Ah, there it is on refresh. I was just about to ask what his grade was. Well done, all.

Another one where it would be interesting to see a follow-up. If you see this, Jason, I hope you can let us know how it works out.

Ah. Refresh before posting. Got it.

Wow, Dan! Nice work! Bravely handled.

The attraction to children is a disease. The attraction is not the crime: the *actin on it* is the crime. I am 100% behind everything you said, Dan, with the sole exception of calling the professor a piece of shit. I wouldn't want words put in my mouth either & I know the edginess is your signature style. But the rest of everything you said is so compassionate & serious, it kinda rang false.

Congratulations Jason, for challenging your professor. That's education. Not just because you are a fellow fan of someone I admire the writing of, but for using critical thinking when responding. Jason, your attitude of, wanting to help your professor speaks volumes about your character. He perhaps needs more help. IDK how professional it is of him to share his issues with you in that way.

Plenty of people who have been abused have found help & solace via Mr. Savage, & I don't think your professor quoted Dan accurately.

Is this teacher fairly young? I'm not an expert in the classroom, having only taken 1 graduate seminar on teaching methodology, but it strikes me that it's pretty difficult to justify the pedagogical function of the teacher's response. The "correcting tone" should be about factual information. And their comments, if they believe have some educational value to the classroom should be brought up in discussion and not in "red ink" in a tone of judgement. I can imagine a situation where someone chooses a controversial figure as a social justice hero, Fidel Castro for example. But experienced instructors can usually tease the objections people might raise at that selection out in conversation without ever becoming the voice of judgement, i.e. would facilitate a conversation not dictate a moral truth. This sounds like a young teacher for those reasons, and so James Cantor makes a really good point. This person needs mentoring from their department chair.

Sadly, I don't think this opened the instructor's mind. I think the instructor was pissing herself realizing that she had put her remarks in writing, and that if she gave an unfair grade after this exchange she could be in a lot of trouble.

I recognize the type of social justice professor Jason is describing -- we have a bunch of them at my university. They are accustomed to telling students what they are allowed to think, and when they encounter intelligent pushback they are remarkably unprepared.

Curious to see if the professor could provide that link, so we could see exactly what Dan said that s/he was misunderstanding.

Not saying Dan actually said anything of the sort. Rather, there is this habit on the part of the public (particularly pronounced in conservative haters) to get their teeth into a concept and refuse to let go of it. For some reason this strikes me as one of those; perhaps the professor got hooked by a quote-mine that's just beginning to gain traction? It's helpful to be able to refute, or at least clarify, with complete information.

@6

Did you not read the part where the instructor was convinced to at least consider her student's point of view? How do the conclusions you just made conform to that information? She/He seemed to have reasons to feel they way they did and those feelings were changed by a reasonable response. I think it's quite inspiring, actually, to know there are people who can be persuaded by reason.

"...white male heterosexual privilege..."
Vomit.

Dan Savage. You are awesome.

@9: And yet it is a thing. Interesting discussion after this week's The Good Wife in which people kept trying to explain that Peter, the State's Attorney, cannot be called racially biased. It's just that he's more comfortable with white people from a background similar to his own, and so he promotes them and passes over all the African Americans in the office with more experience. It's not racist! It's just that people like to promote people who are just like them, with whom they share social connections. What exactly people who were not wealthy white straight males might do to get promoted in this environment was a question that did not seem to have occurred to the posters, probably because this stuff had never affected them.

PC Buzzword bingo can be annoying, especially if someone is bound and determined to be somehow victimized. But that doesn't mean the privilege of being in a favored group by birth is not a real thing. And often a thing invisible to the people in that group.

Good on the instructor for being open to a different point of view! This student clearly cares about the subject and is willing to put in the time to get the subject sorted out. I commend all involved.

"Social Justice Class"

It seems to be as horrible as it sounds.

@14 - I think there's quite a distinction between how one ought to feel about a person who wishes to pursue consensual adult relationships with a person of the same sex and a person who wishes to pursue such a relationship with a child.

Did anyone else read the New Yorker article last week about the Adam Walsh law? Basically, people who view child pornography have been locked up years beyond their sentences in institutions where the content of therapy sessions is used against them.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/…

Look, ma, no pay wall!

I do vaguely remember the letter in question. An adult child found some stuff on Dad's computer, and Dan pointed out that maybe it was there unintentionally (perhaps Dad downloaded a big directory without checking all the contents, or it was a part of some virus). Dan basically said not to call the cops right away because it might be a mistake. He did NOT say child pornography or looking at such was okay.

@14, in this case, it is making a distinction between behavior that is harmful and desire that has not been acted on. Far different than consentual behavior that is doing no harm to anyone. If a person has managed to avoid acting on his harmful desires, we should be all in on helping him maintain. There is no actual behavior to hate. He hasn't done anything wrong.

More ideological purity horse shit. When it's not the radical right it's loony left with their pious check-list nonsense.

I agree philosophically with Sargon. Just where is the distinction? Were we still in ancient Greece, the whole pedophile 'thing' would be moot- it's just what society does. Just as gay was illegal, against society's morals, etc. The catholics et al, are finally advancing to the same point Dan's at with pedophiles re: queerness- 'we know you can't help your attractions, but don't act on them', or something. So there's really no difference in the thought processes, just the object of those processes.
Even the distinction between consenting adults v unable to consent (responsibly) minors is an arbitrary line in the sand we've drawn. At 16, I was more than happy to be 'abused' by my much older queer buddy. Yet the law would have locked him up as a pedophile.
Bottom line is that society decides what is legal v illegal. And society does change its outlook on things with the times. Even the attitude re: pedophile priests has changed with the outing of the gays- in the day when these priests abused, it was simply too shameful to even think about clearly, much less discuss, among both priests and laity. Now that we talk about such things openly, it's changed the whole discussion, and what they've done has become abominable. There was a day when 'Don't want your son buggered, don't let him be an altar boy' was kind of the way it was.

Ms Hopkins and Mr Arsenic both gender the instructor contrarily. Fair enough. But which of them is right?

Oh - and apologies to Ms Margaret for not mentioning that she genders the professor noncontrarily.

My opinion of James Cantor has just tanked. What a bully.

I think the professor was wrong. Dan, as usual, handled this well.

But Cantor encouraging the student to file a formal complaint to dept. chair and licensing board? Whoa! (since when are professors licensed? unless I guess the professor is a psychologist or a doctor)

Nowhere in what the student said, did the professor threaten the student's grade, neither explicitly nor implicitly, nor do anything unethical or incompetent.

It is perfectly OK for a teacher to share personal opinions when relevant to class content, provided they delineate it's personal opinion, and are open to a two-way dialogue with a student with the expectation that either prof. or student (or both) might change their minds on the basis of evidence -- which is exactly what happened.

Isn't this type of exchange what should be taking place in college? Especially in a social justice class?

@29:
If Cantor read the first email and not the second, I understand what he's thinking.

The professor used strong language making baseless accusations with no sourcing (both pro child porn & other "dangerous advice") and then used victim status to discourage debate. Within the context of the power a professor has over an undergrad, that's the real academic bullying, IMO.

College students out there -- puhlease save your complaints for real jerks. (And if your prof has tenure, you're probably shit out of luck.)

Opinion of Dan went down a notch too, for not questioning Cantor's suggestion to go to the dept. chair about being afraid even though there was no intimidation, no professional wrongdoing. There's a whole school of pedagogy in social justice that disclosing one's history is relevant and a good teaching technique.

Plus, many profs are not tenured. I once was not re-appointed after I said in lecture "in my opinion our society is really fucked up on this issue" [not giving homeless people enough support], and a Christian student complained about the f* word. They found someone else to teach next time... even though 95% of students said my class was the best they'd ever had. Now I have tenure and have been a dept. chair, and on the other side, it's all about reducing liability, even if a complaint is groundless, easier to hire another adjunct next time.

Methinks Cantor & Savage don't understand how colleges in USA work and/or were assholes on this point.

I think in all this discussion it is often lost that a lot of the people who rape children *ALSO RAPE ADULTS.*

some pedophiles don't harm children, either directly or by consuming child porn, and on the other hand, a large portion of the people who *do* harm children are *not* pedophiles in that they are also attracted to adults and just don't give a shit about consent, is all.

@30 well, I re-re-read the student's first letter and the direct quote from the prof that begins "Just an FYI, there are those of us who do not believe..."

I don't see any intimidation or abuse of power or failure to indicate it was personal opinion.

The prof. was wrong on the facts, and of course professors should be correct.

As to victim status, I hear you, there's a school that says professors should be to-the-facts-only and never mention anything about who they are, but frankly that's dated, today the pedagogy says engage, share, delineate your experience, encourage dialogue.

The prof. concluded by praising Savage's IGB project -- indicating the door was open for dialogue and the prof. was respecting the student's appreciation of Savage (and we now know the dialogue took place).

So again, the prof was an idiot and wrong, and maybe you don't like his/her pedagogy, but from what was given to us and Cantor, def. not abusing power.

@18 I'm pretty sure it was actually a podcast call-- I started listening to the archives fairly recently. But I think you have the story and the advice correct. That said I also at the time was thinking, "Dan's right, probably not pedophile... but..."

This struck me as a little Reader's Digest-y. Could Dan have gotten trolled by some student who made up this insanely terrible(and eventually repentant) social justice professor just to get Dan write back to him?

@19: It's not a paradox. You consider a case on the merits of its particulars, not on its syntactic similarity to some other case. If mere similarity in logical construction granted the same validity, we would be grinding up people along with cows for hamburger.

@25: You do know what the V in "HIV" stands for?

hint: "Human Immunodeficiency VIRUS." Not "Human Immunodeficiency Buttsex."

Moron.

@ 23, Mr Ven:

I was surprised that some commenters gendered the professor female. In my mind the instructor was definitely male.

Think it's this column that people keep trying to cite?

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…

Ms Migrationist - Okay, that's 2 F>M, 1 F>F and 1 M>F. We need a larger sample size.

vennominon: The Gender Guesser website votes M, with too few words for accuracy.

I think the instructor might have misinterpreted this column: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag… which is not about child pornography, but incest pornography, which is most likely made with legal-age performers. I think the distinction Dan drew in the column, between people who are turned on by incest as an erotic hypothetical and those who want to fuck their nonhypothetical relatives, was very smart and sensible. I can see, however, how an incest survivor might have failed to read it correctly on account of being emotionally triggered while reading it.