I was pointed to this yesterday, and waited until today to post for a number of reasons. One of which is the justifiable fear I have of Blackfive taking a bar of soap to my mouth for violating the family friendly rule here. Another was dealing with the absolute disgust I have for the pseudo-intellectual morally vacuous mental masturbation disguised as academic knowledge to be discussed.
Given that this does deal with adult topics, and some sensitive issues, the rest will be below the fold.
I'm going to give an example from my own life to show just how wrong (on so many levels) Assistant Professor Amy Hagopian is in her comparison. In fact, I will do so by using a far more direct "logic" tree than used by her.
As some of you know, I had a run-in with a paedophile when I was an adolescent. It took me years before I admitted it to my parents (short version, I hadn't wanted them to kill him, he was mine to kill if I so chose), and even longer before I was prepared to discuss it in public to any degree. Part of that is because I got off lucky, very lucky -- I got groped and dealt with the person in my own unique way. For many, it didn't get stopped at the groping.
One thing I've never admitted in public before is that this person was an authority figure. Not just because he was friends with someone I trusted and thought the world of, but because they were an academic. In point of fact, they spent most of their career in academia and academic management. The positions they held/had held put them in a special position of trust. Sort of like an assistant professor could be said to hold a special position of trust they should not abuse, no?
Well, no. Were I to make that posit, I would be as intellectually bereft and morally bankrupt as Hagopian. I do not hold all coaches and principals (or assistant professors and associate professors) accountable for the wrong doing of one person. I say that despite knowing a couple of assistant and associate professors that could be the picture definition of asshole... And, I don't make that posit though it is far more direct, and closer to logically correct, than the drivel espoused by the zealot.
Indeed, if one wants to tie the government -- and that is precisely what she is trying to do -- to a clear, direct, and present danger to the children, then look no further than the TSA. I doubt she can or will, as it is direct, real, and all the things her argument is not. There is much I can and have said about the TSA (hint, I thought it a bad idea from the start, said so, and have continued to point out in various forums that it is not effective or efficient and in fact endangers the safety of the public by its focus on security theatre of the absurd).
I will say now for the record, from my own particular vantage point as a survivor and knowing a bit about aviation and aviation safety, that I think the new procedures useless from a safety standpoint, that they are a complete abrogation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution, and that they are indeed preparing generations to come to be subjects and victims. I also believe they are going to have their hands full when their groping triggers memories, flashbacks, and reactions from those that have been so abused. I flat out wonder how many malicious prosecutions they will consider or undertake against such persons (who have already been abused enough) to try to hide that fact. Hint, look at the rules about urination, defecation, ejaculation, vomit, and other that bring about mandatory prosecution for assault -- and then do a quick search on the reactions abuse victims may have to being again groped...
The zealot, however, is focused entirely on her regligious belief that the military is evil (war is bad, etc.) that she would rather let wholesale real abuse (and even real slaughter provided it's just to those she considers as "wogs") take place rather than lift the blinders a bit and actually think. I am going to resist a long commentary on how so-called academics like her are bringing about the academic bubble soon to burst.
I could go into some good discussion on the relative numbers of sexual predators, paedophiles, and such in chosen career fields and the fallacious (anecdotal) causations one could derive from such. Does the military have problems with sexual predators? Yep, they do and it is something they are working on and trying to do more than just talk about (yes, feel free to draw an inference there). For me, I would rather hang with the military than with most academics, any day, for that and for other reasons. No small one being that most members of the military, unlike far too many academics, keep it real.
Reality is not where Hagopian lives, or even seems to visit much.
While I link to her bio above, if you care to send a polite, non-threatening, calm message, send it where it will do some good. Send it to the head of her department, and to the HR rep listed here. It won't accomplish much, I warn you now, but going those routes will have a better chance of doing something other than feeding a clearly needy ego and martyr complex.
Oh, and to take some of the disgusting out of your mouth, how about a contest. A real academic one at that. I will give a Cooking with the Troops pin to the person who correctly lists and details the largest number of logical fallacies (or see here) in her arguments. Easy task, I admit, but it will show more true academic rigor than anything I've seen out of the professor so far...