Thursday, June 05, 2008
In a puritan streak, Harvard University has forced several student groups who were planning on hosting a "Barely Legal" party to change the name -- or they otherwise couldn't hold the party, according to the Harvard Crimson and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). (Disclosure: Free For All writer Harvey Silverglate is Chairman of the Board of Directors of FIRE.) One student involved in the party's planning explained that the name was meant to imply the party "is going to be so crazy it should be illegal," but other students complained about the allusions to pornography. It's unfortunate that students are so sensitive on college campuses that they force their classmates to apologize even though their party ideas aren't "intended to imply statutory rape," but it's even more unfortunate that Harvard has shamelessly capitulated to student complaints and prevented students from expressing themselves. In the words of FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, "If Harvard is willing to censor something as small as a party with a mild theme, how can we believe that it will defend the expression of truly controversial views on its campus?" Updated (6/10/08 1:30pm): Readers who access The Free For All through the old site rather than the new site might see this post misattributed below to Wendy Kaminer because of software limitations with the old system. The post was penned by James Tierney, a research assistant for Harvey Silverglate.
Friday, February 08, 2008
By Wendy Kaminer,
Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily’s List, the formidable PAC for democratic women, seems confident that she speaks for me, or, at least, millions of women like me, in her letter lambasting MSBNC for demeaning women. “I know I speak for millions across this country,” Malcolm wrote, “when I demand that you take immediate steps and publicly tell us what you will do to eliminate this sexist and demeaning culture that has become so pervasive in your network.”
I know I speak for myself when I say that I found Malcolm’s letter a bit theatrical, as well as presumptuous. What was MSNBC’s offense? Correspondent David Shuster remarked that Chelsea Clinton has been “pimped out in some weird way” by her mother on the campaign trail. Yes, it was a stupid and at least arguably sexist comment: Has Shuster ever said, or would he ever say, that Mitt Romney “pimped out” his five telegenic sons?
Still, I’ve heard much worse, and I bet that Malcolm has too, although she does make a point of sounding shocked and appalled: "I'm sending this letter today to let you know that the misogynistic pattern in the reporting by your network must come to an end," Malcolm thundered, in her letter to MSBNC Vice President Phil Griffin.
"Your tolerance for this behavior speaks volumes about the corporate culture of MSNBC. If you refuse to take action, women across the country, viewers, sponsors, and consumers can only assume your implicit endorsement of this type of sexist commentary on women and repugnant treatment of our children."
I don't want to be unfair to Ellen Malcolm. I understand she has a job to do, pimping for Hillary Clinton; but I don’t think she's doing a good job for feminism by threatening to boycott the network for insulting the former first daughter -- an obviously intelligent adult who should be capable of defending herself. Of course, mine may be a minority feminist view. Over at the Huffington Post, Taylor Marsh shares Malcom’s outrage over Shuster’s remark, which she takes personally, along with “all women,” she implies: “By attacking Chelsea Clinton in this way they are attacking all women,” Marsh declares. “In what world do we allow political pundits to attack a young woman proudly campaigning for her mother, a woman who is running for president, then let them get away with calling her mother a pimp and the daughter a hooker?"
In my world, Taylor, we allow political pundits to say whatever stupid little things come into their handsome little heads; at least we don’t try to get them fired for offending us. But again, I speak for myself. Shuster was temporarily suspended for his remark, and he is reportedly about to issue an on air apology. I bet he won't be speaking for himself.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
By Jan Wolfe
University Presidents have
developed a strange knack for lauding the First Amendment even as they dispense
with it. That’s why it’s so encouraging to see Gene Nichol, President of The
College of William & Mary, match his anti-censorship rhetoric with action.
According to The Daily
Press of Newport News, Virginia, Nichol has permitted students to bring to
campus the Sex Workers' Art Show, a sort-of X-rated Vagina Monologues in which
strippers, prostitutes, and porn stars apparently rave about how much they love
their jobs (much to the dismay of campus feminists of the anti-pornography
school, I’m sure).
In a statement, Nichol said the First Amendment and
"defining traditions of openness that sustain universities" required
he permit the show be held at the college. "My views and the views of
others in the community about the worth or offensiveness of the program can
provide no basis for censoring it," he said.
That’s refreshing to hear. And even more refreshing to see being put into
practice.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
It may not be news that public officials sometimes use escort services and enjoy extra-marital perks; but a Washington D.C. madam (or, rather, alleged madam,) outing her clients is not the “non-story” that Harvey considers it. Hypocrisy among public officials is usually worth reporting, however unsurprising it may be. Personally, I want people to know when high ranking appointees in an Administration that advocates abstinence education and opposes family planning, sexually explicit speech, and prostitution are caught patronizing escort services.
So, while I lament the anti-libertarian biases of our culture that support the Administration’s positions on sex and sexuality, (and the criminalization of prostitution,) I can’t summon up much sympathy for now disgraced, former deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias. Before being appointed to his recent, late position in the State Department, Tobias was the Administration’s AIDS “czar,” and, as such, he advocated demonstrably ineffective abstinence strategies in the fight against AIDS, instead of striving to increase condom use. He also opposed prostitution. According to ABC News, he was responsible for enforcing Administration policy requiring recipients of AIDS funding “to swear they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking.” (You have to wonder if he signed a similar pledge or made similar assurances as the recipient of coveted political appointments; this is, after all, an Administration not averse to loyalty oaths.)
Hypocrites are often cowards, and Tobias seems to be no exception, offering the laughable defense that he had only paid for massages from his escorts, not sex. At least this may be helpful to alleged Madame Jeane Palfrey, who has cleverly threatened to name clients so that they can come forward and support her claim that she was selling fantasies and other legal services (like massages,) not sex. Prosecutors have called this blackmail. I call it only fair.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| June, 2008 (6) |
| May, 2008 (15) |
| April, 2008 (13) |
| March, 2008 (10) |
| February, 2008 (25) |
| January, 2008 (15) |
| December, 2007 (15) |
| November, 2007 (22) |
| October, 2007 (13) |
| September, 2007 (8) |
| August, 2007 (14) |
| July, 2007 (8) |
| June, 2007 (8) |
| May, 2007 (10) |
| April, 2007 (16) |
| March, 2007 (13) |
| February, 2007 (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|