Author Archive

The New York Times this morning reports on a lawsuit currently working its way through the federal court system. At issue is whether competitive cheerleading is a sport.

Quinnipiac University in Connecticut recently eliminated its women’s volleyball team as a budget-cutting measure. But as the Times notes, the anti-discrimination law known as Title IX requires colleges to “provide equal athletic opportunities for men and women.” (Actually, it’s a little more complicated than that, but never mind.)

And so Quinnipiac decided to replace women’s volleyball with competitive cheerleading — the cheerleading squad, it turns out, costs the school some $5,000 less per student to run than the volleyball team does.

Hence the lawsuit.

If competitive cheerleading is a sport, then it counts toward satisfying Quinnipiac’s Title IX obligations. If it isn’t, it doesn’t. The volleyball team is arguing that it isn’t, and that the university should be barred from dissolving their squad. So far they’ve been successful — a temporary injunction has kept their sport alive at Quinnipiac for the last year — with the judge’s final decision expected in the coming days.

A Washington DC police officer who was caught on video last winter brandishing his gun at a snowball fight has blamed anarchist panic for his actions.

Detective Michael Baylor was driving home in his Hummer last December 19 when his car was pelted with snowballs. Amateur video later posted on the internet showed him standing in the street with a gun in his hand, calling for backup.

Baylor told investigators that he “got scared and drew his weapon” because he “believed the group were anarchists.”

Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor of religion at the University of Illinois, has been let go after sending his students an email about Catholic moral theories of homosexuality that one student described as “hate speech.”

Debate on the firing has proceeded along two lines of dispute — firstly whether Howell’s perceived bigotry places him outside the protections of academic freedom, and secondly whether the concept of academic freedom can even be properly applied to an adjunct faculty member with a semester-by-semester contract.

But I don’t want to talk about either of those issues today.

What I want to talk about is this defense of Howell’s email, posted at National Review’s “Phi Beta Cons” blog:

The university is making a conscious decision to enforce ignorance on its students. The university would rather see its students remain ignorant of one of the world’s most common moral theories than have their delicate feelings damaged. This is not education; it’s indoctrination in its purest form.

The charge that UI is “making a conscious decision to enforce ignorance” proceeds from the assumption that Howell is competent to teach moral philosophy.

At least, I hope it’s an assumption. Because by the evidence of the email, Howell is utterly ignorant of the subject he was hired to teach:

• He badly bungles his discussion of utilitarianism, as when he asserts that any utilitarian would necessarily regard children and animals as capable of consenting to sex.

• Despite cautioning students against drawing conclusions about human sexual morality unless they “have done extensive research into homosexuality,” he bases his own conclusions on a conversation with “a physician”  who told him that gay men “have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted.”

• He contends that “what lies behind the idea of sex change operations” is the belief “that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning.”

This isn’t serious philosophical or theological instruction. It’s not a scholarly discussion of human sexuality. It’s what we in the academy refer to as “talking out of your ass.”

Faculty are entitled to considerable latitude in their classroom approach. But students are entitled to be taught by faculty who have engaged in serious study of the subjects they teach, and by faculty who understand the difference between scholarly analysis and uninformed opinion.

This is not a matter of politics or of political correctness. It’s a matter of taking the role of a professor seriously, of acquainting yourself with the basic facts of a subject under discussion before you present yourself to students as an authority. It is wrong for a professor to suggest that transgenderism is grounded in beliefs about how we may “use our bodies sexually” not because that statement is offensive, but because it is ignorant.

By the available evidence, Howell has been scrupulous about declaring his students’ right to disagree with his assertions. But academic freedom doesn’t protect a math professor’s right to misstate the Pythagorean theorem, or an economist’s ignorance of the Laffer curve, even if he’s willing to allow students to disagree with his misstatements.

Similarly, academics at all points on the ideological spectrum share an obligation to accurately present the views of those with whom they differ. If you cannot accurately describe the views of those with whom you disagree, then you do not — in a very real sense — understand your own position.

Howell’s biggest defect as a professor isn’t his ideology, it’s his ineptitude.

Update | The good folks at The Nation have reposted this piece at their Extra Credit blog, with a very kind tip of the hat to yours truly. Thanks, good folks at The Nation, and welcome Nation readers!

Student activists from all over the United States are heading to the University of California Los Angeles this week for the United States Student Association’s annual National Student Congress.

The Congress is where USSA, the country’s oldest and largest national student association, elects its leaders and sets its agenda for the coming year, but it’s also a lot more than that. Since 1947, the Congress has been a place where student government leaders and other student activists have come together to share ideas, plot strategy, and learn new tactics. The Congress, like USSA itself, is a crucial part of the infrastructure of the American student movement.

The Congress itself doesn’t formally get underway until Thursday, but pre-meeting events will be going on all week, and as the #NSC10 Twitter feed shows, USSA’s activists are already beginning to make their way to Los Angeles. I’ll be flying out to LA myself on Friday morning, and staying through the end of Congress next Tuesday.

As readers of this blog well know, California has produced an incredible amount of campus organizing this past year. Over the next eight days, UCLA will host an extraordinary gathering of activists from across the state and nation. It’s going to be a big deal.

Expect lots of news and previews starting today, and extensive on-the-scene coverage while I’m out there.

A University of Washington police officer secretly attended — and participated in — two organizing meetings of a campus activist group this spring.

Officer Tanesha van Leuven sat in on two meetings where students planned a rally against budget cuts and support for campus custodial workers, calling herself “Tani,” a recent graduate who supported the cause. Her cover was blown weeks later when students who had attended one of the meetings saw her in uniform, getting into a patrol car on campus.

Her infiltration of the second meeting, however, did not become known until the American Civil Liberties Union uncovered it through a public records request.

A university spokesperson said this week that Officer van Leuven’s spying and deception “was not consistent with university policy, and the way we do policing work and it’s certainly not the way we relate to our students.” But activists and civil libertarians are pushing for a state law barring such infiltration in the future.