Whatever anyone's position may or may not be concerning "feminism and
women's studies" I have two problems with the argument you presented to
support your call for support of Daly.
First, the question of academic freedom is very hazy here. What are the
grounds for allowing women, but not other groups, to have segregated
classes. If you adopt a genetic definition of women, then many male
phenotypes who consider themselves to have female genotypes, should be
admitted. If the determination that individuals who share genetic
similarites should be permitted to have their own segregated classes to
discuss their specific problems, say Jews, Celts, individuals with blue eyes
and blond hair, etc. Is this the case? I haven't heard it to be. Where
does one draw the genotypical line? If it isn't a question of genetic
distinction at all then any group, on the basis of any socially recognized
distinction, should be allowed the prerogative to do this. As history has
shown, however, this allows those individuals with greater power to
eventually corner privilege. Really it's the same in either direction. One
distinction of the "objective" from whatever direction one takes on it, is
that it is potentially accessible to all. Or is there an implied notion
that there is in fact "male knowledge" and "female knowledge" or knowledge
that is otherwise accessible, in principle, to only specific groups,
genetic or social or both?
Whereas one can recognize the need for confidentiality for the discussion of
some issues, is this an element of post-secondary education (or even
education in lower grades)? Isn't it rather an issue of therapy or
religious confession? I'm not presuming to know where issues of therapy
flow over into issues of education but I've recently seen several very
powerful critiques of "liberation epistemology" (I'll post the web addresses
separtely) that might be of interest to those who aren't already
dogmatically committed to the politically correct position here.
Second, your grounds for justifying support of "reinstalling Daly" (which I
interpret to mean allowing her back in to teach her segregated classes) are
not convincing but appeal to the fact that the student in question had the
support of an organization that "led attacks on affirmative action". This
innuendo apparently purports to undermine the validity of the student's
complaint that he was being discriminated against. This rhetorical device
doesn't prove anything in this case which must be judged on its own merits.
I hesitated to write this and am sure that it will incite automatic dog
juices (I'm hoping there are some joyceans out there) but I also hope that
for those not already frozen into the politically correct position, the
issue of "liberation epistemology" be put up for question, since the
relation between "therapy" and education bears more closely to the topic of
the list; i.e., cultural historical activity and learning.
Paul H. Dillon