The Laura Kipnis case and the battle against thought police
In February, Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis published an article questioning the current atmosphere on college campuses concerning sexual relationships in general and relationships between students and faculty in particular. According to Kipnis, an author and professor of media studies, the recent changes made at NU for the supposed purpose of combating sexism are anti-feminist, infantilizing toward students, and presuming the guilt of professors. Some students did not care for her views, and rather than behave like mature young adults who might encounter a disagreeable opinion, get over it, and move on with their lives, they filed complaints against Kipnis with the university’s Title IX coordinator. They engaged in protests and petitioned the administration to condemn Kipnis’ “toxic ideas… because they have no place here.” As the job of a Title IX coordinator is to handle cases of sexual assault or harassment, the implication is that for a professor to publicly disagree with a student outside the confines of a classroom and without direct confrontation is now a form of sexual harassment, a state of affairs once unthinkable even by men’s rights activists, let alone liberal feminists.
Unfortunately, attacks on a professor’s writings outside of the classroom are nothing new. Ten years ago, a similar incident happened to Hans-Hermann Hoppe at UNLV. While his case began inside the classroom and Kipnis’ case did not, both cases ultimately involved essays written by professors which were not directly confrontational toward students and both cases resulted in a lengthy review process. In both cases, students felt entitled to protection from ideas and opinions which bothered them, and sought to silence dissenting voices rather than engage them in rational discourse. The details of the proceedings differ, and Hoppe’s was more serious in both length and potential sanctions, but both cases proceeded outside of established norms for dealing with complaints at their respective universities and neither Hoppe nor Kipnis were allowed to have their investigations recorded. Ultimately, both Hoppe and Kipnis prevailed against their accusers because they were willing to stand up to the forces of political correctness, academic tyranny, and censorship.
While it is good that established academics can survive such inquisitions, the real problem here is still unsolved. That such complaints are even entertained by university administrators creates a chilling effect against academics, especially junior ones, who may wish to express unpopular or controversial ideas. Even a university president can be brought low if one says something outside the box of “allowable” opinion but then caves to pressure from activists instead of standing one’s intellectual ground. This leads to self-censorship and a lack of discussion that is necessary to find solutions to important problems. The most important lesson of the Kipnis case is that the thought police are not yet defeated, and for the sake of liberty they must be.
<<A case against the Eighth Amendment++++++++++++++++++++Eight observations on the subpoena of Reason Magazine>>