What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The zero-sum game: We don't want no stinkin' discussion

A friend recently alerted me to this flap. In brief: At Marquette University, a university in the Jesuit tradition (ahem), a philosophy grad TA recently hushed up a student who advocated the traditional side on the issue of homosexual "marriage." She stated that his views were "inappropriate" and "homophobic" (of course), likened them to racist remarks (of course), and said that they constitute disallowed and offensive speech in the classroom, since some homosexual student might overhear and have his feelings hurt. She indicated that it was her policy not to allow such opinions to be expressed and suggested that he drop the course if not willing to abide by this policy. (Notice that this article from Inside Higher Ed, not a conservative source, confirms this account of what Cheryl Abbate said. Since the student recorded part of the conversation, it is difficult to deny. I hasten to add, if anyone wonders, that if the student did indeed lie initially about whether he was recording the conversation, that was wrong. He should have said, "Heck, yeah, I'm recording it. Why, are you ashamed of what you've been saying?")

You really cannot make this stuff up. Interestingly, the lefty blogger and poli. sci. professor [Correction: Philosophy professor at University of South Carolina] Justin Weinberg makes an unconvincing effort to spin this as not being about shutting up conservatives and disallowing the expression of conservative views. His first spin on the story is that the student was trying to derail discussion and that the TA was simply exercising her legitimate judgement about whom to call on and what discussions to encourage so as not to waste class time. He even goes so far as to say, in direct contradiction to what Abbate herself is recorded as having said to the student, that "the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive." But then, Weinberg falls back on saying that the Marquette University harassment policy forbids the expression of traditional views of marriage and that therefore the TA had no choice but to suppress them. She was only following policy, you know!

Later, when FIRE disputes Weinberg's "nothing to see here, folks" implication that Abbate's main motive was trying to save class time, Weinberg doubles down on the policy issue. He likens anyone who criticizes Abbate to a "jerk" who criticizes a waitress for following restaurant policy on free refills.

So let's get this straight: This isn't about "speech being shut down because it is offensive," but okay, it actually is about shutting down speech deemed offensive, but that's required by Marquette's policy on harassment, so it isn't grounds for criticizing the TA (even though she clearly strongly advocated, for herself, in her own words, a policy of shutting down offensive-to-homosexuals speech), because it's policy, so you're a jerk if you criticize her, this is a smear campaign against a poor little woman grad student, etc., etc.

Makes sense to me.

Well, not really.

Despite Weinberg's desire to pose as the neutral arbiter pointing out the "lies" and inaccuracies of conservative media, stuffily lecturing FIRE on not becoming "the Yelp! of academia," his twisting and turning just looks like self-contradictory special pleading. Maybe that's because he is, in fact, engaging in self-contradictory special pleading.

Things get even more interesting, and alarming, when one reads some comments on Weinberg's original post. Eager to support Weinberg's implication that poor Cheryl Abbate couldn't help herself and was only following policy, commentator MarquettePhilosopher points out that Marquette's anti-harassment policy really does imply that criticism of homosexual "marriage," even in private conversation which someone else happens to overhear and be offended by, constitutes harassment!

FIRE has pointed out that this bizarre and draconian policy is in conflict with Marquette's own alleged, and published, commitment to the free exchange of ideas. (FIRE has argued elsewhere that such a conflict with published school commitments can provide grounds for suit, even against a private college, and is no doubt hoping to overturn the restrictive policy by such a suit if someone should choose to provide a test case.)

So, yes, Marquette's harassment policy (which Abbate apparently did not cite in her conversation with the student) could well provide cover for Abbate's shutting down discussion on this issue. But then we can consider that Abbate herself and MarquettePhilosopher are clearly absolutely thrilled with any such policy and only too eager to enforce it by, dare I say it, harassing any student who ventures to speak up on the other side of the issue, implying that he's at least as bad as a racist bigot, and suggesting that he leave the class. This is an ideological matter, and their ideological side has been made explicit and therefore is fair game for criticism. Which is not a smear campaign, no matter how often Justin Weinberg says that it is.

Here is MarquettePhilosopher spouting off at length about how wonderful the policy is.

I also wanted to say that, as someone who has an overwhelming concern for marginalized others and is committed to fostering a safe environment for members of marginalized groups to learn in my classroom, I am in full support of Marquette’s Harassment policy and Harassment training, which, as I pointed out, clearly states that there is zero tolerance for comments that are hurtful to homosexuals....What individuals, like the complaining student and John McAdams do not understand, is that some individuals do not have the luxury to engage in “critical discussion” about what rights others have. McAdams has never once had to, or evidently tried to, put himself in the shoes of a marginalized other in order to consider what it might be like if he was the one person in a class of 35 students and he was forced to sit passively by as all of his classmates engaged in the “philosophically stimulating” conversation about whether or not he has the basic right to marry.

We need to be reminded that it is completely inappropriate to treat the topic of gay marriage as some “philosophical exercise.” These are REAL people with REAL lives we are talking about. How dare we feel so entitled to sit back in our arm chairs and “critically examine” what rights homosexuals should and should not have.

To make homosexuals the subject of some philosophical debate is truly offensive. The only time a philosophical discussion about a ban on gay marriage should EVER rear its head in philosophy class is when an instructor wants an example of a policy that would violate a certain ethical theory (such as in the case of Ms.Abbate’s class). To presume that there is some sort of “debate” to be had about gay marriage is just demeaning and offensive to homosexuals.

Right, well thanks, that's clear enough. (It also makes it clear enough that Justin Weinberg was talking through his hat when he said at the beginning of his initial column that this incident isn't about shutting down speech deemed offensive. But hey, who's keeping score?)

One cannot help wondering what all this means for students who get reported for having the wrong kinds of conversations in the hearing of the wrong people. All of this is also alarming for any professor, whatever his own views, who just wants to hold interesting and open conversations in the classroom about the political topic of homosexual "marriage." MarquettePhilosopher's comments imply, with some plausibility, that the Marquette policy means that a registered Democrat professor, who himself advocates homosexual "marriage," who merely allows open discussion of both sides of this issue in his classroom is harassing his homosexual students and deserves to be reported! If that sounds crazy to you, that's because it is crazy.

Now, let me be clear: Am I saying that professors have to appear neutral about everything? No, I'm not saying that. Am I saying that there are no views so wicked that they should not be treated as open questions? No, I'm not even saying that. In fact, I've said for a long time that the legality of infanticide is such a view, that it should be shunned, and that Peter Singer should not be given a platform.

But: Even in the case of infanticide, a professor can respond to a student who advocates it by presenting reasons and evidence rather than by telling the student to shut up. It is certainly true that there is a fine line between presenting arguments in rebuttal of a wicked view and treating that view as respectable. There are grey areas in between. But a professor who reacts calmly to a student's expression of such a view or allows a student to write a paper advocating a view rather than merely shutting it up is not ipso facto treating the view as morally respectable.

Moreover, the attempt to shoehorn any of this into the category of harassment is ludicrous, disgraceful, and dangerous. Even if one believes that a view is wicked, it does not follow that the expression of that view constitutes harassment against anyone. By turning the expression of pro-marriage views into harassment, the left is attempting to turn what should be normal conversation and debate into an act of aggression. That doesn't come as a surprise, of course. The left has long been adept at inventing acts of aggression out of whole cloth, but they should be called out on it.

Third, there is such a thing as simply being wrong about what views are so incredibly wicked that they should not be treated as respectable. One can't just pick anything out of a hat, declare it to be irredeemably wicked and beyond the pale, and then dismiss those who disagree as merely disagreeing about the fact of the matter. To say that presenting arguments and evidence in defense of traditional marriage is not merely advocating a false view but advocating an evil view that should be beyond the pale of polite discourse should be seen as ludicrous by left and right alike. It's becoming more and more popular to make such over-the-top claims, but that doesn't mean we all just have to lie down and not dispute them because they are part of the zeitgeist. Nor is this metalevel issue co-extensive with the substantive issue, for even someone who believes that homosexual "marriage" is possible is not automatically committed to believing that anyone who disagrees with him is the moral equivalent of a Nazi advocating the eradication of the Jews or something similarly morally horrific.

To say, for example, that no one who defends traditional marriage should ever be hired in any philosophy department in the country (as presumably one would say about the neo-Nazi) is so wildly over-the-top that it should be laughed out of court. Yet the position that opposition to homosexual "marriage" is beyond the pale does seem to imply exactly that.

Fourth, the Marquette position on this issue raises a very grave potential problem concerning a teacher who dares to criticize arguments for homosexual rights and homosexual "marriage." This point swings free of the entire question of odious or wicked views, for even when one is taking the right moral position, even when one is opposing a wicked or morally odious view, one can make poor arguments on one's own side. What happens when a teacher (in philosophy, critical reasoning, political science, or any other class where the issue might come up) is presented with a paper advocating homosexual "marriage" that needs improvement or that gives poor arguments? Given a Marquette-style policy the teacher would justifiably fear for his job if he dared to criticize the student's arguments, since such criticisms might be thought to imply that the teacher himself (heaven forfend) holds to a forbidden position on the subject.

Shouldn't we worry about this effect?

In all honesty, I don't know whether lefties of MarquettePhilosopher's stripe would dismiss this fourth consideration as conservative hyperbole--"Of course no one would have to fear for his job for criticizing a student's poor arguments for gay rights!"--or whether they would say, "So be it." If past history is any guide, they'd probably start by saying the first and later shift to saying the second.

It seems a long time ago now, but this blog was much involved in arguing against the APA's stigmatization of schools that prohibit homosexual acts. We promoted a counterpetition that warned, inter alia, that the APA's position encouraged discrimination against philosophers who hold to traditional views of sexuality and marriage. At this point, such discrimination is openly advocated and de rigeur on the left, not only for philosophers but in a great many fields.

The Marquette policy needs to be opposed. I think it would be (in a sense) great if some student were in fact to be reported for alleged harassment for respectfully and rationally expressing opposition to the homosexual agenda--whether in class or in an overheard conversation--and were successfully to sue the bejabbers out of the apparatchiks who are trying to silence all dissent. At that point, if the school policy were to be rescinded and the focus were to turn to actual harassment of students (such as telling a student that his traditional moral views are inappropriate, tantamount to racism, and will not be tolerated in class), it would be interesting to see whether poor old Cheryl Abbate would heave a sigh of relief that now she can start permitting a vigorous exchange of ideas in her classes on this timely and important topic. She is, after all, a philosopher, is she not?

Comments (38)

New ad campaign: "Marquette University: A fifty-thosand-dollar-a-year bus-tour through a PC ghetto."

I swear, I'm really trying to imagine somebody actually reporting two people to the harassment police for having a discussion between the two of them, which the snitch overhears, in which they express their opposition to homosexual "marriage." The mind boggles at the thought of how the "trial" would go.

The conservative media would, rightly, take those lemons and make lemonade. That's why I can't help half hoping it actually occurs.

I swear, I'm really trying to imagine somebody actually reporting two people to the harassment police for having a discussion between the two of them, which the snitch overhears

I may have an anecdote that is close. The organist at my parish gave me an account of his time as an undergrad at college. One day the music students were assembled so that one of the professors could announce he was going transgender. There was a standing ovation. He and a few other students declined to join the ovation. Someone witnessed this apparently as later he was summoned to a star-chamber of music faculty that threatened his academic advancement if he didn't volunteer to attend a sensitivity somethingorother. All for refusing to join an ovation. I suppose being young and not wanting trouble, he did their bidding. I like to think that if he had gone to a dean outside the music school and made a ruckus the faculty would have caved, but it seems as long as faculty can hold advancement over student's heads, it is hard to expect young and inexperienced kids to take a stand.

Wow. That is positively...North Korean.

In my view marriage, like many other private, personal matters should be none of the gov'ts business, especially the Federal Gov't. We should be able to marry in our churches without the gov'ts interference, including without having to notify them. Marriage licenses are just another form of gov't intervention in private life, of gov't asserting power over our private lives.

You're wrong, but that's not what this thread is about.

Lydia,

Reading about this madness, I can't help thinking that it is part and parcel of the larger war on freedom of expression that the left has been waging for the past X number of years. I've been following Mark Steyn's trial in D.C. Superior Court over whether or not he libeled climate "mullah" Michael Mann and Mark is very forceful and clear that he wants to go to trial because he thinks that the First Amendment is at stake and wants to defend the principle of being allowed to criticize someone's work and/or ideas in the rough and tumble of the internet discourse.

Indeed Steyn has reason to be worried after going through the absurd 'Human Rights' tribunal process in Canada where he criticized everyone's favorite 'religion of peace' and was therefore promptly hauled before a tribunal because he supposedly hurt some Muslim's feeling somewhere! Steyn was ultimately successful in repealing the law behind the odious tribunals in Canada, although his friend Ezra Levant, is still dealing with the fall-out over a defamation suit brought against him by a Muslim agitator.

So while on the surface all these cases are quite different (so-called Islamic hate speech, attacking "the settled climate science", and defending traditional marriage) they are ultimately related to the one principle the left simply will not tolerate (pun intended) anymore -- the right of conservatives to state their case, forcefully and sometimes with acerbic wit, to the determent of the liberal position. Dissent is not acceptable.

It is quite common for supposedly Catholic schools to show a hatred for true Catholic beliefs, such as the belief that sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance rather than something to be celebrated.

Lydia, as you know from the past, I rarely agree with anything you say, but I wholeheartedly concur with you here. The freedom of the classroom is not supposed to protect the popular, easygoing, inoffensive opinions, because they don't need any protection. It is unfortunately true that many liberals who verbally praise tolerance and open discussion are startlingly blind to the log in their own eye.

Jeffrey, it's interesting to see how many different tactics are used here. The power of government will be used when it can be as in Canada or as in the present Steyn phony libel case. Private institutional or corporate speech codes, diversity policies, or teacher classroom policies will be used when they are the better tools ready to hand, as in the Marquette case. And, one of the slipperiest of all, there is biased and shallow professional gate-keeping, as in the climate change wars within the relevant scientific professions.

The funny thing is that I am not a free speech absolutist, yet it is so clear to me that all of these tactics are being used in an irresponsible and ridiculous way that is creating not only a lot of individual injustices but also making it difficult for the truth to emerge naturally.

Hi Lydia,

This is my first time commenting here, and probably my last for a while, as keeping Daily Nous running takes up a lot of the time I might otherwise spend participating in blog discussions. Just a few things. First, about me: I'm associate professor of philosophy, not political science. Second, about the events: you claim that the instructor "hushed up a student." But that never happened. The student complained after class not that he was shut up or told not to participate, but that no discussion of same-sex marriage had taken place during the class, except to mention a ban on it as an example of a policy that might be at odds with a principle the class was learning about.

As for your points about the cogency of my arguments, let me give you a quote from my reply to Susan Kruth at FIRE:

"To sum up, my initial post referred to three considerations about the student’s point that were at play in Abbate’s thinking: its irrelevance, its inaccuracy, and its possible offensiveness. Kruth doesn’t touch the first two considerations, and her point about punishing the student for offensive speech is a no go owing to the fact that Abbate did not punish the student, and that, as Kruth admits, Abbate was probably acting in accordance with a reasonable interpretation of her university’s policy."

These considerations do not appear to be inconsistent, so I don't quite see what is off about all three of them playing a role in the instructor's reasoning.

In the original post I said this:

"As any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning."

I imagine that you would largely agree with that.

I can understand how it serves a certain narrative to construct this case as one in which a professor simply told a student to shut up in class because his expression of Catholic views was deemed offensive by a liberal academic -- and I think that if that were what happened it would indeed be problematic. But, as I said to FIRE in different words, the facts of this particular case don't fit that narrative. You were told a fish tale by McAdams and you--along with many others--swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

I know facts are hard and stuff, but:

1) Weinberg is a political philosopher, not a political scientist.
2) The class in question was about Rawls and the Rawlsian equal liberty principle. The example of same sex marriage was one of many. Perhaps you don't think same sex marriage is an issue that falls under the equal liberty principle, and perhaps you don't think that principle is true. But arguments against same sex marriage don't seem relevant to the discussion of this particular principle.
3) Nothing that Abbate did limited either the student's freedom of speech or his freedom of belief. Neither of those freedoms entitle him to say whatever he wants in class, and it doesn't prevent him from facing harsh criticism (of roughly the sort Lydia enjoys lobbing at the chimera of the left).

I vote Grobi's as the better comment from across the aisle

Justin,

First of all, I apologize for getting your discipline wrong. At the moment I am not turning up the link that I went to from which I concluded that you are a professor of poli. sci. rather than philosophy, but I will do a correction to the main post on that quite soon.

Second, my phrase "hushed up" was not meant to imply that she stopped that particular student from commenting *in class*, though interestingly, your *own* characterization of the matter would have given that impression even more than mine. I was giving a brief characterization (as I say "in brief"). The "hushing up" took place when Student B approached her after class to object to her moving on, in his view, too quickly from the comments made by Student A, with whom he agreed. Abbate made it quite clear *and explicit* that comments of the kind that Student B was making *would not be allowed* in class, that they were "homophobic," equal in badness to racist comments, offensive, and hence disallowed. This counts as "hushing up" in my view, and I do not retract it as an accurate brief characterization. Oh, and she also invited him to drop the class, which also contributes to the characterization.

Third, your response is inconsistent, because you _explicitly said_ (I quote you) that "the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive" but then admit, in the face of the overwhelming evidence of Abbate's own words, that she was in fact not going to allow comments deemed offensive to homosexuals in her class, and you attempted to defend her on the grounds that she was required to prevent such comments because of Marquette's harassment policy. This is inconsistent. Either it was or it was not a sufficient condition and a major motivation for Abbate to not permit defenses of traditional marriage in her class that such a defense would be offensive to homosexual students. The statement that the event is not "one of speech being shut down because it is offensive" implies that this was _not_ a sufficient condition and _not_ a major motivation for Abbate. The defense of Abbate that she was _required_ not to allow such defenses because of school policy implies the opposite.

Fourth, all the stuff about things being made in more or less inoffensive ways and about what lies within the proper judgement of the teacher is rendered irrelevant by Abbate's own words, which made it utterly clear that it was the content that she was prohibiting. And moreover, that she intended to prohibit that content in the future, regardless of context.

Fifth, I didn't say that she punished the student, so you can take that up with somebody who actually said that Abbate punished the student. However, in my opinion, inviting a student to leave the class in this context does count as bullying the student. In fact, if anybody was harassed here, it was the undergrad who was invited to leave, not hypothetical homosexual students who might have overheard what he said after class and might have taken offense. This was a required class. The student was made to feel that he was in a very hostile class environment by what Abbate said, so he gave in and dropped the class and now will have to retake it. Whether he got a full tuition refund is an interesting question. That is one possible concrete harm. Another is the sheer scheduling difficulty of possibly not having a full load in the existing semester and having to reschedule the class and take it in another semester.

Had this been a black student who (to make up an example) praised Malcolm X after class in the course of disagreeing with a professor's decisions regarding the use of earlier class time, and had the professor said that praising Malcolm X is endorsing violence, that such remarks will not be permitted in class by the professor's class policy, and that the student was disinvited from the class, I think this would be more readily seen by the left as a form of teacher-student bullying.

"I can understand how it serves a certain narrative to construct this case as one in which a professor simply told a student to shut up in class because his expression of Catholic views was deemed offensive by a liberal academic -- and I think that if that were what happened it would indeed be problematic."

"Catholic" is a red herring. It is not only Catholics who oppose homosexual "marriage." That the interaction took place after class is likewise irrelevant, since Abbate *expressly* made it clear that her class policy extends to comments in class. That the views are being shut down because they are deemed offensive is quite simply true. Abbate said so.

You were told a fish tale by McAdams and you--along with many others--swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

Please. I thank God that I retain the use of my faculties, including the ability to read Abbate's own recorded words and Marquette's own slides concerning its own harassment policy. I drew my conclusions therefrom, not from someone's spin.

It is you who are trying with a kind of mind-boggling persistence to kick against reality here.

Good thing the student had a recording. Yet y'all don't even seem willing to accept the truth when it's right in your face.

The class in question was about Rawls and the Rawlsian equal liberty principle. The example of same sex marriage was one of many. Perhaps you don't think same sex marriage is an issue that falls under the equal liberty principle, and perhaps you don't think that principle is true. But arguments against same sex marriage don't seem relevant to the discussion of this particular principle.

This is all irrelevant. Abbate made it clear that "homophobic" comments would be disallowed in her class, period, because they were as bad as racism and would rightly offend homosexual students. This extends to other contexts as well. This is not a narrow issue of the specific context in question, nor was that Abbate's own defense of her decision. You guys are simply trying to make up a phony defense that says, "Pay no attention to that intolerance behind the curtain." It's a little pathetic, actually.

Nothing that Abbate did limited either the student's freedom of speech or his freedom of belief.

Simply bullied him for defending traditional marriage _ever_ in that class and prohibited him from doing so. Right.

Neither of those freedoms entitle him to say whatever he wants in class,

I never said that it did, but if you think merely not being a free speech absolutist entails that one has to say that Abbate's _actual_ restrictions are reasonable, you're wrong. They're not.

it doesn't prevent him from facing harsh criticism

That's interesting. Depends on how harsh and how it is done. There are ways for professors to criticize their students "harshly" (interesting you should have used that word) that do amount to trying to drive the students out of the class and do amount to a form of bullying and harassment of the students. Naturally, that is going to be something of a judgement call, but in my opinion what Abbate said to the student did amount to that. Professors are supposed to be more professional than that to their students. Professor-student interactions are not the same as blog or Facebook thread fights. Perhaps this is news to you?

The truth is that you have a student who went and complained that a class discussion was not about what he wanted it to be about, and then argued when the TA told him that, with the lesson learned being that everyone doesn't have to stop and listen to you whenever you want to say something. It should have ended there, but then of course the outrage mongers picked it up and here we are.

Matt

I have read the post and comments and see no one suggesting that a student ought to be able to interrupt the class to make their case for marriage. Just as I doubt anyone thinks a student ought to be able to interrupt the class to discuss the next big game their schools team is playing. I think the issue here is that if the topic in the class involves marriage or same sex "marriage" that only views that are in support of same sex "marriage" are acceptable to express. Any student who makes any kind of case for marriage will be found guilty of harassment and possibly punished accordingly; whether that case is made in a classroom or in the halls before or after. I hope you can understand why this is problematic.

Yeah, Matt, because _all_ that Abbate did was to say, "I didn't think that a discussion of that topic was sufficiently pertinent to be profitable at that point in the class, and that's my call to make" and left it at that. Right? Oh, no, that isn't what she did. At all.

Instead, she articulated a sweeping classroom policy of not allowing any "homophobic" comments in her class, compared what the student was saying to racism, said that those positions are "inappropriate" to be stated in her class because they might offend listening homosexuals, and invited him to leave the class if not ready to abide by this sweeping policy.

I realize the distinction between these two ways of responding may be tough for a certain type of lefty to grasp, but you might at least give the appearance of trying.

I'm sure, out of rationality and consistency, all liberals and lefties will agree that a student disrupting class* with a non-germane slogan of, say, "Hands up, don't shoot," likewise should be treated dictatorially and offered the door? Right? Right?

But when someone dissents from the Left all trace of sympathy of defiance, all romance of revolution, vanishes. The lefty academic who loved blood-drenched Communists across the late 20th century, so long as they showed flair and drama, turns into the most sullen defender of stale orthodoxy. The droopy-faced old men hound heretical dissent like inquisitors of old. All it takes is someone who has the nerve to defend one of the cardinal virtues.


__________
* No disruption occurred here, so far as I can tell, so I grant the liberals' their strongest grounds, that of an emotional sloganeering in class.

Going back to my friend's encounter with the North Korean star-chamber, it occurs to me that it would evaporated had my friend had a free recording app on his phone at the meeting and used it. Don't lie about it of course, but do it. Light is a disinfectant--it keeps the honest people honest and sends the dishonest scurrying like cockroaches.

What astonishes me here is the sheer, blatant conflict between the two defenses of the grad TA.

The Marquette policy *just is* that statement of opposition to homosexual "marriage" constitutes a form of harassment. And that's a problem. That's the kind of policy conservatives are complaining about here. (And everybody should be complaining about it.)

It is _flatly impossible_ to state consistently that Cheryl Abbate was applying this university policy and also that this is not about squelching speech deemed offensive to homosexuals, that conservatives are making something out of nothing, that there is no concern here about the free exchange of ideas. To the extent that she was applying that policy, or (as really seems to have been the case) applying a policy of her own that mirrors it, that *just is* the squelching of debate on this subject.

There is something here that is almost insulting to the intelligence of readers.

Suppose that Marquette had a policy that nobody is allowed to wear green because it's offensive. Then along comes a TA and rants at a student after class for wearing this offensive color, telling him not to return to class again wearing that color. Out of the woodwork come the lefties, blah-blahing about how _surely_ professors have a right to impose _some_ sort of dress standards, how this incident _isn't really_ about banning the wearing of the color green because it is deemed offensive, that's just conservative fear-mongering...and then turn on a dime and tell us that the student is just applying university policy. Which happens to ban wearing green because it's offensive.

Just how stupid are we supposed to be not to notice the contradiction?

Yeah, Matt, because _all_ that Abbate did was to say, "I didn't think that a discussion of that topic was sufficiently pertinent to be profitable at that point in the class, and that's my call to make" and left it at that. Right? Oh, no, that isn't what she did. At all.

This is a classic SJW tactic. It's an attempt to reframe the issue by cutting out the details that make the left look bad and reorient the narrative to make it all about a minimal segment of the incident that puts the opposition in a bad light. Lately, they've been doing this to the gamer community by trying to focus the public's attention entirely on the death threats made by a few trolls against some feminist commentators and game designers. Once you realize that this tactic is a favorite of the SJWs, you can recognize it for what it is which is a deliberate act of dishonesty and attempt to propagandize others.

Perhaps I should have quoted a portion of the transcript in the main post. Here it is. This discussion took place after class.

Student: Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Okay, there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions. And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in your class, in your class is homosexual? And do you not think that it would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?

Student: If I choose to challenge that, that’s my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Well, actually, you don’t have a right in this class, as the, especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, or racist comments, sexist…

Here is a summary of another portion of the conversation, apparently based on the recording. This summary, I stress, has been made by the Chronicle of Higher Ed, not by any conservative source. (The Chronicle of Higher Ed appears rather sympathetic to Abbate, though they are making some attempt just to lay out all the facts they can find.)

She said the class discussion was centered on restricting the rights and liberties of individuals, but said that making arguments against gay marriage in the presence of a gay person was comparable to telling Abbate that women's professional options should be limited. She invited him to drop the course if he opposed her policy.

See here.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay

Weinberg's statement (which he now appears to want us not to notice) that "the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive" is quite simply false. Untenable. Insupportable. And once that is admitted, then the lefties will have to admit that the conservatives have something to complain about here after all.

but said that making arguments against gay marriage in the presence of a gay person was comparable to telling Abbate that women's professional options should be limited.

But there are perfectly rational, legitimate arguments to the effect that women's professional options should be limited. And the Abbate's of the world, if they want to be "professional" have to be willing to bear up to such arguments made politely and carefully, and either prove them wrong (if they can) or stop pretending that the stance is intrinsically evil. For instance, women should not go into the profession of harlotry. That's a legitimate limiting of women's options. There are others.

The fact that Abbate couldn't even come up with an example that is beyond dispute is telling: the lack of imagination, the lack of exposure to OTHER ideas, the lack of capacity to be objective in even slightly trying conditions, the failure to distinguish between content that someone might find offensive and content that is in itself offensive...and on and on.

As a side note, if you spend time reading the posts over at the "Daily Nous", you quickly find everyone over there (including Abbate) breezily dismissing Mark Regnerus' work on same-sex couples raising children. I personally don't think his research is the end all and be all of social science on the matter, but it was an excellent piece of work that the left has to continue to tear down to this day because it violates the notion that two women or two men can do just as good of a job as the biological parents of children in raising them.

Which is nonsense on stilts, which we know without reams of social science data to back us up, but I remain confident that Regnerus' study will be the first of many -- even if future studies are done underground via samizdat ;-)

"And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in your class, in your class is homosexual? And do you not think that it would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?"

She has got to be kidding. What a manipulative twit. Here's how the student should have answered:

"I suspect that there are homosexuals in the class, just as there are Catholics, atheists, and Protestants. All of them realize that they live in a world in which others disagree with them on a variety of questions. Assuming that they are mature adults, they learn how to respect and understand those with whom they disagree, and they surely do not try to shame them into compliant silence as you are trying to do right now."

Wonderful post Lydia, and excellent job of sticking to your guns when confronted by deceivers. The Malcolm X example elucidates liberalism's hypocrisy succinctly, as did Paul's reflection about how the left suddenly loves orthodoxy and rules when it's in power.

There are many different factors in play here, and I know your take was mainly focused on leftist abuse of power at universities, but the student's response to Abbate really bothers me:

Student: If I choose to challenge that, that’s my right as an American citizen.

The biggest problem with such a response to academic bullying is twofold: it's a display of weakness and actually unimportant to the original topic--which in this case happens to be the telos of marriage. Now the student seems genuinely surprised when the liberal's response--to deny such rights--was so illiberal, but anyone who finds his way to WWWtW shouldn't be. If confronted with such a liberal, we should let our opponent know we fear God above anything he can do. Something along the lines of "do you think your petty tyranny will prevent me from obeying my Lord and Savior, in front of whose judgment seat you and I will one day find ourselves? You think your godless views on homosexuality will be unchallenged by those of us who will inherit the kingdom?" Instead of begging for a voice at the table, appealing to a liberal virtue which liberals don't even hold to, we'd be much better off recognizing God as our ultimate authority and letting our opponent know this.

Of course one must get beyond his justification for speaking out against sodomy, and often our arguments aren't too strong here either. The amazing thing about the increased acceptance of homosexuality in the West today is how easily people have swallowed it (sorry for the metaphor). Homosexuality is violently rejected in almost all non-Western societies, so something more than secularism or turning away from Christ is driving this trend.

Homosexuality is quite literally a fruitless exercise with no societal utility. So why not ask the brave defender of the sodomite what he finds so great in homosexual behavior/"marriage". The AIDS? The Hepatitis? The pedastry? The rampant "unfaithfulness?" The lame response that we should support this behavior because they "love" each other is like saying we should support junkies' heroin addictions because of their fondness to the drug--sodomy is about hedonistic pleasure not love.

So this was somewhat tangential, but it needs to be said and read.

Instead of begging for a voice at the table, appealing to a liberal virtue which liberals don't even hold to, we'd be much better off recognizing God as our ultimate authority and letting our opponent know this.

The problem with the approach people like Lydia and Tony use with them is that the position of SJWs is neither rational nor fixed. The focus should rarely, if ever, be on converting the SJW to your position. All debate with them is performance art for the audience to convince the bystander of the irrationality and soullessness of the SJW's views. Debate with them precisely the way you would debate with Satan for the benefit of unconvinced parties.

Mike, you are right: in a lot of cases, the discussion is indeed a kind of performance art with another objective than that of trying to convince the opposed party to my side. One such objective is simply to be seen to push back. To give encouragement to other observers, that not EVERYONE thinks the emperor's clothes are fine. To make the opposition think twice before being shown up as idiotic yet again. To make the enemy work harder, even in the side skirmishes that are not directly part of the strategic campaign for victory.

And you are wrong: there are a LOT of people who, not fully buying into the foolishness of the gay agenda and the transgender nonsense, are searching for the right way to think about these matters, and will actually listen to non-confrontational, non-sloganeering discussion for the actual merits of the thoughts. The percentage of such people might be depressingly low out of a whole society that a mere 30 years ago had no doubt that gay "marriage" was a null term, but even 5% is a heck of a lot of people who need good discussion with real meat and bones. E.G. I had a long discussion yesterday with a Christian who is quite confident THAT gay "marriage" is nonsense but didn't have a good handle on how to express that. Hence our work here at W4. It's not a question of either / or, it is possible to use both approaches, depending on the situation.

The trick, of course, is knowing which is which when you are in a discussion.

And you are wrong: there are a LOT of people who, not fully buying into the foolishness of the gay agenda and the transgender nonsense, are searching for the right way to think about these matters, and will actually listen to non-confrontational, non-sloganeering discussion for the actual merits of the thoughts.

If you think I'm wrong, then you don't know the difference between a garden variety liberal and a social justice warrior, let alone why one style of debate works around one versus failing miserably with the other. The student here would have been better off viciously attacking his TA as a betrayer of everything feminism stood for, a fascist who censors anything that makes her uncomfortable and a crypto-bigot who is trying to insinuate that homosexuals are too inferior to survive an undergraduate level debate on politics.

By the way, I agree that the student's "American citizen" comment was not entirely to the point. But I know this partly because I am familiar with a long line of 1st amendment jurisprudence, because I'm a con-law geek, which one cannot expect every student to be. If he were at a state university, it actually would have been a legally pertinent comment, given the jurisprudential precedents in place.

And in any event, I have to admit that I would _rather_have young people who have what might sound like a shallow and knee-jerk "I'm an American citizen" reaction in contexts like this than have students who, sheep-like, accept these restrictions. A little flag-waving may serve as a sociologically needed source of spine-stiffening for some people to defend themselves against various totalitarians. And it is indeed true in a general sense that the spirit of free inquiry, which is a rightly cherished American virtue, is entirely contrary to these absurd and alarming speech codes.

Jeffrey, I've noticed on that site, as well, the silly implication that the reason Abbate did what she did was that Regnerus's study has been discredited. Now, that's absurd, because that would _itself_ have required an actual discussion of the subject, the data, etc., which was exactly what Abbate was refusing to engage in.

Undergraduates bring things up all the time that are not sound from a scholarly point of view. The idea that discussion can be completely shut down because (shock!) an undergraduate brought up an argument that the teacher thought was based on faulty scholarship is utterly silly.

A professor can, of course, conclude that there is no time to address the faulty scholarship (as the professor believes) in class or immediately after class. Then a response would be, "It's interesting that you should bring that up. I believe that so-and-so's study is not scientifically sound, and if you want to come to office hours and discuss it I can give you some further information." That's the professional response. Not, "You brought up a study I think is unsound! Anathema! You are like a racist! Never make such comments in my class again! That's my policy!"

And of course, we know from Abbate's own comments that it was not the alleged academic flaws of Regnerus's argument that were getting her goat but rather the _actual content_ of the position the student was taking--in particular, that children are better off in heterosexual households than with homosexual parents.

The recording is a massive embarrassment for the lefties on this one, and they just keep on spinning.

Even if the first amendment doesn't have jurisdiction over Marquette as an institution, the values it represents are things which Marquette should abide by out of civic duty. Social justice warriors tend to forget that by aggressively refusing to live those values in dealing with others, they are starting to destroy that feeling in others toward them. Since they are a minority, it's not hard to imagine that where they lose power, their opponents will end up committing ruthless acts of reprisal against them be that in businesses, colleges or in government.

If you think I'm wrong, then you don't know the difference between a garden variety liberal and a social justice warrior,

Mike, your response might have been cogent if my point had been about SJWs, or even about liberals per se. But my point was rather about others, those who are neither liberals nor SJWs, who might be listening to your debate with the SJW, but who are confused or at sea about how to argue the truth well. Since I wasn't talking about making logical, coherent, carefully designed arguments for the truth for the sake of the SJWs, your point was really far off the mark.

The student here would have been better off viciously attacking his TA as a betrayer of everything feminism stood for, a fascist who censors anything that makes her uncomfortable and a crypto-bigot who is trying to insinuate that homosexuals are too inferior to survive an undergraduate level debate on politics.

You forgot the charge of "paternalism" that such coddling of gay sentiments represents. That's always a good accusation to use on a feminist. If possible, get them spluttering so much in rage they can't even respond.

Since I wasn't talking about making logical, coherent, carefully designed arguments for the truth for the sake of the SJWs, your point was really far off the mark.

I never said it was for the benefit of the SJW. What I said is that most people would rather see you treat the SJW the way you would any other type of bully. That is... put them in their place, not treated to a Lincoln-Douglas debate on the issue that currently has the SJW sputtering and emotionally terrorizing those around them. People who are being terrorized by a grown bully don't want good arguments, they want to see the bully get his or her ass kicked until they learn to behave or slink away looking for someone else to bother.

This is a perfect example of why you don't even try to engage SJWs with calm, rational debate rather than treat them like something between a bully and a mutaween of the left.

Lydia,

Now the Marquette is going after the professor who is sympathetic to the conservative cause now:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/marquette-university-suspends-professor-for-defending-student-who-opposes-gay-marriage/

I guess Catholic education doesn't mean what it used to anymore...

Look at the top of the page. Just blogged it.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.