Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Open Letter re Allegations of Antisemitic Bias by GW Prof Lara Sheehi

I have been following from a distance a controversy over the alleged conduct of Prof. Lara Sheehi, who teaches a mandatory DEI class to psychology grad students at George Washington University. The key allegations amount to her denigrating, bullying, and otherwise mistreating students who are Israeli, Jewish, and/or pro-Israel. Professors who should know better claim that she's being targeting for her pro-Palestinian views. The allegations suggest otherwise, and also raise the question as to why a professor would be bringing her views of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into a psychology DEI class to begin with… Note that even those of us, like blogfather Eugene and me, who are quite skeptical of hostile environment law based on speech in general, draw a clear line at hostile speech by faculty that is individually targeted at specific students.

In any event, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East has put out an open letter on the controversy, and I thought it was quite good (though as you might expect I have a few quibbles, so I'm not adopting the entire letter as my own perspective), so I'm sharing it.

Open letter to George Washington University (GWU) regarding allegations of antisemitism

We, the undersigned, are mental health clinicians and educators, practitioners of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, and scholars of antisemitism from several disciplines. We are a diverse group, including those from the political left, right, and center; Jews and non-Jews, and those with varied views on Zionism.

We are deeply concerned about allegations regarding Dr. Lara Sheehi, the newly elected President and former Secretary of the Society for Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychology (Division 39 of the American Psychological Association) and chair of the American Psychoanalytic Association's Teachers' Academy. Dr. Sheehi teaches a required Diversity course for graduate students in psychology at The George Washington University. A formal complaint has been made on behalf of several of her Jewish and Israeli students describing a series of failures on her and the University's part to treat all students equally and with respect. (We urge the reader to review the entire StandWithUs complaint to grasp the magnitude of the accusations.) These allegations are alarming and, if true, expose an egregious abuse of the trust customarily placed in educators and constitute a clear violation of Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and other characteristics in institutions receiving government support.

Since this complaint appeared, several letters in defense of Dr. Sheehi have circulated, and gained wide support, claiming that concerns about her teaching and her online presence – which is rife with profanity and hateful rhetoric against Zionism and Israelis – are the result of a right-wing Zionist conspiracy. It is shocking to reflect that those signatories signed letters that did not even consider the possibility that the students' allegations might be true, nor demand they be given respectful consideration. Would this be the case if the students were not Jewish or Israeli? Imagine the scandal that would erupt if a group of students from another background – Black students, Muslim students, or LGBT students – alleged that their professor excluded and shamed them based on their religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation in a required course on diversity. The calls for such a professor's resignation or removal would be swift and severe. And while these remain allegations at present, Dr. Sheehi's tweets and online interviews regarding Israelis render the allegations quite plausible, with more than enough reason to warrant careful scrutiny. (Her deleted twitter account included statements such as the following: "Israelis are so f***ing racist," "Zionists are unhinged," "you can't be a Zionist and also a feminist" "F*** Zionism, Zionists…" "F*** every person who is not yet an anti-Zionist," and "Zionists are so far up their own a****".)

Therefore, compelling Jewish and Israeli students to take a course with Dr. Sheehi while these complaints are being investigated is highly inappropriate. As precedent, consider the case of Professor Amy Wax, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who made hostile remarks about Black students in a required course and was then removed from this teaching role.

Letters written in support of Dr. Sheehi have claimed that she is being "silenced" because of her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Let us clarify that this is simply not the case. She remains free to express her political and academic views, which are not relevant here. Her classroom conduct is. If the complaints against her are supported by the facts, then her willingness to bully, belittle, and retaliate against students of a particular religious and ethnic background and national origin are highly unprofessional. That being so, we are dismayed by the totally inadequate response to the students' concerns displayed by the faculty in GWU's psychology program and by the administrators at higher levels of leadership. In a time when considerable resources are poured into promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, singling out Jews and Israelis as undeserving of those protections is nothing short of antisemitic. Moreover, it is ironic to see Jewish Voice for Peace criticizing StandWithUs, the organization that filed the complaint on behalf of the GWU students, for "…conflating some Jewish students' emotional discomfort with targeted harassment…." This is especially disingenuous when diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts argue that impact supersedes intent in matters of racism and discrimination. The particular politics of StandWithUs as an organization have no bearing on the issue of whether the students' allegations should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, the many letters circulating in support of Dr. Sheehi deflect from the important matter and claim that concerns about her alleged classroom conduct are simply attempts to restrict her academic freedom, encourage threats to her safety, advocate for "doxxing," and/or come from a right-wing "playbook." These claims are baseless. Indeed:
We deplore any threats to Dr. Sheehi's safety (or those close to her) in the strongest possible terms.

We vigorously oppose any attempt to "dox" Dr. Sheehi, or to publish private information about her in a malicious effort to damage her reputation ahead of the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights investigation. The allegations against her are worrisome enough as they stand. There is no need for these reprehensible tactics.

We strongly support academic freedom, though many of us disagree with Dr. Sheehi's framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.We deny that concerns raised about Dr. Sheehi come only from the right wing or from a Jewish conspiracy of powerful individuals and will not dwell on the tired antisemitic trope that this argument represents. The concerns about her conduct and her suitability for specific educational and leadership roles comes from across the political spectrum.

We acknowledge that the allegations in the StandWithUs complaint are, as yet, allegations. We urge the Department of Education and GWU to promptly and dispassionately conduct their own investigations by carefully evaluating the testimony of the Jewish and Israeli students in light of substantial corroborating evidence.

The fact that some extremists are subjecting Dr. Sheehi to doxxing and death threats, while deeply unfortunate, should not be used to silence legitimate concerns about her suitability for teaching or leadership roles. Dr. Sheehi is amply entitled to her opinions, her academic freedom, and, above all, her personal safety. But as a teacher of a diverse group of students and leader of a diverse organization, she must not allow her political views to prejudice her interactions with students, patients, or colleagues. [emphasis added by DB]

We hope that this expression of concern dispels the egregious misconceptions present in the various letters of support Dr. Sheehi has received thus far. We choose to speak out because cases like these involving Jewish and Israeli students being bullied, belittled, and excluded are increasingly commonplace on campuses across the United States and seldom get the scrutiny and impartial treatment they deserve. They not only feed a global resurgence of antisemitism but fuel a dangerous turn in the mental health field where activism is entering the consulting room, where "anti-discrimination" efforts covertly condone discrimination, and where frankly unprofessional and unethical behavior masquerades under the guise of academic freedom.

In conclusion, we call upon GWU to relieve Dr. Sheehi of teaching roles in required courses until this matter is adjudicated. In light of the online material available, if the allegations against Dr. Sheehi are corroborated in part or in whole, this may also cast doubt upon her suitability to train psychotherapists in general.

Respectfully and sincerely signed,

CLICK HERE TO SIGN

Comments

[Estragon]

“Note that even those of us, like blogfather Eugene and me, who are quite skeptical of hostile environment law based on speech in general, draw a clear line at hostile speech by faculty that is individually targeted at specific students.“

I think this statement needs a qualification. Weren’t you the author of some posts about a specific NYU law student earlier this year?

[David Bernstein]

That individual (a) is not my student; (b) isn't at my university; (c) isn't someone I've ever interacted with and (d) was not targeted for her race or ethnicity or religion, but because she made antisemitic comments and then even after the antisemitic nature of those comments was explained to her in some detail, continued to defend them. So hostile environment law is entirely inapposite.

But of course, hostile environment law is a subset of harassment law, and if I were actually harassing her in the legal sense, which mere criticism, even harsh criticism is not, I would not be able to claim a first amendment defense to such harassment. But there i no general moral or legal principle that "a person (who happens to be a professor) cannot criticize a person (who happens to be a student hundreds of miles away at some other university).

[Estragon]

So you draw a “clear line”at hostile speech directed at specific students… unless sub (a-d) applies?

As I said- this statement needs qualification, which you have provided. Believe me, we are well aware of your moral principles in this area after the posts in the spring.

[David Bernstein]

I'm not sure if you're simply trying to be tendentious, butI said this in the context of someone who (allegedly) directed her behavior at her own students, and in context that's obviously what I was referring to.

[Estragon]

Yes, I realize that was the likely context. That’s why I said your statement needed qualification.

However YOU were the tenured professor who decided to spend a week shitposting some 3L at a school (as you pointed out) hundreds of miles away a mere nine months ago.

That you would have done that, and then breeze in here and say you draw the line at singling out individual students was just a little rich for me this morning.

I mean do these things seem completely dissimilar to you in your mind??

[David Bernstein]

Yes, I have certain legal and moral obligations to my own students taking my own class that I don't have to random adults who happen to be students somewhere.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's worse than you can imagine -- the Voodoo Scientists have the power to totally sidestep all of the civil rights laws and eliminate individual's rights to life, liberty & property.

Hence it's not just some random professor hating Jews, but someone with the legal right to arbitrarily deny them their liberty and property -- and hence should be held to a higher standard.

[Estragon]

I have absolutely no idea what this means

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Prof. Lara Sheehi, who teaches a mandatory DEI class to psychology grad students at George Washington University"

Assume the hypothetical that a specific academic degree was required to be a police officer (none is) and that someone with the mentality of Bull Connor was teaching a mandatory "patriotism" class to those earning said degree. Might that be problematic?

Might there be some concerns about the judgements that the graduates of this course might be making about [plural racial slur] in their exercise of the power of the state? Psychologists have more power than police officers and hence, what is the difference?

[Estragon]

Excuse me if I don’t take tips on “moral obligations” from bullies

[Estragon]

Let me ask you a serious question david. What do you think your students last March thought when you were blowing up some student at another school?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If he blew up a student, wouldn't that be murder?

Just askin....

[Lee Moore]

Estragon : That’s why I said your statement needed qualification.

Actually the qualification was already there and explicit :

DB : draw a clear line at hostile speech by faculty that is individually targeted at specific students.

Nobody uses "faculty" to refer to everyone in the world who holds professorial rank at any university or college in the world. It always refers to the teaching/research staff of a particular university, or department thereof. The line was drawn limiting the principle to faculty of the institution attended by the student right from the get-go.

But mysteriously you managed to elide "by faculty" out :

Estragon : So you draw a “clear line”at hostile speech directed at specific students… unless sub (a-d) applies?

So this is an entirely fake "gotcha."

[Estragon]

The fact that you and DB have to clarify this much is my original point. The guy is not shy about criticizing specific students, clearly. Some “clear line” indeed. The lack of self awareness to have written those posts in the spring and then self-righteously proclaim his upstanding morality in drawing “clear lines” is astonishing, truly. I mean, really? Not even a second thought before hitting post on that? It’s hard to say what’s more pathetic— that performance or you gallantly riding in to DBs rescue

[David Bernstein]

He wasn't clarifying, but pointing out the obvious...

[Lee Moore]

I concede that it took me longer to point out that you had deliberately omitted the qualifying words from DB’s opening post, than you took to omit them. But that’s kinda how it works with omitting things.

[SimonP]

No, but there are general legal principles like, "a person can't intentionally and knowingly say false or misleading things about another person in a way deliberately calculated to harm their reputation and career." And a moral obligation, as a professor with certain academic and pedagogical responsibilities, not to conduct oneself in such a pointlessly vindictive manner towards a student (regardless of whether they are your student).

I mean - some people make the mistake of giving you the honorific "professor" despite your not actually being their professor. That title ought to have some meaning for you.

But as Estragon also put it, your character in this respect is well-established and known. Asking you to act like a respected intellectual would be futile, as would asking you not to launch into an unwanted, lengthy defense of your own plainly inappropriate actions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Professors shouldn't criticize racists or antisemites if they happen to be studying somewhere? What a bizarre thing to say.

SimonP clearly isn't someone who wishes to be taken seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

It wasn’t like one criticism.

It was persistent, lengthy, and got really granular.

[David Bernstein]

"It wasn’t like one criticism. It was persistent, lengthy, and got really granular."

It was, in fact, one post, and it was well-deserved, long after any suggestion that she didn't understand what she was saying was moot, and the fact that I'm a professor and she's an adult student at an entirely university is completely irrelevant.

Yosmin Badie, NYU Law Student and Antisemite
DAVID BERNSTEIN | 4.24.2022 2:32 PM
Let's recap what happened at NYU Law School recently. NYU Students for Justice in Palestine sent out an email in essence justifying Palestinians terrorists murdering Israeli civilians. In the course of doing so, the author of the email threw some antisemitic tropes regarding Jewish control of the media, including arguing
that "framing is everything and the Zionist grip on the media is omnipresent" and referencing the "Islamophobic, Zionist-funded US and Western media." Several other NYU student groups chimed in to endorse the email.

Defenders of the email, as one would expect, argue that vehemently criticizing Israel and Zionism, even arguing that Palestinians have the right to murder Israel civilians to resist "occupation," is not antisemitic. However, as I noted in my original post on the matter, the lines noted in the above paragraph criticize neither Israel as a state nor Zionism as an ideology. Rather, they claim that "Zionists" fund and control the media. And as I noted, the most obvious form of antisemitism that tries to obscure itself behind antizionism is when one can substitute the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew," and one is left with an obvious, longstanding antisemitic trope, as with the NYU SJP email.

I can easily imagine a student or student organization signing on to the statement, not recognizing or noticing the obvious (at least to those with some knowledge of the history and practice of antisemitism) antisemitic implications of claiming that Zionists fund and control an Islamaphobic media. And I can easily imagine them regretting this language, even if they decline to publicly apologize for it or retract it. Indeed, I would think that even antisemitic students would regret the language in question, because it associates a cause they support with antisemitism, which simply isn't a good strategy, at least in the US.

More generally, when someone uses antisemitic language, I'm inclined to point it out, but not suggest that the individual himself or herself is antisemitic. Some people pick up antisemitic tropes unknowingly or negligently. Some use overly provocative language without really thinking of the implications.

I'd prefer that such individuals retract and/or apologize for their language. But even if they don't, I'm still hesitant to judge them more harshly than what I suggested in the previous paragraph. I'm also inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in general to people who are speaking (or tweeting) off the cuff.

But I draw the line at people who, once their antisemitic language has been pointed out to them, choose to double down on it. That includes NYU law student Yosmin Badie, previously best known for repeatedly tweeting "fuck Israel," along with the occasional "fuck Amerikkka." As reported by JTA:

Yosmin Badie, a member of NYU Law's Students for Justice in Palestine, said in a statement to the New York Jewish Week that the response to the [Student of Justice in Palestine's] emails was "shameful."

"The effort to silence those who choose to speak out against apartheid and violent occupation is shameful, and equally shameful is the purposeful conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism," Badie said.

"I will not be intimidated by those who wish to deny this right and will continue to unequivocally stand with Palestinians in their struggle," she said.

According to Ms. Badie, you see, not only was the email not antisemitic but only "antizionist" (please tell us, Ms. Badie, who these "Zionists" are who control and fund the media?), but pointing out and criticizing the underlying antisemitism is an attempt to silence her.

I'm not here to silence or "cancel" Ms. Badie. But I also don't see that Jews need to sit back and let antisemites like Ms. Badie hide behind "antizionism" while purporting to represent anti-racism and progressive values and not call them out for it. (And by the way, in case you are inclined to think that Ms. Badie must have been traumatized by her experiences as a Palestinian victim of Israel or whatever formulation people use to excuse Palestinian extremism, she identifies herself on Twitter as an "Iranian American" and has been affiliated with the National Iranian American Council, known for running interference in the US on behalf of the Iranian theocracy. Always interesting to find self-proclaimed "human rights activists" with origins in horrible dictatorships who focus their energy on Israel instead.)

So, Ms. Badie, you have a right to spew whatever antisemitic (and genocidal) rhetoric you wish. And I may point out that you are an antisemite. And, for what it's worth, the same applies to any of your classmates who continue to defend the email SJP sent out.

And while we are on the subject, readers should check out NYU law student Tal Fortgang's essay at Bari Weiss' substack, To the Antisemites Who Sit Next to Me in School.

UPDATE: If you thought that perhaps by now SJP at NYU Law would have second thoughts about using antisemitic tropes in its communications, and might acknowledge that it was a mistake to use such tropes, you would be wrong.

[Randal]

Yay! Relitigation time.

So... you got triggered by "fuck Israel" and "fuck Amerikkka" tweets? Care to explain how those are antisemitic? The latter one seems semitic, if anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

Simon's character is well-established and known.

[SimonP]

What do you think is "well-established and known" about my character? Have I targeted a law student on a prominent legal blog, in an attempt to torpedo her employment chances? Have I called for the extrajudicial killing of a pervert in the military? Have I admitted that, if my children were to come out as gay or trans, I would accuse their teachers of having "groomed" them? Have I called for political violence against people whose political views I reject?

I think the only thing you know about my "character" is that my politics differ from yours. That you think that, in itself, is sufficient, just goes to show how rotten to your core you are.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, if you want to play hardball, go after her Psych license:

License Number PSY1001274
First Name LARA
Last Name SHEEHI
Profession PSYCHOLOGY
Type PSYCHOLOGIST
Status Active
From State/Prov: VA
Issue Date: 2017-09-05
Expiration Date: 2023-12-31

[Bob from Ohio]

She's also a nut:

"Lara works on race and white supremacy, decolonial struggles as well as power configurations in class and gender constructs and dynamics within Psychoanalysis. She practices from a trans-inclusive feminist and liberation theory model." her linkin profile

BTY, GWU has a 2.8 billion dollar endowment that we could seize. Or we could just continue to subsidize destructive teaching.

[Sarcastr0]

Noted tyrannically liberal institution GWU. Not only is it reputed to be not particularly partisan, I can personally tell you that it isn't! I went there for science policy. Plenty of Republicans as both professors and teachers!

You're really cutting some corners on bothering to know things these days.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not particularly partisan"

Did I say anything about "partisan"? This mandatory course is just left wing agitprop. Its ideology, not "partisanship".

[Sarcastr0]

Therefore end GWU's endowment.

You don't believe what you say, if you ever did.

[Bob from Ohio]

The only way to rein in the DEI/CRT and other lefty madness infecting our colleges is to take away their money.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio...You can't take their money through predatory taxation. I don't think you want to start that precedent, do you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcarstr0, Leftism is like cancer -- a person can appear perfectly healthy while dying of the disease. So too an institution -- GYU may currently still have Republicans -- UMass Amherst did 30 years ago -- but how many in their 30s?

[Sarcastr0]

That is not GWs sole hiring model.

Forget age, check out how many from the Trump Admin teach there now.

[Lee Moore]

Offer us a sprinkling. I googled and found this list :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Washington_University_faculty

but didn't spot any I recognised as ex-Trumpies. Though I did spot Uncle Clarence and a couple of Bushies.

But I don't claim to be an expert on the Trump Admin's personnel.

[Drewski]

Did not expect you to be the one to call for a communist revolution. But given that, I'm sort of surprised you didn't jump straight to Stalinism and suggest Lara be imprisoned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to her imprisoning others???

[Dr. Ed 2]

Over 90% of psychologists self-identify as being on the "far left" on all social issues.

Enough said?

[BrotherMovesOn]

100% of ILLEGAL aliens identify as being not shot by Dr."Rambo" Ed.
Fraud!

Enough said?

[Dr. Ed 2]

All state authority is — ultimately — enforced by the state-sanctioned use of guns. (I.e. of force.)

After all, what is the justification for the prosecution of the January 6th trespassers? They’re not going to do it again, so what’s the goal?

I’m not saying that shooting people should be the first option but why do armored car drivers carry guns? And what is the final line if someone walks up and tries to take the satchel of cash from them?

Exactly how is that different from my saying that we should be prepared and willing to shoot illegal aliens nonchalantly ignoring our efforts to enforce our border? And we wouldn’t have to shoot many for word to spread that Uncle Sucker has had enough…

[Sarcastr0]

Because border crossing is not the same as being robbing an armored car. Or are they invaders.

This studied lack of perspective is no different than any other movement to dehumanize and execute civilians for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because border crossing is not the same as being robbing an armored car.

So a sovereign government can only enforce some laws but not all of them? And why let armored car drivers use deadly force -- most (all) of them are terrible marksmen and more likely to hit innocent bystanders than anyone else, and it's only money.

You do understand that not everyone entering the country illegally is a blushing virgin -- don't you? Where do you think all our (quite deadly) fentanyl is coming from. What about the MS-13 members who are required to murder someone to achieve rank? Murder Americans? What about the sex slaves? (Didn't we already fight one war to end slavery in this country?)

Or are they invaders.

That too.

This studied lack of perspective is no different than any other movement to dehumanize and execute civilians for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am not dehumanizing them -- but what do you do with out-of-control anarchy? What does a sovereign state do when its sovereignty is being ignored?

And if I truly were the type of person whom you attempt to paint me as being, I would be calling for the carpetbombing of the capitols of the countries they are coming from -- something which actually would be permitted under the International Rules of War. Do not forget that these countries are emptying their prisons with the understanding that El Gringo will accept their prisoners....

And it is NOT "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" -- it is knowingly and intentionally engaging in an illegal act. Or is the person in the back of the Brinks truck merely "in the wrong place at the wrong time?"

[Sarcastr0]

You are a psycho if you say the only way to enforce the law is mass murder.

Fuck off with your racist collective guilt about MS-13. First, that's now a homegrown thing. Second even if it were not that does not justify indiscriminate mass murder of a group that is hardly all gang members.

You are *absolutely* for dehumanizing a group that you call invaders, gang members, compare to bank robbers, and want to machine gun.

Yes, crossing the border into your fucked up machine gun plan is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That you have no sense of moral proportion doesn't mean no one else does.

There's a reason people keep bringing up that you advocate for this thing - it makes you a monster, and is something you should be tarred with every time you comment. That you don't understand that only makes it worse.

[David Nieporent]

Do not forget that these countries are emptying their prisons with the understanding that El Gringo will accept their prisoners….

You are delusional.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's precedent -- Castro did it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marielitos_(gangs)

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside that only a tiny percentage of the Mariel boat lift involved prisoners — see, e.g., https://reason.com/2021/01/30/the-dangerous-paradise-of-1980-miami/ — that's not "precedent" for anything. Cuba was a totalitarian country that decided who could leave and when. People who come across the Mexican border are not being sent by their governments.

[Harvey Mosley]

I am in no way, shape, or form defending Dr. Ed or his position. But I have to ask do you think any law is enforced without the implicit threat of deadly force?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, people like to obey the law; to be thought of as law abiding citizens.

Social control works away before bullets.

[David Nieporent]

After all, what is the justification for the prosecution of the January 6th trespassers? They’re not going to do it again, so what’s the goal?

Retribution and deterrence. But what on earth does that have to do with the topic? Nobody is suggesting lining them up and shooting them.

I’m not saying that shooting people should be the first option but why do armored car drivers carry guns?

Self-defense.

Exactly how is that different from my saying that we should be prepared and willing to shoot illegal aliens nonchalantly ignoring our efforts to enforce our border?

Because that's mass murder in order to stop a non-violent crime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Retribution and deterrence. But what on earth does that have to do with the topic? Nobody is suggesting lining them up and shooting them."

Only because it isn't necessary -- only because it is possible to harm them without doing that. But what would you be proposing if it wasn't???

And I am *NOT* saying "line up and shoot" -- instead I am saying "shoot if person won't stop when told to." Big difference.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio, I think I'll need some help interpreting this one (didn't have this in college when I went) = ...a trans-inclusive feminist and liberation theory model... 😉

I mean, what the hell is that...really?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fancy words for “all White heterosexual males are inherently evil, except for Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.”

NB: "Liberation theory" started as -- essentially -- Marxism in Latin America. Che Guevara and the rest, although I believe it has expanded into all forms of "oppression" -- the feminists grabbed it in the early '90s and then....

"Trans-inclusive" actually means what it says -- you include "trans" (but not "trannys") in your definition of what women are. Throw in her belief in "liberation theory" and, well, see above...

[Randal]

It's unfortunately a pretty bad letter.

She remains free to express her political and academic views, which are not relevant here.

But now let's delve into her Twitter feed for salacious quotes!

Also not a fan of the oppression contest, comparing the Jews' plight vs the gays' plight vs the blacks' plight. Like, really? We're doing that?

[David Bernstein]

The letter does not compare plights, it compares, correctly how some people react quite differently to claims of discriminatory behavior directed at Jews than they would to claims fo discriminatory behavior directed at other minorities. And it's also legally relevant, in that Jews and Israelis are entitled under Title VI to the same legal protections as African Americans and other minorities.

As for the looking at her tweets, they aren't saying that she should be punished for them, they are saying that the unhinged natured of those tweets provides evidence that the allegations in question are plausible, which, in fact, they do.

[Sarcastr0]

Unless those 'some people' are judges, I don't know how that fact (which is true) is legally relevant.

[David Bernstein]

They don't say it's legally relevant. The letter says that lots of people are signing letters dismissing the allegations as a witchhunt against her because she's pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, and the letter's response is that there is objective evidence to the contrary, that someone who will publicly write unhinged tweets along the lines of what she wrote will plausibly say and do improper things on the same subject in class. So the tweets aren't legally relevant to whether she discriminated against students, but they are logically relevant to whether we dismiss the students' allegations as a witchhunt or whether we believe there may be some "there" there.

[Sarcastr0]

*You* say it's legally relevant, above.

And going after those who wrote in support of her doesn't seem a good or relevant strategy.

If there is objective evidence to the contrary, then provide that evidence or make sure that evidence comes out. That should be the end of it.
Going straight to calling for her dismissal with the only factual predicate being ipse dixit is as bad as any social media firestorm.

[David Bernstein]

No, I did not. I said the tweets provide evidence that the allegations are plausible and thus should not, as some have argued, be dismissed out of hand as a political witchhunt.

[Sarcastr0]

The letter does not compare plights, it compares, correctly how some people react quite differently to claims of discriminatory behavior directed at Jews than they would to claims of discriminatory behavior directed at other minorities.

And it’s also legally relevant, in that Jews and Israelis are entitled under Title VI to the same legal protections as African Americans and other minorities.

This is not the argument you just made. Which is a better argument, though still a weak one. Guilt by awful tweets is not something I am down for.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Evidence of a history of antisemitism can be used to support allegations of antisemitism in a classroom context.

[Sarcastr0]

Support but not prove.

[SRG]

But no-one is saying that the tweets prove that she is an anti-Semite in the classroom.

Consider this:
A. X is saying anti-Semitic shit in her class!
B. No she isn't, your accusation is not plausible, and she's not an anti-Semite.
A. And here are some tweets
B. That doesn't prove she said anti-Semitic shit.
A. No, but it makes it more likely that she did, and it fundamentally undermines a claim about her character.
Sarcastro: but if the tweets don't prove it, you shouldn't use them!
SRG: Stop being a schmuck.

[Sarcastr0]

The letter wants her fired, dude.

[Michael P]

The letter wants her fired for in-class behavior that would be consistent with twitting that kind of thing, not fired for twitting.

[Michael P]

Correction: The letter wants her suspended pending an investigation (into her classroom behavior).

I should have already learned that S_0 will lie even in a six-word comment.

[Sarcastr0]

In conclusion, we call upon GWU to relieve Dr. Sheehi of teaching roles in required courses until this matter is adjudicated. In light of the online material available, if the allegations against Dr. Sheehi are corroborated in part or in whole, this may also cast doubt upon her suitability to train psychotherapists in general.

Yeah, this is super protective of her job.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, Michael.

[Michael P]

Who's pissing on a leg and calling it rain? You've gone from "wants her fired" to the letter being insufficiently protective of her job.

Do you get any exercise besides moving those goalposts?

[mse326]

I think you two conflating two different parts of the exchange. 1. Was about comparison to other minority groups and 2. was about the relevance, if any, of her tweets.

The portion he said was legally relevant, that you quoted, was about point 1. It wasn't about her tweets which is point 2.

[Harvey Mosley]

I'm curious if you can show any past comments at all that defend someone on the right for accusations of similar behavior. If you can then I applaud you for standing up for 1A rights. If you can't then that says something, too.

[Sarcastr0]

There is a difference of fact here that is not evident in other examples. However, yes I have defended conservatives from t being fired for saying nigger and the like.

And I and almost everyone else here including the liberals thought the recent Muhammad depiction thing was dumb as hell.

[David Bernstein]

It's the reaction of GW to the controversy that's legally relevant, not the tweets.

[Don Nico]

David,
Have there been formal complaints against Sheehi by students in her class that her conduct is bullying and harassing and likely in violation of Title VI?
If formal complaints have been made, has the university warned Prof. Sheehi that harassing and discriminatory behavior violates the university's code of conduct and must cease?
If formal complaints have been made, is the university in the process of conducting a formal investigation of Prof. Sheehi?

We have all seen universities do such things when a student has complained of being physically sickened bu harassing behavior

[Lee Moore]

But typicallly a harassment complaint is made against an alleged perp :

(a) who is being accused by a member of an “oppressed minority” and (b) who is a member of an oppressor class

And thus the complainer can expect the university administration, and the investigating body thereof, to be at least 145% in the tank for the complainer and against the oppressor right off the bat. Thus the complainer requires metaphorical cojones the size of a photon to make the complaint. Much more likely they’re going to get an actual job out of it.

Whereas if (a) and (b) are reversed and the complainer is a member of an oppressing class, and the compained of is in good political standing with the university, then the required cojones size is more in the nature of a planetary body.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes the lack of evidence is just further damming!

Welcome to unfalsifiability-land. Enjoy your narritivism; the rest of us prefer to stick to figuring out actual stuff.

[Lee Moore]

As I have mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there is an easy solution to the lack of evidence. Just videotape the classes.

And also audiotape the disciplinary hearings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd

[Don Nico]

"Enjoy your narritivism"
cute snark but meaningless in the face of actual practice of how universities investigate complaints.

Why are you de facto defending Sheehi, when you have no firm evidence?

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you think my calling out people who want her fired without investigation of the allegations are de facto defending her, Don?

Other cases of academic firings have not had this question of fact, generally.

[Lee Moore]

Sarcastro : Why do you think my calling out people who want her fired without investigation of the allegations

Actually there's a guy / gal / whatev a few comments up who has bothered to get the cite, which makes it absolutely clear that the people in question want her suspended from teaching (and only the "required" courses) while an investigation proceeds :

In conclusion, we call upon GWU to relieve Dr. Sheehi of teaching roles in required courses until this matter is adjudicated. In light of the online material available, if the allegations against Dr. Sheehi are corroborated in part or in whole, this may also cast doubt upon her suitability to train psychotherapists in general.

Oh wait, it was you that found that cite. Only a couple of hours before you came out with the "fired without investigation" schtik again.

Of course this suspension during the investigation is pretty much par for the course in these matters, though I for one am very doubtful that suspension is wise or fair in all but the most egregious cases (eg those involving allegations of physical or sexual assault.)

I'll also note in re the general spat about "academic freedom" that the case for it is stronger in optional courses, and weaker in required courses. If the university is going to require its students to take a particular course then relatively, it is more of a case of the university speaking, and less of the professor exercising his/her/whatev academic freedom than is the case for optional courses.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Have there been formal complaints against Sheehi by students in her class that her conduct is bullying and harassing and likely in violation of Title VI?"

None of her students are that stupid.

Seriously, Don....

[Randal]

The letter didn’t mention a difference in legal protection, only a difference in the reaction of “signatories” and the degree of “scandal” that would “erupt.” Boo hoo! How is that relevant to anything other than a lame my-grievance-is-more-grievous-than-your-grievance narrative?

[Randal]

And on the tweets, no, they’re saying they “aren’t relevant here.” Not that she shouldn’t be punished for them.

But then they say that they are relevant after all! The reason that matters is they’re trying to have it both ways. They’re making the trust-us-it’s-not-about-the-content argument, but then they’re overstating it, which makes it harder to trust them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

” And it’s also legally relevant, in that Jews and Israelis are entitled under Title VI to the same legal protections as African Americans and other minorities.”

David, I must disagree with you here — Title VI says that you are not supposed to discriminate against ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quakers were hung on Boston Common in the 1600s, in his Souls of Black Folk, WEB DuBois discusses how it was European Catholics who were being discriminated against in Massachusetts of the late 1800s.

And then there is Louise Woodward, who had a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting a fair trial from a Suffolk County jury circa 1997 -- in an Irish-American culture that hated British Protestants more than Jews or Blacks ever could be.

My point is part of the "never again" mantra -- Title IV needs to apply to EVERYONE -- and I argue that it does...

[Sarcastr0]

No one said it doesn't apply to every race, color, or national origin.

[Randal]

David said “other minorities” which is true but misleading if it actually applies to “other races.” I, for example, was misled. A common situation where David is involved I must say.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why must I be the fact checker.

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963:

Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination."

US Dept of Justice. See: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI

[Dr. Ed 2]

It says NO PERSON---

§2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title VI, §601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252.)

[SimonP]

Yeah, that Title VI Complaint is a real... howler. Students shaking and crying due to a guest lecturer, and accusing the professor of anti-semitism because she didn't validate their feelings? Real snowflakes, that lot.

David, at some point you need to understand that the layers of obfuscation you bring to these issues does not help your case, among reasoning people. Every time I go down your rabbit holes, I find deceit. Nothing you say can really be trusted.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why are you here? You said this whole blog was a waste of time.

[SimonP]

I'm bored on a Friday.

Why are you here? You're a colossal moron who can't read.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m bored on a Friday."

So you figured you'd come here and bore us too?

[David Bernstein]

I take the shaking and crying allegations to be an attempt to meet the standard for hostile environment that it must affect your ability to pursue your education. I"m not a fan of those allegations. I would much prefer the students protest etc. But if the allegations in the complaint are true, the effect on the students is irrelevant, you don't need hostile environment law, some of the behavior, like when a student tells her he's Israeli she tells him it's not his fault, is discrimintary without hostile environment law coming into play. And as for validating their feelings IT'S A DEI CLASS, 1/3 of the point of the class is "inclusion." Meanwhile, the allegations are that everyone else's feeling were validated, except she was entirely dismissive of concerns raised by Jewish students. That, if true, is discriminatory behavior, no need to show hostile environment.

[SimonP]

It's impossible for me to take the complaint very seriously, because on key points the actual evidence that would help someone to independently evaluate the situation are omitted and replaced by characterizations and paraphrases. It just happens, again and again.

And as for validating their feelings IT’S A DEI CLASS, 1/3 of the point of the class is “inclusion.”

This is the kind of thing the complaint does repeatedly. It presumes a dubious premise, finds Sheehi (or some constellation of third parties) failing to live up to the premise, and declaring "hostility."

Any comprehensive DEI initiative in the U.S. will need to talk about patriarchal white supremacy. As we've seen in the recent culture wars, white men tend to react negatively to that terminology, to such a point that they feel discriminated against. Does that mean that any discussion of patriarchal white supremacy inevitably creates a "hostile" environment for white, male students, unless the instructors somehow find a way to cater to fragile white, male egos?

[David Bernstein]

If the instructor acts in a hostile manner to white male students and no one else, whether it creates a hostile environment or not is irrelevant, it's discriminatory per se.

[SimonP]

Sure, and when you pack a whole host of unstated premises and non sequiturs into the conclusory assertion that someone is "acting in a hostile manner," it makes it a whole lot easier for you to reach your conclusion. Doesn't it? I mean, that seems to be your entire schtick.

My hypothetical was intended to illustrate the point. The complaint is full of examples just like my example - of the white male who is uncomfortable with frank discussions about patriarchal white supremacy, and then points to that discomfort and lack of accommodation as creating a "hostile environment."

[Armchair Lawyer]

When it's all 4 of the minority in the class complaining about the same thing....

[SimonP]

When we in fact do not have any basis for knowing this but assert it anyway...

[Kleppe]

"Any comprehensive DEI initiative in the U.S. will need to talk about patriarchal white supremacy."

Exhibit A why they should not be mandatory and should not receive a single dollar of public funding.

[Sarcastr0]

Exhibit A you don't wish to engage with facts you don't like; you would prefer to suppress them.

[Social Justice is neither]

You appear to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose if DEI requirements, they are marxist indoctrination and nothing more.

[Savagely Average]

The complaint letter claims that when the students called out the prof on her anti-Semitism she disagreed with them, but that she validated other identity groups’ claims. If true, as you say, that’s discrimination.

I do wish the students had called for all claims of discrimination to be judged rationally, rather than asking that the same fallacy (feelings = facts) be applied uniformly.

[SimonP]

Or, perhaps, some claims of anti-semitism are false, while other claims of prejudice are valid.

The complaint leads with the assertion that Zionism is integral to Jewish identity, so as to simplify the argument being made. Every statement purporting to be "anti-Zionist" is therefore automatically also "antisemitic," given that assertion.

Contesting that conflation - which greatly oversimplifies the relationship of Jewish identity and Zionism, as well as the history of modern Zionism and its role in contemporary Israeli politics - is not tantamount to prejudicial treatment. There is legitimate room for disagreement there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"when a student tells her he’s Israeli she tells him it’s not his fault, is discrimintary"

I'm not sure on that, because -- in a certain context -- I can see myself saying the exact same thing. Actually have, in the past.

Back in the '80s, with the hostage matter fresh in our minds, we didn't think much of Iran or Iranians. So when a fellow student started apologizing for being Iranian, I told him that "I didn't care" although "it's not your fault" perhaps would have been a better answer. And if -- for whatever reason -- an Israeli national was apologizing for being born in Israel, it would be the compassionate thing to say.

If you stopped there.

And if that's why you said it.

Like a lot of things, context matters. Intent matters. And reputation matters -- and people knew that I was judging this young man as an individual and truly didn't care where he had been born.

OTOH, if I my intent was otherwise, then what I said would have had a completely different meaning. And I think that intent and meaning needs to be remembered...

[Lee Moore]

Simple solution is the video recorder.

Jordan Peterson had his psychology lectures videoed so he could put them online. (Before he entered the political realm.) They're free, they're interesting, and they don't infringe any possible privacy interests of his students. And they provide clear evidence for or against the proposition that he indoctrinated his students in class with fascist memes.

[Rossami]

Here's an easier solution - abolish mandatory DEI courses. Studies demonstrate that they not only fail to change behaviors as desired, they actually backfire, creating resentment, hostility and discrimination where there was none before.

[Sarcastr0]

Different courses, chief.

Tis is a school not a workplace.

And those studies are...not systematic. I do think those courses tend towards the silly 'we did something' side. But don't give too much authority to anecdotes, even if gotten by a professional.

I also thing banning them is...kinda a lot.

[Rossami]

Different setting, yes, but not different courses. And the studies are compellingly consistent even when conducted by researchers who admitted that they wanted the results to come out the other way. We are well past "anecdotes" by now.

[Sarcastr0]

There are studies about academic courses for students not yet in practice?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why? These courses are directing violence at people, as we saw with the recent killing of the doctor in Dana Point. They need to be shut down immediately before more people get murdered.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s dumb when terminally online leftists do it, it’s dumb when you ape it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're...admitting that you're a terminally online leftist?

[Sarcastr0]

Terminally online, yes.

Leftist, lol no.

[Hank Ferrous]

I'll bite. List policies, positions, laws, and viewpoints associated w/ center and/or right that you hold and/or endorse. There is some overlap, but you have consistently demonstrated in your arguments that you are not conservative, and generally not very centrist.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm liberal, not lefitst. Not everyone who isn't on the right or center is all the way leftist.

I'm against gun confiscation, don't like heckler's veto on campus speakers, and favor criminal justice reform, but not abolishing prisons or disarming the police.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sorry who kidnapped the original Sarcastr0 and replaced him with another Sarcastr0? = I’m against gun confiscation, don’t like heckler’s veto on campus speakers, and favor criminal justice reform, but not abolishing prisons or disarming the police.

🙂

[Michael P]

Are you referring to this killing? I've read a few stories about it, but none attributed a motive to the killer. What does it have to do with DIE courses?

[Lee Moore]

Tis is a school not a workplace.

Wow - when did that happen ?

For two long years we were told that schools needed to be kept closed despite the Covid risk to children (and young adults) being roughly the same as the risk posed by lightning bolts, because it was unfair to put the poor old teachers and janitors (aka workers) at risk.
I see to recall old Randi Nutcase being very insistent about this.

And those studies are…not systematic

But that I agree with. Ban DEI classes, and it'll still be covered in Chemistry, never mind History.

In th end, decress from the State government are easily dodged by the recalcitrant employees of the state, unless the governing body of the actual school is appointed by and answerable to, the State government, and that governing body has, and regularly uses, the expression "You're fired !"

It's really just an application of one of Coase's insights - that property ownership gives the owner control of all aspects of the use of property that are not explicitly dealt with in some contract. The employees are in reality the property owners when it comes to schools, and the state government's attempts to control them are like contractual restrictions. Being in practical day to day control means the employees can avoid any regulation that isn't absolutely specific, and which is practically enforceable.

The only real solution - like in private business - is for the nominal owners to take actual charge. And the way to achieve that is to acquire hiring and firing power. If you don't got that, you're just foolin' around.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a course taught to students. It is not a course taught to employees.

You’re really working hard to come to a conclusion of exercising top-down utter control of all schools. You know, like an authoritarian might.

[Don Nico]

"You know, like an authoritarian might."
How very ad hominem of you.

Just because the class is taught to students, it does not mean that the instructor should not be held to the same standard of ethical behavior as when the class is taught to employees

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not what ad hominem is, Don.

And I think standards for different jobs being used for different functions should be f different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcasto, it is a course in a MANDATORY PROGRAM to become licensed as an employee. (Think ABA-approved law school.)

That makes it different....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even simpler solution -- abolish the requirement that graduation from an APA-approved program is a prerequisite to being licensed as a psychologist. That would END this BS because people would go to non-approved programs and actually get an education.

[Sarcastr0]

This seems to hinge on a factual issue.

Not a fan of this person from what I've seen. But I don't much like all the irrelevancies people are bringing up to try and short-circuit the bottom line factual question.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What factual issue is this? It appears you are trying to obfuscate the issue (again) to defend the person.

[Sarcastr0]

It appears I like proving allegations are true before I think acting on them is appropriate.

Not shocked you're into the 'she is a bad person, therefore caring about what the facts are is bad.'
Just move to a police state if that's how you want to be.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What factual issue is this? Again, you appear to be obfuscating the issue.

What exactly do you deny occurred?. Or is it just a generality designed to divert and protect?

[Sarcastr0]

The factual issue is that the allegations are insufficiently supported.

Which you clearly don't care about.

[Don Nico]

"allegations are insufficiently supported."
Is that the conclusion of the university's investigation?
Is the university even conducting an investigation?
That is what matter here.

[Sarcastr0]

The OP isn’t about the investigation or lack thereof.

It’s about a letter calling for suspension based only on allegations and bad tweets.

[Don Nico]

Am I supposed to deduce from your answer that there have been no complaints to the university other than third party open letters.
True, I do not know, but I would find that extremely hard to believe.
As for the tweets, faculty and students now find themselves disciplined for that.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither letter nor OP mention anything., if they have more support for their case they should mention it, if more support is soon to come they should have waited for it.

[Jerry B.]

"Prof. Lara Sheehi, who teaches a mandatory DEI class to psychology grad students at George Washington University..."

Mandatory?

Well, there's your problem, right there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog's positions on student claims to be aggrieved by partisan speakers on campus, outspoken instructors in classrooms, hostile environments, a feeling of being "targeted," and the like seem to flutter with the partisan winds.

[SimonP]

And how. I can just imagine it: Eugene posts a haughty diatribe about how a trans person with a transphobic professor needs to get used to being constantly misgendered and deadnamed, and the usual suspects in the comments chortle to themselves about the poor little blue-haired snowflake.

Some of these allegations... Christ. "Sheehi didn't read our journals as retaliation for trying to get her fired." Man, not everything is a goddamned conspiracy against you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to imagine anything. This blog has taken the side of the accused instructor and belittled the claims of the complaining student(s) repeatedly. The only change -- the pivot point -- is that this professor is not a clinger.

[Kleppe]

" a trans person with a transphobic professor needs to get used to being constantly misgendered"

How is referring to someone by the correct attributes "mis-" anything?

"and deadnamed"

Made up leftist bullshit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Made up leftist bullshit.

Do you prefer made-up superstitious bullshit, like most clingers?

[Lee Moore]

about how a trans person with a transphobic professor needs to get used to being constantly misgendered and deadnamed

This is all based on a yuuuuge misunderstanding. The vast majority of people do not think of gender from one decade to the next, even if they have a semi-coherent idea of what "gender" might be.

When the vast majority of people say "man" or "woman" or "male" or "female" they are referring to sex, not to gender. It has been thus ever since English got started. And thus when they refer to a person of male sex and female gender identity as a "man" they are not "misgendering" , they are "correctsexing" .

It is silly for anyone to insist that the speaker should not be referring to sex, but instead should be referring to gender. Why would A get to decide what B talks about ?

The most helpful thing that those who are excitable about gender should do, is to reassure their trans friends - don't worry, nobody is misgendering you, they're talking about sex.

[Randal]

This is the most intentionally stupid post I've ever read. I'm amazed at how stupid you're willing to sound in order to justify hating on the transies.

[Lee Moore]

You will, no doubt, understand that I find your counterarguments less than compelling.

[Randal]

Yes you do find them compelling, because that post is clearly grasping at the stupid straws, which takes intent. Of course you’re not willing to admit it, you’re committed to the bit. But I mean, you’re not fooling anyone. Not even stupid people are that stupid. Something that outrageously stupid takes work.

[Lee Moore]

So as I understand it, your response to my impeccably argued, clearly stated and obviously correct argument is ……

….” I got nothing.”

[Randal]

When you’re compelled to start your “impeccable” argument with

This is all based on a yuuuuge misunderstanding.

you know it’s gonna be good. Good in a fantasy story-telling way, not good in a plausible argument way, obviously! No, it’s beyond retarded to suggest that everybody but you simply misunderstands the issue. But you know that.

[Lee Moore]

So still got nothing

[Randal]

See also: sex change operation.

[Lee Moore]

Now you’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

[Randal]

What are you talking about?

Your argument undermines itself, as I've said, but it's also fatally undermined by the very existence of sex change operations.

[Lee Moore]

Er, what ?

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, when they use the words "man", "woman", "male", "female" are talking about sex.

And, er, no this needs a double er, you think "sex change" operations actually change someone's sex ? They're cosmetic surgery. They can of course affect reproductive function - ie by destroying it - but they don't change your sex. Maybe the technology will improve and it will be possible for the docs to actually change your sex at some point in the future. But at present it's a euphemism, used for marketing purposes.

[Randal]

That's obviously not how "the vast majority of people" think about it, as I'm sure you know. If it were, "sex change operation" wouldn't be the natural vocabulary.

Hysterically, in your inane attempts to twist gender psychology to match your bigotry, you've managed to align yourself with... the trans community! They of course agree entirely with your latest post and have been making the same point for decades. Congratulations, you're a trans-rights advocate!

So so stupid.

[Lee Moore]

That’s obviously not how “the vast majority of people” think about it, as I’m sure you know.

"It" being what ? Are you denying that most people use "man", "woman" as a reference to sex ?

Or are you insisting that a "sex-change" operation actually changes your sex ? And just for the avoidance of doubt, I suspect that 95% of the population has never used the expression "sex-change operation." It's a niche usage. The niche being doctors marketing cosmetic surgery to unfortunate folk with gender dysphoria.

Hysterically, in your inane attempts to twist gender psychology to match your bigotry, you’ve managed to align yourself with… the trans community! They of course agree entirely with your latest post and have been making the same point for decades. Congratulations, you’re a trans-rights advocate!

Not easy to pick up any thread of reason from that, but the best I can do is deduce that you think "the trans community" believes that a "sex-change operation" does not change your sex. Good for them. Unless you're saying that "the trans community" thinks gender is the same as sex, and that gender is immutable. In which case they'd wrong. And also I don't think that's what they're saying.

In any event, leave the gnomic crap to sarcastro, and say what you think plainly.

[Randal]

I’m just surprised that you a) continue to double down on the stupid and b) keep giving me more chances to ridicule you!

In that vein…

Of course, everybody knows what a sex change operation is. I think I first heard that term on the playground as a wee 8 year old. What better taunt could there be than loudly speculating about who’d had or was in need of a sex change operation? It’s not a “niche” term.

Good Will Hunting
Family Guy

I could post 1000 more if Reason would let me. So you have to know how common it is. Don’t stop pretending to be stupid! I’m having fun.

[Randal]

Weekend at Bernie's
Cheers

[Randal]

South Park
30 Rock

[Lee Moore]

So it's back to throwing spaghetti at the wall.

[Randal]

Do you even know what that expression means?

Anyway, since you seem to need help keeping the plot in mind, let's do a retrospective. You are claiming, ridiculously, that people think of sex as distinct from gender. I pointed out that that would render the very common phrase "sex change operation" meaningless. You retardedly responded that it was a "niche" phrase. I provided evidence to the extreme contrary.

So... yeah. People don't think of sex and gender independently. They think of sex (and gender) as the thing that defines trans people, as evidenced by the ubiquity of the term "sex change operation."

But you knew all that, because it's blatantly obvious. I'm excited to see how you continue the stupidity charade from here!

[Lee Moore]

Well, I’m pleased to see that eventually, you’re willing to offer up a couple of concrete propositions.

You are claiming, ridiculously, that people think of sex as distinct from gender.

I did not say that. I said that when (most) people say “man” or “woman” they are referring to sex. They are not commenting on gender.

However sex and gender are indeed distinct ideas, though they are related, as for example myopia and eye glasses are related. Different notions, same planet.

I pointed out that that would render the very common phrase “sex change operation” meaningless.

And I pointed out that it was a euphemism. You objected to its being described as a niche expression, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether a sex change operation changes your sex. And nobody thinks it does. Nor for that matter does anyone think it changes your gender. It is now usually called “gender reaffirming surgery” which is somewhat more accurate, since its object is to adjust the patient’s body to appear somewhat more like the body that their gender identity would prefer them to have.

People don’t think of sex and gender independently.

Most people don’t think of gender at all. A small minority thinks of them all the time. But most people don’t. And when occasionally they do, they think they are different things. As do the people who think about them all the time.

They think of sex (and gender) as the thing that defines trans people, as evidenced by the ubiquity of the term “sex change operation.”

Decidely handwavey. They think of sex as the reproductive kit. When they think of gender – if they ever do – they think it is some special thing to do with “trans people.” And that trans people are defined by the mismatch between their sex and their gender. The one being the body, and in particular the reproductive kit, and the other being a mental self image.

So, the point – as was made abundantly clear ab initio – is that when someone says, for example :

“Bruce/Caitlin Jenner is not a woman”

they are not making any comment about his (or her) gender identity. They are commenting on his sex.

And that seems to be what you have been denying. Although you have been very reluctant to say so explicitly, instead falling back on a lot of “stupids” by way of deflection.

[Randal]

When someone says:

“Bruce/Caitlin Jenner is not a woman”

they are not making any comment about his (or her) gender identity.

Hahahaha I didn’t think it could get stupider but then it did. I mean, that’s a blatantly ridiculous statement ‐‐ anyone uttering the phrase “Caitlin Jenner is not a woman” is 100% making a comment about her gender identity ‐‐ but then the cherry on top is that you waffle on the pronoun! After all your “impeccable arguments,” you don’t even know which pronoun to use.

I congratulate you. I wouldn’t be able to write something that brainless if I tried.

[Lee Moore]

anyone uttering the phrase “Caitlin Jenner is not a woman” is 100% making a comment about her gender identity

I suspect you're weaselling rather than insane, but let's just pin this one down to be clear. I'm not saying that the speaker might not have decided to comment on Bruce Jenner's sex because they wish to criticise his gender identity, or indeed the whole concept of gender. Maybe that's why they're speaking. Is that what you mean by "making a comment about his gender identity" ?

But I'm not speculating about what provoked them to speak - all I'm saying is that when they say "Bruce Jenner is not a woman" they are referring to his sex, ie his reproductive kit, and not to his mental self image. Are you disputing that ?

but then the cherry on top is that you waffle on the pronoun! After all your “impeccable arguments,” you don’t even know which pronoun to use.

The cherry is simply that I'm polite. I am well aware that trans people prefer to be referred to by the pronouns that are associated with their gender identity, ie the sex they would like to be rather than the sex that they are. I have no problem with extending them that courtesy - unless they behave like jerks, in which case the courtesy is withdrawn. Jenner is not discourteous, so she can be a she if she wants. Or in a sentence where I'm emphasising the difference between sex and gender then "he or she" might be appropriate.

No harm in a bit of courtesy. Try it sometime.

[Randal]

I figure it's time to pick on this entirely stupid post from another angle.

When the vast majority of people say “man” or “woman” or “male” or “female” they are referring to sex, not to gender.

You must realize, as everyone knows, gender in language is called "gendered language" not "sexed language."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_gender
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender

Words like "woman" normally refer to gender, and pronouns always do. One more way you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Lee Moore]

Sure, "gender" has a number of different meanings, such as :

(a) a set of sexually differentiated behaviors or a role which is regarded as normal for members of each sex in a particular society
(b) a strong and enduring mental image ("identity") whereby you are convinced that you are a mamber of sex A (which might be different from your actual sex)
(c) a strong and enduring mental image ("identity") whereby you are convinced that you ought to be a member of sex A, and that there seems to be something wrong because your body seems to be of sex B
(d) a synonym for sex

(a), (b) and (c) have come into use fairly recently, while (d) is the more traditional usage. Partly to allow the delicate to avoid using the "s" word. But it's still common.

So finding a usage in which "gender" is used simply as a synonym for sex is hardly surprising.

But your point is perfectly irrelevant. To the extent that someone says "Bruce Jenner is not a woman" that is a reference to his sex. No "misgendering" is going on, because the speaker has nothing to say about his "gender" in sense a, b or c. Or any sense other than d.

If your tame lexicographer says "woman" is "gendered language" it is only so in the original sense (d) - ie gender as a synonym for sex.

But really - do you really think that when someone says :

"X is not a woman"

they are really trying to comment on what is going on in the other person's head, as opposed to what is going on in their pants ?

[Randal]

But really – do you really think that when someone says :

“X is not a woman”

they are really trying to comment on what is going on in the other person’s head, as opposed to what is going on in their pants ?

Of course they are! If someone were simply trying to point out the biological sex of a person, they would say "Caitlyn Jenner is a biological man."

The only reason to say "Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman" is to make one of these points:

a) Caitlyn Jenner is lying about her gender identity
b) A person's gender is defined by their biological sex

And the reason for that is, by default, "woman" is about gender. Otherwise you'd get dumb sentences like "Caitlyn Jenner is a man but I like her hair." That's, again, obviously dumb.

I mean, by your logjc, if someone said "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman," what would it mean?

[Lee Moore]

Of course they are! If someone were simply trying to point out the biological sex of a person, they would say “Caitlyn Jenner is a biological man.”

They might say that. If someone said, for example, “I keep hearing about some person called Arube Kimpopela – but is that a man or a woman ?” they might easily get the response “Arube Kimpopela is a man.” Both question and answer would refer to reproductive equipment. (In normal conversation nobody would bother with “biological” – that would be redundant. You’d only deploy “biological” if you were talking to a gender activist.)

But in the context of Caitlyn Jenner, or any other trans woman, “Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman” would tend to be used as a refutation of someone else’s claim that “Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.”

In short, your list of possible meanings misses out the actual and obvious meaning :

“Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman” is simply a contradiction of the claim that “Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.”

This is no different to Randal saying “I’m a giraffe” and me replying “You are not a giraffe.” It just means that you’re not a giraffe. A human is not a giraffe. That’s not what “giraffe” means. A giraffe is a large animal with a long neck with a blotchy pattern on its body. Randal is not one of these. I make no comment on whether your claim to be a giraffe is a reflection of an inner desire to be, or an inner belief that you are, a giraffe. You might very well think that. All I mean by “You are not a giraffe” is that you are not one of those long necked leaf eating blotchy pattern African creatures.

I mean, by your logjc, if someone said “Caitlyn Jenner is a woman,” what would it mean?

By my logic, and by the logic of most English speakers, it would mean that Caitlyn Jenner is an adult human whose reproductive equipment is of the egg producing type, not the sperm producing type. Which is why the statement would tend to provoke the response “Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman.” Though in some more direct people it might provoke a briefer response.

[Randal]

Oh man so much to ridicule there but I actually am getting bored finally. I'm proud to have gotten you to spout so much patently stupid garbage that no one can doubt its insincerity.

I'll just point out that you've deviated from your original thesis to a more explicitly anti-trans position by admitting that someone making the claim that "Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman" is -- of course -- talking about her gender.

I make no comment on whether your claim to be a giraffe is a reflection of an inner desire to be, or an inner belief that you are, a giraffe. You might very well think that.

In the context of gender, that would be a stating an opinion that a person's claim to be a certain gender doesn't matter to their gender. A claim you've been rather assiduously avoiding, but you got caught up in you giraffe analogy and let it slip.

I agree with you, that is what people mean when they say "Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman." (That's my option b.) Not some poppycock about gender and sex being distinct. Obviously.

[Lee Moore]

I’ll just point out that you’ve deviated from your original thesis to a more explicitly anti-trans position by admitting that someone making the claim that “Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman” is — of course — talking about her gender.

You are free to "point that out", though it is obviously false. I said up front and have continued to repeat that it is a statement about his sex. Why you continue to insist that I am saying the opposite of what I'm saying, repeatedly and explicitly, remains a mystery which only you can explain.

moi : I make no comment on whether your claim to be a giraffe is a reflection of an inner desire to be, or an inner belief that you are, a giraffe. You might very well think that.

toi :In the context of gender, that would be a stating an opinion that a person’s claim to be a certain gender doesn’t matter to their gender.

No, it would be a claim that a person's claim to be a certain gender doesn't matter to their sex. Being a giraffe is not a question of feelings or mental state, or claims, it's a matter of being a long necked dappled patterned herbivore. In like vein, being a woman has nothing to do with feelings or mental states or claims, it's a matter of being an adult human of the egg producing sex.

If someone makes a claim to being a giraffe on the strength of their feelings, unsupported by a giraffe body, they're wrong and so attract the response "You're not a giraffe." Likewise if someone makes a claim to be a woman on the strength of their feelings, unsupported by a woman's body - in particular their reproductive equipment - they're wrong and so attract the response "You're not a woman." This is ineluctably a comment about their sex. It has nothing to do with trying to second guess their feelings.

A claim you’ve been rather assiduously avoiding, but you got caught up in you giraffe analogy and let it slip.

There's no being "caught up" in my giraffe analogy, nothing has "slipped". It's a perfectly straightforward analogy pointing out that being a giraffe is a question of biology (in this case species) and not a question of feelings; just as being a woman is also a question of biology (in this case reproductive biology, ie sex) and not a question of feelings.

I agree with you, that is what people mean when they say “Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman.” (That’s my option b.) Not some poppycock about gender and sex being distinct. Obviously.

Well, obviously not. But I remain interested in "not some poppycock about gender and sex being distinct." I'm pretty sure I've asked you this already and you dodged answering - but as you hint it's a long thread. Do you think that gender and sex and are the same thing ? If not, what do you mean by saying that "gender and sex being distinct" is "some poppycock" ?

[Randal]

It comes down to this rather obvious observation. All these statements

I am a woman
You are not a woman
She's got great hair
Sex-change Operation
Gender Affirmation Surgery
Sex Reassignment Surgery

are referring to the same thing. You could call it sex, you could call it gender, but it's pretty clearly dumb to say that some of those are talking about one thing and some of them are talking about a different thing. Just like with your giraffe analogy. Everybody's talking / thinking about being a giraffe or not in that analogy. It's not "I think I'm an astronaut" "Well that's fine because you're not a giraffe, so there's no contradiction since we're talking about different things."

This goes back to my original observation that "wow everyone misunderstands this issue but me" is just a completely bonkers thing to say. Too bonkers for me to think you're even serious. But I have enjoyed exposing the silliness!

[Lee Moore]

You’re mostly handwaving, but insofar as you’re saying anything semi-coherent, you’re saying that anything said about saddles, or bridles, or dressage, or John Wayne, or zebras or George Stubbs is a statement about horses. In that all of these things have some connection with horses. Yes, they do have some connection with horses, but not all statements about things that have some connection with horses assert the same thing. They do not, for example, assert that a saddle, or a bridle or John Wayne are actually horses.

And on the happily rare occasions that someone does assert that John Wayne is a horse, it would be unusual if someone did not reply that John Wayne is not a horse. Notwithstanding John Wayne’s long association with horses. Thus when I say “John Wayne is not a horse” I am indeed making a statement “about horses” in your broad handwaving sense. I’m saying John Wayne is not one.

Likewise I’m not denying that gender has something to do with sex. “Gender” refers to a mental self image of yourself as being a member of a particular sex. There, see the connection ?

But having a mental image of yourself as a woman does not actually make you a woman, any more than having a mental image of yourself as a giraffe makes you a giraffe. What makes you a woman is being on the egg producing side of humanity, whether you feel like a woman, or like a man, or like a giraffe, or like a horse, or indeed like John Wayne.

And when most people say “X is not a woman” they are simply saying that X is not a human of the egg producing sex. They are not commenting on X’s gender – ie X’s mental self image. The comment is a comment about the contents of the pants, not the contents of the head.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I agree from having read the original stuff when it came out a few weeks ago that the complainants here seemed rather snowflaky. But no snowflakier than the complaints we routinely see from more left-favored groups.

The solution, obviously, is for administrations, employers, etc. to say to everyone, "Grow up and stop whining because someone said something that offended you." But there can't be a double standard in which complaints are treated as legitimate or illegitimate based on which protected class one is a member of.

When BIPOC or LGBTQ+ people complain, the response can't be, "If they feel it's racist/homophobic/transphobic, then it is; you can't deny their lived experience by telling them that they're wrong," while at the same time telling Jews, "No; we, not you, will decide what's anti-semitism."

[Randal]

That's almost, but not quite, right. The problem is the vocabulary got all fuxored (which I blame the left for) so we can't use it while remaining clear.

But two things are true, and this applies to all groups. One is, if someone is offended, they're offended. Pretending they aren't, or telling them they shouldn't be, are not appropriate responses.

They second is, the bare fact that a person was offended is not grounds for any sort of action or investigation. People get offended in the normal course of learning and conversing. It's a natural byproduct.

I think that's the starting point. Obviously it doesn't get you very far, but if people aren't even in agreement on the basic premise, we'll never find a way out.

[Lee Moore]

Pretending they aren’t, or telling them they shouldn’t be, are not appropriate responses.

I beg to differ. Telling someone they shouldn’t be offended, if they are offended at something they should learn to take in their stride, is a perfectly reasonable and sensible response. This is basic toddler training, and if teenagers and even adults continue to behave like 2 year olds, it is quite OK to tell them they would do better to calm down.

Also, of course, sometimes people do pretend to be offended, when they are not. Not always but sometimes.

They second is, the bare fact that a person was offended is not grounds for any sort of action or investigation. People get offended in the normal course of learning and conversing. It’s a natural byproduct.

But on this we can of course agree.

[Randal]

"Shouldn't be offended" is totally different than "taking it in stride."

[Randal]

... Although, that doesn't even matter because telling someone to suck it up and keep it to themselves is also not an appropriate response.

Advising someone to "take it in stride" might be ok coming from a parent or a friend, but not from an authority figure, and definitely not from the offender.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I understand the criticism of the letter and the complaint. But for her to say to an Israeli student "It's not your fault you are from Israel" is pretty outrageous. I wouldn't be shaking or crying, but I wouldn't take it lying down either. Granted we aren't getting her side of the story here at all.

[rloquitur]

Yeah, that's a problem. The proper response is f off.

[Ed Grinberg]

The proper response is f off.

I agree. Except it's "a mandatory DEI class." You can see why people are upset...

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that -- professors can refer students to the Behavioral Intervention Team and many do -- with serious unplussgood consequences for the referred student.

[Sarcastr0]

Many do, eh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Several hundreds at UMass -- that came out when the Dean of Student's job got posted...

Memory is that the figure they quoted -- which you know had to be low -- was 300-500 a *year*.

[Sarcastr0]

The alleged facts are worthy of at least suspension.

[Don Nico]

Getting both sides is the job of the university. Absent a formal inquiry, the university demonstrates that it tolerates abuses of power toward students by faculty.

[Armchair Lawyer]

From the full complaint, that appears to be what occurred

[rloquitur]

"As precedent, consider the case of Professor Amy Wax, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who made hostile remarks about Black students in a required course and was then removed from this teaching role."

Did she?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey. a DEI professional and expert exhibiting hostility to both “D” and “I” related to protected classes they disapprove of. It would be hard to believe if it weren’t a weekly occurrence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow... So

Step 1: She's a raging antisemite. Which is...legal.
Step 2: But then she brings her views into the classroom and discriminates against her Jewish students. Which is...illegal. Extremely ironic in a mandatory DEI class.
Step 3: Then she uses her political power at the university to stifle any correction of her actions. That's straight out of the Harvey Weinstein book.
Step 4: The only suggestions of the faculty is "Maybe don't write in Hebrew, that might be viewed as antagonistic"....which means, they all know, and just avoid the topic. Like telling the pretty girls near Weinstein to not dress so pretty.

So.... A nice big DoJ investigation. Get a bunch of people under oath. A nice trial. And just for kicks, make sure the GOP House has oversight on the DoJ to make sure they aren't sweeping it under the rug.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, so you believe every allegation merely for being alleged.

Awesome way to really demonize someone. But I really like how you kept your eye on the ball and shoehorned national politics in there, no matter how awkwardly.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When 4 separate people in a single class make the allegation, all of the same ethnicity….It bears a certain gravity.

But I'm sure Biden's DoJ may look the other way for the right sort of person.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In addition, when a complaint is this detailed, with specific events, times, dates, and so on, verified by multiple people of the affected ethnicity, if gives it a certain amount of veracity. If only because the individual details can be so easily checked, and because they have sworn this is true, as according to their complaint. And again, by multiple people.

This is different from, for example, a single allegation that sexual activity occured...at some point...30 years ago...but details are vague...and the person was just nominated to a very public position....and this is the first time such an allegation occurred, in 30 years.

But I'm sure you had no such "we can't rush to anything" concerns with a situation like that.

[Sarcastr0]

These are very low standards, and from your table pounding, I take it you know that.

Specific information allows for investigation; it is not alone proof of veracity. And I called for an investigation in the Kavanaugh thing as well, not that one was done.

Unless you really really want it to be. Then it's fine, of course.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
There is no need for anyone to believe anyone in this case. There is a need for a formal investigation by the university of abusive behavior by the Professor.
That is the modern DEI standard and even the old-fashioned fairness standard

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with you.
I'm taking issue with those who have already reached a conclusion in this case. Including the OP, and the letter writers.

[Michael P]

Indeed, the letter writers reached the conclusion that GWU ought to investigate the allegations before officially sanctioning the professor. What monsters!

[Sarcastr0]

Not what the letter asks for, chief.

[Michael P]

"We urge the Department of Education and GWU to promptly and dispassionately conduct their own investigations by carefully evaluating the testimony of the Jewish and Israeli students in light of substantial corroborating evidence."

Liar.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you skip the part about immediate suspension from classes?

Looks like you did. Why did you do that, I wonder?

[Michael P]

The school has an obligation to not expose people to a hostile educational environment, and her twitting was sufficient evidence to support the class-related allegations as plausibly true. It's a simple matter of the school minimizing its further liability in the matter, not a punishment.

[Don Nico]

I have no conclusion except that both parties deserve a hearing.

I took a DEI traing session a week ago. I had low expectations. But the instructor did not try to indoctrinate, did not insult or criticize anyone's opinions, and in the end everyone (myself included) felt that they learned something and respected the instructor.
I agree with you that folks should think about the topic with an open mind.
After all we all have something to learn

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, I'll simply say that my experience with DEI training (midsize private company, 6B cap) has been similar. It was Ok, not great. Controversial topics like 'CRT' were introduced; meaning, we got exposure to central theses in a professional and business-like manner. It did not turn into a race-baiting, victim grievance session; that mattered a lot.

The training outcome for me was: Take some, leave the rest.

I understand your keeping an open mind comment too. There were ideas discussed in training where one can understand the intellectual argument (and agree part way).

My misgivings about DEI are where it appears to be going: a balkanized society, divided by immutable characteristics like race and ethnicity. That hasn't worked out well for Jews like me.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
One thing that bothers me a lot is that Jews, who have been persecuted, murdered, opposed, terrorized for many hundreds of years more than so-called "people of color" are now dumped on as oppressors, a privileged race and a worthy target of a new discrimination. All the while, attacks on Jews and their places of worship continue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually DoJ would bounce it over to ED -- and I'd so love to see DeSantis as Secretary of Education in a 2nd Trump Admin...

[Number 2]

“Her deleted twitter account included statements such as the following: "Israelis are so f***ing racist," "Zionists are unhinged," "you can't be a Zionist and also a feminist" "F*** Zionism, Zionists…" "F*** every person who is not yet an anti-Zionist," and "Zionists are so far up their own a****".”

Excuse me, but this is the writing of not only a college professor, but also the “newly elected President and former Secretary of the Society for Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychology (Division 39 of the American Psychological Association) ?”

Imagine being a parent shelling out boatloads of money to have their child taught by someone with the vocabulary of a fifth grader.

[ragebot]

Sure the prof seems to have screwed the pooch with obvious bias that seems to me to be far worse reasons than the KKK bias against Jews; it is easy to make fun of the KKK for their silly reasons but Sheehi seems to have put a lot of thought and effort into justifying her position.

But who I really blame for the mess is the turds at GW who made this course mandatory. They need to be fucked in the ass with no lube till they can’t walk.

[Don Nico]

Geez, did you have to get so crude?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the blog at which commenters repeatedly call for liberals to be pushed through woodchippers, raped, sent to Zyklon showers, placed face-down in landfills, gassed, shot in the face as they open front doors, etc.

And this is the comment that suddenly precipitates 'why so crude?'

[Randal]

Yes, the grizzly murders of liberals are abundant, but this one is in the oddly more voluminous category of detailed depictions of gay sex acts. The subtitle of this blog is in fact

The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly closeted gays | Sometimes threatening | Often pornographic | Always reactionary | Est. racism

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Don't trust a psychologist who graduated college at a time before mandatory DEI courses. They didn't have the racism educated out of them, so they probably have white hoods and robes in their closets.

/sarc

[Sarcastr0]

All the people saying not taking DEI courses make you racist seem not in evidence.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, you see, it doesn’t *make* you racist, it means you haven’t had the pre-existing racism purged out of you.

/sarc

Of course, I'm assuming here that racism means treating people differently on racial grounds. If that's what DEI purges you of, and no more than that, then go ahead and teach it.

[SRG]

Let's go back. One fundamental point is that if these allegations - just the fact of the allegations alone - had concerned LGBT students or black students, or any other minority, she would have been suspended instantly pending an investigation and people would have gone apeshit. But because the allegations came from Jews/Israelis, why then the case is altered and suddenly due process with all deliberate speed is the cry - together with basically disbelieving the allegations.

This reaction is itself anti-Semitic.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual speculation doesn’t prove anything, except for the mindset of the writer.

[Michael P]

The letter courts an example of what you call counterfactual. Most of us don't pretend to have forgotten examples like Erika and Nicholas Christakis (who were defending the abstract right to free speech, not even saying something bigoted themselves), Sandra Sellers (of Georgetown Law), Gordon Klein (UCLA), and others.

Why are you such a DIE-hard denier?

[Sarcastr0]

We’re there facts in question in those examples?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“CLICK HERE TO SIGN”

Are any people here “mental health clinicians and educators, practitioners of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, [or] scholars of antisemitism from several disciplines”? That’s how the petition signers identify themselves.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Bernstein, I guess my question for you is: Where is this going?

WRT Sheehi, is it enough to simply name and shame, and put the onus on GW to act (or not)? Why is Sheehi deleting her Twitter account to conceal her views...what is there to hide? If Sheehi believes what she believes, she should do so, loudly and proudly; and own it. If there is evidence she mistreated Jewish students (in accordance with her stated beliefs, as expressed in her Twitter posts) in the classroom, then she is toast.

When I asked earlier where is this going, I mean that I have been reading your blog posts (here and ToI) for a number of years now. It has sort of been like a canary in the coal mine in some respects, IMO. I see incidents like this, and I cannot help but wonder at the overall pattern of rising antisemitism we see in America today. Whether it is Berkeley, or UPenn, or Harvard, or Colombia, or a small county college in Podonk USA...this phenomenon is quite real, and growing.

In my own state, that progressive blue state paradise of NJ, synagogues are firebombed (just last week), Jews are assaulted on their way to shul (multiple incidents 2022, 2023) with congregants literally murdered (2019) in the streets. NYC, another progressive paradise, has the same problem. These things are happening today, in 2023 America; I cannot believe that this is the case, but it is objectively true.

With that in mind Professor Bernstein...where is this all going?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t think it is *just* Jews — I think it is an attack on the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. Look at what was/is said about Justice ACB. Look at what people like Kirkland says about Christians here.

[Randal]

Attempted firebombing. This smacks of the Proud Boys’ degree of competence.

I know you really really want this to be coming from the left, but there are no violently antisemitic left-wing organizations. The groups committed to violent antisemitism in this country are all right-wing Christian ones.

[Commenter_XY]

Randal, it doesn't matter who it comes from (Left, Right, Whatever). I should not have to wonder if I will be assaulted (or killed) for just walking to shul on a Monday morning in Lakewood, NJ to attend morning minyan.

That should not be happening anywhere in 2023 America, period.

[Randal]

I was really talking to Mr. Ed here. Although, it's true, one wonders why.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
You hit the nail on its head.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you guys worried about professors who regularly -- habitually, frequently -- use vile racial slurs in various settings; operate blogs that cater to white Christian nationalists, gay-bashers, xenophobes, and other bigoted low-lifes; associate with organizations that strenuously promote bigotry against gays, immigrants, and others; and engage in viewpoint-driven censorship of liberals, libertarians, agnostics, and Democrats?

Carry on, hypocritical clingers.

[david42]

Maybe I’m ignorant but I don’t see statements criticizing “Zionists” as being racist or anti-Semitic but rather a statement that criticizes the modern state of Israel and the philosophy that led to its establishment. I did not read the whole complaint but rather just read your summary. Considering that Zionism had real human costs to the people who were displaced or who now live in subjugation to Israel, I think it’s fair game to criticize it. You could similarly criticize the European colonizers if the Americas and argue that the US should cease to exist. It’s a futile argument but not inherently racist in my view. The only racist thing I see in the summary is “Israelis are racist” which seems unfair to me—to characterize all people of a nation as being racist is obviously false and unfair.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The only racist thing I see in the summary is “Israelis are racist” which seems unfair to me—to characterize all people of a nation as being racist is obviously false and unfair.

Not all Israelis are racist, but several recent elections indicate most of them are assholes who do not deserve to be subsidized at enormous and varied cost by Americans. Most Americans dislike right-wing belligerence -- especially when laced with old-timey superstition -- at home. Why would anyone expect them to continue to pay for it anywhere else?

Carry on, clingers. But not for much longer.

[Don Nico]

The modern state of Israel is reacting in an understandable way against terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the state of Iran, all of whom have the stated goal of driving the Jewish state into the sea. The other immediate organization, the PA, is riddled with corruption and laziness and has done nearly nothing for its Arab constituency. Criticizing the Israeli state for opposing these enemies is de facto a support of anti-Jewish organizations.

[David Bernstein]

If you read the entire complaint, you would come across some of the interactions alleged that can properly described as bullying, especially problematic in a mandatory class supposedly devoted to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. I think that context is important, this wasn't a "let's debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict class, and the professor will present her own views as we go along." A student presents her views about terrorist attacks against her family IN A MANDATORY DEI class and the response is "your'e being Islamaphobic and anti-Palestinian?" Eg.;

"In response to the students’ claim that they had felt targeted on the basis of their J"ewish identity by the information conveyed during the brown bag presentation, Professor Sheehi suggested their experience was a good thing. She claimed that it was in keeping with the class approach of “disrupting.” She urged the Jewish students to “lean into” the spaces that feel disruptive and
destabilizing and “sit with” the discomfort. The Jewish students never observed Professor Sheehi tell any other students to “lean into” or “sit with” discomfort about their identity. To the contrary,
if students of another identity described oppression, harassment, or discrimination toward their identity groups, Professor Sheehi validated both the identity and the experience as described."

|"After several other students had spoken, the first Jewish student spoke up again. She noted that one of the books that the cohort had read said that it is important to understand that when people
of color explain that an issue is about race, it is about race. The student requested that the same courtesy be extended to all groups when they say they have experienced harassment and
discrimination. She asked the class to accept with equal validity claims by Jews who describe their experiences of Jew-hatred. The student also noted that it is important not to tokenize Jews
who hold opinions that are outside the majority consensus. Most Jews, she explained, disagree with the position that anti-Zionism never constitutes antisemitism. Finally, the student said she
felt unsafe in a program that would invite a speaker who endorsed violence against Israeli civilians and who, therefore, may celebrate the murder of her Israeli relatives. In response,
Professor Sheehi called the student’s comment a “damaging Islamophobic anti-Palestinian” comment and added that “a stone is nothing compared to an army.”

"Instead, Professor Sheehi denied that what the students had experienced was antisemitism, aggressively rebutted every point the students raised, accused two of the students of
engaging in Islamophobic rhetoric, and implied that the students who were complaining aboutantisemitism were themselves racist and antisemitic. Professor Sheehi never denied or dismissed
the concerns of any other identity group in the class, much less in such an aggressive fashion."

I would say that such behavior is inappropriate for a professor in general, especially inappropriate in a DEI clas, and, if it were only Jewish or Israeli students regarding whom she behaved this way, it creates an inference of discrimination.

[Leo Marvin]

I don’t see how any serious person can dispute that. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s in dispute, at least among serious people. What’s in dispute is whether those allegations are in fact accurate. And pending investigation to establish or disprove said accuracy, the issue is what disciplinary action, if any, is appropriate against Sheehi, and whether such action is consistent with the action taken against faculty accused of similar discrimination against members of other minorities.

What I read some commenters here to be saying is that they infer you support suspending her in the interim. Is that true? I see insufficient basis for either drawing or rejecting that inference. I think it would be helpful if you would set the record straight, both as to Sheehi and similarly situated faculty.

[David Bernstein]

Not only is the answer to that no, but at some point my draft blog post said so explicitly, but somehow that got lost in the editing didn’t know that I did not agree with every thing said in the letter. For a case like this, I would probably use something like the preliminary injunction standard after I a preliminary inquiry.

[John C. Randolph]

Professor Sheehi denied that what the students had experienced was antisemitism

Of course she did. Lying piece of shit.

-jcr

[david42]

Thanks for pointing that out. It mostly looks like classic DEI nonsense—I.e., we must accept certain groups’ “lived experiences” without question but not other groups’. Maybe I’m being unfair, but it seems that the binary in DEI (or “anti-racist”) orthodoxy is oppressed vs oppressor, and everybody not in the former group is in the latter. She has evidently placed Jewish people in the latter group. That probably counts as antisemitism (but again I think it’s a problem with DEI ideology in general). Probably a good reason not to make such DEI lessons mandatory. Glad I’m not in college anymore and don’t have to deal with this stuff.

[John C. Randolph]

If I had been the Jewish student in question and the snotty, condescending Hamasshole "professor" had said something to me along the lines of "It's not your fault you're a Jew", I would have responded with "Thank you for your benevolent permission to be who I am, but I heartily invite you to go fuck yourself sideways with a full-grown Saguaro, you terrorist-supporting cunt."

-jcr

[Bob from Ohio]

Well "seize" is just shorthand for tax heavily. Sounds better as a slogan.

[Tallman]

Can't you get punitive damages for these kind of actions? "...send them a message that discrimination/bigotry/intolerance is not tolerated anymore..." and all that??

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Seize this, honkus!"

[Armchair Lawyer]

The proper context here is "Fine, for persistent discrimination and failure to rectify the situation". At higher and higher amounts

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about "tax moderately" -- like everyone else is taxed?

[Aunt Teefah]

That just depends. Does the professor in question simply like saying racial slurs? If so, then yes. Does the professor think Palestinians should be afforded basic human rights? Then no, no due process for you.

[Kleppe]

"That’s not usually how it goes around here is it? Usually it’s the due process first and then disciplinary action…"

Remember back in the good old days when crimes were investigated to find the person responsible? Nowadays it's people who are investigated, in order to find the crime. I didn't make the rules, I just live here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This course sounds like a bunch of bullshit. I guess I better take it, just to be sure.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a city in California.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But Joe Plumber isn’t going around scolding everyone about being racist or ableist or whateverist. The DEI people do this for a living while frequently being as much or more racist than the average person.

My theory is that they’re so race-obsessed (a requirement for the job) that it’s easy for them to slide into bigotry toward types that they don’t like. And their certainty in their own virtue and righteousness means they don’t need to hide it.

The pattern is too common and too stark.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a DEI course. QED

[Bob from Ohio]

Henry VIII

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking more Teddy Roosevelt....

[Bob from Ohio]

Your google broke?

Its literally at the top of a "Dana Point" search.

[Number 2]

Of course, if a college mandated that students take a required course in free market economics based on the writings of Milton Friedman, you would never, ever consider calling it right-wing agitprop, would you?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Depends how much the fine is.

[Sarcastr0]

I work with some DEI people, and your knee-jerk hate is kinda fucked up.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not really. Zionism is simply the concept that your people have a homeland. And many people believe that about their particular ethnicities.

Irish Americans may believe their homeland is Ireland. It's not mandatory, by any means. But some may view part of their identity as have coming from Ireland, and that Ireland is their historic homeland.

Except the teacher in this particular course, one about expressing your personal view on your identity, denied that for the Jewish students...and just the Jewish students. Saying their view on their ethnicity was basically invalid.....in a course about inclusion.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sure. Criticizing bigots is fucked ip.

But your knee jerk defense of a DEI professor openly hating Jews is normal and fine. Just like you defended Yale. Just like you always do. Reflexively.

Maybe you’re a bigot too, since you constantly stand in their defense. It’s a thought, ain’t it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not a "fine" but a "tax". John Roberts approved language.

[Krayt]

Congress’ wrench is pulling its money, not direct orders.

Of course, when the plan is to tax so damned much local governments must dance to get it back, that’s an academic difference.

And they handed that off to the president, who dear colleagued all this shit into existence. People, idiots, but I repeat myself, obey, then fancy to imagine there must be some Great Morality behind it, and become Believers, dancing in the exact way the Emperor’s New Clothes warned about.

What was once legitimate concern for deep, pervasive harrassment that drove people down or away has developed into the opposite with capital infractions for self-defined micro aggressions and reeducation camps.

And now, the predicted antisemitism slowly gets revealed. Even believing honestly one is against Israeli positions and actions and not Jews, the mind slips and adopts it too readily, part of the warning to you, Believer.

What left, but to fight fire with fire? It’s years since Tucker, strongman bootlicker Carleson, took Steven “Putin’s cockholster” Colbert to task for using a beautiful moment between two men as an epithet.

I’m having trouble eating this much popcorn as I watch.

[Bob from Ohio]

Henry was no peach but Parliament authorized the dissolution of the monasteries.

[Sarcastr0]

Note the different scope. DEI generally versus one dude. Easier to make conclusions about the latter than the former.

Though a course on Friedman sounds fine to me, if in the relevant major.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Econ professors can't declare students "mentally ill" -- she can.

[Sarcastr0]

No, she can’t, Ed.

Out mental health system does not give random psychology professors that power.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcarst0 -- see https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter123/Section12

[Sarcastr0]

1) this applies to a licensed practitioner, not a professor,
2) is specific to Massachusetts,
3) is limited and has oversight,
4) is not about declaring someone 'mentally ill'
5) is not a thing that is being abused to go against people for their views.

As usual, you're very very wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1) this applies to a licensed practitioner, not a professor

APA program accreditation laws require that professors be licensed practitioners. Her DC license number is PSY1001274 and you can verify that yourself here: https://doh.force.com/ver/s/

2) is specific to Massachusetts,

Every other state has a similar law. California’s is 5150 and Van Halen wrote a song about it. NB: If you really don’t believe this and aren’t just being an a-hole, look up “pink slips.”

3) is limited and has oversight,

Bull bleep.

4) is not about declaring someone ‘mentally ill’

At least in Massachusetts, it is a lifetime ban on gun ownership.

5) is not a thing that is being abused to go against people for their views.

I thought the undergrad was a tad paranoid when she told me that “they think all conservatives are crazy.” Ten days later, I was hiding her so that they couldn’t find her because — she was right….

As usual, you’re very very wrong.

Really????

If I can discredit you without even trying, ummm…..

[Dr. Ed 2]

And as to the APA accredition, required for a program's graduates to get licensed, see: https://www.foxnews.com/us/court-upholds-expulsion-of-counseling-student-who-opposes-homosexuality

[Sarcastr0]

You hid an undergrad they were going to declare crazy for being conservative?

That an utterly false tale you tell.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"You hid an undergrad they were going to declare crazy for being conservative? That an utterly false tale you tell."

Is that the best you can do?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Because they didn't have DEI training and look what it did to them?

[Nige]

For the Republic of Ireland, that's fine, for Northern Ireland, the issue is a bit more disputatious. Having said that, if someone asserted that it wasn't someone's fault that they were from Northern Ireland, there'd be words.

[Sarcastr0]

You hate it when some leftist wanker calls all Republicans racist?

That’s exactly what you are doing.

I don’t care for this woman, but she deserves to be dismissed based on facts not allegations.
Once again you assume my position is not what it is.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The racism-repelling DEI rock drove the racists away.

[Estragon]

I’m fairly certain dr Ed is actually a chat bot set to argle bargle

[Randal]

If I were a right-wing argle bargle bot, I would come up with the catchphrase

The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and puberty

as my anti-trans slogan.

[Ed Grinberg]

If a student say they're Palestinian, and the professor replies "It’s not your fault," would you still be quibbling? Probably not. So why do it here?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't that what Jordan is?

[Michael P]

The left has taken many lessons indeed from Lavrentiy Beria.

[David Nieporent]

Is this just more MAGA whining?

[Michael P]

Is your position that Democrats are axiomatically professors of mandatory DIE courses? If not, you might need to elaborate how bevis is doing something just like calling all Republicans racist.

If there were mandatory college classes that taught about the positive aspects of the antebellum US South, I would consider an argument that professors of such courses were probably all racist. The argument might be wrong, but it would at least be within the realm of possibility.

But that is a far cry from saying all Republicans are racist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691612448792

Not the study I was looking for, but similar findings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also possibly of interest: https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not really -- how long would it last without Federal largess?

Former Governor LePage put the fear of God into "private" colleges by suggesting that they should be subject to real estate taxes.

[Lee Moore]

This is a private institution.

I had forgotten that - got mixed up with the Instant Karma post.

However, private colleges are not like ordinary private businesses, which have - eventually - to dance to the owners' tune. It's true that large corporations are often captured by their senior management, assisted by the bizarre "only in America" corporate laws that make it superhard for the stockholders to fire the Board, and which enable a sitting Board to greenmail hostile takeoverers so they can stay in control. But in the end the management can be forced out by the owners.

But anyway, private colleges, foundations etc are structured to be easy to be captured by their employees. So that's what they are. Worker co-operatives with a fat trust fund.

[Sarcastr0]

You are the one on this thread wanting to punish before investigating.

If the red star fits, wear it.

[Sarcastr0]

Blanket condemnation of a profession is just as dumb as the same regarding a political party.

Insane you are so brain poisoned you can’t see that analogy.

[Michael P]

Strong words from someone who thinks “DEI professor” is a profession comparable to a mainstream political party.

[Sarcastr0]

In terms of broad generalization, they are the same. As in, don’t do it.

I’ve worked with DEI folks and they have not been anti-white bigots. So I take issue with saying that’s what they are.

[Michael P]

No new goalposts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How long would the trust fund last without Federal funds???

For most places, not long...

[Michael P]

Of course, you do not back up your lies; you cannot.