Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, January 18, 2013

SL Letter of the Day: Schooling Your Instructor

Posted by on Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I am currently taking an intro to social justice class at my college. One of our weekly assignments is to pick two social justice heroes, or whom we find to be social justice heroes. You were on my list. I mentioned that in my early realization of my white male heterosexual privilege, I found you and your article "Savage Love" to be an educational opportunity. I went on to reference a bit of your wiki biography, and also the impact of the "It Gets Better" Project.

After turning this in, I got this response from my instructor:

"Just as an FYI, there are those of us who do not believe Savage’s column is a good source of information. In fact, I urge young people to eschew much of the 'advice' he gives in this column. I remember reading a column wherein he advised a young man who found child porn on his father’s computer to not be too quick to pass judgment. Savage said that it was possible to be attracted to child porn without doing anything 'wrong.' This is abhorrent to me and many other people who are incest survivors ourselves, or have worked with incest survivors. This is not the only piece of bad, potentially dangerous advice he has given.
He has also been guilty of bullying, most recently when he called a group of high school students 'pansy-asses' for walking out of his lecture. While I really appreciate the 'It Gets Better' project, I speak out vehemently against his column."

I haven't changed my opinion on how I view your column, though I was wondering how you would reply to some of these viewpoints. I am actually hoping to quote your reply in another assignment. I realize I risk alienating my instructor with this inquiry, and potentially damaging my GPA.

Jason Morris

My somewhat epic response to Jason—and his to mine, and someone else's to his and mine, and his to ours, and Jason's final grade—after the jump.

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Do you have a link—does your instructor have a link—to the column where I supposedly told someone not to freak out about his dad looking at child porn? I don't recall writing that. I've written hundreds of columns, and I've written a few about child porn and pedophiles, but I don't recall writing the column your instructor describes. I'm against child porn—its production, its consumption. But maybe I did say something like that once. Maybe I messed up. Sometimes I do. But I'd like a link, please, if your instructor can provide one.

I ask for a link because a lot of people make bullshit claims about things I've allegedly written but can't, when challenged, point to a column where I said what they're condemning me for saying. Here's an example.

As for the "pansy-assed" remark, here are two links for you. Feel free to share them with your instructor. Link one, link two. It strikes me as odd that your “social justice” instructor sides with rightwing Christians—with people like Brian Brown and Tony Perkins—in describing my remarks at that high school journalism conference as "bullying." The Economist, hardly a left wing rag, said it was not. And please read Amanda Marcotte at Slate unpacking what the right was really up to when they attacked me for pointing out the bullshit in the bible. (And after reading Marcotte: does it strike you as odd that your “intro to social justice” instructor is giving the haters an assist in declaring the Bible, the justification for so much social injustice, to be off limits to criticism?)

Circling back to child porn and pedophiles…

There's a movement to make a distinction between pedophiles and child molesters. Look up James Cantor's work. People don't choose to be pedophiles and most pedophiles never offend. If we want to protect children, we should provide non-offending pedophiles with the counseling and support they need to resist offending and provide pedophiles who have offended—and have gone to prison—with the counseling and support they need to never offend again.

Your instructor is right about one thing: I do make a distinction between people who are "attracted to child porn" and people have have done something "wrong." Creating or possessing kiddie porn is a crime and I support the prosecution of child pornographers and the consumers of child porn who fuel demand for child porn. But we want to make a clear distinction between people who are attracted to child porn—or to children—and people who have acted on those attractions, i.e. people who have consumed child porn or sexually assaulted children. By making that distinction—and by providing counseling and support to pedophiles who have not offended—the research shows that we can keep pedophiles from offending. Making a clear distinction between pedophiles and child molesters protects children. Anyone interested in actually protecting children from sexual abuse and not just feeling morally superior to pedophiles—which isn't setting the bar too terribly high, is it?—should support efforts to make this distinction.

And your instructor is dishonestly and manipulatively conflating incest and child porn and pedophiles and child molesters—and playing the victim card while doing so—all in an effort to prevent you from thinking critically about the assertions your instructor is making. (Because if you were to do that—if you were to challenge your instructor once the victim card has been played—then you risk further traumatizing your instructor, right?)

You need to read Cantor's stuff. Here's something he wrote for CNN. Here he is giving advice in a recent "Savage Love" to a pedophile struggling to keep from harming children. I interviewed him on a recent episode of the “Savage Lovecast,". [This exchange is from earlier in the fall. But just this week Cantor's work was discussed in a long article in the LA Times.]

This movement isn't about sympathizing with child molesters or people who have raped their relatives or "normalizing pedophilia" or telling people that they shouldn't be concerned about child porn. This is about understanding that being attracted to children is a curse, not a choice, and that a pedophile who is getting counseling and support is much less likely to harm a child. (I'm CC’ing James Cantor on this email, in case he'd like to weigh in. Hi, James!)

Your instructor is misrepresenting my position on a very sensitive subject and that… well, that’s pretty deeply shitty of your instructor, don’t you think? Not very social-justicey if you ask me. There are a lot of “social justice” types out there who dislike my column. My day typically begins with a bowl of cereal and a quick read though the morning's emails. Some days half the emails are from rightwing Christian haters calling me a dangerously radical sex maniac out to destroy the family sloshing and the other half are from “social justice” types calling me a gay, white, cis-gendered, hetero-normative stealth-conservative with a secret plan to force all queers to get married, have babies, and punch sex workers.

So, yeah, your instructor doesn't like me or my column—and that’s your instructor’s prerogative. The feeling is mutual: so you can tell your instructor, from me, and only if you really want to mess up your GPA, that I think your instructor is behaving like a manipulative and dishonest piece of shit.—Dan

••••••••••••••••••••••••

I apologize for not clarifying in my email to you. I wasn't able to find this article in which you supported child molestation. Rather than have a back-and-forth argument about what you did or did not say without any proof, I thought of writing you because it goes right to the source. I could really care less about my GPA. It’s just a number.

You blew my mind with your reply! The articles of course were great sources of information. Secondly I cannot stress how amazing your differential of one who has an internal like for incest or child porn and sympathizing for molesters and rapists is. It’s true that society aims judgment far to fast against those who haven't committed a crime, and that more focus should be placed on assisting them. We can't help those who need help if we pass judgment and write them off.

I thought write to you would be a long shot. Instead you replied right away.—Jason Morris

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Personally (and feel free to pass it on to Jason), I would have reported the whole incident and fear of reprisal to the prof's department chair and licensing board. Scholars have a duty to keep their personal politics and unresolved personal issues out of the classroom. After such a report, the prof would have a very difficult time justifying a low grade upon any appeal from Jason. Such a strategy would work best, of course, if the complaint were entered before assignment number two.)

If I were feeling particularly bitchy, I'd point out to the prof that if someone twenty years ago tried helping nascent pedophiles the way we want to now, then maybe s/he wouldn't have been a victim of incest in the first place.—James Cantor

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Dan & James: Seriously thank you for all of your great feedback, and input. The information will come of great use for myself, and who knows hopefully help my professor. I can't thank you enough for your time in responding, and also for the work that you do.—Jason Morris

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Jason tells me that he shared my response with his instructor, his instructor had an open mind, and that he got an "A" in the class.

 

Comments (44) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
rob! 1
Ah, there it is on refresh. I was just about to ask what his grade was. Well done, all.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 18, 2013 at 12:42 PM
2
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.
Posted by pox on January 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM
3
Ah. Refresh before posting. Got it.
Posted by pox on January 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Eva Hopkins 4
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.
Posted by Eva Hopkins http://www.lunamusestudios.com on January 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM
5
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.
Posted by LukeJoe on January 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM
6
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.
Posted by Margaret L. on January 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM
7
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.
Posted by avast2006 on January 18, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Arsenic7 8
@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.

Posted by Arsenic7 on January 18, 2013 at 1:29 PM
9
"...white male heterosexual privilege..."
Vomit.
Posted by jzimbert on January 18, 2013 at 1:38 PM
10
Dan Savage. You are awesome.
Posted by tacomagirl on January 18, 2013 at 1:41 PM
11
@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.
Posted by IPJ on January 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM
12
I'm pretty sure that this is the advice column that made the professor so wound up: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…

It's about a daughter finding incest porn on her father's computer, NOT child porn. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

I also liked the follow-up letter than Dan ran later: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

P.S.--In case my hyperlinks don't work, I found the letter by Googling:
dan savage incest porn daughter father computer
Posted by Random person without an account on January 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM
13
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.
Posted by dchari on January 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Sargon Bighorn 14
"But we want to make a clear distinction between people who are attracted to child porn—or to children—and people who have acted on those attractions," is that like "Hate the sin but love the sinner"?

Right wing Christianists use that argument against Gay folk, saying some thing like 'we don't hate Gay people, it's their yucky yuck behavior we object to.'
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM
sirkowski 15
"Social Justice Class"

It seems to be as horrible as it sounds.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on January 18, 2013 at 2:21 PM
16
@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.
Posted by Kitty_Cal on January 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM
17
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!
Posted by wxPDX on January 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM
18
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.
Posted by wxPDX on January 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM
Sargon Bighorn 19
#16 Yes I appreciate that and I agree with you, but not everyone does and that is the issue. There are those that see no difference between same sex attraction and attraction to children. Dan is using "their" argument in the pedophile arena just as the RRR uses the same argument in the SS attraction arena. That is my point. Opposing views sides use the same argument for two distinct situations. It's a paradox.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM
20
@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.
Posted by SeattleKim on January 18, 2013 at 3:02 PM
21
More ideological purity horse shit. When it's not the radical right it's loony left with their pious check-list nonsense.
Posted by tkc on January 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM
OutInBumF 22
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.
Posted by OutInBumF on January 18, 2013 at 4:06 PM
23
Ms Hopkins and Mr Arsenic both gender the instructor contrarily. Fair enough. But which of them is right?
Posted by vennominon on January 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM
24
Oh - and apologies to Ms Margaret for not mentioning that she genders the professor noncontrarily.
Posted by vennominon on January 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM
25
20

Is a consentual behavior that gives 20% of those who engage in it HIV (and uncounted innocent family members) really doing no harm to anyone?

Really?
Posted by you are sick. on January 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM
26
"Personally (and feel free to pass it on to Jason), I would have reported the whole incident and fear of reprisal to the prof's department chair and licensing board. Scholars have a duty to keep their personal politics and unresolved personal issues out of the classroom. "

Because Academic Freedom is only for HomoLiberals.

HomoLiberal college instructors (and public school teachers) are free to impose their enlightened ideology on students.

Because they are enlightened, of course.

But if a faculty member strays from the HomoLiberal Theology they must be reported to the prof's department chair and licensing board.

asshole.
Posted by Why are Liberals Coward Weasels that fear other opinions? on January 18, 2013 at 7:28 PM
27
Don't forget Danny telling kids Unprotected Anal Sex is 100% SAFE&FOOLPROOF!!!™

that was awesome.......
Posted by whoops. don't forget to report us to the Department Chair... on January 18, 2013 at 7:31 PM
28
@22 and Sargon FTW.

The point is not what society's current mores are.

The point is Danny's Hypocrisy.

Danny asserts that HIS "innate" deviant (as it, deviates from the normal biological function) attraction is A-OK but pedophiles' innate deviant attraction can not be acted on.

Just like Marriage "Equality" means marriage for HIM but not for poly people.
Posted by HomoHypocrisy. Out and Proud. on January 18, 2013 at 7:44 PM
29
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?
Posted by delta35 on January 19, 2013 at 7:12 AM
Canadian Nurse 30
@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.
Posted by Canadian Nurse on January 19, 2013 at 8:00 AM
31
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.
Posted by delta35 on January 19, 2013 at 8:02 AM
32
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.
Posted by jemand on January 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM
33
@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.
Posted by delta35 on January 19, 2013 at 8:13 AM
34
@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..."
Posted by Liam3851 on January 19, 2013 at 9:12 AM
35
@22 I think laws preventing older men from having sexual relationships w/ under age boys serve a legitimate purpose. In some cases a sexual relationship between a 16 year old boy and an adult man might be healthy and mutually beneficial. However, I think such a relationship is more likely to be exploitative than a relationship between an 18 year old and an older man. Most people grow up a lot in their late teens. Some people mature faster than others, but the law needs to draw the line somewhere.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM
pointy 36
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?
Posted by pointy on January 19, 2013 at 9:31 AM
37
@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.
Posted by avast2006 on January 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM
38
@25: You do know what the V in "HIV" stands for?

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

Moron.
Posted by avast2006 on January 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM
39
@ 23, Mr Ven:

I was surprised that some commenters gendered the professor female. In my mind the instructor was definitely male.
Posted by migrationist on January 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM
40
Think it's this column that people keep trying to cite?

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
Posted by snakes on January 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM
41
Ms Migrationist - Okay, that's 2 F>M, 1 F>F and 1 M>F. We need a larger sample size.
Posted by vennominon on January 19, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Canadian Nurse 42
vennominon: The Gender Guesser website votes M, with too few words for accuracy.
Posted by Canadian Nurse on January 19, 2013 at 3:10 PM
43
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.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on January 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM
44
38

A Moron is King in the Land of Retards.

Do you know what behavior infects those clever wits with the VIRUS?

Evidently not.

Which puts you in a big crowd.

Have of them don't, either.
Posted by We're Rubber. You're Glue. Really Stupid Glue. on January 20, 2013 at 5:18 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy