Life in the Academy

It's an understatement to say that it's been difficult to be in the academy in this period. Teaching and learning through Covid, the push from some quarters to redefine the academic mission away from open inquiry pursued through the tools of one's discipline and toward a particular set of social justice goals, and then the creeping incivility about it all, introduced new forms of stress into our lives. For those of us whose work puts us squarely in the heart of the culture wars, as mine does, the situation has been especially difficult as we've been subject to—you know the drill—censorship and de-platforming, cancelation and, in some famous cases—see, e.g., Kathleen Stock and Carole Hooven—even separation.

I'm relatively privileged because even as I have and continue to be subject to these strategies, my institutions—Duke University and the divisions of which I'm a part, including Duke Law School—have consistently stood by my right to do my work. Even still, things were bad enough at certain points that I was checking my pension balance to see if there was a realistic possibility of stepping out. There wasn't, but regardless, it shouldn't be this way.

No one person or political faction—regardless of whether they're on the left or the right—should have the power to turn a university, a department, or a classroom into a place where the important questions of the day can't be discussed in an honest way. Moreover, academic freedom, intellectual engagement, and civil discourse aren't values owned by conservatives or liberals; they're among the defining features of a modern university without which its societal importance is difficult to justify.

I'll leave you with these two related excerpts from a section of Chapter Eight of On Sex and Gender called The Left's Assault on Free Expression. The first is about my personal experiences with censorship, de-platforming, and cancelation in the academy, including as they played out during that visit to UCLA law that I mentioned in my first post. The second elaborates on the relationship between these strategies to the broader questions with which we're currently engaged about the mission of the university and its role in society.

(Other parts of the chapter contain a lengthier discussion of censorship, cancelation, and de-platforming as strategies outside of academia, including additional examples from my own experience.)

For a time, the censorship of my name, my work, and the facts and science on which I rely was only an issue outside of the academy. Mainly it was a press issue. That all changed in 2020.

At the invitation of First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and the Federalist Society, right before the country shut down for Covid, I gave a talk at UCLA on Title IX and ways to accommodate transgender girls in girls' and women's sports.

Leftist student organizations sent protestors with posters calling me a 'TERF" and a "transphobe" and my work "transphobic"—along with "Fuck TERF" and "Transphobia is not welcome here"—to disrupt the event. They lined the hallway to the lecture room and then interrupted the beginning of my remarks to read their manifesto—the protest appears to have been led by a Marxist student organization—before clearing the lecture hall by threatening to report any students who stayed to listen to any prospective employers: Anyone who listens to a transphobe is a transphobe. They then photographed the mostly empty room and posted the image on Twitter with a comment to the effect that no one wants to hear what I have to say.

Back at Duke, a petition ostensibly developed by a group of undergraduate students and signed by members of the university community demanded that I be fired, or that the university dissociate itself from me, and that it publicly disavow my work.

Then, a group of students on the editorial board of one of the law school's journals demanded that a volume of essays I was co-editing called Sex in Law be scrapped or that a particular author be disinvited, and that its authors be required to abide by an advocacy group's style guide. When the students didn't get their way—because they were asking that we violate academic freedom and professional norms—they resigned from their editorial posts. Never mind that we had curated a volume in which most of the authors were on their side of the issues. The point was that we shouldn't have platformed any who weren't—including me—because talking biology is hate and (again) "hate is not scholarship."

This made a splash in The Chronicle of Higher Education when the volume was finally published in 2022. My own essay, Sex Neutrality, was the basis for this book.

*   *   *

Free speech is a piece with our liberty, our equality, our competitiveness, and our commitment to the consent of the governed. Individuals who aren't free to speak their ideas or who don't have the words to convey their truth are neither equal nor consenting. Communities that block the free exchange of ideas inevitably sow the seeds of oppression and dissent. Like liberty deprivations in general, this too diminishes opportunities for everyone. "Deplorables" and "listless vessels" will eventually make themselves known.

We're pretty divided these days to the point where it's sometimes hard to say what we mean by "American" beyond shared geography, but there are (or were) still these common commitments because we understand (or understood) that they are necessary to our survival as a particular kind of political community.

The university's version of free speech is academic freedom. It's long been viewed as essential to allow faculty, operating within the bounds of their disciplines, to pursue unpopular ideas, research, and scholarship. The idea is that there should be a place in society where people work on issues from multiple points of view because (a) we don't know ex ante who's going to be right, see Galileo, and (b) progress is often made when different points of view collide—idea one plus idea two equals unexpected value, see every day all the time in the hard and applied sciences.

This concept of the university—which is modeled for students who benefit from engagement with challenging ideas—justifies its existence in a way that's different from how advocacy groups justify theirs. Both are important, but they don't serve the same societal function.

Universities have substantive commitments too; they're not soulless vessels. Mine, for example, is committed to being an ethical institution that takes its history into account. It interprets this commitment to include (among other things) removing the artificial barriers that have kept people of color, women, and religious minorities from full citizenship status. The barriers exist because of Duke's history, and there's no ethical argument that supports maintaining their legacy.

But holding these commitments doesn't settle the questions a scholar might have about the implications, or the institution's obligation not to interfere with their study. Duke economists Peter Arcidiacono and Sandy Darity are both well-known for their scholarship: Arcidiacono for his work against affirmative action and Darity for work for slavery reparations. If only one or the other belonged here—felt supported and welcome—the university would be no different from an advocacy group.

Trans advocates on and off campus didn't violate these principles when they insisted that trans people are who they say they are—i.e., men or women. They violated them when they said, it erases us even to discuss our claim. Our claim is settled, full stop. People who would speak about it should be shut down not platformed. And here are the words we insist you use so that we can be comfortable. At that point, lots more people had skin in the game because it wasn't just about sex and gender anymore, it was now also about academic freedom and free speech.

P.S. As I write, we continue to deal with the effects of this collision as politicians and alumni do battle with universities that chilled sex-related speech but then platformed pro-Palestinian speech. Repetition, especially of political pablum, is usually unhelpful, but maybe it doesn't hurt here and now: we should re-commit to being the places where these and other difficult questions are thoroughly studied and respectfully engaged.

Comments

[ReaderY]

John Calhoun successfully argued for a federal law prohibiting sending pro-abolitionist literature through the mails on the grounds that it is absolutely obvious that abolitionism has no basis other than superstition-based hatred of Southerners, sheer viscious meanness towards others different from themselves.

One has to remember that the current politics of anti-hatred, and the tactics of shutting down debate in use to day, were developed by slaveowners specifically to support slavery by shutting down debate over it.

Slaveowners, and the post-Reconstruction Redeemers that followed them, were this nation’s first self-proclaimed oppressed minority. They developed the rhetoric of unjust oppression in use today, focusing specifically on the proposition that opponents are motivated by solely hatred, and whose only goal is to destroy them out of sheer mean spite.

Much of Calhoun’s rhetoric would be very recognizable today. Calhoun would be very comfortable with the idea that scholarship has no place for hate.

Perhaps the causes Calhoun’s modern successors espouse and apply Calhoun’s methods to today are more justifiable than Calhoun’s. Perhaps not. With inquiry and discussion shut down, we have no way of knowing.

[ReaderY]

But it seems to me that people who rely on Calhoun’s rhetoric and arguments to support their position have to face the logical consequences of basing their positions on the same argument that Calhoun did. If they are right, this would tend to suggest that so was Calhoun.

The contrapositive is that if Calhoun was wrong, this would tend to suggest that so are they.

[Krayt]

I’m sure it preceded this even. As I point out, a lot of these techniques come from religion itself. They are well-proven methods hewn then polished through centuries of experience.

For example, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This re-casts all reality as a battle not between multitudes of pantheons and gods, but of one god, and one sub-god devil, who lies and pushes all other religions, perforce false and part of its game.

That tenet is literally from the How to be an Antiracist book. Whatever noble goals it may have, I reject adopting the things that make religion evil, that help it gain and maintain a critical mass of people for control.

[ReaderY]

John Calhoun presented himself as being on the side of reason and science and his opponents as representing religious superstition. The new theory of evolution was quickly pressed into service to “scientifically prove” that because white people are more evolved than black people, slavery is scientifically based. Calhoun argued he had the scientific, enlightened, rational position, and his opponents were the ones rooted in outdated religion.

As I’ve pointed out in past comments, every now and then the “reason and science” people turn out to be wrong. Eugenics, which had leading scientists as its proponents, is another example.

Things just aren’t so simple.

[mike petrik]

Exactly. Moreover, religion and science are perfectly compatible. What is not is religious fundamentalism and scientism.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Interesting points, but I'll just note that Calhoun's bill didn't pass. The *policy* underlying the bill was largely carried out: antislavery mail was censored in the slave states, with postal authorities deferring to proslavery censorship.

I would certainly invite readers to study rhetoric of the slaveholders before the Civil War - there's a big victimization narrative about how slaveholders are a put-upon minority, and just about anything which challenged slavery was an attack and persecution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The slaveowner rhetoric is why I became pro-life because I can't see the difference between their arguments and the pro choice ones.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 is known for advocating nuking, shooting, snowplow murders and hanging, but is consequently not known for understanding differences in moral or ethical arguments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Of people who are GUILTY....

[bernard11]

Of people who are GUILTY….

Bullshit. You are prepared to presume that if someone is doing something you don't like, in support of a cause you disagree with, they are GUILTY, and should be killed.

Never mind all that frippery of trials, convictions, seriousness of offense, prescribed punishments, etc. Block the road and Killer Ed is coming after you.

No ticket, no warning, no trial, no fine, no lawyer, no probation, nothing but the rope.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Steel blade and hydraulics.

Far more efficient than individual hangings... 🙂

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2: efficiency over morality.

[Magister]

Without any certainty of guilt, and also vast numbers of people who are not guilty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you are standing with a mob in the middle of a highway, exactly how are you not guilty of blocking it?

You walked past a sign that said "no pedestrians", you know it is a highway and you (presumably) know you are standing on it.

What else would be necessary to constitute mens rea???

[Magister]

Exactly why would that guilt deserve death, by snowplow, hanging, machine guns or nuclear weapons? Dr. Ed 2 has no answer, because he is unable to weigh moral or ethical issues.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because they are (a) violent insurrectionists who are (b) subversive in nature, because the people have the right to use deadly force to maintain their chosen form of government. (Jefferson's right to revolt includes the inherent right to not revolt...)

Let's take Bloody Sunday on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in 1965 -- generally considered to be unjustified police violence. But -- at the time -- this was US Route 80 (the Dixie Overland Highway) and the only bridge across the river in the Selma area -- it was *the* major east/west route through the so-called "black belt" region.

Today US Route 80 bypasses downtown Selma and crosses the Alabama river on another (bigger) bridge and there are proposals to bypass this with a new Interstate 14 but in 1965 one either went across the Pettis bridge and through downtown Selma or one didn't go.

And it isn't like they were going to stay on the sidewalk -- Wikipedia has a photograph of half of the marchers doing so and the other half being in the middle of the road. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#/media/File:Bloody_Sunday-officers_await_demonstrators.jpeg

So this was not non-violent because violence was used to prevent people (of all races) from crossing the bridge. Even to get to the hospital (remember this was 1965). And while violence may have been necessary to combat the racism of the time, marching across that bridge was an act of violence...

Hence I would have no problems with the authorities lining up five snowplows, a "v" plow and then the 2 & 2, and saying "we are going to plow the road from curb to curb and if you choose to stand in the road, you choose to die, sucks to be you."

That's no more violent than what the marchers were doing -- and they could have gone into Federal Court and gotten an order for the cops to issue a parade permit and perhaps close one lane of the bridge -- the way that truly non-violent people do things -- but they didn't.

And look at the flip side of this -- they would have told the Klan to get the hell out of the road as well. They likely would have been a lot nicer about it, but they wouldn't have let the Klan block the bridge either, and for the very same reasons.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That’s no more violent than what the marchers were doing

Actually, murdering large numbers of people with the intent to murder them is, by definition, more violent than not murdering anyone but maybe causing some inconvenience to someone.

And look at the flip side of this — they would have told the Klan to get the hell out of the road as well. They likely would have been a lot nicer about it, but they wouldn’t have let the Klan block the bridge either, and for the very same reasons.

That's a nice imaginary counterfactual you've made up. It also, by acknowledging they would have nicer (i.e., less violent towards) the Klan than the civil rights protestors undercuts your point that violence against the protestors was necessary at all, much less your fantasies of mass murder.

You are an addle-brained racist with disturbing fantasies of violence against anyone with whom you disagree.

Do you realize the irony of your posting this dreck in response to a post bemoaning deplatforming and other non-violent (but still objectionable) actions towards people whose conduct you don't like?

Just murdering people with who you disagree is worse than censoring or deplatforming them, you should realize.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They can disagree from the sidewalk, I am EXECUTING them for actions.

[Absaroka]

"That’s no more violent than what the marchers were doing — and they could have gone into Federal Court and gotten an order for the cops to issue a parade permit and perhaps close one lane of the bridge — the way that truly non-violent people do things — but they didn’t."

FWIW, they did just that a few days later:

"Then civil rights leaders sought court protection for a third, full-scale march from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery.

Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., weighed the right of mobility against the right to march and ruled in favor of the demonstrators. "The law is clear that the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups...," said Judge Johnson, "and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways.""

[Absaroka]

Moreover, Ed, your facts seem to be wrong. Here is the decision:

"These Negroes proceeded in an orderly and peaceful manner to a bridge near the south edge of the City of Selma on U.S. Highway 80 that leads to Montgomery, Alabama, which is located approximately 45 miles east of Selma. They proceeded on a sidewalk across the bridge and then continued walking on the grassy portion of the highway toward Montgomery until confronted by a detachment of between 60 to 70 State troopers headed by the defendant Colonel Lingo, by a detachment of several Dallas County deputy sheriffs, and numerous Dallas County ‘possemen’ on horses, who were headed by Sheriff Clark. Up to this point the Negroes had observed all traffic laws and regulations, had not interfered with traffic in any manner, and had proceeded in an orderly and peaceful manner to the point of confrontation. They were ordered to disperse and were given two minutes to do so by Major Cloud, who was in active command of the troopers and who was acting upon specific instructions from his superior officers. The Negroes failed to disperse, and within approximately one minute (one minute of the allotted time not having passed), the State troopers and the members of the Dallas County sheriff's office and ‘possemen’ moved against the Negroes."

Walking along the highway was legal: "This highway, according to the law of the State of Alabama, is open for pedestrian traffic. Thus, a reasonable use of the highways for the purpose of pedestrian marching is guaranteed not only by the Constitution of the United States according to the principles above set out, but is
specifically authorized by the law of the State of Alabama. The proclamation as issued by the Governor of the State of Alabama on March 6, 1965, absolutely banning any march by any manner-regardless of how conducted- and stating that such a march will not be tolerated, constituted an unreasonable interference with the right of Negro citizens engaged in the march to use U.S.
Highway 80 in the manner they were seeking to use it..."

My reading of the decision is that he did not order Alabama to issue a parade permit; he reviewed the likely impact of the (rather detailed) plan for a march, balanced the right of assemble and petition against the burden on travel (which given the plan wasn't much) and ordered Alabama not to interfere. He did mention that if Alabama found protecting the march to be overly burdensome, the USG was prepared to send federal LEOs to relieve Alabama of the burden, which was a nice touch.

That march strikes me as quite different than protesters deliberately trying to e.g. block a major bridge in a city. The Selma marchers weren't trying to obstruct traffic; they were trying to petition their government, with any traffic obstruction being minimal and unintended. IMHO, that makes a pretty big ethical difference.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 is keen to murder people he doesn't like, on the flimsy justification that they (checking notes) block traffic.

By his standard, everyone attacking police at the Capitol on January 6th -- actual violent insurrectionists -- should have been shot or crushed or hanged, except that the Dr. Ed 2 standard only applies to people Dr. Ed 2 doesn't like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I doubt there were Black cops, qed..: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#/media/File:Bloody_Sunday-officers_await_demonstrators.jpeg

[Absaroka]

It's a low resolution photo, but I think it supports the judge's version of events. It certainly doesn't contradict them.

It shows a long line of marchers on the *pedestrian areas* of the bridge, right up to what looks like the first of three visible lines of police. That confirms the facts in the decision - the police blocked off the bridge, not the marchers. Your objection seems to be that the marchers stepped into the blocked traffic lanes to briefly converse with the police (as the decision indicates) before the police attacked. I dunno about you, but if a policeman in the street wants to talk to me, I'm not shouting from the sidewalk.

Saying the police arrested/attacked them for blocking traffic when the police had already blocked the street before the marchers were even in sight is silly even by your standards.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" “This highway, according to the law of the State of Alabama, is open for pedestrian traffic."

Fair enough -- this was Alabama in the 1960s and while I have always laughed about the "animals, ridden, driven, or led" prohibition on Interstate Highways, it probably was still legal to drive pigs or lead a cow along the side of Alabama highways. (Today, most states require you trailer the animals.)

If Alabama law really said that pedestrians had the full use of the highway and not just the shoulder or sidewalk, then fine.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It shows a long line of marchers on the *pedestrian areas* of the bridge, right up to what looks like the first of three visible lines of police. "

No, it shows an equally long line of people in the left travel lane all the way back to the arch of the main bridge.

As to the larger issue, some are alleging that society should be required to tolerate subversion because the "inconvenience" is less injurious than physical injury to the those who conspire to subvert. I disagree -- carpenter ants collectively can destroy a house while individually each is rather insignificant.

The marchers of the 1960s were different and I have said that, but these schmucks remind me of third graders who tease a well-mannered dog to the point where the dog bites them, and then go complaining about the "dangerous dog." NO -- dog wouldn't have bitten you if you hadn't kept poking him with a stick, and the cat wouldn't have clawed you if you hadn't kept twisting his tail.

Allow them to claim to be civilly disobedient, maybe -- but we should not allow them to claim to be "nonviolent" -- not when they openly state that they intend to force the university to be "violent" to assert its lawful rights. It's just like poking a dog with a stick, and they deserve what they get.

If it's being dismembered by snow plows, so be it -- don't stand in front of them.

[Frank Drackman]

It's just they didn't consider Slaves to be people, just like certain peoples do today with the unborn.

[shawn_dude]

Slave-holders were actual oppressors who had significant legal power to the point where the only way to take it away from them was a civil war. You appear to be equating, via a rhetorical device used by Calhoun, slave-holders to LGBT Americans. You haven't done the work to show that LGBT Americans have any significant amount of power, however. Just this week, another state passed their own "Don't say Gay" law, for example. And the same folks that are going after LGBT Americans in schools and doctor's offices are also going after African American history in the guise of "anti-CRT" in support of the very same power dynamic that Calhoun supported.

Supporters of Trans rights are limited to slogans and resignations while supporters of white superiority have captured entire state legislatures where they are free to pass laws discouraging black voters and deleting academic topics that conflict with Confederate sensibilities.

[ReaderY]

Let me clear. I am comparing people who are so convinced that they are right that they shut down discussion with slaveholders. So if LGBT people are so convinced they are right that they shut down discussion, then outsiders are entitled to compare them with other people so convinced they are right that they shut down discusssion. Without discussion, what else do we have to go on?

In order for the case that LGBT people are morally different from slaveholders to be discussed, discussion has to be open.

If discussion is closed by rhetorical device, then all we have to go on is to compare with other people who used the same rhetorical device.

[bernard11]

I am comparing people who are so convinced that they are right that they shut down discussion with slaveholders. So if LGBT people are so convinced they are right that they shut down discussion,

You are turning "shut down discussion" into an awfully large blanket. Are these activists you are so concerned about trying to keep the bigots from using the mail?

You say that,

Slaveowners, and the post-Reconstruction Redeemers that followed them, were this nation’s first self-proclaimed oppressed minority.

Was there merit in this claim? Are LGBT people similarly merely a "self-proclaimed" oppressed minority?

Categories kill reason.

[Nige]

‘I am comparing people who are so convinced that they are right that they shut down discussion with slaveholders.’

Yeah. It’s really fucking stupid, but it’s exactly the sort of thing typical of the right – it just has to be out there, a manufactured comparison, to justify the most evil shit imaginable being done to lgtbq people.

‘discussion has to be open.’

There is no interest in hearing what lgtbq peple have to say about any of this. Just by speaking they are oppressing you.

‘then all we have to go on is to compare with other people who used the same rhetorical device.’

An intellectually and morally bankrupt approach to anything, but a useful one for authoritarians. A rhetorical device is supposedly the equal of actual legislative power affecting thousands of peoples’ lives.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I am comparing people who are so convinced that they are right that they shut down discussion with slaveholders.

So you're comparing DeSantis with Calhoun? I'm not sure that's entirely fair, but you're also not entirely wrong. I just didn't expect you to go after DeSantis quite so viciously.

[ReaderY]

To state things more clearly, I am suggesting that we should interpret shutting down debate as an analog of spoliation of evidence. If you shut down discussion, others ought to conclude from that that maybe you have something to hide. I’m suggesting that as a general rule, applicable equally to everyone, whether I personally agree with them or not.

[shawn_dude]

I'm trying to imagine a major university holding discussions where supporters of white nationalism/neo-nazism are given equal footing with people who advocate for equal rights for non-whites and Jews. Maybe I'm wrong here but I doubt that schools like Duke or Columbia would lend their name and resources to a serious discussion about whether Jews should have an equal place in American society. It's certainly a current topic given the "Jews will not replace us" chanting that DJT said was done by "good people" and the recent pro-Palestinian/anti-war protesting currently underway. University presidents were willing to call in the police with their batons, dogs, and non-lethal munitions in order to preserve their valuable donor lists. A discussion on the "Jewish Question" which invited White Nationalists to argue against inclusion would probably not be allowed. But... LGBT Americans are fair game?

You may feel that shutting down debate is bad in all cases even when the debate is inherently anti-Semitic or racist--I don't know you personally. However, I don't believe universities generally would allow debates where one side believes in and argues for oppression against minorities. Some debates cause more harm than they're worth--especially when toxic positions are gifted with the status of major research institutions. Debating the social value or humanity of any historically oppressed minority should be handled very carefully and more often than not be discouraged.

[ThePublius]

Make no mistake, the current protests on college campuses are not anti-war. They are pro-war, in favor of Hamas and Palestinian elimination of Israel and Jews. "From the river to the sea..." is chanted ceaselessly, which is a call for war against Israel and Jews.

The only anti-war aspect one might glean from these protests is the calls for Israel to cease fire, to stop its pursuit of Hamas; which is essentially a call for Israel to roll over and die.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes and yes. Nuke Gaza....

[bernard11]

I am suggesting that we should interpret shutting down debate as an analog of spoliation of evidence. If you shut down discussion, others ought to conclude from that that maybe you have something to hide.

This sounds like a major retreat from your earlier comments.

Besides, I think it's way overgeneralized. We shut down discussion all the time, based on the venue, the rules governing speakers, the agenda, available time, and other things.

Imagine a town meeting called to discuss local property tax issues. What could be more democratic? But are you going to let someone go on for an hour about the injustice of her assessment? Are you going to let someone spend time complaining about speeding on Main St.? Are you going to let members of a group who share strong views dominate the meeting by allowing them all to speak independently, shutting out those who disagree?

Sure, if a guy wants to bring a soapbox to the park and spend eight or ten hours talking about property tax, let him. If he wants to hand out brochures in front of City Hall, fine (but no littering, please.)

But some discussions can't reasonably be held at all (because of physical circumstances and limits, not content) without shutting some people down.

I don't think any of this is remotely novel or original. I just want to emphasize that details need to be thought through, and without that the noble statement is little help.

[Nige]

'To state things more clearly, I am suggesting that we should interpret shutting down debate as an analog of spoliation of evidence.'

I suppose you'd be welcome to complain about it to the individuals who do such a thing. If it wasn't transparently in bad faith.

'If you shut down discussion, others ought to conclude from that that maybe you have something to hide'

Or it suggests that there are people involved that you don't want to have to hide from if they get into power.

[NOVA Lawyer]

‘If you shut down discussion, others ought to conclude from that that maybe you have something to hide’

You are really skewering DeSantis in these threads. Again, I think you are generally right about how slimy he is, but I think you're generalizing a little too hard.

Sometimes, when you generalize so broadly in order to demonize a group you don't like, your principle ends up ensnaring a whole bunch of people who, actually, are not like slaveholders defending owning other humans.

[Scooter]

Nothing points out the 'legitimacy' of the Pro-Trans movement more then their vile, hysterical attempts to bully others and use threats to silence any contrary opinions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They're just the latest incarnation -- Act Up was actually worse, throwing condoms at priests and being generally obnoxious.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP

[Sarcastr0]

Obnoxious? BREAK OUT THE SNOWPLOWS

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Storm the (federal and state) capitols!

[jdgalt1]

How about making it effectively impossible for your opponents to engage in peaceful demonstrations, by infiltrating them with hundreds of goons and committing violence in those opponents' names? Jan 6 is far from the first time the Left has done this, with the help of corrupt three-letter government agencies to boot.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed, getting it wrong (or at least not exactly right) as usual,
they were USED Condoms, big difference.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dr Ed didn't -- and doesn't -- know that, and hence isn't going to say it.

I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not going to say it without knowing.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2's new policy of not saying stuff he doesn't know! The entertainment value will be in watching him fall off the wagon, again and again.

One can only laugh or cry or both.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not a new policy.

[Magister]

Actually following it is new, if it actually happens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, p****, just because you disagree with my facts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I truly doubt that the Act Upees could have come up with a couple hundred *used* condoms, particularly since they refused to use them.

Go to a CVS (Walmart wasn’t around then) and buy out the display is logistically possible. But come up with genuinely used ones? Possible but I doubt it…

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2's "facts" are routinely debunked by people across the political spectrum. Dr. Ed 2's policy of not saying stuff he doesn't know didn't last long if it wasn't actually stillborn.

AIDS activists threw condoms at priests because the Church was opposing the use of condoms; the activists supported the use of condoms. It doesn't take most men long to produce a used condom given an unused one, and most gay men used condoms in the late 1980s (when the condom throwing probably occurred). Putting a condom over Jesse Helms's house was probably much more difficult.

BTW, p**** is subject to some ambiguity, unlike bullshyte and FiretrUCK. pussy? pansy? poser? pervy? penis? pixie? I'm gonna interpret it as "playa".

[Nige]

Disagreeing with me is like rape! screeched Scooter.

[Scooter]

Lying about what someone else posts is Business As Usual for Nige.

SSDD

[Nige]

Disagreeing with Scooter is a like saying a flag was asking for it!

[Randal]

Let's see if Doriane gets around to posting about the right's use of government power to push an anti-trans agenda, including retaliation against "woke" private actors and official suppression of pro-trans speech. Or if she's just gonna whine about leftist activists and leave it at that.

[Nige]

I expect she’ll find it ‘concerning.’ Though I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

[Jett's Pop]

"...I was checking my pension balance..."
Duke provides a pension to its professors? And tenure. Wow, good deal.

[Scooter]

That may depend on the employment start date. A lot of states have moved from defined benefit pensions to 401K based plans but only for people hired past a certain date.

[Jett's Pop]

Quite true, but Duke is not a state institution. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that private employers had abandoned pensions earlier.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That doesn't mean that their employees had to -- there are IRAs and TIAA/CREF and probably even deferred compensation packages.

The latter is what a lot of people forget about admin salaries -- they usually get a "package" and their published salary is only a part of this, usually less than 3/4 of it.

[Magister]

I get an administrator salary, but HR prefers that I not discuss the size of my package.

My impression is that the benefits are often that large a percentage for average jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics seems to concur.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- I've been in the state system long enough to forget that not everyone is -- and I co-mingled two things.

First, traditional "benefits" such as health & life insurance are calculated independent of salary -- for GIC (health) coverage, it's 20% of the premium if you were hired before 2003, 25% if not -- and it's whatever the premium of the selected plan is, regardless of your pay. You are not in social security, instead you are in the state retirement (pension) and you contribute a set percentage of your gross pay toward this. It changes depending on when you were hired, and now you have to pay medicare, so it comes out to 11%.

This is (sorta) true for all public employees in the Commonwealth, and yes the Commonwealth's contribution to GIC and retirement is roughly an additional third of what the employee is paid.

But I was talking about something else -- the salary package, which is independent of these.

For example a former UM Chancellor had a salary "package" of $500K which he could divide up any way he wanted to. He took about $345K in actual pay and the rest as other things. It's basically tax avoidance, a combination of deferring the payment of some of your salary to future tax years when you will be retired and in a lower tax bracket, along with situations where you can spend pre-tax dollars (e.g. Health Savings Account) and I really don't know all the details.

My point is that this is independent of the state employee benefits/

[shawn_dude]

I don’t think you understand what an “administrator” actually is in the higher ed space in the US. Yes, it includes the executives, and yes the highest level executives (equivalent to c-suite) likely get some sort of package. However, the vast, vast majority of administrators are middle and line management. Salaries tend to be much lower than equivalent work in the corporate sphere, as well, which is where benefits packages compensate to some degree but often not to equivalency. Public universities are normally on the same public retirement programs as other state employees, which means their compensation packages are normally part of a legislative bill. In my experience, outside of IT management roles and similar, a large percentage of administrators are making less than $100K per year in salary for a job that requires a masters degree in high-tax states like New York and California.

[Lee Moore]

“Private employers” in this context means large corporations run by a few senior execs answerable to a Board of like persons. The remuneration packages typically focus on earnings based measures, and the rewards often come in the form of stock or options. Keeping a pension plan for employees is nutso from the perspective of a CEO remunerated in earnings/stock related goodies.

Even if the CEO (et al) would personally benefit from carrying on with a pension scheme, he/she/it would lose far more from the damage to earnings and stock price from the famously ravenous earnings eater that is a pension scheme.

So you would look for pension schemes to survive in organisations which do not offer their senior employees stock and earnings related goodies.

What scooter describes is exactly what you would expect – ie the pension schemes have got to go because they’re so expensive, but the folk currently in charge are going to make sure they’re grandfathered.

As ever, cui bono is your friend.

[shawn_dude]

In 2013, California pension plans for state employees were modified to meet fiscal sustainability goals. So while the pensions persisted, there were a number of changes including salary caps and employee contributions. Health benefits were pushed out to a 10 year vesting period.

If pensions were to go entirely, there would be more demand for equivalent pay. The corporate world pays employees quite a bit better than the public universities once you drop below the executive levels. Pensions, once earned, are lower risk than 401K plans so a move to a riskier retirement benefit would require an increase in other areas of the compensation package.

[Lee Moore]

Pensions, once earned, are lower risk than 401K plans so a move to a riskier retirement benefit would require an increase in other areas of the compensation package.

Sure. My point is that a pension plan is basically an aircraft carrier, ie the ex ante NPV of a pension plan is always vastly underestimated compared to the ex post cost. And when I say vastly I mean VASTLY. The life expectancy is always underestimated, the return on investment is always overestimated, and the regulatory risk (eg court decisions expanding the payouts required) is always ignored.

So from the stockholder point of view it is always worth switching to higher non pension compensation because it will always turn out to be cheaper. It is actually one of those laws of thermodynamics.

One might say that it's just an amazing coincidence that pension schemes, like aircraft carriers, always come in at five times budget. But then one would have to be a sweet innocent lamb.

[shawn_dude]

Zero disagreement. Though, 401K plans may be cheaper for the employers and owners, I think they'll have increased costs for taxpayers long term. Taxpayers will find ourselves funding more programs for retirees who've had their 401K values zeroed out by stock market crashes. The largest group of 401k retirees is just hitting 65 now so this is going to be put to the test rather soon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Taxpayers may not -- there are a lot of people without 401Ks who may not be happy paying for this.

[bernard11]

My point is that a pension plan is basically an aircraft carrier, ie the ex ante NPV of a pension plan is always vastly underestimated compared to the ex post cost. And when I say vastly I mean VASTLY. The life expectancy is always underestimated, the return on investment is always overestimated, and the regulatory risk (eg court decisions expanding the payouts required) is always ignored.

Mostly true, but with maybe one caveat. The bad estimates are often deliberate, not simply misjudgments. Earnings looking shaky? Just raise the return on the pension fund, reducing the needed contribution, and voila! All fixed.

So a good earnings manipulator might start with normal, sensible, assumptions, leaving space for "corrections" as needed for his own purposes.

Another factor that killed many corporate plans was a change in American career patterns, as well as an environment that made firms more fungible. There used to be a tendency to stay with the same company for long periods, even an entire career. So you got vested, built up assets, and then collected when it was time to retire.

But that changed. Workers switched jobs more often, companies got bought and sold, or went bankrupt, or reorganized - see IBM for a famous case - somehow. Pension benefits were often not "portable," and unvested benefits disappeared., as did some vested benefits which mysteriously fell into the hands of buyout "artists."

This, I recall, was part of the impetus for the move to IRA's, 401(k)'s and their cousins. Is this a good thing? Who knows? Depends on the specific case, ISTM, and we don't know what other options might have been tried.

Still, when I hear nostalgia for the good old days when you had a "reliable" pension from your employer, I wonder what those people have been drinking.

[shawn_dude]

My first pension (TRW Environmental Safety Systems) was paid to me in a lump sum after Obama kill the Federal project TRW (and later Bechtel) was the lead contractor for. The moment the stock value of the frozen fund was higher than the present value of the payout, it was liquidated and paid out to the former employees. However, my second pension (which just vested) is state funded, which is a lot less risky. Meanwhile, my dad's 401(k) was demolished during the 2008 crash and never fully recovered. He was left living off of social security as his main income.

I suppose one could approximate a pension by purchasing a life insurance annuity. Not sure if those are available via the standard employer-managed pre-tax deduction plans but that would be more portable than a real pension.

[Lee Moore]

Mostly true, but with maybe one caveat. The bad estimates are often deliberate, not simply misjudgments. Earnings looking shaky? Just raise the return on the pension fund, reducing the needed contribution, and voila! All fixed.

It would appear, bernard, that sweet innocent lambs are extinct in this litte threadlet 🙂

[MatthewSlyfield]

Depends on the employer. I had a pension and a 401K with my employer up until around 2014 (I changed employers at that time). I started with that employer in 1997. My employer from 1997 - 2014 was a privately owned utility company.

[Scooter]

Could well depend on the start date of employment still. Just my .02

Most employers HAVE abandoned defined benefit pensions as extended lifespans have made ongoing funding difficult. Many .Gov agencies have as well, for the same reason.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

...talking biology is hate and..."hate is not scholarship."

compare:
https://vdare.com/posts/the-growth-of-science-denialism-anthropologists-take-up-arms-against-race-science
https://vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-does-philosopher-nick-bostrom-believe-in-eugenics-on-steroids-or-just-heredity

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't think you're helping.

[Dan Schiavetta]

As we speak, Biden is playing host to what the once-and-possibly-future President called (without any blowback from his supporters) a "shithole" country, and praising their President for humanitarian aid to Haiti. Ed is actually being pretty mainstream, as far as Trump supporters go, and that mainstream is quickly becoming the main stream.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, Kenya, you mean?

Crime in Kenya

'enya has a criminality score of 7.02 on the Organized Crime Index, the 16th most in the world, an improvement from 11th in 2021"

Current per capita GDP $2100.

I don't think "shithole" has an official definition, but if it did? Kenya might make the cut.

[Krayt]

If countries are "shithole", it's because of the criminals who run them, not because of the people. Calling it such is not productive.

[Roger S]

The crime rates are from the people, not the leaders.

[bernard11]

Nice random slur, Brett.

Wiki also tells us Kenya has an intentional homicide rate of 4.9/100,000.

For the US the number is 6.4

[Brett Bellmore]

I cite crime and economic statistics, and it's a "random slur"?

Look, I'm not fond of that terminology myself, and maybe Kenya isn't the worst country in an awful part of the world, but it's not 'random'.

[Nige]

It's in support fo a random slur. If you're looking for facts to support a slur, you're endorsing the slur, you just know it's a slur and you need to justify it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a slur, but it's not random.

[Nige]

Most things Trump spouts are random.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a slur, but it’s not random.

A thing said only by bigots.

[Brett Bellmore]

By people whose care that a country is listed as the 16th worst crime in the world.

Which is not what 'bigot'means.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a slur.

Slurs do not have truth value; they are a group-specific insult and nothing more.

It's like saying 'it's okay to be racist if you don't like a race of people.'

[bernard11]

Yeah. It is what "bigot" means.

Because "shithole" is not any kind of meaningful, fact-based, description of the country.

And it's particularly offensive when used as a place we should restrict immigration from, not least because the people wanting to leave are not the criminals.

[bernard11]

By people whose care that a country is listed as the 16th worst crime in the world.

Do you know anything at all about crime statistics? Wiki itself describes the source of your number as not totally reliable.

But I'll tell you what people who seriously study crime say, or used to. Crime stats are mostly dubious, but the one we can take reasonably seriously is homicides, because those do get reported, so the homicide rate is a decent index of crime - probably better than overall government statistics.

And the homicide rate in Kenya is, as I pointed out above, significantly lower than in the US. Now that might not be wonderfully accurate, but it's worth thinking about before you go claiming Kenya is a shithole because of the high crime rate.

[Nige]

This, by they way, is how the right works these days. Racists and Nazis and shitposters manufacture this stuff and spread this stuff, riffing on and even working with Trump and his campaign, and along come 'reluctant' Trump voters like Brett who don't reject them with revulsion, but instead say they've 'got a point.'

[Ed Grinberg]

compare (from the movie Hello, Dolly! (source)):

Horace [Vandergelder]: You are a seven-foot-tall nincompoop!
Ambrose Kemper: That's an insult!
Horace [Vandergelder]: All the facts about you are insults!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Kenya is bordered by South Sudan to the northwest, Ethiopia to the north, Somalia to the east, Uganda to the west, Tanzania to the south..."

It's in East Africa, home to lots of true shithole countries...

[bernard11]

I cite crime and economic statistics, and it’s a “random slur”?

1. You cited one crime statistic, not "crime statistics," from a source that might not be the best - says Wikipedia. I cited one that makes the US look worse than Kenya. It's not worse, of course, by many long shots, but let's be careful about selective numbers.

2. And you cited one economic statistic, again not "statistics". This one has more value, no doubt, and does honestly suggest that Kenya is a poor country.

That doesn't mean "shithole" is apt.

Look, I’m not fond of that terminology myself, and maybe Kenya isn’t the worst country in an awful part of the world, but it’s not ‘random’.

Not fond of it? BS. You were happy to repeat it, and emphasize it, and now you're doing the Bellmore two-step.

Of course, it's no great crime to use the term in an Internet comment. But we are talking about the fucking President of the US, for whom we might have higher standards, especially since he himself realized the phrase was so inappropriate that he had to lie about having used it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, in a discussion of African countries, Kenya is probably the one that I have the most respect for. It's poor -- that's why they all come over here as nurses -- but it's relatively stable with a relatively honest government. One Kenyan explained it to me as "we all agree to have an honest government, so no matter which side is in power now, we agree it has to be honest."

I think it's also that they've seen a lot of turbulence around them for decades and don't want it.

[Magister]

If only Republicans would have agreed to have honest government in the US at any point in my adult life.

[Frank Drackman]

Wasn't that "Brief Shining Moment" between Barry Hussein Osama's Immaculation in January 2009, and the death of Ted Kennedy (who left an innocent young woman to Asphyxiate, not drowned, there's a difference) in August 2009, when the DemoKKKrats had the Oval Orifice, Speaker/House and Senate a time of "Honest"(Bad, but Honest) Government??
OK, hard to put Ted Kennedy and "Honest" in the same page, so the few months after he died, and before his replacement, who was so unlikeable even Hillary Rodman felt bad for her, lost to a Repubiclown, the last time MA has had an "R" Senator this Millenium

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's just the autism-driven conservative bigotry talking, Mr. Bellmore.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what the once-and-possibly-future President called (without any blowback from his supporters) a “shithole” country"

A lie. He never mentioned Kenya specifically, just "African".

Do you asset some African counties are not "shitholes”?

[Nige]

He’s asserting that it’s fucking stupid of the president of the United States to use that term for other countries, but it flatters the xenophobia of his supporters who run around finding justifications for it like a bunch of Victorians pissing on orphans. Also, American cities.

[Bob from Ohio]

Libs fainting over the term is both pathetic and funny.

[Nige]

Trumpists spaffing over it is gross.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He referred to "all these [African] countries" as shitholes. Kenya is obviously included in that group, so yes, he did call Kenya a shithole. Just not by name (unlike when he mentioned Haiti and El Salvador).

[Bob from Ohio]

"obviously"

Mind reading. If he meant to ID specific African countries, he would have.

[Nige]

Guess the master media communicator fucked up yet again.

[Sarcastr0]

Elementary understanding how subsets work, not mind reading.

But yeah, Trump probably didn't intend his bigotry to be broadly applicable.
Maybe Kenya is one of the good ones!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Some years ago my daughter served as Maid of Honor to her old college roommate’s wedding. The roommate (black) was from Kenya and I got to meet her family. Her sister and mother looked like queens — six feet tall, almost touching the ceiling with their formal headdresses. The sister told me that she never experienced racism in postcolonial Kenya, nor during her years in London — but she finally did encounter it, from white Americans, when she moved to Texas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Racism? In Texas?

And you believed her?

[Frank Drackman]

Does it make you feel good that your daughter had a black room mate? And the rest of your story is even more bullshit, how did the "Sister" say it exactly?, "You know, I never experienced any race-ism in postcolonial Kenya, or during my years in London, but these White Americans in Texas!!!" So I know I'm asking about a fictional character, but did she move back to postcolonial Kenya? or London?

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That doesn't surprise me. I lived in London for many years and one thing that struck me early on was how little overt anti-black racism there was there. Interracial marriage was not considered a big deal. People just got on with their lives.

Sure, what is now called "institutional racism" (what I call "no-fault racism") is still part of British society--that has always been the case, but it applies to essentially all races and classes.

Contrast that with the everyday, every way, in your face race-is-the-issue of modern American life. The sordid slavery history of the southern US profoundly influenced and continues to influence US society. Nobody can move beyond it because it is in the interest of too many to allow anyone to move beyond it. It's so ingrained, I am certain it will not get any better for many, many years, if not generations.

[Dr. Ed 2]

England had slavery, I think longer than we did...

[Absaroka]

Wiki:

"An influential abolitionist movement grew in Britain during the 18th and 19th century, until the Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but it was not until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that the institution of slavery was to be prohibited in directly administered, overseas, British territories."

[bernard11]

Wow. Are you stupid. Try this, and maybe you'll learn something.

Me: "The southern states in the US have warmer climates than the northern states."

Bob: "Well, you didn't say anything about Alabama being warmer than Minnesota."

[Frank Drackman]

He also applied the term to the (late) John Louis's Atlanta District, which is really being unfair to the Shithole African Countries, who at least can shrink heads.

Frank

[shawn_dude]

LOL... are you posting White Nationalist VDARE links as evidence that "hate is not scholarship?"

Or are you submitting your entry for the most ironic post of the day?

[Kazinski]

I'd say that academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small, but in this case the issues aren't small.

Really why the politics are so vicious is because the only one the transgender lobby, which is a small minority, can impose their viewpoints on society as a whole is through vicious academic politics where they are strongest, in the universities.

[bernard11]

Of course, there is no RW effort to censor discussions of transgenderism or homosexuality; no fanatical lunatics who want to control what can be talked about or what opinions expressed.

The fact is, of course, that there are lots of those people around - many more than there are transgender activists - and they often occupy positions of considerable power.

So STFU with your complaints unless you're willing to accept that there is a tremendous amount of this thing on the right, even though you make all sorts of excuses for it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Historically, right-wingers have been labelled as practitioners of censorship (the reality is more complex, but let me make my point). Left-wingers (at least in the US) used to make it a point of pride that "I am not like unto those right-wing censors."

[shawn_dude]

LGBT activists using their free speech rights to protest events that give bigots a venue to expand the reach of their bigotry are not "censors." Having an opposing opinion, even if expressed in an ungenteel manner, is not censorship. Passing laws to prohibit discussion of LGBT topics in education is actual censorship.

You've got to provide a lot more evidence if you want to equate protest (free speech in action) with laws that penalize speech.

[David Nieporent]

LGBT activists using their free speech rights to protest events that give bigots a venue to expand the reach of their bigotry are not “censors.”

Do you mean protest like organizing a boycott / handing out fliers criticizing the speaker, or do you mean "protest" like blocking the doors so the audience can't get in / yelling and banging on the windows so the audience can't hear? Because merely calling something "protest" doesn't make it speech.

[shawn_dude]

True enough… though at a certain level, some protest is intended to end in arrest so where activists do go beyond legal speech, events would presumably continue, if delayed. I know that won’t always happen. Regardless, even in your most extreme case, it isn’t censorship.

In the OP’s example:

Leftist student organizations sent protestors with posters calling me a ‘TERF” and a “transphobe” and my work “transphobic”—along with “Fuck TERF” and “Transphobia is not welcome here”—to disrupt the event. They lined the hallway to the lecture room and then interrupted the beginning of my remarks to read their manifesto…

I’d say all of this is speech. I think it ratchets up nicely here to the line where I’d start to question whether it’s still speech or not. But generally, telling her to “fuck off” or calling her names seems to have shocked her (strangely) but that’s clearly speech. Holding up signs in the hallway and even in the venue is as well. Interrupting what she had to say is rude and should result in being expelled from the venue but that still seems to qualify as speech. The threats she goes on to mention may or may not… that gets to a line I’m less comfortable with. But what all of that is not is censorship.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Interrupting what she had to say is rude and should result in being expelled from the venue"

Not from the college?

What if a student interrupts a speaker supporting trans rights? Could they at least expel the heckler in that case?

[Nige]

The Nazi regalia might swing it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you discussing protests in which the protesters actually permit the target speaker to speak, or are you talking about shouting to drown out the target speaker? There’s definitely examples of both.

For examples of “protests” which involve censorship, here’s an article from the rabid right-wingers at Inside Higher Ed:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/04/13/shouting-down-speakers-who-offend

“Many students harbor misconceptions about what constitutes free speech, believing that shouting over others is included in their First Amendment rights, [Sabrina Conza of FIRE] said.

“…[Conza said:] ‘[W]hen a speaker goes through a process to be given a forum, and then someone comes in and disrupts that, it’s not free speech. I think that that would be easy to understand for someone if they went to a play … and a bunch of people came in and started screaming or blowing bullhorns. I don’t think that they would sit there and think, ‘Oh, that’s completely fine.’””

I haven’t read all the supposedly censor-y laws in the states. Some bills sound bad; others have to do do with the content of the curriculum in state-run schools – I don’t like state-run schools partly for the very reason that they teach state-approved topics in a state-approved way, so I invite those concerned about these sorts of laws to support a variety of independently-run schools.

[Nige]

'or are you talking about shouting to drown out the target speaker?'

They're certainly making their own opinions known, eh?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you for or against shouting to drown out a speaker?

[shawn_dude]

Isn't this just another way of asking: "are you for or against speech you don't like?"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Like shouting through a bullhorn so the audience can't hear a play or lecture?

No matter how many people like that sort of thing (and it seems a lot of people do), it's not OK.

[Nige]

I dunno. I think you can tell a lot about a person by the sort of speakers they’d be willing to interrupt, and the sort of speakers they’d be willing to sit through politely, even just hypothetically.

[Nige]

Depends on the speakers. Would you stand or sit by and let Nazis speak uninterrupted? Or are you a moral fucking coward?

[ThePublius]

“Would you stand or sit by and let Nazis speak uninterrupted?”

Isn’t that what free speech is all about? You are apparently supporting viewpoint based censorship. The problem with that is always who determines what viewpoints are acceptable.

If you’re going to have free speech, then all speech must be free.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Except Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland’s speech . . .

[Nige]

Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. When Nazis suddenly pop up you start shouting loudly because if you don't, the Nazis will certainly try to take away your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't fucking mean sitting meekly while Nazis march all over you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1189715-everyone-i-dont-like-is-hitler

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, I would let Nazis speak.

I guess we now know which stop on the libertarian train is yours.

[Nige]

Not a libertarian and who said anything about stopping them speaking? I’m saying they’re so odious and incompatible with a free society that while they’re speaking you should be fucking screaming.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh. What are you, then?

Screaming is trying to stop someone else from speaking; it is illiberal.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’d first want to decide whether they’re actually National Socialists or not. I wouldn’t simply take your word for it.

People use the word "nazi" so broadly these days, especially on the Internet. It can mean just about anyone except of course a real nazi.

[shawn_dude]

Not sure where anyone got the impression that a defining element of free speech is people necessarily thinking "Oh, that's completely fine." In fact, the entire value of free speech as it exists in our Constitution is for speech that people definitely think is not fine.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m afraid you have missed the point. Not to mention the content and context of the quote.

[bernard11]

Historically, right-wingers have been labelled as practitioners of censorship

I don't know what the complexity you refer to is, but the labeling described is clearly accurate. Or are you going to tell us that Joe McCarthy was a leftist.

Just a small thing I happen to be aware of: In the 1960's the University of Alabama barred protest songs from being played on the University radio station.

And are there greater champions of free expression in the country than Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis.

Give me a break. You people (by which I mean RW free speech screamers) are so utterly full of shit it would be unbelievable, except I've seen it going on for decades.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You appear to be uncomfortable with complexity.

McCarthy abused his freedom of speech – and his freedom of debate in the Senate – by referring to non-Communists as Communists or Communist sympathizers.

It’s not as if his most prominent opponents at the time were proclaiming, “yes, let’s have people on the federal government payroll who belong to a party which is directed by a hostile foreign power.” The issue was whether McCarthy was smearing non-Communists as Communists.

If you want to claim that the right of Communists to work for the feds is some kind of civil liberties issue, you’d be at odds with plenty of McCarthy’s opponents.

If you’d like to put Civil War Democrats into the leftist ranks, it’s more than I would do. They denounced federal censorship. But since this is an example of the complexity I mentioned, you might not fully appreciate it.

[Sarcastr0]

The Republican Party led by McCarthy enthusiastically ushered in blacklists and HUAC. They used it to cut down plenty of innocent liberals. Don’t pretend they weren’t abusing power to go after a political coalition of their opponents.

McCarthy wasn’t using his freedom of speech and debate, he was abusing his power as an elected official.
And many on the right today support McCarthy’s petty drunken power grasping populist feamomgering.

Redbaiting is still a thing, and it’s still about suppressing speech and thought for being bad. It’s just not pushed by Congress for now. Did you see the posters who call Somin a communist? And want him deported? That is not an attack on his arguments, it’s about his arguments not being legitimate and let shut him up.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The Republican Party led by McCarthy enthusiastically ushered in blacklists and HUAC."

The "H" in HUAC stands for "House," not "Senate." McCarthy was in the Senate.

"Don’t pretend {stuff I never said}"

OK, I won't pretend that stuff I never said is true.

"Did you see the posters who call Somin a communist? And want him deported?"

An abuse of free speech, not a suppression of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

McCarthy was drunk.

He was a hopeless alcoholic even by the standards of the 1950s when (by today's standards) *everyone* was one.

McCarthy died of ETOH a few years later.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Henry Kissenger said that at the height of the cold war, when global thermonuclear war was a real possibility. I think what he was saying was that MAD kept people polite.

[Frank Drackman]

Is that a "People are saying" or do you actually have a source for that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/609695-the-reason-that-university-politics-is-so-vicious-is-because

[Nige]

You mean, their ideas are persuasive enough for college students and professors to explore and even adopt while yours aren't worth shit.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot's robot hemorrhoids especially inflamed today

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, these activists suck.

Your generalization from that to a pretty muddy attack on a viewpoint different than your own? That's well beyond what the OP said.

Yeah, your attempt to springboard from the activists to short-circuit the argument also sucks, albeit in a petty sophistic way. Less a threat to academic freedom than these assholes, and more just a reflection on your relentlessly partisan lens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only difference between now and 30-40 years ago is that the revolution is now starting to eat its own and the irony here is that where she (a champion female athlete) was on the vanguard of the revolution when it was female athletes against the evil patriarchy of male sports (which it was circa 1982), she has now become the evil oppressor now that the revolution has extended to transgenderism.

As one who has lived through all of this -- and the related "war on boys", I must admit to no small amount of schadenfreude. In just two generations the male/female ratio in higher education has gone from 70%/30% to nearly 30%/70%, and while it was increased female enrollment in the '80s & '90s, it now is a decreased male enrollment.

What Title IX actually did was eliminate a lot of the less spectator-oriented male sports because it was cheaper and easier to eliminate male sports than to try to recruit female athletes, who often couldn't be obtained even with offers of full-boat scholarships, which are also a major institutional expense. (And hard to justify to faculty who point out that the sport is not producing revenue the way that football or men's basketball does.)

The ultimate irony is that were the author a male undergraduate today, she likely would not have been able to compete in her sport because men's track & field is one of the sports which have been eliminated in the name of gender equity and Title IX compliance.

And what's even worse are sports such as skiing where men's teams have been eliminated only for the women's team to also be eliminated on cost grounds because the major expenses (transportation, coaching, equipment maintenance) were shared between both teams and remain the same for just the women's team. So now neither male nor female athletes can compete, and who does this benefit???

So yes, schadenfreude -- for all the concern about cisgendered girls, I ask where was the concern for the cisgendered boys? And if we want to talk biological reality, lets also admit the fact that there are more males than females interested in playing competitive sports. We've been dealing with the myth of athletic equity for half a century now, and four generations later, the difference isn't just cultural.

I sympathize with the author, I was living what she now is thirty years ago... Where was she then -- the incivility could have and should have been stomped on THEN. And I am reminded of this:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Nige]

Well, I don't know about you but I'm speaking up for trans people and won't let them be taken away by fascist thugs again if I can help it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The trans people ARE the fascist thugs...

[Nige]

What laws did they pass aimed specifically at you? What books of your did they ban? When did they claim you were all evil groomers out to corrupt children?

[shawn_dude]

He's worried one of them will tell him their pronouns and that his response will make him look like a jerk in public.

[Ed Grinberg]

You are aware that before Nazis came to power, they used -- what's the word? -- fascist tactics against their political opponents?

[Nige]

One of which was targeting trans people, who they later went on to murder in concentration camps.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually Nige, the open joke was the Nazis were all gay -- and many of the Brownshirts are known to have been. In fact, Hitler may have been a boytoy of Ernst Röhm.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fascist thugs are going to take trans people away? Like, to camps?

[Nige]

I predict some southern red states will start talking about sending trans people to conversion therapy camps as a mandatory alternative to the hated gender affirming care.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I doubt they care that much.

But, just in case, let's keep adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law.

[Swede425]

Red Guard gonna Red Guard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly. It is a Red Guard type movement.

[bernard11]

Red Guards.

Fucking ridiculous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Red Guards are as Red Guards do, Bernard.

[Sarcastr0]

Ain't nothing the right won't rewrite and devalue in order to compare it to something they don't like in America.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rewrite and devalue "

Libs think Revolutionary War flags are fascist symbols. So take the mote out of your eye.

[Sarcastr0]

First, whattaboutism.

Second, your appeal to incredulity aside, it turns out the flag's association with Christian nationalism, Trump conspiracists, and other far-right dead enders is legit:

“The [appeal to heaven] fell into obscurity until the 2020s, where it came to be seen as a symbol of Christian nationalism and support for President Donald Trump and his “Stop the Steal” campaign among far-right groups.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag

[Frank Drackman]

Wait! I thought it was the “OK” sign, or the Frog Stickers?, or “88” Bumper Stickers? (Who knew Dale Earnhart Jr was a Nazi?) Or that well known group of Nazis
“The flag is the official maritime ensign for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”
Oh, Wikipedia? While I do like using it to look up the details of various 3 Stooges Shorts, that’s about what it’s best for, because I can post an Entry for “Sacastr0” that says you’re the most notorious Pediofile of History and it’ll stay up long enough for people to get screen shots of.

Frank “not on Wikipedia”

[Bob from Ohio]

You are citing Wikipedia on a hot current political issue?

Good one gaslighto.

[Sarcastr0]

They link to sources, you know.

Of course your threshold for accusing someone of lying is very very low. Because you've quite proudly not been one for integrity.

[Absaroka]

In fairness, your quote isn't there anymore either ... the page has been edited since you looked.

(there is similar content in a footnote, sourced from the NYT, but that's sourcing the NYT more than wiki. In theory, stuff from the wiki is reliable because it has had lots of eyeballs hashing things out over time to end up with an accurate, neutral viewpoint. That process doesn't have time to work with ongoing, sometimes dueling, edits for hot button issues)

[Sarcastr0]

The OG sources were a number of articles - NYT, the AP...I think Politico.

But it's easy enough to search for "appeal to heaven" and set the date range before April 2024.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/mike-johnson-christian-nationalist-appeal-to-heaven-flag-1234873851/

https://azmirror.com/2023/06/05/janae-shamp-az-senator-proudly-flies-flag-adopted-by-fringe-far-right-extremists/

etc. etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a proposal to make it the Maine State Flag -- I believe it will be on the Nov ballot.

[Nige]

Sad reactionaries still seeing Reds under the bed and taking disagreement and advocacy for stuff they don't like as tyranny against them.

[shawn_dude]

Well, it was the OP who noted they were "Marxist." Brett is just picking up on that and running with it.

[bernard11]

And those activists don't do what the Red Guards did, Brett.

OTOH. Fascists are as fascists do - call people vermin, round them up to put in camps, ignore the law if it keeps them from power, use "Big Lie" techniques to get people on their side, use anti-minority rhetoric to get support from idiots, delegitimize the judiciary lest it get in their way, etc.

That's what you support, fiercely, Brett.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, modern Red Guards are fucking ridiculous. Why do you back them?

[Nige]

Can't back what doesn't exist, but *you* can apparently quail in terror over them.

[Bob from Ohio]

Go to the Hamas college encampments, then you will see some of them.

[shawn_dude]

I would but the one on our campus disbanded peacefully and went home. Just like fascist jack-booted thugs are known to do, right?

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's not the Red Guard.

But you know that.
A bit of dishonest drama is par for the course if it gets your side to win.

And your side winning is, in the end the only important thing. As you tell us over and over when you're not railing against due process, demanding more due process for Trump, or supporting Pinochet.

[bernard11]

I've gone there. Have you?

Unlike right-wing rallies and meetings, I didn't see any Nazi flags or uniforms.

You live in a remarkable fantasyland.

[Ed Grinberg]

In 1930s Germany, antisemitic thugs wore brown shirts and swastikas. In 2024 U.S., they wear keffiyehs (which conveniently cover their faces) and wave Palestinian flags. God help us if they take over…

[Nige]

Nazis famous in their opposition to killing non-white people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tell that to the Cambodians in the Killing Fields…

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"As I write, we continue to deal with the effects of this collision as politicians and alumni do battle with universities that chilled sex-related speech but then platformed pro-Palestinian speech."

What's wrong with pro-Palestinian speech? Is it too new for you to be comfortable with it? Do you prefer the superstition-driven, war-criming, right-wing belligerents on the other side? No mention of the pro-Palestinian speakers who have been censored or physically attacked? No thoughts on DeSantis' academic cleansing in Florida or on the intense censorship at conservative-controlled campuses?

Your shadings indicate a bias that places you on the wrong sides of history, the culture war, and the marketplace of ideas, professor. Good luck with that, although there will likely always be a place for you at a polemical, bigotry-embracing, disaffected right-wing blog with a vanishing academic veneer. Try not to let the habitually published racial slurs bothers you -- perhaps, I sense, you may even develop a taste for them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What's wrong with sex-related speech, you prude?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That might be the best defense of Prof. Coleman available.

[shawn_dude]

Exactly! What's wrong with discussing LGBT issues in academic environments? Why do we need laws that treat heterosexual topics differently than similarly-situated LGBT topics?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As I write, we continue to deal with the effects of this collision as politicians and alumni do battle with universities that chilled sex-related speech but then platformed pro-Palestinian speech."

WOOOSH!

[Roger S]

The transgender movement is dominated by activists that are so unreasonable that they can only win by censoring any open discussion of the issues.

[Randal]

Says the guy on the side that's literally banning books, medical procedures, discussion topics, and performances, and using government power to retaliate against dissent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel's right-wing belligerents have begun attempting to silence mainstream media -- always a sign of nothing to hide from the world.

(Don't expect the "free expression champions" at the Volokh Conspiracy to be bothered by Israel's censorship -- or even to find it "interesting.")

Carry on, clingers. So far as . . . . you know.

[Frank Drackman]

We know, we know, we're putting the lotion on our skin, we're putting it in the basket, one of these days.....

[Roger S]

Banning porno books in school libraries, banning sexual mutilation of children, and banning drag queen grooming of children in public. Yes, you got me there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did your low-grade mother have you circumcised? If so, what is your position on her sexual mutilation of children?

[Frank Drackman]

again, Internet tough guy insulting mothers, sooner or later you're going to make some Dentist very rich

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some mothers were assholes, making the son a son of a bitch.

[Frank Drackman]

Your mother isn't everyone else's mother (well, probably somebody else's than just you, if I was her and you rappelled out of my Uterus don't know if I'd have the courage to try again or just have it yanked out. )

Frank

[Nige]

We have, indeed, got you there.

[shawn_dude]

Never met a conspiracy theory you didn't embrace, right?

[shawn_dude]

Needs more evidence re "censoring."

[Randal]

Doriane, you don’t seem to understand the way free speech works. Nothing you describe amounts to censorship. It’s a bunch of activists doing their thing. Yes, they like to get in your face. Yes, they have already made up their mind. Yes, they have insidious tactics like inventing over-the-top style guides.

None of that stopped you from getting your message out. Sure, you’ve gotta find sympathetic publishers, but everyone has that problem.

You seem to think, like many on the right, that free speech means everyone’s required to respect what you have to say. They don’t. They’re allowed to think you’re an idiot. Sorry you find it so frustrating.

I had a conversation like this with someone who was trying to convince me that ivermectin cured covid. They were like, “my opinion is just as legitimate as yours!” No. That’s not how debate works. It’s not everybody says their piece, then we all turn around and politely walk away. It’s loud, and it’s bullying, as we try to undermine and marginalize the other person and their arguments while bolstering and centering our own.

If being broadly liked is a high priority for you, you shouldn’t live your life as a pundit in a free society.

[Jonathansingletary]

Nothing says “I’ve been censored!” like having your book published and then writing about the book you published.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“my opinion is just as legitimate as yours!”

Some people figure the only legitimate way to address the issue "Is the moon made of green cheese" is to assemble a panel consisting of

(1) a lunar geologist;

(2) a professor of dairy science;

(3) a conservative think tanker who warns people not to be swayed by "elite opinion;"

and

(4) a conservative professor from a religious school who emphasizes that "science" is nothing more than a bunch of theories that should be sifted for congruence with the Word of God.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which UCLA student organization (better yet, students) does Doriane Coleman claim to be Marxist?

It seems reasonable to infer from her work at this blog that Coleman is just another right-wing culture war casualty dancing around in unconvincing mainstream (“I’m no conservative”) drag. Her posts indicate she is every bit as mainstream as Volokh is a libertarian champion of free speech.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"unconvincing mainstream (“I’m no conservative”) drag"

You're responding to this, of all posts, with transphobic language?

[shawn_dude]

It's not transphobic. It's also not "drag-phobic."

Drag != trans.
Here, this should clear it up for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO0jUvh47oE&t=49s

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I would imagine that people who indulge in drag come under the heading of LGBTQ+.

If they’re not covered by the “T”, at least they’re covered by the “+”.

And a "T" does look kind of like a "+".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Like Bob Hope, you hopeless, bigoted, right-wing dumbass? Or Tom Hanks?

You and Volokh deserve each other.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m responding to your remarks about dancing around in drag. You, not I, portrayed this in a negative light.

Were it not for double standards, you'd have no standards at all. As illustrated by your uttering a vile racial slur while denouncing others for uttering the same slur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It’s fake. Like Hanks or Hope or Dustin Hoffman in a dress. Not negative or disgusting or transphobic or homophobic . . . fake.

Ask someone who is not on the spectrum, or isn’t a right-wing bigot, to try to explain this for you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why did you utter a vile racial slur?

[Randal]

You're retarded. You don't know what drag is, nor what LGBTQ+ is. Yet you bloviate uncontrollably.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Terminology aside, the premise of the Rev's remark is that cross-dressing in itself is somehow wrong or offensive. Whereas I'd say the offensiveness or lack of it would depend on context. So who is perpetrating bias against people who indulge in cross-dressing?

[Nige]

No. The premise is that drag is a form of dressing up, therefore, the person he is talking about is really one thing while dressed up as another.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are wrong. You are a bigot. You are a worthless, right-wing culture war reject, flailing against progress and resenting modern, mainstream America.

Guys like you helped talk Volokh right off the UCLA campus. Which of these other disaffected, obsolete, right-wing law professors will be the next former law professor, relocated to a lesser position in the clingerverse?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why did you use a vile racial slur?

[Randal]

I thought shawn explained this to you already. Drag can simply mean to dress up as. Trump is a fascist in conservative drag, for example.

(Oh I see Magister had a very similar example days ago. Credit due.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You must be an Ugly American if you reference *To Wong Foo* rather than the prior, superior Australian film *The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.*

[Magister]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Save it for the Today in Supreme Court History movie reviews this summer.

[Magister]

"Drag" includes costumes meant to represent a different group, like authoritarian politicians in populist drag. Unless you think that mainstream/conservative is somehow gender related, it has nothing to do with transphobia.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I wouldn't taunt the Rev for his remarks except for his fairly hair-trigger tendency to call people bigots and practice double standards (like uttering a vile racial slur which he denounces others for uttering).

[Nige]

Yes, we figured this was tediously arch bad faith bullshit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This = the Volokh Conspiracy (no longer published from the academy; now it’s just another right-wing mouthpiece-for-hire operation).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why did you utter a vile racial slur?

[shawn_dude]

A number of the protests were organized by the Democratic Socialists student groups that appear to exist on campuses these days. Personally, I lump them in with Libertarians as political/economic ideologies that flourish in college and then shrivel up the moment they come into contact with reality.

The OP's aside about them being "Marxists" is no different than those that called her a "TERP." We're meant to think of her more as a victim rather than the one using "biology" and her position at Duke to dehumanize members of her own community that she's never met.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Interrupting a speech may itself be speech, but the interruption wouldn't be *protected* speech.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's also a Trumpkin argument.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Doriane Coleman strikes me as a Bari Weiss-class misfit with far less tendency to actually quit in a sanctimonious huff, maybe because she is too timid to take her chances without that sweet, steady paycheck. So she just whines a lot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How does someone like this get hired by Duke?

Affirmative action for right-wingers is a failed experiment.