pubescence of pedophilia so thats probably why he used the term.
You may be right, but during the first Reason article about this, the professor was quoted (in text and someone posted a link to an interview clip) as saying "minor attracted persons" was being used due to the bad connotations with pedophile and to differentiate between those who have acted on their urges and those who have not.
The American Psychiatric Association has tons of studies and literature regarding this issue and international standards define all of these terms quite clearly. So, unless you are going a on PR crusade, why not stick with the terms actual scientists use?
There have been a lot of good points made here involving general principles, but this is the rubber meet the road one that I really would like to see discussed by those who are reacting with understandably powerful emotions at the very idea that the research is taking places at all.
Putting all aside all annoyance with euphemisms or what you perceive as some kind of sinister agenda by the researcher, what if you knew for a fact that the end results of allowing researchers to pursue the topic openly and honestly, subject to the same dispassionate scrutiny and improvement as you'd have with any other kind of research, would be a net reduction of child rape? Would you be okay with it then?
Isn't the only reason we think pedophilia is objectively bad in a moral sense is because it drives people to hurt children, as opposed to just the attraction itself? Otherwise it would be no different than being attracted to stuffed animals. Still perhaps an indicator of other issues we might want to be wary of, but not something produces outright hate from everyone.
The only objective value I see to the stigmatization of pedophiles is if that approach results in the least amount of damage to actual children. And maybe it is the best approach, I have no idea.
So does anyone disagree with me about the goal itself? If not, then I see no reason to not encourage inquiry into the subject to see if we can achieve better results than we currently have, regardless of who we need to stigmatize or not stigmatize to get there. Being emotionally invested in a specific means at the expense of the desired ends seems like something we should actively avoid.
Or do some people feel strongly that stigmatizing everyone who is unfortunate enough to be plagued by such a revolting desire is an end onto itself? And does that value trump the potential of reducing harm to children if the cost of saving those children comes with the risk of any destigmatization of non-offending perverts?
There are some potential problems with stigmatizing pedophiles.
First, we may make it impossible for pedophiles to get help that might make them less likely to offend.
Second, by focusing child molestation prevention on stigmatizing and avoiding pedophiles, we may give insufficient attention to the threat posed by non-pedophiles who seem to be the majority of child molesters.
Yeah, that all seems intuitively correct. Or at least worth more study. Maybe destigmatization would result in a net positive for society, or maybe it isn't. I don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion that goes beyond my intuition. All I know for sure is that I don't want to assume my intuitions have already gotten me to the best possible approach to any of this. And I don't want other people too do that either. That's why it seems obvious to me that inquiry into the subject matter is the very first thing we need destigmatize. I don't want just this one guy looking into it. I want his work scrutinized and improved upon with even more inquiry. That's usually how we tend to improve upon previously held ideas.
And with most fields of study this method of knowledge building is uncontroversial. A crucial component to the machine is the general rule that we can, and often should, attack ideas but not the presenter of the idea. The last thing we want to do is deter this guy or the next potential guy from coming up with a better idea out of fear of getting his life destroyed.
Since this methodology has such a great track record of improving knowledge, the only reason I can see to prevent it is when you have dogma that you don't want held up to scrutiny.
So what dogma are we so attached to here that allowing it to be scrutinized, altered, or even replaced with something better is too painful to risk? Even if the potential reward is a net reduction in the worst kind of crimes imaginable.
I can't help but think that some people have such an emotional attachment to stigmatizing the people who have these desires that it has morphed into a moral principle in and of itself. Even though the only tangible moral principle I can see is the one about violating the rights of children.
I'd have to know more about the book (i. e., read it) to know whether he/she/xhe is trying to *reduce* sexual predation against children through evidence-based policies, or is trying to make predation less of a big deal.
That would be a legitimate inquiry for a university to engage in, and they shouldn't have to wait for a mob, or defer to it.
If the book is actually proposing remedies *against* sex predation the university ought to laud the author and defend him/her against critics. If the book is of a tendency to *encourage* predation the author should be fired, and if that conflicts with academic freedom, so much the worse for academic freedom.
But the bottom line is that I haven't read the book. The university administration should have done so and evaluated it without outside pressure one way or another, then taken action based on the book's content.
It seems highly unlikely that this is a book encouraging child rape. If it is, then I'd think it would be a better known story. I'd want way more details than this article provides. Wouldn't a book encouraging child rape have to get into the practical issues of getting away with it? Or maybe the author would have to make a case about lowering the age of consent to 3. I could be wrong, but if a book like that actually existed in any form, I think it would be bigger news.
I too think that serious research with the aim of better understanding an atypical psychological condition with the ultimate goal of reducing crimes against children, regardless of the conclusions it reaches in terms of destigmatization, can't be seen as anything other than a worthy endeavor.
But even if the primary focus of the book is to make a case for the destigmatization of non-offending pedophiles for the sake of the pedophiles themselves, I still don't see any reason to be afraid it. Let him do his research, draw his conclusions, and put it out there for scrutiny. If his case proves to be unpersuasive then we all get to feel even better about ourselves, knowing that our primal hatred for these societal pariahs can remain comfortably unexamined until further notice.
The only reason I can see to stifle the inquiry itself is if we're afraid that his conclusions might actually be persuasive. Which might force us to consider the possibility that, against all conceivable odds, the strength of our emotionally driven certainty on this subject didn't necessarily lead us to the best of all possible policies. And who wants that existential crises? Best to burn the book, the author, and and anyone who doesn't cheer loud enough at the first two burnings.
"It seems highly unlikely that this is a book encouraging child rape. If it is, then I'd think it would be a better known story."
It is not, it is a study of pedophilia, not molestation. That said, there have been plenty of books over the years published encouraging/enabling child rape and every once in awhile one become (in)famous. Two of the most well know titles (not sure either were very wildly read...fucking hope not) were "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" published around the founding of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and "The Rape and Escape Manual", which was part of Curley v. NAMBLA... an ACLU case back when they had principles but questionable morals (as opposed to today, where they seem to act on their idea of moral superiority while lacking any sort of guiding principles).
"The only reason I can see to stifle the inquiry itself is if we're afraid that his conclusions might actually be persuasive. "
It is more complicated than that and their are multiple things going on all at once.
There is outrage that anything even remotely pro pedophilia was published at all... very likely typical social mob mentality and unwarranted. Most reasonable people will agree that topics should be studied that may be able to reduce the instances of child molestation.
There was outrage that he was suspended over it (and later resigned)... this is largely by the ivory tower types who believe that universities profs should have carte blanche to spew whatever nonsense and tripe they can come up with and that those who are effectively paying their salaries should have no say or opinion on it.
There is outrage because Professor Walker is trans... some keep suggesting that trans-phobia, and not the paper discussing subject matter regarding sexual attraction to prepubescent children, is the real reason for the controversy. This is basically the far left's version of "the election was stolen from Trump", anti vax, and Q-Anon type of nonsense.
But the most outrage was from the publication's campaigning for the destigmatizing of pedophiles... seems there are those who believe that when we run across a person with a psychiatric disorder in which their primary or exclusive sexual attraction is to prepubescent children, we should take time to stop, give them a big 'ol hug, and tell them that they are swell. And there are those who don't.
This is a book by a crazy person masquerading as an academic to justify his/her gender confusion and sexual interests. It’s an excuse for him/her to spend time talking to perverts about their behavior and fantasies.