Professor Bans Student for Rape Views

[DonViejo]

A Reed College professor banned a male student from a class discussion section because he said the student's views on rape and sexual assault made other students "uncomfortable." "There are several survivors of sexual assault in our conference, and you have made them extremely uncomfortable with what they see as not only your undermining incidents of rape, but of also placing too much emphasis on men being unfairly charged with rape," Professor Pancho Savery wrote in an e-mail to Jeremiah True. "The entire conference without exception, men as well as women, feel that your presence makes them uncomfortable enough that they would rather not be there if you are there, and they have said that things you have said in our conference have made them so upset that they have difficulty concentrating in other classes." The 19-year-old student says he was questioning the concept of "rape culture" and the imprecise claim that 1 in 5 women reported sexual assault on campus.

Read it at Buzzfeed

###

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. The propaganda works well on willing assholes like this.

I say let him spew and puke out his hate and ignorance, let him tell us who agrees with him, for instance maybe 99% of the American Taliban aka TeaParTY?

[NCTraveler]

2. Is this Professor Savery.

Really want to call him Professor Pancho as I think it sounds really cool.

[olddots]

3. the dip shit student will make a great repukian lawyer someday .

Who knows where this will go hopefully not a rebellion against reason .

[deutsey]

4. When I Googled the student's name, I found this petition he has posted on Change.org

asking to be re-instated in the class:

https://www.change.org/p/reed-college-restore-jeremiah-josias-luther-george-true-to-his-humanities-110-conference-2

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Great link. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

21. Of course you would think so. Why am I

not surprised?

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Thanks. I like to think I stick to my principles. n/t

[Skittles]

151. and we all know what THOSE are

[Major Nikon]

42. Did you actually read the link?

If you had, you might be surprised to know the most respected rape advocacy organization in the world agrees with him.

In 16 pages of recommendations, RAINN urged the task focus to remain focused on the true cause of the problem. “In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime,” said the letter to the task force from RAINN’s president, Scott Berkowitz, and vice president for public policy, Rebecca O’Connor.

https://rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape

[geek tragedy]

49. Does RAINN believe that "the 'no means no' meme is BULLSHIT" and cite

rape apologists/advocates like Warren Ferrell to back that claim up?

[F4lconF16]

69. I am really disappointed in RAINN for a statement like that, actually.

Of course rape is partially cultural--screw this "not all men" bullshit. Any idea why they would make that statement? I've always been a fan of RAINN in the past.

[Major Nikon]

50. The central question seems to be which of these salient points makes more sense

Blaming cultural trends for a rape that has decreased significantly over the same cultural trend period

...or

Blaming rapists for rape.

[ieoeja]

63. Not cultural?

Bible Belt 101:

- If a woman has casual sex, she is a bad person.
- Most people, including good women, like sex.
- If a woman wants to get laid, she is going to find a man.
- She tells the man "no" even when she means "yes" because she wants to be "good".

You seriously believe the culture described above does not cause rape? I grew up in the Bible Belt. I have never, ever had sex with a woman from the Bible Belt. I have heard through intermediaries that a few such women wanted to. But they said "no". They wanted me to ignore that and push them into having sex. That way they could have sex while retaining their sense of self decency.

Had I, in those instances, not taken "no" for an answer, I would have been doing what those women wanted.

How does that not promote rape? There is no magic way of knowing when no means no versus when no means yes. A hefty percent of the men in the Bible Belt have probably raped a woman, and don't have the slightest idea that they did. Where I erred on the side of "no means no", a lot of those guys err on the side of "no means yes" unless she is screaming and fighting.

[Major Nikon]

92. I believe there is a rape culture among rapists

I also believe rapists may use all sorts of things like social conservative ideology to reconcile their conscience, or they simply don't have one at all and have no need of such things.

Outside of that I don't really feel an obligation to disprove something that was never proven to begin with. The whole idea behind rape culture seems to be that you can simply throw anything you want into that box without any obligation to provide proof of any relationship between cause and effect. Another thing that's interesting is some of the people who promote the rape culture hypothesis the loudest ally themselves with social conservatives who promote those same warped ideas you mentioned.

[ieoeja]

116. What do you call the women I just described?

They are not actively participating in rape. But they are teaching men that "no often means yes".

They are not rapists, but they are certainly part of the rape culture. Do we call them "rape enablers"?

Should we amend your statement to say, "I believe there is a rape culture among rapists and rape enablers"?

[Major Nikon]

125. Social conservatives

[RedCappedBandit]

84. Easily dismissed false dichotomy.

[Major Nikon]

89. I'd be interested in hearing a better explanation of that

How does one simultaneously blame culture for rape while not decreasing culpability for rapists?

[RedCappedBandit]

93. I don't see how acknowledging cultural factors

precludes also acknowledging the responsibility rapists have in their actions

Rape culture encourages, promotes, and allows for rape to happen and enables perpetrators to get away with it. There are, of course, people who live in cultures that do all of these things that still do not rape people. Rapists are culpable for their actions regardless of the cultural factors that may promote conditions that encourage those actions.

It's not about "blaming" culture. It's about being cognizant of cultural factors which create, protect and encourage rapists.

Likewise, we can examine the impact poverty has on crime while holding the individuals guilty of crime accountable for their actions.

[Major Nikon]

98. Seems to be quite contradictory

It's not about "blaming" culture. It's about being cognizant of cultural factors which create, protect and encourage rapists.

If the culture is creating rapists, then the culture is not to blame?

In some cases it absolutely does make sense to blame culture. If prisons create a power structure that relies on rape, then that culture should be blamed. If a military uses rape to control a population, that culture should be blamed. The cause and effect relationship in those instances just isn't that hard to connect.

[RedCappedBandit]

113. It is not contradictory at all.

Responsibility can fall in more than one place. Like I said, it's a false dichotomy, claiming that you can either 'blame' culture or individual rapists.

In your scenario, because we can blame the fucked up prison systems for prison rape, we can no longer also hold individual rapists within prison responsible for their actions?

[Major Nikon]

120. Culpability doesn't require absolutes

So I reject your false dichotomy.

One can certainly blame both, but by placing blame on society you can't help but remove some of the blame from the individual. You seem to be tying yourself up into knots suggesting otherwise.

[RedCappedBandit]

122. Are you joking?

That's not my false dichotomy - that's what you were suggesting in saying my post was contradictory.

I'm glad we've come to agreement - that the original premise I was replying to is a false dichotomy.

[Major Nikon]

130. Let's try to stay on track here

This is what you wrote:

In your scenario, because we can blame the fucked up prison systems for prison rape, we can no longer also hold individual rapists within prison responsible for their actions?

Your argument seems to rely on forcing a dichotomy that I never implied, even after I clarified that I most certainly didn't. If "Culpability doesn't require absolutes" isn't clear enough, I can't help you.

If your arguments require you to be that disingenuous, then feel free to argue with yourself, because I ain't playing.

Cheers!

[RedCappedBandit]

134. Clearly, you are playing.

You presented the issue as a dichotomy, which I took issue with. You presented cultural responsibility as if it were in opposition to individual responsibility, which is not the case.

Like I said originally, acknowledging the effect of cultural factors does not preclude acknowledging the responsibility that individuals have for their actions.

How does one simultaneously blame culture for rape while not decreasing culpability for rapists?

Blaming cultural trends for a rape that has decreased significantly over the same cultural trend period

...or

Blaming rapists for rape.

Nah, you never implied the dichotomy. Lol.

[stone space]

161. Are people who rape in prison not rapists?

If the culture is creating rapists, then the culture is not to blame?

In some cases it absolutely does make sense to blame culture. If prisons create a power structure that relies on rape, then that culture should be blamed. If a military uses rape to control a population, that culture should be blamed. The cause and effect relationship in those instances just isn't that hard to connect.

Are soldiers who rape not rapists?

Are they not both individually responsible for their own actions, even with your acknowledgement of the existence of rape culture in those specific cases?

Or do you believe that the rape culture evident in those two specific instances absolves the rapists from personal responsibility for their own actions?

The arguments that you are making in this thread, together with your acknowledgement of the existence of rape culture in those two specific cases would seem to force you to conclude that they are not responsible for their own actions.

Now, I don't really think you believe this, but I'd like to know how you can justify holding rapists responsible for their own actions in such cases where we all agree that a rape culture exists, given the other arguments you have been making here in this thread that acknowledging the existence of a rape culture somehow absolves individual rapists of responsibility.

[Major Nikon]

164. Yes

Yes, yes, no

[stone space]

166. Not sure which of my 4 questions your 3 answers refer to.

I'm also unclear about how to interpret a straight "yes/no" reply to the first two questions which I worded in a somewhat confusing negative manner, but that's probably my own fault for using the negations in those questions.

"Are soldiers who rape not rapists?"

"No, they are not rapists"

"No, they are indeed rapists"

"Yes, they are not rapists"

"Yes, they are indeed rapists"

[Major Nikon]

168. Edited for clarity

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. Because responsibility is not a zero-sum game, of course.

If I pay you to commit a murder, and you commit it, there isn't one murder's worth of guilt to divide between us; we're both fully guilty.

[Major Nikon]

131. I didn't suggest it was

In fact, I suggested the opposite.

I also reject your false analogy.

[prayin4rain]

142. The fact that the rapist doesn't go to jail is the rape culture.

The rapist is solely responsible for the rape.
Rape cultural tells everyone that women are for sex and/or entertainment, so, who could blame the rapist?
Rape culture doesn't even bother to test the forensic evidence of a violent crime. Etc.,etc.,etc.....

[bettyellen]

167. False choice- as always. LOL. Both the culture and the rapists should be condemned. Easy!

[trumad]

59. Wow Jeff...

you say great link to a petition about a guy who doesn't believe in the rape culture. So are you agreeing with him?

[Major Nikon]

68. Some people think sports magazine covers are evidence of rape culture

Do you agree with them?

http://www.google.com/search?q="sports+illustrated"+"rape+culture"&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[bettyellen]

171. Some people think that women being underpaid and under represented in government

is the "natural order" of things and nothing women should be concerned about.

[Major Nikon]

172. Some people rely heavily on strawman rhetoric

[bettyellen]

173. Or they have great memories of conversations with people whose heads are

stuck back in the ass decade we call the 1950's.
Such conversations are startling and sad enough to be recalled with ease. Sad that people want to go back- yet we lack the technology to do just that!

[Major Nikon]

174. But we both know that's not the case here

Because you're quoting text attributed to me that I never wrote. Your dishonesty just isn't that hard to identify. To make matters worse you're bringing up completely unrelated conversations in some sort of warped and lame ad homiinem attack. There's a word for people like that, but it escapes me right now.

Cheers!

[bettyellen]

175. Lol, luckily no one is fooled by anyone who pretends to be progressive yet vehemently argues against

progress for women- all day, every day.

[bravenak]

177. Hey BE! Here is a terribly FAILED alert. I am number five.

On Fri Mar 20, 2015, 01:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Lol, luckily no one is fooled by anyone who pretends to be progressive yet vehemently argues against
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6391405

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. Trolling. See posts 171 and 173 for further evidence.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 20, 2015, 01:39 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: please
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a personal attack. Simply a general observation.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Trolling my ass! This is banter. Try again.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[seabeyond]

178. i knew this would be alerted on. good to see the result.... excellent. nt

[bravenak]

181. I was glad to be on the jury.nt

[bettyellen]

180. i could see the pathetic attempt to set me up....

Always begging to be called out- so the attack dogs can be set on us. Everyone knows discussing sexism or racism here is worse than the actual -isms, lol.

[bravenak]

182. Oh, yes, I get it all the time.

Calling something out is the major crime of the century. Especially racism or sexism.

[bettyellen]

183. Because a dude with hurt feelings? It will not stand, I tell you!

[bravenak]

189. This is so weird. You get another one?

[zappaman]

184. Good jury!

[bravenak]

187. Yep.

[Major Nikon]

186. And I will continue to alert in such situations

Thanks for posting the results. Saved me the trouble.

[bravenak]

188. Bad idea to alert during an argument with somebody.

[bettyellen]

207. Sorry I made you so sad. Its Friday- try and cheer up!

[Major Nikon]

209. Thanks

I've already mostly forgotten your latest warm sentiments, but evidently I occupy enough space in your head to keep bringing up months old conversations completely out of the blue and unsolicited. One can only imagine the emotions driving those motives. That's a thought I think I'll drink to, though.

Cheers!

[DanTex]

185. Another jury. You might be being alert-stalked.

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person is bringing up completely unrelated conservations, grossly misrepresenting statements from months ago, and is completely disrupting the conversation here. This type of trolling behavior is beneath our community standards.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 20, 2015, 01:55 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a silly alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster made a good point. Maybe not what the alerter wanted to read, but it is relevant to the conversation and I don't see any reason to hide it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[zappaman]

190. Well, at least that person can't alert for 24 hours.

Definitely alert stalking!

[seabeyond]

193. no, you will not continue to alert.... at least for 24 hours. ya, betty is alert stalked. we saw

it clearly a couple months ago.

[bettyellen]

206. Between the sexists, the racists and the watermelon joke lovers, I am fucked, LOL.

[seabeyond]

210. hey... no hides, right here. first time since all this started. nt

[bettyellen]

208. Thank you! 7-0! Lol!! I've had similar posts hidden....

Interesting that after unsuccessfully trying to lure me into call outs, they alert on nonsense anyway.
It's a fan club of sorts. I guess I should be flattered.

[Nye Bevan]

5. The professor should make clear before the start of class which views are acceptable to air,

and which are not. If students are going to be kicked out of class for pointing out that the "1 in 5" statistic has been debunked, they should know this ahead of time.

[geek tragedy]

6. well, we've only heard his side of the story

if he was just questioning statistics, it's one thing.

If he's saying "women lie about rape all the time, you really can't trust women who say they've been raped" then yes saying that in a room that includes rape survivors means he probably has to go

[Blue_Tires]

34. For starters the professor has total reign over his/her classroom

So he is well within his right to kick any student out for damn near any reason he pleases...And I know plenty of cases of students being kicked out of class for a lot less than this...It's not necessarily always fair, but it's reality...

Secondly, if the rape-apologist student truly feels the professor is acting out of his professional/academic boundaries, he needs to address that concern to the department chair/provost or whoever...A petition isn't going to do anything

Third, we haven't heard the other side of the story yet from the female students...

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Not true.

http://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/

Google "Tinker Test"

[Blue_Tires]

56. This isn't high school

this isn't even a public state university...I happen to work at one, and believe me, that student would have been kicked out of class with no recourse if those allegations are accurate, because that kid was clearly more interested in real-life trolling than academic debate...

Private colleges have even more leeway...


Keep trying...

[HereSince1628]

57. Interesting. Never saw that in 30 years of teaching

or 10 years earnng BS, MA and PhD. I guess I was pretty lucky across my years...and I would say thanfully that I was.

You're correct in assuming there is a mechanism for challenging such an action to a student concerns committee. Accreditation agencies expect to see such policies in place, and it wouldn't matter if the school was private or public.

Remember Loughner, in Tucson? I'm sure colleges all walk a narrower line with much more concern directed at getting a situtation de-escalated and evaluated before it can erupt into calamity.

[backscatter712]

76. He gave this student ample opportunity.

It's that this student insisted on re-airing his views, repeatedly, to students who were victims of sexual assault, over and over and over again, even after he was asked to stop.

That's not free expression. That's harassment.

The prof was well within his rights to tell this student to take it elsewhere.

[Orrex]

8. What level of control should a professor have over his or her classroom?

What limits can they set, in your view, and what are they required to tolerate?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. if you're going to hold a session where a topic

such as sexual assault/rape is the primary topic, you should be prepared to discuss all sides... and yes, that would include opinions that you disagree with. both sides should be prepared and required to argue from facts... not simply opinion.

sP

[BubbaFett]

97. or emotion

[ProdigalJunkMail]

101. dig it... n/t

[KittyWampus]

145. and after you have refuted and debunked the garbage, should the professor and students

be required to keep doing so every session?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

148. no... once should work

if the 'bothersome' student keeps bringing up the same stuff... without backing... then discipline should be taken.

sP

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. A college course on rape should be able to discuss differing opinions.

It doesn't seem like this guy was "pro-rape." He scoffed at some widely scoffed at statistic and he challenged the validity of an ideological construct ("rape culture&quot .

Some students felt "uncomfortable" having their beliefs challenged? Good Lord! This a college class, not a therapy session.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. At a minimum, it should tolerate contrary facts. n/t

[TeamPooka]

62. The same argument Tea baggers use to get the Bible taught in public schools.

So, no.

[DonCoquixote]

110. shall it tolerate

this person targeting INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS who were victims of rape? It is one thing to debate a statistic, it is another to wrap yourself up in "freedom of speech" to sing one more variant of "We know you are lying woman!"

[Orrex]

46. Should a course on Women's Studies tolerate MRA proselytizing?

After all, would that not be a "differing opinion?"

The course that I had at PSU was extremely resistant to any opinion that didn't agree with everything that the prof and the text had to say. I would love to have been able to tell the prof "this is a college class, not a therapy session."

I wonder how that would have worked out for me.

[stone space]

118. Should a college course on calculus also be equally accepting of all opinions?

A college course on rape should be able to discuss differing opinions.

I can't imagine teaching in an environment where I would be required to give equal weight in class to all possible student opinions on calculus.

[cali]

12. I suggest you read the entire article. The prof was correct to ban this guy from

the discussion part of the class.

[Comrade Grumpy]

24. I read the entire article. I disagree.

Challenging statistics is bad in an academic environment?

Challenging ideological constructs is bad in an academic environment?

Again, this is a required college course, not a therapy session.

I am embarrassed for Reed College.

[cali]

28. the kid was clearly doing more than challenging statistics. He was being

deliberately disruptive.

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. Can you show me how?

I read the article. I don't see any descriptions of him acting out or yelling or anything like that. If articulating a minority opinion in a college classroom is being "deliberately disruptive," we've fallen down the rabbit hole.

[geek tragedy]

47. you didn't read him describing anything he did as disruptive.

because, and tell me if I'm overly cynical, one can presume his account of things is self-serving and incomplete

the school obviously can't respond with actual incident accounts due to privacy concerns

[LanternWaste]

54. At this rate, next thing we know, creationism will be denied in science classrooms.

At this rate, next thing we know, creationism will be denied in science classrooms.

[Blue_Tires]

25. It is...Which is why the professor has a free hand in his classroom

[prayin4rain]

137. Do think a student should be allowed to repeatedly deny

the extent of violence against all groups, or just women?
Could he deny the Holocaust, repeatedly? Lynchings? Or just rape?

[stone space]

158. Academic freedom is not about disruptive students...

...determining how classes are run.

What a bastion of academic freedom.

[Matterate]

11. Silly student,

you need tenure before you can say stupid shit with no repercussions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Free though is great. Provided you're not still thinking about it after class ends, apparently. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

29. Yes, how dare

rape survivors not just sit down and shut up and listen nicely to men who discount and dismiss their experiences. Apparently, they didn't get the memo that they're only supposed to have feelings about it at certain times. Apparently, I'm supposed to be more concerned with the man who molested me as a child (the son of a babysitter) than with what he did and how it affected me.

If I were in that class and had to hear someone minimize my experience and talk with more concern about made-up reports ( which are actually much rarer than your type likes to admit), I would find it traumatizing as well. But I suppose I and all other survivors should just "get over it", right?

[Cerridwen]

14. The student is a typical dittohead. (edited subject line)

He'll show up to a class armed with all kinds of "scientific research" that "questions" women's rights, rape statistics, and climate change, etc. He'll then go on to bemoan the "racist" nature of affirmative action, how "slaves had it better under slavery," and so on. We've all read articles about the type. And...he's proud of it.

&quot He) says he studies 'How to Annoy People' at Reed, (and) takes pride in challenging his classmates’ opinions.

'I know many people aren’t comfortable with taking the stances I do, but I’m not a sheep,' he said."

Then when challenged, will demand his First Amendment rights while shouting down others and denying theirs; or, he'll just turn off their mic.

Same attitude; different dittohead.

Anyone who's been in a college class in the past 30 or so years will recognize the type.

[cali]

15. It's clear he was being intentionally disruptive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.

College isn't DU - college is supposed to be challenging.

Truth shouldn't be determined by a vote of the student body.

[philosslayer]

20. "Trigger Warnings" are there for a reason

Sounds like this guy was/is a walking Trigger Warning.

[geek tragedy]

23. telling rape survivors their experience in being raped isn't real or is exaggerated

is most definitely not 'truth' seeking but just being a misanthropic disruptor

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. Can you show me where he did that?

I see him challenging statistics and ideological constructs. Seems like that's what you do in college.

Maybe this guy is a raging asshole, but all I see is evidence he made some people uncomfortable with his views. If people can't handle differing views, maybe college isn't the place for them. Maybe a protected group on DU would be better.

[geek tragedy]

39. we haven't seen him doing anything.

But in his published rant, he talks about how people shouldn't exaggerate by calling sexual assault rape, and how people shouldn't be exaggerating the harmful effects of sexual assault. he even threw in a "legitimate rape" reference to "forcible, penetrative rape"

That's what he published. In writing.

Changing the legal definition of rape is a slippery slope. If Sexual assault becomes qualified as rape, what happens next? What else can we legally redefine to become rape? Why would we want to inflate the numbers of rape in our society? Why would we define someone who was groped at an SU dance as a rape victim when just a couple of blocks away, there is an actual, forcible penetrative rape occurring that will actually mentally scar a person for life? Why are we treating someone as a rape victim when they haven't been raped? A groping is not rape, nor should it be redefined to become rape. Rape is traumatic. Sexual assaults (such as groping) can be traumatic, but they are not an invalidation of a person's identity. They do not force someone to open themselves up to violent intrusion and brutal, psychological damage. They are not crimes which women feel afraid to report because they fear backlash and victim blaming. We need to change the system, not change the definition of crime. We have limited resources available to rape victims, and hysteria is not the solution to dealing with the very real problem of rape in our society.

One can only imagine what a 19-year old dude who wants to piss off people uncorked in a class when discussing the above with rape survivors in person during an animated conversation.

Here's a hint: dropping words like "exaggerate" and "hysteria" and "actual, forcible penetrative rape" with regards to this topic to the face of a rape survivor is generally not okay.

The fact that every single other person in his class refused to attend unless he was gone should tell us something.

[Comrade Grumpy]

52. Gee, he asks provocative questions. And appears to offer solutions:

"We need to change the system, not change the definition of crime. We have limited resources available to rape victims, and hysteria is not the solution to dealing with the very real problem of rape in our society."

Ooh, he said "hysteria"! Tape his mouth shut.

It sounds like many of his classmates are too delicate to survive outside a therapeutic community.

[geek tragedy]

55. So, you assume the man is telling nothing but the truth and assume the women

had no legitimate complaints at all, because they're women after all and any time a man says something about a woman, it must be true, and any time a woman complains about a man, she must be lying.

Tell us: WHERE YOU IN THE CLASSROOM AND PRIVY TO WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID IN THE CLASSROOM?

[bettyellen]

162. ALL of his classmates were disturbed, so they stood up to his bullshit. Not"too delicate to survive"

but appropriate reinforcement of the boundaries within which the group can work together and study. He must have been a real ass if he couldn't find another dude to troll along with him. Which is exactly what it seems he was doing.

[stone space]

169. Truth!

He must have been a real ass if he couldn't find another dude to troll along with him.

[bettyellen]

170. Every time a woman steps up and says "enough MRA nullshit" some

Misogynist troll will surely come along and label her a delicate flower with emotional issues. For speaking out. As if the ones who suffer this bullshit are stronger?
You'd have to think bitter, immature women-hating MRA dudes are the paragons of mental health, lol!

[mythology]

85. And yet you are certain he was being disruptive

And telling rape survivors that their experience is irrelevant. Ironic in light of your claim that we haven't seen him do anything.

[geek tragedy]

90. the fact that the entire class refused to go forward with him present indicates he was

likely being disruptive.


But, I guess it's possible that everyone else is just way oversensitive, and that everyone else but this awesome dude has the problem.

[geek tragedy]

40. comparing rape survivors to mentally unstable creationists, stay classy 'Men's Group' host nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Personally, I think facts and statistics should be admissible in college.

YMMV.

[geek tragedy]

53. of course, if a man says it to a woman, it's 'facts'

And if that man tells a rape survivor she's exaggerating her own experience, why that's just a 'fact'

Because, according to your wisdom, rape survivors are really just like creationists who need to hold onto myths for their own mental stability

[F4lconF16]

67. Damn.

I was all happy to see that another one just got the boot, and the first thread I see today after that one is this. Yuck.

[seabeyond]

156. ah, yes. lumberjack does like to call rape victims mentally unstable, as a few others do.

that was the point i stopped addressing his posts. and a hide. surprise, but yea!

[F4lconF16]

71. Jury results...

On Thu Mar 19, 2015, 02:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6386075

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Refers to denial of the seriousness of rape as "truth." Not only is this false, it's rape apology.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 19, 2015, 02:49 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post itself is absolutely fine as it states a basic pov: Truth should be able to be said. The poster throughout conversation stands by this principle and I can see nothing wrong with it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *This* post could be defended by claiming that "truth* is intended to refer to general arguments in college classrooms and to the generally accepted idea that the way to approach truth is by arguing freely on all sides of an issue rather than by suppressing unpopular minority opinions. I happen to believe that lumberjack_jeff's posts are usually disingenuous defenses of the indefensible, and I have seen many posts by him on racism, sexism, civil rights vs. state power (including police brutality), and similar topics that could justifiably be hidden. But he tends to push right up to the line, and I tend to leave borderline posts both for exposure and also because in general I lean toward protecting speech, even that which I detest. He is always on the same side of any issue AverageJoe would be found on, and I dislike his positions for the same reasons I disliked that recently banned troll's, but I don't think this post quite reaches hideability, since the "truth" is (deliberately, I'm sure) open to interpretation. Still, his posts all through this thread are offensive, even if they don't quite cross the TOS violation line. (And he isn't the only one doing this in this thread!)
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I agree with alerter, this post doesn't rise to the level of a hide, imo. There's nothing here that's particularly bad, though the implications are nasty. Hiding this post would only serve to reinforce his claims in this thread. Gotta love them DU misogynists: some are pretty good at keeping it hidden. (Thank goodness another just got banned--he was as see-through as this one).
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was Juror #6. Also, Juror #4 nailed it.

[FSogol]

17. Yup, let the shithead go disrupt elsewhere. n/t

[geek tragedy]

22. amazing how many people are willing to take this guy's account at face value.

Because he would never say anything self-serving or leave out key details.

[AngryAmish]

26. Sorry asshole, if I feel uncomfortabke you don't get to speak.

Good call, professor. A college campus is no place for minority viewpoints.

[brendan120678]

31. Sarcasm, right?

Sorry I feel the need to ask. Sometimes, though, I get scared of what people on this site post.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Poe's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[tammywammy]

33. I hope that's sarcasm.

A college campus is no place for minority viewpoints.

[F4lconF16]

70. So in an AA studies class, if a person was disrupting by dismissing the experiences of blacks

you'd be totally fine with that? If someone was denying the existence of racism and a racist culture in the US, that would be okay? If what was said was making other students uncomfortable and harming productive discussion?

(And before you say it, yes, making other students uncomfortable is not okay. This is a class where there's probably quite a few people who have been raped--see Post 29 for why that's not going to fly: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026385811#post29)

Denying the existence of a culture of sexism is sexism. Denying the existence of a culture of racism is racist. There's no way to get around that.

[hack89]

77. So the standard of debate is that you can never make anyone uncomfortable? Really?

so you basically think there should be no debate, just conformity to an approved (by you I assume) orthodoxy. No wonder the kids I hire nowadays out of college are incapable of real thought.

[F4lconF16]

87. Sorry, but I have no problem kicking racists out of an AA studies class.

After all, the KKK just has an alternate view, ya know? (An extreme example, but to the point.) Again, alternate theories are not always helpful, not always an acceptable point of view. If a climate change denier came in and monopolized the discussion in my oceanography class I took last year, I sure as hell hope the professor would kick him out, because I want to have a discussion about reality and actually be able to learn something without the discussion being derailed constantly. The other students have a right to learn without being subjected to constant bullshit from people who don't understand the issue.

And you ignored the part where the sexist in the discussion was making rape survivors uncomfortable to the point of not participating. The professor's job is to foster discussion, and it appears that in this case the way to do that was to remove him.

No wonder the kids I hire nowadays out of college are incapable of real thought.

Wheeee ageism, gotta love it.

[alp227]

102. There's a difference between offering an opinion and intentionally being inflammatory.

I don't like the tone argument because it's fallacious. But regarding effective communication, tone matters. Like in discussing race and the justice system in an AFAM type class, it's inflammatory to say "blacks need to stop committing crime and whine about the justice system"...a serious type of argumentation by AM radio and Fox News.

[hack89]

105. "making other students uncomfortable is not okay"

that is statement I take with issue. If college classes don't make you uncomfortable then something is wrong.

[alp227]

115. You're equivocating two things.

PZ Myers put it: "If a student is never made uncomfortable, that student is not getting an education."

Again, there's a difference between intentionally inflicting emotional distress on others (name-calling, inflammatory language) vs. explaining new ideas. If one can't make an argument without being an asshole, people aren't going to listen to the argument. Plain and simple. For example, even though I very strongly disagree with the message, I can see where "here's the case why homosexuality is wrong" is in a way, way different league than "homosexuals should be executed because they are harming the public". A gay student in a class with a professor spewing that kind of garbage is going to be made uncomfortable, in both cases. But we've got to look at the speaker's intent here.

[stone space]

128. There is no single "standard of debate".

That's up to the professor.

I can decide which views on calculus are acceptable to express in my classes during said "debate".

My classes are not a free wheeling debating society accepting of all views about calculus from every student with a strong opinion, with rules of debate imposed from outside.

[BainsBane]

111. How about holocaust deniers?

People who argue for the inferiority of people of color? Or argue in defense of pedophilia? Does anything go?

[stevenleser]

121. I'm very interested in the answer to your question, because I think denier professors cant be fired

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=holocaust%20denier%20professor&oq=holocaust%20denier%20professor&aqs=chrome..69i57.5089j0j7

There apparently are a number of holocaust denier professors teaching in major universities right now and academic freedom seems to protect them.

I am not an expert on academic freedom so I hope DU professors step up and explain what it is supposed to cover, but my quick research indicates to me that it is designed primarily to protect professors and researchers, not regular students.

If that is the case, this rape apologist student and any holocaust denying students can be evicted from classrooms and thrown out of universities. A professor saying the same things would be protected.

[BainsBane]

124. Tenure can be pierced

but there has to be an extraordinary reason. Sexual assault or repeated and egregious violations of sexual harassment policy could do it. Highly unlikely any publications or ideas would result in being fired though. That is the purpose of academic freedom. Untenured faculty or non-faculty teachers can be easily fired.

The question about the holocaust deniers is how they got tenure in the first place.

If the Reed prof is untenured, and even if he is tenured, I would wager he consulted with his chair before notifying the student he couldn't participate in discussion.

[AngryAmish]

129. I think they get tenure in non Holocaust areas like engineering.

Then go off to crazytown later.

[bluestateguy]

32. Not a good precedent to set

Challenge bad or misinformed or misleading ideas with better ideas, not bans.

Debate and discussion is not always going to make people feel comfortable. That's called being a democratic citizen in America.

[Blue_Tires]

44. If he's truly interested in debate, that's one thing...

If he's all up in survivors' faces and telling them "You wasn't really raped because you were drunk/passed out/a dickteasing slut, etc.!" That's another thing...(to use an extreme example)

I'm just saying...There must be some reason the rest of the class asked that professor to remove him...

[tammywammy]

48. I remember many years ago in an undergrad class that was going to discuss abortion

And before the class the professor said something along the lines of if this discussion offends you, you can leave but it's not an excused absence. She set the discussion to be civil, but at the same time you're going to hear viewpoints that maybe radically different than yours.

The professor did the same on other topics, but it was the abortion one that I remember. Loved that professor, lots of stimulating discussion in a large lecture class.

[backscatter712]

81. This student was engaged in harassment, not debate.

Read the article.

[alp227]

119. Sometimes there's no reasoning with morons

who spew views like "Bigfoot exists" or "Sandy Hook was a hoax". Sometimes you just say "OUT!" so you don't waste time debunking points refuted 1000 times and focus on intellectual growth.

[alarimer]

35. I don't like this view that people need to be protected from things that make them "uncomfortable."

If you don't like or agree with what someone has to say, then speak up, confront them, show them they are wrong.

People with odious viewpoints exist everywhere.

I'm afraid we are turning into a society where people only associate with those JUST LIKE THEM and not with anyone else.

Quite frankly, this guy sounds like an MRA. But all you are going to do by barring him is enforcing his (wrong) viewpoints.

[F4lconF16]

73. Problem is, you're in a group discussing traumatic experiences.

When you're talking with rape survivors about rape, it is NOT okay to have someone there constantly dismissing and denying your experiences. See post 29 above: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026385811#post29

[Comrade Grumpy]

135. Problem is you're in a required college course, not a therapy session.

[backscatter712]

144. He can fork over a few thousand more and take it again next year.

I have no sympathy for this misogynistic brat. He repeatedly harassed fellow students, got plenty of warning, and refused to stop the harassment, so the prof threw him out, as is his right.

I say show no mercy for this self-entitled man-child. He played the troll and got the banhammer.

[geek tragedy]

154. Yes, it's not a therapy session for this dude to sit there and talk at everyone

it's a course for everyone, not just him.

[Kalidurga]

37. Good call

the student admits he likes to be disruptive. I see a difficult road ahead for the disruptor, the type isn't exactly welcome in a professional setting.

[SheilaT]

41. I usually think that men who dismiss rape

and say it isn't all that bad, need to experience it themselves.

[salin]

58. if the news article is correct that on his fb page

he states intent to annoy Reed College students, than it seems that he was being intentionally trollish, even after repeated warnings by the professor.

The professor also offers an alternative way for completing the course without the discussion sessions: student can come to professor's office and discuss the readings, and complete the final assignment - so his ability to complete the course isn't effected. Just his ability to troll the class.

[geek tragedy]

61. don't you know, they are just providing 'facts' to help put these

hyper-emotional, myth-laden women in their place.

because sadly this is necessary

[BainsBane]

64. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone appeal to "facts"

while ignoring them, I'd be as rich as Warren Buffett.

[Orrex]

65. You should identify those posts so that we can alert on them.

[BainsBane]

74. I alert on them when I see them

and they are seldom hidden. Juries would appear to have less of an issue with MRA ideas than with identifying them as such.

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Is it really necessary, does it make DU suck less, to call fellow DU'ers "douchebags".
It's also a pretty sexist thing to call people, when you think about it. Calling someone "a jock" is considered praise after all.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:49 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's not OK, even if it's directed toward a hated group of people. Unles of course it's the right hated group. Or at least the right hated group in the mind of the person using the derogatory term.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: calling other DUers group names. Okay or not? I say not.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: MRA Douchebags in the thread: TRUTH is a defense here...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a fucking break. You're crying sexism while defending MRAs? They are definitely here, and censoring the truth doesn't change that. DUers are not superior to the rest of the human race, and quit trying to pretend they are above it all.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


Somehow MRAs have been redefined as other than the right. I feel the need to point out they are not only right-wing, they are extreme right wing, far to the right of the GOP. Imagining MRAs as anything other than RW extremists serves as an example of the extent to which misogyny has been mainstreamed. And of course here we have an appeal to sexism to protect that far RW male supremacist speech, whereas those of us who alert on vulgar sexist language about women have learned it's a lost cause.

The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the sort of rape denial we see discussed in this thread as hate speech. That used to mean something to the left.

[backscatter712]

143. Trumad should wear that hide with pride. Proof that DU's jury system is completely broken.

MRA's shit on the thread, and juries let it slide.

One DUer calls these douchebags douchebags, and he gets a hide.

Fuck the MRA douchebags.

[smirkymonkey]

149. Unbelievable, isn't it?

Seriously, WTF?

[aikoaiko]

66. Generally, faculty can kick a student out only if he is disruptive.

Disruptive is a broad term, but it doesn't include sharing opposing views during open discussion periods of the class.

The banned student is apparently quoting the professor, but there may be more to the story. The professor refers to a conference -- what does that mean? Was this a class or some other event?

eta: I should have researched more. The professor considers his classes conferences.

from his webpage: http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/autumn2006/features/teach_at_reed/savery.html

I believe religiously in the conference method—the idea that students are in charge of their own education, and my job is to create the right atmosphere in the classroom so that students can educate themselves and each other. I believe in the Socratic method. I do spend the first three classes explaining my expectations: that you’re not talking to impress me, that you must respect other people. After that, I don’t sit at the table, because if I do people only look at me when they talk. So I walk around the table, and stand behind the person who’s talking, so they have to look at the other people in the room. One of the great things about teaching at Reed is that I can walk into a classroom and ask one question, and the students just take it and go with it for 50 minutes. It’s hard to imagine another place that would be as good a place to teach.

From a promo video:

"I never believe it is ok to censor anything. All ideas should be open to free expression and debate...and therefore libraries have a civic obligation to provide access to whatever books people want to read. The ideas people are going to talk about are going to be difficult, but I think that is what it means to live in a democracy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. I think the conference is what is also called a discussion section

The class itself has 110 students, but the conferences are likely smaller subsections of the class that meet at another time. The main class - a lecture - might meet twice a week for an hour and fifteen minutes. Then, smaller groups of 15 or 20 meet for the conference/ discussion section.

[aikoaiko]

83. Ahh. I see. Those break out sessions are often unsupervised.

A lot can go wrong quickly in those situations.

Its too bad we don't have more info to better judge his behavior.

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. I seriously doubt that they are unsupervised

I've never seen an unsupervised discussion section. They are like "labs" to the the larger lecture hall classes in the sciences. They usually will have at least a TA that meets with the section. In a place like Reed, it seems that the professor for the larger lecture actually met with all the discussion/conference sections - that's pretty impressive on its own.

If it rises to the level where the professor felt the need to "ban" the student from the class, it should have been submitted to the dean of students or equivalent as a behavioral issue. If it wasn't a clear-cut behavior issue that must be dealt with outside of normal class processes, the professor shouldn't have unilaterally "banned" the student. He certainly should not have sent the student an email describing his own decision to ban the student. Rather, he should have reported the student's behavior to some other (process-defined) body (like a Dean of Students office) and let them handle it.

[aikoaiko]

126. Agreed.

[backscatter712]

72. Looks like an in-person campus troll got the banhammer.

Seems to me he had it coming. He was warned multiple times that he had crossed the line from free expression and discussion to harassment, and after several warnings, he was told to get out.

Good on the professor and the administration there.

[Eleanors38]

75. Our poli-sci class had Socialist Workers Party members, the son of Havana's police chief...

at the end of Baptista's reign, CIA recruiters, and a student forever in search of Zorro. Didn't like someone's views? We pushed back. It wasn't another ComfortZone™.

No one was kicked out; in fact, on Fridays we retired to the Rathskeller for 90¢ pitchers of Colt 45. But that was the University of Florida (not Reed) in 1969.

[riversedge]

80. We had similar speakers..but at the Rathskeller at

UW-Madison... I saw that name and my eyes perked up--then u of Fl.


mine was back 10 years of so and a pic of beer was hitting 5 dollars or more. But lovely to get all the different views.

[Eleanors38]

95. The strategic thinking at UF was maybe an on-campus beer bar would tone down demonstrations...

They even had cheap beer to draw everyone in.

Really, the political science dept was pretty good, even if California was always raiding the faculty!

[BainsBane]

108. How about holocaust deniers?

People who argue for the inferiority of people of color? Or argue in defense of pedophilia? Does anything go?

[prayin4rain]

139. Of course not! Are those groups full of whiney inconsequential women? n/t

[Eleanors38]

191. Push back, intellectual confrontation. Works for me. You should try it.

[BainsBane]

192. You think I can't engage in intellectual debate?

or am afraid of disagreement?

Interesting you would have your tax dollars go to promote hate speech. It's not exactly like he can't find all kinds of support for his pro-rape views, just not in that classroom.

[seabeyond]

194. classrooms often, if not consistently have restricted bounds, am i not correct?

seems to me, i often listened to professors state what was allowed and not allowed in classes.

like biology and other science classes. my boys had teachers that clearly and bluntly stated creationism was not allowed, as an argument.

why wouldnt a class like this state, MRA propaganda not allowed?

[BainsBane]

199. It's not something I ever encountered while teaching

Those topics just didn't relate to the courses I taught.

[Eleanors38]

196. Not sure; your short text re "tax dollars" leaves the issue in doubt.

[BainsBane]

197. Let's explore this "free speech" concern of yours.

Publicly funded universities* and colleges are places for Holocaust denial, pro-rape, white supremacist, and pro-pedophilia arguments, but the following subjects must not be permitted.

1) Discussions of Gun control in GD
2) no academic research on guns
3) doctors must not be allowed to speak to patients about gun safety.

So evidently speech that would seek to save lives should be prohibited, but speech that promotes hatred and bigotry must not be shunned.

*While Reed is private, they still receive public funding thruogh scholarships and other funds. The only colleges that don't are a handful of religious schools, like Bob Jones.

[Eleanors38]

200. Oh! that was you - - sounded like an AM radio broadcast east of Ocala...

Error: Publically funded universities are not "for" that stuff, but that stuff gets discussed there, no? BTW, I've seen it discussed. In schools.

Error: "Gun control [or not] in GD" is a policy set by the Administrators of DU. Frankly, if you want to talk guns in GD, get the Ads to change DU policy. I'll support you!

Error: Doctors can suggest gun safety measures, IF the patient is allowed to say "none of your biz" without fear of medical services being curtailed.

Any conclusions based on these errors are faulty as well.

[BainsBane]

201. Incorrect on a couple of points

The NRA has ensured laws prohibiting speech about guns is in state and federal law, including ACA. The patient doesn't have an opportunity to say none of your biz in Florida, since doctors are prohibited by law from raising the issue. In ACA, doctors are prohibited by law from writing down any information regarding patient gun ownership. Those are both clear violations of the doctors' free speech rights supported by many of your particular ideological persuasion. Do you also support them? If not, what are you doing about it?

Are you saying you support reinstating NIH and NSF funding for study of gun violence? Or do you oppose that free speech?


And your comment about GD: Are you saying you have never participated in the alerting about gun threads in GD? Most of those alerts are sent by gun proponents, so clearly the intention is to censor free discussion they think might compromise their ability to accumulate moar and moar guns. Are you asserting you yourself have never sent such an alert? Have you asked your fellow gungeoneers to desist in their efforts to stop gun policy from being discussed? Will you be telling Skinner you would like to see gun policy discussed in GD on a permanent basis?

I would like to know when and where you have heard holocaust denial and pro-pedophilia arguments in institutions of higher education. I've spent a lot of years in universities and have heard neither.

East of Ocala? Would that be east of Miami too?

[Eleanors38]

204. Some of this stuff has been discussed ad nauseam for years, I'll not go through it again....

I have heard & seen groups advocating "rethinking" outlooks on both holocaust denial & pedophilia at U. of F (late 60s) and U. of Tx (early 70s).

Again. The policy of no gun discussion in GD IS IN FACT a policy of the Administrators. I'll go where the discussion goes. The real problem is gun controller/banners repeatedly Violating the SOP. You should speak out against these violations (and most ARE in fact violations) when some " activist" can't find enough audience in the TWO (2) groups they already have. You want to to bring it back to GD, don't expect me to do the work for you. BTW, any complaints of censorship in GD visa viz guns are best directed to the Ads who have established the outer limits. Note: I've made the same offer to others who can't get their "movement" to move. For now, just follow the rules. It's what I do, Bains.

I believe Skinner knows my laissez faire view on where guns are discussed. (You know, it is quite possible DU members in general don't want gun discussion in GD, and Skinner just might recognize that.)

Ocala was the place where the Doc dropped his patient for refusing to play ball with his social terrogation.

The CDC is charged with studying disease threats based on good science, not questionable social advocacy. It ain't a soapbox on the quad. Don't know the reasons for funding denial to the NIH or NSF. Maybe they were pumping Bellisiles Brand gas, too.

[BainsBane]

205. You in fact do not support free speech

that does not promote your interests. To support only speech you think "unbiased," is not in fact support for free speech at all.

My point is this. Free speech is not absolute, and you do not come close to an absolutist on the subject given your clear opposition to research on gun violence and your support of other efforts by the gun lobby to infringe on the First Amendment. When it comes to the basic rights of others: women and children not to be subject to pro-rape arguments or statements about their supposed inferiority, you are all for it since it doesn't effect YOU.

My suggestion is that you be aware of the ways your experiences and political views influence your position toward speech. There are no absolute free speech rights. To insist others be subject to bigoted attacks while you refuse to consider permitting academic research that could save lives for fear that it might infringe on gun accumulation shows the extent to which your conception of free speech is shaped by your own particular interests. In your case, you support government restriction of speech that might challenge gun interests, which I submit is a violation of the First Amendment. A teacher telling a student he is not allowed to participated in part of a class does not violate the First Amendment. (Remember that the teacher too has First Amendment rights). You have no problem saying that the student and others like him should be able to denigrate rape victims all they like because it doesn't effect you. Yet when human lives are at stake, you are more than happy to restrict speech if you think it has the potential your ability to accumulate weapons.

Be aware of your own biases, your own subject position, and how that influences your position toward different kinds of speech rather than pretending you are for free speech when others aren't.

[Eleanors38]

212. You in fact don't understand free speech...

You know, this discussion started off about vigorous debate and push back when those with contrary positions express them in academic settings. For some reason you took it personally, floating the notion that I didn't think you were capable of this kind of debate. Then you ordered up a side of gun politics, and a dessert of "Alert" practices regarding TOS violations in GD. Were you saving up "the funk of forty thousand years &quot Vincent Price in Michael Jackson's "Thriller&quot ? I merely suggested push back and vigorous debate. In a college setting, no less. Don't take this stuff so personally.

BTW, thank for the boilerplate.

Following TOS = Fewer alerts.

[backscatter712]

146. There's a difference between rigorous discussion and harassment. n/t

[Eleanors38]

195. Sure is. Not sure if harassment happened here, but if harassment occurs...

Tell 'em to cut it out, or suggest calling the appropriate LEO to mediate. Now, if this guy was jumping up and pirouetting in mid-air while emitting a flutter blast at classmates, then he should be bounced, even if not technically illegal.

[hifiguy]

202. Indeed. And there is not enough information available here

to come to any definite conclusion. If the guy was being disruptive, he deserved to be booted. If he was making his points in a civil manner appropriate to a college classroom he shouldn't have been booted. Arguing contrary points is not per se disruptive. There is not enough objective information here to determine what was going on in the classroom and thus whether the boot was justified or not.

[riversedge]

79. Title should be: Prof bans student because of behavior.....

after reading this--seems like the student was too much--even after students let him know his views were scary. Yet he continued on like a bully.

[hifiguy]

203. If that is in fact the case he deserved to get kicked out. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

82. His diatribe reads like he's on the verge of a break from reality

Moreover, it sounds like he was harassing students - in class, personally, and over the internet - in a threatening manner.

Obviously we don't have all the details, but it says plenty that his entire class wanted him out.

It is also amusing reading some of the replies in this thread calling out his classmates for being too weak to survive in a heated academic discussion, when reading his statement he seems to be whining as if the fearful victim of some grand oppression.

[backscatter712]

88. So, being able to harass women for not wanting to be raped or assaulted is the new Men's Right(TM).

Excuse me for having absolutely no respect for MRAs.

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. This Professor, I'm Fairly Certain, Made a Process Error Here

If the student's behavior rose to the level where the professor felt the need to "ban" the student from the class, it should have been submitted to the dean of students or equivalent as a behavioral issue. If it wasn't a clear-cut behavior issue that must be dealt with outside of normal class processes, the professor shouldn't have unilaterally "banned" the student. He certainly should not have sent the student an email describing his own decision to "ban" the student. Rather, he should have reported the student's behavior to some other (process-defined) body (like a Dean of Students office) and let them handle it.

I could tell you stories of how much leeway students get in terms of behavior - without being "banned" from classes. I've seen students - college students - literally scream profanity at professors in their offices and then threaten other professors and staff - and still be allowed to return to the classroom the very next class. I've seen students who quite literally made suggestive sexual comments to a young woman graduate teaching assistant (in front of an entire class) be allowed to continue in that class. It's damn hard as a matter of process to be shitcanned from a college class.

This story is simply astounding to me from a process angle. Hell, half the people yelling "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" in this thread have no problem with Steven Salaita getting "unhired" by the University of Illinois over tweets. But the notion that you can ban a student from a class for damn near ANY reason - wow! That I find surprising. I'm sure it's a process violation even at Reed.

By the way, if you don't know, Reed was actually one of the epicenters of the academic blacklists under McCarthyism. The House Unamerican Activities Committee actually held a hearing at Reed itself, and one faculty member (Stanley Moore) was famously fired for his views after drawn out fights with the then President of Reed, Duncan Ballantine.

[BubbaFett]

99. Thank you, voice of reason!

[brooklynite]

100. What this thread doesn't tell me is what the class is and what the discussion subject was...

Out of the blue comments are one thing. A controversial opinion relevant to the class discussion is another.

[geek tragedy]

104. it's intro Humanities, apparently involving breakout sessions or 'conferences'

http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/autumn2006/features/teach_at_reed/savery.html

[brooklynite]

114. Intro to Humanities is still a pretty broad subject

[alcibiades_mystery]

117. It looks like a kind of old school freshman writing class

mixed with Western civ.

It's not clear to me how the "rape culture" topic would continue to come up, but it may be that they are asked to write about and discuss contemporary issues as part of their rhetorical training (the story mentions the student's views of the rape of Lucretia, so it may have come up through the Ovid and Livy). Here's the Spring Quarter class description:

The second semester continues the study of the ancient Mediterranean, tracing the development of Egypt, Palestine and Rome from the fourth century BCE to the first century CE. The term begins in fourth-century Athens with the critiques of individual and polis virtues made by Plato and Aristotle in The Republic, The Nicomachean Ethics and The Politics. This first section concludes with a transitional examination of the encounter between classical Greek, Macedonian, and Egyptian cultures in the Hellenistic period; works studied include Theocritus’s Idylls, Hellenistic statuary, and the city of Alexandria. The course then turns to the rise of Rome within this larger context, tracing the transition from republic to empire in the works of Cicero, Livy, Virgil and Ovid, as well as Roman civic monuments. The course concludes with a comparison of different models of virtue and vice throughout the Roman empire, now encompassing the areas studied earlier in the semester, with a reading of first-century Jewish texts and Apuleius’s The Golden Ass, a work that brings together most of the cultural traditions encountered throughout the year. As with the first semester, the question of how different cultures interact and develop is prominent, and a range of cultural products are studied and compared: history, poetry, drama, philosophy, statuary, and civic architecture.

The Professor is in English. He's also the Chair of the English Department.

[geek tragedy]

103. either that, or too much leeway was granted to the students in your examples

whole story is weird here--clearly there was more than just statistics being argued going on.

Dude doesn't strike me as the type who has much of a filter.

[alcibiades_mystery]

107. It's been pretty consistent

Multiple institutions, different admins, different levels of reporting. There's tons of leeway for college students' behavior - indeed, shockingly so given that many institutions now have "active shooter" training for faculty.

I agree that the story is very strange. Given the situation (especially the remarks from other students), the faculty member should have reported out. Despite what is noted by some posters above, it's actually not normal policy or procedure for faculty to unilaterally bar a student from a class. Every place I've worked has clear policies against doing that, in fact.

[geek tragedy]

123. this guy seems to like to keep things inside the classroom rather than

via hierarchy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. Well, that's a mistake, as this case amply demonstrates

The process for reporting out (due process) is there for everybody's protection - faculty member, student, other students, staff. Now, it doesn't always work, but it at least allows for a clear set of guidelines and procedures.

Besides, this Professor is the Chair of the English Department. As an administrator himself, he should have known better.

[alp227]

109. Higher education is about teaching students how to live in polite society.

Guess what? Educated people will not want to associate with anyone who believes stupid or bigoted things, like:
- Bigfoot exists
- Denying that rape is rape
- Apologizing for pedophilia
- Claiming that women frequently lie about rape

An education system that doesn't teach students to recognize shit is shit is a failed system. Sorry, free speech does NOT mean "I can say what I want when I want where I want". That's selfishness. What happened to teaching students how to think instead of "my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge" (as Asimov put it, approximately).

[Starry Messenger]

112. People don't really seem to understand that colleges have codes of conduct.

They are literally not places where you get to just vomit your brain droppings on everyone because Freedumb.

Reed College Honor Code:

http://www.reed.edu/honor_principle/history_preamble.html

There are several items in there that this student violated. If people don't like the rules at a college, they can go to another one.

[Kurska]

133. ...

[hrmjustin]

138. I believe there is a rape culture.

IMHO I believe rape is dismissed by many in our culture and the victims are blamed.

I was afraid that I would be blamed when I was raped and for years I refused to tell friends.

Rape culture does exist. Look at how Republican politician dismiss rape.

Look at how college campuses dismiss rape and now some of those institutions are under investigation for sweeping it under the rug.

I am not going to say whether the professor was right or wrong but this guy would make me feel uncomfortable as well.

[davidn3600]

150. So even when you have valid stats, you get kicked out when your opinions don't match others?

Time magazine did a story last year on the "1 in 5" statistic...

http://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/

As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

First and foremost, the 1-in-5 statistic is not a nationally representative estimate of the prevalence of sexual assault, and we have never presented it as being representative of anything other than the population of senior undergraduate women at the two universities where data were collected—two large public universities, one in the South and one in the Midwest.

[alp227]

157. The stupid student did more than merely express an opinion.

“I am critical of the idea of a rape culture because it does not exist,” he wrote in a lengthy email to Savery explaining his perspectives that he has also posted online. “We live in a society that hates rape, but also hasn’t optimized the best way to handle rape. Changing the legal definition of rape is a slippery slope. If sexual assault becomes qualified as rape, what happens next? What else can we legally redefine to become rape? Why would we want to inflate the numbers of rape in our society?”

He's a real-life TROLL who does NOT belong in a context of higher learning.

[Blue_Tires]

198. It was a "behavior" issue, not the free speech issue that dumbassed kid is hiding behind...

Of course the real story always comes out later...

[davidsilver]

152. Uncomfortable? They should have laughed him out of the class.

How could they even take this guy seriously. He shouldn't have been thrown out for making people uncomfortable; he should have been expelled from the college for lacking the requisite intellect to participate at an institution of higher learning.

[DustyJoe]

153. views

These classes that preach culture/lifestyles should ensure that only students that toe the line in lockstep with the course are allowed into the class. There is no tolerance for differing views, there is only one view allowed. Hmmm what other examples in the past/present follow this same creed to control their subjects ? Paging George Orwell.

[stone space]

160. Calculus?

There is no tolerance for differing views, there is only one view allowed. Hmmm what other examples in the past/present follow this same creed to control their subjects ?

[Monk06]

155. Cultural determinism vs individual responsibility is a false dichotomy. The basis of his whole

position is based on a fallacy.

Not much of a professor of humanities if he hasn't read Aristotle's, Sophistical Refutations.

Individual choice does not negate cultural influences that effect those choices.

If I murder someone I may do it for pleasure, financial gain, revenge or any number of other reasons based on how I was raised and in what culture I was raised. My culpability may very widely depending on my culture's relative tolerance or intolerance for murder and homicide generally.

My seeming acting out of pure will is an illusion. Ever disappointment, and act of violence against me is linked in an unbroken chain of experience that led to my committing murder.

The only culture that could be said with certain not to be a rape culture is one where rape has never occurred or is scandalously rare.

So his argument is specious. All the question begging 'research' and biases disguised as 'facts' do not change the demonstrable fact that the form of his argument is a fallacy and hence, illegitimate.

[ncjustice80]

159. Good!!!

The college should makenhim undergo some type of rape sensitivity training or look at taking some form of disciplinary action.

[gollygee]

163. Should read "Prof bans student for MRA bullshit." n/t

[booley]

176. have to side with the student

at least on he should not have been banned based on what I read so far.

Dont' get me wrong. He sounds like a choad and I am certain he did make people uncomfortable. Rape for a lot of people is not an abstract.

But being offensive is not a good reason to ban someone, even when they are in the wrong. Even when they are making people incredibly uncomfortable.

The accusation that it was "offensive" has been used numerous times to shut down leftist advocacy (from gay rights to women's right.. hell ALL civil rights to unions to free speech…)

Not to mention keeping someone from saying offensive stuff only drives it underground where it festers and grows and mutates in code words like "thug" and "welfare queen"

SO we really should be careful about using it ourselves even when the guy in question may be a jerk.

And yes there is a line. Like if he was saying specific women should be raped or that he was going to rape anyone. Obvious threats against a person's safety is different.

But I don't see where he did that.

[abelenkpe]

179. Guy bragged about being a disruptive troll

And got banned as he deserved. Really eye opening thread here though.

[Nevernose]

211. My question for 1-in-4 (or 5) truthers

I will be the first to say that there are problems with the methodology and accuracy of the one in five claim.

However, MRAs seem to think that if that statistic is even slightly inaccurate, it somehow means there's no rape culture.

So here's my question for those who doubt the number of sexual assaults and think it matters: How many sexual assaults are acceptable? What's the number at which sexual assault becomes problematic? Is one in twenty women being sexually assaulted to MRAs? One in a hundred?

I just want to know, from the assholes themselves, what the cut off line for an acceptable numbers of rapes is.