It’s outrageous that a university would tell any employee that they have to repeat the false slogans of gender ideology fanatics or any other fanatical movement. A trans woman is not a woman. A woman is an adult human female (or adult female human, if you like). Women, as are girls, are those of the female sex. Therefore, a trans woman is a man. That’s scientific truth. To tell the Head Women’s Lacrosse Coach at Oberlin College that she has to write a letter of apology and affirm a falsehood is the equivalent of telling the Head Women’s Lacrosse Coach at Oberlin College that she has to affirm the slogan “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” And? “Peace be upon him.” This is where we’re today—the true believers demand we believe, too. And not had-heartedly.
The betrayal of this woman’s right to a free conscience by her own students testifies to the failure of public schools to teach youth about the necessary and essential facts of liberty. As I have written about many times on Freedom and Reason, it is the fundamental law of the American Republic that an individual has a right to her conscience and her opinion. Representatives of Oberlin College say that’s fine except where it contradicts Oberlin College’s beliefs. But Oberlin College is an institution. Institutions don’t have beliefs. People do. And while Oberlin College may be organized by an ideology, there is no obligation for any individual to accept that ideology as her own. What those attacking Russell are saying is that their opinion trumps her opinion and that she must not only repudiate her opinion, but she must apologize to others for having held that opinion.
As Russell reports (and she has the receipts), she was forced to participate in a struggle session where young people attacked her for her ideological infidelity. As I noted in my April 3 essay The Cultural Revolution, embedded in the corporate bureaucracy, employees are a captive audience in much the same way serfs are captives under conditions of bureaucratic collectivism instantiated by totalitarian states like the People’s Republic of China. Struggle sessions are designed to amplify disallowed opinions and to persecute those who hold them. “Suppose you work at a university and you do not believe trans women are women, or that one cannot change sex, or that males should not compete in women’s sports,” I wrote in that blog. We no longer have to suppose. This is exactly what has happened to Russell.
The struggle session is designed to intimidate Russell by presenting gender ideology as the institution’s official position, thus giving the doctrine the force of authority. Russell recognizes that many of those who are of the opinion that one cannot change one’s gender will not voice that opinion because they are fearful of what the institution might do with their heresy. This is the chilling effect. It didn’t work on Russell, and she may lose her job for speaking out, but the purpose of her persecution is to show others what will happen to them if it doesn’t work on them. The struggle session is designed to reeducate resisters and break the recalcitrant by having them rehearse the slogans of the revolution or apologize for failing to have done so. The victim may be reprimanded for her half-hearted commitment to the revolution, which we hear from one of Russell’s students. Indeed, the struggle session is designed to train subalterns to police and correct the thoughts of not only those in the session, but those who lie beyond the reach of the mandated training. This is the proselytizing character that marks a cultural revolution.
The betrayal of this woman’s right to a free conscience also testifies to the failure of public schools to teach youth about what feminism means. A true feminism cannot be inclusive of trans women because having men compete against women is violative of women’s rights. What true feminist can abide by practices that violate women’s rights? And while nobody should be punished for disloyalty to a movement, the fact that so many women are is an explanation for why we have found ourselves in this spot today. It was only a few years ago that the #MeToo movement shined a light on the problem of men violating women’s spaces. How could those who claim to be feminists so quickly move on from that to supporting men exposing their genitalia in women’s locker rooms and using superior physical abilities to steal opportunities reserved for women?
It should not escape the reader that the power enjoyed by people in positions of authority being used to control Russell’s mind is the same power we would rightly condemn if it were used to control Russell’s body. The paradigm of sexual harassment is the attempt of a man in a position of authority, using threats of discipline, punishment, or termination, to compel a woman to meet his physical needs. How is it any different when a man in a position of authority uses threats of discipline, punishment, or termination to compel a woman to meed his ideological needs? The fact that he is not alone in making such demands only means that the establishment has also become the perpetrator. o employee should ever face harassment and intimidation like this. And, no, her commitment to the truth that men can’t be women neither harasses nor intimidates anyone.
We got to this point because a lot of people didn’t know what the state was doing when it was installing the ideological cudgels of diversity, equity, and inclusion to force changes in conscience and thought. Moreover, the people believed that the better angels of their nature were being called forth—a call to which, as moral beings, they felt obliged to respond. They thought the trans gender identity was gay plus. They believed accepting trans gender ideology was about tolerating self-identification, which people are prepared to do because they’re kind and eager to extend freedom to others. They had no idea that it would be about having to affirm falsehoods to have and keep careers—that their goodness would compromise their fundamental freedoms.
As cases like Russell’s accumulate, and as people learn that queer theory is antithetical to the rights of gays and lesbians and women, and that the demand they affirm delusions undermines liberty and equality, resistance to the cultural revolution grow. I hope this case serves as a warning to future generations to be more aware and speak up before things like this go too far. We might have avoided all of this had we understood from the beginning the situation and said no immediately. Think of all the children that would have been spared the nightmare of so-called gender-affirming care. So please share Kim Russell’s story. She needs your support, of course. But the people need the truth.
* * *
Twelve-year-old Jaiden was kicked out of class day before yesterday in Colorado Springs and forced to undergo a struggle session for having a Gadsden flag patch. The school official claims the patch has “origins with slavery.” This is not true. But what if it did? The school’s director said via email that the patch was “disruptive to the classroom environment.” In the same way that a pride or trans flag is disruptive? Suppose a student objected to a classmate wearing a flag patch on backpack such that it disrupted the classroom environment. On whose side would the teachers be?
The Gadsden flag, with its iconic coiled rattlesnake and phrase “Don’t Tread on Me” flag is a symbol of American independence and individual liberties. It was designed by Christopher Gadsden, an American general and statesman, in 1775. The flag conveyed the message that Americans were willing to defend their rights and freedom against any oppressive force. Over time, the flag has taken on a broader symbolism, representing resistance to government overreach and the protection of individual liberties. It’s now often associated with conservative and libertarian movements in the United States. This is telling.
So when the school official writes that the patch was “disruptive to the classroom environment,” what the official meant is that symbols of resistance to the oppressive character of the woke progressive ideas being pressed into children’s brains, marked by classrooms festooned with the banners and flags of critical race theory and queer theory, overflowing with the pamphlets and propaganda of the revolution, is disruptive to that ideological project. The school official does not find queer propaganda disruptive because the resistance it signals is not against government overreach and the violation of individual liberties; queer symbology registers opposition to the rights and liberties the Gadsden flag represents.
Only last week, as my son and I were driving back from the gun range, I asked him to imagine what would happen to a teacher who put up the Gadsden flag in his classroom. Whatever the teacher’s motive, it’s a symbol of the American Revolution, so one would think that was okay. It should only be slightly more controversial than Old Glory, which is still allowed to appear on classroom walls. Of course (as I have discussed on this blog), hanging the Christian nationalist flag or other ideological symbols would be out of bounds. For the same reason, so should the pride and trans flags. But as patches on a kids backpack? Can you imagine a teacher removing a child from a classroom because of a pride patch? The child’s parents would rightly be angry.
The double standard is one reason to be concerned by this case. But another reason is how it came to pass that public school administrators and teachers are so uneducated about the First Amendment rights of their students that they think it is okay to remove a kid from the classroom for the Gadsden flag patch. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, established the precedent that schools must have a valid reason to restrict students’ expression, particularly when it comes to political symbols and slogans. The case affirmed that students have a First Amendment right to express themselves while in school, curtailed only if their expression significantly disrupts the educational environment.
In the Tinker case, several students in an Iowa school decided to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school district learned of their plans and adopted a policy that prohibited the wearing of armbands to school. Despite this policy, the students wore the armbands, were sent home, and subsequently sued the school district, claiming their First Amendment rights to free speech had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students. The Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” It recognized that students have the right to express their opinions, even if those opinions are controversial or unpopular, as long as the expression does not disrupt the educational process.
Today I received word that a day later Jaiden’s school changed their mind and will allow Jaiden to carry the Gadsden patch on his backpack. Here’s some of the letter The Vanguard School sent to parents. I’m happy to see it does more than merely affirm Jaiden’s Constitutional right to display the patch on his backpack. The school has reaffirmed its commitment to the American Republic.
freedom and reason 