3 ms·

I think it's pretty clear that Title IX courts could do a much better job of protecting the due process rights of the accused. I think it's possible to take a n

I think it's pretty clear that Title IX courts could do a much better job of protecting the due process rights of the accused. I think it's possible to take a nuanced position that advocates for better due process rights while still fundamentally respecting the advances we've made in protecting the interests of women and other underrepresented groups. ...but without that last part, the position I just outlined sounds very much like that of conservatives opposed to the whole program of social reform. The author of this article gives the game away in his concluding paragraphs where he throws the term "social justice" into scare quotes. He has a bigger agenda than just protecting the due process rights of college students. And (even assuming the facts are exactly as he portrays them) I'm not surprised that the professors described in the article got such a frosty reception to their position - it's a difficult one to describe without coming off as another stealth reactionary.

_vertigo 7y ago
In your comment you seem to value who someone “is” (i.e. what their label is) more than you value what they have to say. Your reasoning for why the non-italicized portion is not good enough is “conservatives say that”. The reason you offer for why the professors get a frosty reaction is “they could be mistaken for stealth reactionaries”. Perhaps it’s less important to consider what label you can assign to someone and more important to just consider what they’re saying.
- lordlic 7y ago
  Didn't I just say that I agreed with the core argument of the article? I just wanted to make sure we all understood that this isn't a case of a "woke" (for lack of a better term) person concerned about moderating the worst excesses of the movement, it's a case of someone who wants to dismantle the whole thing. And it's absolutely relevant what a person "is." If NRA TV uploaded a special report on gun control, it matters that you know it was produced by NRA TV. I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point. Finally, I didn't defend students/academia reacting incorrectly to the professors, I just said I understood. A lot of people are (rightfully, I think) sick of neoliberalism's "free marketplace of ideas" approach to permitting right-wing toxicity, and can get carried away when they think that's what a speaker is relying on. That doesn't make them automatically right.
  - _vertigo 7y ago
    I don’t necessarily disagree that it _matters_, but why does it matter, and how much? Why can’t you believe that you’re having to defend the point? What bearing does who someone is have on the actual _substance_ of an argument? Personally I think that who someone is is absolutely useful information because it can contextualize the intent of an argument and provide a hint as to the biases of the person making the argument, which is a useful tool for thinking critically about the argument. However, when weighing the merit of the argument, it doesn’t matter who is making the argument. That’s why I took issue - you said that the reason the italicized portion was needed was because without it you sound a lot like a conservative. That’s weighing the merit of the argument based on what kind of person makes it rather than the substance of the argument itself.

_vertigo 7y ago

In your comment you seem to value who someone “is” (i.e. what their label is) more than you value what they have to say. Your reasoning for why the non-italicized portion is not good enough is “conservatives say that”. The reason you offer for why the professors get a frosty reaction is “they could be mistaken for stealth reactionaries”. Perhaps it’s less important to consider what label you can assign to someone and more important to just consider what they’re saying.

lordlic 7y ago
Didn't I just say that I agreed with the core argument of the article? I just wanted to make sure we all understood that this isn't a case of a "woke" (for lack of a better term) person concerned about moderating the worst excesses of the movement, it's a case of someone who wants to dismantle the whole thing. And it's absolutely relevant what a person "is." If NRA TV uploaded a special report on gun control, it matters that you know it was produced by NRA TV. I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point. Finally, I didn't defend students/academia reacting incorrectly to the professors, I just said I understood. A lot of people are (rightfully, I think) sick of neoliberalism's "free marketplace of ideas" approach to permitting right-wing toxicity, and can get carried away when they think that's what a speaker is relying on. That doesn't make them automatically right.
- _vertigo 7y ago
  I don’t necessarily disagree that it _matters_, but why does it matter, and how much? Why can’t you believe that you’re having to defend the point? What bearing does who someone is have on the actual _substance_ of an argument? Personally I think that who someone is is absolutely useful information because it can contextualize the intent of an argument and provide a hint as to the biases of the person making the argument, which is a useful tool for thinking critically about the argument. However, when weighing the merit of the argument, it doesn’t matter who is making the argument. That’s why I took issue - you said that the reason the italicized portion was needed was because without it you sound a lot like a conservative. That’s weighing the merit of the argument based on what kind of person makes it rather than the substance of the argument itself.