« Thursday Short Poem: Olds' "Connoisseuse of Slugs | Main | Another long one on Christianity, feminism, ezers, and gender roles »

January 19, 2006



You don't have to worry about Wheaton alumns censoring professors who "stray" too far - the current president takes care of them long before any alumni hear about them.

See the front page article in last week's weekend Washington Post (1/7-1/8) on Dr. Hochschild, who was basically fired (dropped off the tenure track and quickly excluded) after he converted to Catholicism. The school newspaper quoted Dr. Litfin as saying he didn't believe Dr. Hochschild agreed to the "spirit" of the statement of faith, even though Dr. Hochschild said nothing had changed in his interpretation of it. As the WSJ article by Daniel Golden makes clear, Dr. Hochschild had huge support from his department and the student body, but Dr. Litfin insists on a very narrow interpretation of "evangelical" that automatically excludes non-Protestants.

Conversion isn't a political issue, but when one person decides they can interpret the "spirit" of the college's policies and decide the extent of other people's agreement with them, other censorship doesn't seem too far behind.


And folks thought things had improved since Hypatia's day. Just goes to show, people are people and are afraid of anything "different" and "radical."

What, boys? Did you forget that she and her most loyal grad students conduct ritual bra-burnings on the roof of Bunche Hall every Wednesday at 4:00? Why not just call her an "angry hairy dyke" and leave us in no doubt as to your misogyny?

Silly me, I thought a misogynist was a person who hates women, not one who criticizes feminism. Is everyone who doesn't like Jesse Jackson a "racist," too?


Actually, when you call her a typical modern female academic and bring out raging sterotypes, that looks a good bit like misogyny. Calling someone militant, impatient, and accusatory is not a critique of their theory of scholarship.


Yes, evil. IF they had said the modern FEMINIST academic, it wouldn't have been as bad. But by calling her simply "female", these whiz kids make it clear that "impatient, militant, and accusatory" are qualities they associate with all women regardless of ideology.

Mr. Bad

Tsk, tsk, tsk - and Hugo's not only an english major, but a professor too.

Hugo said: "Yes, evil. IF they had said the modern FEMINIST academic, it wouldn't have been as bad. But by calling her simply "female", these whiz kids make it clear that "impatient, militant, and accusatory" are qualities they associate with all women regardless of ideology."

Apparently critical reading isn't in your bag of tricks, eh Hugo. In your quote above you make it quite clear that those "boys" (one wonders if you would ever use the feminine pejorative "girls" around here) are indeed talking about female academics, not women in general. Thus, your eager attempt to paint them with the broad brush of "misogynist" fails even casual scrutiny. Misogyny is hatred of women, not hatred of female academics, who are a very small subset of female humans.

Nice try though.

Question: Do you treat your fellow feminists the same way and call them "racists" and "misandrists" when they rail against white males? Somehow I doubt it.


Hugo, I *do* like what they have to say about Kellner:

after earning his Ph.D., Kellner won a position at the University of Texas-Austin, home of one of the loopier, more extreme faculties in the country. While nominally in the heart of conservative cowboy country, Austin is really in a countercultural world unto itself.



I read further what they had to say about Kellner, and I do have to say that there is a 70+yo retired UT-Austin journalism prof who attends our church who has much the same to say about the happenings in the 90's that they've quoted Kellner as saying. This is a gentleman who had the journalism restrictions in such places as China to compare to, as he'd actually been allowed multiple trips to China, Korea, etc. He was *not* impressed with what happened at UT during Bush's tenure as governor.


Bad, I feel confident that most reasonable folks would agree that calling all female academics "impatient and accusatory" meets the common-usage definition of misogyny!


Did you forget that she and her most loyal grad students conduct ritual bra-burnings on the roof of Bunche Hall every Wednesday at 4:00?

The door to the roof of Bunche Hall is locked. This goes back to an incident in the 1970s where a student committed suicide by jumping, or someone threw a dummy off the roof to make it look like a suicide. Or something.

For those who are not familiar with UCLA, Bunche Hall is a 13 or so story building that looks like a giant waffle iron. It's the bastion of Bruin social scientists.


Alexander, it is locked... most of the time... I could tell you stories about certain History TAs who would wander up there around 1991, 92 or so...


You're right - I misread the reference to "female academic" as "feminist academic." My bad. Or theirs, for saying it in the first place.


Indeed, X. Thanks for that!


A couple of points that I noticed while reading the CNN.com coverage of the issue. First, the website actually has nothing to do with UCLA or its official alumni association. Second, "UCLA spokesman Phil Hampton said the university planned to send Jones a letter warning him that faculty hold copyrights to all their course materials and that his campaign encouraged students to violate school policy."

I also finally clicked on the link itself. (I was resisting because I didn't think the website needed any more exposure.) Now, I just find it laughable that he objects to people opposing Janice Rogers Brown as a federal judicial nominee. Heaven forfend, you oppose the nomination of someone you think is unqualified for the bench!


Silly season, by some student who thinks he is Hot Stuff for "thinking up" this website, and expects that on the basis of it he will be given on graduation a junior pundit job, at $75,000.00 salary, at some Republican-conservative PR tank like the Heritage Foundation.

If students do try to tape, they can be thrown out on their ear for violating univ. rules, and before that, the prof no doubt will run all their essays through plagiarism catching software or Google to catch them out (since being paid to tape supposedly objectionable speech seems like a slacker activity, the intellectually honest conservative response being to out-argue and out-cite the prof.).

Ann Bartow

I discuss a subsidiary but not unimportant (to me anyway) issue here: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002701.html

he who is known as sefton

In the beginning, I decided to join the campaign to impeach your "smirking chimp", my "dum'ass botch". As evidence for that, you'll soon be invited to click on a hyperlink.

Before doing so, however, I would like you to read through the rest of this text. In case, you'd like to know, the U.R.L for your blog, specifically, "Hugo Schwyzer", is found at the third hyperlink on the list below ... ah, please remember, no clicking until AFTER reading the entire text.

Perusing your blog, I believe I arrived at what is a reasonable inference. That is, both you and your readers would welcome news that indicates the campaign to impeach the president is increasing in both vigor and breadth. Ah, you'll find that evidence by clicking on the second enclosed hyperlink.

As for my plan for capturing Osama, you'll find it by clicking on the first listed hyperlink:




.he who is known as sefton

oh, yes, surely, you've heard about the government "requesting" certain records about internet activity. oh, br'dah! Cynical and skeptical me, I'm smelling a rat in all that.


I checked out website of this group. They attacked one prof because he said that the Bush family was involved with criminal activity such as the Savings & Loan crimes and Iran-Contra.

See: http://www.uclaprofs.com/profs/kellner.html

Now, the fact is the Bush family was involved in both. Neil Bush was with Silverado, and George Bush Sr was VP and probably responsible for a lot of Iran-Contra activity, though we will never know since he pardoned the people who might have named him had they been threatened with prison.

But here is the odd point. The web site implies that the Bushes can not be involved with criminal activities because if they were, then the "liberal media" would have made an issue about this!

Of course, the site's authors do not consider that maybe we have an establishment media which has a vested interest in maintaining the stability of ruling elites, regardless of power.

I've seen this approach by conservatives before when attacking a leftist. They simply dismiss the leftist arguments without bothering to establish if they are true or false.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004