University of Rochester economics professor Steven Landsburg is under fire this week for his discussion of rape in a blog post. UR students have demanded his censure and are planning protests while UR has correctly refused to discipline Landsburg for an exercise of academic freedom. Indeed, these students (like the French students discussed earlier on the subject of free speech) have lost their bearings in demanding punishment for the expression ideas or opinions by a faculty members in my view.
In his blog — “Censorship, Environmentalism and Steubenville” — Landsburg discussed the recent case in which two high school students in Steubenville, Ohio, were convicted of raping a female acquaintance who was unconscious, incapacitated by alcohol. He opined “As long as I am safely (unconscious) and therefore shielded from the costs of an assault, why shouldn’t the rest of the world (or more specifically my attackers) be allowed to reap the benefits?” He added “If we legalize the rape of unconscious people, we will create an incentive to render people unconscious.”
Students were outraged and started a petition demanding that UR President Joel Seligman censure him. Daniel Nelson, a UR graduate student, explained “We want to give the university a chance to express its outrage. There are many people who have not signed the petition but nevertheless want to protest his remarks as insensitive, irresponsible and and even dangerous.” A national group, WORD (Women Organized to Resist and Defend), has also launched a campaign demanding that Landsburg be fired.
I do not challenge the right to protest such statements. The best response to bad speech is good speech. However, it is wrong to demand the termination or censure of an academic for expressing his views on his private blog. The vital intellectual life of a university requires constant fealty to free speech and academic freedom principles. Professors will often challenge the status quo or even insult majoritarian values with their lectures and writings. It is part of the pluralistic and passionate discourse that makes a campus a unique place for thought and expression. Disagree with Landsburg but don’t try to silence him.
Landsburg insists that “we all understand how horrible rape can be” and his blog was merely an “abstract inquiry.”
Landsburg has previously attracted national and local criticism in television interviews. One such occasion involved his defense of Rush Limbaugh’s attacks on Georgetown University student, Sandra Fluke over her testimony before Congress advocating mandating birth control coverage in some insurance programs. Landsburg insisted that “[t]here are really good arguments for subsidizing and bad arguments for subsidizing [birth control]. However, [Fluke] didn’t bother to make any. She made no argument. She simply said she wanted it subsidized.” That seems fair game. However, he then discussed Limbaugh’s calling Fluke a “slut” and said “A far better word might have been ‘prostitute’ (or a five-letter synonym therefor), but that’s still wrong because Ms. Fluke is not in fact demanding to be paid for sex…The right word for that is something much closer to ‘extortionist’.” That writing brought a public rebuke from Rochester President Joel Seligman. Once again, such public criticism is part of free speech.
However, the effort to censure or terminate Landsburg is beyond the pale in my view. Students particularly should be the defenders not the detractors of free speech. Universities are sacred places for freedom of thought and expression. It is maintained to allow students to grow and thrive as intellectuals. They should be the last group to demand punishment for the expression of unpopular thoughts.
Landsburg received his a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1979 and spent time at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
Source: Democrat
Yeah, freedom of speech means you may have to put up with some very disgusting, stupid, ignorant and ugly speech. This half-wit has every right to say these stupid, ignorant ugly things. Polite society has every right to condemn him and to exclude him form their company. Sometimes shunning is justified.
“…drama queen status of individuals”
And to think that for all these years I’ve been angry about the rape that took my virginity and left me pregnant – not to mention those who feel justified in using it for hyperbole and sarcasm – I’ve just been a drama queen.
Of course he gets to say something unthinkably insensitive. But he has to be prepared when others take exception to his poor and hurtful logic.
In response to Nick at 10:21AM,
I have not seen anyone here say he did not have the right and freedom to say whatever he wanted. However, when one engages in hyperbolic, inaccurate and otherwise ill-advised speech, that person should be prepared to take the heat of pushback. Firing offense? Probably not, but he has managed to embarrass himself, his profession, his employer and his alma mater.
Of course, if one continues in that same vein long enough, there might be more severe repercussions.
Bron, Good point, faux liberals who actually are quite conservative in so many ways.
I was wondering if he was trying to do a really bad Jonathan Swift type of satire here…sort of a very dry “I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and suggest that if unconscious people really can’t suffer any negative consequences from rape, as some people have implied in defending the Steubenville rapists, well then, someone could probably make a killing by supplying unconscious people that others can use sexually as they please. It’s an untapped market!” it’s the only excuse I can think of for him saying such a reprehensible thing. Either that, or he’s an extremely literal person, to the point of being frighteningly cold and emotionless.
Maybe the lesson to learn here is “Don’t listen to economists when they attempt to discuss ethical issues.” Ugh.
Nick:
In the early days of the country most of the people with any gumption who wanted to improve their lives went west and the more timid souls and those who had already made their fortunes stayed in the east. So I imagine it is a combination of snobbery and envy.
Probably why eastern liberals are so afraid of guns too.
nick:
well you just have to love a university who has produced such free thinkers as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Saul Alynsky.
That it was funded by the man who single handedly saved the whales is just icing on the cake.
Plus they accepted women:
“The university initially drew students primarily from the Midwest; most were children of small merchants and professionals. Women, many in graduate school, constituted over half of the students by the first years of the twentieth century. This generated concern among many trustees and administrators, who considered limiting women’s admissions or ending coeducation altogether. Alumnae and faculty members successfully lobbied for women’s continued access to the university.”
Columbia didnt admit women for 130 years after they were chartered and a Baptist University funded by a capitalist does so immediately and had women as almost half of its student body.
Thinking about the late 19th and early 20th century, it was a time of great economic freedom but very restricted socially, now we have great social freedoms but not much economic freedom. I wonder if we will ever have both in abundance at the same time?
The latest clollege rankings by US News has the U of Chicago tied w/ Columbia for 4th. So maybe Columbia people feel insecure that a midwest school can be their equal and are compelled to denigrate it.
Mike Jarvis, Welcome to the Jungle!
The true of colors of alleged free speech advocates is incredibly apparent this Friday morning. And Bron is absolutely right about universities and faux free speech. They created speech codes for chrissake. And, the U. of Chicago is a better school than Columbia.
“And, the U. of Chicago is a better school than Columbia.”
Nick,
So that was supposed to be a taunt? Fairly infantile, yet typical of you I must say.
“Nevertheless, I defend his right to be a jerk and even to remain a Professor. Yet while I defend his right of free speech, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t an ass.”
What about my statement above has you thinking I’m not a true advocate of Free Speech? Perhaps it is your particular animus towards me that colors your already poor reading comprehension skills. Maybe though, it’s the fact that I’ve called you on your use of anecdotes of acquaintances as evidence of universal truths and by exposing your lack of ability to put up a valid argument on almost anything. It could well be that criticism, coupled with exposing your proclivity to attack people snidely, that has you upset.
Then too, to add further perspective on the methods you use, there is the fact that you consider any criticism of your rather weakly made cases to be violating your “free speech”, when in fact no one here has censored you.
As far as the University of Chicago goes the infliction of Friedman and Sowell is reason enough to criticize the school, though they do get points back for Saul Alinsky. The school was founded by the premier “Robber Baron” of his time, see Colorado Coal Mine strikes for Pinkerton shootings of Miners and families, and the school has remained a bastion defender of the worst aspects of Capitalism.
Have a nice day. 🙂
But this is a good barometer to measure the drama queen status of individuals …..if your knee jerk reaction is instant righteous indignation without even examining context, and a rant about how awful rape is, the crown clearly fits.
“instead of using it as a hyperbolic and sarcastic analogy about policies and incentives”
“But this is a good barometer to measure the drama queen status of individuals”
Mike Jarvis,
Yes it is a good measure and hyperbole is a characteristic of being a “drama queen”. No doubt though you agree with him and so feel called upon to support his ignorance.
Anyone who thinks he was talking literally about rape, instead of using it as a hyperbolic and sarcastic analogy about policies and incentives, to the point they feel he’s justifying rape…..is really too simple to have an opinion.
“Anyone who thinks he was talking literally about rape, instead of using it as a hyperbolic and sarcastic analogy about policies and incentives”
Mike Jarvis,
It is apparent that he was being both hyperbolic and sarcastic, just as were his comments in the Sandra Fluke matter. However, his use of hyperbole and sarcasm to score his political points evinces a mind that is bound to ignorance by economic/political dogma. Nevertheless, I defend his right to be a jerk and even to remain a Professor. Yet while I defend his right of free speech, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t an ass.
“Landsburg received his a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1979”
Sometimes context explains actions. Another Jerk from the heart of “Academic Jerkdom”. Like many jerks he is given to opine on a number of topics beyond his ken, based on a system of pre-judgments so rigid as to make him ignorant. Yet he has a right to express his opinions with the only repercussions being the rebuke and censure of more open minds.
University of Chicago History
“It was founded by the American Baptist Education Society with a donation from oil magnate and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller and incorporated in 1890.
I wouldn’t fire him for his speech merely for the manifest stupidity of his ideas as he molds young minds.
What has happened to our liberal students at Universities? It used to be they protested really bad policy. The first part of the professors thought seems rather insensitive, however the second part “If we legalize the rape of unconscious people, we will create an incentive to render people unconscious.”, seems to poke an eye into those defending the rapists.
But what happened to liberal students protesting policy that kills people like war? Even 8 years ago our Universities were filled with those protesting the GWB policies in Iraq and Gitmo. Now with GWB gone it seams the President has a free pass on waging war (Libya), and instead of incarcerating people, he just kills them.
Yes indeed, in my mind the youth of today need to look in the mirror long and hard and decide what it is that is worth defending, worth being silent about, and what should be protested.
What Tony said. Just knowing, even if there is no memory of it, is traumatic. Some people who are raped, especially as children, develop dissociative disorders where they block out whole segments of their lives. Does that make it better? Absolutely not. It makes it worse.
No one who commits any kind of rape should ever go scot-free. Furthermore, research tells us that the best predictor of future behavior is to examine past behavior. If there are few or no consequences, then the behavior is likely to persist.
Landsburg should stick to teaching economic theory instead of wandering off into a psychological and law enforcement minefield he doesn’t know anything about.
As Abraham Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
When someone says 1+1 =3. I shake my head and if the person is beyond reason or reach I move on. When someone says 1+1=3 and people start listening, I shake my head in befuddlement. When people vote such proliferators of preposterousness into political office, I vote for their best logical opponent.
The professors point seems to highlight a ridiculousness which debate can uncover. Shining light on ill conceived concepts, illumines the validity and strength of well conceived concepts.
……… Except in Washington DC …… Woe is us. :o)
At least he won’t have to go to jail like Daniel McGowanfor a blog post.
universities are not sacred places of free thinking, they are for the most part, in fact in large measure, sacred places of political correctness. The very fact that mind numbed students would even call for his censure is evidence.
Free speech, fine. But his logic is bad, in assuming that unconsciousness shields one from the “costs” of rape. Many rape victims are emotionally traumatized after the fact, including girls that lost their virginity in the rape, or were physically damaged by the act of rape, or became pregnant from the rape. But that is not even the standard: Knowing one has been raped, even without overt physical trauma, is sufficient psychological trauma to warrant rape being a crime.