University of Rhode Island Condemns Faculty Member For Publishing Criticism Of “Trans-Sex/Gender Ideology”

Last week Women’s Research Professor Donna Hughes was convicted by the University of Rhode Island for writing an op-ed that criticized what she called the LGBTQ ideology.  The op-ed really criticized the far right as well for what Professor Hughes calls intense”ideological fantasies” but the university just items to her complaint of LGBTQ viewpoints from a feminist perspective. The university also cautioned that, while”faculty have the same rights, obligations, and responsibilities as the American citizens” under the First Amendment those rights are not”boundless.”
We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, that has defended the murder of a conservative protester and stated that he saw”nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Loomis also announced that”Science, data, and technology are all inherently racist because they’re developed by racists that reside in a racist society, if they recognize as racists or not.”
Hughes really starts and spends much of her op-ed criticizing the far right and its violent ideology and history.  However, she subsequently criticizes what she calls similar dreams about the left. In doing so, Professor Hughes was espousing an opinion shared by other feminists which aspects of LGBTQ writings undermine feminist values and intentions. She argues that”The American political left is increasingly diving headfirst into their own world of fantasy and lies and, unlike in the fanciful world of QAnon, actual children are becoming actual victims. The trans-sex dream, the belief that a person could change his or her gender , either from male to female or from female to man, is spreading mostly unquestioned among the political left.”  She added that”[w]omen and women are expected to provide up their places of solitude like restrooms, locker rooms, and even prison cells.”
In a free speech and instructional perspective, the issue is not the merits of the debate but the decision of the university to issue a public condemnation. The statement comprises the following:
A faculty member’s First Amendment and academic freedom rights are not boundless, however, and should be exercised responsibly with due regard for the faculty member’s additional obligations, such as their obligations to the University’s students and the University community. As mentioned in the above referenced documents, college have a unique duty to show due respect for the opinions of other people and also to”exercise critical self-discipline and decision” and”appropriate restraint” in distributing their private opinions.
The University, College of Arts and Sciences and Department of Gender and Women Research are working to support our pupils and the area as we proceed throughout — and learn from — this circumstance.
I’m concerned what pupils will”learn from this circumstance.”  The university says that professors do not like”endless” rights and that they must”show due respect for the opinions of other people and also to”exercise critical self-discipline and judgment” and”appropriate restraint.” On the other hand, the fact remains that Hughes published her perspectives concerning LGBTQ writings.  What will the required”restraint” look like in this situation? It sounds like Hughes is expected to”exercise critical self-discipline” by not stating her viewpoints LGBTQ ideology and writing.  The University states categorically that her”viewpoints” of LGBTQ foundations”may lead to pain and discomfort for many transgender individuals” and the university”doesn’t support” them.
The only means that Hughes could not result in such harm is to stay quiet on her complaint of the motion. This is an issue that runs into the very core of the writings as a academic and identity as a feminist. I’m thankful that the university has not taken taken to fire Hughes or Loomis. I have no problem with President David Dooley talking in his individual capacity against Hughes or writing a counter essay addressing her different factors of criticism.  However, he decided to have the university as a whole condemn a instructional for expressing her objections to LGBTQ writings from her own feminist view.
The silence of additional faculty at the university to confirm their colleague rights to free speech and academic freedom is, again, deafening.
Just like this:Like Loading…