A Catered College Execution
Laura Kipnis has a powerful long read at Chronicle. An excerpt:
Attending the disgraced philosophy professor Peter Ludlow's dismissal hearing was like watching someone being burned at the stake in slow motion, except this execution was catered -- the university provided lavish spreads of food and snacks, and the atmosphere was surprisingly cordial. The five Northwestern faculty members empaneled to hear the case were striving to make clear that they were neutral and not prejudging anything, which meant pleasant chitchat at breaks or in the ladies' room, mostly about the food. We were, after all, in the Midwest. Even the university lawyers were pleasant. The whole thing dragged on for over a month, which meant a lot of chitchat and a lot of calories. I was tense, and overate....As I weigh the evidence in my own inner courtroom, I can understand why the university wanted to jettison Ludlow. Personally, I don't think he abused his power. The problem was that he didn't share the conception of power in vogue in academic precincts. Yes, Ludlow was guilty -- though not of what the university charged him with. His crime was thinking that women over the age of consent have sexual agency, which has lately become a heretical view on campus, despite once being a crucial feminist position. Of course the community had to expel him. That's what you do with heretics.
via @CHSommers
I'm convinced that college adults are not and that if Trump tried to change the current mores he would be sued by the colleges, the ACLU, and Huffington Post (and probably several States).
Bob in Texas at April 4, 2017 5:43 AM
You can't change it Bob. It's too ingrained. You can limit it's excesses a bit. But it is far more reasonable to defund and rebuild from scratch. Rehabilitation isn't an option.
Ben at April 4, 2017 6:36 AM
I say we lift off, and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
And to keep hare brained ideas stuck in the college space, and not let them spill over into everyday life.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 4, 2017 7:15 AM
Women? Adult sexual agency?! Hahahahahahahahahahah!!
That IS a good one!
Jay R at April 4, 2017 9:45 AM
Jay R,
I propose that we relieve women from suffrage. It's the decent thing. And probably we should revisit the notion of arranged marriages.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 4, 2017 10:15 AM
Well, IRA,
-- If "no taxation without representation" makes sense, surely "no representation without taxation" also makes sense. So, given that women are net takers of tax revenue (especially single mothers) and men are the net payers, depriving women of the vote makes perfect sense, actually. Remember the warnings about the citizenry being able to vote to give themselves money from the public treasury?
-- Given that there are now more single people than married people in the U.S.A., and in light of the still-sky-high divorce rate and the falling birthrate, how could arranged marriages do any worse? From what I have read and heard, folks in arranged marriages from other cultures are no less happy or stable than those in "random" marriages -- and they are, in fact, married.
So, I like your thinking! Very rational indeed!
Jay R at April 4, 2017 2:29 PM
It does raise the question of: If 18 is no longer the age of consent for women, then where is it? Most people graduate at age 22, so is that where it is? What about graduate students? Does that make it 25? Ph.D candidates? Does that raise the age of consent for women to 30? And if they go into professorship or administration, what then? 35? 40? Does the age of consent now go up to menopause?
And what about women who don't go to college? Is it different for them? If so, why?
Cousin Dave at April 5, 2017 6:55 AM
Here's a thought, maybe going on a drinking binge with a teenager or having an affair with a student is a stupid idea.
JoJo at April 5, 2017 10:09 AM
Weren't the women in question graduate students? If so, they were bound to be at least 22 or 23. Hardly "teenagers". It might be a fair criticism to say that the university should have an anti-fraternization policy, or that having a relationship with a student is something that a professor ought to avoid on general principles. But it hardly constitutes sexual assault.
Cousin Dave at April 5, 2017 10:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CVvNRQcvE
How sorry should I feel for him really?
Odds are he helped create the system that consumed him
lujlp at April 6, 2017 9:06 AM
From the article, the first girl was only 19, and he took her on a pub crawl that ended up with her in his bed. As for the second woman, she may have been a grad student, but there's a reason prudent people don't shit where they eat.
JoJo at April 7, 2017 9:41 AM
"From the article, the first girl was only 19"
Last I checked, 19 is above the age of consent in every state. So my question stands: if the new age of consent for women isn't 18, then what is it?
Cousin Dave at April 7, 2017 12:47 PM
then what is it?
What ever age she is when he father sells her to a man as a sex object as women apparently no longer want sexual agency
lujlp at April 7, 2017 3:40 PM
Leave a comment