Unwelcome in Women’s Studies

Paul Kamolnick

Introduction

For over a decade, as part of a systematic critique of Marxist theory, I have developed a research interest in the implications of differing human capacities, propensities, and motivations, on the rethinking of traditional approaches to American social policy.

The first major focus of my research endeavor was to explore individual-level human variation, focusing specifically on human mental ability and its relation to social-class mobility and American social policy. This research culminated in a recently published book, The Just Meritocracy, and provided a platform for the second leg of my present research journey: human sex differences. Owing to the enormous breadth, depth, and policy implications of human sex differences, it was obvious that to read, analyze, and arrive satisfactorily at reasonable conclusions based on scientific evidence, a sustained academic focus would be required. As is common practice among faculty, new areas of research endeavor often warrant offering a “special topics” course in which to examine the material systematically. This is especially the case since my department is rather modest in size, does not have a doctoral program, and the types of courses we generally teach service the majors and minors in our program. Special-topics courses require motivation, competency, preparation, and clearance from the department chair. They also require that students enroll, and so an additional challenge is to excite students about a course not officially required for them, by advertising its availability through word-of-mouth, flyers placed on campus bulletin boards, and contacting individual faculty whose interests may make it likely to suggest the course to potential students they teach or are aware of. Finally, the title of the course should be inviting and provocative.

My special-topics course, “The Nature and Consequences of Human Sex Differences,” had everything going for it. The course was taught that spring semester in 2005, and has been taught twice since. It is my goal to make it a permanent course likely to be of interest to a variety of students in various majors. It is offered as a non-ideological, scientifically sound tour of the most recent consensus in the literature on such topics as sexual identity, sexual orientation, cognitive sex differences, human mate preferences, educational attainment, and occupational attainment and the division of labor. The course also provides a very systematic treatment of biological and neurobiological data required to understand the relative causal significance of genetic and non-genetic factors involved in human sex differences.

The case I present is not of a professor’s being denied his academic freedom to teach a course for which he had prepared and was qualified, though that has happened to me.1 Nor is it about a student who after receiving an unsatisfactory grade, decided to play the “race card” by suing myself and my employer, ETSU, in U.S. federal court, though that also has happened to me.2

Rather it is of a professor who, in electing to teach a special-topics course on human sex differences, discovers an entire program in the College of Arts and Sciences—Women’s Studies—whose criteria for course inclusion are in direct violation of several major rules and regulations governing academics at ETSU. As I stated in a cover letter to the ETSU provost, “The case as I view it, is not about whether I personally have taken offense at the disapproval of my course by official vote of the WMST Steering Committee. It is about my accidental discovery—as an unintended result of attempting to have my course recommended by the minor to its students—that the official criteria used by WMST to evaluate the academic merit of new course proposals are non-compliant with many existing policies that govern academics within the College and the University. Their non-compliance is demonstrated in the fact that criteria unrelated to subject-matter are used to determine how subject-matter may be analyzed and presented in the classroom.”3

Of great potential relevance to the academic freedom movement, I also discovered why internal reform strategies motivated by a tenured professor’s desire to remedy academic violations arising in so-called niche-programs such as ETSU Women’s Studies (WMST) proved to be a failure. The practically authoritarian and ill-defined administrative procedures governing leadership of a non-disciplinary niche program, the ideological-political control of the governance of WMST and voting rights on its Steering Committee, and the dean’s apparent unwillingness to enforce academic criteria in the college, are three obstacles I experienced in my case for reform.

In what follows I present a detailed account of my attempts to have a bona fide academic course in human sex differences recommended to Women’s Studies students; my discovery of the non-academic criteria used by WMST in its consideration of courses appropriate to the program; my inability to get the director of the program to answer key questions related to their decision not to recommend my course; my discovery of the existence of what amounts to an unelected central committee that controls the WMST program; my inability to receive assistance from the College dean despite evidence that I had provided, documenting the non-academic criteria and procedures used by the WMST program; and finally, my decision to end my efforts at reform, and the likely consequences thereof.

A Self-Selected Central Committee of the Gender Feminist Party Says “No!”

On 27 October 2004, twenty-three days after I had sent an e-mail and my attached syllabus to the director4 of the Women’s Studies minor at ETSU, a vote was held by the Women’s Studies Steering Committee (WSSC). The vote was 9–0, with one abstention, against recommending my course as an elective that Women’s Studies students could take for WMST credit the following Spring 2005 semester.5 Ironically, it was at the suggestion of a social work instructor in the Women’s Studies minor that I sent my inquiry to the director in the first place, so it made the vote all the more surprising.6 I am unaware of whether any other courses have ever been turned down by the WSSC, but in my case at least, I believed that the topic of my forthcoming course was so obviously germane to the subject-matter considered by the WMST program, that it made no sense to disapprove it as a course that should at least be worthy of recommendation to students.

I had furnished a very detailed syllabus with a day-by-day itinerary of readings and subject-matter that provided an objective basis for evaluating it.7 Also, I would have willingly discussed the course and how I thought it would proceed had I been contacted or invited to attend the WSSC meeting where it would be discussed. In fact a member of my own department who was a member of the WSSC told me the very day it was to be voted on that she was very surprised the director had not yet replied to my proposal.8 Though the vote occurred, I did not know what the outcome was and four days later I asked my colleague how my request was received. It turned out that despite being a member of the WSSC, she had missed the 27 October meeting because of student-advising responsibilities and didn’t know the outcome. She stated that she expected the Minutes to be sent out soon and at my request would speak to the Director and also forward me a copy of the WSSC 27 October 2004 Minutes.9

On 12 November 2004, I received from this colleague a copy of the 27 October 2004 WSSC Meeting Minutes containing the 9–0 vote against my course10 and also a Xeroxed copy of a section of what appears to be some previous WSSC meeting minutes entitled “Criteria for WS and WS Emphasis courses.”11 The 27 October Meeting Minutes first begin with a list of members present, then proceed to a summary of discussion of upcoming programming, and then under the heading “The Consideration of Paul Kamolnick’s class” are the following two bulleted points:

  • “The committee decided this course does not meet two of the three criteria needed for inclusion as a WS approved course.”

  • The final vote was 9 Nay, 0 Yay, 1 Abstain.”12

Which two of the three criteria did my course fail to meet? “To function as a WS (Women’s Studies) or WS emphasis course,” the document read, “a course would have to answer in the affirmative to two of the following three questions”:

  • Does the student receive information from non-traditional theoretical, methodological or philosophical perspectives or canons?

  • Does the course matter discuss in a substantial way how and in what ways gender, as constructed by a given society/culture, affects the lives of women?

  • Does the course make use of scholarship that specifically addresses women’s lives, accomplishments, and/or status?13

That day I wrote a lengthy e-mail to the director strongly suggesting that the 27 October 2004 vote was made in error, and I provided reasons and evidence for why I believed the WSSC should reconsider its decision. I emphatically defended the course as a vital contribution to the subject-matter of central importance to WMST, and also the sound academic manner in which I would approach its subject-matter. I also emphatically defended the fact that I had met all three of the above-stated criteria required for courses to be a Women’s Studies or Women’s Studies emphasis course.14 As stated in that e-mail:

My course begins by objectively considering two theoretical perspectives for understanding human sex differences. One perspective is social constructionist, the other includes genetical factors. Each perspective is to be carefully and objectively developed with attention paid to underlying assumptions, theoretical variables, causal linkages, hypothesized linkages, and predictions arising from each. Following this objective presentation, the course examines the empirical evidence for human sex differences. The evidence is presented in an objective manner, and each theoretical perspective will be evaluated based on how well they are able to explain observed patterns in the data, and how the data conform to their assumptions. There is no ideological or political bias to the course.

It is my opinion that this course does in fact meet the three criteria specified above. First, it does include information from non-traditional theoretical, methodological or philosophical perspectives or canons. This is true whether ‘non-traditional’ is applied to the presentation of social constructionist or to non-social constructionist theory. It depends on what you are interpreting to be ‘non-traditional’. Second, the course discusses in a substantive way how and in what ways gender, as constructed by a given society/culture, affects the lives of women. Constructionist variables are definitely included in this course and are considered essential to many variables we consider. Finally, the course makes use of scholarship that specifically addresses the lives, accomplishments, and/or status of women. Not only does the course comprehensively cover issues of direct relevance, many of the major sources of data are authored by women.

In conclusion, I want to make sure that you are certain that my course does not satisfy your criteria for inclusion in the Women’s Studies minor. Specifically, I am requesting that you reconsider your decision, and I would be more than willing to attend a meeting so that you may ask questions directly and I may provide answers forthrightly.

It is unfortunate that my course could not be announced as a cross-listed course in time to appear in the Spring 2005 course schedule [sic] I think this would have enhanced enrollment and would have served the students in the minor well. Regardless, I am requesting that this decision be reviewed by your committee and that you are certain for the grounds of your decision. Respectfully yours, Paul Kamolnick.15

Understanding by this time that the probability of receiving a favorable rehearing for my course was unlikely, and having failed to have it cross-listed in the university catalogue where students would actually be officially aware of its existence as a potential WS course, in my next e-mail (16 November 2004) I posed four questions which, it seems to me, were essential to clarifying in my own mind the potential grounds for the unanimous negative vote. My four questions to the director, which have never been answered, were the following:

  • Which two of the three criteria did my Special Topics course ... fail to satisfy?

  • When did the three criteria used to evaluate a WS and WS Emphasis course get established? Specifically, when were these three criteria approved, and by what official process were they adopted?

  • How is the term “non-traditional” defined? Could you provide specific examples of a “non-traditional” and a “traditional” theoretical, methodological, or philosophical perspective or canon?

  • What is meant by, “discuss in a substantial way how and in what ways gender, as constructed by a given society/culture, affects the lives of women”?16

I concluded my e-mail stating that “I would like to resolve this matter at the lowest possible administrative level, if at all possible. Responding promptly to my requests would be greatly appreciated, and would also furnish evidence that you are interested in fully clarifying the basis of your decision.”17

On 16 November, in a series of e-mail exchanges between the director and me, matters went from uncooperative to terminal. In addition to not answering my four questions, additional criteria were asserted by the director as justifying the WSSC decision. These additional criteria unequivocally demonstrate the non-academic nature of the program and the virtually unlimited prerogative of the WSSC to enforce selectively whatever courses it believed fulfilled its ideological-political vision.18 For example, in addition to the three criteria above, I was informed that an “implicit and important part of using our criteria is to ascertain whether a proposed course meets them based on what the program is in need of at the time of the proposal” (italics in original).19 “Our decisions about what is needed in the program,” I was told, “are based on the current trends in the discipline, on what successfully growing women’s studies programs comprise across the country, and on the committee’s shared vision for women’s studies at ETSU.” Add to the impossibility of ever questioning the essentially unlimited discretion involved in such invocations of interpretive license of the argument from authority (a logical fallacy) whereby “[w]e made these decisions carefully and mindfully as women’s studies specialists and have no cause to reconsider at this time.” The argument from authority was again invoked to remind me, in case I had forgotten, that, after all, “[n]ine votes in the negative, no votes in the affirmative, and my say as director of the program have determined that your course is a sufficient match for none of these.”20

A final insincere and erroneous reason was given having to do with whether a course can be cross-listed or not, with the director telling me that “we don’t have a mechanism for cross-listing courses; the way a course affiliates with the WS minor, as with other minors on campus, is to be part of the minor. The only way a course gets a WMST prefix is to be a WMST course....”21 To this I responded in an e-mail of 16 November 2004 that in fact Women’s Studies has cross-listed several courses (examples of which I provided), that their own criteria as published on their web site authorized special topics courses, and that the WSSC has the discretion to determine which courses it seeks to cross-list in a given semester. I concluded my e-mail:

You have not represented your own procedures accurately, and it is only by independently investigating courses that have been taught in the program, that I learned that my course is being treated in a prejudicial and discriminatory manner. In fact, you have the discretion to determine whether a course may be counted, and you have elected not to. Again, please furnish answers to the four questions I previously posed. You have yet to provide those answers, and they are very germane to the case at hand.22

Not only did I not learn about why my course was not recommended, I also learned that as a tenured professor in an academic institution I had discovered a component of the university that functioned outside the professional and collegial boundaries that govern the genuine disciplines. The criteria used, the committee procedures, the virtually untrammeled authority to override academic criteria, all were evident. The final communication from the director, if you can call it that, marked her unilateral termination of dialogue, and therefore a dead-end in my search for answers:

“i don’t share your sense of urgency about answering your questions, since it will have no bearing on your spring class counting as an approved course for minors. i will get to them when i get to them. i am now finished with this exchange.”23

Seeking Support from the Dean of the ETSU College of Arts and Sciences

It had been my goal from the beginning of my inquiry into the grounds for the negative vote to observe the official university chain of command. In a typical academic department the chain begins with the faculty member, then proceeds to the lowest level administrative head—the departmental chair—and then to the college dean, and ultimately to the senior academic officer of the university, the ETSU Vice-President for Academic Affairs/Provost. But women’s studies is not an academic department so I asked two of my colleagues whether they knew what the next level of administrative authority would be in this case. They weren’t that sure and suggested that it would either be the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, or possibly the college Curriculum Committee.24

As it turns out, I did not have to go the dean, because the dean came to me. Not, however, in a way that I had expected. The director of Women’s Studies, following her unilateral termination of “dialogue” with me, apparently contacted the dean and as a result of her representation of events, and his acceptance of her prerogative to act and to define her discretion when determining courses in the college, adopted what could be easily viewed as an adversarial posture toward me. If not adversarial, at least no independent investigation was launched, and the director’s arbitrary grounds were reiterated as apparently acceptable to him.

Dear Paul

The recent e-mail exchange between you and [the WMST director] regarding your proposal to have your course made available to students within the Women’s Studies minor has been brought to my attention by [her]. I am satisfied that your course was given at least a comparable level of consideration to that afforded other proposals. The Women’s Studies Steering Committee decided that it does not meet their criteria or the needs of the program at this time. Since they have given careful consideration to the content of approximately 170 Women’s Studies programs across the country, I am willing to accept their judgment.... In my opinion, demanding answers to a set of questions by a particular deadline is neither courteous nor productive. I do not consider that your rights are being infringed in any way; you will teach the course as you see fit next semester. As a courtesy to you, I have asked [the director] to provide you with further feedback, but since this not going to affect your teaching in spring 2005, I do not see any urgency for her to do so ... I am asking that you let the matter rest. I am sure that [she] will provide you with further information in due course. If you wish to talk with me about the matter, I am willing to do so, although I do not know what we can accomplish25

While deferring to the dean’s judgment concerning the inadvisability of a meeting at that time, and to allow the director to clarify the issues first, I stated that I “would very much like to discuss my grounds for asserting that the procedure followed to consider my course is non-compliant with established law and university policy.”26 To which the dean responded, thanking me for my “willingness to let this matter rest for now” and that we “wait until you do receive further feedback from [the director] before we meet.” He finished by stating that he had “read the entire series of e-mails” between the director and me, and that therefore “he was aware of the issues” and would be “happy to discuss this with you in due course.”27

After a few attempts to obtain a copy of Minutes from subsequent Women’s Studies Steering Committee meetings to learn whether any reconsideration or discussion of my course proposal was conducted,28 I let the matter rest. For now I had done all I could to receive a fair hearing and I had no choice but to let time pass. I had been represented to the dean as an aggressive and hostile party, and he was apparently persuaded that nothing was amiss and that answers to my questions would be forthcoming.

Three Months Later, with No Answers in Sight, I Again Appeal to the Dean

Three months later, on 17 February 2005, my “The Nature and Consequences of Human Sex Differences” course was in full swing and proceeding beyond expectations—especially for a first preparation on a special topics course—I decided to reinitiate contact with the dean. Reminding the dean of the basic flow of events last semester I got to the gist of my e-mail:

It is February 17, 2005, approximately three months since I made that request [for answers to my four questions] and I haven’t yet received a response. Also, as you may recall, [the director] unilaterally terminated a dialogue on this matter with me ... and therefore I do not want to risk being interpreted as “aggressive” or “threatening” in any way, and felt it would be better if I contact you directly. I am sure that you are very busy these days and I regret burdening you with this request, but as I earlier stated, it is my present opinion that the WMST procedure followed for considering my course is not compliant with established university policy. Receiving direct and forthright answers from [the WMST director] will assist me in further clarifying the rationale and modus operandi followed by WMST.29

A major turning-point between the dean and me on this matter took place on 2 March 2005.30 On the basis of several e-mails I was led to the conclusion that I had no choice but to proceed to a more formal presentation of my case to the dean, and also to escalate the matter by appealing to the next academic administrator, the provost, in the academic chain of command. Why did I feel that a dead-end had been reached at the level of the college dean? The dean’s first response to my 17 February 2005 letter cited above openly admitted that his e-mail “does not provide any information beyond what you have already.” The dean, paraphrasing from an e-mail from the director, since she “is unwilling to respond to you directly” reiterated the following points, which were practically verbatim from previous discussions of this matter: “The course you proposed does not fit into the Women’s Studies program at ETSU nor would it fit into any of the programs across the country that they reviewed. The committee voted on whether your course met 2 of the 3 criteria they established, and there were 8 no votes and 1 abstention. They went no further than that since there appeared to be no need for further discussion.”31

The unquestioning nature of the dean’s attitude toward Women’s Studies’ prerogative is evident here, but his e-mail also provides a crucial window into the present organizational prerogatives enjoyed by a program that appears to have no oversight, no formal administrative relationships, and can practically define its mission without any reference to criteria typically governing the established disciplines. As the dean himself stated:

Women’s Studies is not quite like a department, and it does have a looser organization. As I understand it, however, it does have an established steering committee that has the right to make decisions about new courses in much the same way a department may do.... [I] believe they have the right to make decisions based on their view of the direction the program should take. I do not see how anything productive can come from pursuing the matter further.32

Later that day, I responded to the dean’s e-mail with a lengthy e-mail. Because of the allegations I raised in this e-mail, and the issues it raises for the broader academic freedom movement, it is well worth reproducing in full.33

Dear Dean Anderson:

At some future date I will request a meeting in which we may discuss this matter fully. I would like to have the opportunity to systematically, and in detail, present my case that the decision taken by the ETSU Women’s Steering Committee, and [the WMST director], are not compliant with established university policy, as well as several others. This matter is not about whether my course is considered an appropriate course as an elective special topics course for the WMST minor. It is about whether non-academic criteria may be used to determine whether a course is excluded within a publicly financed university governed by the tenets of academic freedom and responsibility.

The criteria used in the vote against my proposal, in my opinion, privilege a priori non-academic attachments apparently maintained as a consensus opinion by individuals on this Steering Committee. I believe that the criteria used to exclude my course are non-academic in nature, and ideological in orientation.

Additionally, are you aware that voting members [of the Steering Committee] include an administrative employee whose highest degree attained is a Bachelor’s of General Studies (B.G.S.), and [one with] an M.A.?

Are you telling me that persons whose highest rank is director of a non-academic unit with a B.G.S. and an M.A. in sociology (I presume), have voting rights over a tenured associate professor, with 14 years of academic and scholarly achievement, and that that vote can be based on whether I teach the course in a “non-traditional” manner?

Do you not realize that the decision to exclude my course as an elective has nothing to do with academic merit?

You state that: “Women’s Studies is not quite like a department, and it does have a looser organization. As I understand it, however, it does have an established steering committee that has the right to make decisions about new courses in much the same way that a department might do.”

I am resolved to making sure that the highest academic standards are maintained in our College, as are you. I believe the current lack of oversight of this “not quite like a department” status of this niche-program, and this “does have a looser organization” status of its current governance, undermines the integrity of the College, and academic freedom within the College. Departments are collections of mostly tenured faculty with expertise in various areas, and that operate strictly and as a matter of principle, within the framework of a scientific commitment to objectivity, theoretical agnosticism, and the right to teach and the right to learn unhindered by the prejudicial attachments of any specific colleague or group of colleagues. Departments are accountable, evaluated, and institutionally circumscribed from dictating the methods and theoretical approaches that may be considered in the area of a faculty member’s expertise. Decisions are most certainly not made in departments using the criteria that I understand to be central to the WMST Steering Committee. It is obvious from the quote above that the institutional oversight that governs the normal departments that make up a liberal arts institution have somehow been circumvented. I only discovered this when attempting to have a course listed that is without question germane to the WMST program. It is my sense that they suspect I am not a “fellow traveler” and therefore do not want me to spoil the show. Something is definitely wrong, Dean Anderson. This is not how scholars treat one another, nor how the scientific enterprise has amassed its enormous bounty of insight into the workings of human nature, including most definitely, the workings of males and females as a moment of variation on that human nature.

As stated in a previous e-mail, I am committed to resolving this at the lowest administrative level possible. At some future date I would like to meet with you for a period of 2 hours or so to discuss the matter fully. I am of the opinion that this matter remains unresolved, and that my very legitimate requests have gone unmet. Refusal to provide the grounds for the criteria used to exclude my course and the administrative history behind them, is an unacceptable outcome, and should not stand.

I’ll be in touch at some future date. In the interim, if you would like to discuss this matter, or how I will be approaching it, I would be glad to oblige you.

Respectfully yours,

Paul

To which the dean responded, obviously in no mood to belabor a point he felt had been made, in his final e-mail later that day: “Paul, I will be happy to meet with you, but certainly not for 2 hours Gordon.”34

My Formal Memorandum, with Supporting Documents, to the Dean and Provost, and Its Aftermath

I spent my 2005 Spring Break compiling a formal memorandum, accompanied by an Appendix containing all of the relevant documentary evidence, and on 14 March 2005, I sent via campus mail one copy to the Dean and one to the Provost.35 This 28-page document presents in fuller detail the facts I have presented here, but includes in addition several other documents supporting my allegations of non-compliance with existing regulations governing academics in the College,36 as well as several specific logical grounds for challenging the work of the WMST Steering Committee. Each copy of the Memorandum was prefaced by a letter, one written to the dean and one to the Provost reiterating my central contention that “the vote taken on 27 October 2004 by the ETSU Women’s Studies (WMST) program and subsequent communication by its director ... confirms that the WMST minor, as presently structured and governed, is not compliant with established ETSU policies, Tennessee Board of Regents policies, and fundamental principles governing academic tenure, freedom, and responsibility, in publicly-financed universities.”37

My cover letter to the ETSU Senior Vice-President for Academic Affairs/Provost marked a significant new development since it is the first time that I had made him aware of this issue, and of the inadequate administrative response I felt this serious matter had received to this point, and my resolve to see matters through. “It remains my desire,” I stated, “to remediate this matter at the lowest administrative level possible. As you shall see from a careful reading of the documentary evidence, however, to date my efforts have not met with the professional reception I believe they warrant. I have sent you a copy of this memorandum and its supporting documents simply to make you aware of this matter, and to alert you to the possibility that I may at some future date seek remedies through your office. I regret burdening you with this case, but it is my considered opinion that this case has direct bearing on matters that you, the highest academic officer of the university, would desire to be fully informed of.”38

Ten days later I e-mailed the dean to confirm receipt of the memorandum and accompanying documents, and to suggest a future meeting for us to discuss them.39 Four days later, on 28 March the dean responded stating that he “had received and read [my] memorandum and the approximately 60 pages of supporting materials” and that he appreciated my “concern with academic quality.” “Of course,” he would state, “that [academic quality] is my concern also.” He stated that I had “raised some points that [he] will discuss with the Director of the Women’s Studies program in order to determine if there are ways we may strengthen the minor.” Finally, that since I had “provided such a high level of detail in the documents [I] sent [him],” that he did “not think we need to meet to discuss this further. I believe this is now a matter for [the WMST director] and me to address.”40 In a final e-mail to the dean on 29 March, I said that if “I can be of any further assistance please let me know” and that “I look forward to meeting with you on some other occasion, in actuality and not virtually.”41

Conclusion

The question of whether the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn—the very essence of academic freedom—has been subverted by ideologically motivated academics can only be settled by evidence. The evidence I presented unequivocally demonstrates that in at least one public, tax-funded university—East Tennessee State University (ETSU)—and in at least one program—Women’s Studies—ideological indoctrination and political orthodoxy have subverted academic freedom and responsibility.

I have learned of the existence of a program within my own university whose primary mission is the indoctrination of followers into a political-ideological worldview, and not the objective, academic, scientific consideration of a subject-area, in this case, human sex differences. What I also learned is how the present governance of these “niche programs” is not subject to the typical conventions governing standard disciplines.

So what have been the longer term consequences of my efforts at internal reform during the period 4 October 2004 through 29 March 2005? I will let the reader judge for themselves. Women’s Studies has now become a major, rather than a minor area of study. Introduction to Women’s Studies can now be taken as three of six required hours in the core area, Social and Behavioral Sciences, even though that course is not taught in any social or behavioral science departments. Women’s Studies now has required courses in the new Leadership Studies Minor, and Women’s Studies enhanced courses are taught in many established departments, including my own.

After expending the effort I did over that period I decided simply to let the matter go and teach my course without inquiring again whether WMST would be interested, and I have not researched whether the criteria determining what counts as a WMST course, or its governing structure have been changed in the program. These are issues requiring research, and if still problematic, demonstrate the continuing non-compliance of WMST with the academic mission of the university.

If the goal of the national academic freedom movement is to expose ideological orthodoxy in academe, I have contributed my small share of data. The science of human sex difference competes with the ideology of extreme gender feminism on my campus. I will let you determine who you believe may be winning out.

  • Share
Most Commented

August 23, 2021

1.

Testing the Tests for Racism

What is the veracity of "audit" studies, conducted primarily by sociologists, that appear to demonstrate that people of color confront intense bias at every level of society?...

April 16, 2021

2.

Social Justice 101: Intro. to Cancel Culture

Understanding the illogical origin of cancel culture, we can more easily accept mistakes, flaws, and errors in history, and in ourselves, as part of our fallen nature....

June 7, 2021

3.

Anticipating Academia’s Decline Already in 1971

Pipes nominates Nathan Marsh Pusey, president of Harvard 1953-71, as the person who first foresaw and explained the modern American university’s disastrous decline....

Most Read

May 30, 2018

1.

The Case for Colonialism

From the summer issue of Academic Questions, we reprint the controversial article, "The Case for Colonialism." ...

December 21, 2017

2.

August 24, 2021

3.

Reviving American Higher Education: An Analysis and Blueprint for Action

Most of the problems in higher education are rooted in an unexamined rejection of Western civilization's moral tradition. This malady requires moral correction and meaningful accountabil......