No, it's not one of my articles today, but I felt that this story was just so good that it had to be shared. And it links to not one but two great Everyjoe articles!
So Laura Kipnis, a left-leaning female professor in the film-making department of Northwestern University committed the grave error of criticizing the new anti-harassment policies at her college and others, pointing out that they were based on paranoia rather than fact and questioning the concepts of 'consent' that are being pushed by these new policies.
As a result, she had a group of students protest her by marching by carrying mattresses (in reference to Emma Sulkowicz, who did the same as an art project and attention-getting exercise after her claims of rape against another student were rejected even by the ridiculously lax standard of University Kangaroo Courts), demanding that she be punished by the University administration for daring to pen an article even questioning a group of policies that made the court systems in Communist East Germany look like the very model of fairness and openness by comparison.
But that's not all! She then became the subject of a case of her own, under the very same Title IX procedures that are being used to justify kangaroo court procedures in dealing with Sexual Harassment/Rape/Assault charges on campus. She wasn't charged of sexually harassing anyone, mind you. In fact, at first (as is apparently, horrifyingly NORMAL in these procedures) she wasn't told what she was being charged of at all, only that she was subject to a hearing on charges she wasn't allowed to know about. She was also told that she was not allowed to have lawyers defend her, but the university would have lawyers prosecuting. The defendant in what passes for the "University Justice System" is not allowed legal counsel, whether facing sexual assault charges or the charges Kipnis was facing, which although (again) she wasn't even allowed to know the charges against her at first, she only eventually managed to find out were the grave Thought Crimes of "creating a chilling effect" (that could intimidate women from reporting harassment on campus) and of "retaliation" -- that is, incredibly, the argument that by writing an article that was critical of the Anti-harassment policies on campus she was trying to 'retaliate' against those policies. Yes, apparently on campuses today just saying you disagree with the anti-harassment procedures on campus means you could be charged under the anti-harassment procedures on campus!
Every time I think "this must be the absolute peak of postmodernist pseudo-activist Censorship-loving anti-civilizational thought-police Collectivists absurdity", something vastly more absurd happens. It would be funny, if it wasn't for the fact that people very literally can get their lives destroyed. These red-brigade style kangaroo courts have the power to destroy the careers of professors, or ruin the futures of young students, for daring to disagree with the privileged fantasies and outright lies of a molly-coddled gang of pseudo-activist idiots who actually believe themselves superior to everyone else and have no moral qualms whatsoever about ruining lives for the sake of what they imagine to be the 'greater good' (of them being in charge of everyone else's life, that is).
God help us if these people and their poisonous ideas continue to spread and gain power and influence in other areas than the increasingly-irrelevant Student-Loan-Debt Factories.
Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Solitario Egg + Gawith's Navy Flake