Title IX Anti-Discrimination Law Turned Into Tool For Discrimination
Merely exercising her free speech rights led to a Kafkaesque chain of events for Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis, writes Glenn Reynolds in USA Today:
Feminist professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University published an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education in February, decrying "sexual paranoia" on campus and the way virtually any classroom mention of sex was being subjected to an odd sort of neo-Victorian prudery: "Students were being encouraged to regard themselves as such exquisitely sensitive creatures that an errant classroom remark could impede their education, as such hothouse flowers that an unfunny joke was likely to create lasting trauma. ... In the post-Title IX landscape, sexual panic rules. Slippery slopes abound."This article sat poorly with campus activists, who in response reported her for sexual harassment, on the theory that this article (and a follow-up tweet -- yes, that's right, a tweet) somehow might have created a hostile environment for female students, which would violate Title IX as interpreted by the Education Department. Because, you see, female students, according to feminists, are too fragile to face disagreement. And they'll demonstrate this fragility by subjecting you to Stalinist persecution if you challenge them, apparently.
At least, that's what happened to Kipnis, who describes what she calls her Title IX inquisition in a lengthy essay [sadly, subscribers only] in the Chronicle of Higher Education on Friday.The university's investigators wouldn't tell her who made the charges or even, for some time, what the charges were, which is typical of these Kafkaesque proceedings. While Kipnis was allowed to bring a faculty "support person" to her hearing, "support person" was not allowed to speak. After the hearing, a Title IX complaint was filed against the speechless "support person."
Reynolds adds:
At Reason, Robby Soave pointed out that bureaucrats whose power comes from an outrageously expansive reading of Title IX have expanded that interpretation to include a claim that "criticizing Title IX violates Title IX."Title IX, as its simple language provides, was intended to open up colleges to women, not to empower a Stalinist bureaucracy to torment people who don't toe the feminist line. Congress needs to haul some Department of Education bureaucrats up for hearings, then rewrite Title IX to make clear that it doesn't grant the kind of sweeping powers over academic expression that educrats have seized. Despite what they might think at the Department of Education, 1984 was written as a cautionary tale -- not an instruction manual.
This will continue on until the grownups take control of how things are defined. Hillary's "no proof of wrong doing" tactic would be a start (2 drunk people go into a bedroom ...).
Letting children define any situation is a mistake.
Bob in Texas at June 3, 2015 5:04 AM
Radley Balko at the Washington Post:
Emphasis mine.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 3, 2015 6:45 AM
Title IX has always been about sexual discrimination against men. And many of the people who helped pass this law were quite open about that. Don't expect any changes till the next president or even one after. After all, the Obama administration was looking to use Title IX to force men out of engineering and science, completely ignoring any field where women predominate.
Ben at June 3, 2015 7:38 AM
"criticizing Title IX violates Title IX."
I find this part to be the most disturbing because it suggests the people enforcing these rules are either incapable of rational thought, or they know exactly what they are doing and do not care.
If someone interprets Title IX to mean that any criticism of Title IX constitutes a violation of Title IX... how exactly would they suggest that someone fix unforeseen problems with Title IX?
We even have provisions for legally amending unforeseen issues with the constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
What makes these nitwits think that Title IX was created/implemented without flaws and therefore had no room for improvement?
Artemis at June 3, 2015 10:20 AM
I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
Snoopy at June 3, 2015 3:04 PM
"I find this part to be the most disturbing because it suggests the people enforcing these rules are either incapable of rational thought, or they know exactly what they are doing and do not care."
I can assure you it's the latter. Their self-righteousness and belief in their inherent superiority is such that they can say stuff like that and then sleep soundly afterwards.
Riffing on what Ben said in another thread about his sister (because I've got a few relatives like that): they don't think twice about shaming and silencing anybody that challenges their beliefs. They have so indoctrinated themselves that they see it as merely a social correction. Challenging the orthodoxy is uncouth, and persons who do so need to be put in their place, just like you would shush a noisy drunk in a movie theater. It's an activity in which decent people do not partake. They scold and then give it no more thought than we do when we scold an unruly child. That they might be in the wrong is a thought that never crosses their minds.
Cousin Dave at June 3, 2015 3:19 PM
From Snoopy's link above:
"Of course someone's social standing affects whether their ideas are considered offensive, or righteous, or even worth listening to. How can you think otherwise?"
Damn. I thought racists were biased. Sounds like one of my great-grandparents talking about how "darkies" obviously can not know right from wrong. (How could they being you know, darkies).
Am I missing something?
Bob in Texas at June 3, 2015 3:54 PM
Laura Kipnis' essay is also available at her web site: http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/My-Title-IX-Inquisition-The-Chronicle-Review-.pdf
No subscription required.
Brad R at June 3, 2015 4:35 PM
"After the hearing, a Title IX complaint was filed against the speechless "support person.""
Since the "support person" was not allowed to speak their body language must have been off the charts.(Or maybe the complaint was just because they were, you know, supportive?)
Bob in Texas at June 3, 2015 6:01 PM
'Am I missing something?'
No Bob, you didn't miss a thing. Want to find racism, sexism, and a large variety of other isms go to your local university. With hard work, stunning intellect, and science they have advanced the art of bigotry and discrimination to amazing levels.
Ben at June 3, 2015 7:49 PM
Leave a comment