Posted on 08/27/2004 5:55:37 AM PDT by CSM
You probably know her. She’s only in her forties, but she’s already on her fourth marriage. Her kids are grown so she decides to get a job at the local university. Now she has secure employment, even if her salary and benefits are not up to par. But, most of all, she likes what she hears from day one; namely, that her employer will assiduously defend the rights of blacks, women, and gays never to be offended in the workplace. She is protected by the campus speech code.
At first it starts with the occasional offhand remark. She jokes with a student worker, saying that she should just sleep with her professor to get a better grade. Then she jokes with a professor by telling him that the female office staff “sexually evaluate” him when he isn’t around. Then she embarrasses a student worker who complains about a kidney infection by saying “yes, we all know where that came from.”
But then it happens. Someone offends her. And it isn’t a woman or an African American. It isn’t even a homosexual. It’s just a conservative professor.
At first she says that she just wants to talk to him. But he doesn’t react the way that she expects. He isn’t condescending or angry. He just politely asks her what he might have said to offend her. So she starts to cry. Then she raises her voice. Then she asks for a three-way meeting with the department chair as she storms out of the office.
But the meeting never happens. Instead, while the accused “offender” is at lunch, she runs to the department chair, saying she was made to feel uncomfortable by the professor’s political remarks. She cannot identify anything specific but the chair caves in anyway. He calls the professor into the office to make sure that he stops saying the unknown word or phrase that made her feel uncomfortable.
The woman I am referring to suffers from what I call Free Expression Menopause Syndrome (FEMS). FEMS causes her to have hot flashes and to become emotionally unraveled every time she hears an opinion contrary to her own. But this kind of reaction is by no means a female problem.
In fact, you probably know him, too. He’s in his thirties. He came out of the closet in his twenties. He’s never worked anywhere but a public university. He thinks that the speech codes were written because of cases like the one involving Matthew Shepard. And he thinks they were written for gays only.
He recently helped to organize a trans-gendered law seminar at the university. It was there that he made offensive remarks about Christians. But when a professor later writes to ask how much money the seminar cost the taxpayers, he suddenly remembers the university speech code that protects him from offensive speech.
So he refuses to release the information about the cost of the seminar. The professor asks again, suggesting that such costs are a matter of public record. He says that he is familiar with the professor’s tone (it is allegedly homophobic). Then he warns him that the conversation is “elevating in a way that makes him feel uncomfortable.”
The “man” I am referring to suffers from what I call First Amendment Male Menopause Syndrome (FAMMS). FAMMS causes him to have hot flashes and to become emotionally unraveled every time he hears an opinion contrary to his own.
Both of these syndromes, FEMS and FAMMS feed off of the cowardice of the majority. Decent people capitulate to these hypersensitive censors, often thinking that appeasement is the easiest way to handle them. They are wrong.
But, fortunately, there is a simple remedy to be found in the speech codes themselves. Anyone can use this remedy the next time that, for example, a gay man with FAMMS tries to suppress free speech because he is “offended” by apparent opposition to homosexuality.
First, the “offender” must take the time to make that opposition more clear. If he chastises the “offender” with an angry email, the appropriate response is a nice email, preferable with a Bible verse included below the signature. If someone really wanted to have fun, he could make it Leviticus 18:22.
If you decide to send such a note, get ready for the inevitable complaint accusing you of engaging in “discriminatory speech” by offending someone on the basis of sexual orientation. Then be ready to fire off your own complaint, stating that you were “offended” by the classification of your religious speech as “offensive.” Furthermore, cite the very filing of your accuser’s complaint as an act of religious discrimination.
Pretty soon, the university will get the point that its speech code is unworkable, not to mention unconstitutional. If they don’t get the point, drop me a line. I know a few lawyers who are ready to deal with this kind of “misunderstanding.”
Remember that the First Amendment does not protect people from being offended by your speech. In fact, it was written to protect speech that is offensive.
Most people understand that. Most college administrators do not.
©2004 Mike S. Adams
The specific discussion was in relation to targeting homosexual activist groups. My position is that by targeting less than 5% of the potential market, the corp. is risking offending 45% of the potential market. To me, that is a terrible business decision.
I was called rascist for this point of view. When I asked how sexual orientation became a race, the response was, "racism is any recognition of someone different from yourself."
This discussion occured with a fellow "Republican". The brainwashing has taken over society.
Pingaling!
Mike Adams ping!
Land Rover has just anounced an initiative to market to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. Made me think - how big a market is that and how many of them want a Range Rover?
"The brainwashing has taken over society."
Yup. Was he younger? Our kids won't know any different because of their indoctrination.
[Sadly, we keep falling for the line about schools needing ever more money to do the brainwashing...er...education...].
If he is older, I'd confront him, if possible, by asking where in the world he came up with that rationale.
Of course, there is the old standby...stfu, idiot. But not helpful in a business situation. :]
Good point. All of the major business publications in the US regularly offer special sections on "diversity," which consist primarily of major corporations placing expensive ads boasting about how diverse they are. Can you say "extortion?"
"Dad, why do they call it 'menopause' ?"
"Because men'll pause before having anything to do with the woman..."
They know their market. Although the Range Rover is a dead serious off roader most of them are still sold as a status symbol. Few groups are more fashion oriented than gays. The only Rover in my small town is owned by a gay and the only dirt it has ever seen is potted plants in the back.
Range Rover....Rump Ranger...whatever!
Ping!
Subaru has always targeted the gay market. In fact, I love their Legacy and the all-wheel drive feature but refuse to buy one because I don't want the association. It's so well known that people I know assume if it's not a soccer mom driving the Subaru, it must be a gay person.
Subaru: the preferred lesbian car!
Honda CRVs seem to be the preferred "femullet" vehicle of choice up here....
LQ
Oh, wait, I forgot--only liberals are entitled to feel comfortable. It's okay to make conservatives feel uncomfortable, humiliated, even discriminated-against, because we are inherently inferior.
Rovers have the worst service record ever ... including the Yugo. This means that the "targeted" groups will spend a lot of time either off the road, or in rental cars. This also means more work for dealer "technicians."
It is fitting that Land Rovers are called "Shop Queens." For corroboration, call your local Service Contract provider. They have lost a fortune underwriting these beasts.
What started the conversation about the subject was a thread here on FR. Her statement was that she didn't want to be lumped in with the "Republicans" that would make such offensive statements that she saw posted on the thread.
It just proves that diversity only counts if you are a non-conservative activist minority segment of the population. If you are conservative, everything you say is offensive to others while everything you hear (that you find offensive) is perfectly appropriate. All that "diversity" means to me is that I continually get the guilt trip slapped in my face. I simply don't care though, something about the self satisfaction of knowing I'm right protects me from the guilt they attempt to inflict!
Logic means nothing to the diversity champion!
BTW, the Land Rover thread is the one that I'm referencing.
Reminds me of the girls who literally out gutter talk guys, yet if a guy says "you look nice" they're supposedly sexually harrassing the girls.
Same mental process involved.
(Yet the women will later say such things like "I don't understand why no-one asks me out.")
These people aren't just in the universities. They're in the corporate world too, especially the Human Resources dept. now that many universities offer an HR degree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.