Marquette Warrior Harassed Over Debunking of Bogus Feminist Rape Claims: More
We’ve blogged about the fact that one student on our fall American Politics class complained about “sexual harassment” because we, in class, debunked bogus statistics about date rape on campus.
Marquette Provost John Pauly insisted that the complaint be followed up, which resulted in our being summoned into the office of political science chair Barry McCormick to explain what we had said in class.
It was a clear violation of academic freedom, since the complaint didn’t allege we did anything more than debunk statistics that we judge to be bogus. The student who complained didn’t think such statistics should be debunked, apparently since campus rape is a serious problem (and therefore inflating the scope of the problem serves a good purpose).
This past Monday (January 30) McCormick came into our office, and explained that he and Pauly had decided that we were within our rights to say what we said.
So far, so good, it might seem. But not really.
No Written Explanation
McCormick informed us that Pauly was not willing to give us a written explanation of the case, or of the decision. That Marquette would not be willing to put the resolution of the case in writing raises the suspicion that campus bureaucrats might want to revive it in the future, or perhaps fear that it would create a precedent in favor of academic freedom that they might want to ignore at some future date.
Complaint Should Have Been Dropped
We told McCormick that the case should never have been pursued, since if the complaint was taken absolutely at face value, no sexual harassment happened. McCormick replied that he informed us during the office meeting why the case needed to be pursued. We asked him to repeat what his explanation was, and he refused.
In fact, he gave no such explanation. During the office meeting, he explained that perhaps a professor might ask a female student to take all her clothes off, and this would clearly need to be dealt with. But nobody accused us of that. All we were accused of was debunking bogus statistics that feminists produce, and our comments were not even directed at a particular student.
Protect Academic Freedom in the Future
Marquette needs to provide a clear policy that complaints of sexual harassment will not be used in a way that infringes upon academic freedom. Simply saying something, relevant to the course material, that some feminist doesn’t want to hear is clearly protected by academic freedom. Pauly, and Marquette, are unwilling to provide any such statement, something that clearly implies they want to keep open the option of using “sexual harassment” in the future as a pretext to shut up faculty speech that the politically correct crowd does not like.
They doubtless find this option very desirable, especially for use against some faculty member less combative than we are.
Scurrilous Semi-Accusation
Finally, McCormick made a rather scurrilous semi-accusation. He suggested that perhaps we criticized feminists in an “uncivil” way in class. What evidence did he have of that? First, he said we “accused feminists of lying” in our office meeting. What we actually said was that feminists lie about the incidence of rape. That’s a much more limited (and entirely accurate) statement. Secondly, he took exception to the fact that we characterized the person who brought the complaint as a “prissy little feminist” and said that in a properly run university, “some administrator would sit this prissy little feminist down and explain to her ‘this is a university, you are going to hear things you disagree with. Live with it.’”
Of course, we said nothing remotely uncivil in class, and the student didn’t claim that we did.
Liberals, of course, have all kinds of tactics for shutting up speech they don’t like, and if they aren’t willing to escalate to shouting “racist!” or “sexist!” or “homophobe!” will invoke “civility.” McCormick, who is extremely liberal and quite politically correct, seems excessively sensitive to unkind things said about his ideological cohorts.
Conclusion
So it seems that a faculty member can be called into the office of an administrator and required to explain his or her speech, even when nobody has claimed that the faculty member did more than say things that a politically correct student didn’t want to hear.
And while somebody who is willing to make an issue of it (as we were) can prevail, Marquette refuses to renounce the sort of attack on academic freedom.
After all, it’s often prudent for administrators to pander to politically correct faculty, given that they are very numerous, and very vociferous in wanting to shut up speech they dislike.
Thus nothing has been settled, and academic freedom remains in huge danger from Marquette officials.
Marquette Provost John Pauly insisted that the complaint be followed up, which resulted in our being summoned into the office of political science chair Barry McCormick to explain what we had said in class.
It was a clear violation of academic freedom, since the complaint didn’t allege we did anything more than debunk statistics that we judge to be bogus. The student who complained didn’t think such statistics should be debunked, apparently since campus rape is a serious problem (and therefore inflating the scope of the problem serves a good purpose).
This past Monday (January 30) McCormick came into our office, and explained that he and Pauly had decided that we were within our rights to say what we said.
So far, so good, it might seem. But not really.
No Written Explanation
McCormick informed us that Pauly was not willing to give us a written explanation of the case, or of the decision. That Marquette would not be willing to put the resolution of the case in writing raises the suspicion that campus bureaucrats might want to revive it in the future, or perhaps fear that it would create a precedent in favor of academic freedom that they might want to ignore at some future date.
Complaint Should Have Been Dropped
We told McCormick that the case should never have been pursued, since if the complaint was taken absolutely at face value, no sexual harassment happened. McCormick replied that he informed us during the office meeting why the case needed to be pursued. We asked him to repeat what his explanation was, and he refused.
In fact, he gave no such explanation. During the office meeting, he explained that perhaps a professor might ask a female student to take all her clothes off, and this would clearly need to be dealt with. But nobody accused us of that. All we were accused of was debunking bogus statistics that feminists produce, and our comments were not even directed at a particular student.
Protect Academic Freedom in the Future
Marquette needs to provide a clear policy that complaints of sexual harassment will not be used in a way that infringes upon academic freedom. Simply saying something, relevant to the course material, that some feminist doesn’t want to hear is clearly protected by academic freedom. Pauly, and Marquette, are unwilling to provide any such statement, something that clearly implies they want to keep open the option of using “sexual harassment” in the future as a pretext to shut up faculty speech that the politically correct crowd does not like.
They doubtless find this option very desirable, especially for use against some faculty member less combative than we are.
Scurrilous Semi-Accusation
Finally, McCormick made a rather scurrilous semi-accusation. He suggested that perhaps we criticized feminists in an “uncivil” way in class. What evidence did he have of that? First, he said we “accused feminists of lying” in our office meeting. What we actually said was that feminists lie about the incidence of rape. That’s a much more limited (and entirely accurate) statement. Secondly, he took exception to the fact that we characterized the person who brought the complaint as a “prissy little feminist” and said that in a properly run university, “some administrator would sit this prissy little feminist down and explain to her ‘this is a university, you are going to hear things you disagree with. Live with it.’”
Of course, we said nothing remotely uncivil in class, and the student didn’t claim that we did.
Liberals, of course, have all kinds of tactics for shutting up speech they don’t like, and if they aren’t willing to escalate to shouting “racist!” or “sexist!” or “homophobe!” will invoke “civility.” McCormick, who is extremely liberal and quite politically correct, seems excessively sensitive to unkind things said about his ideological cohorts.
Conclusion
So it seems that a faculty member can be called into the office of an administrator and required to explain his or her speech, even when nobody has claimed that the faculty member did more than say things that a politically correct student didn’t want to hear.
And while somebody who is willing to make an issue of it (as we were) can prevail, Marquette refuses to renounce the sort of attack on academic freedom.
After all, it’s often prudent for administrators to pander to politically correct faculty, given that they are very numerous, and very vociferous in wanting to shut up speech they dislike.
Thus nothing has been settled, and academic freedom remains in huge danger from Marquette officials.
Labels: Academic Freedom, Barrett McCormick, Barry McCormick, Date Rape, Feminism, Feminist Intolerance, John Pauly
posted by John McAdams at 3:30 PM
7 Comments:
When St. Ignatius was held by the Inquisition, he would not leave town until the body gave him a written document affirming the orthodoxy of his teachings. Ignatius did not take well to being pushed around without good reason.
More examples of Lewis's Men without chests. You have my sympathy Doc. BTW, saw you on the Liberty special on TV. You make me wish I'd have taken a class by you.
As much as I approve of your debunking, I must ask: Is the matter of such statistics is a part of the university-approved syllabus for that class and, perhaps, noted in the catalog description of it?
Put another way: Is academic freedom (Authority) balanced by academic responsibility (To contractual expectations of the students) in this case?
I'm sure that the same level of scrutiny is applied to the faculty who support partial birth abortion...
Dear Marquette University Alumni Office,
First you had the debacle of renaming the mascot the "Gold" then you showed your true callousness with breaking an employment contract of lesbian activist Jodi O'Brien. As an alumnus of Marquette University, I have to voice my opinion that y'all are a bunch of nitwits. Next your police chief admits that the existing MU reporting policy on crime is illegal - ever hear of the Cleary Act?
I graduated from Marquette and received an MBA and over the past decade and a half have been a loyal supporter of Marquette, have volunteered at your events, and have donated thousands of dollars to support your mission. But no more as you have shown that your organization is inept and possibly even criminal.
Dear Prof. McAdams
I found your post very interesting and look forward to reading future posts on the reaction to your classes on:
1. Why women make different career choices from men and why these are not necessarily inferior.
2. Why it is possible that in certain areas men (and in other areas wonen) might have a small inherent advantage and how the normal distribution explains why a small inherent advantage has a disproportionate effect at the extremes of a normal distribution.
Malcolm James
Salutations,friend! I am a member of an unofficial coalition of men working to change the feminist-enforced and maintained status quo on gender issues. I want you to know that we come down squarely on your side in this issue and to offer you my personal cordial support for speaking the truth. We need more people like you in the halls of academe.
I know that in asking you to keep up the good fight for truth,sanity, and reason I am asking you to do a foolhardy thing-to risk your career and reputation,but I hope you are such a fool as to do just that. When lies are allowed to go unchallenged,they replace the legacy we leave to our children and cheapen our experiences as Americans in addition to muddying the intellectual waters and making practical application of scientific truths infeasible.
For too long we have ignored the lies,half-truths,and distortions promulgated by feminists and the price of that has been a 40% single mother society,rampant crime,and increasingly hostile measures taken against men based on their biological demographic, pursuing the goal (as uncovered by our investigations) of outright extermination of men and boys.
It sounds like I am fear-mongering here or exaggerating for effect. I am not. By various means, including introducing female hormones into the water supply,government-enforced physical or chemical castration,labor or death camps,they mean to reduce the global population of human males to 10% or less of the total human population and they have the means to do so-they enjoy status as government advisors,consultants on policy,and in some cases,as actual lawmakers.
The stakes have never been higher,and what you have done,I consider nothing short of heroic.
I hope that you will continue to combat the lies propagated by academic feminists. As a man, I thank you for the service you have rendered our entire sex.
Post a Comment
<< Home