Radical Harvard Feminists Double Down — Issue Non-Apologetic “Apology” For Calling Other Women “Sluts”
Earlier today — at 2:01 a.m., to be precise — this blog received an e-mail from Kandis Wood, the president of the radical feminist group at Harvard Law School affiliated with Sandra Fluke that put up the posters and flyers advertising “Sex Week” events which called women law students “sluts” and referenced how much they have sex (and orgasms).
As you can imagine, Ms. Wood is not a fan of this blog. But rather than characterize what she said or issue a rebuttal, and crediting Ms. Wood for being willing to engage with the issues covered on this blog, this blog will simply republish Ms. Wood’s e-mail and leave it for readers to evaluate. The full text is here.
Perhaps the most important aspect of Ms. Wood’s e-mail was her attachment of a press release, dated yesterday, in which on behalf of herself and the other members of her group she apologized (her exact words, “truly sorry”) to the other law school women who they had publicly called “sluts” — a word they used to describe to a woman which President Obama has said “all decent folks can agree” should never be used. So that readers can judge the full context, the PDF file she sent is here.
In sharp and confusing contrast to Ms. Wood’s comments yesterday to the Daily Caller (see previous post, here), in which she insisted that she and her fellow radical feminists at Harvard had done nothing wrong in calling other women “sluts,” in the press release Ms. Wood purports to apologize for the “slut” language.
Yet when one studies the language, this turns out to be the worst form of “apology”: an insincere “apology,” a non-apologetic “apology.” Ms. Wood and her cohort do little more than express how sorry they are that some of their fellow women students are offended at being called “sluts” in the halls of their own law school. The non-apologetic “apology” is buried at bottom of page 2 of the two-page press release:
If our decision to represent the term [“slut”] in a positive light for students who would like to discuss the implications of the word in a larger reproductive health context offends some women, we are truly sorry, and we recognize and respect the choice of those women to determine that the word should never be used at all, even in a positive way.
* * *
With all due respect, Ms. Wood and the other radical Harvard feminists responsible for “slut week” at Harvard Law School, you’re avoiding the issue. You want to talk about “implications” and “context.” It seems you can’t handle the truth.
The truth is that you and your fellow students attend law school in buildings that have walls, and those walls have bulletin boards. And on those bulletin boards there are either posters and flyers referring to women students as “sluts” or there are not. And whether or not there are “slut” posters is a fact with real consequences. The truth is that your fellow women Harvard law students did not make a “choice” to walk by the posters and flyers calling them “sluts.” You’re the ones who put up the “slut” posters and thereby forced them into the view of other women.
The administrators at Harvard Law School in charge of enforcing the regulations on “hate speech” have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Sandra Fluke and you curse anonymous bloggers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what the hate-speech police know. Their existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves minds. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about during your demonstrations of “lube and some popular sex toys,” you need them policing those walls. The hate-speech police use words like decency, respect, sensitivity. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.
* * *
The non-apologetic “apology” posted by the radical Harvard feminists does contain a small bit of substance: it appears they are conceding that their placement of numerous posters and flyers on the hallway walls throughout the law school referring to women as “sluts” violates the prohibition against “hate speech” put in place at Harvard Law in 1995. Plainly those posters and flyers are of an explicitly sexual nature. And the “apology” concedes that at least some women are offended by the posters and flyers and that they’re being reasonable in feeling offended (as in the statement the radical feminists state that they “respect” the view of other women about the word “slut,” that it “should never be used at all”).
Nothing more, it would seem, is required to prove a violation of the “hate speech” rules, in particular, Part I, Guideline 3, which was quoted in the first post on this blog:
No member of the Law School community shall subject any other member of the Law School community to any . . . speech or conduct of a sexual nature that (i) is unwelcome; and (ii) is abusive or unreasonably recurring or invasive; and (iii) has the purpose or effect of . . . creating an intimidating, demeaning, degrading, hostile, or otherwise seriously offensive working or educational environment at Harvard Law School . . . .
This blog will adhere to the national consensus that no woman should ever be subjected to being called a “slut,” and will continue to call on the radical Harvard feminists to take down their “slut” posters; apologize for having advertised their “Sex Week” events this week using the term “slut”; admit that this use of the word “slut” was hate speech, in violation of the hate-speech prohibition put in place at Harvard Law School in 1995; and pledge never to use this term in any public communications in the future.