The Progressive Roots Of Unfree Speech On Campus
Wendy Kaminer lays out the ridiculous conflation of physical safety and emotional safety -- and the danger -- in the WaPo. First, an example:
I described the case of a Brandeis professor disciplined for saying "wetback" while explaining its use as a pejorative. The word was replaced in the transcript by "[anti-Latin@/anti-immigrant slur]." Discussing the teaching of "Huckleberry Finn," I questioned the use of euphemisms such as "the n-word" and, in doing so, uttered that forbidden word. I described what I thought was the obvious difference between quoting a word in the context of discussing language, literature or prejudice and hurling it as an epithet.Two of the panelists challenged me. The audience of 300 to 400 people listened to our spirited, friendly debate -- and didn't appear angry or shocked. But back on campus, I was quickly branded a racist, and I was charged in the Huffington Post with committing "an explicit act of racial violence." McCartney subsequently apologized that "some students and faculty were hurt" and made to "feel unsafe" by my remarks.
Unsafe? These days, when students talk about threats to their safety and demand access to "safe spaces," they're often talking about the threat of unwelcome speech and demanding protection from the emotional disturbances sparked by unsettling ideas. It's not just rape that some women on campus fear: It's discussions of rape. At Brown University, a scheduled debate between two feminists about rape culture was criticized for, as the Brown Daily Herald put it, undermining "the University's mission to create a safe and supportive environment for survivors." In a school-wide e-mail, Brown President Christina Paxon emphasized her belief in the existence of rape culture and invited students to an alternative lecture, to be given at the same time as the debate. And the Daily Herald reported that students who feared being "attacked by the viewpoints" offered at the debate could instead "find a safe space" among "sexual assault peer educators, women peer counselors and staff" during the same time slot. Presumably they all shared the same viewpoints and could be trusted not to "attack" anyone with their ideas.
As for the roots of this unfree speech movement, Kaminer points to the recovery movement, "diversity" pushers, and feminist anti-porn crusades:
In the 1980s, law professor Catharine MacKinnon and writer Andrea Dworkin showed the way, popularizing a view of free speech as a barrier to equality. These two impassioned feminists framed pornography -- its production, distribution and consumption -- as an assault on women. They devised a novel definition of pornography as a violation of women's civil rights, and championed a model anti-porn ordinance that would authorize civil actions by any woman "aggrieved" by pornography. In 1984, the city of Indianapolis adopted the measure, defining pornography as a "discriminatory practice," but it was quickly struck down in federal court as unconstitutional. "Indianapolis justifies the ordinance on the ground that pornography affects thoughts," the court noted. "This is thought control."So MacKinnnon and Dworkin lost that battle, but their successors are winning the war. Their view of allegedly offensive or demeaning speech as a civil rights violation, and their conflation of words and actions, have helped shape campus speech and harassment codes and nurtured progressive hostility toward free speech.
MacKinnon is one of the evil geniuses of the feminist movement. She is responsible for the "hostile environment" theory of workplace sexual harassment -- where the offense depends on the subjective experience of the "victim", and not on a "reasonable person" standard. The theory being that even a reasonable man is incapable of knowing if and when he is sexually "harassing" a woman.
MacKinnon is also on record as honestly admitting that feminism, socialism and communism are all one and the same, and that the destruction of "patriarchal" society is the ultimate goal of feminism.
She and her flying monkeys infesting academia, business and government are out to destroy families and poison relations between men and women -- and are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.
I pray that the "great middle" of all men and women will wake up to what is going on and put their collective foot down, before it is too late. It is difficult to maintain a positive attitude, though, especially because I have children ... and would like to have grandchildren.
Thanks, and keep up the good work, Amy.
Jay R at February 21, 2015 2:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/02/21/the_progressive.html#comment-5861439">comment from Jay RIt really is all about power, as I keep saying. It's about people who have not earned power wanting to get it through forcing people to submit through intellectual totalitarianism.
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2015 2:40 PM
Leave a comment