There are some countries in the middle east that are less than friendly to people of less-than-binary sexual orientation. Literally horrifying? One might think, and perhaps in relation to the ordinary cis-heteronormative white male emir, it would work. But it’s not that simple at the University of Texas.
A bisexual male student at the University of Texas–San Antonio said during an informal conversation outside class that he was uncomfortable with Islam because people still receive the death penalty for being gay in 10 Muslim-majority countries.
For expressing this thought, the student—Alfred MacDonald, who no longer attends the school—was instructed to meet with the chair of the philosophy department, Eve Browning.
You will not be surprised to learn that MacDonald was not given an award for his steadfast dedication to the cause of sexual freedom.
Prof. Browning told MacDonald in no uncertain terms that he had committed the crime of “offending” someone, and she warned him that his habit of saying what he thinks could bring down the entire program. She threatened to call the Behavior Intervention Team and refer MacDonald to counseling. She did everything but send him to Room 101.
MacDonald must have smelled something bad in the air, as he recorded the meeting. It’s quite stunning.
BROWNING: Well, let me just say that kind of thing is not going to be tolerated in our department. We’re not going to tolerate graduate students trying to make other graduate students feel terrible for our emotional attachments.
MACDONALD: Um…all right.
BROWNING: And, if you don’t understand why that is, I can explain fully, or I can refer you to the Behavior Intervention Team on our campus, which consists of a counselor, faculty member, and person from student affairs who are trained on talking to people about what’s appropriate or what isn’t.
What’s appropriate? An excellent question. Is there something inappropriate about having a discussion about how a bisexual male feels about Muslim countries executing bisexuals? Is there something inappropriate about a Christian student who is engaged to a Muslim hearing these words? Who gets to say what to whom? Who gets to be offended by whom?
BROWNING: Those are things that would get you fired if you were working in my office. The Islam comment would get you fired.
MACDONALD: …Would it really get me fired to say that I could be killed somewhere?
BROWNING: In that situation as you’ve described it, absolutely yes.
MACDONALD: How?
BROWNING: Don’t even ask. It’s clear you’re not taking my word for it. I don’t care to convince you. If I can’t persuade you that it’s in your interest to behave in ways that other people don’t find offensive and objectionable, then at least I’ve done my job.
MACDONALD: Well I know that it’s in my interest. I’m just trying to understand the reasoning.
BROWNING: You don’t have to.
Each of us has our issues, our “sacred cows,” about which we feel strongly. Enlightened self-interest, perhaps, but they’re our issues. Is MacDonald not entitled to be more concerned about people who, like him, are bisexual being executed in Muslim countries? It’s not exactly an insignificant concern. When did being bisexual become the next worst thing to white supremacist?
The insanity of this exchange provides a valuable insight into the inherent flaws of the transitory “rules” of social justice. So being Muslim trumps being bisexual? Is that permanent or the rule of the day? Notably, MacDonald wasn’t being anti-Islam, and said nothing to attack any individual in the process of expressing his concern about Muslim countries executing gay and bisexual people.
One might have a sincere question why anyone was offended at all. MacDonald’s point was accurate and, well, pretty hard to rationalize other than by resorting to fantasy. Even worse, this was one of those “discussions” people keep saying we need to have, except when it happens, we learn it’s not allowed to happen because reasons.
But there remains one inexplicable piece to Browning’s incomprehensible attack on a bisexual student: what makes it unacceptable for a bisexual guy to question the intolerance of some Muslim countries? Who hands out the points of victimhood, the placement of one identity over another on the social justice hierarchy, that should not merely inform MacDonald that his bisexuality falls below someone else’s Muslim identity, even ignoring the “white-knighting” aspect that he wasn’t speaking to a Muslim, but to the Christian fiance of a Muslim?
As has been stressed before, this is an untenable scenario. It’s not just a matter of who gets to offend whom, or the shifting places on the intersectional hierarchy, but something as straightforward as a bisexual man being scolded for being inappropriate by taking issue with people sharing his sexual orientation being executed. Had MacDonald uttered his concern to a straight guy, he would be a hero for the cause. But having uttered it to a Muslim, albeit one step removed, he’s literally Hitler. This isn’t exactly a rational approach to equality.
As has also been stressed before, the academics who are held up as paragons for their support of free speech, while simultaneously remaining true believers in the gospel of social justice, fail to provide any principled position. The willingness to suffer MacDonald’s heretical words is merely the first step in the process. It would change nothing as to the social justice “rules” that he’s wrong, offensive and, as Browning makes clear despite her inability to offer any explanation, inappropriate.
This isn’t about equality, or equity as is now becoming fashionable, but about hierarchy. A bisexual falls below a Muslim. In the scheme of social justice, no one is equal, but everyone has a slot in the victim hierarchy where the person is primary to one, secondary to another, based on intersectional points. And so it’s stressed again, this is an untenable philosophy, about as irrational and unjust as it gets.
When a bisexual guy can’t gripe about countries where “his kind” are executed because someone will reach for a reason to be offended on behalf of someone higher on the hierarchy, there is a problem that can’t be washed away by calls for free speech. The philosophy is inherently wrong.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The answer is that everybody gets to be offended by everything. It’s the person who speaks who will be in trouble. If one of the Islamic grad students talked about the bisexual guy making him or her uncomfortable, the Islamic student would be in trouble for offending the bisexual.
So first to talk is first to burn? That, at least, would make for a cognizable rule.
Well, everyone will need to refrain from ANY expressive conduct, including glances, expressions and “body language.” We will all have to get Botox injections to paralyze our facial muscles, and keep our hands in our pockets except when using them to handle tools or operate equipment.
Stop comment raping me, you shitlord.
And how would we know someone wasn’t handling a tool when their hands are still in their pocket?
Ok, I denounce myself.
When is national brotherhood week, again?
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Bisexual hates the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.
https://youtu.be/CgASBVMyVFI
ICWYDT
“I can refer you to the Behavior Intervention Team.” Sounds like she needs some muscle over here.
Ain’t that a BIT?
Important spelling error in Reason article: fiance should be fiancée.
I mention it here because while the Reason article otherwise makes it clear that MacDonald’s victim was a Christian woman marrying a Muslim man rather than a Christian man marrying a Muslim woman that nuance is not conveyed by “fiance.”
While a Christian man marrying a Muslim woman is himself committing cultural appropriation worthy of behavior intervention, a Christian woman marrying a Muslim man would understandably be twitchy about western perceptions of sex and power in Islam, none of which, I hasten to add, are at all based in fact or scripture.
At least you’re not being the least bit pedantic about it.
The queers need to step up their game. If this was the 90’s Act Up or GLAAD would of be screaming bloody murder over things like this. They’ve become complacent.
So in the universe of modern social justice, we are supposed to be up in arms when a Jeff Sessions or Roy Moore condemns homosexuality, but we are not supposed to complain about the death penalty for homosexuals in Muslim countries. I think I can discern a rule here, in fact.
And the Behavior Intervention Team?!?! That was the scariest part of the piece — one step away from the Committee for Public Safety. . .
I sidestepped the Behavior Intervention Team as there was no chance I could deal with that in the post. I really liked the Room 101 reference Ed’s post, though.
I’ve a notion the BIT springs from the same source as the Title IX tribunals.
Torquemada needs foot soldiers.
Eve Browning: We would be remiss if we let all this stuff pass. And assuming you succeed academically and you head into an academic job track, things like this will get you not hired.
Alfred MacDonald: I don’t have plans for academic job tracks.
Even Browning: Things like this will get you not hired anaywhere.
A graduate student in philosophy who is not interested in academic job tracks… This kid needed a talking to alright. A demonstrative meeting involving a fire barrel and a stack of $20 bills. Should have happened years ago.
There are alternatives to academia. Did you ever consider a life of crime, Mr. Kierkegaard?
It’s OK to criticize Islam; it’s a jerk move to start the “Islamic countries are evil” conversation when you hear someone’s paramour is Muslim. (Similarly, it’s OK to criticize Israel; it’s a jerk move to start a “Israel is a Nazi oppressor” conversation when you happen to hear that someone’s paramour is Jewish.)
Obviously there should be room in a grad program for people who criticize Islam. But there might also be a cogent reason to try to deter grad students from being jerks. I think the admin acted badly but this guy’s behavior isn’t a great hill to die on.
Finally, the King of the Universe has told us the “who’s a jerk” rules.
Except that’s not what happened, but even if it was, what sort of shit flows through your head that makes you feel entitled to decide that he can only say things in a way that meet your approval? Do you really think you’re so special that you get to dictate to the others what they are allowed to say?
Deep down, they’re all little censors yearning to be free and tell others what they not allowed to do.
I remember way back when, when if somebody was a jerk, you just called him a jerk. Good times.
It sounded like he might have been trying to start a conversation . . . oh, sorry, my bad.
But jerks aren’t allowed to converse because they’re jerks.
As the scientific world progresses, how is it we are more, rather than less tolerant of people’s imaginary friends and their absurdities?
Perhaps science and empiricism haven’t ended up confirming our biases as expected, so we indulge in a little higher math and blow it up.
How did Muslims get on the list of marginalized groups? If people dislike you because your stated goals and beliefs are reprehensible to them, does that make you marginalized?
I still can’t figure out why women, who comprise the majority of Americans, are marginalized.
“Don’t even ask. It’s clear you’re not taking my word for it. I don’t care to convince you. If I can’t persuade you that it’s in your interest to behave in ways that other people don’t find offensive and objectionable, then at least I’ve done my job.”
This from the chairperson of the philosophy department???
It’s the new pedagogy, don’t ask, don’t tell.