I assume many of you have heard the story about college student Lake Ingle who got into trouble with his social justice professor. If not, here’s a decent article that goes into some of the details. Recently, the university president stepped in to reinstate Ingle in the class.
But I want to focus on this part:
Ingle told Campus Reform that he met with Downie on March 1 and received two documents, an “Academic Integrity Referral Form Documented Agreement” and a statement of his alleged violation, with sanctions.
Ingle allegedly made a “disrespectful objection to the professor’s class discussion structure,” refused “to stop talking out of turn,” made “angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism,” made “disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience” and stated a “disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of (the) professor’s personal prejudice.”
According to the stated sanctions, “Lake (Ingle) will write an apology to the professor which specifically addresses each of the disrespectful behaviors described above, demonstrating ability to take responsibility for inappropriate behavior which has significantly damaged the learning environment of this course.”
Ingle was told he would “explain the importance of an atmosphere of safety for an educational environment (and) explain how he will demonstrate respect for the professor, the course material, and all fellow students at each remaining class session.”
He was told he would begin the March 8 session of Downie’s class with that apology “and then listen in silence as the professor and/or any student who wishes to speak shares how he or she felt during Lake’s disrespectful and disruptive outbursts” on Feb. 28.
However, a day after that meeting with Downie, in his letter to Ingle as posted by Campus Reform, Moreland wrote to Ingle, “you are restricted from any contact, in person, via electronic media and/or by third party with this class or the professor until this issue is resolved. Failure to comply with this restriction will result in a referral to the University Judicial System with a charge of C-10 — Noncompliance with the terms of a university directive.”
One of the things I have noticed about intersectionalists is that they are extremely vindictive and seem to take pleasure in handing out extreme forms of punishment. In this case, let’s be charitable and assume Ingle was disruptive. I guess he was supposed to sit there quietly as he was being stereotyped as a sexist and someone with “privilege.”
Even if he was disruptive, this form of punishment comes across as nasty and mean-spirited.
Not surprisingly, the feminist professor demanded an “apology.” In writing. And it had to be a lengthy apology that would “demonstrate respect” for the “course material.” In other words, he was supposed to acknowledge the problem of having white skin and a Y chromosome. He was supposed to confess that he was an “Oppressor.”
But then it gets worse. He was supposed to stand up in front of the class, read the apology, and then listen in silence as people, including the professor, berate him because their feelings were hurt. Their feelings and their stereotypes were automatically correct. Infallible.
All of this speaks to the authoritarian essence of these intersectionalists. For let’s face it, the objective here was to use the professor’s power to publicly humiliate this student. All because he didn’t have the correct opinions about certain trans and feminist issues. For if he spoke out in the same manner, but was supportive of the professor’s beliefs, do you think he would have got into trouble?
This is shameful behavior on the part of the professor who abused her power. If her solution to disruptive students is the publicly humiliate them while demanding complete subservience, then she doesn’t have what it takes to be a good professor. She needs to come to terms with the fact that her beliefs about feminism and transgender issues are just that – her beliefs. She should not be misusing the university classroom to impose her beliefs on her students, all backed by the threat of such authoritarian punishments. She should recognize that just because someone doesn’t share in her beliefs does not mean they are a monster. Put simply, she really needs to learn how to think critically.
We are left with yet another example of how intersectionalists crave the use of power to excessively punish their ideological foes. When I was younger, I used to truly wonder how any human being could help build or run a gulag or concentration camp. Such deep inhumanity seemed a mystery. By reading and watching these social justice ideologues, the answer is quite clear. Give these ideologues great power and they are precisely the type of person who would help build or run a gulag or concentration camp. All in the name of social justice.