The Politiconomist

Where Politics and Economics Hang Out

A Tepid Defense of Something Ted Cruz Said

leave a comment »

Yeah, I’m as surprised as you. But Ted Cruz is picking up some moderately undeserved flack for a comment about gun rights.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny – for the protection of liberty.

This is basically in the DNA of the Second Ammendment. (Though, it is somewhat ahistorical to suggest individual gun rights were the aim; it was very probably the right to form a militia.) This comes down from the Lockean tradition, where Locke justified overthrowing tyrannical governments. He didn’t have guns in mind; after all, he was writing in the last 1600s. Nonetheless, the founders of the is country were obviously fairly warm to the idea that, hey, maybe if you’re government is kind of awful, you should get rid of it. And they spent a lot of energy recruiting militias into their revolution.

What’s particularly interesting is that those same* people signed a document allowing you to be put to death for exercising that right against the new American government. There’s no tension here, at least not as far as Locke is concerned. It is the government’s job to protect itself, and its the people’s job to provide that, well, ultimate check.

But ultimate is doing a lot of work there. Let’s not pretend this isn’t paranoid dog-whistling to the Militia Movement. These are extremist groups who legitimately believe that the government is on the verge of a tyrannical takeover—often with New World Order mythology thrown in. Why bring this up if not to rile up the delusional wing of his party? Oh, did I mention some of these groups call for and commit terrorist acts?

Lindsey Graham, of all people, is saying that armed insurrection isn’t needed now. But he’s missing both the points. Answering the safeguard in a historical context means grappling with restricting gun rights prior to a tyrannical takeover, and as a protection against such. Graham is doing no such thing. Likewise, answering the dog-whistling requires a frankness that Graham is unlikely to show.

All of this is to say, I don’t really agree with what Cruz said; I differ on the safeguard argument. And I’d nod along with a questioning of whistling to known terrorist organizations. But, on the flip side, these are plausible arguments raising (at face) good questions with an impressive historical pedigree.

Cruz says enough patently crazy things that we could be reporting on without summarily dismissing the core argument behind the Second Amendment.




*A few, like Thomas Paine, refused to participate in the new government for that reason.

Written by R. A. Stark

April 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

On “Unpopular” Opinions

leave a comment »

Yes, I’m still stewing over a particular comment on my piece about Laura Kipnis. (This post will barely mention her again, in the event you’re thinking about bailing over her.) I addressed in a follow-up piece that I was less than impressed with the idea that free speech was in play.

But I think I was being a bit uncharitable.

The commentator, you’ll notice, never mentioned free speech by name:

If you want to understand where the author of this post is coming from, read this sentence a few times: “why exactly is someone who espouses Freudian positions being allowed into a debate about PTSD?” “Allowed”? Really? One more graduate student demanding thought control in order to prevent anyone saying anything that makes him uncomfortable. The whole post proves Laura Kipnis’s point. That may be why he wants her not to be “allowed” to say what she says. But he’ll never see that.

No, I think Kipnis’s point is crap, but this isn’t about her per se.

The commentator may be advancing a Doctrine of Protected Speech. That is, unpopular opinions deserve to be institutionally protected. This is broader than Free Speech in that the argument extends to private and psuedo-private (e.g., pubic universities) institutions. But it is different in an important way.

The word popular (and thereby unpopular) is thorny because it has multiple meanings. I think this is commonly understood to mean ideas that aren’t liked by very many people. We are better for having ideas that aren’t well-liked vetted. I think this argument fails in general.

Superficially, rarely are ideas that are opposed on campuses poorly vetted. Do we sincerely believe that sexism, sexual assault, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, and other staples of campus protests are poorly considered in academia? Have we not vetted these ideas ad nauseam? It is disingenuous to suggest that the debate here has been stifled. These ideas are largely vetted, past tense.

But to really appreciate what the popular understanding of the word popular gets wrong, you have to understand that popular contains connotations of being from common people. Unpopular ideas are those of the elites not held by average citizens. Here in Indiana, the Kinsey Institute’s sexology research is unpopular in the sense that citizens hate it. The work done there is well-vetted and, among experts who get a say, well-respected. But popular opinion around the state is that it is immoral and wrong.

Academics, more than the rest of us, face a kind of professional censorship. At it’s best, it is a meritocratic one. Badly proven ideas with public support aren’t published. Well-proven ideas that attack sacred cows are. When universities and journals extend the protections of the latter to the former because they are views held by a minority of people, they are the ones threatening healthy exchange.

Cranks who give talks at Universities are hiding behind the most populist argument of them all: Experts don’t know anything and use their power to stifle dissent. (We must tread lightly, of course, as there can be truth to this; being populist doesn’t make one categorically wrong.) When a university denies, say, a white supremacist a venue, they are doing so for the unpopular reason that experts overwhelmingly agree that the premise that whites are superior to blacks is incorrect and harmful.

How does Kipnis fit into this—briefly? She’s a professor of Radio, TV, and Film. She is not an expert on psychology, childhood development, or sexuality. These are all things she comments freely on. And while I agree more deference is owed than if she were, say, some debate coach with an obscure blog, critics in and out of the academy are hardly remiss to be asking why she deserves the protection of an expert on matters she is not an expert of. To answer my critic, why is she being allowed to pose as an expert on psychology?

Where the First Amendment protects The People from censorship by the government, the correct interpretation of the Doctrine of Protected Speech shelters Experts from The People. Far from being an example of censorship, this is a case of moderating a large, abstract forum. We fail academic discourse when we defer to arguments that academic speech shouldn’t be subject to unusual scrutiny.

And it’s the kind of environment we see cranks and other non-experts take advantage of.

Written by R. A. Stark

April 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM

Bush, Clinton, and American Dynasties

leave a comment »

Conventional wisdom is that Bush and Clinton will be squaring off in the general election. And—in an event never before catalogued on this blog—the conventional wisdom is pretty good. It’s far from a done deal; Bush has a tough fight ahead and the same could have been said about Clinton at this point in 2007. At any rate, that’s not my point.

My point centers over the conventional wisdom about that. Bush and Clinton are names we’ve seen in the White House before. The return of either marks a dynastic moment in American politics. And while this is true in a sense, I disagree that these moments are exactly uncommon.

Who’s Your Daddy?

The obvious place to start is with the Adams. John and John Q. were the second and sixth presidents, respectively. Quincy was undoubtedly helped by both his father’s name in voter recognition and connections, but he held his own as President. Among other things, he paid off the national debt and brought Florida into the Union. (The latter, of course, could be viewed as a mistake at this juncture.) And crucially, this example goes back to the very foundation of the Union.

The other obvious political dynasty is the Roosevelt’s. The Roosevelt’s were a powerful New England dynasty. When you think of old money on the East Coast with children in business and state, you are thinking of them. And in case it wasn’t dynastic enough, Franklin married Eleanor—a fifth cousin—who was the niece of Theodore. In fact, Teddy gave Eleanor away at the Roosevelt wedding. The Bush’s could only dream of this kind of thing. I would submit without analysis that Franklin was the superior statesman, and not because Teddy was anything to sneeze at.

The Kennedy’s are yet another famous political family. While they only made one successful run at the White House, JFK was backed by his politically well-connected father. His brother, Bobby, may well have been president—and one of America’s finest—had he not been assassinated*. And Ted was a long serving Senator behind a good deal of moving and shaking in the body.

The Romney’s did something not often seen in America. They were a powerful ecclesiastical dynasty in the Mormon Church who made the switch to a political family. If we accept the premise that spiritual leadership has a worldly component, this makes perfect sense. At any rate, the Romney’s have a tradition of failing to become president as deep as the Bush’s have of becoming president, so I feel they deserve a mention as far as political families go.

Nancy Pelosi is from a regional political family—the D’Alesandro’s in Baltimore. I bring this up less to suggest that Pelosi is from the same kind of political dynasty and more to point out that regional dynasties are very common, and long have been. Relevant to my neck of the woods are the Daley and Bayh families. The Bush, Roosevelt, and Kennedy families all were regional prior to rising to the national stage.

This makes a certain kind of sense. Family members are dually suited to repeat appearances on the political stage. Optimistically, family members are often similar. If John is suited to office, it follows that John Quincy is more likely to be. Cynically, family members often lend their connections and power to a run, giving an unearned advantage. As is so often the case, I think this is a spectrum, not a hard division.

Bush and Clinton

I think a closer examination of the two candidates personal histories is in order.

Jeb Bush is more clear-cut. He is undoubtably where he is at because of his father. Nonetheless, he proved himself a reasonably good statesman during his tenure in Florida. This should not be confused with endorsement of everything he did, merely the observation that he steered Florida ably and, where I disagree, still generally in good faith. There will come a time I take a harder look at his tenure, but this is not that piece. America could do worse than a third Bush.

I would compare him to Bobby Kennedy, with the proviso that I don’t think he’d be quite the caliber of president Bobby would have been. While JFK’s father was never President, he was influential and established a powerful political base from which family members could launch a campaign. The less able brother, John, won and after the memory of an unpopular presidency faded, Bobby ran. (A glaring difference is that Bush served his term and was never assassinated; Jeb does not have the slate wiped clean by national tragedy.)

Clinton does not strike me as so easily fit into a dynastic narrative. There is no doubt here that she is as far as she is because her husband was Bill Clinton. But it’s also hard to view the Clinton marriage as not stemming from a shared political ambition. (To be sure, it may well be more than that, but that runs through it.) And while that does not rise to quite the level of earned advantage, it’s of an altogether different quality than, say, Jeb Bush’s situation. Bill and Hillary Clinton are together because both are of presidential caliber.

It is not hard to imagine Abigail Adams running for president in a different time. She was smart, ambitious, forward-thinking, and probably a better candidate than her husband. In turn, Eleanor Roosevelt reinvented the First Lady to be the humanitarian office it became. She was a diplomat in her own right following WWII and a major contributor to the development of Human Rights law and norms. I contend the country is poorer for these women not being given a shot at dynastic rule.

Conclusion

What I will say is that none of this really establishes dynastic politics as a good idea. Those uncomfortable should be asking tough questions. What did the family do? What kind of unearned benefits are there? What have the pitfalls of this been in the past? Many of the families listed have skeletons in every closet. (The Clintons, of course, keep dozens extra.)

Instead, I’m suggesting that this doesn’t fit into the narrative that the United States is getting less equal. To be sure, it is, but the reality is that political families have long risen and fallen in the United States. Most presidents came from auspicious backgrounds, as did many of the failing nominees. There is something distinctly ahistorical about viewing Bush and Clinton as the aberrations—doubly so given Hillary Clinton’s (relatively) humble background prior to marriage. And the sitting president is a case study in rising well above ones station at birth.

America: Anyone can be president, but it has always helped to have a powerful family.




*An earlier version of this asserted that Bobby Kennedy was killed in a plane crash; that was JFK Jr.

Written by R. A. Stark

March 31, 2015 at 9:00 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

The Real March Madness

leave a comment »

Indiana is out of the NCAA tournament and calls for firing Crean have intensified. I was passingly interested in the whole thing until I found out the University would be out $12 Million if they ended Crean’s contract now.

$12 Million?

Further investigation revealed this may not be quite true; the exact date of termination means they’ll buy out only what he hasn’t been paid going forward. He’ll stands to gain only about $10 to $11 Million this late in the academic year. But this is the kind of clarification that clears nothing up. How on Earth can a public university justify that kind of expense, exact quantity aside?

So I did what any good nerd would do: I started digging.

Where Does IU Stand?

It turns out that if you want to read the public revenue data, you have to put in an open records request. I haven’t, though I might. (And if you have this data, please send it to me. Please, please, please.) This is the kind of frustrating lack of transparency that makes me mistrust IU and, importantly, make me think something is up. And it is.

One of the reasons I’ve not put in an open records records request, besides the fact that they will make me wait forever, is that USA Today has helpfully compiled a tabulation of total revenue and expenses. The University makes a whopping $76,660,265 a year off of athletics.

That’s a ton of money, but then it is a large family of programs; we’ll get to that. The next number I want to throw your way is how much the University forks over to support it: $2,561,958. That’s full time tuition for about 250 in-state students. That’s right, fill up a lecture hall and you’ve got the number of people who could be there for free—at least as a simple accounting matter. We’ll get into the harder questions about what the school gets for running at a loss, but don’t let anyone tell you that this is a direct money-maker for the University. They’re subsidizing it.

To be clear, athletics is coming out ahead, even after discounting for the subsidy. But that raises more questions that it answers. Athletics is supported by the university so that it can pocket a profit? It is virtually impossible to justify this on its face.

Another vexing aspect of all this is how, excepting a few top-tier salaries, the lines seem fairly reasonable. Expenditures are available (PDF). I don’t doubt that a pair of competent water polo staffers cost the University 50K apiece per year. But what is also weird is that the Volleyball staff averages closer the amount assistant professors make. These are not exactly modest numbers, well above the mean income for the nation. (70K is hardly princely, however.) I can’t help but ask: is this the business the University should be in?

Most of the numbers aren’t terribly large; the headlining programs are expensive to run, but that’s not quite a surprise. Basketball Operations (paying to run that program) costs $2,239,157. We’re out a whopping $6,839,222 to run football—and that’s before maintaining that stadium that was recently built.

But at least some of it is going to scholarships? Well, yes. And $12.4 million; it’s one of the largest items associated with the department. And, by total coincidence, it is about how much IU would owe Tom Crean if they fired him. If Tom Crean were fired today, he’d be entitled to the same amount of money as every single student athlete put together got (IN KIND, NO LESS) last year. That fact alone is enough to make me want to take a leaf out of his predecessor’s book and throw a goddamned chair.

So, let’s review. The accounting of this publicly run business is hard to find. When you do, it tuns out that it runs at a loss. The loss is mostly accumulated by running most things just a bit oversized. It is only modestly beneficial for involved students. And if the head basketball coach is fired, he stands to gain as much every student athlete together gained last year.

But here’s the thing. I’m not convinced that it’s fair to suggest that athletics and academics are what’s at odds here.

Crazy Growth

But it’s when you start digging into growth of the college athletics that things start to look warped. For a baseline, household income has grown 20% since 2005. IU’s Athletic Department revenue has gone up by five times that, at about 101.9%. IU is making—and spending—almost exactly twice what it was in 2005.

You expect costs to scale with revenue, but you expect the proportions to be non-linear*; this is weirdly perfect linear growth. I would say that it is an odd market, except it’s a public university, not a business. It is building and grounds cost, according to the good folks at USA Today, which have outpaced even the wild expectations IU’s breakaway growth. Coaching is about on pace and scholarships are lagging behind—because of course they are. IU is perpetually behaving like a startup, where it invests all money made and then takes some investor equity to keep scaling up.

In order to remain competitive with the high spending schools, IU must sink more money into athletics. In order for everyone else to compete, they must do the same. They need better facilities, more amenities, and in general bigger everything lest someone else scoop up the big recruits. But pitting each of the schools against the other, all but 7 of them are losing money. (Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, Penn State, Nebraska, and…Purdue are the seven. I’m still a proud Hoosier, but they got us beat on this one. And! They’re are the smallest balanced program.)

You can bet that I’m going to open the can of worms about what schools have to show for this by the end of the post, but stick with me. This is part of why the NCAA and member schools are notorious for abuse. Even Penn State—you know, famous for the child prostitution scandal—is only coming out $4 Million ahead. Before the scandal it was making $20 Million a year over revenue; much of the difference came falling alumni support. In a callous way, you can see why hard questions never got asked. The student body came perilously close to paying tuition money because of a child prostitution scandal. Oh, and this was the kind of environment where a child prostitution ring sprung up.

This cold logic plays out again and again: a bad season can cost, so a bad season must be avoided.

Loss Leaders?

Supermarkets often advertise sales where they take a loss in order to convince costumers to go and buy other things from them. With the cheap pork chops, you’ll also pick up some oranges, bread, and wine. Athletic programs could operate in a comparable way, running at a loss with benefits.

Kind of.

Take this study (PDF), by Michael Anderson. It’s cleverly designed, using bookkeeper spreads as a baseline for unexpected success. That is, it finds the effects of doing better, not just maintaining your program. The findings are positive, but small:

Consider a school that improves its season wins by 5 [football] games (the approximate difference between a 25th percentile season and a 75th percentile season). Changes of this magnitude occur approximately 8% of the time over a one-year period and 13% of the time over a two-year period. This school may expect alumni athletic donations to increase by $682,000 (28%), applications to increase by 677 (5%), the acceptance rate to drop by 1.5 percentage points (2%), in-state enrollment to increase by 76 students (3%), and incoming 25th percentile SAT scores to increase by 9 points (1%).

A lot is going on here. The big deal here is that if your school is winning, you’ll get more athletic donors. That is money that goes in a box marked “athletics” and you’re committing a felony if you move it to a box saying, oh, I dunno, “fulfilling the primary mission of the University”. Still, other funds are fungible, and this can ease up on the subsidy coming from other parts of the university.

The remaining effects are very small. On a less than 1-in-10 event, you can expect to see your school raise SAT sores by 1%. IU would have to value these increases at 31 million dollars—that’s 3,100 instate tuition students—to expect to break even here. And that’s without raising the question of whether or not the university should be gambling on a zero-sum game. This study (PDF)—which is of a different character and lower quality—found that paying top-dollar for good coaches is hardly a recipe for success; rank mobility did not correlate strongly with coaching salaries.

Because that’s the flip side of this. For every game, only half the teams record a win. The other team loses. It is literally a sum-zero game. And if you don’t believe me, this is what the Anderson study had to say after interpreting his results optimistically:

Orszag and Israel (2009) report that a $1 million increase in “football team expenditures” is associated with a 6.7 percentage point increase in football winning percentage (0.8 games). If we interpret this relationship as causal, it implies that a $1 million investment in football team expenditures increases alumni athletic donations by $109,000, increases annual applications by 108, and increases the average incoming SAT score by 1.4 points. These effects seem too modest by themselves to justify the additional expenditures.

They are a bit more ambivalent when considering the athletic donations, which is the point. If IU cut their $2.5 Million subsidy, it’s not SAT scores or application rates that would be catastrophic. Extrapolating on Anderson’s analysis is difficult but one only has to to imagine that donations fall by 16%, all else equal, for things to come out even. If success were impacted following the subsidy cut, this is not outside the realm of possibility—especially once you factor in ticket sales, requiring only 8% each to fall. The numbers certainly line up for football schools. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

By the way, one thing the last studies did not consider was the effect on GPA. It turns out, having a winning football team around is bad for your enrolled students**. This study (PDF), for example, found that GPA fell noticeably based on win record. Noticeably again isn’t large. If you went from winning 25% of games to 75%, you’re looking at a mere .220 fall in GDP. If the average student had a 3.500 (for illustrative purposes), that means 3.280. If we’re going to in-calculate small benefits to recruitment, then these small detriments must be allowed to add up as well.

The empirical evidence is that football programs—and by inference IU’s basketball program—main benefit is that by paying into the monster, you prevent donations for athletics from going down. The main argument for continuing to subsidize athletics is so that people will keep donating money to athletics and buying tickets for the over-sized program.

Barriers

The big finding here is well-known—as long as Universities remain in direct competition for wins, college athletics will remain a giant money suck. This is depressingly likely. Again, from Tsitsos and Nixon:

Meaningful reform will have to involve the college presidents, boards, NCAA officials, and legislators, perhaps prodded by influential reform advocates such as the
KCIA. … [I]t is unlikely that efforts will be made to transform the fundamental structure of big-time college sports as a highly commercialized entertainment enterprise. Those institutions that have big-time programs are unlikely to want to de-emphasize them, and those who support and regulate college sports in the NCAA and the athletic conferences are unlikely to try to undermine their own power or position.

What’s more, it is actually illegal to set limits—it violates anti-trust law. That’s right, they can’t go out of business and they can’t prevent themselves from hemorrhaging money. And the losers are, ironically, students at public universities and taxpayers, who are by rights the people anti-trust laws should be protecting. And, vexingly, the NCAA isn’t subject to this same scrutiny.

Without an unlikely shift in student and alumni culture demanding that expenditures slow down while still being willing to finance what’s been built, it is unlikely that things will change.

Conclusion

The most concrete thing students and alumni can do is demand justification for current expenditures. I will openly admit that everything that’s gone by is only suggestive and a bit murky. My contentions here are that athletics at IU are losing money and that evidence suggests there are few wider benefits of that practice. The main reason I found in defense of running athletics at a loss is to keep alumni donations high—a dubious cycle. But inferences and digging aren’t good enough; IU should make these facts readily available.

Students and alumni should then pressure IU to run athletics as at least a break-even endeavor. Doing this may take several years of running down old obligations, freezing salaries, and generally navigating the justifiable expenditures. Scholarships should, under no circumstances, suffer.

Because this is what’s weird about this. Universities are competing with each other in sports as an advertising venture with little proof that they are doing terribly much more than paying for most—but not all—of the advertising overhead.

Or, we could just replace Crean and hope that we don’t end up in deeper next time.




*One of the simpler models I’ve encountered says that costs experience cubic growth while revenues experience quadratic growth. This is a modeling convenience as much as anything, but it’s a good baseline for further inquiry.

**IU does not suffer from this problem, but I feel confident extending the findings to Basketball. I used to live on the main ambulance route to Assembly Hall.

Written by R. A. Stark

March 24, 2015 at 10:46 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

Laura Kipnis Addenda

with one comment

I wanted to add two things to yesterday’s post about Laura Kipnis’s views on the current state of feminism. The first, almost rising to the level of correction, is a brief deepening of Kipnis’s relationship to Freud. The second is a response to the issue of free speech. I omitted it from the first piece because I thought I was flogging a dead horse, but then a commenter raised the issue and so more deceased equine beating is in order.

Freud

Two commentators—with different purposes—pointed out I was being unfair to Freud. Here is what a psychologist had to say about psychoanalysis for the New York Times:

Alice Eagly, the chairwoman of the psychology department at Northwestern University, explained why: Psychoanalysis is “not the mainstream anymore” and so “we give it less weight.”

The primary reason it became marginalized, Ms. Eagly, said, is that while most disciplines in psychology began putting greater emphasis on testing the validity of their approaches scientifically, “psychoanalysts haven’t developed the same evidence-based grounding.” As a result, most psychology departments don’t pay as much attention to psychoanalysis.

This is one of Kipnis’s colleagues from the actual department responsible for psychology. Certainly, academic back and forth is necessary, even healthy, but note what the psychologist is saying to the humanities professor. This is not scientifically grounded. She’s welcome to put forward her theories about human sexuality, but I will not pretend they are in any reflective of material reality until they are proven.

From the same piece I must also quote this, because it sums up how I feel about Freud so well:

The study, which is to appear in the June 2008 issue of The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, is the latest evidence of the field’s existential crisis. For decades now, critics engaged in the Freud Wars have pummeled the good doctor’s theories for being sexist, fraudulent, unscientific, or just plain wrong. In their eyes, psychoanalysis belongs with discarded practices like leeching.

Then there is the fact that Kipnis’s field is actually eschewed by practicing psychoanalysts:

“American clinical psychoanalysis, and analysis as represented in academe, are at risk to become two ships that pass in the night,” the report said. As an example, the report points to a course on psychoanalysis and colonialism, two terms most clinically based analysts would never have imagined in a single sentence.

“I honestly couldn’t understand what they’re talking about,” said Prudence Gourguechon, the psychoanalytic association’s incoming president, referring to those kinds of courses.

To Mr. Lilienfeld, much of postmodern theorizing has harmed psychoanalysis, saying it has “rendered claims even more fuzzy and more difficult to assess.”

Indeed, the defense from the humanities is telling:

Scholars in the humanities, he said, use Freud “skeptically and provisionally and don’t think of him as scientist at all, but as an interpreter.”

I don’t read Kipnis’s piece as “skeptical” or “provisional”. She actively laments that the view that kids want to seduce their parents has fallen to scientific inquiry. I simply can’t read that as anything but clinging to a supplanted theory because it supports her desire to fuck her students.

One of my commentators pointed out that there are plenty of good bits from Freud still active in modern practice. And the NYT piece in full does a good job pointing out that Psychoanalysts have some reasonable responses to scientific materialism. But Kipnis isn’t responding to the current paradigm; she’s sarcastically dismissing it for innovating past Freud. That’s not an argument—that’s claiming we knew what we needed to know about the human psyche before WWI without evidence.

Free Speech

If you think I’m cranky about Freud, that was just a warm up. From a commentator:

If you want to understand where the author of this post is coming from, read this sentence a few times: “why exactly is someone who espouses Freudian positions being allowed into a debate about PTSD?” “Allowed”? Really? One more graduate student demanding thought control in order to prevent anyone saying anything that makes him uncomfortable. The whole post proves Laura Kipnis’s point. That may be why he wants her not to be “allowed” to say what she says. But he’ll never see that.

Before I dig into this, two things. First, I’m not a grad student. Second, I’m still being oppressed by Smith College. Remember that vexing Jonathan Chait article I did a write-up on? In it, he claimed that, among other things, leftists were harming free speech by asking that their Universities be discriminating about who they let speech at commencement. He illustrated his point with an incident at Smith. The argument is obviously bullshit:

Lagrande has no liberal guarantee of a platform. She is free to do and say what she likes. And as the head of the IMF, she was subject to scrutiny. If free speech is her getting present at Smith’s commencement, the Politiconomist submits that he should be allowed to give commencement this spring. My rights are being violated until they do!

As of this writing, they have done nothing to rectify this violation of my rights. Juliet V. García was selected, violating my free speech rights. I will, however, accept an apology and the right to speak at a future commencement.

I kid, of course, but the same principle holds for Kipnis. She has every right to write and seek publication for her piece. But this comes with two counterveiling caveats:

  1. She has no guarantee of publication. There is absolutely no reason the Journal of Higher Education had to air her ideas. They absolutely could have taken the stance that Freud is unpersuasive and that she admits to sexual harassment in that piece and they wanted no part of it. In fact, as a corollary of the arguments I’ve laid out, my free speech is being violated until the Journal of Higher Education publishes my response to her piece. (I’m starting to feel dirty writing that, even as a joke.)
  2. People have every right to protest her and her piece. This is a basic, obvious matter of free speech. There is something so achingly hypocritical about the free exchange folks suggesting that she has some kind of unfettered right to hold unpopular opinions, yet they get to poo-poo our opinion that she is shilling toxic rape apology that has no place in any workplace, especially not a school.
  3. In short, this call, right here, that she not be given platforms to shill is free speech at its finest. I’m calling for the University and Journal to exercise their right to exchange ideas with her and say, no, in fact, they’re not buying.

Written by R. A. Stark

March 20, 2015 at 11:32 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 741 other followers