The op-ed really criticized the much right too for exactly what Professor Hughes calls extreme”ideological fantasies” but the college only objects to her criticism of LGBTQ views from a feminist perspective. The college also warned that, while”faculty have the exact rights, duties, and responsibilities as the American taxpayers” under the First Amendment those rights are not”boundless.”
We previously wrote in the faculty as the home of University of Rhode Island and Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis who has resisted the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw”nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Loomis also announced that”Science, statistics, and technologies are inherently racist because they are developed by racists who live in a racist society, whether they identify as racists or never.”
Hughes really begins and spends much of her op-ed criticizing the way right and its violent history and ideology. However, she subsequently criticizes what she calls comparable fantasies on the far left. In doing so, Professor Hughes was espousing a view shared by other feminists which aspects of LGBTQ writings sabotage feminist values and aims. She argues that”The American political left is now increasingly diving headfirst into their very own world of lies and fantasy and, unlike from the imaginary universe of QAnon, actual kids are getting to be actual victims. The trans-sex fantasy, the belief that a individual can change his or her gender from male to female or from female to man, is spreading mostly unquestioned among the political left.” She added that”[w]omen and girls are expected to provide up their places of privacy like restrooms, locker rooms, and even prison cells.”
From a free speech and academic perspective, the problem isn’t the merits of the argument but the decision of the college to issue a public condemnation. The announcement includes the following:
A faculty member’s First Amendment and academic freedom rights are not boundless, however, and must be exercised responsibly with due regard for the faculty member’s additional duties, including their duties to the University’s students and the University community. As stated in the above referenced papers, faculty have a particular duty to show due respect for the views of other people and to”exercise critical self-discipline and judgment” and”appropriate restraint” in transmitting their personal opinions.
I am concerned what students will”learn from this situation.” The college claims that professors don’t enjoy”boundless” rights and that they need to”demonstrate due respect for the views of other people and to”exercise critical self-discipline and judgment” and”appropriate restraint.” However, the objection is that Hughes published her views about LGBTQ writings. What will the mandatory”restraint” look like in this case? The University says categorically that her”viewpoints” of LGBTQ foundations”may lead to pain and distress for most transgender individuals” and the college”does not support” them.
The only means that Hughes couldn’t cause such injury would be to stay quiet on her criticism of the motion. This is a matter that runs to the very core of her writings as an academic and individuality for a feminist. I am happy that the college has not taken taken to fire Hughes or Loomis. I have no problem with President David Dooley speaking in his personal capacity against Hughes or composing a counter essay addressing her different factors of criticism. However, he decided to have the college as a whole condemn an academic for expressing her objections to LGBTQ writings from her very own feminist view.
The silence of additional school in the college to confirm their student’s rights to free speech and academic freedom is, again, deafening.
Like this:Just Like Loading…