3 ms·

The amount of this “new puritanism” that the US is displaying is amazing to me. The idea of a bureaucracy like university administration controlling the love l

The amount of this “new puritanism” that the US is displaying is amazing to me. The idea of a bureaucracy like university administration controlling the love life of the professors is ridiculous IMO.

colejohnson66 6y ago
It’s not “puritanism;” it’s about conflict of interest. If you’re sleeping with, say, a student, you’d be more likely to give them a better grade than Jane/John Doe.
- xondono 6y ago
  Title IX and all of this controversy has nothing to do with conflict of interest. The so-called sex-negative feminism that forms the ideological bed for most of it, is in it’s heart very puritanical
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Of course, that’s not the case here since the relationship took place after the student left the university. Further, many Title IX cases aren’t related to conflict of interest at all. Here is a list, mostly of such stories: https://reason.com/tag/title-ix/ https://reason.com/tag/title-ix/. A common theme is consensual drunken sex in which one party expresses regret at some later time and reports the other party. Title IX defines “consent” such that drunken sex cannot be “consensual”—drunken sex is rape per Title IX guidelines. If this sounds dramatic, please give that link a read; this is the most charitable interpretation. The interesting thing about this “drunken sex is rape” interpretation is that logically it would imply that if both parties were drunk, then they’ve raped each other. Of course this is ridiculous, so universities either decide that the man is guilty (presumably in a “Believe all women” sort of way) which is ironic in that Title IX ostensibly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Another way in which universities resolve this dilemma is by assuming the first to report is the victim and the other party is the rapist. There are probably other universities who elect not to address the dilemma at all and are happy with the mutual rape interpretation. In all cases, this seems per puritanical to me. EDIT: I forgot my favorite example—the Northwestern University feminist professor whose Title IX criticism was deemed to be a Title IX violation. Criticizing Title IX is a violation of Title IX, but you still have a swath of people arguing that Title IX is a Very Fine Law (indeed the law is fine; the guidelines are problematic).

colejohnson66 6y ago

It’s not “puritanism;” it’s about conflict of interest. If you’re sleeping with, say, a student, you’d be more likely to give them a better grade than Jane/John Doe.

xondono 6y ago
Title IX and all of this controversy has nothing to do with conflict of interest. The so-called sex-negative feminism that forms the ideological bed for most of it, is in it’s heart very puritanical
throwaway894345 6y ago
Of course, that’s not the case here since the relationship took place after the student left the university. Further, many Title IX cases aren’t related to conflict of interest at all. Here is a list, mostly of such stories: https://reason.com/tag/title-ix/ https://reason.com/tag/title-ix/. A common theme is consensual drunken sex in which one party expresses regret at some later time and reports the other party. Title IX defines “consent” such that drunken sex cannot be “consensual”—drunken sex is rape per Title IX guidelines. If this sounds dramatic, please give that link a read; this is the most charitable interpretation. The interesting thing about this “drunken sex is rape” interpretation is that logically it would imply that if both parties were drunk, then they’ve raped each other. Of course this is ridiculous, so universities either decide that the man is guilty (presumably in a “Believe all women” sort of way) which is ironic in that Title IX ostensibly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Another way in which universities resolve this dilemma is by assuming the first to report is the victim and the other party is the rapist. There are probably other universities who elect not to address the dilemma at all and are happy with the mutual rape interpretation. In all cases, this seems per puritanical to me. EDIT: I forgot my favorite example—the Northwestern University feminist professor whose Title IX criticism was deemed to be a Title IX violation. Criticizing Title IX is a violation of Title IX, but you still have a swath of people arguing that Title IX is a Very Fine Law (indeed the law is fine; the guidelines are problematic).