While the Leftist takeover of many of our campuses is disconcerting, there is, sort of, a ray of hope here: this ideology is not merely destructive, it ultimately is self-destructive, as much so for campuses as it was for countries.
Part of the reason this ideology is so destructive is you can’t really defend against any charges they make. Everything you say is interpreted as a micro-aggression, or some sort of harassment…you can’t win against their charges, and so they run roughshod over all their proclaimed “enemies.” Yes, today those enemies are predominantly white, heterosexual males, and that’s certainly a drag if you’re in that broad category…but as they take down everyone in their way to power, they establish rules, and these ridiculous precedents eventually create a system which collapses when they start pointing fingers at each other.
The time of this eventual self-destruction came close recently, at a school notorious for just about everything but education, NYU. I hardly know where to begin even describing the mess:
Every version of the story has its own spin, but the heart of the matter is a lesbian professor exchanged some fairly personal e-mail with a male homosexual student, who somehow interpreted the communications as sexual harassment.
Me: “You look quite made up today.”
–a student walked into class late, making a
bit of a show of it. She was wearing a significant amount of makeup. Yes, I was investigated for sexual harassment based on this one comment. Admin could have destroyed me over this, but at the time I was playing ball, and so received a pass.
Fair disclosure: I’ve been accused of sexual harassment as described in detail above. Yes, sexual harassment is a real thing, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to set up whole fiefdoms to search for it, as everyone’s job in that fiefdom is to find it to get rid of enemies of the system, or to cover it up for friends of the system.
Is the professor here a friend, or enemy, of the system?
Avital Ronnell, a leading professor of feminist philosophy…
Hmm, yeah, I’m leaning towards “friend” based on that description. Now, is the accuser a friend, or enemy, of the system?
Ronnell identifies as a lesbian; the student she is accused of harassing is gay, and now married to another man.
And here we bump into the problem with using identity politics to determine guilt, or innocence. Instead of using politics, we have to use permitted rules of engagement…rules which have been established through a convoluted series of arbitrary precedents.
What kind of claims are we talking about here?
The accuser, Nimrod Reitman, claimed that Ronnell pressured him into an amorous relationship. She would visit him at his home, climb into bed with him, and force him to kiss and touch her.
The whole “me too” movement says you need to always believe the accusers first, but I have to concede, considering the claimed sexual proclivities of the people involved, those are some extraordinary allegations. We’ll be wanting some evidence, right? Well, there are numerous e-mails, and a few snippets below:
“I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat,” she wrote in an email on June 16, 2012, after the Paris trip. “I will try very hard not to kiss you — until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy deferral!” In July, she wrote a short email to him: “time for your midday kiss. my image during meditation: we’re on the sofa, your head on my lap, stroking you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you, headache gone. Yes?”
Feminists came out in support of the professor in an amazing display of hypocrisy, but ultimately between the accusations, the evidence, and the political climate, there was only one outcome which would be “fair” based on precedent:
“…has been forced to take a year off after NYU determined that she had sexually harassed a male student. “
I imagine it’s with pay, but still we at least have a slap on the wrist, right? When white males get nailed with these charges, they get their lives entirely destroyed. I’m glad we’re now establishing a precedent that even with very strong evidence, no real harm will come to the aggressor.
Turns out, there’s more to it than the slap on the wrist. He’s bringing a lawsuit against her, because he says the affair impacted his ability to find a job despite his being gay (and, presumably, his associated Ph.D.). She has a defense planned:
“…said that her relationship with him was not sexual and that affectionate emails they exchanged were just “gay-coded” correspondence…”
Hmm, it was all code? That’s…going to be a tough precedent. Imagine if this actually works, you’ll never be able to establish a sexual harassment case again, as all written evidence can be passed off as “code.”
I’m dying to see the feminists come out and chastise the professor for trying this defense, every bit as laughable as the “I was just joking” defense. More accurately, I’ll likely be dead (as well as several generations past me) before these notoriously hypocritical folk act with some level of honesty here.
She also said her messages were reciprocated. In her statement, she included several purported excerpts of their emails, in which she alleges Reitman referred to her as “beloved and special one,” ”Baby” and “Sweet Beloved.”
Ah, the “she wanted it, too” defense, which likewise never works when a male is the aggressor. It really will be delightful to see if the professor gets ultimately destroyed, or if all the defenses like “I was just joking” and so on are suddenly valid again.
Either way, the system will have check-mated itself.
It really is interesting how the media presents this professor with words like “prominent,” “world-renowned,” and “leading,” adjectives which sure never seem to come up when enemies of the system face such charges.
I concede that the system didn’t collapse under the weight of its hypocrisy at this point in time, but I still believe one more log has been placed upon it. Sooner or later, there’ll be no choice but for a mass awakening and widespread realization that identity politics simply isn’t a way to run a campus…or anything else.