Career-Ending Consensual Affairs

Two somewhat related stories have caught Curmie’s attention of late.  What they have in common is that elite universities are now punishing scholars for romantic/sexual affairs with students or colleagues, relationships which have long since ended.  The cases differ in significant ways, too, with the result that Curmie can’t decide which is worse.

Joshua Katz

Let’s take them in the order they appeared on Curmie’s radar.  In 2006, and apparently for some time thereafter, Princeton Classics professor Joshua Katz engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship with a student.  Apparently, the affair began when the young woman was a junior and continued until after her graduation.  OK, so Katz would have been pretty close to twice her age, so there’s a little bit of an “ick” factor, and it’s not at all unreasonable for a university to forbid even ostensibly consensual relationships between faculty and students.  

In this case, apparently, the student in question was Katz’s senior thesis advisee, so that complicates matters considerably.  Katz claims “It was a consensual relationship. It did not involve — nor has anyone ever suggested that it involved — any coercion, harassment, or quid pro quo.”  This may be true, but it’s still not unreasonable for the university to raise a skeptical eyebrow in response.

But it’s not until 2018, over a decade later, that Katz was punished for the affair: a one-year suspension without pay.  The now-former student apparently refused to participate in the proceedings.  (What inspired the investigation to begin with is unclear, at least to Curmie.)

OK: what follows next may look unrelated, but go with me here…  In 2020, in the immediate aftermath of the Great George Floyd Kerfuffle, a group of Princeton faculty—literally hundreds of them—signed an open letter to university officials, demanding that the university “publicly acknowledge the way that anti-Black racism, and racism of any stripe, continue to thrive on its campus.”  It’s pretty predictable fare, including both important aspirations and ridiculous, even illegal, demands like automatically granting black faculty course relief and summer salary.  Particularly noteworthy in Curmie’s mind was the complaint that faculty of color are “routinely called upon to exert influence in hiring committees.”  It requires little imagination to guess what the complaint would be if this were not the case. 

Anyway, in a published response on Quillette, Professor Katz had the audacity to suggest that the Faculty Letter might have been something less than the divinely inspired.  Katz argues that there are four potential reasons for affixing one’s name to that document:

(1) They believe in every word. I suppose this is true for a few, including, presumably, those members of the faculty who were the initial drafters.

(2) They signed without reading it. I would not ordinarily believe this, but I am aware of a similar petition, not at Princeton, that people were asked to sign—and did so!—before knowing what they were putting their name to.

(3) They felt peer pressure to sign. This is entirely believable.

(4) They agree with some of the demands and felt it was good to act as “allies” and bring up the numbers even though they do not assent to everything themselves.

Katz believes that #4 was the principal reason many of his friends signed on.  Curmie suspects #2 and #3, as well.  I just hope that few professors at one of the nation’s greatest universities fall into category #1.

Katz then launches into a lengthy, more or less point by point, decimation of the group’s demands (which are far longer than Katz’s response).  You can read it for yourself, Gentle Reader.  Curmie merely calls attention to two important elements: 1) that Katz supports some of the points raised by his colleagues, is neutral about some, and opposed others. 2). He is unequivocal in his belief that his fellow faculty are free to believe and indeed to say what they choose about their concerns: “To my colleagues who signed the Faculty Letter: If you signed it independently and thoughtfully, good for you.”

Oh, one more thing: Katz describes “Black Justice League, which was active on campus from 2014 until 2016, [as] a small local terrorist organization that made life miserable for the many (including the many black students) who did not agree with its members’ demands.”  This rather expansive use of the term “terrorist,” a locution he subsequently defended (here), of course, allowed those who disagreed with Katz to ignore the substance of his essay and to concentrate on what they labeled as racist commentary. 

Shortly thereafter, calls began to have Katz censured or, despite his tenure, fired.  Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber argued in a statement to The Daily Princetonian that “While free speech permits students and faculty to make arguments that are bold, provocative, or even offensive, we all have an obligation to exercise that right responsibly.”  

That student newspaper also reports that “University Spokesperson Ben Chang said in a separate statement that the administration “will be looking into the matter further.”  Well, that’s certainly not chilling of free expression, right?  Notice that there’s no similar denunciation of those who call Katz a racist.  (It is hypothetically possible, of course, that Eisgruber did indeed say something of the like, but the editors of an undergrad newspaper sort of casually forgot to include that part.)

Eisgruber finally, a few days later, issues another statement, this time affirming free speech, and even granting that other parts of Katz’s essay are worthy of consideration.  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) responded: 

FIRE applauds Eisgruber’s message, but has to ask: What took so long? Free speech is a founding principle of higher education, eloquently enshrined in Princeton’s own regulations with such forceful statements as, “[I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive[.]

Good point.

Anyway, there’s more—a lot more—but you see where we’re going here, don’t you, Gentle Reader?  We jump ahead in time to 2021, when, for undisclosed reasons, the young woman with whom Katz had had a fling over a decade earlier suddenly decides to share information about that old relationship with university officials.  Apparently she gives them emails (Katz says they were de-contextualized) and accused Katz of trying to dissuade her from seeking counseling while the relationship was going on or from cooperating with the 2018 investigation.

So now, to use a term that appears not infrequently in criminal cases involving double jeopardy, Princeton wanted, and got, another bite of the apple.  The university, of course, contends that these were entirely new allegations, thereby freeing them to pursue their witch-hunt punish Katz for being insufficiently Woke legally and ethically take further action against Professor Katz.  Oh, and of course none of this has anything to do with Katz’s criticism of the “anti-racism” initiative.  (Curmie’s mantra: if you have to tell me, it ain’t so.)

Predictably, Eisburger urged the university’s Trustees to fire Katz (reminder: he had tenure); they obediently complied earlier this month. 

Take-aways:

1). Trustees, Regents, Councilors, whatever they’re called at a given university, will always, and I do mean always, rubberstamp any truly idiotic idea from the administration... unless, of course, their de facto job is indeed to be a rubberstamp (hiring faculty, tenure and promotion decisions, honorary degrees, etc.), in which case they consider themselves free to interfere.

2). The relationship between Katz and the student was consensual, albeit uneven in power dynamics.  Were this a criminal case (which Curmie understands that it was not), it would be thrown out for not one, but two, irrefutable reasons: not only double jeopardy, but also timing.  Whatever we think of Katz’s actions, they fall well short of forcible rape, the statute of limitations for which in New Jersey is seven years.  Katz’s relationship with the student took place over a decade ago.

3). Had Dr. Katz been fired instead of suspended in 2018, it would have been reasonable. This was not.

4). It is possible that the two cases are, as President Eisburger describes them, completely unrelated.  It is also possible that the Nigerian prince who promises to reward me handsomely in the future in exchange for a short-term loan of only a couple thousand dollars is entirely on the up-and-up.

David Sabatini

OK—moving on to the second case.  MIT biologist David Sabatini was fired after having an affair with a considerably younger colleague, Kristin Knouse, who claimed he “groomed” and “coerced” her into a sexual relationship, according to a report and court papers.

There’s an extensive overview of the to-ings and fro-ings of the relationship here.  A few points to highlight: Dr. Knouse was 29 years old, a grown woman, when the affair started in 2018.  And she’s obviously intelligent: people with a PhD from MIT and just short of finishing an MD from Harvard (she finished that degree a few months into the affair) tend not to be stupid.  Does anyone else think that’s a little too old and a little too worldly-wise to have been “groomed”?

Moreover, although they both worked at MIT, she did not work in his lab or report to him in any way.  So there’s little if any possibility of a quid pro quo.  As NYU Medical School Dean Robert Grossman puts it, “If people are close minded to the idea that there can be a consensual relationship between two adults, I’m afraid we can’t make any traction.”

To be fair, there was a change in HR guidelines at MIT while the affair was underway, prohibiting lab heads from sexual relationships with co-workers.  It’s unclear whether the continuing affair, or Sabatini’s failure to report it, really constituted a violation of the new policy, as they weren’t really co-workers, per se.  Moreover, things were “fizzling” in the relationship, so it seemed not to matter.

The chances are very good, Gentle Reader, that you will recognize this scenario: X and Y were once lovers, but the relationship fell apart.  X now regrets having entered into the affair at all, blames Y for its demise, especially if it was Y who broke things off, and does not harbor exclusively positive feelings towards the ex.  If Knouse is “X” in this scenario, she’d be joining about 98% of the rest of us.  Good people like you and I, Gentle Reader, wouldn’t stoop to trying to ruin an ex’s career, but not everyone is as ethical as we are. 

Sabatini further argues that he was denied due process:

I was not given an opportunity to hear the allegations made against me and was never informed of the true nature of the allegations that were being investigated. The names of witnesses were withheld, and I was forbidden from speaking with any colleagues about the matter. I was not initially permitted to have any attorney present during the process, although others were.  

I was given no opportunity to present any exculpatory material nor to present witnesses. There was no cross-examination or any opportunity at all to challenge the claims. Though I was promised the opportunity to review and respond to any report before it was finalized, I was never allowed to do so. To this day I am unaware of who made accusations against me and what exactly they said.

Certainly the report initiated by university, though voluminous, is notable primarily for its squishiness.  Sabatini didn’t really have power over Knouse, but had “indirect influence,” whatever the hell that means, over her.  There wasn’t even the suggestion of a quid pro quo, but he had “experience, stature, and age” over her.  (The question “So freaking what?” rises to the surface.)

The report claims that whereas “we have not found any evidence that Sabatini discriminates against or fails to support females in his lab, we find that Sabatini’s propensity to praise or gravitate toward those in the lab that mirror his desired personality traits, scientific success, or view of ‘science above all else,’ creates additional obstacles for female lab members.”  So success and focus are now specifically masculine traits?  Curmie thought Sabatini was the one accused of sexism.

Colleagues claim that words were put in their mouths by the investigating lawyers, that the characterization of Sabatini as lascivious and retaliatory is “deeply insane,” and, chillingly, that they are unwilling to go on the record in support of Sabatini not because they believe him guilty of anything, but because they fear retribution should they publicly support him. 

By all accounts, Dr. Sabatini is brilliant—described by colleagues as a “genius,” “one of the best scientists alive,” “a pillar,” and a prospective Nobel laureate.  Of course, none of this is relevant if Sabatini did in fact coerce sex from Knouse.  But it does mean that if he’s really innocent, as he claims, that the loss to the scientific community—and indeed to us all—is especially significant.  The chairman of the board of NYU’s Langone Medical Center described their vetting of Sabatini for a possible position as “exhaustive.” The fact that NYU ultimately didn’t offer him a job can legitimately be described as pandering to the mob an absurd excess of caution.

Based on unsubstantiated allegations, hearsay, and a process that could charitably be described as flawed, MIT cut ties with a universally-acknowledged brilliant scientist, leading to an unraveling of his entire career.  The level of evidence adduced here, even though in serious dispute, could legitimately be a reason to deny tenure.  It isn’t even in the ballpark of enough to revoke it.  Unless there’s a lot more to the story than currently meets the eye, MIT is in for a serious reckoning.

So, which is worse?  Firing a tenured professor for an offense he’s already been punished for (and masking the true reason—to eliminate someone who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid of politico-philosophical orthodoxy)?  Or firing a tenured professor because his ex doesn’t like him anymore?  Curmie can’t decide. 

Oh, one more thing these two cases have in common.  Sabatini is already suing; Katz is almost certain to do so.  It’s a good thing Princeton and MIT have deep pockets.  Curmie suspects they’re going to need them.

A Little Rage about Uvalde

Curmie was going to respond sooner to the latest (please, God, let it be the latest) school shooting, the one in Uvalde, Texas on Tuesday of this week.  But the interwebs were already cluttered with charges, counter-charges, conflicting timelines, and incessant posturing from politicians, cops, and everyday citizens.

On the one hand, there were members of the “do something” crowd, who had little but grief and indignation to offer.  On the other hand, there were the “price of freedom” brigade, the ones who really do seem to believe that a few more dead fourth graders is a reasonable price to pay for being able to strut around with a weapon designed for one purpose only: to kill our fellow travelers.

Curmie usually responds to these situations with great sadness.  This time, though, sadness took a distant second place to insensate anger.  I’m not sure why the difference—the proverbial last straw? the fact that Curmie has literally dozens of former students, many of them now close friends, who teach in Texas schools? or was it the coincidence of timing that this event happened as a virtual warmup act for the annual ritual fellation of the NRA by every GOP pol who can get to Houston this weekend?

Indeed, the comment that really struck home with Curmie was this one from one of those former students mentioned above.  (It was on a friends-only Facebook post, so I’ll not identify the author beyond that.) 

Teachers are sharing their active shooter kits and plans on social media so we can keep our students as safe as possible.  Remember that the next time politicians try to make us the scapegoats.  We are doing everything we can think of to stop the potential loss of life and they are getting ready for the NRA convention.

Police doing about the same thing at a makeshift memorial
as they did when kids’ lives were on the line.

Timelines about the series of events are now beginning to emerge.  What’s clear, above all else, is that the whole “good guy with a gun” scenario is unmitigated bullshit.  The Los Angeles Times claims that at 11:32 a.m., “Officers and Ramos exchanges [sic.] gunfire outside the school.”  

A few hours later, ABC claims to have “confirmed” that Salvador Ramos was “approached by one Uvalde ISD school resource officer. No gunfire is exchanged.”  Guess what?  Either way, the people whose job it is to protect the citizenry allowed a teenager carrying a semi-automatic rifle and literally hundreds of rounds of ammunition to stroll into an elementary school.  (There are conflicting reports about where Ramos dropped a backpack containing more ammunition—just inside or just outside the building.)  

Parents and neighbors literally screamed at police to enter the school.  Why didn’t they?  Cowardice?  Certainly virtually every cop Curmie has ever encountered is a Big Damn Deal, at least in his own mind, if he’s the only one with a gun… but perhaps not so much under other circumstances.  Lack of a clear plan?  Well, welcome to the real world.  Or was it just coffee break time?  (Dammit, Williams, it was your turn to bring the donuts.)

Eventually, police “pin down” Ramos in a classroom (presumably the one in which he’d killed all the legitimate inhabitants), but they don’t enter the room until over an hour and a half later, in part because they can’t get the door open; eventually, a staffer with a key (what a clever idea!) lets them in.  How many of those kids bled to death or suffered injuries that would have been serious instead of fatal if the cops had their act together, entered the room immediately, and gotten the kids medical treatment?  (Remember, Ramos shot his grandmother in the face; at last report, she was in serious condition but still alive over two days after the attack.) 

Several of Curmie’s FB friends have alleged that at least some of the local cops got their own kids out of other classrooms after Ramos was “pinned down” before anyone did anything more than that.  There’s no link to a credible source that Curmie can find, but the fact that he even looked rather than dismissing the story as beyond credibility says something about Curmie’s respect for small-town cops in Texas. We can be grateful that the threat was finally eliminated, but no one with an IQ above room temperature is going to start singing “One Shining Moment” in honor of the cops on the scene.

Anyway, a good deal of the current round of finger-pointing centers on the fact that a kid who had just turned 18 was able to purchase two AR-15-style rifles and 375 rounds (that we know of) of ammunition.  He can’t buy a beer, but semi-automatic rifles are fine.  Priorities, after all.

Curmie will grant that many of those imploring authorities to “do something” don’t have a lot of specifics about what exactly to do.  But there are certainly things that can be done: outlawing semi-automatic weapons altogether would be Curmie’s preference, as they exist only to kill people (or to compensate for under-sized male appendages).  If we can’t to do that, then real, honest-to-God background checks, waiting periods, application processes, licenses, required training.  A Friend of Curmie noted in a recent Facebook post that he’d had to fill out copious paperwork, demonstrate personal responsibility, and wait three weeks before he was allowed to adopt a couple of kittens.  It should be easier to get a kitten than a lethal weapon.

Ah, but there’s a litany of responses from the gun-obsessed.  Let’s look at those arguments.

“They’re coming for our guns.”  No, that actually isn’t true.  Sure, there are a couple of outliers; there always are.  But Curmie has seen nary a politician call for the elimination of all guns.  Stop with the Straw Man arguments, please.

The Second Amendment!  Oh, puh-leeez.  Does Salvador Ramos seem like a member of a “well-regulated militia” to you, Gentle Reader?  Even leaving aside that troublesome phrase, there are a number of other problems with this rationale.  Curmie will grant that the US Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights is among the most important documents ever written.  Still, there’s not a lot of concern about quartering of soldiers (Third Amendment) these days, and the Seventh Amendment’s reference to values “over twenty dollars” rather expands the original meaning a little, given the roughly 3000% inflation since the ratification of the Bill of Rights.  Times change.  Slavery is outlawed now; women can vote. 

Weaponry has changed, too.  In the late 18^th century, you had a rifle.  You fired it once and then had to re-load.  The revolver wasn’t going to be invented for nearly a half century.  Now, an 18-year-old kid can fire off 30 or more shots in less than a minute, with a weapon that has no value for hunting or sport.  No one takes an AR-15 into the woods to hunt for deer.  Perhaps the Constitution not only could, but should, adapt to the realities on the ground.  You know, like President Biden said: the Second Amendment isn’t absolute.

Biden, of course, caught a lot of flak from predictable sources for saying that, mostly because it’s true.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but still allows for prohibitions against the proverbial “crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” as well as libel, treason, and incitement to riot.  Similarly, although the gun lobby pretends not to acknowledge it, the Second Amendment still does not allow a private citizen to own a nuclear submarine, a tank, or surface-to-air missiles (among other things).  No one seems to be up in arms (literally or figuratively) about this.  In other words, there is no absolute right to own whatever weaponry an individual can afford to buy.  The line is already there; we’re talking about moving it, not inventing it.

But… but… Freedom!  Sigh.  Apart from the absolutism about the Bill of Rights argument, we get two variations on the theme: the fact that the US grants its citizens rights that other countries don’t grant theirs, and a parallel argument that those evil Democrats want to deny us our freedoms, just like they did with the response to COVID-19. 

OK, it’s true that as Americans we can do some things that our friends even in other First World countries cannot.  Usually, that’s a good thing.  But the freedoms in question could reasonably be applied to, say, the freedom to attend elementary school without fear of being shot.  No, huh? 

As for COVID-19, the brouhaha about masks and vaccinations can be traced directly to the Trump administration’s colossal mishandling of the pandemic, largely based on misinformation being propagated by POTUS himself.  Newsflash: the outbreak didn’t disappear on its own when the weather got warm two years ago.  But insisting that students be vaccinated against COVID was an infringement on personal freedoms akin to the Holocaust, to listen to some of the loonies on the right.  Of course, vaccination against meningitis to even enroll in college (let alone to appear on campus) is required by a law passed by Texas’s Republican legislature.  But that, you see, is a highly contagious disease that can lead to permanent damage to vital organs or even death.  COVID, on the other hand, is a highly contagious…  Oh… Wait.

But Gun Control Won’t Solve All the Problems.  Of course not.  The reason we have laws is to reduce the likelihood of bad things happening.  There are laws against murder, rape, and burglary: all those things still happen, and with grim regularity.  But, as has been demonstrated time and again with reference to this specific topic, those restrictions help.  There’s a meme circulating now about how there was a single incident in Dunblane, Scotland, some 26 years ago.  Britain tightened its gun laws, and there hasn’t been a school shooting since.  Curmie checked it out.  It’s true. 

In the US, there have been over 160 school shootings that resulted in at least one death since the turn of the century.  (This is from the Wikipedia list; some incidents may be included or excluded from what you might think appropriate, Gentle Reader, but this is a pretty good ballpark figure.)  Given that school shootings happen when school is in session, roughly 180 days a year, that works out to… pretty damned close to one every 26 days.  None in 26 years vs. one every 26 days.

Inevitably that means, according to the gun lobby and their minions in the GOP, that there’s literally never a good time to discuss gun control legislation, because we’re ALWAYS in the immediate aftermath of a lethal shooting.  Please note that the numbers cited here refer only to school shootings: if you get shot at the grocery store, or at a nightclub, or attending a country music festival, or literally any place that isn’t a school, that doesn’t count.

Plus, of course, we must remember the Onion’s greatest ever headline: “‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”

Yes, But Freedom.  As noted above, there are many things to prefer about the American system than even those other countries where Curmie has spent a lot of time: the UK, Ireland, and France.  But this isn’t one of them.  We don’t have to join the EU to think that maybe, just maybe, they might have this one idea that works better than anarchy.

Well, He Was Mentally Ill.  Oh, OK, so spending more money on mental health concerns should be a national priority.  Oh.  No?  They’re all faking it?  Got it.

You Don’t Even Know What You’re Talking About!  No, Curmie doesn’t know a lot about guns.  But the banshees have never had a student angry about a bad grade reach into their backpack and…  In Texas, I’m forbidden by law to restrict that student’s right to have a concealed handgun, even in my allegedly private office, and they can legally have one without a license.  More to the point, it’s reasonable to have an opinion about something without needing to be an expert in the field or being directly affected.  Men can have an opinion about abortion; atheists and religious zealots alike can have an opinion about the church/state relationship; pacifists can have an opinion about gun rights.

Curmie has even seen the argument that if you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 means, you’re not allowed an opinion.  Anyone?  Bueller?  No, not “assault rifle.”  ArmaLite Rifle, after the company that originally made them.  And if you didn’t know that… who fucking cares?  We all know what a USB port is, and what a URL is.  Perhaps you’ve invested a few dollars in a company that’s listed on the NASDAQ.  Surely you know the general terms of the PATRIOT Act, right, Gentle Reader?  But if you can tell me, without cheating, what all of those abbreviations stand for, you are, like Gunga Din, a better man (or woman) than I am.

But You’re Being All Emotional.  You’re goddamned right, I am.  That’s not all I am, but I sure as hell am that.  Deal with it.

Capitalism and Free Expression

Curmie was mostly done with this essay prior to learning of yet another school shooting, this one with a death toll of at least 21, about six and a half hours west of Chez Curmie.  That situation is, of course, most on all our minds at the moment.  Going ahead with this post, Curmie admits, is in part an avoidance mechanism, because he just doesn’t want to deal with the fact that the politicians, especially but not exclusively on the right, have prioritized campaign contributions from the NRA above the lives of schoolchildren (and teachers).  I just don’t want to wrap my head around that right now.

A few glimpses at the uneasy alliance between capitalism and free expression: three stories from this month.

#1.  Lufthansa’s Unconscionable Anti-Semitism.  So, apparently a few orthodox Jews refused to wear face masks for a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to Budapest earlier this month.  Many US Jews started their journey in New York and were changing planes in Frankfurt to continue on to a Budapest flight.  Many if not all of these people were on a pilgrimage to the small town of Bodrogkeresztúr as part of an annual commemoration on the anniversary of the death of Grand Rabbi Yesha Steiner, who died in 1925.

(Curmie has some experience with changing planes in a German airport… with a traveling companion from a country from which, at least at the time, Germany required a visa, even if all you were doing was changing planes.  Not the most fun travel experience in my life.  But I stray…)

We can disagree, Gentle Reader, about whether mask-wearing is a medical necessity, an essentially useless exercise in virtue-signaling, or somewhere in-between, but the fact is that both nations and corporations are free to set their own rules.  Don’t wear a mask; don’t get on the plane. Simple as that.  So Lufthansa staff enforced the rules, and did not allow those passengers to board.  So far, so good, right?

Well, they took the policy a little further than that.  Citing the article linked above:

Lufthansa staff allegedly blocked all passengers who were visibly identifiable as Jewish from boarding their connecting flight, German daily Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung reported.  Local German media reported that the staff excluded those passengers who were recognisable as being Jewish because they were wearing skull caps or had sidelocks.

This would be a German corporation, in Germany, deciding that all Jews, not just those refusing to obey the rules, present a problem to public order and must be quarantined, lest they… well, whatever nefarious thing they might do.  Not the best of looks, there, Lufthansa.

Naturally, whether out of honest conviction or risk minimalization, the highers-up at the airline and the local pols scrambled to apologize.  Lufthansa proclaimed “zero tolerance for racism, antisemitism and discrimination of any type,” and the anti-semitism commissioner for the state of Hesse asserted that “this is discriminatory and not a trivial matter, and all the more reason why the company’s top management should also feel personally responsible for apologising for this incident and taking a clear and unequivocal stand.”

Sure.  Unsurprisingly, the Anti-Defamation League is unconvinced of the sincerity of the corporation: “This non-apology fails to admit fault or identify the banned passengers as Jews. It also refers to them as a group, even though many were strangers. They had one commonality—being visibly Jewish.”

Curmie knows little to nothing about German law—whether there were criminal offenses committed or whether Lufthansa can be sued in a civil case.  But he does know this much: Lufthansa had better do a full-scale investigation culminating in firing the offending employees—at the very least the supervisor who was recorded saying “everyone has to pay” for the handful of Jews who violated the mask order, “it’s Jews coming from JFK…. Jewish people who were the mess, who made the problems ... just for this flight.”   If not, they will not only lose all credibility as an ethical corporation, but they will also be lucky to escape with only eight figures of lawsuit payouts.

#2.  Netflix and the Warning Shot.  There’s no one to cheer for in this one.  Netflix, which recently underwent the first quarter of declining subscriptions in a decade, is still flexing its corporate muscles, sending what one headline calls a “warning shot at its woke employees” who objected (for example) to the network’s continued affiliation with Dave Chappelle, whose comedy special those employees regarded as transphobic.

Here are selections from the “Artistic Expression” section of the new corporate culture memo:

Not everyone will like — or agree with — everything on our service….  While every title is different, we approach them based on the same set of principles: we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices….

As employees we support the principle that Netflix offers a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful. If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.

Things get a little vexed on the free speech arena here.  Some topics are inherently not funny; others bother only those who need more bran in their diets.  Curmie has never found Chappelle even moderately entertaining, so, not having seen the Offending Object, is ill-positioned to comment on the extent (or existence) of its offensiveness.  But, of course, although the brouhaha seems centered on a single offering—Netflix’s original fare is largely progressive in tone.  Those on the right who cry “Woke” may do their cause little good, but they’re not fundamentally wrong.

Netflix is, above all, a business concern.  They want to make money for their investors and employees alike.  They’re going to buy the programs they think will attract viewers and not the ones they think won’t do so.  That’s the way it works.  If enough people want to see a Dave Chappelle special, it’s going on Netflix.  Same goes for projects like “Don’t Look Up,” another show Curmie hasn’t seen, but which his more conservative friends decry as leftist propaganda.  Perhaps it is; Curmie won’t care unless he’s forced to watch it, and for all the attempts from left and right alike, we aren’t there, yet.

It is tempting, of course, to grant at least some sway to the Netflix employees who are legitimately offended by the network’s offerings.  They—at least some of them—do not want to be associated with programming they cannot support.  (Others, let’s be real, live to be offended.)  But we’re not talking about a closed system here.  As Netflix’s recent hemorrhaging of subscribers, largely due to competition from Hulu, Disney+, etc., suggests there are other employers out there.  Capitalism as practiced in the US falls well short of a perfect system, but it’s the one we’ve got, and failing to recognize that reality just isn’t a good place from which to start an argument.

#3.  Not content with being censorious asshats (the usual hat-tip to Ken White for the felicitous phrase) in public schools, a gaggle of right-wing pseudo-Christians with a desperate need for increased fiber intake have shifted their focus to Barnes & Noble.  According to a couple of second-division pols looking to boost their images with the yahoo set, the Virginia Beach Circuit Court found “probable cause that the books Gender Queer and A Court of Mist and Fury are obscene to unrestricted viewing by minors.”

Curmie asks you to note, Gentle Reader, that whereas we all make typographical mistakes from time to time, the quotation above is a grammatical and syntactical nightmare.  It was written and posted on Facebook by a lawyer, Tim Anderson, who apparently passed law school without making a stop at 6^th grade English on the way.  (He mentions “parent consent” later in the same post.)  More to the point, it hasn’t been corrected in the ensuing week, suggesting that he believes what he has written makes any damned sense.  The one thing that is clear is the not-so-veiled threat to file (or encourage others to file) nuisance suits like this all over the state: “Suits like this can be filed all over Virginia. There are dozens of books. Hundreds of schools.”  Oh, jolly.

Barnes and Noble is hardly Curmie’s favorite store, but they responded with the only logical statement: that they carry “thousands of books whose subject matter some may find offensive…. We ask that our customers respect our responsibility to offer this breadth of reading materials, and respect also that, while they chose not to purchase many of these themselves, they may be of interest to others.”

An important point is made in an article on the Book Riot site: and not merely that “Neither book fits the definition of obscene and neither book is pornography.”  Rather, they note that “As a private business, they are not only allowed to sell what they wish to sell, but they are under no obligation by anyone to move materials out of their facilities. Further, no private business like the bookseller would simply ‘supply’ books to the school district.”

The books in question, by the way, are (of course) recommended by the American Library Association as being of particular interest to… you guessed it: teens.  And, of course, there’s little that will do more to stimulate the adolescent mind into curiosity than the allure of delicious naughtiness.  As the recent soar in sales for Maus after it was banned by a Tennessee school board demonstrates, the adage about there being no such thing as bad publicity seems at least as true as ever. 

But, easy as it is to make fun of the Bible-thumping hordes who seek to ban books they haven’t even skimmed, it’s also true that there are such things as legitimate concerns… they just don’t seem to be applicable here.  What is available to the general public—books, movies, whatever—ought only to be off limits if there is real consensus, not if just the wackadoodle puritans don’t like it.  Requiring a text for classes is a different standard, but simply having teens (or anyone) have access to material is essential to a society that is actually free.

What we’re seeing isn’t a dystopian novel—not 1984 nor Fahrenheit 451—but it does seem like the first chapter of a prequel to those books, and that is quite scary enough.

What Female Athletes Wear...

It seems we can’t go very long as a culture without someone complaining about how someone else dresses, how long their hair is, or related foolishness.  Most of Curmie’s commentary (at least here) has related to the almost (but not quite) uniformly sexist school dress codes that have forbidden five-year-olds from wearing sun dresses with spaghetti straps, de facto declared clavicles and shoulders erogenous zones, and are so unevenly applied that allegations of selective enforcement border on the obvious.  (Curmie isn’t going to link to all those stories, Gentle Reader, but you’re free to look them up.)

In a variation on the theme, there’s been a fair amount of publicity in the last year or so surrounding what female athletes wear.  There’s Paralympian Olivia Breen, who was told by an official her shorts were too short (this does not seem to have affected her eligibility, however).  There was the brouhaha over the Norwegian beach handball team’s decision to (OMG!) wear shorts instead of bikini bottoms, in defiance of the profoundly sexist edict of the International Handball Federation.  There was the IOC’s inane decision to prevent black women swimmers from wearing “soul caps,” which, if anything, would have created more drag than traditional headgear.  (Curmie actually wrote about this one, here).  Indeed, the fact that the German women’s gymnastics team made headlines for wearing regulation-compliant unitards rather than “traditional” leotards at the Olympics tells us rather a lot.

So here are two more stories about how female athletes choose to dress and the silly responses of people in power.  Both stories involve change.org petitions, although Curmie learned of one of them through other means.

Team members posed in sports bras
for a photo to accompany the change.org petition

Let’s start with the girls track team at Albany (NY) high school.  This may come as a surprise to you, Gentle Reader, but sometimes it gets hot in May.  Not only that, but doing strenuous exercise in that heat makes you feel even hotter.  Thus, some of the girls on the team, noting that the boys team was allowed to practice shirtless, sought to practice in sports bras.  Seems reasonable, yes?  No, of course not, according to school officials.

According to the Albany Times-Union, on May 12, Athletic Director Ashley Chapple asked the girls thus attired to leave practice.  The girls complied, but Jordan Johnson, a sophomore sprinter on the team, posted a petition on change.org to rally support for their cause.  At the Times-Union’s press time on the 17^th, the petition had gathered over 2500 online signatures; as Curmie writes this on the 22^nd, the petition has over 10,000 signatories (including Curmie).  You should feel free to increase that number, of course.

The girls—13 members of a 15-member team, apparently—were subsequently banned from attending a lacrosse game later that day, and suspended the following day for “inappropriate and disrespectful behavior directed toward an administrator,” which, of course was “in no way related to wardrobe.”  Oh, no, of course not.  You may believe this if you choose, Gentle Reader, but Curmie will indeed lower his opinion of your sagacity. 

The Hegemonic Legion of Doom School officials held a meeting on Monday with the girls—parents were forbidden from attending, for reasons you’re no doubt sufficiently worldly to guess, Gentle Reader—and reiterated their position before re-instating 12 team members (what happened to the 13^th is unclear).  Of course, the pseudo-educators in charge can’t even keep their story straight.  According to the girls, they were told by Principal Jodi Commerford that they were suspended for not wearing something over their sports bras because there were male coaches present.  What an insult to those coaches that they are presumed not be able to concentrate on their duties because some high school girls were wearing only a little more above the waist than those gents would see at any beach or swimming pool!  (OMG!  Midriffs!)

But if Superintendent Kaweeda G. Adams is to be believed, that’s not true.  So the problem was attending the lacrosse game (why shouldn’t they?)… or maybe something they said at the game?  School authorities say the girls were swearing; they say they weren’t.  The girls wouldn’t be the first to deny doing something they actually did; school officials wouldn’t be the first to lie about students in an attempt to extricate themselves from an embarrassing situation of their own making.  But since the power structure at the school has produced no legitimate rationale for denying the girls access to the lacrosse game to begin with (they aren’t charged with insubordination at their practice, only at the lacrosse game), there are only two possibilities: school officials are lying about the swearing, or they richly deserved it (or both, of course).

The real reason for the suspensions, of course, was that the girls had the audacity to go public with a change.org petition, thereby revealing the school administrators as authoritarian buffoons.

The suspension notices, by the way, state that each girl “poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disruption to the academic and athletic process.”  No, Ms. Adams, you’re going to have to look in the mirror to see someone who does that.

Latifa McBryde in action.

The other story pertains to Latifah McBryde.  She’s a Muslim wrestler who, according to the change.org petition, earned a place on the US team to compete at the Pan-Am Games in Mexico in July.  The problem is that for religious reasons, she “dresses in modest clothes and a hijab.”  Ah, but the stupid rules require a singlet.

Here’s the description of “A Wrestling Fan,” who started the change.org petition:

What do people in the wrestling room wear most often to practice? It’s not a singlet. What are high school wrestlers now allowed to wear in competition? Hint - also not a singlet. What does the Iranian Muslim women’s wrestling team wear? … Not a singlet! Latifah wears the same thing that the Iranian women’s wrestling team wears - knee-length pants strongly secured to spandex leggings, a long sleeve shirt also strongly secured at the waist and wrists, and a tightly secured headscarf sewed directly onto a rashguard.

Once again, as in the case of the “soul cap,” wearing what McBryde wants to wear is, if anything, a competitive disadvantage, so there ought to be no problem.  This, however, would be based on the apparently hasty assumption that the hierarchy of United World Wrestling can out-think a dead flounder.  USA Wrestling doesn’t seem to be much help, either.

If the NCAA—not known for either imparting justice or exhibiting intelligence—can ensure that a basketball team from Brigham Young University doesn’t have to compete on a Sunday in the NCAA tournament, then UWW and USAW can remove their phalangeal digits from their rectal cavities and find a way to allow McBryde to compete without violating her religious standards. 

In these two incidents, we see all-too-familiar patterns: blaming girls for being distracting (and concomitantly blaming boys/men for being so easily distracted), school officials believing their actions to be above reproach and their fecal matter odor-free, intransigent requirements imposed by sports authorities based on “the way it’s always been” without recognizing even the possibility of legitimate exceptions to the rule.

Curmie’s natural impulse is to look for guidance from Confucius, who has been referenced with approbation numerous times in this blog.  Alas, this time, Curmie is drawn instead to the wise words of a beloved former student: “People are stupid, y’all.”

Universities Behaving Badly (Again)

Universities behaving badly is a sport that never takes an off-season.  The economic straits engendered by COVID, the right’s ongoing desire to censor anything they don’t understand, and the left’s overblown reaction to the killing of George Floyd have all merely added fuel to a fire that didn’t need stoking.  Three stories, then, chronologically by the date of Curmie’s lead source for each story.

#1. St. Mary’s University of Minnesota is precisely the kind of institution that will take the greatest hit from the multiple factors affecting enrollment: politically-motivated cynicism regarding the legitimacy of higher education, unraveling support for student aid programs, declining population numbers for post-adolescents, perceived demand for outstanding brick-and-mortar facilities… and then add COVID into the mix.  St. Mary’s is a good school, but their “sticker price” is over $51,000 a year, more than twice as much as what an in-state student (and over 75% more than an out-of-state student) would pay at Winona State in the same city.  And whereas they have a good reputation, they’re not a Macalester or a Grinnell, whose graduates have instant credibility with prospective employers.  So it’s no surprise that they experienced a 13.5% drop in enrollment from fall 2019 to fall 2021.

Nor, alas, is it a surprise that their administration did two things in response: 1). panic and 2). use the enrollment decline as an excuse to abandon their mission in precisely the manner the administration had no doubt wanted to do for some time.  Curmie should probably mention here that he knows a little (not a lot) more about St. Mary’s than about most comparable universities: he has a friend who used to teach there, and the theatre programs at St. Mary’s and at Curmie’s employer at one time had similar exchange programs with the same British conservatory.  In some bizarre way, this makes it personal.

“Makes what personal?” you may well ask, Gentle Reader.  Well, this press release, announcing the discontinuation of some eleven academic majors, and a “new program portfolio…concentrated in business, technology, and the sciences.”  Even if Curmie thought the idea was a good one, pondering such jargon as “program portfolio” is enough to nauseate the hardiest constitution.  But, of course, turning a once-reputable university into an over-priced trade school isn’t at all a good idea; it is, in fact, remarkably stupid in every way possible, including the only one the St. Mary’s leadership seems to care about: financial viability.

Three years ago, Curmie savaged Goucher College for eliminating a host of majors and minors and pretending to remain a liberal arts institution.  Curmie directs you to that piece, Gentle Reader, where he makes many of the same arguments that apply to the St. Mary’s case: the schools are similar in many ways, and the betrayal of core values is (hat tip to Stevie Nicks) hauntingly familiar. 

But, frighteningly, the St. Mary’s case is even worse.  Both schools, of course, eliminated majors in the arts—hide-bound anti-intellectuals fear and loathe creativity even as they pretend to embrace it—and Goucher stupidly dropped math and physics, as well.  But if you’re going to call yourself a university, the list of majors that are absolutely, no-question-about-it, mandatory begins like this: 1). English.  2). History.  Guess which two majors are included on the St. Mary’s hit list.  Oh, and the erstwhile university seeks to impart its Catholic values by eliminating the theology major, as well.  Sigh.

Please allow Curmie to quote himself in a comment on his personal Facebook page about a different topic:

It’s the corporatization of higher education. Once upon a time, the goal was an informed citizenry, broadly knowledgeable and capable of critical thinking. But if you were one of the idiot politicians or CEOs who run the country, would you want that? No, you would want compliant drones, capable enough to do menial work but not to realize what a gaggle of wankers are at the top of the food chain... but you’d still want someone else to train them for you so you didn’t have to pay for that.

Sometimes Curmie hates it when he’s right.

#2. Old Dominion University is another well-respected institution that did something remarkably wrong-headed.  Curmie’s central source is a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but that’s likely behind a paywall, so you, Gentle Reader, can check out the basics here.

Dr. Allyn Walker (they/them) is a trans scholar, a now-former Assistant Professor at ODU, who wrote a book titled A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity.  Anticipating backlash, Walker makes it clear in the introduction to the book that “This book does not promote sexual contact between adults and minors” (emphasis in original), and sent university leaders talking points with which to respond to whatever outrage might ensue.  The book, in fact, is in large part the result of Walker’s discovery that there are adults attracted to children but who avoid any sexual contact.  Wait… really?  There’s a difference between having an impulse and acting on it?  Who knew, right?

Here’s Walker, describing the parameters of the question: “There is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all. In other words, it’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either OK or not OK. It’s our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK.”  This argument may not be unassailable, but to suggest it’s outside the realm of legitimate speculation is utterly ridiculous… which is why professional idiots like Tucker Carlson clambered over each other to jump on the Stupid Train first and hardest.  (It doesn’t appear that Walker was slandered in the narrow legal sense of the term, but the end result is all but indistinguishable.)

The complaint, of course, was with the term “minor-attracted”; they accused Walker of advocating for pedophiles.  In strictly technical linguistic terms, they’re actually right… well, sort of.  The term “pedophilia” actually refers to the attraction rather than anything more than that, but it has come to be synonymous with “child molester.”  Actually, of course, the Greek word φιλία (philía) suggests the kind of love between friends or equals… or that big city in Pennsylvania named for “brotherly love” would have a very creepy name, indeed.  But Curmie has strayed… back to the subject at hand.

In one of the first posts in this iteration of Curmie’s blogging life, some dozen years ago, Curmie wrote about the case of Gloria Y. Gadsden, who was suspended from her position at East Stroudsburg State University for two Facebook posts: “Had a good day today, didn't want to kill even one student.:-) Now Friday was a different story...” and “Does anyone know where I can find a very discrete [sic] hitman, it's been that kind of day.”  Anyone who has taught at any level for more than a fortnight empathizes with Dr. Gadsden; few of us have hired hitmen, though, however much the short-term temptation seemed appealing.

With the exception of the fact that Gadsden was joking and Walker was specifically and intentionally calling attention to the distinction between thought and action, the cases are pretty similar, up to and including university administrators once again demonstrating their uncanny ability to demonstrate hypocrisy, cowardice, and insufficient fiber in the diet simultaneously. 

In the Chronicle article linked above, reporter Emma Pettit wonders, “Did Old Dominion make a difficult trade-off between principle and public safety? Or did it cut and run when asked to protect a scholar with controversial ideas?”  Oh, that one is easy, Emma.  The latter.  A university worthy of the name would make a very public statement in support of academic freedom, even for a mere assistant professor.  (Side note for those not in academia: the overwhelming majority of assistant professors are untenured, and academic freedom doesn’t completely kick in until tenure.)  But, of course, the university, like most, is run by intellectual cowards and risk-averse morons.  Walker was promptly suspended and then “by mutual consent” (wherever is that eau de cow pasture coming from?), they resigned.

All of this happened last fall, but the Chronicle article brought it back into Curmie’s consciousness.  Curmie has no idea whether Dr. Walker’s book, or teaching, or anything else, is worthy of tenure or even of a contract extension.  But there is no question that Old Dominion checked all the boxes of how not to respond to a situation like this.  The good news, at least for Walker if not also for the profession, is that they’ve just signed on as a postdoctoral fellow at (get this!) the Johns Hopkins University’s Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse.  Curmie is pretty certain that hire will attract a little right-wing attention, too.

#3.  Illinois State University, feeling compelled to show that the left can be as stupid as the right, has introduced a new graduation requirement, to begin with incoming students in the fall of 2023, for a course in “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” 

Such courses already exist, of course, and already fulfill general education requirements. History/Sociology 111 (American Diversity: Contested Visions Of The U.S. Experience), and Latin America and Latino Studies/Sociology 109 (Introduction to Latina/O Studies) both fulfill the United States Traditions section of the GenEd requirements.  One suspects that virtually any course that checks the box for the Individuals and Civic Life section, while not focused exclusively on IDEAS issues (that’s Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access in Society, for those of you who might be jargon-deprived), will certainly spend a lot of time there.  Anthropology/English/Language, Literature and Culture 143 (Unity and Diversity in Language), Family and Consumer Services 222 (Cultural Diversity in Dress), Management and Quantitative Methods 120 (Diversity, Inclusion and Equity in the Workplace) all fulfill the Social Sciences requirement.

Ah, but you see, a student could, hypothetically, avoid any of these courses by taking different coursework in the humanities and social sciences, the same way they can avoid Western Civilization, a single course in a foreign language, or a second semester of English Comp, and we can’t have that.  So now there’s going to be a new category, and students will have to take at least one “IDEAS-approved” course, although exactly which courses will be so designated has apparently yet to be determined.

Usually, Curmie raises a skeptical eyebrow at protestations from the right about “indoctrination,” but not this time.  Be it noted that Curmie absolutely supports the availability of IDEAS courses.  But requiring such coursework really is an example of “adopt this ideology or fail.”  How does Curmie know?  Because he’s seen how these programs operate.  Victimhood trumps excellence every time, or close enough to it not to matter.  This is not to say that such courses necessarily lack legitimacy or rigor, but whereas Curmie can teach Racine without being a monarchist, Brecht without being a communist, or Kālidāsa without being Hindu, a professor who teaches an IDEAS course without believing in a particular politico-philosophical perspective and indeed expecting agreement from students is roughly as common as AOC saying something nice about Donald Trump.  Don’t expect a lot of contemplation of the fact that goals of “inclusion” and “equity” are often in opposition, for example.

Of course, Illinois State is hardly alone in all this.  Looking for some source material for this essay, Curmie stumbled across the fact that a different ISU, Iowa State University, had already instituted such a policy, and indeed maintained it in defiance of an equally stupid state law.  Curmie has consciously avoided looking up Indiana State and Idaho State, lest there be a grand slam.

Curmie isn’t sure whether to be somewhat relieved or even more apprehensive that he’s seen it all (well, nearly all) before in 40+ years of college and university teaching.  The Big Bad Problem was once sexism/sexual assault, then homophobia, then transphobia, and now racism… with a couple of short-term stops at Islamophobia after the Iran hostage crisis and again after 9/11.  In all cases, the response to a real problem was an initially unrestrained over-reaction: one case of date rape on campus meant every incoming freshman had to endure a “training” session.  Guess what?  The tiny percentage of prospective perpetrators didn’t pay any attention, and the overwhelming majority soon tuned out, as well.  “Don’t do something that you already know to be stupid, immoral, and illegal” doesn’t really need to be repeated for two hours, even if there’s a badly-produced skit involved.

We, which is to say academia in general rather than an individual institution, endured all that and eventually settled on reasonably intelligent policies to protect the rights of actual victims (or prospective victims) without labeling everyone and their cousin a perpetrator.  The system isn’t perfect, but it’s better than it was at striking that precarious balance. 

This situation seems different, though: both more sinister and more permanent.  Here’s a case where Curmie hopes, down the road, to be proven wrong.  In the meantime: Curmie, although officially retired, taught a course a semester this academic year, but isn’t currently on the schedule to teach again in the fall.  As he looks around at the current state of higher education, especially at those in leadership positions, he increasingly believes this to be a consummation devoutly to be wished.