Elsewhere (150)
Jim Goad on when a “hate crime” can’t be called that:
I can only guess that the reason you don’t hear much about black-versus-Hispanic violence in America is that you’re not supposed to hear much about it. It’s the sort of thing that swims upstream against the dominant narrative with the tenacity of a thuggish, heavily tattooed salmon.
Heather Mac Donald on the clown-shoe circus of identity politics:
The Centre for the Study of Sexual Culture at the University of California, Berkeley, is presenting a talk next week on “Queering Agriculture,” dedicated to the proposition that “it is absolutely crucial queer and transgender studies begin to deal more seriously with the subject of agriculture.” […] The talk’s presenter, a Ph.D. candidate in American studies at the University of Maryland, will allegedly show that “the growing popularity of sustainable food is laden with anthroheterocentric assumptions of the ‘good life’ coupled with idealised images and ideas of the American farm, and gender, radicalised and normative standards of health, family, and nation.”
And Thomas Sowell on the peculiar impunity of self-styled campus radicals:
An all-too-familiar scene was enacted on the campus of Swarthmore College during a meeting to discuss demands by student activists for the college to divest itself of its investments in companies that deal in fossil fuels. As a speaker was beginning a presentation to show how many millions of dollars such a disinvestment would cost the college, student activists invaded the meeting, seized the microphone, and shouted down a student who rose in the audience to object. Although there were professors and administrators in the room — including the college president — apparently nobody had the guts to put a stop to these storm-trooper tactics. Nor is it likely that there will be any punishment of those who put their own desires above the rights of others.
On the contrary, these students went on to demand mandatory campus “teach-ins,” and the administration caved on that demand. Among their other demands are that courses on ethnic studies, and on gender and sexuality, be made a requirement for graduation. Just what is it that academics have to fear if they stand up for common decency, instead of letting campus barbarians run amok? At a prestigious college like Swarthmore, every student who trampled on other people’s rights could be expelled and there would be plenty of prospective students available to take their places.
As we’ve seen so many, many times, some children need to learn that this world has consequences. But apparently the Clown Quarter of academia isn’t the place for that. And if you’re still not convinced, don’t forget the third item here, in which Alice McLachlan, a professor of philosophy, insists that censorious mobs who shriek personal abuse and shut down discussion are in fact the very model of progressive debate. You see, Professor McLachlan is “warmed” by such behaviour and she “cares a lot about free speech.” Just not for people who might dare to disagree with her.
Nor is it likely that there will be any punishment of those who put their own desires above the rights of others.
Expel them with no tuition refund.
Expel them with no tuition refund.
And then watch while they explain that to mum and dad.
Expel them with no tuition refund.
You’d think it would be an obvious option for more serious or repeated infractions. But compared with the number of thuggish disruptions, it’s a vanishingly rare event. It’s one of those things that can make a person feel fusty and out of touch. When I was in my late teens it wouldn’t have occurred to me, for instance, that I could put on a balaclava and lay siege to a university building, “occupy” it, vandalise it, threaten people, disrupt their classes and work for days on end while issuing absurd demands, and face no serious consequence, or any consequence, for such behaviour.
And yet that happens.
I presume (always dangerous, but one has to start somewhere) that “Queering Agriculture” is merely the start of a whole new range of topics for study and discussion. I look forward to thoughtful academic treatises on “Queering Welding,” “Queering Cod Fishing” and of course, “Queering Querying.” It should keep academia gainfully occupied for ages.
Completely off-topic, but of more than passing interest in these peaceful times, there’s this:
http://news.artnet.com/art-world/street-artist-combo-brutally-attacked-for-pacifist-tag-post-charlie-hebdo-244569
Maybe this co-existence thing isn;t working out as planned…
Unfortunately, some graduates of the Clown Quarter of Academia™ somehow manage to attain prominence in the mainstream media.
If you ever needed proof that Mason (a) has been promoted well beyond his pay grade and (b) is batshit crazy, then do have a read of that piece.
For someone who is supposed to be the economics editor of Channel 4 News, actual economics plays no part in his frankly bizarre analysis of the Euro crisis. Instead, it’s all about bubblegum cards which depicted “….the depredations of the SS and the Luftwaffe’s dastardly behaviour at Dunkirk”, the good guys these days being the ones who don’t wear ties, and Greece’s moral and cultural standing in Europe- “If nations were measured by the salience of their culture – its bite, its saltiness, its addiction to beauty* – Hellenic culture would stand equal to its Teutonic counterpart”.
*As exemplified by the loving care and attention lavished upon by the Parthenon over these many centuries.
“its bite, its saltiness, its addiction to beauty”
Yes, I like Ritz Crackers too.
“But, being trained in classical music, I was also lucky to be exposed to the best of German culture: to Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms. So, when I say what follows, it is not out of hostility or ignorance.”
“I’m no racist – some of my best friends are cabbage eating squareheads”
Alice McLachlan, a professor of philosophy, insists that censorious mobs who shriek personal abuse and shut down discussion are in fact the very model of progressive debate.
Holy crap. Let me get this straight, she gets paid to teach philosophy…?
Let me get this straight, she gets paid to teach philosophy…?
I think the unconvincing smile is the icing on the cake. Just watch her little face as she tells her little lies. And as noted in the comments, you can’t help but wonder how quickly Professor McLachlan would change her tune if her lectures and events were being disrupted, if she were the one being thwarted by that kind of delinquent pretension.
But then, one mustn’t expect logic and consistency from a professor of philosophy. How terribly old fashioned that would be.
Ooh I kinda like Queering agriculture.
The smug grauniad reader currently preens his moral superiority as he goes to a farmer’s market. He is better than the morons who buy from Asda or Tesco. Oblivious to the arguments of those in the pay of Big-Agri he knows he is being sustainable, eco-friendly, supportive of Fair Trade, organic, anti-GM, and tastier.
Now we learn that wholefoods risk reinforcing “normative standards”. Smugness gone. Result!
…that censorious mobs who shriek personal abuse and shut down discussion are in fact the very model of progressive debate
Well, from the examples I’ve seen and read about this does sadly seem to be true.
The talk’s presenter, a Ph.D. candidate in American studies at the University of Maryland. . .
Nothing says agricultural expertise like someone who’s most likely never taken an agronomy class and probably keeps a plastic palm tree in his office.
Interesting post David. I’d leave a longer comment but I don’t want to be late for my ‘Queering Jihad’ lecture.
The interesting thing about queering agriculture is that in most farm communities there are already gays/lesbians who are active and productive farmers and have been for decades. And guess what? NO ONE IN THE COMMUNITY CARES. The criteria for acceptance is not who you have sex with (unless it is someone else’s partner then you might be in for a world of hurt) but rather are you are good farmer, good steward of the land (something that again farmers have been doing for decades/centuries), willing to help your neighbour and pitch in to make the load lighter, do you contribute to the community bake sale or street festival, help coach the football team etc. etc. You know things that ANY community values.
It’s remarkable that phil profs don’t need to submit to any apparent proof of suitability. If said prof had the reason to grasp that progressivism has at its philosophical root the compunction to rather involuntarily stem the full human experience – to frame, precondition, and coerce everything for a presumed external effect so as to prevent the individual his internal responsibility to choose, act, and experience humanity himself, they being what we’re here for by any valid, formidable philosophy – then said prof wouldn’t be progressive.
Or maybe it’s like inverted Buddhism (which holds that consciously possess any fragment of even Buddhism itself is to not be Buddhist). Surely McLachlan does us the great service of not projecting any semblance of enlightened objectivity. Her inverted philosophy is therefore its own performance art. Instructing by negative example.
Or something. You slobs.
A recent film exploration of the premise of anti-humanism in the individual sense was The Giver, from Lois Lowry’s book of the same name. Preconditioning Utopias cannot but prevent individuality in all ways and means. (How the film adaptation came to star Meryl Streep is anybody’s guess.)