CARROLL: Star Chamber at CC
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Colorado College
Tomi-Ann Roberts
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
I'm delighted to hear from the director of Colorado College's Feminist and Gender Studies Program that many of her colleagues "disagreed" with the abominable way that two male students were recently treated after publishing a satire of a radical feminist flier called the Monthly Rag (see today's Speakout, "Feminists at CC seek dialogue").
Not that professor Tomi-Ann Roberts actually uses the word "abominable." She is too busy building her case that the satiric flier was a "hostile" voice - which it was not, and which you can verify by reviewing it and the publication it parodied at the Web site of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (thefire.org).
A more accurate term for both might be "somewhat juvenile."
In her response to my original column on this topic ("CC's free-speech fears," April 8), Roberts makes two remarkable claims. First, she denies that the students "were subjected to a punishment" for exercising their First Amendment rights. She manages this feat by failing to note that the dean of students found the two young men guilty of "violating the student code of conduct policy on violence under the college value of Respect." This alarming but baseless finding goes into their files, I was told by an associate dean.
More to the point, the process itself was the punishment: being hauled before a "conduct board" to be grilled for more than three hours on the students' personal beliefs and attitudes, fearing that a wrong answer risked possible expulsion. As political science professor David Hendrickson complained in the student newspaper, "This entire procedure was in fact an atrocious invasion of the most elementary personal rights. I do not know of any system of jurisprudence in the modern world that would give a formal sanction to this miscellany of unguided missiles directed at the supposed perpetrators."
Finally, Roberts marvels that anyone would assume that radical feminists on campus might have had a hand in pressing for the inquisition. In fact, the assumption flows inevitably from the nature of the panel's queries. As Hendrickson reconstructs the questions, they included such gems as, "Have you ever taken a feminist and gender studies class? Have you ever felt threatened on campus? What is feminism, to you? What is traditional masculinity, to you? What do you think your position in society is? How do you think this relates to issues of race, class, gender and power on this campus and in the wider society? What was your intent? Did you write this thinking that your favored position within an oppressive power structure would absolve you of accountability for your acts?"
Why, perish the thought that this witch hunt had anything to do with the fact that the satire's targets were hypersensitive, radical activists determined, by Roberts' own admission, "to fight back." Of course not!
Colorado College is an excellent school, evidence for which includes the fact that many students and professors are apparently disturbed by the Star Chamber-type proceeding that was used to intimidate two free thinkers. But it's time for President Richard Celeste to reaffirm the college's core values; he could do that by repudiating the way the office of student life investigates student conduct and by apologizing to two students tarred by an absurd and despicable finding.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
April 16, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Why didn't the publishers of "Monthly Rag" get the same (meaning EQUAL) treatment that the "dudes" got? Why wasn't their discussion of male castration a violation of "the student code of conduct policy on violence under the college value of Respect"? After all, talking about removing a man's genitalia is an implied threat of violence!
I demand equal treatment for the publishers of the "Monthly Rag"!
April 16, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
I wonder if a lawsuit can be brought against Colorado College and the ultra-feminists for violating freedom of speech?
My answers to any of the questions they asked would've been, "It's none of your business" because in reality, it isn't any of their business what viewpoints students have in relation to those questions. I'd like to know if any of the feminists have taken classes on being more sensitive to the needs and thoughts of men, because otherwise, they're hypocrites for pretending to care about the treatment of all people when all they really care about is one of their own. Attacking the students like they did exposes how much their ego's need boosted, and Colorado College now has a black eye for attacking freedom of speech under the guise of respect for other students.
April 16, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
kathyM....... good comment! Funny that the publishers of the monthly rag talk about castration for men but they'd be the first to abbhor any mutilation of female genitalia. Neither's acceptable.
April 16, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
come on vince...two articles about this nonissue in as many weeks?
April 16, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Jay- nonissue???? I often agree with you, but we're on opposite sides here. These students were punished for their exercise of free speech.
April 16, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
meh...mountain out of a molehill
April 16, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oracle writes:
The brownshirts who run the feminism re-education camp at CC are so
thick-headed and humorless, they cannot see the galaxy sized irony in asking:"Do you think your privledged place in the power structure grants you immunity...etc." Who exactly is wielding power
in a VERY privledged place. Tomi-Ann Himmler would have those guys
standing against a wall if she could.
April 16, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
how were they punished exactly? All that I have seen is that they were questioned. It is a mountain out of a molehill
April 16, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Landman08 writes:
It is usually a sure sign that someone is incapable of making a reasoned defense of their position when they declare that an issue is "a non-issue". Jay, can you make a reasoned argument? The many articles and comments on this issue seem to lay waste to your non-issue suggestion. Fire up your dormant brain and have a go at it bud.
April 16, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jkl writes:
Spencer: One of the students aspires to attend Yale Law School. The letter in his file will be looked upon negatively by the decision makers at Yale, possibly precluding admission to Yale as the result of this kangaroo court action. Yet, the feminists have no adverse impact. What one person calls a molehill may turn out to be a very big mountain for an excellent student (he has a 3.9 GPA).
April 16, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
so take the letter out of his file. Then what punishment have they received?
April 16, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Landman08 writes:
Spencer - I would equate your suggestion about taking the letter out of the file to an agreement that it is punitive. Punitive as in punishment. Thanks for coming around on this issue - what took you so long?
April 16, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
braveroo writes:
I agree with Spencer's first post. It seems that all that the school administration did is to "talk back" at the student. There was no punishment (suspension, expulsion, etc.). This is NOT a violation of freedom of speech. Think about it: how could speech (to condemn the Bag writer's speech) not be protected by freedom of speech too?
In contrast, when the Bag writers defaced and removed the Feminist Department's fliers, that's a violation of the Feminist's department's freedom of speech.
If the Bag writers truly value freedom of speech as a vehicle for civilized discussion and progress, then they should make use of this to have a respectable dialog instead of hide behind the rhetoric of "violation of free speech."
April 17, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
braveroo, there was no punishment??? I think you need to actually read the article and what actually happened instead of skimming through a few words and making an uneducated opinion. The students were questioned for hours on subjects where the answers are none of the business of the school or the feminists in question. Then putting a letter in their files is adding to the punishment. Think of it this way, if your employer grills you for hours on your personal beliefs and comments outside of work and didn't agree with your answers, and then they put a letter in your employee file that is detrimental to your record, would you be okay with that?
April 17, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Well, the men in question have officially been labeled as violent. They will feel this punishment when they apply for grad school. No one wants violent people in their school.
I read both of the flyers and don't think the men's was any worse then the women's. They are both slightly offensive, pedantic, and pointless.
The men were labeled as violent for, I assume, mentioning a firearm. Something that is mentioned in most major newspapers daily and is the subject of conversations across the US. They also mentioned a chainsaw but it's clear they weren't advocating it's use as a weapon.
Mention a firearm at a politically correct college and you are considered violent. Mention castration and you are exercising your free speech.
All of it should have fallen under the banner of free speech but the men offended the wrong people, organized feminists.
April 17, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
robrob writes:
It's encouraging to see that Roberts even feels the need to say anything in this case. Campus gender feminists rarely feel the need to explain themselves. Perhaps her input is partly because even she sees the absurd hypocrisy in the treatment of the two sets of authors of the magazines. In their minds, it is simply impossible that discussion of male genital mutilation could create a "hostile" environment. After all, how can the oppressor be oppressed? However, the Monthly Bag article is clearly threatening in their minds. Baffling. Fortunately, many Gender and Womens Studies students rarely leave their protected environments, preferring instead to hang around academia indoctrinating more young females with outdated dogma. Funnily enough, I sat next to a guy on the plane this morning who on observing me reading this article confided that his company has an unofficial policy not to interview or hire anyone with a major in Women's Studies. His reasoning? They want open minded critical thinkers who can work with all humans, and don't have an inherent superiority complex over men.