Camille Paglia brings it:

I wanted to ask you about that. If Emma Sulkowicz were a student of yours, in an art class you were teaching, how would you grade her work?

[laughs] I’d give her a D! I call it “mattress feminism.” Perpetually lugging around your bad memories–never evolving or moving on! It’s like a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism.

An article on qualified immunity in a case we've seen here before: Valdosta State University. This author suggests that the state contract include language that if the contractee is stripped of their qualified immunity by the courts, they and not the state are on the hook for any award due to their beyond the pale conduct.

Interesting idea...

And linked into the previous article is another case that has been discussed here: a SWAT raid on a barbershop in Florida looking for unlicensed barbers.

I'll turn it over to the judge:

On September 16, the 11th Circuit issued its decision in Berry v. Leslie. The court’s ruling, written by Judge Rosenbaum, strongly attacked the idea that government officials, police and regulatory, can hide behind an immunity defense when they engage in conduct they knew or should have known violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” of individuals.

Judge Rosenbaum made it plain that the kind of storm trooper tactics used against the peaceful barbers in Strictly Skillz has no legal shield. He cited two prior cases in the 11th Circuit (which handles cases arising in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) where the court had ruled against the “qualified immunity” defense on facts less egregious than in Berry. “Conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights,” he wrote.