Yes, Yenor should absolutely be fired

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Check out the counter opinion to this article here.


By Jamie Maas

The past couple of days have been somewhat turbulent among the students and faculty of Boise State, with a professor publishing this controversial article followed by this call out and this petition in favor of his resignation due to the impacts of said article. With less than a week before school, many students and community members remain divided on what exactly the response to Yenor’s article should be; with some agreeing with him, some disagreeing but defending his right to say it, and others who disagree with him and call for immediate action.

This article is a rebuttal of sorts to the throngs of people on Facebook, the intellectual community and those around the Boise area who don’t believe Yenor should be held accountable for his decision to publish and push anti-queer agendas. Here, I will attempt to convince you of two things: firstly, Yenor is just wrong, and second that this isn’t a violation of free speech.

Yenor is in the wrong

While many people disagree about about the method of calling Yenor out, many of the Facebook comments that were written defending him have generally agreed that the contents of Yenor’s writing is morally reprehensible. Most users went to great efforts to distance themselves from the article itself which should be really telling about how bad the article actually is and how it understandably made a lot of queer folk on campus upset. From implying parents who support a child’s gender transformation are abusive, blaming feminism for undermining families to stating outright that “not all means of sexual satisfaction are equal,” the article speaks to a deeply troubling and homophobic mentality that quite literally finds some types of sexual and gender expression as inferior, unequal and “threatening [to]society.”

This type of discourse is dangerous because it sets the foundational premises through which violence against queerness is both justified, and necessary to maintain the sanctity of “civilization itself.” The idea that transgender folk, queer folk and women are not equal and yet at the same time threatening are not really facts, but premises of a larger argument that must be true for the final conclusion to be true.  People didn’t just justify the 16 murders of trans folk this year “just because”. The logic follows as such:

The family is the basis for all societal contracts and sets the foundation for civilized society.

The family is upheld through traditional gender roles and heterosexual sex.

Queerness cannot conform to traditional gender roles and heterosexual sex.

If queerness cannot conform to traditional gender roles and heterosexual sex, it cannot sustain the family.

If queerness cannot sustain families, it cannot sustain civilization.

Something that cannot sustain civilization is a threat.

If queerness cannot sustain civilization, it must be a threat.

Threats should be eliminated.

If queerness is a threat, it must be eliminated.

Therefore: Queerness should be eliminated.

The bolded line of the algorithm above are the basic truth statements that Yenor’s article defends as true, and the un-bolded premises represent the logical train of thought that has to be true in order to prove the conclusion true.  While I would argue that the 8th premise is in fact defended in Yenor’s article, assuming that would be a stretch with just one additional truth statement in the proof above I was still able to reach a reasonable conclusion that justifies violence against queerness. That kind of step is what convinces many people to bash, beat, and bruise every queer body they see. And don’t take my word on that, take the FBI’s word when they tell you that “LGBT people are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other group.” The violence I am talking about aren’t just isolated incidents, but real events that occur in places like the ground we will attend class Monday afternoon.

This is more of an opinionated grievance, but Yenor’s article is honestly just one link in a long chain of abuse. A larger justification we had for writing the articles and petitions in favor of canning Yenor wasn’t just to get him fired, but to raise awareness for queer Boise State students to stay away from his classes. I, personally  have witnessed numerous unprofessional and questionable events, like the time he slut-shamed a fictional character in a book we were reading, calling one of the protagonists “gross” and “unfit for marriage.” I’ve heard him shut down arguments with female students in the class with condescending “sweeties” among other things. Women, survivors, and queer folk shouldn’t have to learn constitutional law from a slut-shaming trans-phobe who isn’t even in favor of gay marriage. This article clearly shows queer students he disregards and deems our identities as threats, and that isn’t exactly conducive to a safe learning environment. As a gay man, it’s always an uneasy feeling being around people you know are homophobic.

The “First Amendment” defense

While people who face disagreements in the first realm of argumentation might think that Yenor’s opinions are good, many people in this category will disagree with Yenor on ethical principles but will defend his right to a University backed opinion on the grounds of the first amendment. However, I would argue that this not only displays a proudly uneducated understanding of how the first amendment works, but also a poor example of how ideological purity is able to could our sense of judgement and human compassion. I call this free speech fundamentalism.

Free speech fundamentalism misses the mark about how the First Amendment is applied to political situations. A lot of the arguments presented in these kinds of debates often adhere to the ideological dogma of free speech that prevents people from using good ‘ole fashioned common sense. The reason the constitution protected the freedom of speech was to allow private citizens to question the government. The founding fathers really wanted to make sure that the government wasn’t able to prevent private citizens from holding it accountable. So, while Yenor can’t be thrown in jail for being terrible, the constitution does not protect individuals from facing the social punishments that arise from their speech whether it be termination or public disgrace.

Free speech fundamentalism is also not the paragon of positive discourse and education a lot of people think it is. Many of the people spouting this argument firmly believe the petition prevents the ability for people to discuss and debate important issues that affect our society. And while I would defend that positive discourse is good, I think this is limited and the nebulous right to speech shouldn’t infringe on queer folk and women’s access to safety on campus. Ignoring the fact that oppressive discussions like this make it difficult for queer voices to engage in discussions at all, it has an adverse effect on the underlying assumptions and political ideologies that shape the way issues like queerness are discussed in the first place. Should people be able to debate either side of things like the economy, foreign policy, environmental policy or favorite movies? Definitely. Should there be room for people who want to argue that “certain subjects are less than human and should be eradicated or at least separated for the security of society?” Probably not. The fact that whether queerness is threatening, or non-existent is up for debate just upholds those ideas as potentially true, and gives credence to the violent de-legitimization of queerness in the status quo. Honestly, people would not be making these arguments if the article was written about how interracial marriage was a threat to the American family. Violence against queerness is so normalized in society that straight and cis people are able to openly have “civilized conversations” about whether or not it should exist at all.

Share.

About Author

13 Comments

  1. ciaban krommenhock on

    I’m incredibly disappointed that the school news paper chose to print this piece, it’s flat out inflammatory libelous, and actively dangerous. As far as I can tell, Yenor’s piece was about the encroachment of the govt. on decisions that are previously left up to the family. Which could be wrong or right, and people are welcome to have whatever feelings about that piece.

    This Op-Ed piece takes some pretty serious liberties that I find troubling. Starting with:
    “Most users went to great efforts to distance themselves from the article itself which should be really telling about how bad the article actually is”
    The first problem, is this is assuming that other’s position on the article defines it correctness. This is assigning a position to other people as a means of de-validating the opinion of Prof. Yenor.
    “As the logic goes” Well if all these people say he’s wrong then he MUST be wrong.

    Secondly, the line, “People didn’t just justify the 16 murders of trans folk this year “just because”.” Who is justifying murder? Not Yenor, no where in his article does he attempt to justify murder. If other people are justifying murder, well that’s wrong, but it doesn’t have a place in an article about Yenor, unless that’s his STATED opinion.

    Thirdly, and MOST egregiously is the “equation” if you will presented by the Author. This is an obvious straw-man fallacy, in fact it’s a text book definition of one that should be used as an example in philosophy classes, but even worse it’s actively libelous. Prof. Yenor never makes any of these claims in his article, I went back and reread it several times to find the examples, if I missed them than I’ll be happy to own up to that. But this isn’t just a mischaracterization of Prof. Yenor’s argument, but him as a person.

    Fourth, The Author then goes on to make a weird criticism of the professors teaching style. “like the time he slut-shamed a fictional character in a book we were reading, calling one of the protagonists “gross” and “unfit for marriage.”
    I don’t fully know how to respond to this, I guess I hope the feelings of the fictional character are O.K. but what’s wrong with someone having an opinion about fictional work? Often in literature Authors will create scenarios or portray a behavior as a way to illicit a reaction from the audience, to either entertain, inform, or make the audience think about that behavior in our own life.
    But since were not provided the context of the fictional character that was “slut shamed” I have no way of knowing if it’s appropriate or not, was the character Anna Karina or Hermine Granger? And why is having an oppinion about a fictional character a problem.
    Same with his “sweetie” comment, taken on face value I can see why that could be a problem, but without context I have no idea how bad the comment actually is. Was he just being playful with his students? Was he being derisive? I’m left to take the word of the Author (who’s actively misrepresenting and libeling this individual) as irrefutable fact or Prof. Yenors behavior.

    Fifth, this is actively libel, “Women, survivors, and queer folk shouldn’t have to learn constitutional law from a slut-shaming trans-phobe who isn’t even in favor of gay marriage.”
    That is an incredible accusation, unless Prof. Yenor has said he’s against gay marriage why should I assume he is? He never made any mention to gay marriage in his article, he only talked about parents and families, which could be hetero or homosexual families, he never makes any distinction.
    This is a massive assumption to take and it’s sad that the paper didn’t reach out to get any confirmation from Prof. Yenor on his beliefs on any of these issues before allowing someone to state these things about him as fact.

    The author finally gets into the free speech debate, free speech fundamentalism, the limitations and applications of the first amendment, and what should constitute ‘productive debate’.
    While I disagree with many of the points he makes, the debate on what should be allowable speech is a worthwhile discussion to be had.
    However, we don’t do ourselves any favors by mischaracterizing others, and defaming people we disagree with. In fact, one of the few limitations on free speech is Libel and Slander. You can’t call for violence against people, and you can’t knowingly lie about people. Unfortunatly this article spends way to much time defaming a person and presenting arguments that Prof. Yenor didn’t make as his own, and assigning him positions he didn’t state.

    While there are people on both the left and the right that want to stifle the free and open discussion of idea’s I think the gross mischaricterization and endless straw manning of people we disagree with is a greater threat to free speech. It feels hard enough having the opportunity to make and defend idea’s you believe in, having to defend idea’s that you don’t make, makes things even harder.

    • Bernice Sutherland on

      Ah, Ciaban, you’re overwhelming us with your naivete, probable transphobia and definite lack of punctuation skills. Was this a paper you wrote for a class on logical fallacies? Uttering either “libel” or “slander” six times in your comments is a bit much, eh, for a non-lawyer like yourself? You simply don’t understand the fundamental points Maas was making. Frankly, I believe his well-documented and sophisticated essay calling into question Free Speech Fundamentalism went right over your head, and I doubt you have the intellectual ability to process what he was saying.

      No matter. Trans individuals on campus have already steeled themselves against folks like you. You cannot hurt us. Unfortunately, a prof in a required class–who thinks I am inferior and a stain on the ‘Merican culture–CAN hurt us. Do you really not understand that?

      • Man with the Axe on

        You don’t make an argument. You only engage in ad hominem. You should be ashamed of yourself.

        For what it’s worth, Ciaban has the legal issues regarding free speech pretty much just right. There is no such legal doctrine as “free speech fundamentalism.” There is no such legal doctrine as hate speech. Free speech extends far beyond political speech and has for centuries, to include speech on social and economic issues as well.

        So the author, Maas, has it exactly wrong on every count. And so do you. If someone wants to oppose homosexual marriage and transgenderism, he has that right, and the state, which includes Boise State University, cannot punish him for holding or expressing those views. If you think otherwise you need to take a course in constitutional law. This is not a position on which there is disagreement between people who know anything about it.

      • So, Free Speech is not a Right if the words spoken are difficult for you to hear, understand, or accept, is that it, Ms.Sutherland?

  2. A man should lose his job because what he wrote “upset” some people on campus? Unbelievable. Enjoy college while you’re there I guess. Once you’re an adult, the (correct) response you’ll hear from other adults when you complain the someone wrote something that upset you is, “So what?”

    Good luck.

  3. In a truly free and rigorous academic environment, Yenor’s work would be debated, critiqued, and examined. If you don’t like what he says, muster the intellectual firepower to do the research, engage him, and prove him wrong…then you will be debated, critiqued, and examined. Thats how scholarship, science and research is done. Follow the truth.

    Unfortunately, most of Yenor’s critics are lazy, and don’t care much for such scrutiny…Some things don’t look good at all under strong light. It’s far easier to launch a fusillade of demagoguery to get him fired. What better way to shut down the ideas of someone without having to debate them than to cast false aspersions on his character and misrepresent his work? The really galling thing is that these types of people think they get to decide for other people what kinds of ideas they are exposed to…as if the only premise in the argument that is true is theirs. Well, can’t have other ideas about showing they’re not.

  4. College isn’t about safe spaces or safe opinions. Debate him on what you think is incorrect about his position. You want to silence dissent on the premise it’s creating what you call an issue of safety on campus. What’s not safe is having an opinion or fact on your side that contradicts the dogma of the Left. The Left is making the world an unsafe space by doxing people it finds offensive, by physically attacking people who think the First Amendment is a cherished right. You don’t have the right to define what is hate speech. Why? Because speech is subjective. If I call your pro-trans speech hate speech, why is my subjective opinion any less valuable than yours? Should you be fired because you support LGBT rights and I find those offensive and they in turn create an unsafe space for me? Quite literally I have seen LGBT activists physically attack Christians who had signs in support of Christian beliefs. So, who is the arbiter? You? No. Too bad, get over it and grow up. The wold is not a safe space for the meek of heart.

  5. Man with the Axe on

    There is nothing even remotely controversial in Yenor’s article in the Daily Signal. By that, I mean that he makes assertions that are either true or false (they seem pretty much all true to me) but they are not demeaning of anyone or advocating for anything remotely similar to what the Maas describes. He is not calling for violence or even discrimination. He is merely pushing back against the anti-family feminist and transgender agenda, as he sees it.

    That is free speech pure and simple. That the queer folk fight so strenuously to shut such people up shows they do not have the fact, logic, or intellectual firepower to win the argument in a fair fight.

  6. Speech is violence. Love is hate. War is peace. Orwellian times we live in, at least on many college campuses. What’s most disappointing aren’t the young, misguided students who lack life experiences and wisdom, but rather the adults on campus, many of whom know these witch hunts and these assaults on freedom of thought and expression are wrong, but stay silent.

  7. As I read the comments above, I wonder why anyone would be surprised that students from one of the least selective colleges in the county make such weak arguments explaining why professor Yenor should be fired.

  8. There are two major problems with the transgender craze. The first is that children are easily confused by zealous well meaning teachers and therapists about any topic including gender. The result is that boys become convinced they are girls and vice versa, take hormones and have surgery and then wake up one day and realize they made a terrible mistake that can’t be undone. This is child abuse and it is advocated by the majority of students and facutly at Boise State University. The other problem with the transgender craze is a fundamental problem of the liberal establishment which is it seeks to shut down those who speak the truth with defamation. If a courageous professor such as Scott Yenor speaks the truth he is defamed and attacked and accused of hate speech. Professor Yenor’s speech comes from love the family and concern for children. Those who attack him are the ones who are truly guilty of hate speech.

  9. Trans rights are nothing but totalitarianism under the guise of compassion. The silent majority amongst t he American public is not on board with this radical Marxist agenda which seeks to rationalize and normalize mental illness.

Leave A Reply

COMMENTING POLICY:

We welcome and encourage your feedback and discussion. Comments must be civil, respectful and relevant. Refrain from gratuitous profanity and personal attacks, especially those that target individuals on the basis of personal identity.

Comments that violate the law include, but are not limited to:
- defamatory language
- obscenity
- incitement to violence

We reserve the right to delete comments that violate this policy.