It was hard, very hard, to get past the opening words of this Pomona College story in The Student Life.
Renowned feminist scholar Roxane Gay spoke alongside two others to an overflowing crowd of nearly 300 students at Rose Hills Theater Tuesday, and engaged in a contentious debate about the #MeToo movement.
Wait, that Roxane Gay? The Roxane Gay who has yet to deny killing puppies? Were they misinformed?
“A lot of us [in the audience] were here for Roxane and her perspective,” Allie Pitchon PO ’20 said. “We were frustrated that she had to debate things we found to be fundamental.”
Caitlin Conrad SC ’20 concurred.
“Bringing a speaker like Roxane should have been its own event,” she said.
Absolutely. What college co-ed wants to hear hate speech when they can be fully validated by no less a renowned feminist scholar than Roxy (can I call you Roxy?).
Due to miscommunications with her speaking agent, Gay said she was not aware the event would be a debate, rather than a talk or a reading, or who she would be debating, until 10 days beforehand.
Had she known further in advance, she would not have participated in the event, but it was “too late to back out” when she found out, she said, adding that it’s critical to have a survivor’s perspective in sexual assault debates.
Totally. What possible purpose is served by arguing the inarguable? And by definition, anyone disputing what the students already knew to be fundamental was wrong. But then, what better opportunity to prove the correctness of Roxy’s renowned feminist scholarship than to provide her with the platform to destroy the lies of her adversaries?
Gay appeared visibly uncomfortable and frustrated at various points during the discussion, and repeatedly sighed and rolled her eyes while the other panelists spoke.
“This event was a mess,” she told TSL following the debate. Gay and many audience members expressed particular frustration and indignation with Kipnis’ views.
Kipnis? Laura Kipnis? The old-school feminist who was burned at the Northwestern stake for heresy Laura Kipnis? The Laura Kipnis who, despite having been shunned for her support of due process in Title IX investigations, a by-product of enlightened self-interest, still calls herself a supporter of Social Justice? That Laura Kipnis?
Kipnis argued that Title IX processes on college campuses “resembled [witch hunts].”
“‘Believe the survivors’ is something I believe the [supposed] victims [of the witches] would have said at witch trials,” she told TSL.
No wonder Gay sighed and rolled her eyes. And she wasn’t alone.
Statements like these earned Kipnis scorn from the audience.
“People would laugh when [Kipnis] started speaking,” Elle Biesemeyer SC ’21 said. “[She] was saying all of this awful stuff about how she didn’t believe women.”
Awful stuff indeed. But there was a third person in the middle to smooth the transition between the woman-hating Kipnis and the puppy-hating Gay.
Some of Sokolow’s statements also proved somewhat contentious.
“I wonder how we safeguard [#MeToo’s] progress against probably what is a fairly small number of people who would weaponize it,” Sokolow said to the audience. “How do we make sure that people are less able to weaponize complaints? How do we make it a reality that the taint of allegation is not the same thing as the finding of violation?”
Brent Sokolow runs a business called NCHERM, an educational risk management firm dedicated to protecting colleges from liability by supporting the Lhamon “Dear Colleague” letter approach to Title IX adjudications. He’s also been the Executive Director of the Association of Title IX Administrators from 2012, and is now its president, making him one of the foremost apologists for the campus evisceration of basic due process. In fairness, this is where he makes his money.
Sokolow, it appears, was asked to be on the panel to provide the legal perspective between Gay and Kipnis, neither of whom have any clue about law.
Rose Gelfand SC ’21 said that Sokolow was “taking up a lot of space for the only man on the panel” and that he was “unnecessarily graphic” in his description of the Aziz Ansari story during the #MeToo section of the conversation.
This could be a problem, there being no lawyer more inclined to their “believe the women” religion than Sokolow, and yet he took up too much space (manspreading, perhaps?).
“The cross-section of the opinions on stage gave the audience a nice 360-degree view of the issue,” he said.
He said audiences should be “slightly more charitable” to guests that come to campus, even if their opinions are controversial or if the conversation surrounds a contentious issue.
Even this was more than Gay could take.
On the other hand, Gay said the panel would have benefited from an additional speaker whose point of view was closer to hers. She said Sokolow’s legal perspective was valuable, but was frustrated with Kipnis’ comments.
But how did the students react?
Some students at the debate were also frustrated by its format.
“A lot of us [in the audience] were here for Roxane and her perspective,” Allie Pitchon PO ’20 said. “We were frustrated that she had to debate things we found to be fundamental.”
Granted, this is Pomona College. This is a self-selected group of students who attended the Roxane Gay show with some special guests. They came not to listen, but to be validated in those “things we found to be fundamental.” They left “frustrated” that they were forced to endure any idea that didn’t confirm their belief.
Roxane Gay was right. There was no good reason for her to agree to appear at Pomona for a debate. It’s pointless to debate whether Jesus or Mohammed is the one true god. It’s true because she believes it’s true, and the students believe it’s true, so it’s true. Granted, Gay may fall short of what any rational person would characterize as a “renowned feminist scholar,” but then she could have been called “obsequious, purple and clairvoyant” and it wouldn’t have mattered.
When people argue about the value of free speech, it’s merely a process by which different perspectives are presented. No amount of free speech can overcome the closed minds of young ladies at Pomona. They only want to hear what they already know to be their truth.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I disagree so passionately with Kipnis’ overall stance,” she said. Kipnis’ “honest opinions come from an intellectually dishonest place” and she “acts as if her audience comes from a place of ignorance … and wishful thinking,” Gay added.
If only she’d had some sort of forum or opportunity to express this sentiment, perhaps where Kipnis was present, and to explain – debate, even – why Kipnis’ views were incorrect by presenting coherent, rational and evidence-based arguments in support of her own position.
You clearly don’t understand. Passionate disagreement isn’t subject to debate, which would legitimize the wrong side by making it worthy of consideration. That can’t be allowed, since it’s wrong.
In the middle or on the bottom?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHeG5Xxcd7o
P.S. If Roxane really cared about her audience she would put you on the payroll as some sort of Mean Gene Okerlund or at the very least hire you to thin down the thousands of applications she gets to become a member of her traveling entourage. BTW, do you think she still writes her own tweets?
So, the students knew at the outset that other people would be permitted to speak, and that it was even called a “debate” (fairly indicating that the other speakers might not completely concur with all of Gay’s opinions). Yet, the opportunity to fawn over their heroic thought leader was apparently so irresistible that they chose to attend the event with full knowledge of the unpleasant perils it threatened. This is the moment where, in days of yore, I would be tempted to say something like, “Suck it up,” or “See the chaplain.” Of course, none of these kids would understand either of those suggestions.