Boise Professor Criticizes “Radical Feminism” As Undermining Family Values. . . Students Demand His Termination For “Hate Speech”

We have been discussing the increasing pressures on academics in what is an increasingly hostile atmosphere for academic freedom and free speech.  The latest example is out of Boise State University where students are calling for the termination of Professor Scott Yenor for “hate speech” because of his published criticism of radical feminism.  While there are obviously good-faith reasons to criticism Yenor’s views, his article explores how some feminists have in his view undermined parental rights in transgender cases. Instead of simply responding to his arguments, liberal students are seeking his firing by the university in an all-too-familiar pattern.

In an article in the Daily Signal entitled“Transgender Activists Are Seeking to Undermine Parental Rights,” Yenor criticizes the same-sex marriage ruling as part of a trend that “undermined sex roles within marriage. It put children ever more outside the purpose of marriage. It reinforced the idea that all means of sexual satisfaction are equal.”   He accuses “radical feminists” and  “transgender rights activists”  of undermining the traditional family through pushing transgender rights for “ever-younger children.”  The effort, he argues, is “seeking to abridge parental rights by elevating the independent choices of young children.” 
I have long supported same-sex marriage, so I strongly disagree with Yenor’s argument but that does not mean that it constitutes “hate speech” or a cause for termination.  
Yet, a petition with a couple thousand signatures calls for Yenor’s termination and accused Yenor of promoting “an ideology of violence.” Joe Goode, president of Boise State’s Young Democrats, told KTVB news  that “In our belief, this is hate speech, and it’s alienating a lot of folks in this Boise State community.”  So arguing against expanded transgender rights and same-sex marriage is now hate speech?  Would academics criticizing conservative groups or the alt-right agenda and Christian orthodoxy also be hate speech?
While the university have reaffirmed Yenor’s free speech rights, a university diversity official reportedly compared Yenor to a Neo-Nazi.

 

It seems unlikely that these students will succeed in their effort to fire this academic but what concerns me is the trend to try to block or fire those with opposing views on campuses.  Yenor brings a different view and values to the debate. The difference of such views enhances a university as a forum for free thought. The inclination to destroy rather than debate people with opposing views is becoming the norm.  Critics now simply label opposing views as hate speech and demand the removal academics.  It is an attack not just on academic freedom but free speech itself.

85 thoughts on “Boise Professor Criticizes “Radical Feminism” As Undermining Family Values. . . Students Demand His Termination For “Hate Speech””

  1. The incoherent and hysterical 19th Amendment is “radical feminism.”

    Women don’t need to be in the workplace.

    Women need to be in the birthplace.

    Women don’t fight wars, build nations or conduct industry.

    Women make people – women make the nation’s population.

    Women make a population sufficient to build and defend the sovereignty of a nation; or they don’t.

    The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.”

    America’s population is imported.

    America is vanishing before its very eyes.

    The populations of potential adversaries dwarf America’s and America exists at their pleasure.

    The 19th Amendment is a national, existential threat.

    It took only 13 years to repeal Prohibition.

    Incoherence and hysteria have persisted for almost a century.

    Birthrate decline, abortion (60 million murders of future people), “invasion” immigration, redistribution of wealth, social engineering, central planning, etc (all of which are derived not from the Constitution but from the Communist Manifesto) have nullified limited government and constitutional freedoms and rights, and have been imposed simultaneously with the 19th Amendment.

    “Radical feminists” are rebelling against men. Women are being lead in a rebellion against nature (i.e. God) by radical misandrists. If a nation does not need babies, a nation does not need women.

    Women enjoy “Affirmative Action Privilege.”

    Incoherence and hysteria reign.

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    Ben Franklin, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”

    “…if you can keep it.”

  2. The professor is a far right wing extremist peddling idiotic personal opinions about feminism but it isn’t hate speech and it’s silly for students to be so over the top in their claims. His opinion is sad, offensive and reactionary but isn’t hate speech.

    1. Pithier Horuss:

      “Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky?” Lenin asked. “He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There is no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.”

      The progressive ‘mind’ isn’t anymore.

      1. “It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.”
        ___________________________________________________________________________________

        Ahh, the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

        Sounds like the teachers unions, public worker unions, civil service unions, long-suffering minorities, Feminazis, Gaystapo, entitlement beneficiaries et al.

        To heck with the Founders and their severely “limited” government.

        Merit be damned!

        We just hate that pesky “freedom” thing.

  3. “You can’t handle the truth” – Aaron Sorkin

    Freedom generates an outcome.

    Dictatorship imposes one.

    Unqualified “freedom of speech” is constitutional (even a corrupt SCOTUS Justice could grasp that before he “interprets” it).

    “Hate speech” is unconstitutional.

    Which part of “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…” do you not understand?

    1st Amendment –

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    1. A university that was ‘private,’ not only in the sense of not being state-supported but in the sense of not taking federal money for programs or research, might be able to put forth an argument that they have the right to allow or refuse whatever speech they want. But when you take the government’s money to educate people, then the government standards become applicable, and the first amendment has no exception for hate speech.

      1. It’s a state university, ma’am. That aside, government standards are only ‘applicable’ when the government so chooses, and the only proper penalty is loss of funding.

      2. No Marine has ever cited freedom of speech to a Drill Instructor.

        Any organization may deny speech on its premises as disruptive to its activities.

        When people are outside of organizational activities, they may engage in free speech.

        People may be arrested for inciting to riot, cause damage or otherwise commit crimes.

        People may be sued for damage or defamation caused by speech.

  4. Idaho is a conservative state, with a high Mormon population. I do not know Professor Yenor’s religion, if any, but he teaches in a religious, conservative environment.

    There are several issues. One, is what he said hateful, and two, should public offensive speech be cause for termination of a professor?

    I disagree with his opinion against same sex marriage, but such views are also not hateful. I also disagree with people engaging in a series of one night stands. I don’t think that’s healthy either physically or emotionally. But I by no means hate anyone who does so. I just don’t think they are taking care of themselves.

    His other opinion is actually in line with the public discourse on transitioning young children. There has been significant published studies that indicate that the majority of children who identify as transgender resolve into cis gender by the time they are adults. Nascent homosexuality and bisexuality expresses as gender dysphoria in some kids. Or there could be other issues that resolve. This is not a low number. Studies show that up to 80% of kids with gender dysphoria resolve into cis gendered adults, either straight, gay, or bisexual. This is the problem that few seem comfortable discussing in the rush to support transgender kids. “Support” might mean different things to different patients. That introduces tremendous risk in any medical transitioning in children. So his other statement that “the effort, he argues, is “seeking to abridge parental rights by elevating the independent choices of young children” is perfectly valid and worthy of discussion.

    So although I only agree with one small part of his article, I do not find his overall opinion hateful.

    Perhaps others disagreed and were highly offended, in which case, we come to the other issue. Should publicly made comments be grounds for termination?

    As a business owner, I believe that if an employee damages the reputation or business of his employer, then termination can be one of the options. If Professor Yenor’s remarks led to a drastic drop in enrollment, then the university has been damaged. You can hold the moral high ground on free speech all you want, but you still need to survive as a business. I do not, however, feel that Idaho’s conservative climate would support such an action. The state constitution actually still has a ban on gay marriage, and the state is in a bit of turmoil over the subject. Professor Yenor’s article comments on current events. There is often a double standard where conservative academics are judged and punished far more harshly than Liberal.

    The university needs to define its policy on the public speech of its staff. It either supports their speech or it does not. In addition to that, any material damage to enrollment would need to be considered. In my own personal opinion, professors are entitled to say whatever they want with a few caveats. They must treat all students equally and fairly, without creating a hostile learning environment. They must leave their personal political opinions at the door.

  5. ‘It is our belief…’

    Absurd. The first line says it all. They are entitled to their beliefs, but that does not make their beliefs into facts nor universal, nor does it give them the right to impose their beliefs on others. Someone taught these kids badly long before they arrived at college. They need to take a look at the Spanish inquisition and see how well that went. One of these days we will have no choice but to discuss the 30 years of bad parenting we have enculturated in the west. It’s great that they have an opinion, but their desire to squelch or even harm others of differing views is disturbing, and it sickens me that any parent could be either ‘proud’ of this nonsense, or too weak to try to course correct. I have no doubt it’s true the national IQ has dropped by at least ten points.

  6. No doubt these same “demanders” would welcome Harvey Weinstein as a commencement speaker, but rage over an invitation to the likes of Condoleezza Rice. The silence from Hillary, Michelle, et al, is deafening.

  7. Professor Yenor brings up topics worthy of debate and his opponents would rather he be fired. That speaks volumes about the strength of their position.

  8. These are the students who in grade school were taught that there are no winners or losers and ribbons were handed out to everyone “for trying.” The Education Industry has fomented this infantile behavior.

  9. Perhaps he was being the devil’s advocate for discussion purposes to help students develop their debate skills on an easy topic. If he was sincere, then yes, students should simply avoid taking any of his classes.

    1. And if he is not “sincere?” I don’t see why his well-founded views on the role of “radical feminism” in undermining family values should be cause for anything other than robust debate.

    2. Students should take his classes because he has an intelligent viewpoint which is harassed in academe. They should avoid you.

  10. If Boise State University fired Professor Yenor for the reasons stated in the petition presumably brought by Boise State Young Democrats, then Professor Yenor would have an excellent law suit for wrongful termination under the current National Labor Relations Act.

    1. If Professor Yenor is not a member of a union, then he’d have to bring a wrongful termination suit under The Civil Rights Act.

  11. Nothing demeans a woman’s feminism more than not stopping at equality. Nothing demeans a man’s masculinity more than not being content with equality. The moment the argument goes past equality it becomes the argument of the other side, the oppressive side. It is, of course, near impossible to stop the pendulum in the middle. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.

    1. Isaac, you’re right with respect to equality of rights. With respect to equality of facts, women will remain superior to men for time without end.

      1. Diane – you keep thinking that if it floats your boat. But when men say “This is my better half,” they really don’t mean it. 😉

        1. Women have the power to bring new life into the world, Paul. Women commit far fewer violent crimes than men. Men will never become the biological nor moral equals of women. Even so, women are obligated to tolerate men no less than men are obligated to tolerate women in keeping with the principle of equal protection under the law.

          1. Diane – men are both biologically sounder and morally more fit than women. Plus, we can make a decision and stick with it, not change it again every 15 seconds, or call our friends to get their opinion. Besides, who do you think impregnates all those women? The tooth-fairy?

              1. Why do women live longer on average than men

                Because men will unselfishly put their lives on the line to protect the weaker sex. Your welcome.

                1. Thank you for your service, Olly. I’ve seen the enlarged image of your thumbnail. Is it a military decoration [medal] or a United States Navy insignia?

                  Out of curiosity though, how much of a demographic effect could men who were killed in action while serving in the military have upon the currently lower average life expectancy of men relative to women? Would that demographic effect be greater or lesser than the effect from men being killed as a result of violent crimes committed by other men?

                  P. S. See my reply to Paul about the deaths of women during childbirth.

                  1. Thank you L4D. It’s a rank insignia for Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy.

                    Regarding life expectancy. My opinion is the issue has too many factors to make a determination of a root cause. If it makes you feel superior for whatever reason you choose, then who am I to argue? What would be the point?

                    1. P. S. I had you down for Rear Admiral. What do I know? Wait . . . Don’t answer that. Just let it dangle there.

                    2. Ran into a fellow at the grocery store yesterday evening in what looked like camo. A patch indicated he was in the Navy and he had some insignia of rank on his collar. I’d never seen a naval officer or seaman in fatigues. I spelunk around and discover this is called a Navy Working Uniform. The guy seemed to have quite a few miles on his odometer to be working military, but I check the rank insignia and see why. I’m not sure why it never occurred to me that Vice Admirals sometimes pay a visit to the supermarket.

                    3. They didn’t have cammies when I retired in 1999. Then I started seeing them out on town and found out they were authorized for wear off base. Yes, Vice Admirals put their cammies on 1 leg at a time just like everyone else. And yes, their wives have honey-dos for them, just like everyone else.

                1. That’s not nagging, Paul. That’s domestication. You see, man was the first animal that woman domesticated. The dog was the second. Both man and the dog were selected for tameness over the course of some forty generations or so. That is why there’s so much neoteny [preservation of juvenile traits in the adult stage of development] in the human species. The entire project was carried out primarily for the sake of the differential reproductive success of the women who selected the tame men. However, ancillary benefits included better child-rearing, more grandmothers to assist in child-rearing and, of course, civilization.

                  As for the greater life-expectancy of women relative to men, some observers claim that the advent of antiseptic surgery tipped the scale in favor of women’s longevity over men’s. IOW, men supposedly lived longer on average than women back in the days of high mortality rates for women during childbirth. If so, then Professor Yenor might modify his thesis on radical feminism undermining the traditional family to account for the societal benefits of antiseptic surgery.

                  1. Diane – you can color it pink if you want, but it is still nagging. One of the best lines I ever read was Ben Jonson, describing his wife. She’s a shrew, but otherwise a nice person.

                    1. Diane – unless the virago method is now the Koehler Method, I think you are wrong. And yes I have trained dogs before using a reward/punishment system.

          2. Women have the power to bring new life into the world,

            When was the last time that happened without a man involved? Nope, still dependent on the man. As far as violent crime, imagine having to listen to these women that are so arrogant to believe they are God and can create life on their own; that requires another level of toleration. 😉

            1. Olly, you’re equivocating between men versus male gametes (spermatozoa). In vitro fertilization and implantation does not depend upon the man–only the sperm cell. To prove your biological superiority, all you need do is get pregnant, carry the pregnancy to term, deliver the child into the world without an epidural anesthetic, then lactate and breast feed your child until her milk teeth drop out her adult teeth erupt.

              In the meantime, if, as you suggest, a violent crime has been committed against yo by forcing you tolerate the speech of your biological and moral superiors, then thou truly art a most delicate flower, thorns, prickly hairs, serrated edges and all, Olly.

              1. only the sperm cell.

                LOL! Good luck with that. Maybe someday, but until then, your dependence on a man to become pregnant is fundamentally the same today as it was in the beginning. 🙂

                1. Olly, can God bring new life into the world without women? Could Adam have had children without Eve? Why would anyone conclude from the evidence of sexual reproduction that women are dependent upon men while men are anything but dependent upon women?

                  P. S. Olly, God is obviously a woman.

                  1. Diane – there have been attempts at creating human life in a test tube, but then they were immediately destroyed. It can be done without women, too.

                    1. The placenta, Paul. And the umbilical cord, too. You’ll need an incubator that shares blood gases, nutrients, waste effluvia, antibodies and a few other critical factors to carry the test-tube baby to term.

                      I recommend making it a strap-on incubator in the image of a bob-tailed nag that you can carry around with you all the live long day. Doo-dah. Doo-dah.

                  2. Why would anyone conclude from the evidence of sexual reproduction that women are dependent upon men while men are anything but dependent upon women?

                    Perhaps to be a contrarian. I wouldn’t.

                    P.S. That would certainly explain the weather.

                    1. Olly, we radical feminists long ago prevailed upon the National Weather Service to grant equality of rights to male hurricanes.

                    2. we radical feminists long ago prevailed upon the National Weather Service to grant equality of rights to male hurricanes.

                      L4D,
                      How proud you must be for that accomplishment. Now that you’ve managed to get storms renamed, when will you radical feminists actually work to improve the rights of women in Muslim-dominated countries? Or take a non-political approach to the abuse of women from the likes of Harvey Weinstein?

                    3. Weinstein is a sexist pig. Our hearts go out to Muslim women. It took us at least forty generations to domesticate Man. We may have overlooked a few details here and there along the way. Give us another millennium or so.

                    4. “Weinstein is a sexist pig. ”

                      …And I note the cheers of the bravery of those famous actresses who decades later when Harvey was already declawed announced his abuse against them. You know who generally wasn’t sexually abused by Harvey? The wannabee actresses that stood their moral ground and said no. They didn’t get the job leading to fame and fortune so some of the people that did get the job used their bodies as an unfair advantage in competition against those that chose not to sell themselves.

          3. Ouch. As a woman, I often prefer the company of men. They are easier to get along with. Many of my female friends are great, but I still love the guys.

              1. Diane, every time I converse with you I am pounding sand, but as of late, it is being done in the Twilight Zone.

      2. women will remain superior to men for time without end.

        Women are less likely to be part of the 5.5% of the population who commit street crimes. They’re also less likely to be sexual deviants. And from there on, it’s all downhill.

            1. Type II diabetes. Low blood sugar phase. Stop practicing medicine without a license, Perry Mason.

              1. “Type II diabetes. Low blood sugar phase. Stop practicing medicine without a… ”

                One doesn’t need to have a degree to recognize that you have something seriously wrong with your thinking process. When it comes to your thinking process even a person developing hypoglycemic shock can recognize something is wrong with you even as he loses consciousness.

  12. Whether I disagree with the professor is irrelevant, he has a right to his opinion and a right to write about it. The definition of hate speech seems to be a totally elastic one. It is a term often used to smear opinion with which people disagree. It is in fact a term used to smear the opposition regardless of the content of the speech.

    The university should not fire this professor. If students don’t like him, they can not sign up for his classes. I do think however that would be a shame as they might learn how to have a jolly good civil discussion if the professor is willing to engage other views. That would be the best test.

    1. “Hate Speech” means the narcissists, the borderline cases, and the more generically emotionally neuralgic cannot process his critique of their pet causes.

  13. Whatever happened to debate? If we can’t debate issues at an institution of learning (a University), we are toast intellectually and eventually morally. Long live bumper sticker ideology!

  14. Boise State should know better. There are a lot of independent-minded people living in Idaho and they are well-armed. 😉 And JT, you should know better. He is making a legitimate sound argument which is not against same-sex marriage, just the pushing the whole concept on children who are younger and younger. I don’t 1st graders need to know this stuff, but evidently, the LGBT community feels they do.

  15. Reblogged this on Right Ring and commented:
    Keeping it real….and this is as real as it gets. I think those ivory and marble towers are having babies. And the fruits are clear. “Progressives” must be quite proud. Radicalism on auto-pilot.

  16. When he says “undermining family values” that’s just code for “making his incestuous pedophilia more difficult.”

    Family values. Twatwaffle and fascist
    I had no idea Mr. Turley was such a drama queen.

    1. When he says “undermining family values” that’s just code for “making his incestuous pedophilia more difficult.”

      OK, you’re a malicious slander-artist. Anything else you’d like to communicate?

  17. No Turley, those are not liberal students. Remember what liberal means. They are illiberal.

  18. Don’t worry s##tlibs, you will have your precious hate speech laws in another 20 years.

    And then the multicult utopia will be guaranteed, right?

  19. Those students need some counseling on free speech and academic freedom. They need to be encouraged to write the more persuasive essays.

    1. I agree that the college should use this as a valuable teaching moment. Rather than just retaining the professor, the administration needs to go further and make clear that a university is all about the freedom to exchange ideas, and to listen and show respect to others even if you disagree with their views.

Comments are closed.