We got a huge amount of feedback in response to my post yesterday about the Laura Kipnis story out of Northwestern, one of which I already published Tuesday afternoon. They ranged the gamut from hearty agreement to strenuous disagreement, with at least a few stuck in the sort of fatuous new-speak that I ridiculed in my original post. What was most interesting though is something one almost always finds in these sorts of cases, which is that people on either side of the issue were focusing on very different things, if not addressing very different questions.
So for instance, those who agreed with what I wrote were focusing on generational conflict, attempts to shoehorn Title IX law into a broader war to bludgeon opponents in a sort of campus culture war, while those who disagreed zeroing in on ways in which Kipnis seemed to poo-poo accusations which if proven count as criminal behavior under current law. What makes big debates so hard to get a handle on is that we're usually arguing not just over the facts and 'what's right' but often even more so over which facts or questions even matter.
Read More →