An educator, obviously:
Wayne State University has suspended a professor who allegedly posted on social media that people would be justified in killing those with whom they have disagreements, according to a note to the university from President Roy Wilson.
The university became aware of the post Monday morning, Wilson said in his email. The professor, whose identity was not revealed, works in the university’s English department… “The post stated that rather than ‘shouting down’ those with whom we disagree, one would be justified to commit murder to silence them,” Wilson wrote.
According to the educator in question, Steven Shaviro, “It is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.” What unfailing criteria might be used to determine such things, and how those gorged on indignation might avoid error, prior to any murder attempt, isn’t made clear.
The professor goes on to blame “right wing” student groups for inviting speakers who “provoke” leftist students – who mustn’t be expected to have any kind of self-possession – making them behave in ways that are threatening and delinquent, even sociopathic. Behaviour illustrated here many, many times – as, for instance, at Middlebury College, where the 74-year-old scholar Charles Murray, a contender for the title of World’s Most Polite Man, was physically chased off campus.
Says our educator,
The protesters get blamed instead of the bigoted speaker; the university administration finds a perfect excuse to side publicly with the racists or phobes; the national and international press has a field day saying that bigots are the ones being oppressed, rather than the people those bigots actually hate being the victims of oppression.
Or put another way, “How dare you try to discredit leftist Mao-lings by even briefly existing in their proximity and thus making them want to murder you.” I paraphrase, of course, but not enormously.
Update, via the comments:
Given sufficient squinting, readers may have noticed the professor’s tiny rhetorical fig leaf. We’re told that he doesn’t advocate breaking the law – by murdering someone for shits and giggles – he merely admires it, a lot. And so, if, for example, a woman says that she doesn’t think a mentally ill man should be using the women’s changing rooms and toilets – and is then murdered for her “transphobia” – this would be a good thing and “far more admirable” than merely ganging up on her and preventing her from speaking.
He’s an intellectual, you know. A terribly caring intellectual.
Update 2:
In the comments, Pete R adds,
No, not really. This, remember, is a man for whom demurral on a wide range of contentious topics is by definition “reprehensible” and, in his mind, could only exist in order to “provoke” the righteous and good-hearted, i.e., people much like himself, who fantasise about menacing and killing those who disagree with them. Note the implication at the end of his post – that after murdering someone – say, someone who doesn’t think that dysmorphic men and autogynephile perverts are actually women – one should be acquitted, as one’s actions would have been “justified.”
These sentiments don’t suggest a detached thought experiment or some devil’s advocacy. More a sociopathic urge. Maybe inside our professor’s head, there’s a loud, relentless buzzing noise.
This shaper of young minds, a self-styled “Kitsch Marxist,” has been suspended with pay.
Previously in the world of totally balanced educators.
Via Tom Joyce.
Recent Comments